WAR: New Evidence Indicates Direct Link Between Iraq and Al Qaida

Saddam and his government were retentive record keepers. These records are now providing proof that his government had direct ties to Al Qaida before 9-11. The evidence also indicates prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks, as we all know nothing happaned in Iraq unless sanction by Saddam himself.

Saddams Files
Excerpt from the article,
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

The U.S. government will have to be very careful in presenting this information
to a public jaded by mis-communications in the past. For this information to be believed an independent review board may have to be convened to verify the chain of evidence.

None the less the introduction of this information will be enough to vindicate the decision to invade Iraq for many supporters of the war on terror.

All that remains to be done is to get Al Qaida members currently in custody to positively identify that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir is in fact the same person that attended both the Al Qaida meeting and was a member of Saddams militia.

The story that WSJ originally obtained its information for the editorial piece on political correctness of reporting Iraq - Al Qaida linkage.
Case Closed
Relevent Quote from the article,

"Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:
24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee."

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Phoenix]

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by Valhall]

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen

I would be EXTREMELY carefull in crossreferencing names of arabic people and portray it as evidence.
And seeing this is pritty much built on only that name comming up, this looks really weak for evidence.

Repetition of names is even more common with arabs then it is in europe or the US.

Just like you can find Jan Janssen invading everything in belgium and John Smith in everything in the US, every country has one of those names that repeats itself indefinatly.

In arabic, the differentiation in first names in arab is rather limited, since they, much more then us and without altering the name, use names of past prophets and religious figures.

www.arab.net... is a good site for an explination on the general composition of arab names.

If you count the people in belgium and holland that have as last name:

Janssen
Jansen
Jansens
Janssens
Jans
Jensen
Jensens
Jenssens
Jens
Jenssen

that combined with first names:

Jan
Peter
Tim
Koen
Brecht
Marc
Bart

You'll get a rather huge number of people with the exact same name, both first and lastname, and thats while we, belgium and netherlands, are only 25-27 million strong combined. So when talking about all muslims, you'd get a figure of millions that can have the same name and a whole lot more people that have names that are extremely similar. Also you have to consider that arab's have a rather important part of their life pointed to cary on the family name.

In europe and the US, more then enough people have a family with only daughters, and with this, their last name not carried on by them to the next generation.

Arabs just make babies till they have sufficient sons to carry on the name.

thematrix, I do aknowledge your point with this statement,

"All that remains to be done is to get Al Qaida members currently in custody to positively identify that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir is in fact the same person that attended both the Al Qaida meeting and was a member of Saddams militia."

I can not recall hearing the middle name in the news when arabic names are listed, Hikmat seems kind of unusual, does anybody on the board know if that name is common or unusual?

Originally posted by Phoenix Excerpt from the article,

The article is opinion from the WSJ OpinionJournal, not a news article.

OK SO, I'm sure alternate links will soon be available, I'm searching now.

I also think this statement by WSJ makes this more than opinion,

"'Our government sources, who have seen the translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lt. Colonel,"

And I also believe this goes beyond just opinion,

"Newly uncovered files examined by U.S. military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as "a direct link" between Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001."

Corrborating links have been added to the WSJ Story at original post and in later posts

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Phoenix]

To even further strengthen my argument.

Schotsmans is my last name. Its a name thats not all to common in belgium, holland or even all of europe for that matter.

At the same time, in the city I live in, living about 3 km appart, there are 2 people called "Marc Schotsmans" one is my father, another is someone who isn't related to my family for at least 20 generations.

My fathers family has been present around here for a whole lot of generations, while this other persons family originates from Scottland 2 generations ago.

Then, Marc Schotsmans' (not my father) daughter is called Heidi Schotsmans.
My oldest sister is also called Heidi Schotsmans.

The other Marc Schotsmans moved here from Oostende, wich is at the belgian coast, about 15 years ago. My sister is in her 30's and his daughter is 28.

Added supporting link, bump

In a little publicized court case on behalf of 9-11 victims a ruling was made for the plaintiffs on Iraqi complicity in the 9-11 attack.

Judge Baers Decision

Please read the article in its full using the above link.

"In a woefully underreported decision on May 8, 2003, Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of two 9/11 victim families who had sued Iraq and others claiming they were culpable in the attacks. The court awarded plaintiffs $104 million based on the Baer's findings.

The ruling by Judge Baer - a Carter appointee, by the way - was quite detailed. In fact, we suspect that the reason for the media's near-blackout on the case is because most Americans would consider his findings to be very persuasive."

Why more people are not insisting on full reporting by the media astounds me, those that insist there is no bias in the media are deluded or putting politics over the truth which is harmful to democracy.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Phoenix]

with the WSJ peice coming out a few days ago, I must admit I did not make full use of our sites valuable search function, my apologies to Seekerof who has assembled a great deal of infomation in his post from November 2003,

Case Closed, Saddam and the Osama Connection

This post by Seekerof has a great deal of very interesting and thorough links on Iraqi and Al Qaida connections, anybody with an interest in this subject should start here.

Actually Phoenix,
I find your thread to be just as fascinating in that now there is found or reported to be new evidences; interesting to say the least.
Good find.
As the Iraqis were so well known for their excellent record keeping, more will undoubtedly unfold on this, and I dare say, I am quite looking forward to what more "new" information is found and/or brought forth, on a variety of past issues, in the near future.



seekerof

Again more damning evidence of the connection between Al Qaida and Saddams Iraq are due to be published in the upcoming June 7 issue of The Weekly Standard, the article details connection as far back as 1992 and cites examples of Clinton administation belief in these connections by people such as Richard Clarke and George Tenet and media such as Newsweek, ABC and NPR back in the 1998 period - people this is NOT something made up to help Bush it goe's much further back than his administration.

The Connection

I especially urge skeptics to read page two of the article before dismissing the information as Bush administration conspiracy to justify the war.

The conspiracy is the medias refusal to report on what it knows and what it has reported on in the past with no eqivocation - the only difference now is the party that holds the whitehouse - this is a disservice to us all.

An interesting excerpt,
"Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant."

That last sentence is damning all by itself.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Phoenix]

Pheonix and Seeker seem to enjoy "proving" their points with nice little circular arguments that in of themselves tell us little or nothing. I don't care if Shakir was OBL's spokesman in Iraq, it just doesn't show the complicity you infer. Just what is the 'point" you are trying to make? How hard would it be to argue complicity between The US Gov. and either Al Queda or Iraq? Not very hard. Your empty assertions prove only your stubborn resolve to attempt to justify an immoral, illeagal, and unconstitutional invasion of a sovereign Nation.

Get over it, move on!

Originally posted by scottsquared
Pheonix and Seeker seem to enjoy "proving" their points with nice little circular arguments that in of themselves tell us little or nothing. I don't care if Shakir was OBL's spokesman in Iraq, it just doesn't show the complicity you infer. Just what is the 'point" you are trying to make? How hard would it be to argue complicity between The US Gov. and either Al Queda or Iraq? Not very hard. Your empty assertions prove only your stubborn resolve to attempt to justify an immoral, illeagal, and unconstitutional invasion of a sovereign Nation.

Get over it, move on!

SS, could it be this keeps coming up because for the past two and one half years there has been a concerted effort on the part of certain elements in our society abjectly denying the possibility (likely by evidence now coming out) that Saddam did in fact have prior dealings with Al Qaida before the invasion and further more that he had advance knowledge of 9/11. Now I know this blows holes in many peoples favorite conspiracy theories about both 9/11 and the invasion but when there are many varied ideas for something happening, usually in the end it is the simple most obvious path to the truth that prevails.

Saddam had the motivation, Osama had the means and the motivation - what a perfect team!

And now for the reason I have revived the thread, to post more and continuing news stories supporting the original story.

New Iraqi Chief: Evidence Linking Saddam to Al Qaida is "Genuine"

Excerpt,
"Though the notion that Iraq played a role in 9/11 is considered heresy in U.S. intelligence circles, newly appointed Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in December that a document purported to be from Saddam's intelligence service that places lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks was indeed "genuine."

"As reported by the Telegraph at the time, the document - a handwritten memo dated July 1, 2001 - provides a short resume of a three-day "work program" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's terrorist training camp in Baghdad."

"Nidal was executed by Saddam's secret police in August 2002 in what some suspect was a bid to keep him from telling what he knew about 9/11."


SS, I know its nearly three years since 9/11 and everybody has their idea of what happened, plus we have had two politically unpopular wars connected with that event making any reasonable or common sense explanation just as unpopular with many politically charged individuals.

Even so when new evidence crops up giving a more conventional explanation for events comes along I'm not going to ignore it just because it does not fit in with popular conspiracy theory.

Until such time that someone here on ATS can PROVE these documents and news stories as false or planted, they fit events much better than convoluted theory and inuendo.

Further reading,
NRO

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Phoenix]

Nothing, I repeat; NOTHING from Newsmax.com can be taken for face value!!

Who cares?!? Move on!!! You will NEVER justify the Doctrine of Pre-emption employed by this administration.

See you in HELL!!!

There is an actual Iraq/Al-Queda link that is still classified information and links many high ranking officials from Al-Queda with IRaq AND the sept 11th attacks. I expect this information to come out as the next few months continue but of course many people don't care if there is a link or not because they are so stuck in their ways of hating the Bush administration who in my oppinion is doing a superb job all around.

Edit: Realize many people who have incriminating information against Iraq and Al-Queda need to be protected. By bringing forward information to the press/media could endanger those who come forward with the intelligence. The US government would rather protect one citizen than endanger lives to prevent your administration bashing.


[edit on 10-6-2004 by Raphael]

A-HA!!! I knew it! I knew it all along!