Proof of Pre-War Iraq Terror Links?

[MobBoss]

Just saw this on Foxnews and was wondering if anyone else had seen it. Sounds pretty interesting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html

A snippet:

Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.

Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit the hundreds of captured documents and materials of Saddam's regime.

This is the final installment in a three-part series concerning a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent called Khaled Abd El Majid, and covers events taking place in 1999. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as “Sammi.”

The first two translations from this notebook detailed an agreement between members of the Saddam regime and the Taliban to establish diplomatic and intelligence based cooperation. This final translation further advances the link between the Saddam regime and world-wide Islamic Jihad terrorism

Now...is this proof enough to sway nay-sayers who say there were no pre-war Saddam-Terror links? If not, how much more is needed?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Good lord, arent you tired of beating that dead horse yet? Let it go Mob, let it go! Its ok if George W Bush is wrong about something and makes a poor decision, its not the end of the world!

 

[MobBoss]

Good lord, arent you tired of beating that dead horse yet? Let it go Mob, let it go! Its ok if George W Bush is wrong about something and makes a poor decision, its not the end of the world!

How about reading the story and then rendering an opinion?

And btw, I think GWB is wrong on several issues and have stated as much. You must have been sick those days.

 

[C~G]

Now...is this proof enough to sway nay-sayers who say there were no pre-war Saddam-Terror links? If not, how much more is needed?

Can't really talk for other "nay-sayers" but I think the question isn't really about whether Saddam had terror links or not but in which scale such links existed and how those links were exaggerated by Bush administration.
Everything was overstated in order to give people the outlook that there would be only one solution which would be eventually invasion of Iraq. Lying like that is work of art. Among with will you need the tools and Foxnews surely is such device. And it seems to hit the right note for some.

I think Hussein could have never done better job creating recruit and training centers for terrorists in Iraq than US has done there now.
Jolly good show!

Edit: The message wasnt' supposed to end such high hilarious note. This is a grim issue after all. I apologize.

 

[nonconformist]

Wait, is this the same Saddam the Infidel I'm thinking about?

 

[Mastreditr111]

frankly, noone really knows enough to say whether this war was warranted or not, though we try anyway. We did find vast stocks of chemical shells and chem. components, and even more documents pertaining to the topic. does this justify the war? I dont know.

 

[MobBoss]

So, no pertinent comments? Just allegations of Foxnews being a tool of the administration and large scale lies and more denial without even reading the story or its merits?

Okey Dokey.

 

[Mastreditr111]

i read it, but are documents justification? they could well be lies designed to intimidate foreign intelligence services that uncover them. (iran) if Iran were to think they would be at war with Afghanistan and Al Queda if they attack Iraq, they may think twice

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Mob, I dont doubt for one second that there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaida, and the Taleban. Of course there was. Do you honestly believe that there hasnt been any under the table covert communication between the US government and Al Qaida?

 

[warpus]

So all this shows is that Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda were in contact.

Yeah, and?

The Soviet Union and the United States were in contact all the time during the cold war - doesn't mean they were working together.

Proof of financing, joint missions, etc. would be another story, though.

 

[MobBoss]

i read it, but are documents justification? they could well be lies designed to intimidate foreign intelligence services that uncover them. (iran) if Iran were to think they would be at war with Afghanistan and Al Queda if they attack Iraq, they may think twice

I doubt that would slow down Iran one iota if that is what they wanted to do. Plus the allegation of it being a deliberate falsehood doesnt make sense in that aspect - why do something to mislead a lesser powerful enemy like Iran when doing so would give a much more powerful enemy like the USA a valid reason to invade?

 

[MobBoss]

Mob, I dont doubt for one second that there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaida, and the Taleban. Of course there was. Do you honestly believe that there hasnt been any under the table covert communication between the US government and Al Qaida?

Without any proof of such, I would have to say no. I would find that extremely unlikely to say the least.

 

[nonconformist]

I doubt that would slow down Iran one iota if that is what they wanted to do. Plus the allegation of it being a deliberate falsehood doesnt make sense in that aspect - why do something to mislead a lesser powerful enemy like Iran when doing so would give a much more powerful enemy like the USA a valid reason to invade?

Probably because:

a)The US and Saddam had a long history of being buddy-buddy, and he figured on that
b)Iran is right on the border, and can invade at a whim, while America is all the way over the ocean, and needs to get popular support?

 

[MobBoss]

So all this shows is that Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda were in contact.

Yeah, and?

The Soviet Union and the United States were in contact all the time during the cold war - doesn't mean they were working together.

Proof of financing, joint missions, etc. would be another story, though.

How about you try reading the story?

Let’s review what we have learned from the IIS notebook.

• We learned that in 1999 the IIS met with three significant leaders of Islamic jhad from Afghanistan: a warlord and Islamic jihadist; an Al Qaeda leader; and, a man known as the “Father of the Taliban.”

• The Saddam regime and Taliban leadership agreed to diplomatic ties and a secret intelligence service relationship. They discussed security cooperation with Hekmatyar’s Islamic Jihad group. The Taliban representative also agreed to support the Saddam regime in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier, a region sympathetic to and actively involved with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the world-wide Islamic jihad movement. An Islamist, most likely the Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliated Fazlur Rahman Khalil, promised the support of Bangladesh.

• We see a request to the Saddam regime for a training center in Baghdad or Tajikistan from a jihad leader accused by the U.S. State Department during the Clinton Administration of running Islamic extremist training camps.

• There is a discussion about transporting something into these centers, including a discussion that appears to mention surface-to-air missiles.

• And, we have numerous statements of Islamic fidelity between Afghani jihad leaders and the Saddam regime, with many statements of mutual animosity towards the United States and intent to cooperate.

So, I guess this IS another story now isnt it?

 

[nonconformist]

Apart from the Taliban/Alquaeda being to mutually exclusive and very different organisations.

 

[MobBoss]

Probably because:

a)The US and Saddam had a long history of being buddy-buddy, and he figured on that

Uh....not after the first gulf war. This was in the '90s after we routed him out of Kuwait. So your premise here is absolutely wrong.

b)Iran is right on the border, and can invade at a whim, while America is all the way over the ocean, and needs to get popular support?

Once more, this was during the '90s when we had air assets all over the North and Southern Iraq. We also had military ground forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during this time. So that idea doesnt work either.

 

[nonconformist]

Uh....not after the first gulf war. This was in the '90s after we routed him out of Kuwait. So your premise here is absolutely wrong.

He was left in power (in fact, George H.W Bush has on many occasions stated he should be kept in power), and absolutely no help was given to anyone trying to oppose of rebel against Saddam.

Once more, this was during the '90s when we had air assets all over the North and Southern Iraq. We also had military ground forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during this time. So that idea doesnt work either.

This was as part of a UN team, not the US acting alone, and certainly not acting in a time of war.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Without any proof of such, I would have to say no. I would find that extremely unlikely to say the least.

What we see on TV isnt even the tip of the iceberg. Theres constant communication between enemies during war, through third parties when necessary. Its always been like that, always will be. Much more happens away from the cameras than in front of them. Surely you realise that

 

[MobBoss]

What we see on TV isnt even the tip of the iceberg. Theres constant communication between enemies during war, through third parties when necessary. Its always been like that, always will be. Much more happens away from the cameras than in front of them. Surely you realise that

I would say you would be entirely right in most cases. Example: The Cuban missile crisis was averted via such back channels.

However, prior to 9/11 the Taliban had severed any and all communications with our country. If you remember, they were in the process of eliminating anything in conflict with Islam to include some of the oldest and largest hindu statues known to exist. There was simply no "back channel" available. Ditto with Al-Qaeda today. The organization does not have a political arm like the IRA's Sinn Fein to "back channel" to, nor would it allow one given the nature of their "Jihad".

 

[nonconformist]

However, prior to 9/11 the Taliban had severed any and all communications with our country. If you remember, they were in the process of eliminating anything in conflict with Islam to include some of the oldest and largest hindu statues known to exist. There was simply no "back channel" available. Ditto with Al-Qaeda today. The organization does not have a political arm like the IRA's Sinn Fein to "back channel" to, nor would it allow one given the nature of their "Jihad".

This is the Taleban who had been invited to the US to negotiate oil deals?