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 knew and supported Al Qaeda pre 9/11

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Newly released documents seem to point to the fact that the Iraq government knew of and supported Al Qaeda terrorists prior to 9/11. These documents go so far as to have pictures of Abu Musab al Zarqawi
 



www.homelandsecurityus.com
An examination of newly released documents released at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and uploaded to the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office website reveals that the Iraq government was aware of the presence of al Qaeda in their country. It also identified Abu Musab al Zarqawi by name and images. The ten-page document was described on the U.S. website as follows:

"Synopsis: 2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names."

Another document released yesterday substantiated a pre-9/11 relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorist operatives. The document, dated 15 September 2001, was written by a member of Iraq's special police to a commander concerning a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani diplomat. The document indicated that bin Laden and members of the Taliban were in contact with Iraq and had visited Baghdad prior to the attacks within the U.S.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If this turns out to be fact, and if the documents are being analysed correctly, many of the naysayers (me included) are going to have to do an about face and admit that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda prior to the war in Iraq.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Related News Links:
www.homelandsecurityus.com

[edit on 17-3-2006 by sensfan]

[edit on 3-17-2006 by Valhall]

[edit on 3/17/06 by FredT]




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
There has been mention in the past month or so regarding 35,000 boxes of classified materials that members of congress wanted released so that Arabic scholars can translate them. The figure of 35,000 also has now been changed to 46,000 boxes of material. Lets hope they can learn the truth from them.




AP Wire

It's a blogger's dream come true: Millions of pre-Iraq war intelligence documents are now being posted online and two Republican congressmen are asking for their assistance in digesting them.

They can thank Sen. Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., for helping to make it happen.

The two said during a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday that they lobbied the White House and intelligence leaders to release millions of pages of documents and audio recordings captured during current and previous U.S. military operations in Iraq.

The first dump started Wednesday night via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, and the release is expected to continue for months.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Be forewarned though the anti Bush crowd is not going to accept anything that will prove them wrong.




[edit on 3/17/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
True...you are going to hear things like... why didn't they translate the 46,000 documents in a day?.... They should have done it the day before yesterday....before the war started.....


Hey, and if you tell them, and show them what the intelligence agencies of other countries found, such as in Spain, and the Czech Republic about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda..... Naaa, that was all done by the CIA......


For some people, as long as the present administration is bashed and blamed, they don't care about the truth.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
If you find the other thread that was posted before this, it gives a link to the documents. You can take a look at them yourself.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

True...you are going to hear things like... why didn't they translate the 46,000 documents in a day?.... They should have done it the day before yesterday....before the war started.....


It is not 46,000 documents. We are talking 46,000 Boxes that contain millions of documents and tapes.

I for one would like to see the truth come out, but I am willing to bet that the anti Bush crowd will vote the story down simply because they do not want to know the real truth.

Just for the record this is not my story either. I do not know who posted it but it certainly deserves full discussion and discolsure of the real truth



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'm coming out of the woodwork. I submitted this story. As many who have seen my posts before know I am anti Bush, but this story has to come out not matter what "side" you are on. I've gotten 4 u2u's so far from people who voted no. Don't know why.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

I've gotten 4 u2u's so far from people who voted no. Don't know why.


The answer is obvious. It is clear others who have your same position do not want the real truth to come out.

Think about it, millions of documents translated by thousands of scholars around the world, no government involvement, therefore objective and true translations. What better way to uncover Saddam's conspiracy regarding his involvement in 9/11?

Nah they do not want that, they might end up with mud on their face and we can't have that.


[edit on 3/17/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I don't see where all of you are coming from about the anti Bush crowd wanting to stay ignorant. I'm anti Bush and think getting these documents out are a great thing.

Millions of documents are going to take forever though. And yes in the other thread I said about why didn't they come out with these documents prior to the war. The thread poster had put in the post....

This information was acquired by a afghan informant days after 9/11.


That is why I asked that question. Because to me that statement makes it sound like we've had these documents days after 9/11. Either my mistake or a misleading statement? I don't know. But Esdad did correct me of my error.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Griff said
Millions of documents are going to take forever though. And yes in the other thread I said about why didn't they come out with these documents prior to the war.


The documents were obtained once we invaded Iraq from buildings in Iraq.
That is why. I think that perhaps they may also have obtained other documents from afganistan which is perhaps the reason for the confusion since they came from two countries not just one.

As for taking along time to translate, I doubt it will take that long because you will have thousands translating them at one time, that is assuming none of them are encrypted.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The biggest concern I think most people have is the source. If it was independent, unattached from the government then it would hold more weight. To quote Mumia Abu Jamal "Homeland security is a governmental phrase that is as oxymoronic and crazy as saying militray intelligence or US department of justice... there just words, they have very little relation to reality."



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by sensfan
quote: I've gotten 4 u2u's so far from people who voted no. Don't know why.


The answer is obvious. It is clear others who have your same position do not want the real truth to come out.

Think about it, millions of documents translated by thousands of scholars around the world, no government involvement, therefore objective and true translations. What better way to uncover Saddam's conspiracy regarding his involvement in 9/11?

Nah they do not want that, they might end up with mud on their face and we can't have that.



*sigh*

I can't speak for anyone else, but maybe it's because of the following:


Original intro
Newly released documents seem to point to the fact that the Iraq government new of and supported Aq Qaeda terrorists prior to 9/11. These documents go so far as to have pictures of [Abu] Musab al-Zarqawi.


I haven't voted no, but have sent a notice to fix the intro. Spelling and grammar still count don't they, shots?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The US started, funded and supported Al CIAda pre911 to fight the Russians in Afghanistan!

Bin Laden and subsequent events are what is termed "blowback".

Sucks eh?
.

[edit on 3/17/2006 by Gools]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I bet the spook forgers have left hundreds of documents showing Iraqi involvement in everything from the Kennedy assassination to a missing sock in Bunnypants' laundry



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Gools,

What you say is interpretive, but after that truth you elicit, what you consider to "suck", I find to be simply inconsequential and irrelevant.

How many more times do people have to proclaim a "newsflash," to then go on citing that the CIA backed Al Qeada? Is that really a "newsflash" or something that is said to seemingly make a point? What point is that? Before you start attempting to answer these questions, does redundancy and irrelevancy come into play here? Further, the CIA backed the Mujahideen, while Pakistan backed elements of Al Qaeda. But who cares, other than those who continue to cite such things? As for "creating" something, try this one, k? Identifying Misinformation. Bear in mind, that if you, or others, attempt to discredit or dismiss the link provided above, anything that you, or others, attempt to provide or counter with can likewise be discredited or dismissed--under the same reasonings as you, or others, may use to explain away, discredit, or dismiss.

Past "support" implies nothing here--if being relevant at all-- and "blowback" is ambiguously interpretive. That would be like someone hypothetically implying that in some far off distant future, when haphazardly Canadians decide to attack the US or engage in terrorist-type operations against the US for whatever hypothetical reasons, that it will be asserted that it was simply "blowback" from the US having, at one past point in time, funded and supported Canada....right?

Thus, illustrating that what you have so eloquently proclaimed as a "newsflash" amounted to being non-news and irrelevant, simply only being relevant to those who think that it is seemingly relevant. Now, that is what truly "sucks."





seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I would go back and edit the mistakes, but am unable to as the edit button is no longer available :-(


df1

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

(submission
If this turns out to be fact...

Pinocchio has pug nose compared to the senior members of the bush white house. By now you should have learned that this administration will murder, torture, steal and cheat for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy patrons. Geez they've already told you that spreading propoganda is ok if its for national security reasons.


Please tell me that your not going to buy into this five year old propoganda.
.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
As captured old Iraqi and Saddam regime paperwork is translated, the more that some assert the phrase "propaganda."

"Propaganda" is relative, as well as being ambiguous and interpretive, along the same lines as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."






seekerof



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
While the news is not a surprise to me, I still do not understand the outright bickering on whether it is true or false, this is not a Black/White issue, like most everything dealing with world news, it is mostly shades of gray.

By the time it reaches the average person (globally) it has been kneaded, twisted, baked and presented in a way which some would like to order, others keep looking at the menu til they find what is more appealing to them.

Is there truth in this report? IMO there is, how much?, you and I cannot say.

As far as the US backing OBL, yes we did, alot of US lives and countless money has gone to backing leaders in the world for one reason, then having to deal with them later on down the line for other reasons.

We supported Hussein in the Iraq/Iran conflict if I remember correctly, we had the Noriega situation, believe we were behind the Marcos regime in the Phillipines, and I am sure there are countless others that can be thrown in our face.

The "Cold War", was the reasoning behind most of these actions, was it wrong?

The problem whether you are a US, Canadien, Iraqi, Cuban, etc etc... citizen, is that people in power care only about their power and think the populous as nothing more than pawns on a chessboard to be sacrificed on the whims of those who control their respective countries.

Am I right? or am I wrong?.......

Probably in between, somewhere in those "Shades of Gray" .......



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
There is such a thing as right and wrong- black and white. Things really are simple. It's the folks who only see grey that scare the ba-jeezes out of me!

In fact I believe it's this technically liberal way of seeing the world that has eroded personal accountability and has seemingly driven an entire generation to think in "there is no such thing as black and white" terms.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
After looking at the link and the pictures it looks like a bad photocopy job of copy and paste.

To conveniently explicit about the pictures. Like Ssaddam had it all nice waiting for the US to make the link.

The same pictures look like the ones that has been used here in the US.

Let see what comes next.

I guess the Saddam tapes didn't work so now we have actual documents with pictures.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join