Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1998 Bin Laden Indictment cites AL QAEDA - IRAQ ARRANGEMENT
FAS ^ | November 6, 1998 | US Grand Jury

Posted on 04/11/2004 8:17:14 PM PDT by FairOpinion

In February 1998, Al Qaeda joined forces with Gamaa't, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the "Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan" to issue a fatwah (an Islamic religious ruling) declaring war against American civilians worldwide under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jibad on the Jews and Crusaders."

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

(Excerpt) Read more at fas.org ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: 1998; alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; binladen; indictment; iraq; iraqalqaeda; saddam
We need to remind people, especially now, when we are facing challanges in Iraq, that there was sufficient evidence about the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam back in 1998, to even make it into the indictment.

One one hand the Democrats are attacking Bush about why didn't he somehow foresee the 9-11 attack, and why didn't he act earlier, and at the same time attack him, because he removed a major threat, Iraq, BEFORE it caused a catastrophy.

(They have the entire indictment at above link.)

1 posted on 04/11/2004 8:17:16 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
MORE DETAIL about the historical connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DB23Ag02.html

February 23, 2002
Bin Laden uses Iraq to plot new attacks
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - In the light of Osama bin Laden's background and his international contacts and associations, there are strong indications that the world's most wanted terrorist has taken sanctuary in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan via Iran. And given the enduring structure of his al-Qaeda network, it is most likely that he is already planning simultaneous terror attacks on United States interests in many parts of the world.

Despite exhaustive efforts in Afghanistan, including the crushing of the Taliban regime, the US has been unable to come even close to capturing the Saudi exile, whom Washington blames for masterminding the September 11 attacks on the US, as well as other acts of terrorism. It is no coincidence, perhaps, that US President George W Bush, in preparing to pursue America's war on terrorism beyond the campaign in Afghanistan, has accused Iraq, Iran and North Korea of being a part of an "axis of evil".

A close examination of militant outfits and religious groups clearly shows that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two utterly different entities - in their leadership, in the nature of their followers and in their modus operandi.

The Taliban, who assumed power in Afghanistan in 1996, were characterized by deep introversion and the rigid application of a quirky strain of fundamentalist Islam, while al-Qaeda members have been noted for their sophisticated, extroverted and flexible approach in consolidating their international terror network since its inception in 1989, at which time they vowed to "oppose non-Islamic governments with force and violence".

Although the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the surface presented a picture of co-existence during bin Laden's stint as a "guest" of Taliban leader Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, the fact is that it was not Mullah Omar's version of Islam that attracted bin Laden and his trusted sidekick, Egyptian surgeon Aimen al Zawhari. Rather, the canny al-Qaeda leaders had ulterior motives. According to sources, despite the extreme rivalry between the Taliban regime and Shi'ite-ruled Iran after Taliban soldiers killed hundreds of Hazara tribesmen belonging to the Shi'ite Muslim community, as well as a number of Iranian diplomats in the the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, al-Qaeda's wing outside of Afghanistan maintained good ties with Iranian leaders. In fact, outright conflict between Afghanistan and Iran was averted largely through the intervention of Lebanon-based members of al-Qaeda.

Similarly, bin Laden and the al-Qaeda have maintained close relations with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1990s. In 1994, Iraqi intelligence chief Farooq al-Hijazi visited the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, where bin Laden had established a headquarters for al-Qaeda in 1991 to run businesses to provide it with income and support. Farooq and bin Laden met. Also present was Dr Hasan Turabi, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood organization of Sudan. (Bin Laden married one of Turabi's nieces while he was in Sudan.)

This meeting was to prove helpful to both bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In his ongoing fight to suppress Kurdish dissidents, Saddam needed help. This was provided by underground Islamic groups at the instigation of bin Laden. These groups later openly functioned to carry out relief work in Iraq.

Two of bin Laden's senior lieutenants, Abdullah Qasim and Mohammed Abu Islam, met with Saddam, at which time the Iraqi leader agreed to provide military training to Saudi al-Qaeda members and to equip them with arms and ammunition. One of the key goals of al-Qaeda by this time had become to drive US forces out of Saudi Arabia, where they had remained since the Gulf War of 1991.

After this verbal promise from Saddam, Saudi citizens were able to travel to Baghdad without passports, using special routes, to receive training in Iraq. Sources say that al Zawhari also visited Saddam and proposed the establishment of al-Qaeda offices in Iraq. The suggestion was accepted, with guarantees that bin Laden would never use his people to rouse the Iraqi masses against Saddam's rule. Subsequently, Iraq became the center of activity for Egyptian, Yemani and Saudi youths being trained the al-Qaeda way.

At the time that the US started bombing the Tora Bora mountain range in Afghanistan in its search for bin Laden late last year, Asia Times Online reported that the elusive leader had last been seen in Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold, and that his most likely destination in the face of advancing US troops was Iran. It appears now that bin Laden did indeed travel to Iran, using the maze of smuggling routes over the porous border between the two countries, before moving on to Iraq and making contact with the well-established Al-Qaeda network in place there.

Here he is in contact with Abu Zubaida, his new chief of military operations, to coordinate a new wave of attacks on American interests. Abu Zubaida is the nom de guerre of an influential Palestinian with deep contacts within Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. He is said to be capable of manipulating events in the Middle East. Abu Zubaida, who posed as a honey salesman, was also responsible for running terror training camps in Afghanistan for recruits from around the world for al-Qaeda's declared jihad against the United States. He has been named in an official United Nations list of people with connections to bin Laden.

Investigations show that al-Qaeda took several years to organize the September 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, with preparations beginning in earnest after the US fired missiles on Afghanistan during Bill Clinton's presidency in retaliation for the 1998 bomb attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

Any new attacks will likely also take a long time to plan, but this time Iraq and Iran are expected to play a pivotal role in any al-Qaeda adventures.
2 posted on 04/11/2004 8:18:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Turd(dle) on a fence-post won't like this.
3 posted on 04/11/2004 8:27:01 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Salman Pak ... watch for that to arise in the coming weeks as this administration begins to place its 'hole cards' on the table. Question is, will the American people pay attention?
4 posted on 04/11/2004 8:27:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Waco
President George W Bush, State of the Union speech January 28, 2003:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

===

The Democrats want to have it both ways.
5 posted on 04/11/2004 8:30:10 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Bttt
6 posted on 04/11/2004 8:38:09 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
We need to remind people, especially now, when we are facing challanges in Iraq, that there was sufficient evidence about the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam...

BTTT.

7 posted on 04/11/2004 8:42:47 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
BUMP for the truth about Iraq and Terror.
8 posted on 04/11/2004 8:48:39 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: findingtruth
Iraq/AlQueda link
9 posted on 04/11/2004 8:50:48 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TEXOKIE; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Interesting look back.
10 posted on 04/11/2004 8:53:00 PM PDT by amom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
we know it here, but since the WH is afraid to talk about any of this, its a dead issue.
11 posted on 04/11/2004 8:57:42 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
FYI
12 posted on 04/11/2004 9:04:54 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Even if the WH doesn't talk about it, all other Republicans should point this out at every step, when the Dems bring up, why we are fighting in Iraq and that it's not relevant to the War on Terror.
13 posted on 04/11/2004 9:07:21 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
i agree with you. but since the WH has no war room to issue these kinds of political talking points to people on our side, what do you expect? they they will all come up with this on their own?
14 posted on 04/11/2004 9:11:56 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You are on a roll tonight!

And we have some excellent news here:

Report Details Saddam's Support for Terrorists Who Killed Americans

The above link is the FreeRepublic discussion thread.

The actual article is :

"Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror"

It is a pdf document with substantial footnotes and put together by Dewey Murdock of the Hudson Institute.

15 posted on 04/11/2004 9:16:32 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
All the current noise from the Dims is drowning out what should be the headlines about Jayna Davis's new book about the Iraqi ties to the OKC bombing...Clinton had the opportunity on multiple occassions from 1993 onward to handle this situation and left it to others because he is a doping smoking coward. Remember he didn't want Osama from the Sudanise because we couldn't 'legally' hold him? What a maroon
16 posted on 04/12/2004 12:01:56 AM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
read later bump
17 posted on 04/12/2004 12:03:24 AM PDT by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John Fin al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; Syncro
Look here FO!
Synchro found it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36746b426e3d.htm
18 posted on 04/12/2004 12:06:54 AM PDT by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Hay I found it on FR...and some of the links came from FO...

I just thought I would bring it to the attention of this thread.

:>)

19 posted on 04/12/2004 12:09:40 AM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; Mo1
It's perfect.
During WhiteWater!

Here on FR,
NO ONE believed the OBL threat was valid,
not even the media.

This is rich.

20 posted on 04/12/2004 12:13:05 AM PDT by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: onyx
This Indictment is informative.

I was just talking to a skeptical friend (actually an employee) and he told me that because Saddam and Usama hate each other they didn't do anything together.

I have printed out the 7 page indictment linked above for him...

21 posted on 04/12/2004 12:21:44 AM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; Mo1
I was just talking to a skeptical friend (actually an employee)...






Between your employee and Mo's in-laws... LOL!
22 posted on 04/12/2004 12:24:00 AM PDT by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Hey FO .. were you the one looking for this info and timeline

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
(snip)

December 5, 2001

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

23 posted on 04/12/2004 1:06:08 AM PDT by Mo1 (Make Michael Moore cry.... DONATE MONTHLY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
This "indictment" is an obvious fraud. It strains credulity to believe that our top-notch former Attorney General Janet Reno would have permitted Federal Prosecutors to go forward with such an indictment when the whole world knows that there is not a shred of evidence of a connection between the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda. Why, if this indictment were real, it could have seriously jeopardized the Herculean efforts the Clinton administration had undertaken to prosecute Osama bin Laden. Can you imagine Bin Laden "walking" away from a Federal rap because his indictment was based on bogus intelligence?
24 posted on 04/12/2004 8:19:53 AM PDT by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ
Did you see this one?

Might we worth reminding people that there WAS good reason to go after Saddam.
25 posted on 04/12/2004 7:21:19 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
It drives me crazy how the media, especially Chris Matthews, fails to know about the Iraq al-Qaeda connection.
Case Closed
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027620/posts

26 posted on 04/12/2004 7:35:34 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Got it and have added to tomorrow's talking points for the morning show - thanks again!!!!!
27 posted on 04/12/2004 7:41:37 PM PDT by Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ (1380 KTKZ / 5-9AM Weekdays in Sacramento)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
BTTT.
28 posted on 04/12/2004 7:45:52 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ
I am very glad you are getting the word out!

The Democrats simultaneously complaining, "why didn't Bush act pre-emptively on general info" (to avert 9-11) and "why DID he act pre-emptively"(against Iraq, which may well have prevented an attack with WMD much worse than 9-11).

In the Bin Laden they specifically stated that the area of cooperation between Bin Laden and Iraq was in the area of "weapons development". What do people think that means?!
29 posted on 04/12/2004 7:49:33 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
The more attention, the better!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115745/posts

The real point is that the 1998 TIME magazine article

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,9171,1101981221-140773,00.html


said that Bin Laden wanted to attack inside the US.

"Intelligence sources tell TIME they have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet--a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye retaliation. "

Bush WAS getting just ancient history in that PDB. I would like to serve some crow to Ben-Veniste and watch him eat it, the way he was making a bid deal about the title of the PDB.


30 posted on 04/12/2004 10:18:03 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: amom
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
31 posted on 04/12/2004 11:00:25 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson