• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection

A

Alistar7

Lifer

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp


SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

The fax comes from the vast collection of documents recovered in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Up to this point, those materials have been kept from the American public. Now the proverbial dam has broken. On March 16, the U.S. government posted on the web 9 documents captured in Iraq, as well as 28 al Qaeda documents that had been released in February. Earlier last week, Foreign Affairs magazine published a lengthy article based on a review of 700 Iraqi documents by analysts with the Institute for Defense Analysis and the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. Plans for the release of many more documents have been announced. And if the contents of the recently released materials and other documents obtained by The Weekly Standard are any indication, the discussion of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq is about to get more interesting.

These documents add to the growing body of evidence confirming the Iraqi regime's longtime support for terrorism abroad. The first of them, a series of memos from the spring of 2001, shows that the Iraqi Intelligence Service funded Abu Sayyaf, despite the reservations of some IIS officials. The second, an internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on the relationships between the IIS and Saudi opposition groups, records that Osama bin Laden requested Iraqi cooperation on terrorism and propaganda and that in January 1997 the Iraqi regime was eager to continue its relationship with bin Laden.



I for one am shocked, I thought there were no credible links between Saddam and terrorism, especially OBL....



 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I for one am shocked, I thought there were no credible links between Saddam and terrorism, especially OBL....
Click to expand...

I'm not, I knew if I kept up the faith, and prayed and sent my only son over to fight the enemy.
That one day even if it took 50, 100 or 200 years. We would come up with the proof

I thank God and GW for these miracles, in a time when so many are starting to doubt

 
There's no reason to be sarcastic about it.

Like I stated in my other thread on this topic, these findings may be a bit dubious as the information has surface after the fact which means we started this mess with, at best, a hunch.

But if this decoded information turns out to be true then it supports the administration's contention that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. Again, I take all of this with a grain of salt. This is the DOD releasing these documents and I have yet to see any third party verification as to the legitimacy of the documents in question.

But if in fact they are real it definitely throws a monkey wrench into the argument that Iraq had no ties to terrorism or OBL.
 
Iraq has always had ties to terrorism.

The AQ link has been questionable at best.

It may be that the enemy of my enemy is a temp allie.
 
Justification after the fact isn't justification at all, particularly when there's been ample time and reason to massage the record... It wouldn't be the first time that forgery and false testimony were trotted out in support of the war.

Maybe they'll release documents covering the discussions during Rummy's visit in the 80's... probably not, huh?
 
Breaking News!!!

Saddam had a conversation 20 years ago with a guy that knew the college roommate of the 5th cousin thrice-removed to the pizza delivery driver of Usama Bin Laden's gardener!!!!
 
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...
the sad fact is that even when we eventually uncovered mountains of proof linking Saddam to terrorism, the anti's still won't ever admit to being wrong in that regard... ever. Their pride and agenda prevent them from doing so!
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...
the sad fact is that even when we eventually uncovered mountains of proof linking Saddam to terrorism, the anti's still won't ever admit to being wrong in that regard... ever. Their pride and agenda prevent them from doing so!
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Yeah, right. What a phony you are.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
but, what if it's true?! while you all seem so quick to label it fraud, you must also ask yourselves "what if?"
Click to expand...
I don't have to ask myself any such thing. Esp. when the only places printing this "news" are the PNAC Weekly or the Moonie Times.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...
the sad fact is that even when we eventually uncovered mountains of proof linking Saddam to terrorism, the anti's still won't ever admit to being wrong in that regard... ever. Their pride and agenda prevent them from doing so!
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Yeah, right. What a phony you are.
Click to expand...
a "phony" what!? citizen? soldier? what!? what does either one have to do with my point?

A: nothing.
 
sigh...

There was never, is not now, and will never be ANY LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-Qaeda

Get over it, move on.

Pathetic that some of you are still clinging to this crap.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?
Click to expand...

If they are proven false after the fact, yes.

You cant find anybody in their right mind who truely believed Saddam didnt have WMD in 2002 early 2003. Not even the beloved democrats.

 
Look at the sheep lol, never ceases to amaze me.


Was Powell wrong about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi being in Iraq and his alleged ties to OBL?
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look at the sheep lol, never ceases to amaze me.


Was Powell wrong about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi being in Iraq and his alleged ties to OBL?
Click to expand...

Why yes he was. Who's the sheep? Do some research (not right wing blogs) before you post dribble.

In Colin Powell's notorious February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There?s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[11] However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said[12].

According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council's decision was made because they thought it would make it harder to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
 
weakly standard is run by the same chickenhawks who got us into Iraq. Now they are trying hard to deflect the blame and justify their stupidity.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look at the sheep lol, never ceases to amaze me.


Was Powell wrong about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi being in Iraq and his alleged ties to OBL?
Click to expand...
Why yes he was. Who's the sheep? Do some research (not right wing blogs) before you post dribble.

In Colin Powell's notorious February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There?s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[11] However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said[12].

According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council's decision was made because they thought it would make it harder to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
Click to expand...
Now *that* will leave a mark.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look at the sheep lol, never ceases to amaze me.


Was Powell wrong about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi being in Iraq and his alleged ties to OBL?
Click to expand...

Why yes he was. Who's the sheep? Do some research (not right wing blogs) before you post dribble.

In Colin Powell's notorious February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There?s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[11] However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said[12].

According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council's decision was made because they thought it would make it harder to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
Click to expand...

OWNED!
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.
Click to expand...
the sad fact is that even when we eventually uncovered mountains of proof linking Saddam to terrorism, the anti's still won't ever admit to being wrong in that regard... ever. Their pride and agenda prevent them from doing so!
Click to expand...

You need Moonbeams mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top