PDA

View Full Version : al Queada link found in Iraq per CNN


Backtothemac
Apr 26, 2003, 07:40 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.html

Very interesting to say the least. What do you guys think about it? I am not wanting to debate whether the war was just or crap like that. Lets just have a good conversation about what was found, and the possible like to 9/11 especially after we know that the ringleader of 9/11 met with Iraqi intel twice.

Furthermore, what is your take on the French part of the article. That is really, really damning towards the French government don't you think?

QCassidy352
Apr 26, 2003, 08:24 PM
hmm, interesting. I'd say the most interesting is the stuff about france. The al Qaeda link is 5 years old, and frankly, not that strong. One envoy came to Iraq once... that's not saying much. Of course, this could be the start of a much bigger trail of evidence. But based on what was found here, I don't see a huge al Qaeda-Iraq conspiracy. This seems more like there were feelers put out, but if there is conclusive proof of a stronger link, it's not here.

Now the france link... that's awfully bad. Wow, that's gonna put a crimp in US-French relations.

MrMacMan
Apr 26, 2003, 08:25 PM
hm... intresting if true... BUT
The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said.
No iraq officals you say?


Anyway france and iraq have diplomatic ties for Iraqi oil, so does germany and russia, of coarse they talk.

Tell me 'who' meet or talked to these al Queda people?

We could say the U.S has ties to al Queda per-say using this definition. The U.S had al Queda members in its country before 9/11... so it is a foggy definition.

Backtothemac
Apr 26, 2003, 08:43 PM
Well, one would have to assume that there was at least information passed between the two. We do know that Atta met with Iraqi intel officers twice prior to 9/11.

I think it is pretty damning evidence that could even swell. If not, then it doesn't. Still it shows the potential threat that was there.

NavyIntel007
Apr 26, 2003, 09:04 PM
I love it. You people are like "SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!" When something comes around you say "Well... uh... um.... it's not enough... WE WANT MORE!!!" Someone from France was leaking information to Iraq, and again that's not enough. There are obviously names on the document but that doesn't mean YOU need to know them.

MrMacMan
Apr 26, 2003, 09:06 PM
Next we can go after Saudia Arabia because Osma, um, was born there.

Look if there is more evidence, nice, we acually found a link, if not, then we really have nothing more than some iraqi's meeting a terriost group.

Rower_CPU
Apr 26, 2003, 09:28 PM
I'm taking this with a grain of salt until there is some corroboration and certification of the find.

FYI, The Sunday Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/) appears to be owned by Robert Murdoch.

lmalave
Apr 26, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm taking this with a grain of salt until there is some corroboration and certification of the find.

FYI, The Sunday Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/) appears to be owned by Robert Murdoch.

You mean the daily Torygraph? Yeah, they also broke that story about a Labour Party MP being on Saddam's payroll. Hmmm, strange that the Telegraph keeps beating 1000's of other journalists all over the world to the biggest scoops of the whole war so far. I don't buy it.

The Times story about France, now that's juicy. So that makes both Russia and France that were sharing intelligence with Saddam. More evidence that France and the U.S. are becoming more strategic rivals than they are allies. Can NATO really hold together in the face of evidence like this? Or are we seeing a major global reordering?

MrMacMan
Apr 26, 2003, 11:20 PM
I see C&C: Generals plot in the works, with Europe of coarse. (if you know the plot, you know what I mean)

I sure hope nothing *major* is gonna happen.

pseudobrit
Apr 26, 2003, 11:56 PM
Bush has connections with terrorists too. The family that funneled money directly to Atta were guests at his ranch after 9/11.

Backtothemac
Apr 26, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bush has connections with terrorists too. The family that funneled money directly to Atta were guests at his ranch after 9/11.

Come on, that is a little extreme don't you think? I understand the tounge in cheek statement, but there is a difference between hosting a foriegn official and having your intel service contact a terror organization.

As for the paper, I agree with Rower, it is a grain of salt. I was impressed though to cnn run the story, and Fox did not. That was suprising. Still, if it is the tip of a mountain, there could be serious problems for France in the eye of the world community.

pseudobrit
Apr 27, 2003, 12:12 AM
I don't believe anything that comes out of the Trio of Mediawhores that are the cablenews cabal without another independent source. Of about a dozen sites I just checked, the only one echoing this story is the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, who pasted up an AP reflection of the TS-ST story.

"It says bin Laden! It says bin Laden," the Toronto Star quoted Amir as exclaiming.

Hmm...

peterjhill
Apr 27, 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I love it. You people are like "SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!" When something comes around you say "Well... uh... um.... it's not enough... WE WANT MORE!!!" Someone from France was leaking information to Iraq, and again that's not enough. There are obviously names on the document but that doesn't mean YOU need to know them.
I hope that you don't think that this one document alone is enough to convict. It is not enough. Who meet with who? The Iraqi Intel department... I bet it was pretty big. Did Sadaam know everything that was going on in it, no he could not, no one person could. GWB's dad supported both Osama and Sadaam back when he was in the U.S. Intelligence. When it was convienient to have a third party or two against Soviet Russia and Iran. We will never find out who long these connections are active, just like we won't find out who killed Kennedy.

MrMacMan
Apr 27, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill
I hope that you don't think that this one document alone is enough to convict. It is not enough. Who meet with who? The Iraqi Intel department... I bet it was pretty big. Did Sadaam know everything that was going on in it, no he could not, no one person could. GWB's dad supported both Osama and Sadaam back when he was in the U.S. Intelligence. When it was convienient to have a third party or two against Soviet Russia and Iran. We will never find out who long these connections are active, just like we won't find out who killed Kennedy.
Never a truer statement. It still will not lead us to Osma.

psssst, it was the CIA who killed him.

TMay
Apr 27, 2003, 01:41 AM
There are so many credible connections with terrorism and Pakistan, and terrorism and Saudi Arabia, that one would think that these countries would have been obvious places to look for terrorists. It would be hard to imagine, especially lately, that said Taliban/Al Queda weren't merely pushed out of Afghanistan into Pakistan, during the sustained military action. (I especially appreciate the story related to a journalist then in Afghanistan by U.S. special forces personnel regarding an air corridor left open by the US for a few days to allow Pakistans intelligence service members to escape destruction. Needless to say, it became evident that Al Quaeda got out too. An interview with the journalist is available on NPR's site).

There hasn't been ANY credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, (fifteen of the nineteen were Saudis after all) yet it is obvious to me that Saudi Arabia has been let off due to Bush Junior/Senior financial/political connections. Moreover, having James Baker represent Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 victims suit is the height of hypocrisy, especially as the Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to derail the independent commission investigating 9/11.

Bill Maher said it best. "...like looking for the car keys that you lost in the garage in the living room because the light is better there"

billyboy
Apr 27, 2003, 05:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NavyIntel007
[B]I love it. You people are like "SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!" When something comes around you say "Well... uh... um.... it's not enough... WE WANT MORE!!!"

This sensational discovery is not news. It is known by Europol that Bin Laden tried to build a relationship with Saddam, but as far as he got was a snubbing from Saddam's son.

In Europe it is just not viewed as credible that Bin Laden and Iraq were in serious cahoots, and Im not just talking about anti war people in the street. Still the European authorities with a very firm handle on world terrorist activities await the concrete intelligence Powell has promised them about this nasty little coalition. Incidentally, his proof will undermine *Euro, CIA and Israeli intelligence. (*Euro apart from MI6 that is.)

pinks
Apr 27, 2003, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm taking this with a grain of salt until there is some corroboration and certification of the find.

FYI, The Sunday Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/) appears to be owned by Robert Murdoch.

The (Sunday) Times is owned by News International, part of the Murdoch empire. The Daily and Sunday Telegraph (or Torygraph as is widely known in the UK: Tory referring to the Conservative Party party in the UK) is owned by Canadian mogul Conrad Black. The link above is for the Australian Daily Telegraph. The CNN story referred to, here, is posted from London, UK where the 'Telegraph' title is under different, although poltically similar, hands.

I can confirm that it was the Telegraph that reported the Scottish MP, George Galloway, "took payments," if you choose to believe this kind of thing.

- p

caveman_uk
Apr 27, 2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I love it. You people are like "SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!" When something comes around you say "Well... uh... um.... it's not enough... WE WANT MORE!!!" Someone from France was leaking information to Iraq, and again that's not enough. There are obviously names on the document but that doesn't mean YOU need to know them.
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein in the 80's so does that make Saddam an American? Yeah about as much as meeting one of Bin Ladens mob in 1998 makes Saddam an islamic terrorist. As much as Saddam Husseins rule was despotic and brutal it was a secular government. Something which separated it from the other governments in the Middle East (quite a few other governments there share the despotic and brutal characteristics). The only thing Bin Laden and Saddam had in common was they both hated America. If you want to spot the real backers of Islamic terrorism try looking at Saudi Arabia.

MrMacMan
Apr 27, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein in the 80's so does that make Saddam an American? Yeah about as much as meeting one of Bin Ladens mob in 1998 makes Saddam an islamic terrorist. As much as Saddam Husseins rule was despotic and brutal it was a secular government. Something which separated it from the other governments in the Middle East (quite a few other governments there share the despotic and brutal characteristics). The only thing Bin Laden and Saddam had in common was they both hated America. If you want to spot the real backers of Islamic terrorism try looking at Saudi Arabia.

you forgot that both saddam and bin laden are both Islamic.

Les Kern
Apr 27, 2003, 04:33 PM
I love it. You people are like "SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!" When something comes around you say "Well... uh... um.... it's not enough... WE WANT MORE!!!"

Absolutely right. I want more.
White-out? Why not just burn it?
I've been burned too many times, like Chile and Argentina and even, yes, Iraq, that I don't believe much of anything any more that the government says. But that's my problem... but white-out? The search for truth never ends, hence my signature.

zimv20
Apr 27, 2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
We do know that Atta met with Iraqi intel officers twice prior to 9/11.


are you referring to the prague meeting? that was never substantiated.

from the CNN article:

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.


if true, that's damning (though the devil is in the details). i'll be interested to see how this is played out. if it's never mentioned again, then i'll assume it's fabricated.

caveman_uk
Apr 27, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
you forgot that both saddam and bin laden are both Islamic.
Well that's me convinced :rolleyes:

zimv20
Apr 27, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bush has connections with terrorists too. The family that funneled money directly to Atta were guests at his ranch after 9/1

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Come on, that is a little extreme don't you think?

how about this? from this yahoo article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=835&ncid=835&e=11&u=/nm/20030425/wl_india_nm/india_113430)


U.S. may use Mujahideen rebels in tensions with Iran
Fri Apr 25, 5:37 AM ET
By Firouz Sedarat

DUBAI (Reuters) - After years of shunning the Iraq (news - web sites)-based People's Mujahideen as "terrorists", the United States might use Iran's main rebel group to pressure Tehran as tensions rise between the two countries over post-Saddam Iraq.

abdul
Apr 27, 2003, 05:22 PM
do you know what made me laugh. The journalist who found the documents, was interviewed and he said that he scraped tip-ex off and bin laden was written below.........duh.......i wasnt born yday. If the Iraqis went through the trouble of tip-exing bin laden from all the documents, why not do it with something more permanent like with a marker or scribbling or just burn the documents.

What use would tip-ex documents be to a government! dont try and insult their intelligence, they did run Iraq for a decade , this is a plea to the media.....i know u want to get a good story but please dont insult the publics intelligence!

abdul
Apr 27, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
you forgot that both saddam and bin laden are both Islamic.

islamic..........shut up!! people who follow the Islamic faith are called MUSLIM...Duh!

And how was Saddam the same as Osama ? Saddam oppressed his people so they cant practice their religion properly (not very Islamic), and Osama wants a perfectly Islamic state......if they were friends not very good ones!

pseudobrit
Apr 27, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by abdul
islamic..........shut up!! people who follow the Islamic faith are called MUSLIM...Duh!

And how was Saddam the same as Osama ? Saddam oppressed his people so they cant practice their religion properly (not very Islamic), and Osama wants a perfectly Islamic state......if they were friends not very good ones!

Chill out, mate, he was being facetious!

You're right though, Osama hated Saddam because of Saddam's anti-religion stance. He said he was an infidel and not a true Muslim.

macfan
Apr 28, 2003, 06:15 PM
A couple of notes. Someone earlier mentioned not trusting what the government said. However, this isn't the government talking. It's a newspaper, and it would come as not great shock to me if this was a hoax. How is a reporter able to come up with these documents while intelligence services do not? Where is MI6 in all of this? CIA? MOSSAD? Too fishy.

GWB's dad supported both Osama and Sadaam back when he was in the U.S. Intelligence.

When was this?

pseudobrit
Apr 28, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by macfan
How is a reporter able to come up with these documents while intelligence services do not? Where is MI6 in all of this? CIA? MOSSAD? Too fishy.

I agree. Allegedly the CIA had already been through this building; I can't imagine US intel wouldn't have found this stuff.

MrMacMan
Apr 28, 2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by abdul
islamic..........shut up!! people who follow the Islamic faith are called MUSLIM...Duh!

And how was Saddam the same as Osama ? Saddam oppressed his people so they cant practice their religion properly (not very Islamic), and Osama wants a perfectly Islamic state......if they were friends not very good ones!
I wasn't dissing muslim people. Because the people who follow muslim beliefs are Islamic... (dictionary.com says 'The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.') Sorry.

Saddam is not the same as Osma, heck Saddam and Osma hate each other. (basically I wasn't sure what smiley to add because that is what everyone points out, that somehow if you believe in the same religion you are as evil or as good)

Originally posted by macfan
A couple of notes. Someone earlier mentioned not trusting what the government said. However, this isn't the government talking. It's a newspaper, and it would come as not great shock to me if this was a hoax. How is a reporter able to come up with these documents while intelligence services do not? Where is MI6 in all of this? CIA? MOSSAD? Too fishy.



When was this? (refers to GWB sr. as CIA director)
um... read the TOP (http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/News/1976/January/30-Bush_CIA_Director.asp) what he did while CIA director... (http://www.tarpley.net/bush15.htm)

etc...

macfan
Apr 28, 2003, 09:29 PM
MrMacman,
Neither link said anything about bin Laden or Iraq. Bush was CIA director for a little less than a year in 1976-1977. Bin Laden was nowhere to be seen, and Saddam wasn't head of state in Iraq until 1979, some years after Bush was no longer in intelligence. Bin Laden was still just one of many of the family in the construction business. He didn't go to Afghanistan until 1979. Frankly, the statement that "GWB's dad supported both Osama and Sadaam back when he was in the U.S. Intelligence" is what a lawyer might call a misrepresentation.

abdul
Apr 29, 2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I wasn't dissing muslim people. Because the people who follow muslim beliefs are Islamic... (dictionary.com says 'The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.')
etc...

A better dictionary definition is "The character of the Prophet of Islām follows naturally from the Islāmic conception of God."

When refering to their character to can say they are islamic but when refering to their belief they are muslim.

abdul
Apr 29, 2003, 08:03 AM
sorry about all the **** ive ben talking about, in a mard

lmalave
Apr 29, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by abdul
sorry about all the **** ive ben talking about, in a mard

Don't be sorry for anything. The amount of ignorance people here in the U.S. have about Islam is appalling. And I'm not talking anyone on these boards, I'm just making a general comment about the U.S.

I've heard so many people here say things like "Muslims don't share our values. Our values are Judeo-Christian." Which just goes to show their ignorance about Islam. And Judaism. And Christianity, for that matter. (since a lot of Christ's teachings are too radical so they're just ignored by most Christians).