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.

 

ATS: Newly Translated Documents Reveal Saddam Had To Have Terrorist Ties

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
A newly translated 37 page handwritten report with an official Iraqi letterhead has revealed that Saddam Hussein had intentions of using "camels of mass destruction," loaded with bombs while using foreign trained terrorists to deploy them to kill coalition forces. The report was translated by Arabic-speaking members of a conservative internet discussion forum that calls itself the Free Republic. There is no specific mention of al-Qaeda in either story; just the mention that these terrorists would more then likely have been foreign trained. The related document is shown below the first.
 



www.telegraph.co.uk
Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.

[…….]

Handwritten on official paper, one of the reports appears to be a road map for the insurgency, with detailed instructions for training what it calls suicide bombers.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


A second document that was translated states he had detailed orders for other extensive terrorist operations in other areas.




Weekly Standard

One of the Saddam documents details orders for an extensive terrorist operation.

SADDAM'S ULTRA-LOYAL Fedayeen martyrs were ordered to carry out bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and "self ruled areas" of Iraq in May 1999, according to a newly released Iraqi intelligence document. One such operation, codenamed "Tamooz Mubarak" or "Blessed July," was apparently intended to hunt down Iraqi dissidents and bomb other unspecified locations.

Although a copy of the original document was not released, an English translation was published on the Foreign Military Studies Office's Joint Reserve Intelligence Center website yesterday. The site cautions, "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." But, the document appears to be the same as one discussed by a team of military and defense analysts in Foreign Affairs magazine earlier this month.

The Fedayeen Saddam was established in the mid-1990s and its ranks were filled with recruits fanatically loyal to Saddam and his sons. Uday, Saddam's eldest son, was the group's commander throughout much of its existence. And according to the Foreign Affairs piece, it was Uday who issued the order for the "Blessed July" operations.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



While neither of these documents are conclusive that al-Qaeda was involved it does make you wonder who else could have the capability of recruiting terrorist other then al-Qaeda? One thing is for sure though he did have plans or at least it is indicated he had plans on using foreign individuals.

If these translations are accurate, it could explain why they have a huge number of foreign insurgents operating within Iraq.

Now the question is where would they have come from?


Related News Links:

www.ynetnews.com...



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Russian Pre-War Intelligence Given to Saddam




[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Riwka]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Riwka]




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Just think about it a moment...

In the build up to war, what would you do? Iraq/Saddam knew they wouldn't win, making links with their "enemy" is a logical step and in turn doesn't mean they had any ties prior to the build up for war. In fact, most of these reports seem a bit too "perfect" for the BushCo Administration [L.L.P.]

Another odd thing, how come none of these reports were right? The information given to him, was false. The terrorist plans and battle plans, were false. Even the idea of bomb laden camel is laughable. Anyone with a little common sense would have mined the roads, used the cities to help defeat the U.S.A. if they had intended to put up a fight. They didn't, his own forces were lying to him to save their own skins and most of the information that was given to him was made up by them. Including probably these reports...



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
His links to terror long before the war were not a secret. My question is why do so many want to play as if they have amnesia.
I am also always curious as to why the one who harbored terorist masterminds in his country is tried to be pawned off as a boy scout by some circles.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Where Thomas?

Yes, they had links to many Islamic Groups, but those groups were not attacking the United State's nor were they a threat to the United State's. The lack of direct attacks on the U.S. Pre-Iraq War [and still after] displays this.

You also have to factor in, that they don't view them as terrorists and this detention, protection, whatever it is desired to be called in reality is no different than Pinochet. If Chile had the ability to invade the U.K. should that have been a legal war? We have W.M.D, were keeping a "terrorist" safe.

You also have the fact, surely it has created more terrorism? So if the war was to protect the United State's from terrorism than it has failed? Also why has it taken so long and why is it an independent group that has had to do this? And why didn't the attacks begin as soon as they were invading if they had such links?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I also have to admit the idea of bomb laden camel is laughable, in fact it is hilarious, yet it shows he had a vivid imagination. One would expect mines and car bombs, but Camels? One would think that would be one of the last things coalition forces would have suspected.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I agree the Camel bombs are too childish to be taken seriously, taking into consideration that no even the Insurgents are using them to bomb places.

It does sounds funny, using Camels with bombs.


Who knows now that this came out public perhaps the insurgents will try using them


Occurs cars are more available.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Camels of mass destrucion....please. This doesn't read to me as a serious contemplation by a former head of state, rather it reads of contrived propaganda.

No substantial proof contained within the report.....despite the claims that were made, none of the included info actually condemns Saddamn for the major offenses where the War on Iraq was based. Rather it reinforces the givens.....and though Saddamn may have had ties to terrorists, remember that he was dealing with a very chaotic region of the world......he had other problems to worry about then the U.S.A.

I don't buy it......if there is one thing that can be certain, it is that America knows how to propagate. Indirect means such as 'translating an Iraqi report' lend immediate credibility to the source because of the implied academic involvement....most people don't question what they aren't directly involved in on a day to day basis and tend to defer to those who do......or even say they do.....

I don't believe it to be a relevant source of info......most of it is redundant in the context of what has been available to the population the past 5 years and the info seems designed to lead the reader to a conclusion...which ironically enough would corrolate with what the official story(ies) state......



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This isn't shocking news, although its interesting to hear what that cache of documents contains.

Saddam is known to have kept channels open with various terrorist groups, just as he also kept a very close eye on Islamic fundamentalists who represented a threat to his regime.

His "if attacked by the U.S." strategy went beyond terrorism to the use of WMD's as a last resort- and not necessarily on the battlefield. Just as in the first gulf war, strategists were wondering why he didn't use them again this time.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Here is another tid bit I found while Checking out the group that the story claims translated the report. This indicates that Saddam or one of his sons, may have played a part in the London bombings and perhaps attacks on other areas.

For those interested their comments section has some interesting stuff so you might want to take a glance and see the issue from the perspective of others.


The Jig Saw puzzle gets bigger and bigger.




[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]

[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Oh please. I would just like to point out that nowhere in the article does it say Saddam had ties to Terrorists. This whole thing is BS designed to trick people into believing there was some kind of tie between Saddam Hussein and Terrorists the Bush Administration allege carried out 11/9.

To quote the article;



Telegraph.uk

Handwritten on official paper, one of the reports appears to be a road map for the insurgency, with detailed instructions for training what it calls suicide bombers.

In the memo, they are described as "estishehadeyeen", Arabic for suicide martyrs, and would almost certainly have been foreign volunteers.


It says Insurgency, not Terrorists. Let’s take a look at the definition for the term, "Insurgency";



www.dictionary.com

3 entries found for insurgency.
in•sur•gen•cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjn-s)
n. pl. in•sur•gen•cies

The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.

Main Entry: in•sur•gen•cy
Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
: the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


insurgency

n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict [syn: insurgence]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


An Insurgent is not necessarily a Terrorist. A suicide bomber is not necessarily a Terrorist. A Kamikaze is in effect a suicide bomber, is he(/she?) a Terrorist? Some may say it would depend on the intended target.




Telegraph.uk

The papers have been translated by Arabic-speaking members of Free Republic, a conservative internet discussion forum that believes the documents will justify British and American claims that Saddam had made Iraq a haven for terrorists.


The papers have been translated by an internet discussion forum, the name of which they have not deemed necessary to mention. That's nice, isn't it? Can't they come up with anything more credible than some unnamed conservative website for their source?



Telegraph.uk

Earlier this month, the Pentagon released copies in the original Arabic onto the internet in the hope that others would interpret them into English.


Forgive me, but am I to beleive the Pentagon does not have it's own team of Arabic translators capable of deciphering the texts?



Telegraph.uk

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.


The United States Department of Defence doesn't have the recources to translate "thousands" of documents, even if it could reveal the whereabouts of, or prove the existance of, these so called "Iraqi Weapons of mass destruction?" Or maybe prove Saddam was involved with Al CIA'da. Camels of mass destruction? Is that the best they can come up with? Give me a f'king break. They had the recources to bomb the absolute "David Hasselhoff" out of Iraq... surely they have the resources to translate it's documents?

The documents may well turn out to be genuine, but how long would it take for this "arab speaking conservative internet discussion forum" to have passed them on to someone more credible for varification? Surely after such a narrowing down, the mighty U.S of A, "The Worlds only super power" would have the resources available?



Telegraph.uk

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.


"If the translation is correct", states the article... There are no known reports of Camels being used in suicide attacks, and there is absolutely no confirmation that any plans in this "Roadmap to Insurgency" report, apparently hand written on "Official paper" have been used by any Insurgents in the region.


mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link






[edit on 26-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


la2

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
seems to me like the actions of an administration desperate to legitimise the illegal invasion of soverign soil of another state. The whole language of the story implicates hearsay, no solid evidence, something that dogs the Iraq campaign and will continue to.

If there was any shred of credible evidence, the misleading and out right lies told by British and American administrations, means that everything will have a shadow of doubt across it.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

It says Insurgency, not Terrorists. Let’s take a look at the definition for the term, "Insurgency";


You might look up the thesaurus for terrorists. Anyone can play a game of semantics using the dictionary, but that will not change the fact that the MSM has been using the term insurgents and terrorists all along. It is just the authors choice of words as I see it.



From The American Heritage Dictionary Thesaurus

1. (n.) A person who rebels:
• rebel
• anarchist
• extremist
insurgent
• insurrectionist
• mutineer
• resister
• revolutionary
• radical
• freedom fighter



[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Well, Odium, here's one little connection, for starters:

library.nps.navy.mil...

Oh, but you were probably talking about connections to Al Qaeda

I seem to remember something about a foreign intel placing Iraqi officials with Al Qaeda reps a while before the last war.
Here is something that does not refer to that particular topic, but is still smoke that would indicate fire:

www.nysun.com...


Another piece of evidence, but I don't place much faith in it as the aspirin factory was not really a big threat:


The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.

www.weeklystandard.com...

I'll look around a little bit later.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   


shots
Anyone can play a game of semantics using the dictionary


Exactly! (Heaven forbid those games of semantics that anyone can play produce results to the opposite of your own, though, right?)

Could I ask you a question, Shots? If another Nation invaded your own tonight, what would you call fellow Countrymen resisting those invaders forcefully? Think carefully about your answer.

EDIT: Punctuation.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Code_Burger]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


Thomas Crowne

I seem to remember something about a foreign intel placing Iraqi officials with Al Qaeda reps a while before the last war.
Here is something that does not refer to that particular topic, but is still smoke that would indicate fire:

www.nysun.com...


Another piece of evidence


So what, Crowne? If I had all day I would list all the connections the American Government and the Bush Administration have had with Al Qaeda, and the Bin Laden Family.

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Could I ask you a question, Shots? If another Nation invaded your own tonight, what would you call fellow Countrymen resisting those invaders forcefully? Think carefully about your answer.


I would call them patriotic Americans.

Why do you ask?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   


shots

I would call them patriotic Americans.


I'm sure you don't coin the term "Patriotic Iraqi" too often. Perhaps I should rephrase the question; what would you call a Foreign National, trained by the current American administration, fighting in your country (I presume you are an american) to repel an enemy invader?



shots

Why do you ask?


Cute.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The idea might sound a little stupid, but exacty because of that it could have been a very effective plan.

Coalition forces were looking for bombs in cars, not in camel, and i don't understand how some people don't believe this. This is the same sort of people that would use their own children, and the children of the neighbor, as a suicide bomber.

I still see some people not wanting to believe the connection between Sadam and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda before the beginning of the war, and until he was ousted.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

I'm sure you don't coin the term "Patriotic Iraqi" too often. Perhaps I should rephrase the question; what would you call a Foreign National, trained by the current American administration, fighting in your country (I presume you are an american) to repel an enemy invader?


I realize you are new to ATSNN so I will cut you some slack, and ask you kindly stay on topic which is not 20 questions. The topic is newly discovered documents that have been translated that reveal that Iraq may have had terrorists ties, which has nothing to do with others invading the US.

Thank you

[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Code_Burger, shots is right, you should stay on topic instead of asking hypotherical questions about what the U.S. would or wouldn't do.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join