Iraq-Al Qaeda ties found?

[Guest SP-1]

LONDON (AP) -- Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday.

 

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.

 

The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational."

 

The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

 

The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said.

 

Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said.

 

"Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid," the newspaper reported. "After carefully removing the dried fluid, however, the name is clearly legible three times in the documents."

 

One of the pages, dated February 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to plans for the trip from Sudan of the unnamed envoy, who is described in the file as a trusted confidant of bin Laden's, the paper said.

 

The document, signed, "MDA," which the newspaper said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis sought to pay for the envoy's costs while in Iraq "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

 

The message to bin Laden "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him," the newspaper quoted the document as saying.

 

The other documents confirm that the envoy traveled from Khartoum in Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998 and that he stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel.

 

The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said.

 

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.

 

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

 

One document, dated September 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

 

Source: www.cnn.com

 

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It's certainly interesting reading. I need to digest it.

Edited April 27, 2003 by SpiderPoet

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

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.

 

Interesting. But it seems to me like the guardian and telegraph have been flinging bullshit allegations around for a while now.

 

see: NSA spying on UN

see: Russia helping Iraq via spying

see: This

see: Allegations that Iraq was diverting money from Oil for Food program to some politician.

see: Iraq threatening to gas Kurds the minute we start the war.

 

Fasten your seat^H^H^H^H tinfoil hats everyone! HERE WE GO!

Edited April 27, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Guest DrTom]

I've been saying there's been a link between the Hussein regime and Al'Qaeda for months now. The reason? THERE WAS.

 

Ah, vindication. All of you doubters can now kiss my Reeboks.

[Guest MrRant]

Have you ever seen a liberal/Democrat own up to anything?

 

I think Garafolo (sp) should have to suck everyone's cock for being so sure of herself.

 

Well... not mine though.... she is kinda fugly.

 

EDIT: And before Tyler gets huffy, Republicans don't do it very well either.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Should you have to suck everyone's cock whenever you're wrong about something?

 

What about people who thought the world was flat? Should they all have to suck Columbus' cock because they didn't have the financial backing to sail around the world and find out?

[Guest MrRant]

Well there were probably some pretty hot women then so Columbus probably wouldn't have minded the blow job.

[Guest SP-1]

Rant, even though I feel dirty for it, I had to laugh. I love you, dude.

 

In a totally hetero way.

[Guest Ronixis]

Like they said...

 

The game is over...

 

Oh I think Garafolo should suck...hmm...

 

Dang...Why does it always come up Ann Coulter...

 

They need each other...

 

I think Vince would love to see a catfight between them...

 

BUYRATES~!

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Should you have to suck everyone's cock whenever you're wrong about something?

 

What about people who thought the world was flat? Should they all have to suck Columbus' cock because they didn't have the financial backing to sail around the world and find out?

Columbus WAS wrong. What he was claiming was that the world was only 16,000 miles in circumference. Europe had known that the world was round since Greek times. The Portuguese had also calculated it accurately a few years before the voyage of Columbus. 1492 Spain wasn't exactly Dark Age England. They did know. Most people claimed that the voyage was foolish because it was much further than the Portuguese route around the Cape of Good Hope (true) and that he would be dead by the time he got there (almost certainly true if North America didn't happen to be in the way).

[Guest Zero_Cool]

Something funny about Columbus was that as children, our teachers sat us down and taught us that Columbus was almost above all men, and that he was a very kind person and all that jazz.

 

See: Those 1492 animated movies we always had to watch. lol...

[Guest Vyce]

Have you ever seen a liberal/Democrat own up to anything?

 

I think Garafolo (sp) should have to suck everyone's cock for being so sure of herself.

 

Well... not mine though.... she is kinda fugly.

 

EDIT: And before Tyler gets huffy, Republicans don't do it very well either.

I think I'll pass on her too.

 

And that's saying something, because who doesn't love free skull?

[Guest evenflowDDT]

More not owning up to anything :

 

Al-Qaida links still dubious

 

Richard Norton-Taylor and Ewen MacAskill in Baghdad

Monday April 28, 2003

The Guardian

 

Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein's regime met an al-Qaida envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.

"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"

 

British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.

 

According to the documents found by the Sunday Telegraph an envoy from al-Qaida went to Baghdad from the Sudanese capital Khartoum in March 1998 - two years after Sudan, under pressure from Saudia Arabia, ordered Bin Laden out and he returned to Afghanistan.

 

Intelligence officials acknowledge that al-Qaida and Iraq shared a mutual hostility towards Saudi Arabia and the US after the 1991 Gulf war, but they say Saddam distrusted the terrorist network and there was little love lost between Bin Laden, an Islamist fundamentalist, and Saddam's secular regime.

 

Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

 

The sources described them as ordinary diplomatic traffic from the Iraqi ambassador in Paris.

 

courtesy of The Guardian, though JotW said earlier they'd spread quite a bit of b.s. before, so not sure if that makes this any more or less reliable.

 

EDIT: Although in the end, the key phrase is still "would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat". Whether they ever posed a threat or not is totally irrelevant and extraneous (ooh, big word! hope I used it right) now that we've already destroyed the country in war and whatnot.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Whether they ever posed a threat or not is totally irrelevant

Well, they sure don't now.

 

now that we've already destroyed the country in war and whatnot.

As opposed to the sadistic nutjob who destroyed the country (not to mention thousands of his people) in "peace." Which was so much better.

 

eh.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In another thread, you're condoning Israel sniping at Arab children, and in this one, you're condemning Saddam for attacking his own (Arab) population...

 

Fuck it, doesn't matter.

[Guest Vyce]

In another thread, you're condoning Israel sniping at Arab children, and in this one, you're condemning Saddam for attacking his own (Arab) population...

 

Fuck it, doesn't matter.

Actually, she didn't.

 

I've noticed that you have an uncanny ability in this folder for egregious misinformation.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In the Israeli sniper thread...

 

To the sniper:

 

Well done. The world needs fewer and better of these miserable "human shields." So he was protecting children... in order to save them for their parents to use as suicide bombers. La de frickin' da.

 

If that isn't praise for the sniper's firing on children, well gee, what is?

 

And if I give egregious misinformation, you have the uncanny ability to ignore anything that suits you.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It was, as you are well aware, praise for the sniper firing on the "human shield," and it was partially retracted in any case. The article on which it was based was short on facts and long on emotional hand-wringing, much like the vast majority of your posts.

Looks he was in Israel because he had nowhere else to go.

Hmm. Okay, in that case I was wrong; I skimmed most of the article and made apparently incorrect assumptions about his motives. I'll hold my contempt in abeyance until I see something more comprehensive and conclusive, in the meantime reserving it for those who do have the motives I ascribed to Hurndall.

But then, liberals rarely let the facts get in the way when they're trying to demonise conservatives. Say what you want. Here's a link to the thread in question; now everyone can decide for themselves.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You never retracted the comment about the children, however, only about Hurndall... and I remember threads back in the day where you said you'd nuke the Middle East in a second, which leads me to believe that you don't think too much of Arabs.

 

Regardless, I don't feel like arguing today. Have a nice one.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Fair enough. I tend to think that brainwashing an entire population to commit suicide and atrocity for decades on end is a bit worse than shooting one odd child here or there, but whatever. And no, I don't think much of the Arabs at all, and I still believe that nuking the entire Middle East would probably cause more good than harm in the long run.

 

(The world now exhales, as we finally discover what Marney thinks of the Arabs.)

[Guest MrRant]

Odd... Tyler was trying to pin the nuking the Middle East on me. I swear he gets all the people who don't agree with him mixed up.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Whether they ever posed a threat or not is totally irrelevant

Well, they sure don't now.

Uhh... exactly. Now that there's no more Hussein regime in Iraq, what does it matter whether or not al Qaeda met with him in 1998?

[Guest SP-1]

Because it helps the US Prove it's point.

[Guest DrTom]

Hey, I've been accused ("blamed" might be more apt) of wanting to atomize the Middle East before. I think I said I wanted to shortly after September 11th. While I pretty much backed down from that, I also said I would if we suffered another terrorist attack like that one, and that I would nuke Iraq if they used chemical weapons on our troops.

 

Other than that, I'm a really peaceful fellow.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Because it helps the US Prove it's point.

But I mean, if they already acted on the point anyway... who do they have to prove themselves to? It's not like the UN or those against the war were really a serious factor in the decision to go to war anyway.