Saturday, June 26, 2004

Bush and 9/11 Report: Into the Frame

DEBKAfile Special Analysis http://www.debka.com/

June 17, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00)

The US independent commission’s interim account of the September 11 terror attacks in the United States is full of holes and inconsistencies, according to American and Israeli intelligence experts close to the war against al Qaeda. One of its least plausible claims is that Osama bin Laden had pressed to launch the strikes in the summer of 2000, shortly after Israel’s soon-to-be prime minister Ariel Sharon made a highly controversial visit to a disputed holy site in Jerusalem. Later, he pressured the hijackers to strike in May 2001 and in June and July when Sharon would be visiting the White House. Each time, he was told the commandos were not ready, the report said.

A senior expert gave this comment to DEBKAfile: “We see here the outcome of a cynical attempt to link Sharon, Israel and the Jews to the September 11 atrocities. Sharon is suddenly being blamed not only for the Palestinian uprising - which was planned years before he visited Temple Mount - but is also being dragged into focus in relation to al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

This twisted leap is easily traced: the US commission based its findings on the testimony of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed now in US custody after being captured in Karachi.”

Many senior counter-terror officials, some of whom have had access to Shaikh Mohammed and other top captured al Qaeda operatives, have long come to the conclusion that he and others let themselves be seized for the sake of advancing a wider al Qaeda disinformation plot. Their mission is to plant red herrings in the path of US intelligence and lead its investigators away from the organization’s real operations, especially during reorganizations of the group’s command structure and terror networks.

This is how it is managed. The designated sacrifice is discovered after tip-offs lead pursuers to his hideout. Under questioning, he spills the tales he has been briefed to reveal – usually about past operations - and withholds anything of real value about al Qaeda’s current activities. His interrogation is meant to divert US intelligence from noticing preparations for the terrorist organization’s next moves. Being thrown to the Americans for such missions is just as much an honor as dying in combat or a suicide terrorist attack.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should have been expected, say the experts, to throw sand in American eyes. Instead, he found a way to link Sharon to the 9/11 attacks and get the link accepted in an official report - just as his masters in their broadcast tapes matter-of-factly tie Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Spain into a single package. This tie-in fits the gospel drummed into every al Qaeda member, from the chiefs to the lowliest courier, that the two enemies of Islam are the Crusaders and the Jews.

By falling into the Sharon trap, the compilers of the report cast doubt on their other conclusions, although their final report due next week may make some necessary corrections.

The obvious point here is if the Israeli motivation was so important in the chain of events leading up to September 11, why did bin Laden decide to attack America and not Israel? Or why not both?

DEBKAfile’s experts on terrorism point to some more weak points and misses in the independent panel’s interim report.

1. It is claimed that the planning of the 9/11 attacks began in 1996. This is factually erroneous. The planning to destroy the World Trade Center began in 1991 or 1992 - at latest. Proof of this reposes in the archives of Manhattan federal court, which tried Ramzi Yousuf for carrying out the first attack in February 1993. He admitted that the bomb truck he had set up on Osama bin Laden’s instructions was meant to cause one tower to lean into the second, bringing both down. Yousuf told the court he was bitterly disappointed at having killed only six Americans when al Qaeda had counted on at least a quarter of a million dead. (Incidentally, Sharon held no official position in 1993, 1996 – or even in 2000)

Bin Laden and his senior lieutenant Ayman Zuwahiri have been in operation long enough for al Qaeda watchers to understand that they never give up on a target. If they fail once, they are sure to try again – whatever the cost in the lives of their own men. The organization is motivated by religious and operational fanaticism alike. Using this dictum as a working hypothesis, the heads of the US campaign against the fundamentalist terrorists are sure they have not seen the end of al Qaeda’s attacks in America.

2. Another instance of Shaikh Mohammed’s wiles is his claim that he had initially envisioned hijacking 10 planes to target CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear stations, the World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, as well as blowing up several aircraft over the Pacific. He said bin Laden had scaled the plan down. The commission fell for this too. In actual fact, there was a much older plot that never came off to hijack 10 airliners bound for New York from the Philippines and crash them over key targets in the United States. This plot originated in 1994 – not 2001. Ramzi Yousuf was to have orchestrated the 10-plane assault from Manila after he failed to bring down the Twin Towers. Shaikh Mohammed recycled this plot and mixed it up with subsequent plans in order to muddy the trail of al Qaeda agents into America and, still more importantly, to cover up a mystery that has never been solved and which the report fails to address: How did US air control authorities and its air defenses come to be blinded to the hijackings after they were already in progress?

One answer which has not been considered seriously enough is that the terrorists or their ground support commanded the electronic capabilities for jamming US tracking devices that ought to have picked up – but didn’t - the captured airliners as they cut through American air space from airport to target.

The videotape the Americans found in 2001 in Afghanistan, showing bin Laden and Zuwahiri discussing their 9/11 success and how it was prepared, contradicts the Shaikh Mohammed account. They made no reference to a big plan or a small plan. Bin Laden is seen expressing surprise at how well his plan worked. He bends his hands together to demonstrate how the towers tipped towards each other - exactly as he had planned in the early 1990s.

3. The most implausible conclusion that suggests the 9/11 panel is influenced by a political agenda is its failure to find credible evidence of links between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is on record that Musab Zarqawi, who is at present running al Qaeda’s terror campaign in Iraq, was seen in that country in 1996 or 1997. From 1998 to 2000, he set up a training base in the northern Kurdistan town of Biyara near the Iranian border, then under the control of Iraqi military intelligence and the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Iraqi intelligence officers and instructors helped Zarqawi set up laboratories in Biyara for testing chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

DEBKAfile’s report appeared in September 2000, before the 9/11 attacks and well ahead of any US plan to invade Iraq. Indeed the sequence of events that blew up in the Bush term of office was busy ticking away when Bill Clinton was still president.

Most authorities ignored the deadly Saddam-al Qaeda association for developing WMD capabilities then. Now too, the independent inquiry in Washington neglects to address crucial developments from the time they began evolving in the early 1990s until 2000. These happenings were pivotal to subsequent actions and to al Qaeda’s spreading menace.

4. Neither has the panel found evidence that the Saudi government “as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government” helped finance al Qaeda before September 11. This conclusion makes a careful point of referring to al Qaeda – not Osama bin Laden, whom Saudi intelligence most certainly did supply with funds. The Saudi ambassador to London, Prince Turki bin Faisal and brother of Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, was until August 9, 2001 the omnipotent chief of Saudi intelligence and maintained close ties with the CIA. It is common knowledge in Saudi Arabia and among Middle East intelligence and political circles that Prince Turki lost his job because of his close relations with the bin Laden clan. Through them, he stayed in touch with Osama and use roundabout channels to send him money.

The interim conclusions reached by the 9/11 commission make sense only if it is presumed that the panel was set up to whitewash certain American and Saudi political and intelligence bodies and pin the entire blame for al Qaeda’s attacks in America on the Bush administration – incidentally dragging in the US president’s ally, the Israeli prime minister. However, as a state commission charged with an independent inquiry into the causes that led up to this cataclysmic disaster, the panel is far from fulfilling its mandate. Indeed, its findings are just as misleading as Shaikh Mohammed must have intended. The captured terrorist has accomplished his mission admirably.


|

The Visa Waiver Program and Terrorism

Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights

June 16, 2004

Statement of Mark Krikorian
Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), under which more than 15 million people a year are admitted with only the most cursory screening, is undoubtedly a soft spot in our efforts to prevent the entry of terrorists. Utilizing a kind of positive or reverse profiling, the program offers expedited treatment to travelers from 27 different countries, not because they as individuals appear to pose little threat, but because they and their fellow citizens as a group are judged to be unlikely to violate immigration laws.

It is not hard to see why a number of terrorists have chosen this route to gain entry to this country. Recently apprehended terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, with their own French and British passports, along with Ahmed Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef, both involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, with photo-substituted Swedish and British passports, all used the Visa Waiver Program.

Rather than undergoing screening at the consulate in their country, which would include an interview with an official who speaks their language, is familiar with country conditions, and is trained to evaluate local documents, the VWP traveler steps briefly before an immigration inspector, usually at the airport, who has just a few seconds to examine the passport, ask a couple of questions in English, and quickly run a name check. In the embassy, the deck is stacked in favor of the consular officer because it is up to the traveler to prove that he qualifies for the visa. At the airport, the opposite is true -- it is up to the inspector to prove that the traveler has broken the law before he can be refused entry. The decision to refuse admission must be reviewed by a supervisor, and involves lots of paperwork.

On the other hand, eliminating one layer of scrutiny for visitors from the VWP countries has significantly reduced the overall cost of screening foreign visitors, and probably increased business and tourist travel to the United States, bringing tangible economic benefits. As it turns out, according to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report, VWP visitors have been a pretty good bet. While there are no truly reliable data on overstayers, according to the most recent GAO report on the subject, VWP visitors had the lowest apparent overstay rate of all the groups they looked at.1

Because for the most part the Visa Waiver Program has worked as intended, I’m not ready yet to consign it to the ash heap of immigration history, like U.S. Visa Express, the disastrous program in Riyadh that brought us some of the 9/11 hijackers. At the same time, because the VWP operates counter to our latest efforts to “push out our border” and because international conditions are much more dangerous now than when it was first implemented, it is absolutely vital that if we hope to continue the program, we need to strengthen it in several important ways.

Program Management Needs Fixing. Most immediately, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and specifically, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate (BTS), needs to assume control of the VWP and appoint a new leader to replace the one lost in the shuffle of transition from INS to DHS. Incredibly, according to an internal audit recently completed, no one in the Department, or other departments, not even the staff in the bureau, seems to know who’s in charge of the VWP. One official cited in the report said the program is on “autopilot . . . with no designated manager or overseer.”2

Apparently, DHS has yet to assign anyone the task of conducting the periodic assessments and country reviews to determine how well the program is working. Despite direct orders from Congress and years of complaints from the outside, DHS still has not figured out how to collect and analyze data on departures and overstays, so that policymakers can make a rational decision on the program. DHS has limited systems in place that are better than nothing (APIS and ADIS, the Advance Passenger Information System and the Arrival Departure Information System) but has yet to attempt any kind of analysis.

One of the scariest observations made by the auditors was that the inspectors at the Port of Entry have no procedures for checking if an applicant is using a lost or stolen passport, even though we are doing better at getting the information on the thousands of passports stolen in VWP countries (the very existence of the VWP program is one thing that makes these passports so valuable). The report cited law enforcement officers who noted that lost and stolen passports show up “several times a week or more at major international airports.”

Even worse, under current procedures, if a traveler is caught with fraudulent documents, often the documents are not confiscated, but given right back to the traveler, apparently to facilitate return to the home country.

Fine Tune Criteria for Inclusion. Because the threats to our security are so much greater and more diffuse now than in the 1980s, when the VWP was launched, it is vital that we tighten up the criteria under which countries are selected and retained in the VWP. First, DHS must carry out the required country reviews on schedule. Second, the criteria for participation in the program should include a benchmark for overstay rates as well as refusal rates and disqualification rates. The reason is that overstay rates reflect actual behavior of real visitors. Refusal rates, on the other hand, only reflect consular speculation about visitors’ likely behavior and the risk that the visitor will overstay. Moreover, refusal rates are subject to politically motivated manipulation in the form of pressure to issue visas from senior embassy staff and the host country government. This concern is not theoretical. The State Department has proven to be very susceptible to such pressure in the past.3

To support this change, lawmakers should insist that DHS develop better information on overstays. There are no excuses now, even before US-VISIT’s entry-exit feature is fully operational. Under APIS/ADIS, airlines are already providing the data, under threat of financial penalties.

DHS recently announced its intent to begin enrolling VWP travelers in US-VISIT, which will collect their fingerprints and complete a more thorough database check. While this step is appropriate, it is important to recognize that without biometric documents, it will still be difficult to authenticate identity.

In this security climate, the most important control criteria for participation has to be a hard and fast requirement that VWP travelers have biometric documents that permit authentication of identity, not just machine-readable passports that facilitate the name-check. The State Department and DHS have asked Congress to waive this requirement for another two years. This is too long a period of time to wait. I believe that, due to logistical and work load considerations, it is justified and practical to give these countries one more year to comply, but if we wait more than that, we send the signal that we are in no hurry to secure our borders. It is important to remember that these countries benefit from their membership in the program, and that they have some incentive to maintain high standards so that their citizens are not viewed as potential threats.

The requirement that countries be moving toward a machine-readable passport has been in existence since 1990, more than 10 years ago, and a “firm” deadline was set in 2000 (for October 1, 2007), but most countries made little progress in improving their documents until the current deadline was set in the USAPATRIOT Act after 9/11. Without a similarly accelerated time frame for the biometric requirement, we are unlikely to see progress anytime soon. Secretary of State Powell has testified that the two largest VWP countries, Japan and the United Kingdom, should be on board in 2005.4 Visitors from those two countries make up more than half of the VWP admissions. Therefore, even if Japan and the U.K. are the only two countries able to meet the deadline in one year, the increase in workload becomes reasonably manageable.

Expand Immigration Security Initiative to Visa Waiver Countries. One solution to the problem of having the first screening of the VWP travelers take place at a U.S. port of entry is to deploy immigration inspectors to airports overseas. DHS has launched a pilot program in Warsaw to test this idea, known as the Immigration Security Initiative, and it is based on a similar program run by the INS. This idea is consistent with the idea of “moving our border out,” and should be supported by Congress. If VWP visitors are a concern, the program could be focused on airports in those countries. Their cooperation in the initiative could become a condition of their VWP participation.

Interior Enforcement Needed. The fact remains that until someone invents a machine that can read a person’s mind, there is only so much screening for terrorists that can be done at the port of entry, even with the most sophisticated technology and the most alert personnel, without inhibiting the free flow of people that keep s our economy and society alive. More muscular interior enforcement to back up the visa and border screening process is a necessary ingredient in the layered defense. We know there will be mistakes; in fact, we already have more than two million of them living here, according to the most recent estimates from DHS on overstayers.5 An effective program of interior enforcement would include: workplace enforcement, including an employment eligibility verification system; participation from state and local government and law enforcement; and penalties for overstaying or otherwise violating the terms of entry. The point of US-VISIT is not simply to count overstayers, but to facilitate their removal, and DHS must be held to this goal.

Positive Feature of VWP: Streamlined Removal of Unqualified Travelers. There is one last aspect of the VWP that is worth mentioning, not as a weakness but as a feature that may be worth replicating in other visa programs. In exchange for the privilege of applying for admission without having to get a visa, the VWP traveler signs a special form at the time of entry, known as the I-94W. By signing the visitor agrees that, if refused entry or deported, he waives any right of appeal or review of that refusal. If refused entry, the traveler is not barred from future travel, but must apply for a visa. VWP visitors caught overstaying or otherwise violating status have no right to appeal their deportation, which keeps them out of our already-clogged immigration courts.

According to immigration officers in the field, the I-94W agreement is enormously helpful in streamlining the processing of unqualified applicants, and “saves a lot of time and trees,” in the words of one official. Non-VWP travelers who are refused entry must complete a withdrawal of the application for admission or undergo expedited removal, both of which are more complicated procedures. One POE inspector only half-jokingly expressed his wish that we would offer the VWP to countries like Poland, which has many unqualified applicants and overstays, so that the port of entry can more efficiently deal with the volume of unqualified arrivals.

Lawmakers should consider adding this provision to other trusted traveler programs, such as the laser visa (border crossing card) for Mexicans.

In Sum: As long as the Visa Waiver Program is well-managed, appropriately selective in membership, responsive to security-related developments, and backed up by interior enforcement, it should not make us much more vulnerable to terrorism or illegal immigration in general. These conditions are not currently in place, but can be achieved promptly without undue strain on the Department of Homeland Security. While it might be appropriate to reduce the number of countries in the program or to impose stricter conditions on those countries, at this time it would be counter-productive to end it entirely. It is a better use of State Department resources to work with other countries on complying with our standards and learning more exactly which visitors should be scrutinized, than to have to begin processing large volumes of low-risk travelers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 General Accounting Office report GAO-04-82, Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered Defense, May 2004, page 41.

2 Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, “An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program, OIG-04-26, April 2004.

3 For an example involving Ireland, a VWP country with known terrorists operating within it, see “Dissent in Dublin,” Foreign Service Journal, July 1996.

4 Testimony of Colin L. Powell before the House Judiciary Committee, April 21, 2004.

5 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000,” January, 2003.


|

Friday, June 25, 2004

Hopefully this senile bastard dies from a heart attack or worse

Here's another example of a federal judge who you've gotta hope dies soon of a heart attack or contracts a hideous disease .... hypocritical bastard overlooks how Judges have the tendency to overrule the will of the voters at every turn

NEW YORK - A federal judge offered his "profound regret" Thursday for saying President Bush (news - web sites)'s rise to power was similar to that of Mussolini and Hitler.

Alzheimers Judge Guido Calabresi, 71, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Manhattan, drew an audible gasp from lawyers attending Saturday's convention of the American Constitution Society in Washington, according to the New York Sun, which quoted the speech in Monday's editions.


"My remarks were extemporaneous and, in hindsight, reasonably could be — and indeed have been — understood to do something which I did not intend, that is, take a partisan position," Calabresi wrote in a letter of apology to Chief Judge John Walker.


Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School, was quoted saying the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) "put somebody in power" when a ruling it made in December 2000 settled the dispute over whether Bush had defeated Al Gore (news - web sites).


"In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States ... somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power," Calabresi said. "The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy.


"The King of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in, though he had not won an election, and make him prime minister," the judge continued. "That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in."


Calabresi told the lawyers: "I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual."


Calabresi went on to say the public should expel Bush from office to cleanse the democratic system. "That's got nothing to do with the politics of it. It's got to do with the structural reassertion of democracy," Calabresi was quoted saying.


In his letter of apology, Calabresi said he was "deeply sorry" for remarks that were meant as "a rather complicated academic argument about the nature of re-elections after highly contested original elections" — but that were "too easily taken as partisan."


"That is something which judges should do their best to avoid, and there, I clearly failed," he wrote.


In a letter to the rest of the appeals judges, Walker said Calabresi's "off-the-cuff" comments had been viewed as a call to oppose Bush's re-election. He warned them to refrain from political activity or public endorsements because partisan political comments violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.





|

Disturbing Saudi Television from MEMRI

Although our liberal media won't and can't report on the contents of Saudi-run television--and our state department is infested with the same liberally-inclined apologists...MEMRI has compiled a disturbing set of stories that should trouble you http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2904.

By Steven Salinsky

Former Saudi Embassy Official on 'Big Explosion' Coming

Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid, a disciple of one of Saudi Arabia's most revered religious leaders, Sheik 'Abd Al-'Aziz ibn 'Abdallah ibn Baaz, was identified in a report in the Washington Post on December 11, 2003, as running "a Web site that promotes intolerance of Christians and Jews and calls for holy war on Shiite Muslims," and was included as one of sixteen clerics associated with the Saudi embassy's Islamic Affairs Department who was stripped of diplomatic credentials.

Al-Munajid stated on Iqraa TV on April 15: "The issue is not one person, two, ten or a hundred going out with their guns to support their brothers. Defeating the infidels requires a much greater effort. It requires the mobilization of the nation. How can the nation be mobilized? I believe that the stupid acts of these Jews and Crusaders mobilize the nation. The big explosion will come! In spite of everything, it will happen!"

Much of Saudi TV is based upon religious programming. Many of these programs refer to the spread of Islam throughout the world and the battle against non-Muslims. On a May 20 episode of Iqraa TV's 'Mushkilat Min Al-Hayat' (Problems from Life), Saudi Sheik Abdallah Al-Muslih, chairman of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Koran and Sunnah of the Muslim World League, used evidence from early Islam to support his claim that suicide bombings on enemy land are permitted according to Islamic law: "... Regarding a person who blows himself up, I know this issue is under disagreement among modern clerics and jurisprudents... There is nothing wrong with [martyrdom] if they cause great damage to the enemy. We can say that if it causes great damage to the enemy, this operation is a good thing. This is when we talk of Dar Al-Harb. But, if we speak of what happens in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia ... this is forbidden, brothers! This is the land of the Muslims. We must never do this in a Muslim country."

Prominent Saudi Professor: Allah Willing, the U.S. Will Collapse

Supporting Jihad against U.S. troops in Iraq is the topic of many Saudi TV programs. On May 10, Dr. Yassin Al-Khatib, a professor of Islamic law at Um Al-Qura University, declared on the UAE's Al-Majd TV, which frequently has Saudi guests on it, that "the honor, blood, property and mostly the fact that they entered the country [i.e. Iraq] ... make it every Muslim's duty to go out against them, not only the Iraqis. This is every Muslim's duty. Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and every Muslim. It is forbidden for a person to remain silent... When the Muslims fought in Afghanistan they destroyed the Soviet Union, which was a superpower. It collapsed and Allah willing, so will this [the U.S.] collapse."

The Coming Islamic Takeover of the U.S.

Saudis often discuss the issue of the U.S. becoming a Muslim state in the future. On a March 17 broadcast on Iqraa TV, Saudi preacher Sheik Said Al-Qahtani discussed this issue, as well as the cases in which Muslims are permitted to declare a defensive Jihad: "... We did not occupy the U.S., with 8 million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient, and let time take its course, instead of the 8 million, there could have been 80 million [Muslims] and 50 years later perhaps all the US would have become Muslim... What should a Muslim do if he is attacked in his country, on his land? In this case, there is no choice besides defense, self-sacrifice, and what religious scholars call - Defensive Jihad... We attacked their country, and this caused them to wake the dormant enmity in their hearts... Especially since there is global Zionism, the enemy of Islam, and Judaism, and fundamentalist Crusaders... They interpret this whole incident as only the beginning and thus there is no choice but a preemptive strike."

Al-Qahtani added on another Iqraa TV show on May 5: "Allah said, 'prepare against them all the force and horsemen that you can.' What for? In order to strike fear into their hearts... At the same time, [we should] establish strategies for the future, even if only for the short term, and prepare ... so that one of these days, even 100, 200, or 400 years from now, we will become a force that will be feared by the infidel states."

Prominent Saudi Professor: America is on It's Way to Destruction

Saudi professor Nasser Bin Suleiman Al-Omar, who runs a large Islamic internet website, www.almoslim.net, appeared on Al-Majd, on June 13, 2004, to discuss the approaching collapse of the U.S. and the growing strength of Muslims within the U.S. Al-Omar stated: "America is collapsing from within. Where are America's principles of justice and democracy? ...Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. Today, America is defeated. I have no doubt, not even for a minute, that America is on its way to destruction. But as Ibn Khaldoun said, just as it takes decades for nations to rise, it takes them decades to collapse. They don't collapse overnight. Because Communist Russia opposed reality it collapsed immediately. America may not collapse this way. It will be destroyed gradually. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."

Saudi Arabia's Highest Ranking Government-Appointed Cleric: Hopefully the Jews' End Will Soon Occur

One month prior to Canada's decision to bar Saudi Arabia's highest ranking government-appointed cleric, Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, from entering the country, (2) the Saudi preacher gave a sermon on Saudi TV 1 discussing Jihad. Al-Sudayyis, who serves as one of the imams of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, stated: "The history of the Jewish people is written in black ink, and has included a series of murders of the prophets, the Mujaheedin and righteous people... But maybe it is the beginning of their end... You have revived the hopes of this nation through your blessed Jihad... With Allah's help, one of two good things will be awarded you: either victory or martyrdom." On June 11, Al-Sudayyis was given the honor of leading Friday prayers for over 10,000 worshippers gathered in the East London Mosque to hear him call, in English, for interfaith peace and harmony in an event that included Prince Charles via satellite and British Minister for Racial Equality, Fiona MacTaggart.(3)

In reaction to the May 1, 2004 terrorist shooting in the offices of an oil contractor in Yunbu', Saudi Arabia, in which seven people, among them two Americans, were killed, Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah ibn Abd Al-'Aziz stated at a gathering of Saudi dignitaries, including top Muslim clerics and preachers, that "the Zionists" were to blame. The statement was made at a May 2 gathering of the royal family, which aired on Saudi TV 1: "Be assured that the Zionist are behind everything. This is certain. I don't say this with 100% [confidence], but with 95%."

In addition to other leading Saudi officials, such as Interior Minister Prince Nayef, the following day Dr. Salem Al-Aufi, the secretary general of King Fahd Center for Printing the Koran, reiterated on Saudi TV 1: "Yesterday we heard the Crown Prince say that Zionism is behind these attacks. Who helps them carry out these kinds of attacks? Who gives them money? Who gives them weapons? Who presents them with the evil ideology that brought them to this? There is no doubt that behind this, there are international organizations aspiring to undermine this country's security, and terminate its achievements, and at the top of these organizations stands Zionism, the enemy of the religion."

Saudi Royal Family Can End Jihad Programming at Any Time

According to the websites of the television channels mentioned in this article, programming is presented by the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information and is advertised as a "balanced blend of religious and cultural programs." The Ministry of Culture and Information's website indicates that it is responsible for the Kingdom's television and radio broadcasting and publication of printed material, and one of its defined roles includes the undertaking of information campaigns for the Kingdom. Therefore, the Saudi royal family can end its support for Jihad programming at any time.

*Steven Stalinsky is Executive Director of MEMRI.

Endnotes:
(1) Today, as part of MEMRI's Capitol Hill Lecture Series, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Rick Santorum (R-PA) sponsored a MEMRI briefing that included a screening of recent broadcasts from Saudi government-controlled TV. Many of these broadcasts include anti-American incitement, antisemitism, and support for Jihad.
(2) According to the May 15, 2004 edition of the National Post (Canada), Conservative Canadian MP Jason Kenney said: "Al-Sudayyis refers to Jews as 'the scum of the Earth,' and he exhorts his followers against the Christian 'worshippers of the cross' and the 'idol-worshipping Hindus.'"
(3) Arab News (Saudi Arabia), June 12, 2004
|

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Unfairenheit 9/11--The lies of Michael Moore.

Chris Hutchins used to be a darling fo the left and both edited and wrote for progressive magazines.


By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.


Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
|

Stay Quiet and You’ll Be OK”

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 23, 2004


Here’s a new slogan for the zeitgeist: stay quiet and you’ll be OK. This was the message, according to the tapes released last week, that Muhammad Atta gave to the passengers on the ill-fated airplane that he and his fellow terrorists had commandeered.

Stay quiet and you’ll be OK. Don’t mention that a Saudi imam who spoke at the opening of a large new Islamic center in London once preached a sermon in which he called Jews “evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others’] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race ‘whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs,” and “an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption.” AP noted that in London he said that Islam’s history was “the best testament to how different communities can live together in peace and harmony.” The BBC called him “one of Islam’s most renowned Imams” and reported his praise for British Muslims for having “taken great steps towards achieving community cohesion.” Neither said anything about his hate speech.

Stay quiet and you’ll be OK. Have you heard about the churches destroyed in Kosovo? “To keep the Serbs from claiming this area as part of their national heritage,” says Mikhael de Thyse of the Council of Europe, “some Albanians are attacking their churches.” In March, the cathedrals in Pristina and Prizren, Kosovo’s two main cities, were burned to the ground. Others that have been destroyed include the Holy Archangels Monastery, a charming and, of course, irreplaceable jewel dating from the fourteenth century. The local bishop has had harsh words for NATO peacekeepers, who he says have done little or nothing to protect the churches. But the media establishment has kept mum. Jihad in Kosovo? Come on. Everyone knows the Balkan Muslims are the victims, not the perpetrators!

Stay quiet and you’ll be OK. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Harvard to give the commencement speech and receive an honorary degree. The intrepid Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group was ready for him, saying at a rally the day before: “Kofi Annan does not need to come to Harvard tomorrow, he needs to go to Sudan. … He needs to go to the North, and he needs to tell Khartoum to free the slaves. There are tens of thousands of slaves like Francis Bok, still serving their masters in Sudan. Kofi Annan needs to tell the truth: For a decade Khartoum wages ... what they call a Jihad against Christians and tribalists in the South. Kofi Annan never once said that the war was a Jihad. It’s not diplomatic to say...but it’s the truth. Two million people died because of this war. Tens of thousands were enslaved. Arab militias storm African villages, kill the men and capture the women and children like Francis Bok. Kofi Annan needs to tell the world about Jihad slaves. It’s not diplomatic...but it’s the truth.”


Stay quiet and you’ll be OK. In Saudi Arabia, a young Indian Catholic, Brian Savio O’Connor, has been imprisoned and tortured by the religious police, the mutawa. Says L’Osservatore Romano: “Officially the Mutawa has accused O’Connor of using drugs and praying to Jesus Christ, accusations which imply he runs the risk of being punished with the death penalty. The family says that the proofs of his use of drugs have been fabricated by the police, while it does not deny that Brian is a good Christian.” Where is the outcry? Why haven’t you read about Brian O’Connor in the New York Times? Why hasn’t 60 Minutes gone to Riyadh to put a Saudi official or two on the hotseat?



As Ralph Peters has had the courage to declare, “It’s time to end the politically correct baby-talk insisting that Islam isn’t the problem. In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem — because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.” It’s time to end the baby talk, and the silence. For whatever combination of political correctness, fear, and indifference has made for the silence on these stories and others like them, it does nothing but play into the hands of those who would destroy us.



Stay quiet, and the jihad will continue to advance: in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Israel, and Indonesia, and Nigeria, and the Philippines, and Western Europe, and elsewhere — and if you think we will not feel its impact here, just remember where Atta was when he said those words, and what happened next.



Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).


|

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington

The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror" yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

|

Pat Buchanan: The Wrong War

From Worldnet Daily

There exists "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

There were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." In 1994, Baghdad rebuffed approaches from bin Laden to establish terrorist training camps inside Iraq. So the 9-11 Commission has concluded.

And so, with no weapons of mass destruction yet found after 18 months of searching, the second pillar of the president‘s case for war falls to earth. Iraq was an unnecessary war.

Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America‘s presence growing. Every attack on U.S. troops or contractors – even when they involve Iraqi dead and wounded – seems to be cause for jubilation.

Yet, George Tenet of the CIA excepted, the men who told President Bush the war was necessary, that it would be a "cakewalk," that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and flowers and take to democracy like kids to ice cream are still in place, still in power

In his now-famous 2002 State of the Union, President Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." He vowed that America would not allow any one of the three to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003, we attacked and invaded the only one of the three that did not have a secret nuclear program. And since that State of the Union, the other two have accelerated their programs to acquire the atomic weapons President Bush said they would not be permitted to have. At this point, the Bush Doctrine has to be judged a limited success.

Given the mess in Iraq, neither the American people nor the White House appear to have the desire or will to force an end to the Iranian or North Korean bomb programs. The Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club, are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded that America has no stomach for another war.

Tehran may be right. But if North Korea already has an atomic bomb and Iran will not be stopped from acquiring one, what does a new world of 10 nuclear nations, six of them in Asia, mean for U.S. foreign policy? We had best begin to consider the possibility.

No nation that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been invaded – for a reason. The strategic base camp for any Normandy, Inchon or Desert Storm invasion could be turned into an inferno in minutes by atomic weapons.

This suggests that in confronting a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran, U.S. Army and Marine bases in South Korea and Kuwait, and U.S. naval bases on Okinawa and on the south shore of the Persian Gulf are becoming strategic hostages and not strategic assets.

Put bluntly, if Pyongyang and Tehran acquire atomic weapons, there are no more axis-of-evil nations with which we can risk war. For there is nothing to be gained from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran.

During the Cold War, both sides accepted outrages that might have been casus belli before atomic weapons. The United States did not use on Chinese armies in Korea overrunning our troops the weapons Truman unhesitantly used on Japanese cities. For Stalin, too, now had the bomb. Nor did we intervene to halt the massacre of Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, or the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Carter‘s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a wheat embargo and a boycott of the Moscow Olympics.

Moscow, too, was inhibited from taking action in Berlin, where it was strong, when the United States used tactical and theater superiority to force the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. And Moscow also failed to respond to Reagan‘s seizure of Grenada and aid to the Afghan resistance.

As they used to say in the West, "God may have created all men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal." Nuclear weapons are the great equalizers. They concentrate the mind of a statesman wonderfully. And with North Korea and Iran plodding along toward the building of these awful weapons – in blatant defiance of the Bush Doctrine – the president and Sen. Kerry should be thinking about the world that will exist in the next presidential term. For by the end of that term, Iran and North Korea could both be full-fledged members of our nuclear fraternity.

If they are, the idea of an American empire will become as outdated as the British Raj.



|

Al Qaeda Link Exists, Despite the Fog

From the Los Angeles Times




By Stephen F. Hayes
Last Wednesday, the Sept. 11 commission issued a staff "statement" that further complicated an already confusing issue: the nature of the relationship between the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.

On the one hand, the statement confirmed several contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda terrorists, including a face-to-face meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence official and Osama bin Laden in 1994. Then, calling into question its own findings, the statement reported that two Al Qaeda terrorists denied the existence of any ties whatsoever. Finally, in very sloppy language, the statement seemed to conclude that there had been "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The media took that nuanced and self-contradictory analysis — which, by the way, constituted only one paragraph in a 12-page report — and found certainty where none existed. "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie," blared a four-column headline in the New York Times. An editorial flatly declared that the commission had "refuted" any connection.

Nonsense. The staff statement was a model of muddle, but this much is clear: There is nothing in it that reliably or categorically "refutes" a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. What's more, in the days since its release, members of the 9/11 commission — including co-chairmen Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean — have appeared eager to distance themselves from the statement issued by their staff.

"Members do not get involved in staff reports," Kean cautioned, promising more on the subject in the commission's final report.

So was there or wasn't there a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

CIA Director George Tenet certainly believes so. "Credible reporting states that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities," he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 7, 2002. "The reporting also stated that Iraq had provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." When Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 12, 2003, he said that although his agency could not show "command and control" between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime — something the Bush administration never claimed — it could demonstrate "contacts, training and safe haven."

Top Clinton administration officials also suggested a "collaborative" relationship. On Aug. 7, 1998, Al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 257 people — including 12 Americans. The Clinton administration struck back 13 days later, hitting a pharmaceutical plant, an Al Qaeda-linked facility in Sudan. On Aug. 24, 1998, a "senior intelligence official" made available by the White House told reporters that U.S. intelligence had found "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Among that evidence: telephone intercepts between top officials at the plant and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. In all, six top Clinton administration officials argued that Iraq had provided the chemical weapon know-how to the plant demolished in response to the Al Qaeda attacks.



Today, top Clinton officials are still not backing down from these claims. William Cohen, former secretary of Defense, defended the strikes as recently as March 23, 2004, in testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. Cohen said an executive from the Sudanese plant had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of [Iraq's] VX [nerve gas] program."

Other recent intelligence, including communications intercepts and interviews with Iraqi intelligence detainees, indicates that Iraq provided funding and weapons to Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate in northern Iraq.

These connections seem pretty compelling — Tenet's testimony, the intelligence surrounding the 1998 Sudan strikes and the Iraqi support for Ansar al Islam. But the Sept. 11 commission's staff statement didn't deal with any of them.

The Sept. 11 commission cannot be expected to write the definitive history of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But having contributed greatly to the confusion with one paragraph in Staff Statement 15, the commissioners owe it to the American people to give it a thorough and sober examination in their final report.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen F. Hayes, a staff writer for the Weekly Standard, is the author of "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America," published this month by HarperCollins.




|

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

One thing is for sure, the "progressive" left never lets any contrary opinion other than Bush=Bad, Rumsfeld=Demon, Cheney=Devil

One thing is for sure, the "progressive" left never lets any contrary opinion other than Bush=Bad, Rumsfield=Demon, Cheney=Devil be spoken without sinking into a cesspool of ridicule and name calling.

Of course they do have great minds like Michael Moore and Teddy Kennedy to fall back on when they have reached their intellectual limit.

The Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill has put together a good collection that can be read here:

http://www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html


Here's the edited version

Connections between Al Quaeda and Saddam

Now a couple of definitions that define some essential points. Dont confuse these definitions like the press and the Democrats running for President want you to.

EVIDENCE A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
PROOF
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. A statement or argument used in such a validation. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

Well-heeled Saddam has global stash "where a fair exchange was guaranteed by Youssef Nada of El-Taqwa Bank" — an outfit included in President Bush's list of al Qaeda's money suppliers, Vice President Cheney Interview Jan 2004 One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago, that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Senior al Qaeda official may have been in Iraq Abu Mussab al Zarqawi -- And Zarqawi has been linked to some of the men arrested recently in London and accused of possessing the deadly poison ricin. Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq CEBU, Philippines — Islamist terrorists in the southern Philippines who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein. Question:What warning, if any, did the CIA receive from the National Reconnaissance Office concerning Arabs training on the fuselage of a passenger airliner at a terrorist training camp prior to September 11th, 2001?
Following Saddam Hussein's Secret Money-Laundering Trail A detailed analysis of Saddam Hussein's secret money-laundering techniques shows here for the first time how he used the same offshore money launderers as Osama bin Laden. US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN 1998 Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources report mounting fears within US and Israeli counter-terrorism agencies that al Qaeda’s three command centers are preparing mega-terror attacks for US and Israeli targets. They believe that, for the time being, al Qaeda has foregone a nuclear, radiological or chemical option in favor of biological warfare, Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection By Jonathan Schanzer The Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003
Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may be working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il, reportedly an al-Qaeda operative on Saddam's payroll. Saddam and Osama, Alliance for Vengeance (January 29, 2002) The September 11 attacks in the United States was carried out by operatives of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization, but the initial plans for the terrorist attack were made in Baghdad six years ago.
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy "We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you." so said Saddam in a threat made to our ambassador prior to Kuwait invasion by Iraq. Iraq's Tie to Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Airline Hijackings
From: Aviation Week & Space Technology Headline: Satellite Photos Believed To Show Airliner for Training Hijackers Byline: Michael A. Dornheim Saddam link to Bin Laden Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999 Salman Pak / Al Salman
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. Who is Prince Nayef? The most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. by Bill Tierney IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, the trappings of monarchy obscure the police state that keeps the Saud family in power.
Saddam's Files New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda Saddam’s Ultimate Solution PBS interview with Richard Perle July 11, 2002: What are the chances that Saddam Hussein is feeding chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda Iraq Accused of Encouraging Terrorism by Sheltering Hijackers 7 November 2000Al-Nadwah (Saudi Arabia) charges Iraq with supporting terrorism after Baghdad granted political asylum to two Saudi citizens who hijacked a Saudi airliner Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. Protecting Saddam By WILLIAM SAFIRE The same disinformation technique is now being used to wipe out the fact of a meeting in Prague in April, 2001 — five months before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. — between Mohamed Atta,
Case Closed Weekly Standard The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship An Iraqi dissident, Nabeel Musawi is the political liaison for the London-based Iraqi National Congress. Alleging an intelligence connection between Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Iraq, he tells FRONTLINE that he believes Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks Iraqi Involvement in Attack on Cole
10 November 2000 The Paris-based weekly Al-Watan al-Arabi, considered friendly to Saudi Arabia, reports that Iraq was involved in the attack on the October 12 attack on the U.S.S Israeli intelligence warned US days before attacks ISRAEL'S military intelligence service, Aman, issued an urgent warning of an impending terrorist "spectacular" against America, several days before the suicide bombers flew passenger airliners into New York's Trade Towers Iraq & al-Qaeda Is there a link? The go-to-war camp would love to prove that Saddam Hussein is doing business with Osama bin Laden. They share similar interests -- hatred of Israel, hostility toward the rulers of Saudi Arabia and, especially, enmity toward their common nemesis, the U.S
Clintonized CIA Quashed Best Evidence of Saddam-9/11 Link
Clinton-era holdovers still running the CIA have dismissed the best evidence that Saddam Hussein had a role in planning the 9/11 attacks because they distrust accounts from multiple Iraqi defectors who have described an airplane hijacking training school attended by al-Qaeda members near Baghdad. Letting Saddam Be A pre-and post-September 11 danger. By Laurie Mylroie
More American civilians died on September 11 than on any other single day in this nation's history Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany
16 March 2001 Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad Islamic terrorists continue Islam’s war against what remains of Western civilization
"The conviction is gaining ground in some Western intelligence agencies that Osama bin Laden, his family, Ayman al-Zawahiri and thousands of al-Qaida fighters made good their escape from Afghanistan THE UNKNOWN by JEFFREY GOLDBERG in New Yorker
The C.I.A. and the Pentagon take another look at Al Qaeda and Iraq. According to several intelligence officials I spoke to, the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam's regime was brokered in the early
Marines capture suspected terrorist training camp SALMAN PAK World Trade Center - Who Did It? An Alternative View From Jane's Foreign Report 9-19-01 Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center OSAMA BIN LADIN AND IRAQ Iraq News, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 By Laurie Mylroie
The New York Post, Feb 1, reported, "Saddam Hussein-battered, humiliated and increasingly isolated-plans to resort to terrorism in revenge for US airstrikes Interview with President Clinton "Trouble in Iraq" JIM LEHRER: All right. Another subject. Iraq
PRESIDENT CLINTON: We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. International trail of quiet hijacker includes mysterious visit to Las Vegas Wednesday, October 31, 2001 From Florida to New Jersey and out to Las Vegas, those who met Marwan al-Shehhi remembered him as a pleasant young man
Remember Anthrax ? Despite the evidence, the FBI won't let go of its "lone American" theory
9/11 Mysteries In Plain Sight By Jim Hoagland Iraq’s State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror Network Essay by Chris Farrell in the Washington Dispatch Patterns of Global Terrorism (1999): Middle East Overview
U.S. Department of State 1 May 2000 Iran, Syria, and Iraq all persisted in their direct or indirect state sponsorship of terrorism. A first open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States September 15, 2001 In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most merciful” Hijackers linked to tabloid October 15, 2001 Confirming a clear link between the terrorists targeting America and the South Florida company hit by anthrax cases, the FBI said Sunday that the Sun tabloid editor's wife rented a Delray Beach apartment to two of the hijackers
TENET TESTIMONY TO SENATE FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Tenet: And the Iraqi piece, as I referenced Saddams 2nd Letter to US
3rd open letter from Saddam
Bush claims new Iraq link with al-Qaida link Bin Laden turned to Bagdad after concluding al-Qaida could not produce weapons, says prisoner TERRORISM - THE IRAQI CONNECTION I’ll ask my guests, James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agencye. Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?October 29, 2001 MYLROIE: We are in a very, very difficult situation. If we say clearly that it is Iraq, and we're going to get Saddam, then it is likely that he will do his best to bring his enemies down with him. The Iraqi Regime's Links to Terrorism On August 28, 2002, a U.S. federal grand jury issued a new indictment against five terrorists from the Fatah Revolutionary Command, also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), for the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan There is also one report that ATTA makes a side journey to Rome on this trip. Italian security sources have reported that Iraq made use of its Rome embassy to foster and cultivate Hussein’s partnership with al-Qaeda.
We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back' Marked "Top Secret and Urgent" in the margin and signed by "MDA", thought to be the codename for the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat." Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Link to Terror Attacks
Two weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein reportedly put his military on its highest state Saddam running training camps for terrorists, say defectors
(Filed: 09/11/2001) TWO former Iraqi intelligence agents have told the CIA that Saddam Hussein has fostered training camps to produce scores of highly trained terrorists for attacks in the Middle East and the West The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

06 November 1998 TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN
New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 issued an indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens. The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. According to the indictment, Bin Laden's group also tried to recruit Americans to travel through the United States and the West to deliver messages and to conduct financial transactions to aid their terrorist activities. The indictment also states that Al Qaeda used humanitarian work as a conduit for transmitting funds to affiliate terrorist groups.

h. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other ranking members of Al
Qaeda stated privately to other members of Al Qaeda that Al Qaeda should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the Government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezballah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies; http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Dick Cheney Jan 2004 on Links between Al Queda Saddam and 9/11 Explosive!

Q: It was amazing, yeah. When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You've repeatedly cited such links. I heard your speech in Denver a while back. But even Secretary of State (Colin) Powell now says there's no smoking guns or concrete evidence proving that connection. I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all?

CHENEY: Well, there are two issues here. First of all, I don't want to speak to Colin's statements. I'm not familiar with what he said yesterday. Two issues in terms of relationship. One is, was there a relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or the al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence service? That's one category of issues. A separate question is, whether or not there was any relationship relative to 9/11. Those are two separate questions and people oftentimes confuse them.

On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we've never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.

With respect to the other question, the general relationship, I would refer you...There are several places you can go. One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago, that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Q: Yes, sir...

CHENEY: The main perpetrator was a man named Ramzi Yousef. He's now in prison in Colorado. His sidekick in the exercise was a man named Abdul Rahman Yasin... Ahman Rahman... Yasin is his last name anyway. I can't remember his earlier first names. He fled the United States after the attack, the 1993 attack, went to Iraq, and we know now based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad, that they put him on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary, in effect, in Iraq, in the aftermath of nine-ele...(sic)... the 93' attack on the World Trade Center.

Q: So you stand by the statements...?

CHENEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And you can look at Zarkawi, (Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi, who is still out there operating today, who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq. They were involved in trying to smuggle things, manufacture and smuggle things like ricin into Europe to attack various targets in Europe with. He also, Zarkawi, was responsible for the assassination of a man named Foley, who worked for A.I.D. in Amman, Jordan, an American assigned over there. The links go back. We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it. A lot of it has been declassified. More, I'm sure, will be declassified in the future, and my expectation would be as we get the time. We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/politics/article/0,1299,DRMN_35_2565269,00.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well-heeled Saddam has global stash

GENEVA — If Saddam Hussein is indeed orchestrating an anti-American guerrilla campaign from a hideout somewhere in Iraq, he can count on the billions of dollars he stashed away all over the world to finance his hit-and-run operations. The money was packed into suitcases, which were transported by truck from Bled, Slovenia, to Zurich, where a fair exchange was guaranteed by Youssef Nada of El-Taqwa Bank" — an outfit included in President Bush's list of al Qaeda's money suppliers, Mr. Fusi said. El-Taqwa's headquarters were in Campione, a tiny Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, which also serves as an international tax haven. "The neatly packaged bills then were shipped to Lebanon and Syria after which they disappeared," he said. Another case entailed a consignment of weapons purchased in Slovenia from Russian, German and American arms merchants by one of Saddam's agents. The contraband was sent to the Croatian port of Koper, where landlocked Slovenia has extraterritorial shipping privileges. It was listed on the outgoing freighter's manifest as "grain" and delivered to Syria. "Ironically, the boat was named the Nada after the Egyptian financial family whose scion, Youssef, founded El-Taqwa Bank," Mr. Fusi said. http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030816-105042-4611r.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following Saddam Hussein's Secret Money-Laundering Trail
A detailed analysis of Saddam Hussein's secret money-laundering techniques shows here for the first time how he used the same offshore money launderers as Osama bin Laden. That covert money network, based in the tax havens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Panama and Nassau, helped bankroll the war machines of both Iraq and al-Qaeda. More than 1,000 pages of confidential corporate, bank and legal documents show how the network functioned. The papers come from court cases filed in several European countries, from corporate records, from investigations by Italian police, from a report of the Kroll international investigative agency, and from private sources. The documents are the basis of further investigations coordinated in Europe by the prosecutor of Milan. They show, for example, that a father-and-son team in Liechtenstein, whose business is setting up shell companies and secret bank accounts, worked to move the money of both Saddam and al-Qaeda. Engelbert Schreiber and his son Englebert Schreiber Jr. are listed as founder or board member of Mediterranean Enterprises Development Projects, Tradex, Techno Service Intl., Saidomin and Executive Flight Assistance, all Liechtenstein companies that handled arms sales and payoffs for Saddam. They also are listed on corporate documents for Nasreddin International Group Ltd. Holding (Liechtenstein). Ahmed Idriss Nasreddin, on the U.S. terrorist blacklist, was a founder of Al Taqwa, the bank that moved money for al-Qaeda and which was closed down by the United States after 9/11. The Schreibers declined to respond to numerous requests for comment.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/28/World/Following.Saddam.Husseins.Secret.MoneyLaundering.Trail-684337.shtml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is something I just came across that I dont recall ever being referenced by anyone before reading it in Bill Sammon's Book on President Bush Misunderestimated though he seemed to pass right over the quote without giving it enough attention, here Saddam threatens the US by saying that even though his armies cannot reach the US individual arabs can. Indeed!.
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy
On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam's Files New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Closed Weekly Standard
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes 11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11 OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The memo, dated October 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. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember Anthrax? Despite the evidence, the FBI won't let go of its "lone American" theory. by David Tell 04/29/2002, Volume 007, Issue 32
1) OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS, have federal authorities altered their working theory of last fall's anthrax murders?
No, not much. On November 9 last year, even before the anthrax outbreak's fifth and final fatality had been recorded, the FBI called a press conference to unveil its "linguistic and behavioral assessment" of "the person" purportedly responsible. It was "highly probable, bordering on certainty," the Bureau announced, that a single "adult male" had prepared and mailed all the contaminated letters at issue. This man "probably has a scientific background," "may work in a laboratory," and is familiar with the area around Trenton, New Jersey--where the envelopes were postmarked.

3) Well, wait a minute. Wasn't the anthrax powder mailed last fall chemically identical to stuff produced in classified U.S. labs? But the fundamental chemistry involved here cannot sustain such certainty. Silica, or silicon dioxide, is simple quartz or sand, the most abundant solid material on earth. "Bentonite" is the generic term for a class of natural or processed clays derived from volcanic ash, all of which are themselves mineral compounds of silica--and not all of which necessarily contain aluminum. In other words: Trace amounts of silica in an anthrax powder are consistent with the presence of bentonite. And the absence of aluminum from that powder is not enough to exculpate any foreign germ-warfare factory thought to have used bentonite in the past. The FBI and Rosenberg seem also to have ignored what has been standard practice in U.S. biodefense, medical, and veterinary laboratories for most of the past thirty years: Work with virulent strains of anthracis in dried-spore, aerosolized form is virtually unheard of. Pentagon production of weapons-ready--and presumably silicate--anthrax powder was abandoned during the first Nixon administration. The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, for example, doesn't even own the requisite technology to manufacture dry aerosols; USAMRIID scientists, like their civilian counterparts, use only "wet" anthrax--which has usually been genetically altered or irradiated to render it non-toxic. So whoever was responsible for last fall's bioterrorism wouldn't have needed to add silica to his anthrax powder at all. But he--or she, or they--might have had use for it while manufacturing that powder to begin with. Before they were kicked out of Iraq for good, U.N. weapons inspectors concluded that Saddam's military biologists were no longer relying on mechanical milling machines to render dried-out paste-colonies of anthracis bacteria into fine dust, but had instead refined a spray drying technique that produced the dust in a single step. And the suspected key ingredient in this Iraqi innovation, interestingly enough: pharmaceutical-grade silica, a common industrial drying agent. So whoever was responsible for last fall's bioterrorism wouldn't have needed to add silica to his anthrax powder at all. But he--or she, or they--might have had use for it while manufacturing that powder to begin with. Before they were kicked out of Iraq for good, U.N. weapons inspectors concluded that Saddam's military biologists were no longer relying on mechanical milling machines to render dried-out paste-colonies of anthracis bacteria into fine dust, but had instead refined a spray drying technique that produced the dust in a single step. And the suspected key ingredient in this Iraqi innovation, interestingly enough: pharmaceutical-grade silica, a common industrial drying agent.

9) Surely the FBI has some substantial reason to discount such fears and focus its attention on a domestic suspect?
That could well be, but if so they're keeping it to themselves. There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall's anthrax terrorism. The U.N.'s former top bioweapons inspector in Iraq, Richard O. Spertzel, has told Congress about reports of a "cryptic September article in a newspaper run by Saddam's son, Uday" which promised that a "virus" would soon attack "the raven," apparently a Baath party curseword for America. Spertzel has also told Congress that Iraq has conducted military exercises simulating the dispersal of anthrax spores from crop-dusting aircraft--a subject in which both Mohamed Atta and Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "twentieth hijacker," are known to have expressed intense interest. Last June, one of Atta's September 11 confederates, Ahmed Ibrahim Al Haznawi, walked into a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, emergency room with a painless but inflamed one-inch black lesion on his lower left leg. In retrospect, Al Haznawi's attending physician, Dr. Christos Tsonas, is convinced that the wound was cutaneous anthrax. The Department of Health and Human Services' top bioterrorism expert agrees, as do two leading researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. And so on. The FBI has hardly said a word about why it is inclined to mistrust or make light of such signals. And what little the Bureau has offered about why it prefers to focus instead on possible American suspects isn't especially persuasive, unfortunately.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/147vnjgh.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/148lbgmg.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marines capture suspected terrorist training camp By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press
SALMAN PAK, Iraq (AP) - The rusted shell of an old passenger jet sat out in a field, its tail broken off. Good for hijacking practice, U.S. Marines speculated Sunday as they examined an Iraqi training base about 20 miles south of Baghdad. The Americans also found a full obstacle course - with wooden walls and other barriers to be climbed over or crawled under - as well as a three-story concrete tower draped with ropes, apparently for rappelling. President Saddam Hussein's regime has said the camp, part of a larger military reservation in a bend of the Tigris River, was used for anti-terrorism training for Iraqi special forces. But U.S. officials and others have long suspected the camp trained terrorists. Two former Iraqi military officers told The New York Times and PBS's "Frontline" in the fall of 2001 that Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs were brought here to practice hijacking planes and trains, planting bombs and staging assassinations. U.N. inspectors looking for biological weapons reported seeing a plane there. The defectors said the plane was a Boeing 707. The one seen on Sunday was not.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203%257E27069%257E1305668,00.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Mysteries In Plain Sight By Jim Hoagland Sunday, Analysis and commentary are my bread and my butter. But detached perspective is in short supply when it comes to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I hate this murdering terrorist chieftain even for being captured. Why? Because the news of the capture of al Qaeda's No. 3 in Pakistan stirs up the raw memories of the pain, suffering and dread of 9/11 -- and a spasm of self-reproach for not recalling directly what that day was like more often than I do. Worse: more often than I promised myself I would. It is like treading on a live electric wire after stepping over it for much of the past 18 months. There is a song I avoid playing when I don't want to risk tears rolling down my cheeks. For me, Bruce Springsteen captures both the anger and the consolation of time passing since that "Lonesome Day": House is on fire, Viper's in the grass, A little revenge and This too shall pass. I put the Boss's album on the instant I heard of the capture. And listened and hoped that the day of lawful, judicious revenge does not pass too quickly for this man known as Mohammed. The capture of this particular viper may well be even more important than nabbing or killing Osama bin Laden, both in solving the mysteries of 9/11 and in reaching the tipping point in the war on terrorism. Long years of interviewing Middle East terrorist leaders and my reading of human nature suggest this: It is one thing to give up your life to the delusion of advancing a glorious cause toward victory and the final removal of evil. It is quite another, much harder thing to sacrifice yourself to a losing cause in full retreat. There is no scientific way of knowing where that tipping point is. But that it exists is shown by the cyclical pattern of terrorism through the ages. Civilization can never rid itself of murdering fanatics. But it can disrupt, disband and contain their operations, and organize defenses against them. The capture of Mohammed is a big step forward. He knows the answer to these two central questions: How did al Qaeda, within two or three years, go from obscurity to becoming super-terrorists capable of blowing up U.S. embassies, warships and skyscrapers with astonishing precision? And what are the links between 9/11 and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 by Ramzi Yousef, who authorities say is Mohammed's nephew? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59646-2003Mar7?language=printer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush claims new Iraq link with al-Qaida link Bin Laden turned to Bagdad after concluding al-Qaida could not produce weapons, says prisoner 2003-08-10 / Agence France-Presse / A high-ranking al-Qaida operative in custody has disclosed that Iraq supplied the Islamist militant group with material to build chemical and biological weapons, the Bush administration said Friday. "A senior al-Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaida was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," the White House said in a report. The 25-page document was released as President George W. Bush vacationed at his Texas ranch.The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons.
http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/08/10/1060483250.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back' Marked "Top Secret and Urgent" in the margin and signed by "MDA", thought to be the codename for the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat."The envoy is a trusted confidant and known by them. According to the above mediation we request official permission to call Khartoum station to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JGUS2WPOOC55TQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden By Inigo Gilmore (Filed: 27/04/2003)
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime. Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq's Tie to Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Airline Hijackings
From: Aviation Week & Space Technology Headline: Satellite Photos Believed To Show Airliner for Training Hijackers Byline: Michael A. Dornheim
Dateline: Los Angeles, January 7, 2002 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031403/content/nabbed.guest.html
Satellite images of a facility near Baghdad show an airliner that Iraqi defectors say is used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking.Space Imaging, which operates the Ikonos civilian surveillance satellite, was prompted to look for the aircraft in existing photos after a ''Frontline'' television show interviewed two Iraqi defectors who described the hijacker training and the aircraft used for the mock attacks. One of them drew a map of the Salman Pak training area, and Space Imaging was able to find the facility and the aircraft in photographs taken on Apr. 25, 2000, of an area about 15 mi. southeast of Baghdad on the Tigris River. The zoomed-in photograph is a close match to the hand-drawn map, lending credence to the defector's story. He is Sabah Khodada, and said he worked at the secret Salman Pak complex for about six months as an administrator. The facility is run by the Iraqi secret service, and is used to teach assassination, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, buses and trains and other terrorist operations, Khodada said. ''This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.'' http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031203/content/eibexcerpt.guest.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam’s Ultimate Solution PBS interview with Richard Perle Chairman Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002: What are the chances that Saddam Hussein is feeding chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda? And, if so, how prepared is the U.S. to respond? Would a regime change in Iraq bring greater stability to the region or muddy the waters further? James P. Rubin discusses the issues with Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group, and a former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/transcript.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nabeel Musawi An Iraqi dissident, Nabeel Musawi is the political liaison for the London-based Iraqi National Congress. Alleging an intelligence connection between Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Iraq, he tells FRONTLINE that he believes Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Musawi says U.S. support of "corrupt regimes" in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a major factor fueling anti-Americanism in the Middle East. This interview was conducted late September 2001

You were saying that Sept. 11 was a coup attempt? What do you mean?
If you go by the history of the Middle East and the way coups were carried out, you aim for the financial center, you aim for the ministry of defense, and you aim for presidential palace. Of course, you usually aim for the TV and radio, but in the case of the United States, you don't need to do that, because it's free press. So what happened on Sept. 11 in the United States was a coup attempt, because they aimed for the White House, they aimed for the Pentagon, and they aimed for the heart of the financial center of the United States.

But a coup implies that they're going to replace the existing government or elite with another one.
If you're attacked in the White House and if you are attacked in Air Force One, and you're attacked in the military establishment which represents the most powerful thing within the United States, that is a coup. You're destroying the leadership. You're killing the whole leadership. It will take weeks, if not months, to bring back some sort of order into the American system. That is a major success for a small terrorist organization like Taliban and Osama bin Laden and their associates in the region.To them, this will throw not only the United States but the whole of the Western world into total anarchy, panic. We know they had limited success from the atrocities committed on Sept. 11. And still, it threw everybody into a panicky state for a few days. It took us few days to get over the shock. Even the political system itself took a few days to recover from the shock. So imagine if you actually get Air Force One and the White House. That is a coup. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/musawi.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letting Saddam Be A pre-and post-September 11 danger. By Laurie Mylroie
More American civilians died on September 11 than on any other single day in this nation's history. Such a huge disaster is, almost necessarily, the result of major, multiple errors. The current spasm of finger-pointing and memo-leaking is bringing some mistakes to light, but they are all tactical, i.e. whether 9/11 could have been averted by vigorously pursuing suspicions of the FBI field offices. Even in the best of circumstances, U.S. authorities cannot catch every major terrorist attack in the making. When those attacks are on the scale of 9/11 even one failure is unacceptable. Notably absent in the present debate is consideration of the strategic blunder underlying 9/11. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mylroie052902.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Trade Center - Who Did It? An Alternative View From Jane's Foreign Report (Iraqis involvement)Janes.com 9-19-01 Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington. Directing the mission, Aman officers believe, were two of the world's foremost terrorist masterminds: the Lebanese Imad Mughniyeh, head of the special overseas operations for Hizbullah, and the Egyptian Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, senior member of Al-Qaeda and possible successor of the ailing Osama Bin Laden. The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of Al-Qaeda. The Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan, meeting with Ayman Al Zawahiri. According to the sources, one of the Iraqi intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman, was captured last October by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan. The Iraqis are also reported to have established strong ties with Imad Mughniyeh. http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqs State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror Network Essay by Chris Farrell in the Washington Dispatch Jun 30, 2002 [Editor's Note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2001]
Osama bin-Laden represents and articulates a thoroughly developed Islamist theology and philosophy with a broader appeal that goes beyond a simple hatred of Israel. He expounds and defends a religious obligation of Muslims to attack U.S. military and civilian targets; demands the immediate expulsion of U.S. Forces from Saudi Arabia; calls for the creation of a “Muslim” nuclear weapon; criticizes harshly “moderate” Muslim states such as Egypt and Jordan for not instituting “truly” Islamic law; and he also calls for the end of all sanctions against Iraq. Osama bin-Laden sees an opportunity for holy war, literally, across half of the globe.1 http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/32


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TERRORISM - THE IRAQI CONNECTION
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. The role of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon is well-documented. Indeed, bin Laden virtually claimed credit for the terrorist attacks in a videotape circulated to his al-Qaida followers. But did bin Laden’s terrorists have help from a state -- besides Taleban-ruled Afghanistan? There is evidence that Iraq may have been involved, evidence that U.S. officials are paying increasing attention to. Did the September 11th terrorists have help from Saddam Hussein? I’ll ask my guests, James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Laurie Mylroie, author of "Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War against America." Welcome.
James Woolsey, let me ask you first. Is there any direct evidence of a connection between the September Eleventh hijackers and Iraq?
Woolsey: It depends on what you mean by direct. Much of intelligence is hearsay, and would not be admissible for example in a court. There’s some very suggestive evidence. For example, there are at least five individual witnesses -- two American inspectors and three Iraqi defectors -- who tell us about Iraqi government training of non-Iraqi Arabs at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, on an old Boeing 707 [aircraft], in hijacking techniques, including hijacking with knives. Now is that direct evidence? It strikes me that it’s pretty darn suggestive evidence. Would it alone convict Saddam in a court before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. But there’s more.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/834.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Link to Terror Attacks By Ziad K. Abdelnour
Two weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein reportedly put his military on its highest state of alert since the 1991 Gulf War. According to the London-based Sunday Telegraph, the Iraqi leader even took the unusual step of moving his two wives, Sajida and Samira, from Baghdad to an undisclosed location in the family's hometown of Tikrit, 100 miles to the north (see “Army alert by Saddam points to Iraqi role,” The Sunday Telegraph, London, Sept. 23, 2001.) Saddam's precautions were hardly unwarranted. A growing body of circumstantial evidence indicates that Iraq may have participated in plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. The most striking evidence linking Baghdad to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks is that the presumed ringleader of the suspected hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met twice with Iraqi intelligence operatives in the Czech Republic. According to senior Czech officials quoted in the Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny and The Wall Street Journal, Atta traveled from Hamburg, Germany, to Prague in June 2000 and met with Iraqi intelligence agents at Baghdad's embassy there, which has long been under constant surveillance by the Czech authorities. http://www.sftt.org/dw11142001.html#3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam and Osama, Alliance for Vengeance (January 29, 2002) The September 11 attacks in the United States was carried out by operatives of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization, but the initial plans for the terrorist attack were made in Baghdad six years ago. Iraqi intelligence trained at least two of bin Laden's suicide pilots on Boeing jetliners the Iraqis captured during the Gulf war. The Iraqis provided several of bin Laden's men with forged passports and vials of anthrax, which were delivered to one of the suicide pilots, Mohammad Atta, during secret meetings in Prague. Although the religious extremist and the extreme nationalist are polar opposites politically, international terrorist Osama bin Laden and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein long ago set aside their differences to meet a common goal. The tragic events of September 11 mark only the first phase in their joint effort to enact revenge on their many common enemies in both the Western and the Islamic worlds. http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr26a.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TENET TESTIMONY TO SENATE CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES HEARING before the SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE of the UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 6, 2002
Tenet: And the Iraqi piece, as I referenced, you know, the WMD profile I gave you and my interest in being very careful about was there a convergence of interest here between al-Qa'ida and the Iraqis, don't know the answer to the question yet--pursuing it very, very carefully. There was a press story today that said CIA dismisses these linkages. Well, you don't dismiss linkages when you have a group like al-Qa'ida who probably buys and sells all kinds of capabilities for people who have converging interests, whether Sunni or Shi'a, and how they mixed and matched training capabilities, safe harboring, and money is something we're taking a look at. So nobody dismisses anything. Everybody's on the table, and these networks of terrorism should no longer be thought about purely in terms of the state's interests, what they say publicly, what their obvious interests are and how they see the benefit in hurting the United States. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/020602transcript.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam link to Bin Laden Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999
The Guardian Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq Accused of Encouraging Terrorism by Sheltering Hijackers
7 November 2000Al-Nadwah (Saudi Arabia) charges Iraq with supporting terrorism after Baghdad granted political asylum to two Saudi citizens who hijacked a Saudi airliner and rejected an official Saudi request for their extradition. The hijacking of the London-bound plane shortly after it left Jeddah occurred on October 14. After first indicating that they wanted to go to Damascus, the hijackers directed the pilot to Baghdad. Once the plane landed, the hijacking was resolved within a few hours. The passengers were released and the hijackers gave a press conference, denouncing the Saudi government for its human rights violations. An Iraqi opposition source told MEIB that there is "no doubt" that the entire event was coordinated with Iraqi authorities before hand. http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_irb.htm#lb2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Involvement in Attack on Cole
10 November 2000 The Paris-based weekly Al-Watan al-Arabi, considered friendly to Saudi Arabia, reports that Iraq was involved in the attack on the October 12 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Iraqi intelligence reportedly received the explosive used in the attack from Russia, and the Iraqis transported the material to Yemen, in collusion with senior officials of the Yemeni regime. The report repeats some of the same charges made two weeks before in the same magazine, which explained that it was such a massive operation and was so carefully planned, that it was virtually impossible for a terrorist group to have carried out the attack without state support. Arab sources tell MEIB that the Saudi leadership is thoroughly convinced that Iraq was behind the attack and that they are exasperated by the U.S. insistence on blaming it solely on Osama bin Ladin.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_irb.htm#lb5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany
16 March 2001 Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies. http://www.meib.org/articles/0104_irb.htm#irb3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSAMA BIN LADIN AND IRAQ Iraq News, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 By Laurie Mylroie
The New York Post, Feb 1, reported, "Saddam Hussein-battered, humiliated and increasingly isolated-plans to resort to terrorism in revenge for US airstrikes against his country. . . US officials say the CIA has received 'credible and reliable' intelligence reports that Saddam is forging alliances with some of the Middle East's most bloodthirsty terrorists-including Osama Bin Ladin and Abu Nidal-as part of an apparently new campaign to strike American targets and possibly destablise Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . US officials are concerned about the possibility that Saddam could not only help with funding and logistics for Bin Ladin's far-flung network, . . . http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/02/990210-in-terror.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patterns of Global Terrorism (1999): Middle East Overview
U.S. Department of State 1 May 2000 Iran, Syria, and Iraq all persisted in their direct or indirect state sponsorship of terrorism. In most cases, the support included providing assistance, training, or safehaven to terrorist groups opposed to the Middle East peace process. In some cases, particularly Iran, it also included targeting regime dissidents and opponents for assassination or harassment. Libyan support for terrorism has declined significantly in recent years, but Libya continued to have residual contacts and relationships with terrorist organizations http://www.meib.org/articles/0006_medoc1.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?October 29, 2001 Posted: 2:36 PM EST (1936 GMT)
MYLROIE: We are in a very, very difficult situation. If we say clearly that it is Iraq, and we're going to get Saddam, then it is likely that he will do his best to bring his enemies down with him. It is true that we face the danger then of more deadly attacks, including anthrax attacks. If we do not say it is Saddam, we will also face the danger of more deadly attacks. This is a terrible situation. Yet I prefer to deal with the losses that will come by taking on Saddam than to be subject to the losses that will occur if we remain sitting ducks. It would seem that some ambiguity in the beginning is the best thing. If we shift the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, we are indeed at war, and during war, extreme measures may have to be taken. For example, we might think to get children and all non-essential personnel out of U.S. cities while this war goes on, which we will carry out very quickly, or to have people remaining in U.S. cities where they are a target, wearing masks pretty much all the time, in order to deal with this problem which we should address quickly rather than slowly
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/29/mylroie/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam running training camps for terrorists, say defectors By Philip Delves Broughton in New York
(Filed: 09/11/2001) TWO former Iraqi intelligence agents have told the CIA that Saddam Hussein has fostered training camps to produce scores of highly trained terrorists for attacks in the Middle East and the West. If confirmed, their statements will strengthen the case of those in Washington advising President Bush that the only way to crush Arab terrorism is to topple Saddam. That case received a further boost on Wednesday when Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, regarded as the least hawkish member of Mr Bush's inner circle, said America would turn its focus to Iraq once it had dealt with the al-Qa'eda network and Afghanistan. After defeating al-Qa'eda, said Mr Powell: "We will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq, which have tried to pursue weapons of mass destruction." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/09/wirq09.xml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:What warning, if any, did the CIA receive from the National Reconnaissance Office concerning Arabs training on the fuselage of a passenger airliner at a terrorist training camp prior to September 11th, 2001?
Answer: After Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, an Iraqi military officer, defected from Iraq in 1999 to Turkey. He now lives in Fort Worth, Texas. When he was debriefed, he described his training mission at Salman Pak, a military base about 21 miles from Baghdad that had been used for the testing of secret weapons, including chemical biological warfare agents, and paramilitary training for covert actions. Captain Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami said that as late as 1998 he trained an elite commando team, Fedayeen Saddam, in airline hijacking and sabotage. Through a translator, Mr. Alami described, according to the Wall street Journal, a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Asked about the plane by an interviewer for Front Line, he said "Yes, there's a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp." http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/salmanpak.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clintonized CIA Quashed Best Evidence of Saddam-9/11 Link
Clinton-era holdovers still running the CIA have dismissed the best evidence that Saddam Hussein had a role in planning the 9/11 attacks because they distrust accounts from multiple Iraqi defectors who have described an airplane hijacking training school attended by al-Qaeda members near Baghdad. According to this week's New Republic magazine, "two former Iraqi intelligence officers" brought to the CIA by the Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress (INC) have provided classified testimony claiming "that Saddam was using a base south of Baghdad, in an agricultural community called Salman Pak, to train non-Iraqi Arabs in hijacking and other black arts of terrorism." The "Agency," however - still run by Clinton appointee George Tenet - remains unconvinced. "There is no evidence of al-Qaeda training there in Salman Pak," one senior CIA official insisted to TNR. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/27/120144


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a peninsula caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately five kilometers (km) from the arch located in the town of Salman Pak. The facility area comprised more than 20 square km, and might have been known as a farmers (or agricultural) experimentation center. The peninsula was fenced off and patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside and to the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the larger built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other for his half-brother, Barazan al-Tikriti. A main paved road ran through the center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula. [GulfLINK

Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak
So you were training Iraqis, Saddam's fedayeen, members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis?
They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. Personally, my profession is not this kind of training. My profession is to train people on infantry, typical infantry training, such as training on machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, rocket launchers on the shoulder and this kind of training. The special training that I'm talking about, such as the kidnapping and so, is conducted by those trainers who are not from the army; they are from ... al-Mukhabarat.And there was a person who is very famous. They call him Al-Shaba. [ph]. This is Arabic word means "The Ghost," who was responsible for all the training, and those trainers or the teachers.

Why was he called the Ghost?
I don't know exactly why he's being called the Ghost. I came there and his name was the Ghost. But I know that he has conducted several terrorist operations in Lebanon and in other countries all over the world. And I know that he told us that he's been requested to be arrested by the Interpol. This is probably why he called himself the Ghost.
And the foreign nationals, the Arabs who are there, but who are not Iraqis -- what were they like? Were they Egyptians, Saudis? Do you know where they came from?
They look like they're mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin and short bodies. And they also are Muslims. ...

Were they religious?
I don't know exactly because I saw them seldom very [briefly]. But some of them has beards, long beards, which is an indication of being a religious Muslim.

And they trained people to hijack airplanes?
Yes.

For what purpose?...
It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.
All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.

Who controlled this operation?
In terms of training, they will train in this special camp. But after this training, they will go in small groups. These small groups are directly connected with Saddam, or to Saddam's son. For example, the Iraqi fighters, they will be spread all over the country. Occasionally those individual groups, very small groups, will be called for. They might encounter different kind of special training beyond this training on specific things. I'll give you an example. They were calling for some of these groups to train intensively to learn English language, Persian language, Hebrew language, to be sent out to different places of the world to conduct such kind of ... different kind of operations. I suspect that the higher level of training, or the additional training they encounter, has a lot to do with what happened. And there's a lot of similarity with what happened with New York and Washington on September 11.

That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?
I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened. Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because this kind of attacks must be, and has to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training. How could Osama bin Laden -- who's hiding in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan in small caves and valleys -- train people and gather information and send people to do such high-level operation? We all know this is a high-level operation. This cannot be done by a person who does not even own a plane in Afghanistan, who cannot offer such training in Afghanistan. This is definitely done by a mastermind like Saddam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli intelligence warned US days before attacks IAN BRUCE
ISRAEL'S military intelligence service, Aman, issued an urgent warning of an impending terrorist "spectacular" against America, several days before the suicide bombers flew passenger airliners into New York's Trade Towers and the Pentagon on September 11. Aman had no details of the targets, but picked up enough indicators of major terrorist activity from a combination of informants and electronic eavesdropping to send out an alert, which also covered US interests in Britain, France and Germany. Much of the Israeli intelligence centred on Imad Mughniyeh, head of the Iranian-backed Hizbollah movement's foreign operations section, and on Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Egyptian-born terrorist mastermind reputed to be Osama bin Laden's chosen successor. The Israelis say they have evidence linking both men to agents representing SSO, Iraq's foreign intelligence service, and believe Baghdad has provided finance and logistical support to them. Links between the terrorist network and Iraq have been established by Pakistan's shadowy ISI agency and by the Czech Republic's counter-intelligence service. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/31-10-19101-0-24-15.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic terrorists continue Islam’s war against what remains of Western civilization
On January 13, 2002, WorldNet Daily reported that "The conviction is gaining ground in some Western intelligence agencies that Osama bin Laden, his family, Ayman al-Zawahiri and thousands of al-Qaida fighters made good their escape from Afghanistan through the illicit sea route created by Lebanese-Iranian super terrorist Imad Mughniyeh for smuggling operations in the service of terrorist organizations. They are believed to have made their getaway from Afghanistan in the first week of December, crossing secretly into Iran and heading out through the Persian Gulf - only to disappear again."

In view of this intelligence, President Bush issued "a blunt warning to Iran last Thursday against harboring ‘al-Qaida murderers.’" Worldnet (based on Debka intelligence journal sources) also reported in November 2002 that "bin Laden had packed his family out of Afghanistan to Pakistan. According to accumulating intelligence, he moved his family so as to draw his American searchers' attention away from his real escape route, which a week later took him and al-Zawahiri from Afghanistan directly into Iran."

WorldNet, citing many additional facts, concludes that "Iran was up to its neck in the al-Qaida escape conspiracy. Imad Mughniyeh, top terrorist operations chief for Iran’s radical spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, organized the logistics; the escapees were led overland through Iran to its main Gulf outlet, under the protection of Iranian intelligence officers."
http://www.fatima.org/review/perspective190.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview with President Clinton "Trouble in Iraq" JIM LEHRER: All right. Another subject. Iraq
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. I have shown I do not relish this thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I say one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/clinton_1-21a.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A first open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States September 15, 2001
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most merciful”

Open letter from Saddam Hussein to the American peoples and the western peoples and their governments.

Once again, we would like to comment on what happened in America on September 11, 2001, and its consequences. The comments we made on the next day of the event represent the essence of our position regarding this event and other events, but the aftermath of what happened in America, in the West in particular and in the world in general, makes it important for every leader to understand the meaning of responsibility toward his people, his nation, and humanity in general to follow up the development of the situation, to understand the meaning of what is going on, and hence to elaborate his country’s and people’s position so as not to restrict oneself to only following the event.

For this reason also, the Americans, and the world with them, should understand the argument that made those people give their lives in sacrifice, and what they sacrifice themselves for, in that way. When one million and a half Iraqi human beings die, according to Western documents, from a population of twenty five million, because of the American blockade and aggression, it means that Iraq has lost about one twentieth of its population. And just as your beautiful skyscrapers were destroyed and caused your grief, beautiful buildings and precious homes crumbled over their owners in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq by American weapons used by the Zionists. In only one place, which was a civilian shelter, which is the Ameriyah Shelter, more than four hundred human beings, children, young and old men and women, died in Iraq by American bombs. In the same day, the 11th of September, one of their aggressive military airplanes was shot down over Iraq. And on the same day of the event in America on 11th September, and American jetfighter was perpetration aggression against Iraq and was shot down.

As for what is going on in Palestine, if Zionist let you see on your TVs the bodies of children, women and men who are daily killed by American weapons, and with American backing to the Zionist entity, the pain you are feeling would be appeased.

Americans should feel the pain they have inflicted on other peoples of the world, so as when they suffer, they will find the right solution and the right path.

All that has been inflicted on the Arabs and
http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/ereport16.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraqi Regime's Links to Terrorism
Ely Karmon ICT Senior Researcher Reprinted with permission from Policywatch, Analysis of Near East Policy from the Scholars and Associates of the Washington Institute.

On August 28, 2002, a U.S. federal grand jury issued a new indictment against five terrorists from the Fatah Revolutionary Command, also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), for the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan. Based on "aggravating circumstances," prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty for the attack, in which twenty-two people -- including two Americans -- were killed.

The leader of the ANO, the infamous Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna), died violently last week in Baghdad. But his death is not as extraordinary as the subsequent press conference given by Iraqi intelligence chief Taher Jalil Haboush. This press conference was the first time Haboush's name has appeared in the international media since February 2001.

Iraqi Objectives
What could possibly have motivated the Iraqi regime to send one of its senior exponents to announce the suicide of Abu Nidal and to present crude photographs of his bloodied body four days (or eight days, according to some sources) after his death? It should be noted that the earliest information about Nidal's death came from al-Ayyam, a Palestinian daily close to Abu Nidal's bitterest enemy -- the Palestinian Authority.At this sensitive moment in U.S.-Iraqi relations, Abu Nidal could have provided extraordinarily damaging testimony with regard to Saddam's involvement in international terrorism, even beyond Iraqi support of ANO activities in the 1970's and 1980's. In publicizing Nidal's death, the regime may have a number of motives, such as:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=446


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources: Senior al Qaeda official may have been in Iraq
From Mike Boettcher and Henry Schuster CNN
CNN) -- A senior al Qaeda leader may provide a link between that terrorist group and Iraq, according to coalition intelligence sources.

Abu Mussab al Zarqawi -- a Jordanian -- was recently accused by Jordanian officials of masterminding the assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman in late October. And Zarqawi has been linked to some of the men arrested recently in London and accused of possessing the deadly poison ricin.

But it is his travels, especially in the past year, that have attracted the attention of intelligence officials. Zarqawi, coalition intelligence sources said, left Afghanistan when the Taliban regime was toppled. From there, said the sources, he traveled through Iran to Baghdad, then to Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq, where Ansar al-Islam, a group linked to al Qaeda, operates. Some in the U.S. intelligence community have questioned whether officials in these countries were aware of Zarqawi's presence, because he might have been using aliases. But former CIA operative Robert Baer, who spent years in the Middle East, disagreed.

"Somebody at some level had to know he was there. Now obviously I can't tell you whether Saddam knew, but somebody in an official line of responsibility for customs and immigration knew he came into the country," Baer said. "Palestinians, other Arabs, even Iraqis go through a very tight screen when they come into that country. Documents are looked at. You just can't do it [sneak in]. It is a police state." Coalition intelligence sources say Zarqawi also traveled to Syria and Lebanon, moving with seeming ease between those countries, setting up terrorist cells. These sources say Zarqawi is believed now to be in Iran

According to U.S. sources, Zarqawi was the person to whom President Bush referred in an October 8 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, when he sought to point to a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. "Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks," Bush said. Now, U.S. sources have linked Zarqawi to the arrests in London of several men accused of possessing ricin. Sources also said evidence was found in al Qaeda safe houses in Afghanistan of the organization's interest in ricin. Zarqawi was convicted in Jordan in absentia of planning to bomb tourist sites and hotels during millennium celebrations as part of a series of al Qaeda attack plots worldwide. He evaded arrest and escaped to Afghanistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources report mounting fears within US and Israeli counter-terrorism agencies that al Qaeda’s three command centers are preparing mega-terror attacks for US and Israeli targets. They believe that, for the time being, al Qaeda has foregone a nuclear, radiological or chemical option in favor of biological warfare, because of the weapons systems believed to have been made available by Iraqi military intelligence and already in the hands of three al Qaeda commanders: Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ,nicknamed “the Mukhtar” . Baghdad believes that a biological attack on Israel will act as an appropriate reprisal for the threatening US offensive and a possible deterrent. To be ready in case Iraq launches its F-1 or L-29 warplanes, or Polish-made drones - all armed with spray canisters loaded with toxic chemicals or germs - over Eilat or Aqaba, the Americans have in the past week been shipping to southern Israel improved, re-engineered PAC-3 anti-missile batteries together with thousands of US Marines. However, in the view of our intelligence and military sources, the more immediate danger to Israel comes not directly from Iraq but from al Qaeda and its biological weapons arsenal. They say the Islamic fundamentalist group has established a headquarters at Bayara in the radical Kurdish Ansar al-Islam enclave of northern Iraq, as one of its three main planning centers. All Zarqawi, whose full name is Ahmad Fadeel Nazal Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, aka al Khalayleh, is the senior bio-project director. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s counter-terrorism sources report that in November and December, al Zarqawi was spotted commuting between Baghdad, Bayara, Damascus and Beirut, giving the Bush administration its first direct proof of the Baghdad-al Qaeda terrorist link. It prompted the US President to remark on Tuesday, December 31, that “an attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy.” Zarqawi’s senior officer, Abdullah is based in Pakistan - either in the port city of Karachi or near the border with Afghanistan, while the whereabouts of Mohammed, “the Mukhtar” are unknown. He may be in Bosnia or Europe. Of the three, Zarqawi is the ticking bomb waiting to go off. A Jordanian-Palestinian in his late 30s, he fled the kingdom in 1999 after he was caught plotting to blow up hotels hosting foreign millennium celebrants. He is the only al Qaeda operative known for certain to have undergone extensive terrorist training – including airline hijacking techniques -- in Iraq’s notorious Salman Pak special weapons facility. Back in October 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks in the United States, DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported that Bayara became an al Qaeda base complete with chemical and biological training laboratories run for the group by the Iraqis. http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=233


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection By Jonathan Schanzer The Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003
Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may be working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il, reportedly an al-Qaeda operative on Saddam's payroll. Kurdish explosives experts also claim that TNT seized from Ansar was produced by the Iraqi military, and that arms are sent to the group from areas controlled by Saddam. Iraqi officials deny all such ties, yet Saddam clearly profits from Ansar's activities, which keep Kurdish opposition forces tied up on the border and away from Saddam. Indeed, support for Ansar is not unlike the money Saddam gives to families of Palestinian suicide bombers; turning up the heat in Kurdistan and the Palestinian territories takes heat off Saddam as a crisis looms. Currently, Kurdish and international sources are accumulating evidence they say could soon present a clearer picture of Saddam's cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Implications
More than one year after Ansar announced its formation, the State Department has yet to designate it a Foreign Terrorist Organization, nor has the Treasury Department listed it as a Special Designated Global Terrorist. It would be interesting to know why. Other questions remain: Can Washington pressure Iran to cease cooperation with Ansar? Can it persuade Norway, where Mullah Krekar lived for several years, to examine his financial accounts? Can it verify ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam based on interviews with captured Ansar militants? If such links are established, military force should be considered. Reports from the front indicate that Ansar could not withstand an aerial assault. Yet, Washington may be reticent to attack during this period of UN inspections for fear of international rebuke, particularly from Turkey. Ankara, already ambivalent about an Iraq war, may be sensitive to any measures that would potentially strengthen the Kurds. Still, Ansar al-Islam poses a threat to any future U.S. ground deployment. Moreover, dismantling the group would potentially weaken both Saddam and al-Qaeda -- two primary targets in the war on terror.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5571


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is Prince Nayef? The most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. by Bill Tierney
12/23/2002, Volume 008, Issue 15
IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, the trappings of monarchy obscure the police state that keeps the Saud family in power. But beneath the veneer of gracious luxury, internal security has never been more important than it is today to a regime that constrains the press and commerce, struggles to provide the generous benefits promised its citizens, and has made the country a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. Enmeshed as we are in an alliance of necessity with the Saudis, Americans should be asking: Who runs Saudi internal security? What are his views about the United States and about jihad? And how much power does he wield in the Saudi power structure? The man who has been in charge of the Ministry of Interior for the last 27 years is Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz, technically the fourth most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. Active and alert at 69--unlike the two leading members of the "Sudeiri Seven," King Fahd and Prince Sultan, both of whom are elderly and ailing--Nayef has far more sway than the Western press has generally recognized. He heads five major oversight committees and imposes himself on four other ministers, while firmly holding the reins of the most powerful ministry in the kingdom. Indeed, Nayef appears to have made himself irremovable. Certainly he is in a position to remind his brothers, Prince Sultan and Crown Prince Abdullah, that regardless of who makes the public statements or takes the diplomatic trips, it is he who maintains the stability of the kingdom, and his organization that, day by day, keeps the royal family in power. The keys are in his hands, and there is no one who can hold him to account
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/018fdsio.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting Saddam By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON — Soviet propagandists used to touch up photographs to remove the face of a Kremlin official who had fallen from favor, making him a "nonperson." The same disinformation technique is now being used to wipe out the fact of a meeting in Prague in April, 2001 — five months before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. — between Mohamed Atta, the leading Qaeda hijacker, and Ahmed al-Ani, the Iraqi consul in Prague, who was Saddam Hussein's intelligence case officer there. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Sergei Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister (like his boss, a former K.G.B. disinformation specialist) said of this widely reported Iraqi-Qaeda connection: "That is wrong information." That denial of an observed connection between bin Laden's suicide bomber and Saddam's spymaster was preceded by a David Ignatius column in The Washington Post last week deriding such reports by me and by James Woolsey, former C.I.A. chief, in The Wall Street Journal. Pooh-poohing the notion of a meeting that "supposedly took place," Ignatius asserted "there is no solid evidence" of such a link. On the contrary, he opined, "hard intelligence to support the Baghdad- bin Laden connection is somewhere between `slim' and `none.' " http://www.nci.org/02/03f/18-07.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq & al-Qaeda Is there a link? The go-to-war camp would love to prove that Saddam Hussein is doing business with Osama bin Laden. They talk up suspicions, but no one's got proof As the world's two most nefarious villains, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ought to have reasons to work together. They share similar interests -- hatred of Israel, hostility toward the rulers of Saudi Arabia and, especially, enmity toward their common nemesis, the U.S. Both are suspected of dabbling in chemical and biological agents, and both are judged capable of using them. While al-Qaeda is still seeking weapons of mass destruction, Western intelligence experts think that Iraq already possesses some--in which case hooking up with bin Laden's network might make sense. If Saddam wants to employ his arsenal against the U.S. and its allies without getting caught, why not contract al-Qaeda to do the job for him?

That, at least, is the connect-the-dots theory that Bush Administration hawks and conservative cheerleaders are advancing in their campaign to persuade the President to take his war on terrorism to Baghdad. Assembling evidence of a direct line between Iraq and al-Qaeda--or better yet, proving that Saddam was complicit in the Sept. 11 plot--would give the war planners something they don't have: a compelling do-it-now reason for war.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE UNKNOWN by JEFFREY GOLDBERG in New Yorker
The C.I.A. and the Pentagon take another look at Al Qaeda and Iraq. Issue of 2003-02-10

According to several intelligence officials I spoke to, the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam's regime was brokered in the early nineteen-nineties by the then de-facto leader of Sudan, the pan-Islamist radical Hassan al-Tourabi. Tourabi, sources say, persuaded the ostensibly secular Saddam to add to the Iraqi flag the words "Allahu Akbar," as a concession to Muslim radicals.

In interviews with senior officials, the following picture emerged: American intelligence believes that Al Qaeda and Saddam reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993, and that the relationship deepened further in the mid-nineteen-nineties, when an Al Qaeda operative—a native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi—was dispatched by bin Laden to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. Al-Iraqi's mission was successful, and an unknown number of trainers from an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists. (Training in hijacking techniques was also provided to foreign Islamist radicals inside Iraq, according to two Iraqi defectors quoted in a report in the Times in November of 2001.) Another Al Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen-nineties to Iraqi intelligence. Salim, according to a recent book, "The Age of Sacred Terror," by the former N.S.C. officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, was bin Laden's chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States. He is awaiting trial in New York on charges related to the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings; he was convicted last April of stabbing a Manhattan prison guard in the eye with a sharpened comb.

Intelligence officials told me that the agency also takes seriously reports that an Iraqi known as Abu Wa'el, whose real name is Saadoun Mahmoud Abdulatif al-Ani, is the liaison of Saddam's intelligence service to a radical Muslim group called Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small enclave in northern Iraq; the group is believed by American and Kurdish intelligence officials to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. I learned of another possible connection early last year, while I was interviewing Al Qaeda operatives in a Kurdish prison in Sulaimaniya. There, a man whom Kurdish intelligence officials identified as a captured Iraqi agent told me that in 1992 he served as a bodyguard to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, when Zawahiri secretly visited Baghdad.

Ansar al-Islam was created on September 1, 2001, when two Kurdish radical groups merged forces. According to Barham Salih, the Prime Minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the group seized a chain of villages in the mountainous region outside the city of Halabja, and made a safe haven for Al Qaeda fighters. "Our intelligence information confirmed that the group was declared on September 1st at the behest of bin Laden and Al Qaeda," Prime Minister Salih told me last week, in a telephone conversation from Davos, Switzerland. "It was meant to be an alternative base of operations, since they were apparently anticipating that Afghanistan was going to become a denied area to them."

Recently, I asked two former C.I.A. directors, James Woolsey and Robert Gates, to talk about the problem of analyzing an incomplete set of evidence—the same challenge that stymied intelligence analysts in the days before December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Woolsey, who served as President Clinton's first C.I.A. director, said that it is now illogical to doubt the notion that Saddam collaborates with Islamist terrorism, and that he would provide chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda. "At Salman Pak"—a training camp near Baghdad—"we know there were Islamist terrorists training to hijack airplanes in groups of four or five with short knives," Woolsey told me. "I mean, hello? If we had seen after December 7, 1941, a fake American battleship in a lake in northern Italy, and a group of Asian pilots training there, would we have said, 'Well, you can't prove that they were Japanese'?"

Gates, who was C.I.A. director under George H. W. Bush, said that the evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is not irrefutable, but he noted that ambiguous evidence is an occupational hazard in intelligence work. Gates suggested that the current debate over Iraq's ties to terrorism is reminiscent of a debate about the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Then, he said, "you had analysts in the C.I.A. who said, 'Absolutely not, it would be contrary to their interests to support unpredictable, uncontrollable groups.' There were other analysts who said, 'Baloney.' They had a lot of good history, and circumstantial reporting on their side, but they didn't have good evidence. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and we got hold of the East German Stasi records, we learned, of course, that both the East Germans and the Soviets were supporting Baader-Meinhof and other terrorist groups."

Gates continued, "I have always argued, in light of my fairly detailed knowledge of the shortcomings of our intelligence capabilities, that the fact that we don't have reliable human intelligence that proves something conclusively is happening is no proof at all that nothing is happening. In these situations, the evidence will almost always be ambiguous. On capabilities, it's not ambiguous. Can Saddam produce these weapons of mass destruction? Yes."

The ambiguity, Gates said, has to do with "intentions," and he went on, "If the stakes and the consequences are small, you're going to want ninety-per-cent assurance. It's a risk calculus. On the other hand, if your worry is along the lines of what Rumsfeld is saying—another major attack on the U.S., possibly with biological or chemical weapons—and you look at the consequences of September 11th, then the equation of risk changes. You have to be prepared to go forward with a lot lower level of confidence in the evidence you have. A fifty-per-cent chance of such an attack happening is so terrible that it changes the calculation of risk."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International trail of quiet hijacker includes mysterious visit to Las Vegas Wednesday, October 31, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: John L. Smith
From Florida to New Jersey and out to Las Vegas, those who met Marwan al-Shehhi remembered him as a pleasant young man with good manners and a charming smile. Some would recall that he looked like a computer expert, rarely made small talk, but always was sure to say thank you. At a motel in Las Vegas last summer, he was polite to housekeepers and kept mostly to himself. At a seafood store in Wayne, N.J., al-Shehhi ordered fried fish to go and always thanked owner John Frodella, according to published reports. "He looked like a computer expert to me," Frodella recalled. "He looked pretty intelligent." Ever the devoted follower, al-Shehhi was the youngest of the Arab terrorists to visit Las Vegas in the weeks before 19 members of their cell embarked on a Sept. 11 suicide hijacking mission that killed approximately 6,000 people. If the nation has learned nothing else from this waking nightmare
http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Oct-31-Wed-2001/news/17340538.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hijackers linked to tabloid Compiled from Times wires © St. Petersburg Times, published October 15, 2001
Confirming a clear link between the terrorists targeting America and the South Florida company hit by anthrax cases, the FBI said Sunday that the Sun tabloid editor's wife rented a Delray Beach apartment to two of the hijackers. Confirming a clear link between the terrorists targeting America and the South Florida company hit by anthrax cases, the FBI said Sunday that the Sun tabloid editor's wife rented a Delray Beach apartment to two of the hijackers.

The Sun is part of the American Media Inc. tabloid chain, and it employed photo editor Bob Stevens, who died this month from inhalation anthrax. Two other AMI employees were exposed, and five more are being retested to confirm positive blood test results. Sun editor Michael Irish's wife, Gloria, rented unit 1504 at the Delray Racquet Club to Marwan Alshehhi and Saeed Alghamdi this summer, said FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela. Alshehhi was aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the second jet to strike the World Trade Center. Alghamdi was on United Flight 93, which crashed 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh when passengers apparently thwarted an attempt to target another building. "There is now a link between the editor's wife and the terrorists," Orihuela said. But just as quickly, she said the FBI wasn't drawing immediate conclusions. "It's just a coincidence right now," Orihuela said. "I'm sure there will be some sort of follow-up." "We are not searching the apartment at this time," Orihuela said from outside the tabloid's Boca Raton headquarters. "We are focusing on this building." http://www.sptimes.com/News/101501/news_pf/Worldandnation/Hijackers_linked_to_t.shtml


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also one report that ATTA makes a side journey to Rome on this trip. Italian security sources have reported that Iraq made use of its Rome embassy to foster and cultivate Hussein’s partnership with al-Qaeda.
Habib Faris Abdullah al-Mamouri, a general in the Iraqi secret service, and from 1982 to 1990 a member of the “Special Operations Branch,” (M-8) charged with developing links with Islamist militants in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, was stationed in Rome as an “instructor” for Iraqi diplomats. Al-Mamouri supposedly met with ATTA in Hamburg and Prague in addition to July’s visit in Rome. Al-Mamouri has not been seen in Rome since July, shortly after he last met ATTA. [Daniel McGrory, “Hijacker ‘Given Flask by Iraqi Agent’,” The Times (London), October 27, 2001.]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/londontimes102701.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
CEBU, Philippines — Islamist terrorists in the southern Philippines who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein. Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly $20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq. "It's so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people," Sali told a reporter this week, renewing earlier claims of support from Iraq. The payments, while small, provide additional evidence of a link between Iraq and the Abu Sayyaf — a group with long-standing ties to al Qaeda and its global terror network. The boast of an Iraqi connection was taken seriously after the expulsion of an Iraqi diplomat from Manila last week amid charges he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf by telephone. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030304-9060681.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddams 2nd Open Letter to the Peoples of the United States
In the name of God, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful:
Once again, we make a return to comment on the incidence that took place in America on September 11, not for its significance as such, but for the implications surrounding it and its ramifications in terms of results on the level of the world of which we are part or rather a special case as a nation known as it is with the basis and uniqueness of its faith. On previous occasions, we have already said that the United States needs to try wisdom after it has tried force over the last fifty years or even more. We still see that this is the most important thing the world must advise the US about if there is anybody who wants to say something or adopt an attitude towards this incidence, and who is concerned about world peace and stability. This is the case if the US and the world are convinced with the dictum and the verdict, namely that what has happened came to America from without, not within.It is among the indisputables in the law or general norms, in dealings, in social life, and even political life, that any charge should be based on evidence if the one who makes the accusation is keen to convince others or has respect to that who listens to the accusation or is concerned with it as part of the minimal obligation of his duty. But the US has made the charge before verification, even before possessing the minimum evidence about such a charge. It has even not availed itself the opportunity to verify things, first and foremost. It started a drive of incitement and threat, or said something irresponsible by broadening the base of charges to include states, circles and individuals. American officials set about making charges or giving the guided media, the Zionist media and its symbols within the authority and outside it a free hand in order to prepare the public mind for the charge. What does this mean?In a nutshell, it means that the US gives no heed to the law or rely on it. It has no concern for the counter viewpoint in line with its dangerous policy towards this issue or others. That is why we find that it takes no pain to secure evidence. Therefore, it needs no evidence to pass its verdict. It is content with saying something, passing verdicts, whether people other than the American officials are convinced or not. This means, in keeping with the policy it has pursued since 1990, that it has no regard to the viewpoint of the peoples and governments in the world in it entirety. It gives it no weight or heed despite the fact that it claims to be the democratic state (number one) in the world. The basic meaning of democracy even by the standards of its initial emergence in the Western world, that facts should lay bare before the people so that the people would assume their responsibility with full awareness. Our description of the US attitude vis-à-vis this incidence is a practical description. It means that American officials do not respect even their own people's viewpoint, let alone the world's. In this conduct, the American officials behave as though they are deluding the peoples, beating up the misleading media drums to do the job of mobilizing them against enemy or enemies against whom no evidence about their accountability for the action they are accused of has been furnished. All the officials there seek to achieve is to foment the hostility of the peoples of the US against whoever they assumed to be an enemy before the incidence has occurred. The tax-payer would be in a position where he is prepared to accept the blackmail trap arms manufacturers have laid for him in addition to the wrangled interests on the level of senior military and civil officials in the US. http://home.12move.nl/~sh754597/Ereport/ereport16a.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A third open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments.
October 29, 2001

In the name of God the Merciful, The Compassionate
Once again we address a letter to all the peoples and governments of the West, including the United States.
Peace be upon those who expect a greeting of peace from us, or upon those who answer it by saying : and peace be upon you too (wa Alaikum Asalam).The world focused its full attention on the analysis and follow up of the events of last September, but those who made an in-depth analysis may have not been the majority of the people. Nevertheless, it seems to us that they have, now, increased in number. The number of officials in power who are looking into the depth of what happened, its motives or reasons, and its results and effects, has also increased. Their number and way of conduct, at the time of the event, was deplorable for those who are not aware that not everyone is capable of a deep contemplation of major events or complex circumstances, just as not many people are capable of dreaming of what is better. Now that the emotions have relatively calmed down in the heart and spirit of those who applauded the event, or those who condemned it, I say that, the role of leaders should be played, with their people’s support, on the basis of the description and the role of their responsibilities. One of the most important qualities of any leader is saving other from death not by marking the dark ditches on the road, but also by preventing those who do not see the marks from falling into the abyss. Then comes the quality of exaltation, or ascendancy of the people he is in charge of, along with their potential thought and action. The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again. I am sorry to say that the general approach in this direction is still weak, so far. Western governments are the first in this phenomena of weakness. Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there. Nevertheless, the latter are still hesitant voices that deal with the situation in the light of the balance of interests of the posts they expect to occupy, and of the influence of the centers of power. As for the United States, the hope in the awareness of its people is greater than it is in its Administrations, if the people could see the facts as they are, unless these Administrations are set free from the conclusive influence of Zionism, and other centers of influence which serve their own interests that are associated with their well-known goals. The events of September 11, and the following reaction of people in rage, or those who took advantage of the situation, including waging the aggression on Afghanistan on the basis of suspicions, and the accompanying insinuations and statements by the media or by American, and non-American leaders, have shown that this vast world can be set on fire by a spark coming from the West, even if that spark comes all the way from across the Atlantic. Naturally, setting something on fire is easier than extinguishing it, and because deeds of virtue exalt the soul and the being, while evil deeds downgrade them, the latter become easier to commit for those who are tempted to do so. On the basis of this realistic image, the entire world needs to be saved from the deep abyss it is being push into by the US, and the likes of the US, whether they are states, individuals, or organizations. In fact, now that we know the limits of how American rulers conduct themselves in crisis, the US itself needs to be saved by the world while it is saving itself. Otherwise, the world will be pulled down by the weight of the US while falling down to the bottom of a deep pit from which it will not be able to come out until that pit is filled with blood and tragedies, not to mention those who will suffocate because they cannot swim. As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time. In fact, the US is in no need for additional vanity and arrogance, but if it ever defeated Iraq, God forbid, it would acquire an additional vanity that would push it to a higher level of vanity, which would bring it closer to not farther from the abyss.

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/projecthatfill/openletter.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------














|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?