NEW TODAY possible al-Qaeda/IRAQ link

[5teamparlay]

Atta linked to Baghdad in dubious document
By Con Coughlin
London
December 15, 2003

For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery by Iraq's interim government of a document that directly links Mohamed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true.

Ever since four hijacked civilian jets devastated the United States eastern seaboard on September 11, 2001, there have been any number of reports circulating in Western intelligence agencies suggesting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had close links to al-Qaeda.

But while both US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have dropped numerous hints that they believe there was a significant level of co-operation between Saddam and al-Qaeda, their intelligence agencies have actively sought to downplay the significance of the relationship, especially the suggestion that Saddam was in any way involved in the September 11 attacks.

However, the tantalising detail provided in the intelligence document uncovered by Iraq's interim government suggests that Atta's involvement with Iraqi intelligence may well have been far deeper than has hitherto been acknowledged.


advertisement

advertisement

Written in the neat, precise hand of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and one of the few named in the US Government's pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis not to have been apprehended, the personal memo to Saddam is signed by Habbush in distinctive green ink.

Headed simply "Intelligence Items", and dated July 1, 2001, it is addressed: "To the President of the Baath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you." The first paragraph states that "Mohamed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision. We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him... He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." There is nothing in the document that provides any clue to the identity of the "targets", although Iraqi officials say it is a coded reference to the September 11 attacks.

The second item explains how Iraqi intelligence, helped by "a small team from the al-Qaeda organisation", arranged for an (unspecified) shipment from Niger to reach Baghdad by way of Libya and Syria.

Iraqi officials believe this is a reference to the controversial shipments of uranium ore that Iraq acquired from Niger to aid Saddam in his efforts to develop an atom bomb.

While it is almost impossible to ascertain whether the document is legitimate, Iraqi officials are convinced of its authenticity, even though they decline to reveal where and how they obtained it.

- agencies

 

[jimbutorac]

5team,

Patriot posted this the other day and I checked multiple major news sites (Fox, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, etc

and could find no mention.

What's the source?

 

[FloydGondolli]

The article is from an Australian news site

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/14/1071336810270.html

Let me make a prediction here. Liberal Democrats will say the document is a fake and Conservative Republicans will believe it is genuine. What else is new.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[WildBill]

Problem with these kinds of issues is that if we followed a policy of anyone that aided Al Qaeda at anytime, we would have to overthrow many more governments. Syria is definitely on the list, Saudi Arabia surely has given refuge to them, even Indonesia and the Philippines would probably be added to the list of countries we should invade if this was the lone criteria. I don't get it though, why spend all this time and effort justifying what is already done.

I think I speak for most people that aren't out on the fringes that just say what is done is done, lets all move onto what we still can control. I mean if we continue to try to justify past decisions, are we going to go all the way back to criticizing Roosevelt for not entering WWII before Pearl Harbor, thereby costing the casualties in that attack? Second-guessing, while a popular game, really accomplishes little and I would say both sides need to quit and just focus on what lays ahead instead of burning so much energy on past arguments.

 

[jimbutorac]

Bill,

I guess the reason is that it strikes to the very credibility of the current Administration.

Supposedly we went to war because:
a. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
b. They were an imminent threat to America
c. Iraq supported terrorist groups which if these alleged weapons of mass destruction were given, could cause serious damage to the USA

None of these to date have been proven to be true.Maybe they will be proven in the future and I think it's a huge issue.

 

[FloydGondolli]

Mudbone,

You are mis-stating some things here.

1. Iraq did DEFINITEKY have WMD at some point. They used them on Kurds and Iran so they HAD THEM. Whether they still had them in 2003 is the question that is yet to be fully answered. In my opinion they will be found. How many who knows.

2. Iraq as an imminent threat was never a justification for war. The justification was to disarm a rogue state that very likely had WMD BEFORE they became an imminent threat.

3. The Iraq to AL Qaida link may or may not have existed. This memo referenced above could be a 'smoking gun'. Time will tell but if true:

Follow the bouncing ball:

Saddam hates the USA -- Saddam has chem/bio weapons but no means of delivering them to the USA -- Al Qaida hates the USA and has the ability to deliver WMD to USA but needs the weapons -- Saddam meets with Al Qaida to supply them with weapons -- Al Qaida takes weapons from Saddam and smuggles them into USA -- weapons used on USA by Al Qaida and kills thousands.

At what point in that chain should the US act to defend itself? Do you wait until Al Qaida has the weapons and the attack is imminent or do you remove the source of the weapons?

Let's face the WHOLE WORLD (France included) thought Iraq had WMD (and I think they will be found). That fact believed as a given by all combined with the intel that there was an Iraq - Al Qaida link justified the attack. PERIOD.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[GrandSlam+]

A reporter earlier today said the US has a Iraqi scientist who refused to say where the WMD were until Sadaam was caught...he apparently feared for his family's life if he revealed the details. Here's part of a story from an Israeli newspaper:

ATHENS - Deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein could be offered a deal in which he would give his captors information on if and how he hid weapons of mass destruction and if he smuggled some of them into Syria. In exchange, he would face life imprisonment and not be executed for war crimes, senior Iraqis attending a conference here on the future of the region have hinted. Saddam was captured, alive and well, on Saturday near his hometown of Tikrit. U.S. troops found him hiding in a subterranean hole. He did not resist.
The Iraqi figures also said that, even if the number of concealed weapons of mass destruction is not large, Saddam will certainly know who he appointed to take charge of the operation and in what area the weapons are being stored.
The possibility that Saddam transferred some of the weapons to Syria was raised on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, when satellite pictures showed convoys moving from Iraq to Syria. It is still unknown precisely what was transported in these convoys, but it is clear that this was a secret operation between Iraq and Syria.
It was a unique experience to hear the news of Saddam's capture while in the company of Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians and other Arabs. One of the Kurdish representatives burst into the conference room in tears and demanded an immediate halt to the discussions.
"Saddam Hussein has been captured," he said, adding they had received word from Kurdistan, before the television reports. The delegate also claimed that most of the information leading to the deposed dictator's arrest had come from the Kurds, who had organized their own intelligence network and for months had been trying to uncover Saddam's tracks.
He further claimed that some six months ago, the Kurds had discovered that Saddam's wife was in the Tikrit area. This intelligence was transferred to the Americans, but the Kurds never received any news on what the coalition forces did with the information and were angered by this.
If it does emerge that most of the information that led to Saddam's arrest did indeed come from Kurdish sources, this will probably boost their status with Washington.

 

[jimbutorac]

Floyd,

I stand by all of the above points from my previous post. Remember Colin Powell citing the erroneous "uranium from Niger" memo?

It is this whole credibility issue which is a major problem with the rest of the world.

Think about it - how did we go about squandering all the public goodwill most of the world offered after 9/11 to having mass protests against the USA a little more than a year later?

A. By ignoring world opininon and launching an invasion of Iraq
B. By providing no evidence of our alleged justifications

Hey, I'm glad Saddam was caught. Faster we get this in the rearview and get the troops home, the better.

When I was in the Marine Corps, they taught us to press forward as fast as possible to get out of a kill zone when ambushed. I believe the same here - anything that gets our current troops out of the kill zone that is Iraq - such as the capture of Saddam, is a good thing.

This is starting to turn into a post of McIrish lengths, but one last point...

I was all for going into Afghanistan cause there was no doubt that Taliban supported Al-Queda. Do not see same evidence for Iraq.

 

[SanJose]

It won't matter what the evidence suggests. You guys don't understand at all.

We could have videotape of Saddam Hussein having anal intercourse with Osama Bin Laden while they discussed plans for the 9/11 attack and the liberals would STILL say there was no real proof of Al Qaeda/Saddam link. After playing the videotape, you could have Saddam and Osama confess to being connected on international television and it STILL would mean nothing to liberals.

 

[WildBill]

And what difference does a link make now? All I and most of America wants is the conclusion that there is no current link and that they aren't festering in Iraq at this moment. If they were linked 10 years ago fine, we know it now but it makes little difference for the future. That is the problem with this Bush and I said it before the war even started. He needs to be firm and make his decisions and then stop going back and defending them. If the Dems want to attack him on them, they look stupid. After all if all that you can campaign on is the war, you are going to lose it is quite simple. Most people aren't going to vote due to issues of a war that is in the past. That is why I consider all this stuff a waste of time. Sure some like to hear about them and some like to gloat, but what matters is today and tomorrow and wasting energy on yesterday only slows us down. A person who follows my strategy will do real good in politics, problem is that the big two parties won't let someone like this out into the public.

 

[Oceans11]

Im surprised they took him alive.

If he gets a fair trial then it could get pretty messy, all he needs is smart legal counsel.
The West supported Saddam for years.
At the very least, the West is an accomplice to the fact, as he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

The US was a major supporter of this murdering lunatic, because he was a bulwark against the Khomeni regime.

The WMD he used were produced in West Germany, and the Nuclear programme was produced by the French.

..ees just beezness my friend..

 

[Oceans11]

Oh yeah, and the Brits were essential to his supergun project.

This mass murder was a team effort, he couldn't have done it without us.

But then theres two kinds of justice in this bad old world.

Proper Justice and Victors Justice.

Theres no prizes for which one Saddam is getting for Xmas.

 

[FloydGondolli]

mudbone,

I understand your position, I don't agree but I understand it, but you didn't address my question:

Follow the bouncing ball:

Saddam hates the USA -- Saddam has chem/bio weapons but no means of delivering them to the USA -- Al Qaida hates the USA and has the ability to deliver WMD to USA but needs the weapons -- Saddam meets with Al Qaida to supply them with weapons -- Al Qaida takes weapons from Saddam and smuggles them into USA -- weapons used on USA by Al Qaida and kills thousands.

At what point in that chain should the US act to defend itself? Do you wait until Al Qaida has the weapons and the attack is imminent or do you remove the source of the weapons?

Do you wait for conclusive proof which would in nearly all likihood only come AFTER the attack has been made (remember the the proof about Afghanistan was determined only after 9-11 occurred and thew hijacker identified)? Or do you act preventively?

What would you do??

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[FloydGondolli]

Eek,

I agree it will be an interesting trial, many angles (though none ultimately successful) for the defense.

In all fairness to the British, their role in the supergun project was unknowing (the order for the tubes that would make up the gun barrell was made in the guise of oil pipeline equipment).

And the designer of the gun, the guy who worked with the Iraqis and took Saddam's money, was a Canadian, Gerald Bull.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[PatPatriot]

eek...I know your compassionate liberal and for human rights...you just don't like people.
The fxckin guy murdered a million people!!!
He is a terroist...He will be implicated in aiding and abetting Al Q.

Mudbone..Con Coughlin was on Fox and msnbc all day off and on yesterday explaining his article, he is very well respected and credible.....Also the Uranium thing is not dead yet either....Monsoor Ijaz is a well connected pakistinian that writes for the National Review his sources in the region say that there is a scientist over there that says he took care of the uranium and even has cancer from it.
What I don't understand is how can people on the left believe a terroist thug....but can come up with all these theories on Cheney and Halliburton and every far fetched conspiracy under the sun...They have no problem connecting the dots then.

 

[5teamparlay]

WE CAN EITHER BE PROACTIVE, and do things before damage is done WMD used by saddam against the world.

Or be reactive and wait until something happens as in 9/11. I dont think the gov should tell the rest of the world what we know anyways(by telling the people. I trust many of the reasons will come out.

by the way there are many many who deny the holocaust ever happenned.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 5teamparlay:
WE CAN EITHER BE PROACTIVE, and do things before damage is done WMD used by saddam against the world.

Or be reactive and wait until something happens as in 9/11. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By that logic, the USA would have been blown to bits years ago.

As part of the international community, I have to agree with Mudbone who wonders how the US went from being the targets of sympathisers to the targets of protests. The US's foreign policy has often been labelled 'bullying' and, in its dealings with the UN over the Iraq issue, most of us were disgusted by the 'us vs. them/with us or against us' mentality.

Whether or not the WMDs existed really became a secondary issue, which is terribly sad, really, since we know that Saddam did indeed have them at one time or another. The primary issue came down to the fact that the US gov't deems opposing viewpoints ultimately irrelevant, and they make that point loud and clear in their foreign policy practices.

As your closest neighbour, and your largest trading partner, I was very distressed by how dismissive Americans (and I mean the citizens) were toward Canadians. On the night of 9/11 Canadians in droves opened their doors and invited perfect strangers to stay in their homes until their flights were rescheduled. Canadians are known worldwide for their peacability, kindness and tolerance. A year later, these same traits that begged your gov't to follow UN procedure on the Iraq issue were now the justification for a mass boycott of Canadian products, being told that we are 'against you', and now the latest ommission from contract bidding. (By the way, our new PM has decided to continue to donate the remaining $100 million pledged toward Iraqi reconstruction. I'm not 100% sure what his motives are, but I am pleased by this news.)

Never has the anti-American sentiment been stronger in Canada than it is now. And I, for one, think that is a very sad, and at one time avoidable, thing.

 

[Oceans11]

Patriot, its not a case of people hating.

More a cynicysim nurtured by the ease with which entire groups of people are manipulated by whatever gets pumped into thier faces in the previous 24 - 36 months by the mass media machine.

20years ago after the Carter debacle and the hostage crisis Saddam was your bestest cuddliest buddy as he waged war on the Iranians.

The fact that he was a mass murderer was irrelevant.
He was a great big loveable cuddly buddy of the USA, fighting the dreaded bogeyman of that particular period, the Iranians.
--------------------------------------

The fact that he's just been caught...10 days before xmas...is kind of convenient, and fits right in with a cynical manipulation BS theory.
Not a shot was fired, and he had a whole 2 bodyguards.

This gives them just enough time to pluck him, fill him with stuffing and deposit him on top of a christmas tree in Times Square.
I presume George gets to light up the tree on xmas day.....

 

[FloydGondolli]

xpanda,

Two things.

First, we would rather be safe than have your sympathy so our foreign policy will be dictated by what we believe makes us safer, not what garners the most sympathy from Canada, France, Germany, etc.

Second, Bush made every possible effort for six months to get a UN Security Council consensus on Iraq. Ultimately no consensus could be reached mainly due to France, Germany and Russia acting in their own financial self-interest. Ultimately, the UN does not decide US foreign policy and we, along with Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland (and nearly all of Eastern Europe) and acted in our self interest.

Americans like Canada and Canadians, but we aren't going to give you final approval on our security decisions - EVER. Get used to that idea.

As for the boycotts etc., it is a reaction to the fact that it is perceived that Canada, on this very important security issue, chose to side with the French, Germans and Russians over the USA and Britain (its more traditional allies) and that is a major shift in Canadian policy. In other words, you climbed in bed with France, now you have to sleep with them.

I am hopeful Paul Martin will do a much better job than Chretien. Chretien loved Clinton and Gore so much that he never gave Bush a chance to develop good relations. It so far looks like Martin will be an improvement.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[Oceans11]

If my cynicysm is correct, its not the first time its happened either.

--------------------------------------------

But Iraqi doctors in Nasiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for the soldier in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital and one of only two nurses on the floor.

"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her.

Jessica amnesia

"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."

Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.

"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm