Christian
New member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Hitchin - UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Web site cautioned that the U.S. 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."
In the Name of God the Merciful
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus
To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
Subject: Information
Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:
1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.
2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.
Please view… Yours… With regards
Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission
Signature:………….
Christian said: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.
A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
The rest: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598144/posts
Well, it's a link to a blog. The blog owner seems to read into what has actually been presented.easyt65 said::shock: NAH - gotta be BS, a lie, GOP :spin: ! EVERYONE, according to the Libs, knows that there was no connection bewteen Al Qaeda and Hussein! It's all a LIE, right Moon?! :roll: Besides, he PROMISED he wasn't talking to Al Qaeda! If you can't take the word of a dictator who rapes, tortures, and murders his own people, who can you trust?!
Simon W. Moon said:Well, it's a link to a blog. The blog owner seems to read into what has actually been presented.
I've not looked into that much, the but the Laura Mansfield's take is at odds w/ what else has been presented in this thread.
Thanks for your generous advice. It will be appropriately appreciated.easyt65 said:Dude ... material!
Moderator's Warning: |
9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html This appears to be the source: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297 |
shuamort said:This appears to be the source:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297[/mod]
There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.
The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past.
But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
....
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
ashurbanipal said:See the date on the article? That's from February of 2003; we knew three years ago that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were talking to each other, but their relationship failed after only a few weeks because they didn't like each other very well. So why are these documents, which are likely the documents on which this assessment was based, that big a deal now? More to the point, why do those who would support Bush in his quest to rule the world have such short memories?
ashurbanipal said:The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Ostensibly, one of the things they got right was the conclusion of no 'operational or collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, similar to, if not substantially identical to that of the February 2003 British intelligence doc leaked to the BBC that you cited. Yet, there continue to be hints that perhaps that conclusion wasn't exactly correct either. These hints are mere hints because they are not definitive in the affirmative or in the negative and probably do more to excite conspiracy theorists more than anything else. But, the presence of this alleged 'mass' of documents there might, just might, be additional evidence that can push conclusions definitively in one direction or the other. But, in all likelihood, though, they will continue to provide interesting insights into how things really worked in Saddam's mind and in his regime - and not prove a darned thing.
Thats a very interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. After reading it, I don't come away quite as 'scandalized' as you and the author seem to think a reader should. For one thing, I'm not quite sure it should come as a surprise that alternative plans for 'war and for Iraq's oil' were discussed and formulated before the 9/11 attacks", as the sub-head proclaims. Remember, it was the express policy of the US even under Clinton to push for regime change in Iraq. Isn't this the kind of contingency planning and envisioning of alternative scenarios that should have been done?
Moreover, the fact that there were conflicting plans between so-called neo-cons and 'Big Oil' plus state department 'pragmatists' suggest the formulation of these plans involved a fairly broad range of interests in the US, thus giving voice to varied and perhaps conflicting interests. And this is all bad why? Frankly, I would be more scandalized if such plans and scenarios had not been floated and discussed, as it would have evidenced a very poor appreciation of the issues and range of interests involved.
asherburnipal said:It apparently wasn't contingency planning. The fact that this planning occurred prior to the military planning seems to indicate that military invasion of Iraq was a goal of Bush's administration prior to 9/11.
In general contingency planning is done in such a way that it's obviously contingency planning. That appears not to be the case here, but I'd want to view specifically what they obtained before saying for sure
asherburnipal said:It's bad because it makes it appear that the reason we went to war in Iraq was for their oil--which surely is no secret by now anyway.
asherburnipal said:That said, the point of my post was to show that the conservatives who have been harping on these documents, while totally ignoring the story that I posted about other documents appearing, are failing to consider both sides of the issue.
Simon W. Moon said:http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq
The dotmil translations are at odds w/ Tierney's interpretations and extrapolations on significant issues.
Who should I trust more? Paranoid, clairvoyant-dream guy from Coast-to-Coast AM or the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.DivineComedy said:Am I missing something here Simon W. Moon? Can I trust this “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime from your link:
I could care less about the Tierney thing, or whether Al Quacka was in Iraq.Simon W. Moon said:I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Tierney made headlines and a bunch of noise w/ his presentation of the "Saddam Tapes." He offers his translations and extrapolations here (.ppt). The US Army FMSO offers their version of the same things. The two versions disagree with one another. [btw IIRC, I made a .pdf version if someone can't read .ppts]
Whose version should I take as the more authoritative while I search for further evidence is what I was asking?
Are you talking about whether the info contained in the document is true?DivineComedy said:I could care less about the Tierney thing, or whether Al Quacka was in Iraq.
It seemed to me you were putting more trust in the “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office,” so the question must be should I trust what they have, the letter from Qusai Saddam Hussein March 14, 2003, about the POW‘s?
I don’t know anything, who should I believe?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?