Saddam Regime Document: Iraqi Intelligence met with Bin Laden in 1995 (Translation)

Thank you very much OhioWfan :)

151 posted on 03/21/2006 8:50:10 PM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)

I am not sure...like I said it was just a news break.

eyespysomething sent me to a thread written by an AP guy..that might have been it.

I just HATE when the radio news or these news blurbs pick up one sentence and repeat it as gospel...

I always am incredulous what ABC radio news reports..because I will have spent the day here..and wathing the news..and half the time ABC News is dead wrong.

152 posted on 03/21/2006 8:52:37 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw;Cboldt is my mentor!)

Impossible! Everyone knows that Iraq under Saddam was secular and therefore OBL and Saddam could not possibly work together.

153 posted on 03/21/2006 8:53:25 PM PST by Avenger

BTW...I don't know if you ever watch Hairball...but tonight Chrissy was going on and on about how Bush positively DID say that Saddam was involved in 9/11....and that he LIED about WMDS...

He got away with it quite well with Pat Buchanan, David Gergen, and Margret Carlson...but unfortunately, his other guest was Stephen Hayes..of Weekly Standard..

BUT, every time Stephen would correct Chris on his lies, Chris would try to talk over him..or go to Marget Carlson for her opinion, knowing that Carlson is worse than Chris is about calling Bush a liar...

Luckily Hayes wasn't like Byron York..who will kowtow to Chris..and not argue with him when he says lies and stupid stuff.

154 posted on 03/21/2006 8:58:00 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw;Cboldt is my mentor!)

I'm assuming that the 9/11 commission DID NOT have these documents?

Even if they did, they weren't translated, and heaven forbid that the Commission should hire a few translators.

Or use machine translation, some of which is much better than the stuff one commonly sees on the net, such as Bablefish. Or just use computers to scan in the documents, and search for key words (in Arabic) and then translate the documents with "hits". You might even use machine translation on these "first pass" documents, then have real people scan the translations to see if they are really of interest. Then use trusted human translators to translate the ones that are "interesting".

155 posted on 03/21/2006 9:12:56 PM PST by El Gato

Is the language used sufficiently simple or at a low enough "reading level" that the documents could be scanned by those with only basic Arabic language skills? I'm thinking of using trainees at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey California to "sift" through the mass of documents, turning over the "good stuff" to more experienced people, even native speakers such as yourself.

PS: All the documents that I have translated so far are handwritten ones and I think there is not a software in the world that can possibly do the translation of a handwritten Arabic document.

Actually it might be easier than doing it to most European languages. Looking at the documents, it appears that even in handwritten documents, the characters are distinct. More like hand printed English (or other Latin alphabet language) rather than a written (i.e. cursive) text using the Latin alphabet. This would Kiley make optical character recognition easier. Then it's a matter of parsing the characters into words and then translating the words. I don't know how hard it is to translate Arabic words and sentences into English words and sentences. I'm sure the result of such a machine translation would be rough, but it would certainly be good enough to then employ English speakers to screen the documents. Or you could translate to Spanish, which is probably closer in structure to Arabic than other European languages, and use the many Spanish speakers we have in the US to do the screening. Maybe even translate it to Hebrew, which is probably much closer to Arabic in structure, and let a bunch of Jews and other Hebrew readers translate it. There would be a certain poetic justice in that, don't you think?

156 posted on 03/21/2006 9:26:49 PM PST by El Gato

This is a big deal! Why isn't the MSM shouting this stuff off the rooftops? It's so frustrating.

157 posted on 03/21/2006 9:52:47 PM PST by joseph20

Thanks for the ping!

158 posted on 03/21/2006 9:57:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl

Yeah, but "put her down" is probably not an appropriate credit to the civil and artful manner that he communicated past her to the listening public.

How about "ran right over (or through) her"?

159 posted on 03/21/2006 9:58:06 PM PST by El Gato

Here is a program that will scan arabic text and turns it into text files.

The problem is that the documents are not in typed or printed Arabic, but rather handwritten text. Because of individual variations, as well as variations within even a single document, written text is much harder to "recognize" than printed text. From looking at the site it appears that their character recognition software works very well with printed text. It would probably not work so well with hand written text. At minimum it might have to be "trained" on each individuals writing style. Still as I indicated above, it appears that written Arabic is more akin to hand printed English than cursive English. Lord knows even my printing is hard enough to read, my cursive is next to impossible. Arabic writing seems to have mix of the charactertics of hand printed and cursive English writing.

160 posted on 03/21/2006 10:05:47 PM PST by El Gato

Indeed. Great catch! Thanks for the ping!

161 posted on 03/21/2006 10:15:17 PM PST by Alamo-Girl

Everyone knows that Iraq under Saddam was secular and therefore OBL and Saddam could not possibly work together.

This was always my favorite...we were expected to base our security on the religious integrity of a madman.

162 posted on 03/21/2006 11:02:32 PM PST by Dolphy

To: Mo1; jveritas

The first time I saw mention of these docs was on 3/10/06 (I will post the article below the 3/15 link)*(Also note there was a date error on the article. It was posted on the 10th, not the 20th) I've changed the date to reflect the accurate date. It had to have been a typo..as it wasn't the 20th yet! It was posted on the 10th!

Then on 3/15/06 it was announced that the docs were declassified. In fact you can go see the declassified docs at this link:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.milproducts-docex.htm

I will post that article too "after" I post the 3/10 article.

Here is the first article regarding Negroponte releasing the docs and President Bush's desiring him do so. You can see that Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, was pursuing the release of them at the time and was extremely instrumental in pressuring Negroponte in getting this done!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who'll Let the Docs Out?

Bush wants to release the Saddam files but his intelligence chief stalls.
by Stephen F. Hayes
03/10/2006, Volume 011, Issue 25

On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were there, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad participated via teleconference from Baghdad. As the meeting was beginning, Mike Pence spoke up. The Indiana Republican, a leader of conservatives in the House, was seated next to Bush.

"Yesterday, Mr. President, the war had its best night on the network news since the war ended," Pence said.

"Is this the tapes thing?" Bush asked, referring to two ABC News reports that included excerpts of recordings Saddam Hussein made of meetings with his war cabinet in the years before the U.S. invasion.

Bush had not seen the newscasts but had been briefed on them.

Pence framed his response as a question, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "One of your Republican predecessors said, 'Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.' There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."

It was not the first time Bush has made clear his desire to see the Iraq documents released. On November 30, 2005, he gave a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy. Four members of Congress attended: Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee; Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona; and Pence. After his speech, Bush visited with the lawmakers for 10 minutes in a holding room to the side of the stage. Hoekstra asked Bush about the documents and the president said he was pressing to have them released.

Says Pence: "I left both meetings with the unambiguous impression that the president of the United States wants these documents to reach the American people."

Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by Hoekstra, to have the documents released.

For months, Negroponte has argued privately that while the documents may be of historical interest, they are not particularly valuable as intelligence product. A statement by his office in response to the recordings aired by ABC said, "Analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs."

Left unanswered was what the analysts made of the Iraqi official who reported to Saddam that components of the regime's nuclear program had been "transported out of Iraq." Who gave this report to Saddam and when did he give it? How were the materials "transported out of Iraq"? Where did they go? Where are they now? And what, if anything, does this tell us about Saddam's nuclear program? It may be that the intelligence community has answers to these questions. If so, they have not shared them. If not, the tapes are far more than "fascinating from a historical perspective."

Officials involved with DOCEX--as the U.S. government's document exploitation project is known to insiders--tell The Weekly Standard that only some 3 percent of the 2 million captured documents have been fully translated and analyzed. No one familiar with the project argues that exploiting these documents has been a priority of the U.S. intelligence community.

Negroponte's argument rests on the assumption that the history captured in these documents would not be important to those officials--elected and unelected, executive branch and legislative--whose job it is to
craft U.S. foreign and national security policy. He's mistaken.

An example: On April 13, 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle published an exhaustive article based on documents reporter Robert Collier unearthed in an Iraqi Intelligence safehouse in Baghdad. The claims were stunning.

The documents found Thursday and Friday in a Baghdad office of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi secret police, indicate that at least five agents graduated Sept. 15 from a two--week course in surveillance and eavesdropping techniques, according to certificates issued to the Iraqi agents by the "Special Training Center" in Moscow . . .

Details about the Mukhabarat's Russian spy training emerged from some Iraqi agents' personnel folders, hidden in a back closet in a center for electronic surveillance located in a four-story mansion in the Mesbah district, Baghdad's wealthiest neighborhood. . . .

Three of the five Iraqi agents graduated late last year from a two-week course in "Phototechnical and Optical Means," given by the Special Training Center in Moscow, while two graduated from the center's two-week course in "Acoustic Surveillance Means."

One of the graduating officers, identified in his personnel file as Sami Rakhi Mohammad Jasim al-Mansouri, 46, is described as being connected to "the general management of counterintelligence" in the south of the country. . . .

His certificate, which bears the double-eagle symbol of the Russian Federation and a stylized star symbol that resembles the seal of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, uses a shortened version of al-Mansouri's name.

It says he entered the Moscow-based Special Training Center's "advanced" course in "acoustic surveillance means" on Sept. 2, 2002, and graduated on Sept. 15.

Four days later, the Chronicle reported that the "Moscow-based Special Training Center," was the Russian foreign intelligence service, known as SVR, and the SVR confirmed the training:

A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Boris Labusov, acknowledged that Iraqi secret police agents had been trained by his agency but said the training was for nonmilitary purposes, such as fighting crime and terrorism.

Yet documents discovered in Baghdad by The Chronicle last week suggest that the spying techniques the Iraqi agents learned in Russia may have been used against foreign diplomats and civilians, raising doubt about the accuracy of Labusov's characterization.

Labusov, the press officer for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, confirmed that the certificates discovered by The Chronicle were genuine and that the Iraqis had received the training the documents described.

The Russians declared early in the U.N. process that they preferred inspections to war. Perhaps we now know why. Still, it is notable that at precisely the same time Russian intelligence was training Iraqi operatives, senior Russian government officials were touting their alliance with the United States. Russian foreign minister Boris Malakhov proclaimed that the two countries were "partners in the anti-terror coalition" and Putin spokesman Sergei Prikhodko declared, "Russia and the United States have a common goal regarding the Iraqi issue." (Of course, these men may have been in the dark on what their intelligence service was up to.) On November 8, 2002, six weeks after the Iraqis completed their Russian training, Russia voted in favor of U.N. Resolution 1441, which hreatened "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi defiance on its weapons programs.

Maybe this is mere history to Negroponte. But it has practical implications for policymakers assessing Russia's role as go-between in the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Perhaps anticipating the weakness of his "mere history" argument, Negroponte abruptly shifted his position last week. He still opposes releasing the documents, only now he claims that the information in these documents is so valuable that it cannot be made public. Negroponte gave a statement to Fox News responding to Hoekstra's call to release the captured documents. "These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information."

This new position raises two obvious questions: If the documents have provided actionable intelligence, why has the intelligence community exploited so few of them? And why hasn't Negroponte demanded more money and manpower for the DOCEX program?

Sadly, these obvious questions have an obvious answer. The intelligence community is not interested in releasing documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Why this is we can't be sure. But Pete Hoekstra offers one distinct possibility.

"They are State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want to do anything that would upset anyone," he says.

This is not idle speculation. In meetings with Hoekstra, Negroponte and his staff have repeatedly expressed concern that releasing this information might embarrass our allies. Who does Negroponte have in mind?

Allies like Russia?

Hoekstra says Negroponte's intransigence is forcing him to get the documents out "the hard way." The House Intelligence chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4869) that would require the DNI to begin releasing the captured documents. Although Negroponte continues to argue against releasing the documents in internal discussions, on March 9, he approached Hoekstra with a counterproposal.

Negroponte offered to release some documents labeled "No Intelligence Value," and indicated his willingness to review other documents for potential release, subject to a scrub for sensitive material.

And there, of course, is the potential problem. Negroponte could have been releasing this information all along, but chose not to. So, in a way, nothing really changes. Still, for Hoekstra, this is the first sign of any willingness to release the documents.

"I'm encouraged that John is taking another look at it," Hoekstra said last Thursday. "But I want a system that is biased in favor of declassification. I want some assurance that they aren't just picking the stuff that's garbage and releasing that. If we're only declassifying maps of Baghdad, I'm not going to be happy."

He continued: "There may be many documents that relate to Iraqi WMD programs. Those should be released. Same thing with documents that show links to terrorism. They have to release documents on topics of interest to the American people and they have to give me some kind of schedule. What's the time frame? I don't have any idea."

Hoekstra is not going away. "We're going to ride herd on this. This is a step in the right direction, but I am in no way claiming victory. I want these documents out."

So does President Bush. You'd think that would settle it.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1st Declassified Iraq Documents Released

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration Wednesday night released the first declassified documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war, showing among other things that Saddam Hussein's regime was monitoring reports that Iraqis and Saudis were heading to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic — with no English translation — including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

The Pentagon Web site described that document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq.

Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names."

The release of the documents, expected to continue for months, is designed to allow lawmakers and the public to investigate what documents from Saddam's regime claimed about such controversial issues as weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida in the period before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The Web site cautioned that the U.S. government "has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

A handful of prewar Iraq government documents released Wednesday had been translated into English.

They included one Iraqi intelligence document indicating Saddam's feared Fedayeen paramilitary forces were investigating rumors in the fall of 2001 that as many as 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis were going to fight in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion.

"In the report on the status of rumors for November of 2001 regarding Fedayeen Saddam in al-Anbar, there is an entry that indicates that there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin (mujahedeen, or holy warriors) to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack," the translated document stated.

"After presenting the matter to the Supervisor of Fedayeen Saddam, he ordered that the matter should be looked into for verification of the truth of the rumor," the translation said.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., requested the release of millions pages of documents and audio recordings captured during current and previous U.S. military operations in Iraq. Most have sat untranslated for years.

Last weekend, Negroponte agreed to set aside money and establish a system to make the documents available to the media, academics and other researchers.

In a statement, Hoekstra welcomed the chance to answer questions about prewar Iraq. "Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is we discover the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war," he said.
___
On the Net:

The declassified documents can be accessed at:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.milproducts-docex.htm

163 posted on 03/21/2006 11:41:42 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife

To: Mo1; jveritas

Hmmmmm....it looks like the link doesn't work anymore! Interesting! Too many lookee loo's I guess!

Sorry! VH&W

164 posted on 03/21/2006 11:44:04 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife

To: Mo1; jveritas

I see what the problem was. The article forgot to add a forward slash. But jveritas, your post had this link in it! Thanks and I hope one or both of these articles were of interest to you. FRegards, VH&W

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

165 posted on 03/21/2006 11:49:44 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife

166 posted on 03/22/2006 12:49:40 AM PST by AnimalLover ( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))

167 posted on 03/22/2006 2:47:16 AM PST by tiredoflaundry (I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !(Snoq) The rest of my tagline redacted by court order.)

I do not think that there is software yet to translate handwritten Arabic document into English unless the CIA or the Pentagon have developed something like this and kept it a top secret project. However I still believe that it is an extremely difficult thing to develop such software.

In regards to translators with basic language skills doing the translation, it is possible that they can translate a large % of the documents but it will take them much more time to do so than a person with native Arabic language and good English language skills.

168 posted on 03/22/2006 6:01:50 AM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)

169 posted on 03/22/2006 7:08:49 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

You are doing a great job, but since you are translating the documents, does the government have a centralized place to post the translations?

If not, we need to find some place to post the translations and have a way to post any comments on those translations.

170 posted on 03/22/2006 7:48:45 AM PST by PureTrouble

I do not think that there is software yet to translate handwritten Arabic document into English unless the CIA or the Pentagon have developed something like this and kept it a top secret project.

Since there clearly is software to do the translation part, the problem is recognizing the handwritten Arabic characters. As I said before, it appears that it should be easier to do that than to recognize handwritten, as opposed to hand printed, English. Probably at least as easy as recognizing hand printed English (or any other Latin alphabet language).

The translation part is a whole separate challenge, but one that appears to be mostly accomplished, at least with regards to Arabic to English translation.

As an aside. I didn't realize until just now that the repository and presumably the translations are being handled by the Joint Reserve Intelligence Center. I think that's really cool, since once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages of the Reagan years, I was a member of the Air Reserve Intelligence Force.

171 posted on 03/22/2006 8:21:45 AM PST by El Gato

Impossible! Everyone knows that Iraq under Saddam was secular and therefore OBL and Saddam could not possibly work together.

You'll also have notice the many references to God in this document written by what would presumably be the most secular of organizations within that secular government headed by the secular "Mr. President the Leader God protect him", Saddam Hussein.

Hmmm.

Of course even if he really was secular, the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true in the middle east more so that in most anywhere else.

172 posted on 03/22/2006 8:35:43 AM PST by El Gato

Undoubtedly, which is why I suggested they only screen them, not provide detailed translations. Another possibility would be to have such people type up the handwritten text, in Arabic, and then let the existing software translate the resulting machine readable text. The people doing the typing would not even need to be able to actually read Arabic, but would need to be trained in recognizing the Arabic letters and word structure, and in typing on an Arabic keyboard. Shouldn't be much harder to train such people than to train people to understand Morse code and type up "code groups" which in themselves are meaningless, until they are decrypted that is. That is the way things worked in during WW-II. Machines or people with code books, did the decrypting part, people did the translation from "Morse" to the English characters.

People, unlike machines, are very good at the character recognition part of the overall task. It could be done. I don't doubt is being done in a somewhat similar fashion. Heck I'd volunteer to do it myself, were I still part of the Air Reserve Intelligence "community".

173 posted on 03/22/2006 8:45:24 AM PST by El Gato

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.milproducts-docex.htm

Bad link.

Probably should be

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

also try:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm

or

http://70.169.163.24/

(Interestingly, that second link is where one is sent when clicking over from the first link. However it goes through another link and gets redirected, the other URL flashes by too quickly to copy, but it is the corrected link above, that is:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

174 posted on 03/22/2006 8:52:06 AM PST by El Gato

To: Recovering_Democrat

la, la, la, la, I can't here you! la, la, la, la, la,!

MSM with hands over ears.

175 posted on 03/22/2006 9:00:49 AM PST by headstamp (Nothing lasts forever, Unless it does.)

What you are looking for is an Arabic <-> English translation program (some exist, but most are about as 'accurate' as Babblefish), combined with OCR (Optical Character Resolution) where a computer acts like an 'eye' and can read handwritten (or typed) characters and convert into ASCII or whatever.

IF there is that component, you just integrate the two.

HOWEVER, if someone has it, it will be SOLD as an application or service, since it would take alot of development time to do properly.

176 posted on 03/22/2006 11:02:55 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Shi'ite.)

177 posted on 03/22/2006 11:44:35 AM PST by r-q-tek86 (You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely)

I think the Leavenworth site posts translations, however not sure how they get there.

178 posted on 03/22/2006 11:47:34 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

"The MSM and others of influence do use FR as an information outlet."

Yes, even now the MSM have their own people interpreting this so as to show that Saddam was working to cut and/or block any ties with OBL.

Seriously, the more of this that trickles out the more hysterical the MSM reports will be. Mark my word.

179 posted on 03/22/2006 11:52:21 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)

In going thru my daily visits to various blogs I just came upon this and ....said to myself...I know a GUY THAT CAN HELP!!!!!

*****************************

From the Powerline Blog:

March 22, 2006
What Does This Say?

***********************************

If you speak Arabic, please take a look a this document, which was released on Monday. A Synopsis of the document, which is dated some time in 2002, has now been posted on the Foreign Military Studies Office site:

IIS [Iraqi intelligence] report on Kurdish activities, mention of Kurdish reporting on Al Qaida, reference to Al Qaida presence in Salman Pak.

The English summary that is part of the PDF document itself reads:

They are talking about American came from the North. Also they informed about Al Qaida groups and about foreign man (Malkrikav) in Norway he is one of the Al Qaida.

Salman Pak is a town near Baghdad; it is best known as the site of an Iraqi military facility that reportedly was used to train terrorists before the war. We'd like to hear from anyone who can translate the document.

Posted by John at 11:32 AM

********************************************************

This seems to me to be very important since it is another document showing actual ties and support between SADDAM and Bin Laden....

180 posted on 03/22/2006 12:29:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

To: All; Marine_Uncle; jveritas

This is the location where the airline plane body was spotted from satellite photos and it's use was suspected to be to train terrorist in techniques to hijack commercial air flights.

181 posted on 03/22/2006 12:35:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

Document in question is this:

ISGZ-2004-031613.pdf

182 posted on 03/22/2006 12:38:11 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

MSM response-but, but, but, there were no WMD'S!!!!

Every other fact is irrelevant-Bush lied....

183 posted on 03/22/2006 1:25:49 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)

NPR had on a Robert Malek (sp.?)this morning. He's written a book analyzing various 'insurgents/terrorists', and has a website. What do they want? To destroy western civilization? --- this wasn't even hinted at by Malek and NPR. Malek said they're disparate groups with individual agendas so the President might be wrong saying all terrorists are bad and need to be wiped out. Of course, it only takes one or two with a bomb to wipe out a city, Malek did admit that. (NPR was trying to make the President look like a warmonger.)

184 posted on 03/22/2006 1:31:52 PM PST by hershey

To: hershey; fortheDeclaration; xzins; jveritas; tallhappy

See this for an OUTSTANDING READ and Rebuttal of the Leftists such as Robert Malek !

Prospects of Terror: An Inquiry into Jihadi Alternatives (I)

185 posted on 03/22/2006 1:47:58 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Strange enough I was going to release the translation this evening after I am done with it. And now since I am done this is the translation of page 3 of the document which is the relevent one and most important one to the subject:

Page 3 Translation:

In The Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate

Directory of General Security

Directory of Security Ninevah Province

No: 10106

Directory of General Security/ Director Section 1

Subject: Information

Date: 24/8/2002

The confident (1253) declared the following:

1.In the date of 21/8/2002 an American delegation who is visiting the Northern Region has paid a visit to the headquarters of the Iraqi communist party in Shaklawa. And the representative of the communist party presented accusing the Iraqi government of hiding members of Al Qaeda organization in the region of Salman Pak in addition to members of the Turkish Workers party and the Iranian Moujahidee Khlak and that they are trained to use chemical weapons and that Iraq will use them in case there is military strike directed toward it.

1. The Kurdish communist party did inform the Norwegian authorities about the existence of inside the Norwegian territories called (Malakrikar) from the residents of Irbil and in charge of the Al Qaeda organizations there and upon the attempt of the Norwegian authorities to arrest him he fled to China with his family.

2. In the date of 15/8/2002 and common meeting was held between the two Communist Iraqi and Kurdish parties.. and this to unify their political position in regards to the international situation and the Iraqi dossier.

End of translation.

The confident means the agent source that the Iraqi intelligence is using and his is identified only by his number 1253.

186 posted on 03/22/2006 1:56:20 PM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Yes, but who were the Americans?

187 posted on 03/22/2006 2:02:47 PM PST by McGavin999 (The US media is afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"This is the location where the airline plane body was spotted from satellite photos and it's use was suspected to be to train terrorist in techniques to hijack commercial air flights."
What some don't remember is one of the major networks, prior to the Iraqi invasion had shown a documentary on Terrorism in Iraq. I clearly remember them showing video of goons running around the outside of that boeing jet up on blocks. Apparently that documentary has gone into abscurity along with a lot of other things the L/MSM had shown prior to the invasion. They are being quite dis-ingeniouse in all they do. For all I know it could have been a Sixty Minute documentation. But clearly they showed a tape someone had aquired. And obviously many of us have seen the jet sitting at Salmon Pak.
The various industrial complexes in the Salmon Pak area also where used for bio/chemical weapon development. And across the Tigres River to the east by a few miles, is where the Tuwaitha nuclear plant containing the two nuclear reactor plants, Tammuz I and II are located. Of course number I was the famouse renamed Osirak which was a 70 megawatt breeder that was used to produce plutonium for eventual use in building a atom bomb. Had the Israelis not bombed the place, and Saddam had his way, plans where in the making to construct a French designed 500 megawatt uranium graphite gas reactor which could produce electricity as well as perhaps 100 lbs. of plutonium per year. This is what Saddam really wanted. But even with all type of black mailing and threats to stop the flow of oil, the French continued to hold off, from delievery of this design.
At any rate. As time goes on, I do hope well written books that will carefully sum up the whole deal come forth.
The whole frigen world believed Saddam had on plans on abandoning his quest for wmds. The L/MSM cannot fool all the people all the time.

188 posted on 03/22/2006 2:07:18 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)

Just caught Buchanan on Chrissy Matthews show.

I always find it hilarious that they bring on some Clinton Chief of Staff, or Campaign Director for the lib side of 'hardball', and they pick Pat to be the president's supporter.

Anyway... Pat is still saying that "We brought the Terrorists in there, we created the magnet and they flooded in, I agree we shouldn't have ever gone in"

189 posted on 03/22/2006 4:10:55 PM PST by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Shi'ite.)

To: FreedomNeocon

One day they'll realize -- it's ALL the middle eastern muslims against us.

190 posted on 03/22/2006 5:23:02 PM PST by gotribe (Just tired of going easy on islam)

To: fortheDeclaration

191 posted on 03/22/2006 7:47:05 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Pray for Our Troops!)

A lot of new Arabic documents have been released in the last day. Up to 8 pages of untranslated documents now. This one looks interesting.

IZSP-2003-00300856
Synopsis: IRAQI MINISTER OF DEFENSE CALLS FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHY DOCUMENTS OF A WMD NATURE WERE FOUND BY A UN INSPECTION TEAM

192 posted on 03/23/2006 12:41:05 AM PST by justa-hairyape

193 posted on 03/23/2006 1:42:02 AM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife

The Smoking Gun!

You call THAT a smoking gun? *lol*

194 posted on 03/23/2006 7:35:51 AM PST by cologne_blood

195 posted on 03/23/2006 8:36:58 AM PST by scottdeus12 (Liberals are like festering cysts. They must be lanced, drained, and removed.)

I'm assuming that the 9/11 commission DID NOT have these documents?

Would it have made any difference?

196 posted on 03/23/2006 9:26:38 AM PST by TBP

To: Recovering_Democrat

197 posted on 03/23/2006 9:31:52 AM PST by BlueStateDepression

Yes, but who were the Americans?

Damn good question,,,,

198 posted on 03/23/2006 1:11:54 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)

Every GOP talking head better start stating that there was a connection and it is proven in these documents and if any Liberal say there is no connection the GOP bettere slap them down with the simple statement PROVE IT. Why do the Republicans alwasy have to PROVE the connection. I say they need to PROVE there was no connection. Same with WMD. They existed now PROVE they were not moved. COMMON Sense says a connection existed i.e., The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The President does not deserve to be treated this way. The GOP better start standing up for him.

199 posted on 03/23/2006 1:23:08 PM PST by tomnbeverly (Liberal Lips Sink Ships....)

This is MSNBC's spin. What else would one expect?

So now we have documentary evidence of what had been suspected - that there was a covert relationship between the Iraqi regime and Bin Laden. What other conclusion can you come to?

200 posted on 03/23/2006 6:37:06 PM PST by popdonnelly

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794