Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Declassified Iraqi Documents  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 929 times:

For those of you who like to keep up on the truth of just how evil Saddam was versus what is displayed by about 95% of the media (ie., that he was being effectively contained prior to March 2003), may I suggest you place www.weeklystandard.com on your computer’s “favorites” list. Why? This is the only journal that seems to be taking seriously the tidal wave of pre-war Iraqi documents that is being released.

Some sacred cows are starting to fall, like Saddam had no connections with various terrorist groups; he was up to his nose in assisting and funding them.

They are finally being released. There are literally millions of these documents, far to many for one person to read them all.

But they are being put on the 'net. Here is one of the US Director of National Intelligence sites holding some of them. Few have yet been translated, but you can see those that are in the summaries.

http://70.169.163.24/

This site is beginning to present several million Iraqi documents in an organized manner, some with translations to English. This is generally too massive for an individual to attack. But, Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard seems to be doing so. See this one as the latest example.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten.../Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp

And here is a West Point site with some more captured documents, this time with more translations.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp

Many of these documents are said to be rather embarassing to certain countries who will now be revealed as having actively helped Saddam, which is the reason why they have been held classified.

Many more to come...

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 895 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
may I suggest you place www.weeklystandard.com on your computer�s �favorites� list.

Stephen Hayes' Weekly Standard? You've got to be joking?!

Let me see if I can get this straight. Despite the fact that the Bush Administration tried really hard before the invasion to proof Saddam's connections with terrorism, despite the fact that numerous investigations by the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA have all concluded that Saddam was not linked to al Qaeda nor any other Islamic terrorist group, despite the fact that the Bush Administration has been trying their utmost recently to deny they ever even suggested Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, now we somehow should believe that a whole bunch of captured documents (of which the Government itself states that it hasn't determined its authenticity, validity nor factual accuracy) dumped on the internet contain The Smoking Gun when it comes to Saddam's terrorist connections, a Smoking Gun the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA and the neo-cons in the Administration collectively failed to discover and which this increasingly desperate Administration hasn't even defined as such?

This Administration's pre-war accusations and assessments have all shown to be untrue. WMD's, the wars' aftermath, the risk of a civil war, fighting terrorism, all have been debunked, which has ultimately led to the lowest approval ratings for a Presidency in a loooong, loooong time. If these documents really contain what Mr Hayes and the rest of the rightwing blogosphere claim, don't you think the Bush Administration wouldn't have told us by now, if only to try to increase Bush's approval ratings?

Don't be so naive Cfalk. You're smarter than that!

PS Read the following blogs if you would like some background info on Mr Hayes' "findings":

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/17/134552/862
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002447.html
http://www.juancole.com/ (March 18 entry)



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 881 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 1):

Let me see, you are referring him to the DailyKos?? Thats a good one.  rotfl 

What I still dont hear from the other side are two things:

Why was everybody saying that Iraq had WMDs, not just the US and Bush. You could easily find recordings of people currently opposed to the war, claiming the same things that Bush said. Everybody was wrong, but only Bush gets the blame.

Now as to the claim that Iraq had no ties to any terrorist group, please, read the reports again. Did the Bush admin. ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? I hear that all the time, but no one has bothered to actually produce the quote that Bush said that.

Now, its really funny that some Europeans seem not to read the news. Islamic terrorist and fundamentalists are openly claiming that Europe will become Muslim, and everybody shall be Muslim, or dead. Are you saying that there is no problem with Islamic fanaticism. (remember Denmark?)


User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 876 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 1):
Stephen Hayes' Weekly Standard? You've got to be joking?!

How about ABC?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...aqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

It includes direct links to the official translations on US government web sites as well.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 870 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
I hear that all the time, but no one has bothered to actually produce the quote that Bush said that.

Ask and you shall recieve:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

Taken from: Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

As for your other question, Bush gets the blame because he is the only one that took the nation to war based on those claims. Most others said that while the evedince was there, we should continue pursuing other courses.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 865 times:

“ Ambiguous” Document Raises Interesting 9/11 Questions


This is the text of a document seized from Iraqi Intelligence files during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It is one of the translated documents aired by ABC TV in March,2006, and may have been printed in your hometown newspaper.

Please keep in mind it was written on 09/15/01.


In the name of God the merciful the compassionate
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Service
2/913/5th directorate

Sir: Director General of the 5th directorate

Subject: Information
Our Afghani source #002 (info on him in paper slip ‘1’) has informed us that Afghani consular Ahmed Dahistani (info on him in paper slip ‘2’) had spoken before him of the following:

1-That Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had conducted a visit to Iraq.

2-That America possesses evidence that Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had cooperated to strike targets inside America.

3-In case Taliban and Usama’s group are proven involved in those sabotage operations, it will be possible that America directs strikes at Iraq and Afghanistan.

4-That the Afghani consular had heard about the Iraq connections with Usama Bin Ladin’s group during his presence in Iran.

5-In the light of what preceded we suggest writing to the Intentions Committee about the above information.

Please be informed…..your feedback please…..with appreciation.
)signature) (signature(

Information office send immediately to the
Of the 5th directorate/3 Intentions Committee
9/15/2001



I call your attention to the opening, (and pious salutation) which makes it clear Iraq and the Taliban were sharing intelligence – possibly on an informal basis-prior to 9/11. (Not surprising, or even remarkable ; but worth keeping in mind when someone declares the sectarian Iraqis and fanatically religious Taliban could not possibly have had common interests.)


Item 1 in the report mentions something most of us have known for years: that “Usama bin Ladin's group” had visited Iraq. (Item 4 tells us how the Taliban came by this information.)


Item 2 is far more interesting: “…America possesses evidence that Iraq and Usama bin Ladin’s group had cooperated to strike targets inside America.” (Item 3 discusses the likely consequences.)

A. Please note the bald matter-of-factness of this statement; the lack of speculation or ambiguity.
B. How does somebody in Afghanistan know what evidence America possesses ?
C. If there is/was such evidence,who had it, and where is it now ?



Would I be “reading too much into this document” to suggest al-Qaeda
had (and perhaps still has) a “mole” in the US Intelligence community ?
Someone so highly placed as to be aware of al-Qaeda/Iraqi cooperation ? Someone able to cover his/her tracks by “burying” evidence so deep in the files as to make it almost non-retrievable ?


Would I be too far out of line in suggesting such a person might have had prior knowledge of 9/11 ?



gene
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 855 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
Let me see, you are referring him to the DailyKos?? Thats a good one.

Not just Dailykos, also Dr Juan Cole who just happens to be fluent in Arabic, Persian and Urdu. An important detail when dealing with Arab documents.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
Why was everybody saying that Iraq had WMDs, not just the US and Bush.

Please define "everybody". Everybody as in the UN Weapons Inspectors? And what amount of WMD's are we talking about? Tons of the stuff as Bush said before the war, or far less then that and which certainly did not make Saddam a threat to the US, as the UN Weapons Inspectors claimed?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
You could easily find recordings of people currently opposed to the war claiming the same things that Bush said

Bush had all the intel, other people only got what Bush wanted them to have.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
Now as to the claim that Iraq had no ties to any terrorist group, please, read the reports again.

Which reports? Stephen Hayes' reports?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
Did the Bush admin. ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11?

Yes he did. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 2):
Now, its really funny that some Europeans seem not to read the news. Islamic terrorist and fundamentalists are openly claiming that Europe will become Muslim, and everybody shall be Muslim, or dead. Are you saying that there is no problem with Islamic fanaticism. (remember Denmark?)

No, I am not saying that. That's an assumption on your behalve based on absolutely nothing I have said (and completely unrelated to this topic).

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 3):
How about ABC?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...aqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

It includes direct links to the official translations on US government web sites as well.

Fantastic. How neat of the US Government to provide a website with all these documents. Again, from the "Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center" website: "The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

Now isn't that kind of odd that the US Government de-classifies a sh!tload of captured documents but doesn't know if they are actually authentic, valid or factually accurate? The reason why it does release this info nevertheless can be found in the title of the ABC news-article you linked to: "Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?" Note the question-mark at the end of the sentence. While the documents suggest this is what happened, the fact that the US Government has not determined neither the authenticity, validity nor factual accuracy of the info (and apparently neither is planning to do so), means that no serious media can bluntly claim as a fact what the documents suggest. And that is precizely the reason why these documents have been released nevertheless, as a whole array of unscrupulous rightwing news-outlets and blogs swallow even the tiniest suggestion and present them to their readers/viewers as if these are all hard facts, which they are not.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 849 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 5):
I call your attention to the opening, (and pious salutation) which makes it clear Iraq and the Taliban were sharing intelligence

And just how do you reach that conclusion??? The fact that the source was Afghan doesn't automatically mean that the source was therefor part of the Taliban Government.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 5):
Item 1 in the report mentions something most of us have known for years: that �Usama bin Ladin's group� had visited Iraq. (Item 4 tells us how the Taliban came by this information.)

The fact that OBL's group visited Iraq is nothing new! What would be new if OBL's group visited Iraq with Saddam not only knowning but also approving. It has been known for years that OBL's group visited those parts of Iraq over which Saddam had no control: Kurdistan. That's where al-Qaeda had its training camps.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 823 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
e fact that OBL's group visited Iraq is nothing new! What would be new if OBL's group visited Iraq with Saddam not only knowning but also approving.

That part has already been documented-to a fare-thee-well.

Stay tuned:there is MUCH more to come.

Here is a tiny sample:

http://70.169.163.24/released/03-15-06/HOT/DOCEX%20Saddam%20030306.doc

(The "Eckeus" referred to is Rolf Eckeus- a UN High Commissioner.)

ENJOY !



gene
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 819 times:

Oh,dear ! I did say there was more to come, didn't I ?

Karel,you are going to love this:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...aqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1



gene
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 809 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 8):
That part has already been documented-to a fare-thee-well.

Where?

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 8):
Here is a tiny sample:

http://70.169.163.24/released/03-15-06/HOT/DOCEX%20Saddam%20030306.doc

(The "Eckeus" referred to is Rolf Eckeus- a UN High Commissioner.)

And what exactly is your point? The word "Americans" also appears in that document, yet that doesn't mean Saddam was working along with them.

Seriously man, why don't you go and actually find something and then post it here and not the other way round?



Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 9):
Oh,dear ! I did say there was more to come, didn't I ?

Karel,you are going to love this:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...age=1

That's the same link BHMBAGLOCK provided yesterday to which I already responded.

You really should try to be it bit more thorough when reading other people's replies. The same can be said about these documents, I'm affraid. In your 'amateur-intelligence analyst' enthusiasm to finally be able to show us 'you were right all along', you've missed one important detail: facts!

'Oh, dear' indeed!



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 801 times:

Hey,this is just the tip of the iceberg !

The "Bush Lied People Died" folks have had 3 good years,but it's slowly coming to an end as the facts emerge...but, I'm sure you have a pre-planned fallback position.

Cheers !



gene
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 786 times:

If the captured documents story turns out to reveal valid evidence that indicates an agressive war by America against a nation incapable of harming the US was justified, I will change my opinion and declare that Bush was right afterall.

What I don't understand is people who stick by the view that the war was right regardless of the evidence and current state of Iraqi civil war, simply because they have a political affiliation with a certain party.

The results and evidence will change my opinion and world opinion, if the evidence is valid. Most of us base our opinions on facts and results, not on love for a party, a politician or a country

Cairo


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 766 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 12):
The results and evidence will change my opinion and world opinion, if the evidence is valid. Most of us base our opinions on facts and results, not on love for a party, a politician or a country

I disagree. A great part of the world base their opinions on emotion and ideology. Even if the evidence is overwhelming, you will still have at least 20% of any population who will simply to refuse to believe it.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 749 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Even if the evidence is overwhelming, you will still have at least 20% of any population who will simply to refuse to believe it.

...just as you have 20% of Americans who will continue to support the war and Bush regardless of what happens, continuing to grasp onto ever weaker straws of justification...just like what happened in the Vietnam war.

I think you actually agree with me.

Sure 20% will always oppose Bush in America just as perhaps 20% of the overall world population will oppose America in general.

In America, the war is dragging Bush's approval rating closer and closer to this hardcore minority who are incapable of changing their opinion because of the implication that they were once wrong - some people can't handle that realization.

Some other people also get so much of their personal identity from their idealistic belief in the virtues of their country that they can not handle - ever - any thought or talk that their country makes big mistakes for bad reasons that end up hurting the country severely.

But the majority of people look at the evidence and make their decisions from there; hardline people on the left or right simply support their party, country, or politician regardless of the evidence.

Cairo


User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 714 times:

WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO

The claim that Saddam would never align himself with the radical Islamists is one of the most disengenuous claims one could make. In fact, this alliance was quite reasonable when one examines how it benefited both sides.

One only has to look at the establishment of Ansar al-Islam in N. Iraq and see where Saddam was going with this. While many have tried to make this look like an independent group of Arabs and Kurds out to establish a sovereign nation, the fact is, Ansar al-Islam was created using $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, and approximately a $35,000 from Mukhabarat : the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

In other words, before the Iraq War, before the Afghanistan War...and even before 9/11, certain groups of Arabs and Kurds were colluding with Al-Qaeda in an attempt to establish a new AQ affiliate in N. Iraq.

This collaboration was confirmed during the Afghanistan campaign, when a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house by the NY Times discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" which vowed to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad..." This was going to be the establishment of another Taliban-like organization in N. Iraq...with the blessing of Saddam.

As the Afghanistan War wore on, it was no coincidence that many remnants from the Taliban and AQ were discoverable in this newly created "affiliate." Human Rights Watch confirmed this when they visited the region and reported that hundreds of foreign fighters from Afghanistan were joining up with Ansar...some from as early as September 2001 (weeks before the Afghanistan campaign).

( HRW's own interviews of Ansar al-Islam members in PUK custody, who according to them, "described in credible detail training in al-Qa'ida camps in Afghanistan." )

After the notorious Abu Musab Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan ...long before the war in Iraq began, he received intensive medical care in a Baghdad hospital -owned by one of Saddam's sons.After his recovery, he and some of his his Egyptian Islamic Jihad brethren met up, and joined forces with Ansar al Islam.

This action clearly contradicts the claims of those who said Saddam would never ally himself with these "radical" Islamic groups for fear of being overthrown. ( If that were true, Zarqawi would never have left Baghdad alive – and must certainly would not have been fitted with a prosthetic leg !)

In fact, this Saddam/Ansar/AQ alliance was quite reasonable...not just because of their shared hatred of America, but because Ansar itself was doing something for Saddam that Saddam could no longer do for himself...

Ansar was attacking the two largest Kurdish factions (PUK and KDP) in N. Iraq...which had long been the biggest thorn in the Iraqi dictator’s side. Since the establishment of the no-fly zones in the North, Saddam no longer had any control over this Kurdish region. With this new alliance, he could kill two birds with one stone; he could remove his Kurdish problem...and directly finance and fund this newly established AQ affiliate within his borders.

Evidence suggests that the creation of Ansar al-Islam may have been
The need to establish a secondary base of operation should America succeed in ousting the Taliban and AQ. This was important to both groups because, after the destruction of the terrorists’ camps in Afghanistan, the sancturaries for these terrorists were getting scarce.

Over the preceding decade, AQ and the radical elements had been getting kicked out of their own homelands and host countries. From Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan...and finally even Syria and Libya, Islamic countries no longer wanted these groups operating from within their borders.

With Sudan offering up UBL and even Musharif in Pakistan joining the WOT, there were fewer places left for AQ to coalesce, especially after 9/11 and the retribution America was seeking. No one wanted these groups for fear the US would make their state the next target in the WOT. Even Iran supposedly expelled Zarqawi after it was learned he may hiding there....which is when he made his way to Baghdad.

The idea that Saddam and Iraq were some how disconnected from terrorists and terrorism before the Iraq War is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the American people. Ansar's cooperative relationship with Al-Qaeda began "before" 9/11...and was only growing stronger. With the collapse of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a result of that war...and the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq "before" this war even began, Iraq was guaranteed to become an even greater threat.

In fact, unlike Afghanistan and the Taliban, what made Iraq even more dangerous is that Saddam had the resources to continue funding these groups at a more significant level than Afghanistan could've ever done.

For those who don't think this was a real threat, one need look no further than Saddam's record of harboring other terrorists. From Abu Abbass to Abu Nidal and their PLO affiliates, Saddam Hussein was already one of the largest supporters of terrorist activities...complete with a training camp at Salman Pak.

Putting aside the WMD argument, these terrorist connections were the most significant reason that Saddam had to be removed – as attested to by the Clinton Era DOJ when it unveiled a sealed indictment of UBL in 1998.

That indictment stated : "Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development."

When one considers the fraudulent “ Oil for Food Program “ ,which enriched Saddam ,( and those he bribed in an effort to by remove the sanctions altogether), Saddam was as far from "contained" as any despot could be.

His resources continued to grow as a result of this program as did his financial and military assistance to terrorist groups, and it was clear to most –(until the going got tough)- Saddam had to go WMDs or not.


(This was written by an anonymous researcher almost 2 years ago. Little by little,de-classified documents are showing how right he was.)



gene
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7197 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Saw this yesterday on the news...not surprised one bit.


Regards.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 697 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
One only has to look at the establishment of Ansar al-Islam in N. Iraq and see where Saddam was going with this. While many have tried to make this look like an independent group of Arabs and Kurds out to establish a sovereign nation, the fact is, Ansar al-Islam was created using $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, and approximately a $35,000 from Mukhabarat : the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The allegation that Saddam's Mukhabarat partially funded Ansar al Islam is idiotic, to say the least. Ansar al Islam's objectives was to "establish an independent Islamic state in Iraq" (1) In other words, Ansar al Islam wanted complete independance from Saddam for their oil-rich northern iraqi province and Saddam somehow would be funding them? Yeah, right!

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
In other words, before the Iraq War, before the Afghanistan War...and even before 9/11, certain groups of Arabs and Kurds were colluding with Al-Qaeda in an attempt to establish a new AQ affiliate in N. Iraq

The whole problem is that Saddam did not control this part of Northern Iraq. "In the ensuing fighting and refugee crisis, the United States and United Kingdom established a "safe haven" policed with a no-fly zone covering much of the Kurdish territory. Following this the Baghdad regime withdrew its officials from parts of Kurdistan. The region thus gained de facto independence, being ruled by the two principal Kurdish parties – the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan – outside the control of Baghdad." (2)

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
This collaboration was confirmed during the Afghanistan campaign, when a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house by the NY Times discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" which vowed to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad..." This was going to be the establishment of another Taliban-like organization in N. Iraq...with the blessing of Saddam.

Yet another completely idiotic statement, especially when one has a look at the actual document the author refers to. A few excerpts:

"Saddam and his comrades are secular and nonbelievers, too. That's how mid and southern Iraq have been structured by the spies of Saddam."

&

"The Islamic Unity Movement and its followers will be asked to apply the Islamic Shariah.

They will be asked not to stand with the seculars against the Islamic Brigade.
" (Emphasis Added) [Read the whole document at the link provided below] (3)


So according to the author of the article you quote, not only did Saddam fund a terrorist group which wanted total independance for their oil-rich province from Iraq (something extremely unlikely), the religious radicals of Ansar al Islam whose main objective was turning Kurdistan into an independant islamic state ruled by Sharia law also received Saddam's blessing?

Preposterous!

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
After the notorious Abu Musab Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan ...long before the war in Iraq began, he received intensive medical care in a Baghdad hospital -owned by one of Saddam's sons.After his recovery, he and some of his his Egyptian Islamic Jihad brethren met up, and joined forces with Ansar al Islam.

Ah, the infamous "Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan and treated in Baghdad" story. Cleverly ommitted by the author of this "piece" is the fact that the CIA in a 2004 report has established that it had "concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment" (4) Then there's the allegation that the hospital where Zarqawi was treated was controlled by one of Saddam's sons. I've done extensive research into this part of the info and the only sites which actually state this are Freerepublic and alike, none of which provide a source. It is very well possible that notorious liar Stephen L. Hayes is origin of this tiny detail, as, according to a poster Martok, in his book ("How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America") he wrote about "a regime-supported hospital in 2002". (5)

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
This action clearly contradicts the claims of those who said Saddam would never ally himself with these "radical" Islamic groups for fear of being overthrown. ( If that were true, Zarqawi would never have left Baghdad alive – and must certainly would not have been fitted with a prosthetic leg !)

Is that the same prosthetic leg which did NOT appear in later videos of Zarqawi? So what happened? Did the amputated leg miraculously grow back on? (6)

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
Ansar was attacking the two largest Kurdish factions (PUK and KDP) in N. Iraq...which had long been the biggest thorn in the Iraqi dictator’s side. Since the establishment of the no-fly zones in the North, Saddam no longer had any control over this Kurdish region. With this new alliance, he could kill two birds with one stone; he could remove
his Kurdish problem...and directly finance and fund this newly established AQ affiliate within his borders.

This piece is nearly commical. The author states that PUK and KDP had been the biggest thorn in Saddam's side but cleverly fails to mention Ansar al-Islam was an even bigger thorn. Whereas PUK and DKP's sole objective was to create an independant Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, Ansar al Islam's objectives was to create an independat ISLAMIC state in Northern Iraq. Thus, the suggestion that Saddam was in alliance with Ansar al Islam is therefor preposterous as this would have meant that Saddam was digging his own grave.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
Evidence suggests that the creation of Ansar al-Islam may have been [t]he need to establish a secondary base of operation should America succeed in ousting the Taliban and AQ. This was important to both groups because, after the destruction of the terrorists’ camps in Afghanistan, the sancturaries for these terrorists were getting scarce.

And exactly What evidence suggests this? Strange how the conveniently unknown author of this article doesn't tell us.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
The idea that Saddam and Iraq were some how disconnected from terrorists and terrorism before the Iraq War is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the American people. Ansar's cooperative relationship with Al-Qaeda began "before" 9/11..

Ansar al Islam was established in December 2001, 3 months "after" 9/11. (7)

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
In fact, unlike Afghanistan and the Taliban, what made Iraq even more dangerous is that Saddam had the resources to continue funding these groups at a more significant level than Afghanistan could've ever done.

Despite the fact that Saddam was secular? Come on....

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
...complete with a training camp at Salman Pak

"A DIA analyst told the Committee, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel noted in November 2005 that "After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos." [Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5]. The CIA and DIA reached similar conclusions. (8)

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 15):
(This was written by an anonymous researcher almost 2 years ago. Little by little,de-classified documents are showing how right he was.)

Care to show the actual facts?

Up until now, there's several people in this thread who all claim "the truth is finally coming out" and refer to these "Saddam Documents" the Pentagon has dumped on the internet. I have yet to see any factual proof of this alleged "truth". In that regard, the Saddam Papers rather disinform, especially amongst those who still want to show "they were right after all" then provide factual evidence. This "article" is no exception to that.





(1) http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ansar.htm
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan
(3) http://home.cogeco.ca/~observer/14-1...3-memorandum-kurd-islam-qaeda.html
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
(5) http://help.lockergnome.com/index.ph...521ef948d05a29db64&showtopic=26554
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-islam
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 692 times:

Interesting to note you rely on Wikipedia: a resource that has been "salted" so heavily by partisans of one sort or another-quite frequently from the left- as to be virtually useless.

Thanks. I think I'll go with the contributor's analysis.

He wrote it about 2 years ago, by the way, and I have a feeling the document translations will probably back him up. (I know I've seen one in which Saddam expressed an interest in, and gave instructions for the training of Palentinian suicide bombers on Iraqi soil by Iraqi intelligence staff.)

Cheers !



gene
User currently offlineQB001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 688 times:

I can't wait for the Weekly Standard to put Iraq's WMD on the net...


Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 684 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 18):
Interesting to note you rely on Wikipedia: a resource that has been "salted" so heavily by partisans of one sort or another-quite frequently from the left- as to be virtually useless.

And this comes from someone who posts an "article" by a yet to be identified author who doesn't provide any sources at all.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 18):
Thanks. I think I'll go with the contributor's analysis.

Despite the fact that he completely f@cked-up regarding the AQ document discovered by the NY Times reporter? How convenient! The fact that your unknown "analyst" refers to that document but ommits key portions of it, indicates he either never read it himself (hearsay, a perfect basis for an analysis, right?) or he did read them but left them out as they didn't support his case. Either way, it doesn't add much credibility to his analysis.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 18):
He wrote it about 2 years ago, by the way, and I have a feeling the document translations will probably back him up

Such a feeling is normally known as "wishfull thinking".

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 18):
(I know I've seen one in which Saddam expressed an interest in, and gave instructions for the training of Palentinian suicide bombers on Iraqi soil by Iraqi intelligence staff.)

Great! Care to share it with us? Or are you affraid someone will also debunk that little "fact" asap?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 659 times:

How about you doing your own fact-checking ?

Here's a link. (Hope you have plenty of memory !)

http://70.169.163.24/



gene
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 654 times:

Aw gee ! Here is somebody who wrote a news report at about the same time as my correspondent:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...et=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html



gene
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 636 times:

I don't generally read Weekly Standard, but this caught my eye a few minutes ago:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...cles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp?pg=1
 Big grin  Wink  Silly



gene
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anbar Province In Iraqi Control posted Tue Sep 2 2008 09:57:59 by Sv7887
Iraqi Pm Backs Sen. Obama's Plan For Withdrawl posted Sat Jul 19 2008 14:28:45 by Falcon84
Iraqi Mortar Firing posted Thu Mar 6 2008 01:52:42 by UH60FtRucker
Iraqi Civilian Deaths posted Fri Feb 1 2008 20:02:53 by Connies4ever
Iraqi Fisherman Nets Shark 160 Miles From Sea posted Wed Oct 31 2007 13:19:57 by Cfalk
Israeli Doctors Treat Iraqi Patients posted Wed Oct 10 2007 15:23:51 by RJpieces
Soldier Ordered To Shoot Unarmed Iraqi posted Fri Sep 28 2007 00:00:52 by LAXspotter
GOP-Tied Law Firm Undermining Iraqi Prime Minister posted Fri Aug 24 2007 17:17:57 by Falcon84
US Soldier Sentenced 110yrs In Iraqi Rape/murder posted Sun Aug 5 2007 10:09:07 by Jmc1975
Iraqi National Team Wins Asian Cup. posted Sun Jul 29 2007 18:29:06 by AGM100