Al-Qaeda and Saddam

[Dreadsox]

MUCH MORE TO SADDAM-QAEDA TIE

By NILES LATHEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 7, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - The United States has extensive proof of communication between Iraqi officials and an al Qaeda-affiliated group - but has been reluctant to reveal the information because of its sources, The Post has learned.
A stream of intelligence links Saddam Hussein's government to Ansar al Islam, which wants a Taliban-style government in Kurdish northern Iraq, sources said.

And a member of Ansar al Islam's ruling council, Abou Wa'el, has been identified by al Qaeda captives as a present or former Iraqi intelligence agent, said the sources.

The sources said the group has been making ricin - the deadly toxin cops found in London when they busted an Islamic terror cell last month.

But the United States has not destroyed the "camp," partly because communications to and from it have provided useful data on al Qaeda.

Britain and Germany yesterday announced new arrests of suspected al Qaeda members who may be plotting new attacks to capitalize on the Iraq crisis.

German prosecutors said they are questioning three extremists connected to the infamous Hamburg cell that planned the 9/11 atrocities.

In London, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, British police arrested seven people who may be planning ricin attacks.

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities said yesterday that two women from the Seneca Indians' upstate Cattaraugus reservation played a key role in a cigarette-smuggling ring that sent thousands of dollars to the Hezbollah terror group.

 

[Dreadsox]

Intercepted call linked Saddam to al-Qa'ida terror cell
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
07 February 2003



He was supposed to have been a professional. He should have known better, but in the end he could not resist. Using a satellite phone, the senior al-Qa'ida operative excitedly called two associates and congratulated them on their cold-blooded assassination of an American diplomat.

The call cost the man his liberty. It may yet cost him his life but, more importantly, it could have provided America with the "smoking gun" evidence it has long sought and which apparently links the Iraqi regime to an active al-Qa'ida cell committing terror killings and planning others across Europe and the Middle East. One thing is certain: it has left Iraq needing to do a lot of explaining.

The name of the man who made the telephone call as he drove through the rugged landscapes of northern Iraq towards the borders with Syria and Turkey has not been revealed. But his alleged position in the al-Qa'ida network was made clear. Information gathered by the intelligence services of the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan shows he is the deputy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of an Iraqi-based al-Qa'ida cell.

Though he would not have known it at the time, the deputy's congratulatory telephone call to two men accused of murdering the US diplomat Laurence Foley last October ? killed in the garden of his Amman home by a volley of eight shots ? was an error of incalculable proportions. The call was intercepted by Western intelligence services, possibly America's National Security Agency (NSA) or Britain's electronic eavesdropping service at GCHQ, Cheltenham, and allowed coalition operatives to trace the man from Syria, then to Turkey.

When he arrived in Turkey, those intelligence operatives took the decision to pounce. The al-Qa'ida deputy was seized and taken to one of the interrogation centres covertly operated in the region by the US Central Intelligence Agency. In many cases, America prefers certain prisoners to be questioned by the intelligence services of countries where the rules governing the use of torture or psychological pressure are less strict. In this instance, it appears America led the interrogation, using, in the words of one official, "unspecified psychological pressure" to obtain information.

US officials quoted by The New York Times say the deputy revealed that Zarqawi was operating a cell out of Iraq, that he had been given medical assistance there and that he was planning and conducting attacks across Europe and the Middle East with up to 24 al-Qa'ida fighters. Mr Foley, 62, head of America's Agency for International Development mission, was the first of the cell's targets.

In his address to the UN Security Council on Wednesday, Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State, relied heavily on this information when he accused the Iraqi regime of having links with al-Qa'ida. "[The al-Qa'ida cell members] have been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," he said. "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qa'ida. These denials are simply not credible."

General Powell said the cell also had links to the alleged ricin suspects arrested in London and Manchester. "The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons ... Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain and Italy," the Secretary of State said.

The interrogation of Zarqawi's deputy also revealed other information, details that America has decided not to reveal formally and which underscore the problems the Bush administration faces in conducting its planned military assault against Iraq.

American officials say Zarqawi's deputy also revealed that his superior had been regularly assisted and funded by a member of the Qatari royal family, Abdul Karim al-Thani, who provided passports and $1m (?600,000) in cash.

General Powell declined to reveal this information publicly because Qatar has emerged as an important ally for any American-led operation, allowing the US to set up its main air operations base there. Mr Thani is not a member of the Qatari government and officials from that country have described him as a deeply religious man who has donated large sums to charity.

This is not the first time high-profile Qataris have been linked to al-Qa'ida. Saudi intelligence officials have claimed that after the terror attacks of 11 September, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to have been one of the senior al-Qa'ida planners of the attack on the World Trade Centre, spent two weeks in hiding in Qatar with the help of "prominent patrons".

Although Western operatives have failed to capture Zarqawi, his identification by General Powell may have sealed his fate, because Baghdad has insisted it has no links with al-Qa'ida. One official said: "A half hour after Powell mentioned his name, I'll wager he disappeared or was killed."

 

[diamond]

there you have it.
it wont matter though to the dissenters tho, mr dread.

db9

 

[melon]

Well, this was several months ago on CBC, but they had mentioned that there was a radical Islamic terrorist cell in Iran, on the border with Iraqi Kurdistan that was killing Kurds left and right, having declared "jihad" on them for building an autonomous and fairly democratic (e.g., "Western") government.

I know, however, that the U.S. news outlets would never have reported on this kind of news, preferring, rather, to report on false terror scares that are more newsworthy and on the latest thing that is supposedly "bad for your health." I think American news is the opiate of the masses--hysterical and utterly worthless.

I think if more factual information like this made it through our unofficial "national security" censors, we would have more people understanding why the situation in Iraq and even Iran is dangerous.

Melon

 

[U2girl]

So? Al-Quaeda has connections internationally, this part of Powell's presentation was irrelevant as it has nothing to do with WMD or the regime. US had plans for Iraq way before 9/11.

 

[JOFO]

So? Al-Quaeda has connections internationally, this part of Powell's presentation was irrelevant as it has nothing to do with WMD or the regime. US had plans for Iraq way before 9/11.

that statement is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin.

they may have connections internationally, but with how many governments that will provide shelter, aid, and training? also, with how many governments that hate the u.s. and have chemical/biological agents?
seems like it's got plenty to do with WMD and the regime.

the u.s. had no active plans towards iraq befor 9/11.

and melon, you are right about the u.s. media: absolutely the biggest bunch of moronic hysteria hyping fools ever.

 

[U2girl]

they may have connections internationally, but with how many governments that will provide shelter, aid, and training? also, with how many governments that hate the u.s. and have chemical/biological agents?
seems like it's got plenty to do with WMD and the regime.

the u.s. had no active plans towards iraq befor 9/11.

I'm sure there are other governments/regimes like that out there.

Um, no. Having WMD/the regime change argument (which this whole debate was started on) by itself has nothing to do with terrorists.

The republican party had a plan for Iraq back in 2000.

*edit* Besides, if Iraq gets attacked, what will it matter who or what had ties?

 

[diamond]

geez

 

[Dreadsox]

The republican party had a plan for Iraq back in 2000.

As did the Democrats! I think my town committee did too. We met on it last week. We are going to turn Iraq into a cranberry field.


U2girl, if you have some kind of documented proof as to the plan, I would love to read it. Can you provide credible links or a book I could get at my local library?

Thanks.

 

[U2girl]

No can do. It's from a newspaper (translated, could have been "Spiegel" from Germany), but in 2000 Republican party had made a platfom, if you will, on Iraq. Saying the regime must be changed to:

- maintain peace in the region
- secure Israel
- protect US economic interests (oil)
... there was a 4th reason but I won't remember it now. Also there was talk how US will lead the way.

*edit* I just remember we threw away old newspapers a few days ago, so I can't get it. But it was there.

 

[melon]

We are going to turn Iraq into a cranberry field.

I don't think Cape Cod would like the competition.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

No can do. It's from a newspaper (translated, could have been "Spiegel" from Germany), but in 2000 Republican party had made a platfom, if you will, on Iraq. Saying the regime must be changed to:

- maintain peace in the region
- secure Israel
- protect US economic interests (oil)
... there was a 4th reason but I won't remember it now. Also there was talk how US will lead the way.

*edit* I just remember we threw away old newspapers a few days ago, so I can't get it. But it was there.

OK....Here is the passage from the platform.

"The United States seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. America can use its prestige to encourage discussions and negotiations. But peace must be negotiated between the parties themselves. We will not impose our view or an artificial timetable. At the heart of the peace process is the commitment to resolve all issues through negotiation. A unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians would be a violation of that commitment. A new Republican administration would oppose any such declaration. It will also do everything possible to promote the conclusion of a genuine peace in the Middle East. While we have hopes for the peace process, our commitment to the security of Israel is an overriding moral and strategic concern.

Perhaps nowhere has the inheritance of Republican governance been squandered so fatefully as with respect to Iraq. The anti-Iraq coalition assembled to oppose Saddam Hussein has disintegrated. The administration has pretended to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but did nothing when Saddam Hussein?s army smashed the democratic opposition in northern Iraq in August 1996. The administration also surrendered the diplomatic initiative to Iraq and Iraq?s friends, and failed to champion the international inspectors charged with erasing Iraq?s nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile programs. When, in late 1998, the administration decided to take military action, it did too little, too late. Because of the administration?s failures there is no coalition, no peace, and no effective inspection regime to prevent Saddam?s development of weapons of mass destruction.

A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction. In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, the clear purpose of which is to assist the opposition to Saddam Hussein. The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime. We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq. "

Having read it.....I see that the Republican Platform actually reaffirms the LAW put in place by a congress split between the two parties, and signed by President CLINTON.

Peace

 

[melon]

FYI: this is what Clinton has to say about it all:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/index.html

Melon