Hmm... I thought Libs keep stating there's no connection?

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
REBUILDING IN THE GULF
Document shows Saddam-Taliban ties
Indicates relationship between secular regime and Muslim terrorists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

A newly released document from Iraq demonstrates a relationship between former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups – including the Islamic-based Taliban, which harbored al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

The document, posted by the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office, indicates that in 1999 the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan, Fox News reports.

While some intelligence analysts have insisted Saddam's secular regime would not have collaborated with radical Muslim groups, the document says "Islamic relations with Iraq" were encouraged by the Taliban to arbitrate a meeting with the Northern Alliance rebels in Afghanistan and Russia.

The document also mentions two men with ties to Pakistani religious schools, jihad training camps, the Taliban and al-Qaida.

An Iraqi intelligence agent kept a notebook, posted on the Fox News Channel website, that details meetings between al-Qaida and Taliban supporter Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice president of Iraq, along with other Iraqi officials.

Ramadan was Saddam's right-hand-man, in charge of ensuring orders were carried out by Iraqi officials. A 2002 BBC article stated, "Washington showed considerable interest in him well before the Iraq war."

In the story, opposition forces also claimed Ramadan hosted al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, in Baghdad in 1998.

The notebook also recorded Maulana Fazlur Rahman as being at the discussion. Rahman has been described as a Pakistani cleric with ties to the Taliban who is a contender for the position of prime minister.

As WorldNetDaily reported, among many documents posted by the Pentagon in March was a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9-11 attacks.

The letter by a member of Saddam's Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated Sept. 15, 2001, reports a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul.

>Earlier this month, a newly translated document captured from the Saddam regime revealed Iraq's hiding of chemical-weapons materials and the location of their burial.

In 2003, a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The memo, dated Oct. 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," reported the Weekly Standard. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

According to the Weekly Standard, the memo reports Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued until the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It says bin Laden sent ''emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.'' At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, ''Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al-Qaida.''

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50621
 
So, let me get this straight... the Taliban send a letter to Saddam so they're in bed together? In related news, President Bush in Bed With Iranians!

Or maybe the old, "if two diplomats meet they're in bed with each other" line? Really?

I think my favorite piece of "evidence" is this: "The letter by a member of Saddam's Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated Sept. 15, 2001, reports a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul." So, a SPY noted that a MOLE had had a conversation with a Taliban consul? I would venture a guess that we have lots of CIA agents reporting conversations between our moles and our enemies too...


I can't believe people still buy this tripe. We had more 9/11 terrorists training in the United States than were training in Iraq. We were sending the Taliban money in for The War on Drugs. But, I don't believe that the Bush Administration was in bed with the Taliban, al queda or osama either.
 
Why are you apologists for the invasion and occupation of Iraq still living in the past? We all know the various reasons for invasion are crap. Get with the programme, focus on how to fix it instead of continually trying to justify it, sheesh, talk about history.
 
insein said:
NO! Not more evidence of the connection. Stop! Your further shredding the Liberals argument. :lalala:

Damn! I was just about to use that smilie but you beat me to it.
 
Diuretic said:
Why are you apologists for the invasion and occupation of Iraq still living in the past? We all know the various reasons for invasion are crap. Get with the programme, focus on how to fix it instead of continually trying to justify it, sheesh, talk about history.

You KNOW that huh? If the libs would stoip their incesant whining about the "illegal and unjust" war we could move on but as long as they continue to make it an issue it needs to be rebutted. The fact that the current administration fails to defend itself against these propaganda attacks initiated by the left really pisses me off. It's about time they (the administration) stand up to the lefties and set the record straight...the MSM and libs have twisted and spun the truth so much they dont even KNOW what truth is anymore.
 
You do realize that both this administration and the past administration held talks with the Taliban before 9/11. Does that mean we helped Bin Laden plan 9/11? Also the article states that while the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to visit Afghanistan, it offers no proof of collaboration between the two governments. It also fails to demonstrate any actual connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Even if Saddam had extensive dealings with the Taliban, something which this article does not prove; it only shows that they had one diplomatic meeting once; visiting with the Taliban once is not proof that Saddam dealt with al-Quada, a seperate organization, or helped plan the 9/11 attacks. This document is a far cry from proof that Saddam helped plan 9/11.
 
No one ever stated he helped plan 9/11. Just that he did have ties with Al Qaeda.
 
Look, I think it's pretty clear by now that Saddam, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the 9/11 hijackers are all part of the same interconnected cabal. I mean the evidence is just staring us in the face.

* They ALL have funny-sounding names, and when they talk it sounds like a pinball machine clicking and clattering. ALL of them. Coincidence? I think not.
* They are swarthy and have facial hair, notice how Kim Jong and Khadaffi do not so we know they are not in on the nefarious plot
* They live in sandy places and bow to that one city several times a day
* They have had conversations with each other before, according to Fox. And as we all know, when bearded men exchange words, they also exchange nukes.
* They hate us for our freedoms and want to conquer us because that is easier than passing censorship laws in the countries they control
 
lets try this.......you

a bathist
an al queda
a tally ban

are all in the same room.

which one lets you live?
 
Mr.Conley said:
That is why I also state in my post that the opening article also fails to demonstrate ties between Saddam and Bin Laden.

well considering its already been established that Saddam has links to Bin Laden and to terrorist groups why does this article have to demonstrate it?

Have you ever read UN Resolution 1441? It explicitely mentions that one of the reasons it was issued was because of Saddams connections with terrorism.

I cant figure out the Bush haters here. I mean there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had connections with terrorist groups. Yet he didnt, becausue for some reason the evidence presented by the news, the government, and the UN, not to mention Saddams own regime, is not enough to convince them.

There is physical evidence of Weapons of Mass destruction, yet they dont exist and Bush lied because "These arent the right ones"

We have mass graves created by Saddam, but we are thet bad ones for liberating the Iraqis from torture, rape, and genocide because some terrorists, murderers or thugs might not get the best treatment in the world.

This is just Vietnam again despite the fact that its Nothing like Vietnam.

To be a Bush hater you have to throw all rational thought and objective analysis out the window. The only rule is does it make Bush look bad. It doesnt matter what it takes he has to look bad. There is nothing good about that line of reasoning and I am not going to let the left endanger America because they are having a tantrum over the President clearly and decisively winning both elections.
 
manu1959 said:
lets try this.......you

a bathist
an al queda
a tally ban

are all in the same room.

which one lets you live?

None of them. Good thing I won't be in a room with them in the first place (unless I'm dumb enough to go to Iraq or Afghanistan).
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
None of them. Good thing I won't be in a room with them in the first place (unless I'm dumb enough to go to Iraq or Afghanistan).

so that would make them allies .... with a common goal ..... connected
 
Avatar4321 said:
...

I cant figure out the Bush haters here. I mean there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had connections with terrorist groups. Yet he didnt, becausue for some reason the evidence presented by the news, the government, and the UN, not to mention Saddams own regime, is not enough to convince them.

There is physical evidence of Weapons of Mass destruction, yet they dont exist and Bush lied because "These arent the right ones"

We have mass graves created by Saddam, but we are thet bad ones for liberating the Iraqis from torture, rape, and genocide because some terrorists, murderers or thugs might not get the best treatment in the world.

This is just Vietnam again despite the fact that its Nothing like Vietnam.

To be a Bush hater you have to throw all rational thought and objective analysis out the window. The only rule is does it make Bush look bad. It doesnt matter what it takes he has to look bad. There is nothing good about that line of reasoning and I am not going to let the left endanger America because they are having a tantrum over the President clearly and decisively winning both elections.

Amen, brother. The corollary to your rule is: if it shows Bush to be correct, it can't be true and/or must be denigrated.

I hope I can rep you for this.
 
It is just so humorous to watch as the, all so very "progressive", leftist fall all over themselves defending a maniacal, mass murdering, environmental destroyer of highest proportions, woman raping, child torturer, gun abusing, money grabbing thief like Saddam.....It reminds me of how they bend over for Clinton who displays many of the same endearing qualities. It is truly pathetic. I guess next we will hear all of the excuses for the freedom fighting insurgents that beat, behead and blow up women, children and men.

You clowns really need to get a grip!:321:
 
Yeah dude, people are totally defending Saddam.

Oh wait, no they aren't. They're against wasting american lives and taxpayer dollars on some worthless shithole that didn't attack us.

manu1959 said:
so that would make them allies .... with a common goal ..... connected

Having *A* common goal--the US military out of the mideast--does not mean they are connected. Nor does it mean they share EVERY goal, ie Al-Qaida may want to strike the mainland USA, but Saddam did not. Even a two-bit dictator can figure out how the american people would react to a direct assault on american soil. It would be suicidal, and dictators just about always avoid things that are guaranteed to lessen their power or remove them from power.
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Yeah dude, people are totally defending Saddam.

Oh wait, no they aren't. They're against wasting american lives and taxpayer dollars on some worthless shithole that didn't attack us.

Germany? Korea? Haiti? Bosnia? You were of course against sending our military to these places also, right?

How about the excess of 350 cruise missles Clinton launched in an attack on Iraq. Were you as critical of this action?


http://www.elmandjra.org/clinton.html


WASHINGTON, DC -- President Clinton, in launching the massive Dec. 16 attack on Iraq, used a manufactured
crisis to deceive the American people, and to bypass Congress' power to declare war.

Warplanes aboard the USS Enterprise, combined with more than 200 cruise missiles from eight Navy warships,
converged on Iraqi targets at 5:06 p.m. EST (1:06 a.m.Baghdad time). Over a four-day period, reports U.S.
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who oversaw the Iraq attack, 300 strike fighters, bombers and support aircraft flew
600 sorties, more than half of them at night. Another 40 ships took part in the attack, with 10 of them firing
cruise missiles. More than 600 bombs were dropped, 90 cruise missiles fired from the air and another 300 from
ships at sea.

Just checking your level of hypocrisy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top