It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iraq asks Australia to help train its spies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
The government of Iraq has asked the government of Australia to train its intelligence and security officers. Australia is already committed to training Iraqi police and military forces. The announcement came from Defence Minister Robert Hill who had just returned from a visit to Iraq. The Iraqi national security adviser, Qassim Da'ud, has indicated a desire to have a new generation of Iraqis learn under a different culture than that put forth by Saddam Hussein.
 



story.news.yahoo. com
SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia, which is already training the new Iraqi police and military forces, has been asked to help train Iraq intelligence and security officers.

Defence Minister Robert Hill, who has just returned from a fourth visit to Iraq, said he had been asked by Iraqi national security adviser Qassim Da'ud to extend the military training programme to the intelligence community

"Minister Da'ud wants to train a group of new young leaders, possibly within Australia, in the field of intelligence and security, in order to subject them to alternative cultures and a new way of law enforcement that is different to the brutal techniques used by the Saddam Hussein regime," Hill said in a statement.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Australia already has a major presence in Iraq and its natural for the Iraqi government to turn to them for help. The minister further indicated that several contract for Australia may be forth coming. The nations that supporter the war should and have gotten the lions share of the contract for post war Iraq. Lets face it, why would they want help from the CIA anyway? I would turn to the British or the Australians myself before I even gave the CIA a thought.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Well, I can't recall seeing many news stories about Australian Intelligence, so they must be pretty good.


After all, publicity is nothing but a liability for that sort of work.

Off-topic, I think "Minister Da'ud" has a pretty cool ring to it. I imagine one would not want to get on this guy's bad side.


[edit on 12/8/2004 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Just a technicality : It is not 'Iraq' asking for it's spies be trained by western intelligence, but 'Allawi Governement'. That guy hasnt been elected, and the US intervention which put him there was illegal, and therefore, technically, Saddam Hussein is still Iraq's official representative...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   

[technically, Saddam Hussein is still Iraq's official representative...


Well maybe he has, cause the ones he had before pretty much sucked. Even the governments of Iran and Syria, the Arab league etc, recognize the legitamcy of the Iraqi Interm governemnt. Saddam lost that once he crawled into that hole he was hiding in.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I know the distinction is difficult, but it is important here, since while it is arguable that some measures put in effect by Allawi are democratically legitimated (f.ex. the reconstruction of the water cycle), it is absolutely certain that an elected governement led by Muqtada al Sadr and Ali Sistani (which is more than probable) would not ask an 'australian' intelligence agency, which participated in the bogus intelligence effort against Iraq, to train it's spies. They would probably rather ask Iranian or Syrian intelligence. CIA-Allawi is working here against the democratic will of the Iraqi people, trying to place non-democratic chesspieces before the election, and the headline 'Iraq asks...' suggests otherwise.



[edit on 8-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I know the distinction is difficult, but it is important here, since while it is arguable that some measures put in effect by Allawi are democratically legitimated


No the distinction is not difficult at all. The difficulty lies in your spin of events. The bottom line is this: The government is taking steps that is required of it. TO simply have the government sit and twiddle its thumbs because a sunni cleric may or may not be elected as president is asinine. No doubt you would be quick to point to the do nothing government in this case. Either way you would not be happy.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
They would probably rather ask Iranian or Syrian intelligence.


Really now, Isint most of the Iranian Intelligence reminants of the Mossad trained SAVAK?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
There were strong relations between Savak (which included many jewish Iranians) and Mossad, and strong israeli ties with Iran during the Iran/Iraq conflict through arms dealers (which are usually somehow connected to intelligence services). But i suspect that these ties have gone cold since a couple of years, as the Mossad is today the or a driving force behind the construction of (false) allegations against Al-Qaeda, Iraq, Iran and Syria, or the attempt to destabilize the region by agitation in Kurdistan (according to Turkish Foreign Ministry).





[edit on 8-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I know the distinction is difficult, but it is important here, since while it is arguable that some measures put in effect by Allawi are democratically legitimated


No the distinction is not difficult at all. The difficulty lies in your spin of events. The bottom line is this: The government is taking steps that is required of it. TO simply have the government sit and twiddle its thumbs because a sunni cleric may or may not be elected as president is asinine. No doubt you would be quick to point to the do nothing government in this case. Either way you would not be happy.



I know the hypothesis that Muqtada al Sadr and Al-sistani will soon rule Iraq is not totally certain, since elections haven't been held yet, but it is, objectively, much more probable that they reflect the will of the Iraqi people, and not the CIA... no spin here


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally ranted by Mokuhadzushi
much more probable that [Al Sadr] reflects the will of the Iraqi people, and not the CIA... no spin here


Claiming that Moqtadr Al Sadr reflects the will of the Iraqi people is at best spin... I'd choose to use much less euphemistic language to describe that assertion.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Thanks for misquating me


ALL credible reports show that the shia religious coalition, whose two main figures are Ali Sistani and Muqtada Sadr WILL get the majority of the vote, so where is the problem (?!?)



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Even future friendly countries need spies .

Heck, we spy on England , Canada , and Mexico don't we?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
You're referring to Al Sadr as a "main figure" in the Shia religious coalition. Is this because he grabbed a lot of headlines earlier in the year by holding Najaf to hostage and violently oppressing its people or because he waged bloody war with other Shia factions? Which of these qualifies him as a "main figure"?

I was under the impression that the four leading Shia clerics in Iraq are:

- Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani
- Sheikh Al Najafi
- Grand Ayatollah Saad Hakim
- Grand Ayatollah Ishaq Fayad

...all of whom were opposed to Al Sadr and his tactic of power-by-force. He also enjoyed little or no support among the wider Iraqi population.

news.bbc.co.uk...

According to an IRI poll in October, Iraqis indicated that religious leaders would sway their vote, but when asked which Clerics would do so only 5% of respondents mentioned Al Sadr (as opposed to the 53% who mentioned Ali Al-Sistani).

www.iri.org...

So, where are these credible reports that you speak of that predict Al Sadr leading the Iraqi government in the near future? Sources please?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
My sources ? The IRI, even if the 'IRI' and polls conducted by them are a joke (a fact which is easy to back up, should i ?
), your figures prove my point, thank you : the shia religious coalition gets around two-thirds of the Shia vote, that is around 40% of the total iraqi vote (even more if you consider that many Sunni's wont be able to vote due to the deteriorating security conditions), which is the majority containing Sistani and Sadr, as i claimed.

So it can very well, and unlike you falsely pretended, be argued that the shia religious coalition, led by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has way more democratic legitimacy than the Central Intelligence Agency




[edit on 8-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
My figures prove no such thing - if you'd read the article I linked to it said that many Iraqis are likely to be swayed by a religious figures. That's not the same thing as saying that Iraqis are likely to vote for religious figures.

I don't pretend to know what the outcome of the TNA elections in January will be - although I'll be surprised if religious parties such as the SCIR fare as well as you are predicting - I think that most Iraqis will vote according to sectarian and ethnic divides as opposed to religious ones.

By the way, Allawi's government was not "put there by US intervention" - they were appointed by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi (an Algerian) after a long consultative process (with Iraqis), primarily involving the (Iraqi) Governing Council, which consisted of 10 Shia Muslims, 5 Sunni Muslims, 5 Kurds, a Christian and a Turkmen - all Iraqis



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
I don't pretend to know what the outcome of the TNA elections in January will be - although I'll be surprised if religious parties such as the SCIR fare as well as you are predicting


The SCRIRI is not the only party in the religious coalition, most notably the SCRIRI itself, the Darwa, and Muqtada Sadr's party, (and around twenty smaller parties (?)) which will share a common electoral list ...



- I think that most Iraqis will vote according to sectarian and ethnic divides as opposed to religious ones.


I agree, but i reads the words differently : ethnic divide : Kurdish/Arab, sectarian divide : Shia/Sunni.

The four significant political forces present in Iraq are the Shia (united in their repression under Saddam, ex: Sadr), which are pro-Iranian and anti-US, the Baath movement (anti-US), the Sunni religious forces (anti-US), and the autonomist-kurdish forces (pro-US), four major forces. Some will probably fall for a (pro-US / free-market / anti-Iran) force including Allawi, which would make a fifth force (although it isnt clear if that will be a significant one, since Sunnis are staunchly anti-US and Shias staunchly pro-Iranian)...

The uncertain variable in all that would be electoral fraud by pro-US forces, since it will be difficult to conduct democratic monitoring of the elections, given the degrading security situation.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join