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.

 

'Proof' - Iran and Syria Support Terrorists

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I REALLY suggest that ya'll read the FULL STORY at the
site before making a judgement on this. It's very interesting.
I never know if a 'confession' from people in Saddam's bunch
are real confessions, or if they are just telling more lies to
'make nice' with the people who won the war.

I have no doubt that there are layers upon layers of muck
and lies and that probably the truth will never be fully known.

*****************************************
Commander of Saddam Hussein's 'Army of Muhammad' Confesses: We Received Money and Arms from Syria and Iran

www.memri.org
Special Dispatch Series - No. 849
January 19, 2005

Full Story


Small Excerpt:
The following are excerpts from the televised confessions of Muayed Al-Nasseri, who commandedSaddam Hussein's "Army of Muhammad" throughout 2004....

'The Army of Muhammad was Founded by Saddam Hussein After the Fall of the Regime'

Interrogator: "What is your name?"

Muayed Al-Nasseri: "Colonel Muayed Yassin 'Aziz 'Abd Al-Razaq Al-Nasseri, commander of the Army of Muhammad, one of the resistance factions in Iraq. The Army of Muhammad was founded by Saddam Hussein after the fall of the regime, on April 9, 2003. At first, Yasser Al-Shab'awi was put in charge, until his capture in July 2003. Then Sa'd Hammad Hisham was in charge until December 2003. Then I was put in charge from January 2004 until now. The Army of Muhammad has some 800 armed fighters."

Interrogator: "What operations did you carry out? How many operations did you carry out?"

Muayed Al-Nasseri: "We carried out many armed operations against the coalition forces in all the districts. The operations included bombarding their military posts, their camps, and their bases, fighting these forces, and planting explosive devices against their patrols and convoys."

Interrogator: "What was the nature of your organization?"

Muayed Al-Nasseri: "The organization was a military armed one, which operated according to a method of non-centralized command."

Interrogator: "How is the Army of Muhammad related to the Ba'th party?"

Muayed Al-Nasseri: "The Army of Muhammad is militarily independent. After Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003, for a period [of] four months, the Army of Muhammad had no connections with the party, but after April 2003, there was a meeting with the party and we are currently coordinating with them.

"In addition, Saddam Hussein distributed a communique via the party, back then, instructing all his supporters or whoever wants to fight the Jihad for the sake of Allah, to join the Army of Muhammad because it is the army of the leadership."

'Today, the Leader of the Ba'th Party in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim'

Interrogator: "Who are the leaders of the Ba'th Party in Iraq?"

Muayed Al-Nasseri: "Today, the leader of the party is 'Izzat Ibrahim. He is the leader of the party in Iraq. Next in line is Fadhl Al-Mashhadani, who is responsible for the local organizations within Iraq. Then, there is Muhammad Yunis Al-Ahamd, who is responsible for the organization outside Iraq. He is currently in Syria."

'Aid Came from the Neighboring Countries - We Got Aid Primarily from Iran'
Full Story




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
It was only a matter of time before someone confessed the truth to the public. Iran and Syria are going to be under scrutiny and the Middle east countries that oppose these "acts of terrorism" are going to start straining those countries economically as well as other countries in the world who have imports and exports from thsoe countries...

Not saying they wont investigate it, but there is going to be alot of eyes on those 2 countries after a few days and in the long run. Of course Syria and Iran will denounce all of this to save face, but, its a little too late. The more hands you put in a pot the more it stirs and out fo control.

Not to mention, Saddam just got slammed again.

[edit on 19/1/05 by mscbkc070904]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Similar in fashion to the way the US supplied stacks of cash and arms to the fundis fighting the Russian invaders of Afghanistan then?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
while I don't doubt the Syrian connection, the Iran implication is a bit odd. I thought they were enemies (Iaq and Iran).



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
while I don't doubt the Syrian connection, the Iran implication is a bit odd. I thought they were enemies (Iaq and Iran).



Lest we not forget how many Mig-27's made the dash across the Iran border during GW-1.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I could not find any other credible sources that verify the above info.
just other disscussion boards.
I think that it's quite convenient.
but that's my opinion, I could be wrong

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Typically when any thread is bashing america or bush it is filled with data, opinion, and links. Yet a thread based on the possibility of a direct terror link between Iraq, Iran and Syria the board goes "numb". Is it because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
when you find some more sources that are credible
then i will believe what they say slightly


Iran supports Hazbullah and so thats certan but thats no diffrent from when the americans supported the taliban and so on

[edit on 19-1-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
when you find some more sources that are credible
then i will believe what they say slightly


Iran supports Hazbullah and so thats certan but thats no diffrent from when the americans supported the taliban and so on

[edit on 19-1-2005 by bodrul]


I remember supporting the Musahaden (sp?) but the Taliban? Since lying is an Islam "stock and trade" when it come to "infidels" how will anyone ever know the truth about anything.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
OK, here is the 64 thousand dollar question - now that we know this information, what do we do about it? There simply is not enough manpower, not to mention supply shortages, to open yet another front.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Similar in fashion to the way the US supplied stacks of cash and arms to the fundis fighting the Russian invaders of Afghanistan then?


Hey, I cant prove it, but dont think for a second the UK wasnt in there as well in some fashion. That was part of the cold war, and you Britts had alot more to lose than the USA if things went south in that war. How far is Moscow from there?

[edit on 19-1-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
You don't need a genius to tell anybody here and to explain to them that an "Islamic radical" is from Muslin or is an Arab descendant.

So taken that in consideration any body that is tag "Islamic radical" and "terrorist" will have ties with any country in the middle east, so that will means that the "Islamic radicals" that are spread all over the middle east will be nationals of their respective countries so we can said that any "Islamic radical" or "terrorist" are indeed supported by the respective countries where they are born.

So, what is the big deal then we have know this as long as the middle east was target an "Axis of evil". for supporting their own nationals that are "terrorist" and " Islamic radicals"

So if the entire middle east is harboring "terrorist" then we can only assume that we will be owning the entire middle east in the next 4 years.

Yes I have been sarcastic.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Britguy
Similar in fashion to the way the US supplied stacks of cash and arms to the fundis fighting the Russian invaders of Afghanistan then?


Hey, I cant prove it, but dont think for a second the UK wasnt in there as well in some fashion. That was part of the cold war, and you Britts had alot more to lose than the USA if things went south in that war. How far is Moscow from there?

[edit on 19-1-2005 by skippytjc]



the brits weren't involved. Israel was tho.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Why would anybody be looking for "proof" of terror ties to Syria or Iran? Do you really want to start another war based upon testimony from sources all too eager to give their captors what they want for leniency and lose more lives while engaging hostiles in two other countries at the same time? Some of you literally are war crazed.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by Crakeur
while I don't doubt the Syrian connection, the Iran implication is a bit odd. I thought they were enemies (Iaq and Iran).



Lest we not forget how many Mig-27's made the dash across the Iran border during GW-1.


And let's also not forget the satellite photos (and Russian confirmation that they helped) of all those large trucks leaving saddam's weapons facilities and heading for Syria.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Syria and Iraq yes they could be link.

But Iraq and Iraq I doubt it, taking in consideration that Saddam in one of his shows of bravado tried to invade Iran creating the Iraq-Iranian war that lasted 8 years so the link is hard to swallow.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   


And let's also not forget the satellite photos (and Russian confirmation that they helped) of all those large trucks leaving saddam's weapons facilities and heading for Syria.


and your link for that?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   


And let's also not forget the satellite photos (and Russian confirmation that they helped) of all those large trucks leaving saddam's weapons facilities and heading for Syria.


first I've heard of this.
I think if such photo's existed then they would be a tiny bit more mainstream. how could the neo-cons miss that.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The convoys did in fact take place (link, link2), but we still don't know what the trucks were carrying and where they went.



The eight suspicious convoys bore a striking resemblance to known chemical-weapons convoys that had been picked up by spy satellite photos in 1988. Briefing top officials at CIA headquarters, analysts placed examples of the old and new photos side by side on poster board. They also contrasted the eight suspicious convoys with more than 100 conventional Iraqi military shipments also photographed during the spring of 2002. They showed them on posters labeled "Normal Activity" and "Unusual Activity."



[edit on 19-1-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I remember the convoys and trucks supposed to be Saddam's mobilization of weapons, and chemical Mobil labs, but it was never proved and nothing was never found.

I will not debate the link of Iraq and Syria, but I still have to be skeptical on Iraq and Iran.

They were enemies.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join