• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Report Shows Link Between Saddam & Al Qaeda

Mike

Well-known member
Report Shows Link Between Saddam and al-Qaeda:

Mainstream Media Wrong Again

Tim Wilson



The latest Iraq Perspectives Project report sponsored by a Department of Defense agency has caused considerable interest in the mainstream media. However, this interest has shown yet another weakness in their journalistic systems. Apparently their proof reading is not very good as they consistently added a negative into the headlines, when they surely meant the opposite. How else does one explain the headlines covering a report which starts with the following sentence: “The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.”



The actual report goes on to detail that, despite having examined only 15% of the documents (although they also examined all of the English document titles), they found solid links to al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda spokesman and Imam Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman’s Islamic Group, al-Qaeda’s Bahranian arm known as the Army of Mohammed, the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan which was the forerunner of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was a key ally of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Abu Sayyaf group, another al-Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines. In particular, on page 42 of the report they acknowledge that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives. 97”



For some unfathomable reason the authors of the report decided to use the phrase “no smoking gun” to describe the above multiple connections between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaeda. They further made no comment on the possibility of further evidence still to be uncovered in the remaining 85% of the documentation (plus further documentation not available to them due to being “under the control of other US government agencies” – presumably including intelligence agencies whose primary focus is on al-Qaeda and who may have had “first pick” at any such evidence).



It is unfathomable how they arrived at the “no smoking gun” remark in the second paragraph of their executive summary following the opening sentence (shown above). It is even harder to understand when their conclusion begins: “One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.



It would seem highly probable that the discovery of 6 solid Iraq/al-Qaeda links in about 90,000 of the documents would indicate the very high probability of finding even more associations, possibly even the “smoking gun”, in the remaining 510,000. Add in resources, not available to the authors, that are currently in the hands of other government agencies, including captured documentation from other sources, and any analyst worthy of the title would conclude that this report affirms the contention that Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda. The gun may not be smoking, but it is still warm from a recent firing and was found in Saddam’s hand with Osama’s fingerprints all over it.



In the light of all this evidence, the mainstream media headlines from:



· ABC (“Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda”)

· CNN (“Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says” – this one is even more disingenuous than most as the report clearly states “This paper does not necessarily reflect the views of IDA [Institute for Defense Analyses] or the sponsors of JAWP [Joint Advanced Warfighting Program]” under whose auspices this paper was produced)

· The NY Times (“Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie”) and

· AFP [Agence France Presse] (“No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study”)



are either egregious, wrong (presumably due to those proof readers I mentioned at the beginning) or stupid (it is always possible these publications employ journalists and editors who can’t actually read English)!






# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org org Contributing Editor Tim Wilson is a retired British Army officer who served in a variety of command appointments on numerous operational tours during a 32 year military career. In the military his technical specialty was surveillance and target acquisition systems. Since retiring from the military, he has worked in Iraq on 2 projects for USAID.
read full author bio here
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mike said:
In particular, on page 42 of the report they acknowledge that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives. 97”

I suppose the link between the NRA and the ACLU is pretty well established then.......I'm a supporter of both........


Let see, 6 references out of 90,000 documents......that's 0.0066% Pretty solid evidence that Saddam was overwhelmingly involved with Al Qaeda......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Mike said:
In particular, on page 42 of the report they acknowledge that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives. 97”

I suppose the link between the NRA and the ACLU is pretty well established then.......I'm a supporter of both........


Let see, 6 references out of 90,000 documents......that's 0.0066% Pretty solid evidence that Saddam was overwhelmingly involved with Al Qaeda......

It only takes ONE out of the 90,000 examined to establish a link. Let alone the other 510,000.

The media reports said "NO" link. :roll: :roll: :roll:
______________________________________________________
"A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")"

Using that thinking we should have invaded Saudi Arabia first- then Syria, Lebanon, Dubai, Quatar, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, etc.,etc. :???:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
If all goes according to plan...I will have a link to al-Queda after May.

I will be having a State Dinner in Cairo with Pres Mubarak in May.

Pres Mubarak met with "Daddy" Bush when he was VP.

"Daddy" Bush gave the note to Mubarak....from Reagan...to give to Saddam Hussein. This note stated our support for Iraq in their war against Iran at that time. Factual history, common knowledge.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=george_herbert_walker_bush
1986 US President Ronald Reagan sends a secret message to Saddam Hussein recommending that he order his military to intensify its air attacks against Iran. The message is delivered by Vice President Bush who conveys the message to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who in turn passes it on to Saddam Hussein. The talking points for Bush’s meeting with Mubarak are authored by national security aide Howard Teicher. [Affidavit. United States v. Carlos Cardoen, et al. [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany illegally provided a proscribed substance, zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], 1/31/1995 ; MSNBC, 8/18/2002]



Ok..by this line of thinking ya'll got going on here NE Ga should be bombed next!

By my breaking bread with Mubarak....who knew Saddam....who ' supposedly' knew al-Queda....I'm gonna be guilty by association with your logic..


BULLSHITE!!! PURE BULLSHITE :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Less than 100th of one percent IS statistically 0.......

first there was no link.. now the link is found it's not enough..

when it comes down to it.. Bush was right.. and your wrong.. how does it feel to be stupider then Bush?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")"

Using that thinking we should have invaded Saudi Arabia first- then Syria, Lebanon, Dubai, Quatar, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, etc.,etc. :???:

You can read all that in this?:
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")"

Using that thinking we should have invaded Saudi Arabia first- then Syria, Lebanon, Dubai, Quatar, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, etc.,etc. :???:

You can read all that in this?:
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda

The 911 investigation reports named all the above plus more- but never named Iraq as a direct sponsor of those involved :???: Only GW/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz-the leaders of the neocon "conquer anyone who disagrees with us" policy came up with that- which Powell later apologized to the world for....But he's a black man- so I'm sure he's not to believed and lying for his own gain-eh :???: The new neocon (Karl Rove) Republican policy :wink: :roll: :( :mad:
 
Top