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.

 

Putin Vindicated?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The question here is who had a better insight into Iraq: the US intelligence or Russian intelligence services? Further, was the Bush administration correct in asserting that Iraq was a 'terrorist state' and that Saddam supported/sponsored terrorism?

In July 2004, Putin asserted that Saddam had planned terrorist attacks on the US and US interests abroad.


IN JULY 2004, DURING THE COURSE of a little-publicized event while on a visit to Kazakhstan, Russian President Vladimir Putin made some unusual remarks:

I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received . . . information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.


Bearing this mind, just released Iraqi documentation reveals that perhaps Putin and the Bush administration was indeed correct.


The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Source for both quotes: Putin Vindicated?
Credit due to Jveritas

Personally, I am not surprised on either mention.
Putin/Russia was in bed with Iraq, just as they currently seem to be with the Iran situation. Furthermore, I would not be surprised in the least if Russia and Putin were also involved with helping getting rid of (ie: removal/moving, hiding, destroying, etc) Saddam's WMDs just prior to the US-led forces toppling Saddam's regime. Compound that with this: Moscow spies tipped Saddam on U.S. war plan. Seems that the Russian intelligence services were watching and doing a number of things.

At any rate, this does not bode well for counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and some his claims and assertions:
Richard Clark: Why He's Right About Bush Negligence on Terrorism
Bush Wanted to Bomb Iraq Right After 9/11
Clarke: Iraq Teamed Up With Bin Laden To Produce WMD
President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings






seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Putin/Russia was in bed with Iraq, just as they currently seem to be with the Iran situation. Furthermore, I would not be surprised in the least if Russia and Putin were also involved with helping getting rid of (ie: removal/moving, hiding, destroying, etc) Saddam's WMDs just prior to the US-led forces toppling Saddam's regime.


I don't understand, if Putin was "in bed with Iraq", why would he warn US?

I would be surprised if Putin for some wild reason chose to be incredibly stupid and took a risk an international incident of enormous proportions by helping a dictator to save/hide/dispose of WMDs. Repercussions of getting caught doing something like that would be so severe, that Russian economy would again collapse.

Does not make sense to me, especially considering that the chemical weapons in question were supplied to Saddam by US, and not Russia.

How does hiding/destroying US supplied anthrax help Russia in any way?

Its like why would a home owning adult try to hide a car stolen by some street punk, while cops are searching the whole neighborhood?



Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'



However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.


found here;

www.cnn.com...

It is more plausible that Putin just as everybody else jumped on the "War on Terror" bandwagon, and by making such statement allied him self with the cause.


www.therant.us can not be relied on as a journalistic media source.

It's a "The New Media Journal", presenting their own take on how they interpret current events and theories on their meaning.

The following article breaks journalistic ethics codes from the very first sentence, and is a text book example of "conclusion leading".

www.therant.us...

In order to prevent any arguments on what are the ethics code and who needs'em, see here - www.spj.org...

To identify the fallacy in detail use tools provided on this site;

www.fallacyfiles.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Repercussions of getting caught doing something like that would be so severe, that Russian economy would again collapse.


So the Europeams would just stop using gas and Russia's other natural resources. Impossible it would lead to the economic collapse of Europe. We've already seen the panic evident when Putin cut off the gas flow to the Ukraine.



Does not make sense to me, especially considering that the chemical weapons in question were supplied to Saddam by US, and not Russia.


I usggest you do a little more reading - the US did not supply Saddma with his CW's it was mainly German companies woth French playing a secondary role. There are numerous threads in here about it.


How does hiding/destroying US supplied anthrax help Russia in any way?


Obvious isn't it - the US wuld lose prestige and support for their premose of going to war.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I smell inconsitancies here.

First off, the US has been screaming about al Quida from the get go, but did not Osama call upon the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam in several of his tapes? Fact is Bin Laden is a militant Islamic funamentalist an Saddam was a capitalist. The two ideologies to not mix. They had sentaced eachother to death. People constanly seem to willingly forget this.

Any document found in Iraq post-invasion MUST be suspect. Planting information is a particular favorit ploy that just about all nations like to use. Very easy to "discover" a document you've writen yourself and with your enemy dead and defeated, who's going to claim it's anything by accurate?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this just isn't sitting right with me.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

At any rate, this does not bode well for counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and some his claims and assertions:
Richard Clark: Why He's Right About Bush Negligence on Terrorism
Bush Wanted to Bomb Iraq Right After 9/11
Clarke: Iraq Teamed Up With Bin Laden To Produce WMD
President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]


Which claims and assertions? If you are talking about what Clarke is reputed to have said in the article, that the CIA concurred with his view that there was no Saddam/terror link, the former head of the CIA's Middle East Bureau from 2000-2005, Paul Pillar, just came out in the March/April Foreign Affairs stating pretty much exactly that (and a whole lot more besides!)

Also, I couldn't download the Iraqi document in question, as it was too big and probably would have done me no good anyway since I don't speak arabic. But, if the translation is accurate, how are we to determine anything from that snippet other than that one branch of Saddams military wanted to get names of suspected volunteers for or from some other branch of his military? I'm not doubting Saddam may have given aid to terrorists, but as Pillar says, "even the most minimal and circumstantial data can be adduced as evidence of a 'relationship,' ignoring the important question of whether a given regime actually supports a given terrorist group and the fact that relationships can be competetive or distrustful rather than cooperative."

[edit on 9-4-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I smell inconsitancies here.

First off, the US has been screaming about al Quida from the get go, but did not Osama call upon the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam in several of his tapes? Fact is Bin Laden is a militant Islamic funamentalist an Saddam was a capitalist. The two ideologies to not mix. They had sentaced eachother to death. People constanly seem to willingly forget this.

You mean just as you willingly forget that within the Islamic culture, be it capitalism or fundamentalism, is the seldom unspoken clause, which stipulates that differences can be set aside so as to allow for a combining of forces to drive out or attack the invading infidels. In other words, a reversed dictum: the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, and my once enemy know becomes my friend in commonality and cause.





Any document found in Iraq post-invasion MUST be suspect. Planting information is a particular favorit ploy that just about all nations like to use. Very easy to "discover" a document you've writen yourself and with your enemy dead and defeated, who's going to claim it's anything by accurate?

Yes, I have heard all this before. But accordingly, anything that goes against your, or others like you, line of thinking "MUST be suspect," huh?

Your other lines of reasoning concerning these documents are flawed, as well. You see, there have been others that have had issues with these Iraqi documentations--which btw, were discovered as the US-led coalition was moving in to take Baghdad--oops, there goes your planted theory. As such, for example, one blogger took it upon himself to download those archived Iraqi documentations, available on a variety of sites on the internet, and had them translated--not by one Arabic translator, but for fairness, by two.


In order to solve this problem, I decided to hire two Arabic translators on my own.

I found a translation service, Language 123, that employs a number of translators who work as free agents. The first translator, Nabil Bouitieh, works in the UK as a full-time translator for several government services. He has language certificates from Karl Marx University in Dresden, the German Cultural Center in Damascus, a degree in translation from Polytechnic of Central London, and a Masters of Diplomatic Studies from the Diplomatic Academy of London. Separately, I also hired Hamania H, who works from Damascus. She earned several degrees in language at Saint Joseph University in Beirut, including masters in translation, foreign languages, and bachelors in both areas and in law as well.

Neither of them knew that I had asked the other to translate the document. I split out page 6 from the original PDF and sent it to both along with payment. They both returned their translations today, and their results make it clear that Joseph Shahda had it right all along. First, we have Nabil Bouitieh:

Top secret memoranda sent to Al-Kadisseiya Military branch No.2205 dated 04/03/2001 and to the Headquarters of Zee karr military branch No. 246 dated: 08/03/2001 that we were informed by another memo from Ali Unit military branch No. 154 dated: 10/03/2001. We urge you to inform the above mentioned unit of the names of people wishing to volunteer for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests according to the following below for your information and to let us know.

Now here’s the translation of the same passage from Hamania H:

A confidential letter of Qadisya Military Branch, that holds the number 2205 dated on 4/3/2001, notified upon a confidential letter issued by Thi Kar military command, that holds the number 246 dated on 8/3/2001 and notified to us upon a confidential letter issued by Ali squad military command, that holds the number 154 dated on 20/03/2001. Kindly provide the aforementioned squad with the names of persons desiring to volunteer in the suicidal act in order to liberate Palestine and to strike the American interests in accordance with the following details. You are informed and we therefore expect you to notify us.

You will note that all three translations of this document — performed by three different people working independently of each other — all translate this section almost identically. All three explicitly show that the Iraqi military had ordered a call for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on American interests, six months before 9/11 and two years almost to the day prior to our invasion.
Source who hired two separate Arabic translators


There conclusions?


This confirms that Saddam Hussein and his regime had every intention of attacking the US, either here or abroad or both, using members of their own military for terrorist attacks. That puts an end to all of the arguments about whether we should have attacked Iraq, we now know that Saddam and his military planned to attack us. This one document demonstrates that had we not acted to topple Saddam Hussein, he would have acted to kill Americans around the world.

UPDATE: Why “case closed”? Because this shows that Saddam had recruited suicide bombers to attack American interests — showing that destroying Saddam’s regime is an integral part of the war on terror, not a distraction.
Augean Stables

Btw, I did my own "case closed" back in ummmm, 2003.




Maybe I'm missing something here, but this just isn't sitting right with me.

No, you missed nothing that you did not want to objectively see or read. Your subjective and preconceived bias on this matter clouded what truth could have been gleaned, for in seeing that bit of truth, it would have caused you to alter or change at least one of those preconceived notions about the US and its dethroning of Saddam Hussein.






seekerof

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Perhaps Iraq planned attacks against the USA or its interest, but one must ask what level of threat they represented. Enough to merit a full-scale invasion and occupation? Certainly not.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by rizla]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join