Posted on 03/17/2002 11:01:06 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
A report set to hit newsstands Monday documenting ties between Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence service and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization is being called "a blockbuster" by former CIA Director James Woolsey.
The New Yorker magazine report details cooperation between al Qaeda agents in Northern Iraq and intelligence operatives working for Saddam Hussein, Woolsey told CNN's "Late Edition," including:
*Details of the ten-year-long working relationship between al Qaeda and Mukhabarat agents in attacks on the Kurdish minority.
*Evidence that the Mukhabarat smuggled weapons into Afghanistan to help al Qaeda forces.
*Accounts of al Qaeda refugees being brought into Iraq.
The New Yorker report also quotes Kurdish sources as saying the CIA had no interest the Mukhabarat-al Qaeda links, prompting this reaction from ex-Director Woolsey:
"The CIA has over recent years not been real enthusiastic about the Iraqi resistance and I think that's a shame. If they got beat on this story by the New Yorker and (its reporter) Jeff Goldberg, three cheers for the fourth estate."
"In think (the New Yorker) piece is a blockbuster," added Woolsey.
Saddam leads a secular regime, the mullas hate him. In the eyes of the mullas Saddam is a bigger Infidel than George Dubya
Because they don't hate Saddam as much: He is an enemy of the Saudi royal family, whom Bin Laden et al see as evil and un-Islamic. He shares with them the immediate goal of getting the United States military out of the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. He hates Israel with a passion and dreams of her destruction, just as Al-Qaeda and most other Islamists.
They have a natural alliance of mutual interests, and that's more important to them than dogmatic differences.
Really. Guess I missed the reports of planes crashing into bagdad skyscrapers.
Speaking of, do you think CNN has their cameras set up yet?;-)
Islamic fundementalists are the greatest single threat to Saddams power,
Saddam is alot of things, but I am really not convinced he is a supporter of Islamic terrorists
LOL, if saddam can figure it out, CNN may also.
Where does that come from? It defies the Arab logic of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
So then I guess the mullahs will be sending back the aid they got from China and North Korea?
Well, not all of Baghdad, just Saddam's palaces, the Republican Guard and his facilities for making nukes, bio-weapons and chemical weapons. That's all and we'll liberate the Iraqi people, whose reaction will be just like the Afghanis. It doesn't make sense to wait for Saddam to attack us again and again and again.
Really ? Maybe ATTA went to Prague to meet the iraqi's about vacationing in their wonderful country.
Perhaps not in general, but alliances are always shifting in the Arab world. It could be that Saddam is providing support to al Qaeda for the same reason that the Saudis pay off Islamic fundies and propagandize against Israel and America: to deflect anger and rage away from themselves and onto us.
| The Washington Times April 24, 2001 Saddam´s revenge by Joe Lauria Saddam Hussein has vowed revenge for air strikes near Baghdad earlier this year. Conventional Washington wisdom says he´s sufficiently boxed in by sanctions and the no-fly zone to hit back. But the Iraqi leader has called on Arabs outside Iraq to strike U.S. interests in the region. That, according to Iraq expert Laurie Mylroie, fits Saddam Hussein´s pattern of revenge since the 1991 Gulf War: masterminding terrorism through Arab fundamentalists who are left holding the bag. In "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America," Miss Mylroie argues that the Clinton administration erred by prosecuting such individuals in Justice Department-led criminal trials, rather than conducting national security investigations that would have fingered Saddam Hussein. Miss Mylroie, who co-wrote the 1991 bestseller "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf," sees his fingerprints on four terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1995 bombing of the U.S. training mission for Saudi troops in Riyadh; the 1996 attack against the U.S. base in al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen; and the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa. Saddam Hussein´s motive is not in doubt: Continue the Gulf War through other means. Proving it is more difficult. The author sets out an intriguing case for Iraq´s involvement in the World Trade Center blast based on circumstantial evidence. There is no smoking bomb, but the late head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York, James Fox was convinced that Iraq was behind the WTC attack. Washington ignored him, believing a "loose network" of Islamic radicals intended to topple the twin towers onto one another with their bomb, releasing a cloud of cyanide gas to maximize the killing. Miss Mylroie´s evidence mostly phone, airline and passport records entered into the trial appears to show that mastermind Ramzi Yousef, now serving life, was an Iraqi agent who traveled to New York on an Iraq passport to direct dupes who were intended to be caught, to deflect attention from Saddam Hussein. Another indicted suspect who fled New York a day after the bombing is living under Saddam Hussein´s protection in Baghdad, she says. Miss Mylroie argues that Bill Clinton purposely ignored these leads because he didn´t want to deal with Baghdad. Indeed, the middle chapters form one of the clearest expositions of how the Clinton White House undermined United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq: "Official silence is undoubtedly the most dangerous possible response to a terrorist adversary," writes Miss Mylroie. "It is, quite simply the opposite of a policy of deterrence; instead of holding out the threat of retaliation, the silence holds forth the promise of a blind eye, if a convenient cover story is provided." Such as, it was all the work of "Muslim extremists." Miss Mylroie says the Riyadh bombing that killed five Americans was likely Saddam Hussein´s response to a negative U.N. weapons inspectors´ report and was aimed at U.S. troops still in the region from the Gulf War. She quotes an unnamed senior Saudi official: "Of course that was Iraq. That was a professional bomb. It was not made by a bunch of Saudis sitting in a tent." She admits: "There is no proof Iraq was behind the Riyadh bombing. Yet Iraq should have been considered a prime candidate, and it was not." The al-Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia seven months later killed 19 U.S. servicemen who had helped enforce the Iraq no-fly zone. Miss Mylroie constructs a scenario in which Iraqi agents in Khartoum worked with Osama bin Laden to plan the attack. She quotes Israeli counterintelligence sources and Saudi officials who believed Saddam Hussein was behind that bomb, too. Likewise, Miss Mylroie believes Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa on August 7, 1998, two days after Saddam Hussein formally suspended U.N. weapons inspections. In May, Baghdad warned of "dire consequences" if U.N. sanctions were not lifted. Because U.S. intelligence never investigated the possible links to Saddam Hussein, there is no proof, Miss Mylroie says. Instead, the U.S. indictment stops at bin Laden and his gang. Mr. Clinton´s secretary of defense, William Cohen, spoke of a "grave new world of terrorism" in which "traditional notions of deterrence and counter-response no longer apply." Miss Mylroie swims against this stream. "According to the Clinton administration, a new terrorist threat has come into being, represented by loose networks of Muslim extremists," she writes. "It is truer to say that the Clinton administration´s handling of terrorist episodes and its refusal to address the question of state sponsorship have encouraged further terrorist attacks." We may never know if Iraq was behind these terrorist attacks, but if the Bush administration wants to lead a more robust policy against Baghdad, it might be wise for it to find out. Joe Lauria has covered Iraqi issues at the United Nations for the Daily Telegraph (London), the Boston Globe and other publications. |
I'll withhold my judgment until more unfolds and try not to make any assumptions.
LOLOL! Now I've got to clean the coffee off my monitor. Thanks a lot :-))
I can't wait to hear how the Iraqis were responsible for all the chads in Florida.
This article makes sense to me. Saddam realizes that direct military confrontation would be disastrous, and he's not dared to take that route since the war, but he's not the type to just sit around and make no effort to avenge his humiliating defeat in the Gulf War.
Notwithstanding his ideological differences with Muslim extremists, it would make perfect sense for him to covertly support their efforts against us in any way he might.
That may be, but sometimes mutual hatred gets into the same bed, as long as it serves both parties well.
You are not correct on this matter. Hussein is still a Muslim. He share with Muslim extremists the hatred toward U.S. and Israel. Hussein has large military and hardwares which can be useful. Why turning on him now when he has what they need ? They can take care of them later. Even the Prophet Mohammad advised his followers to be pragmatic in this kind of matter, that is, advancing the cause of "Jihad".
Saddam hates Muslims, If Taliban fighters fleed to Iraq, there would be mass executions.
If Bin Laden showed up outside one of Saddams palaces looking for a place to crash, Saddam would probably shoot him personally.
Saddam is a Stalinist, not an islamic fanatic
Predictably, after his defeat in the Gulf War and with the star of secular Arab national socialism fading, Saddam has turned to Islamism to bolster his personality cult (Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam). Meanwhile, bin Laden's religiosity is mostly for public consumption -- his own kids get to watch TV and play with computers. But the religious crap certainly makes a good recruiting tool.
The alliance between Saddam and Osama is no more suprising than the alliance between Hitler and Tojo, or the one between Roosevelt and Stalin for that matter. The benefits flow both ways. Osama couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, but he makes great recruitment videos, and he's willing to do the "ascetic in a cave" thing the Arabs love. So, Osama provides the kamikaze killers, and puts out the talking points. Saddam's end is money, organization, intelligence, and advanced weaponry (i.e. anthrax). What a team they make!
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
here's another story from today
Predictably, after his defeat in the Gulf War and with the star of secular Arab national socialism fading, Saddam has turned to Islamism to bolster his personality cult (Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam). Meanwhile, bin Laden's religiosity is mostly for public consumption -- his own kids get to watch TV and play with computers. But the religious crap certainly makes a good recruiting tool.
The alliance between Saddam and Osama is no more suprising than the alliance between Hitler and Tojo, or the one between Roosevelt and Stalin for that matter. The benefits flow both ways. Osama couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, but he makes great recruitment videos, and he's willing to do the "ascetic in a cave" thing the Arabs love. So, Osama provides the kamikaze killers, and puts out the talking points. Saddam's end is money, organization, intelligence, and advanced weaponry (i.e. anthrax). What a team they make!
Saddam masacares these clowns, he hates them and fears them, this is a guy who doesn't give his military enough bullets or jet fuel because he is worried his army will launch a coup and his airforce will defect given the oppertunity.
he isn't about to pull a Reagan and start arming islamic terrorists, because he knows they would use them on his infidelic ass
By Philip Smucker in Baghdad
SADDAM HUSSEIN has unveiled the latest weapon in his cynical campaign to use religion to bolster his dictatorship: the Mother of all Battles mosque.
The grandiose project, which shoots up into the sand-blown skies next to a modern motorway 15 miles outside Baghdad, bears the imprimatur of a man keen to preserve his tyrannical legacy in both blood and stone.
The mosque's towering minarets are built to resemble ballistic missiles sitting on launch pads and its 605-page Koran has been written, the Iraqi propaganda machine boasts, with Saddam's own blood. Its name comes from his famous description of the Gulf war.
The Scud-shaped minarets (complete with launch platforms) on the mosque's perimeter are 37metres (120ft) high; there are four more minarets next to the mosque's dome that resemble huge machinegun barrels, each 28 metres (93ft) high. Taken together, the numbers 37-4-28 give the date of birth of the megalomaniacal leader.
Most striking is the dubious and totally unverifiable claim that Saddam donated nearly 50 pints of his own blood for the writing of a Koran. All 605 separate pages of dark red Arabic script, as seen by The Telegraph, have been encased in glass in a rotunda inside the mosque.
Dahar Al-Ani, director of information for the mosque, said: "Over three years, the president gave us a total of 28 litres of his own blood which has been mixed with chemicals to produce this hand-written Koran of 605 pages."
Western diplomats based in Baghdad are unimpressed with the Iraqi leader's religious devotion, dismissing the mosque and its holy book written in blood as a crude publicity stunt. "How can we be sure this is Saddam's blood and not that of some of his victims?" one asked.
The construction of the mosque is the latest phase of the Iraqi government's "Faith Campaign" that opposes religious freedom and has included assassinations of religious leaders.
One diplomat said: "Saddam is just supporting his ideology with religion. He plays the religious card just to stay in power."
After the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, suppressed a revolt led by the majority Shi-ite groups in the South. Then in 1994, the president, looking to bolster his image as a good Muslim, banned alcohol and encouraged more mosque building.
Large murals and bronze statues of Saddam praying are as common now days across Iraq as pictures of him shooting guns and patting small children on the head. Prisoners in Iraq can reportedly obtain early release by memorising long passages from the Koran.
At the Umm El-Mahare (Mother of all Battles) mosque, there is a massive water and stone relief map of the Arab world. Iraq is represented by a large rock carved with the faces of "martyrs" who gave their lives in the "Mother of all Battles".
Iraqi officials say that the all-Iraqi-built mosque and the holy shrine housing the Koran have been constructed to prove to the world that Iraq can continue to defy American and British efforts to impose their "imperial will" in the Middle East.
The huge dome of the mosque is inscribed in Arabic lettering with the word "La", meaning "No" in Arabic. "This is the biggest 'No' ever given to the Americans," said Mr Al-Ani proudly.
Iraq's long-suffering citizens could draw a different message, however. The reality is that Saddam has again diverted much-needed public money to finance one of his pet projects while his people remain mired in poverty.
In Baghdad, an even larger mosque - the information ministry claims it will be the world's largest when finished - is under construction, while another sprawling presidential palace is almost complete, with four huge busts of Saddam's scowling visage staring out over the city's squalor.
One of the priorities of the Faith Campaign is to fend off unrest in Shi'ite religious centres in the South. In the holy city of Najaf, officials last week adamantly denied fresh claims by Iraqi dissident groups that Saddam's government is responsible for the mysterious death in June of the Ayatollah Hussein Bahrir Al-Aloum.
The sudden death of the ayatollah, who had a history of heart trouble, followed the recent killings of three leading religious figures in the city. Those murders were blamed on Iranian-backed factions.
Supporters of the dead ayatollah, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, claimed that their 75-year-old leader was poisoned because he would not agree to allow the president's men to direct Friday prayer sessions. "Saddam ordered him killed because he would not support the government's Faith Campaign," one man who claimed to be a supporter of armed groups fighting in Iraq, told me.
Heavy machineguns placed in turrets across Najaf, as well as soldiers wearing flak jackets in the brutal 115-degree summer heat bore testimony to the difficulty Saddam still faces in imposing his religious views across Iraq.
Hmm... If you say so.
| At prayer | |
 |
|
|
What is your point?
After all Bill Clinton claimed to be a born again southern baptist
Saddam praying, I can post a picture of bill clinton praying,
Actions speak louder than words, if Saddam is such a good muslim, why does he kill so many of them?
Despots kill people who do not agree with them. Ergo lots of Muslims do not agree with Saddam.
Assad regime killed 20,000 people in the city of Hama to put down fundamentalist uprising. Such behavior did nothing to discourage fundamentalists to enlist Assad's help to operate Hezbollah in S. Lebanon. Every group in Mid-East is a sworn enemy to other groups. They have treachery and double-crossing dating back several generations. And they remember all of them, sort them out and make alliances with their father's sworn enemy or their sworn enemy of the past if it suits their best interest. They are quite casual about these matters. They all unite when they have a real big enemy to contend with, such as U.S. To get a good example of this phenomena, look at Afghan. Every group in N. Alliance was united to fight Talibans. Once Taliban crumbled, fights between old enemies resurfaced. Arab's plan is to defeat U.S. and Israel first. And settle old scores among them, jocking for better positions. Osama Bin Laden emphasized that all Muslims set aside any differences and unite against U.S. (and Israel). He persuaded many to just do that. That includes Saddam. Hezbollah's supply passes through Iraq from Iran. Saddam took in a few hundred Al-Qaeda terrorist for training. I doubt that fundamentalists are conspiring against Saddam now.
Islamic fundementalists are differant, they are not bound by any sort of logic, much like the extreme end of the Republican party, they would rather be idologically pure than relevant, they would never get in bed with Saddam.
Saddam just sent about 40 of these guys to their 72 virgins a few weeks ago,
One of the reasons the Clinton administration was uncomfortable getting to close to the Iraqi opposition, is because they have alot of hardcore islamic fanatics who want to make Iraq into another Afghanistan. A sane Saddam is probably less dangerous than an insane Mulla.
Saddam is a stalinist bastard, and he has to go, but trying to implicate him in terrorism, will only hurt the administrations credibility when the time comes to go after Iraq.
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.