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.

 

New Evidence of Saddam's Ties With Al-Queda

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
As time goes by, more and more of the tons of documents found in Saddam's palaces are being translated. Recent findings are providing proof that Saddam was both helping and harboring terrorists long before the war started. It appears that more and ore of the pre-war intelligence is proving to be true.
 



michellemalkin.com
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army.

Another internal Iraqi Intelligence memo, this one from the mid-1990s, reports that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 1994, in order to set up meetings between bin Laden and Iraqi Intelligence in Sudan. According to the Iraqi document, bin Laden was "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda; the document states that the Iraqis agreed to honor this request. The al Qaeda leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia; there is no Iraqi response provided in the documents. When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." (bold, above, was added by me)


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While I did not have opinion either way as to the veracity of the initial claims of Saddam and Al-Queda, or of WMD's, I still held hope that, after seeing news clips of trucks full of retrieved documents, something of value would come to light. It appears to be happening now.

While the WMD's still remain an issue (for some), recent happenings in Syria may allow us to go to some of the sites there that are known to have been used to hide/bury them. Time will tell.

Related News Links:
www.weeklystandard.com
www.mysanantonio.com
powerlineblog.com

[edit on 10-1-2006 by zappafan1]




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Humm, thanks for the story and links.


Has this made it to the national news?

Probably not.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'll develop more interest in this story when a.) the 11 government officials develop names, and b.) the Weekly Standard changes its format to aspire to something besides partisan hackery. They're the modern American equivalent of Pravda back in the day.

The 11 government officials are probably 10 PNACers and a cleaning lady bribed with a ho-ho.

No sale...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
...we already know he met with people, in fact this guys name I do remember as being one of them.

He said no to them.
End of the Story.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Has this made it to the national news?

Probably not.


Maybe because all the sources have been accused of bias and pushing a neoconservative agenda. Actually, you're right, how come FOX hasn't picked this up yet?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I think you will do better to link to the original sources for Malkin's article:

weeklystandard.com

mysanantonio.com



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Members of American Goverment Ties to Saddam Regimes of Terror!!!


U.S.-Iraqi arms transfers



Evidence-A

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."

Who's that Man Shaking Hands with Saddam?

Arrest that Man!

He has Sold Weapons to Terrorists!

Arrest that Man!



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I'll be interested to see these documents and photographs as they make their way to the public.

Just a point I'd like to keep from getting lost in all of this:

Regardless of how many people tried to say that the 9/11 Report said there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it actually said there were no ties between Iraq and 9/11.

Iraq's Ties to Al Qaeda are Not Disputed



The well-researched initial findings of the Sept. 11 commission have been predictably misconstrued. The most common distortion is that the Sept. 11 commission established that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The New York Times on June 17 wrote that "there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed."

The New York Times is wrong. Rather, the Sept. 11 commission, along with the British and American governments, reported contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, but no evidence of Iraqi responsibility for the Sept. 11 atrocities.

We know that there was a dialogue between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime. What we do not know is the nature of the relationship, particularly before Sept. 11.


Perhaps we will find out more about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and terrorism, pre-invasion.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...................
Regardless of how many people tried to say that the 9/11 Report said there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it actually said there were no ties between Iraq and 9/11.

Iraq's Ties to Al Qaeda are Not Disputed


BH, I don't know how many times I have tried to explain this for over a year, but once in a while you will see some members come up with the "there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or any other terrorists."

That is not the only instance where intelligence reports, even those that are not from the U.S., have been misconstrued and taken to mean something differently from what the reports clearly say.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
New Evidence of Saddam's Ties With Al-Queda

The title is misleading. Where is this evidence? In the documents the Bush administration won't release? In the minds of eleven anonymous government officials? There will be new evidence when it comes out of Bush's mouth, not a reporter who has never even seen the documents that he says exist.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
We all the bashing that the government has received for the reasons into invading Iraq.

The Bush administration would have news like this in every front page of every news paper and as the top head liners in any news channel.

And Rumsfeld would have been the first to announce the findings.

The fact that is not is enough to have second though about it.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
New Evidence of Saddam's Ties With Al-Queda

The title is misleading.


Yes, it is. This is neither 'new' nor 'evidence'.



There will be new evidence when it comes out of Bush's mouth...


Uhhh... I'd rather see the documents myself.
There's been a lot of stuff come out of Bush's mouth that I can't bring myself to believe. And even then, I want to hear everyone's take on them.

I don't trust these people anymore. They're going to have to work pretty hard for me to believe what they say.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'll develop more interest in this story when a.) the 11 government officials develop names, and b.) the Weekly Standard changes its format to aspire to something besides partisan hackery. They're the modern American equivalent of Pravda back in the day.

The 11 government officials are probably 10 PNACers and a cleaning lady bribed with a ho-ho.

No sale...


Since when is the weekly standard a bias source? Oh, since you disagreed with the facts they reported.


seriously though, WS has never been considered a bias source. I've used it for years on the debate and discussion forums on Somethingawful.com and those guys spot crap news sources pretty quick.


Originally posted by Souljah

Who's that Man Shaking Hands with Saddam?

Arrest that Man!

He has Sold Weapons to Terrorists!

Arrest that Man!


What does this have to do with anything?



Everyone look how quickly they scrammble to support and protect their hero, Saddam Hussien. A mass murderer who had no qualms about filling a mass grave with thousands of bodies. Yet they will believe anything and everything said about Bush.

We have enemys among us friends. I have a feeling we are going to have to deal with them in the near future or we are going to loose this war.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
What does this have to do with anything?


This thread is about the fact that Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq. I think Souljah's point is that we (the USA) had ties to Iraq, too.

True, that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate anything, so perhaps Al Qaeda meeting with Iraqis doesn't necessarily mean anything either? We need more information. Real information. A meeting doesn't necessarily translate to financial support and/or agreement.

And as has been said, there is no dispute that Al Qaeda and Iraq have had ties.
It's no big deal. Many people have had ties with Iraq. Including us.




Everyone look how quickly they scrammble to support and protect their hero, Saddam Hussien.


Where, in this thread, does someone support Saddam? Can you provide a quote? Otherwise you're just makin' stuff up.



We have enemys among us friends. I have a feeling we are going to have to deal with them in the near future or we are going to loose this war.


Wow
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure sounds like a threat...


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   


And as has been said, there is no dispute that Al Qaeda and Iraq have had ties. It's no big deal. Many people have had ties with Iraq. Including us


Then why are we disagreeing with this report? Since you don't have the documents, you don't beleive it? Do you not beleive anything you read, or only what you choose to beleive. This seems a little delusional to me.





True, that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate anything, so perhaps Al Qaeda meeting with Iraqis doesn't necessarily mean anything either? We need more information. Real information. A meeting doesn't necessarily translate to financial support and/or agreement.


and I want more than the same old tired picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussien, 20 YEARS ago to solidify the fact we sold them weapons. It amazes me that The fact that someone shakes hands, and that it is reported that we sold arms to Iraq and must mean the entire war is a farce for oil.


There may not be support for Saddam, but I sure see a lot of America bashing per usual.

www.gwu.edu...


Read this account if you would like, and it states he was there as a envoy and that we condemmmed the use of chemical weapons and human rights issues going on in Iraq. This was a diplomatic mission in the middle of a war, not a arms sale.




On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that "we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future," and that "we are adamantly opposed to Iraq's attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq"





The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.


and this




The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'll develop more interest in this story when a.) the 11 government officials develop names, and b.) the Weekly Standard changes its format to aspire to something besides partisan hackery. They're the modern American equivalent of Pravda back in the day.

The 11 government officials are probably 10 PNACers and a cleaning lady bribed with a ho-ho.

I'll ask the same question I always ask when a source is discounted because of bias: Please name one news source that is not biased.


from Benevolent Heretic And as has been said, there is no dispute that Al Qaeda and Iraq have had ties.
It's no big deal. Many people have had ties with Iraq. Including us.

Yes but the more interesting question is how many nations have ties with Al Qaeda?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Wow Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure sounds like a threat...


It's not a specific threat, but a warning that people in the US arent going to put up with this obvious sabotage people like you inflict on the war effort. I see it as a personal threat when you guys get on here to bash bush, yet defend saddam. I feel like we have the enemy RIGHT HERE among us and i'm sure others on here will agree with me.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Want to know another thing about Sadaam ?

A man called Tulfah is Saddam Hussein’s mentor, uncle and Father-in-Law.

Tulah along with the Grand Mufti Amin Al-Husseini launched a pro Nazi coup in Baghdad in 1941, the coup fails.


In 1959 Saddam Hussein failed out of Baghdad’s Military Academy and sought revolutionary means to reach power and achieve his uncle’s Pan-Islamic/Nazi alliance.

He failed and fled for Eqypt where he is granted protection . Since 1952, Egypt is run by former head of Young Egypt (Nazi) party Gamal Abdul Nasser. Egyptian government has incorporated thousands of Nazis through the Odessa Network.

In 1963 Baath party topples Iraqi Government , Sadaam is a senior membor.

In 1979 Saddam Hussein takes over leadership of Ba’ath Party. Becomes Iraqi President.

He instantly orders the execution of over twenty top leaders of his own Ba’ath Party and assumes total unconditional control of Iraq. Nazi-inspired full dictatorship is imposed.


So who says WW3 is on the way when we didnt even finish WW2?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Then why are we disagreeing with this report?


I'm not disagreeing with this report.
I just said I will be interested to see the documents and photos.



and I want more than the same old tired picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussien, 20 YEARS ago to solidify the fact we sold them weapons.

www.gwu.edu...


From your own source:



The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.
...
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.



Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes but the more interesting question is how many nations have ties with Al Qaeda?


True. And unfortunately, I can't answer that quesition. Many, I'm sure.

In fact, the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the USA and the Bush and Bin Laden families' ties are well known, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Bush and Bin Laden Ties



President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.

James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.

Through a tangled web of Saudi multi-millionaires, Texas oilmen, and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Bush was financially linked with the bin Laden family until Salem met an untimely end in a freak flying accident near San Antonio in 1988.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
It's not a specific threat, but a warning that people in the US arent going to put up with this obvious sabotage people like you inflict on the war effort. I see it as a personal threat when you guys get on here to bash bush, yet defend saddam.


I'm a person in the US, too and there are many persons in the US who feel and speak the same as I do. This country does not belong exclusively to you and the other Bush supporters.

You have yet to show me where someone has defended Saddam. You're making it up. And bashing Bush (or anyone I choose) is my right. You can wish to take it away all you want, but it's mine and I'm keeping it.



I feel like we have the enemy RIGHT HERE among us and i'm sure others on here will agree with me.


Well, at least we agree on something. I feel the same way.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join