Bin Laden's Iraq Plan (Newsweek)

Newsweek ^ | 12/08/03 | Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh

[ChipShot]

During the muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.

AT THAT MEETING, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

[kerouacbal]

The democrats should be glad that Al Qaeda is stretching their resources so thin. They can't possibly expect to win the war with their attention aimed at both Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not able to keep up the fight with forces spread over such a wide area.
Oh wait the republicans aren't involved with Al Qaeda.

[Snake65]

Good points. Even if Saddam planned to fight a guerilla war from day one and put all his resources and organization into doing so, the Baathists aren't doing well at all.

I'd be tempted to covertly fund the transfer of Al Qaeda to Iraq. If the choice is to have Al Qaeda fighting Force Recon Marines and Army Airborne troops or the security guards at the nuclear power plant fifty miles west of me, I know which one I'd choose.

[RandallFlagg]

I wonder if bin laden will ever be shown on the cover with a black eye...

[xzins]

It's hard to imagine that there are still Americans buying those rags or even frequenting their websites, but it is true that they are. I suspect, though, that they are such a powerful propaganda tool that their handlers would let them operate at a loss for years just to keep them pumping out their spew.

I used to think that USNews was more balanced...but it, too, has been taken over by the socialists.

The best voice is the internet and this site is the best site. 2nd best is Rush, but they'll work hard to cripple him this election season. 3rd best is Fox, but they're slowly replacing their conservative voices. Wallace in and Snow out just about tells the whole story. Greta van Liberal, Geraldo Trivialera is a shadow liberal who will float with the liberal wind when it blows stronger on Fox. Most telling is that Rupert Murdoch's son and heir is a liberal.

The future of Fox is gradual return to liberalism.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Prior to 9/11, he was Mullah Omar’s translator in face-to-face meetings with bin Laden. And Sharafullah has translated correspondence between the two leaders.

By releasing information THiIDS specific, it looks like BSNBC is TRYING to get an important intelligence aset killed.

[ChipShot]

Exactly. As I read this article, I kept thinking, "This is all good news and the authors can't (or won't) see it."

[ASA Vet]

I used to think that USNews was more balanced...but it, too, has been taken over by the socialists

Agreed. The only weekly I've subscribed to as an adult is the weekly edition of the Washington Times.
I've dropped that too as FreeRepublic.com is much more timely.
We do have to edit for news, but with thousands of us
editors few hoax / propaganda / bs stories go long without being exposed.

My only complaint about FR is that it is terribly addictive.

[JustPiper]

If there is no AlQ-Iraq connection as the Libs say than why on earth is Osama doing this and we're talking Newsweek here!

[Mo1]

Bin Laden, they said, had also decided to “reorganize the distribution of funding” by reducing Al Qaeda’s monthly payment to the Afghan resistance from $3 million to $1.5 million, according to Sharafullah. Bin Laden’s men pointed out that raising and distributing funds has been complicated by the U.S. crackdown on jihadi charitable foundations, bank accounts of terror-related organizations and money transfers. Nonetheless, bin Laden wanted to “assure” the Afghan resistance that it would receive the promised amount. “We will never leave you alone,” the terror chief allegedly said through his representatives.

The charity money is drying up

The money from Saddam is gone

[xzins]

My only complaint about FR is that it is terribly addictive.

I'll 2nd that!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Stupid fat fingers! THiIDS = THIS

[Calpernia]

Apologies for double pings. I'm sure J.P. and I have most of you listed in both our lists.

[expatpat]

Iraq itself is certainly better ground to fight them on than Afghanistan, with its mountainous terrain. The (Zagros)mountainous Iran border is a bit of a problem, but we don't have to deal with north-western Pakistan.

[expatpat]

Mine is the border with Iran.

[mikegi]

What I learned from this article if we take everything at face value (other than that Newsweek will swallow anti-American spin whenever possible): 1) bin Laden (or whoever's running things now) has very limited financial resources, thus can't afford to fully fund the Taliban *and* get people over to Iraq. 2) bin Laden has a very limited number of active fighters. 3) bin Laden is afraid his western networks have been thoroughly penetrated and thus sees his best opportunity to kill Americans isn't with suicide bombs in the west, but by taking on heavily armed, young healthy American troops who would love to take out Al Qaeda members.

Yep. Remember all the Demorat spin about how a war in Iraq would divert resources away from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Looks like they were *exactly* wrong, as usual. AQ is the one who's getting stretched thin.

[Ditto]

Iraq has a much easier terrain to fight in. Plus, I dont think Iraqis take kindly to outsider terrorists and will not support them as actively as local insurgents.

Ditto on both points. AQ's leaving a country with few roads and lots of places to hide, for a country where nearly 200,000 US and allied forces control virtually every square inch and where the average Muhamad can't stand the radical Islamists?

I think the story is full of crap.

[Marak]

Iran is an ideal transit station for Al Qaeda because it borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to its west and Iraq and Turkey to its east.

A little hard to take seriously when they can't figure out where Iran is.

[tallhappy]

Despite bin Laden’s apparently fresh interest in Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war.

These Newsweek people are the lowest of the low. Here is what they wrote in 1998:

Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK (following story). He says "any American who pays taxes to his government" is a legitimate target.

Saddam's terrorism capability is still small-time, according to senior U.S. officials. "He's nowhere close to the level of the Iranians or Hizbullah," says one. But terrorism may be Iraq's growth industry. An Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally and stays in touch with his clandestine services predicts that "very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The attacks, he says, would be aimed at American and British targets in the Islamic world. Washington is somewhat skeptical, but this source says plans have already been put into action under three "false flags": one Palestinian, one Iranian and one "the al-Qaeda apparatus," the loose collection of terrorists who receive bin Laden's patronage. "All these organizations have representatives in Baghdad," says the Arab intelligence officer.

From January 11, 1999: Saddam + Bin Laden?
BY CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, GREGORY L. VISTICA AND RUSSELL WATSON With JOSEPH CONTRERAS

[xzins]

They totally ignored the Feith memo's 50 points of intersection between Saddam & bin Laden, too.

They are the worst. As someone above said, a subscription from them them is a donation to the DemonRat party.

[GOPJ]

flypaper...