Posted on 03/21/2006 9:59:48 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Arabic original shows the Falcon emblem of the Iraq Intelligence Service. A translation is provided if you scroll down. I highlight the key wording but there is more:
March 11, 2003
The al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information....as follows.
1. The Iraqi government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing but it will contain anthrax.
2. Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces uniforms for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens....
3. Dig trenches around Baghdad...oil...burning...cause mayhem
Now this letter is from al-Quds, a Jihad organization that supports the Palestinians. Saddam was the patriarch and Iraq officers worked closely with them.
IZSP-2003-00000859 also talks about the al-Quds Basra division. This is a a letter from a paramilitary organization INSIDE Iraq and not from Palestinian territories. The al-Quds in Iraq are Palestinians who live in Iraq and also are involved in Palestinian activities. They fought for Saddam because Saddam supported them in Palestine. The officers were Iraqi.
The al-Quds are covering their own butts by telling the IIS what they have been ordered to do or even trying to get them to stop Saddam since the war is immanent. If Saddam wanted to kill Iraqis with anthrax to make it look like the U.S. did it, it would be wise for him to use Palestinians instead of Iraqis. Therefor, it makes sense that he ordered the al-Quds to do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at rayrobison.typepad.com ...
I don't think Ray Robinson translated the document ....that appeared on his Blog and with which I started this thread.....
We have a major correction on the document that is the topic of this thread....was translated by someone other than the blogger or JV....see post #58....
Hi UK Guardian/Lemonde readers- here's what you missed
*****************************AN EXCERPT******************************************
The al-Quds document.
Recently, New York Times reporter Scott Shane interviewed me for an article concerning the release of Saddam Regime documents to the public. The article entitled Iraq Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On gave several generic quotes of intelligence officials stating that the new documents would reveal nothing. I can only assume that Scott Shane missed Condi Rice on the news commenting on the newly released documents that showed the Russian ambassador gave U.S. troop strength and our maneuver plans to Iraq. So “nothing new” is demonstrated to be incorrect.
As well he focused on a headline to one of my articles describing what I call the al-Quds document, IZSP-2003-00003336. In the article, I claimed that this document demonstrated that Saddam had planned to give anthrax to al-Quds, Palestinians living in Iraq and fighting for Saddam, and that they were to use it against Iraqis to implicate the U.S. in a WMD attack.
Scott did not provide any expert testimony specific to this document, or even one point of my analysis but dismissed it out of hand based no doubt on his vast experience working with documents captured in Iraq.
He says:
But the anthrax document that intrigued Mr. Robison, the Alabama blogger, does not seem to prove much. It is a message from the Quds Army, a regional militia created by Mr. Hussein, to Iraqi military intelligence that passes on reports picked up by troops, possibly from the radio, since the information is labeled "open source" and "impaired broadcast." No anthrax was found in Iraq by American search teams.
First let me point out, Scott could not get one expert to dispute my finding so he substitutes his own conclusions. Aren’t journalists supposed to report and not make judgments in the articles? But more than that, he couches his own conclusion among the generic statements of intelligence officials to give the reader the impression that the conclusion is from an expert, not his own (conceding of course that he must be an expert since he quoted himself in the article).
Now far be it from me to challenge his obvious expertise in the field when I can only bring the expertise of 13 year army experience as an officer in the field artillery and signal corps, Gulf War and Kosovo operations and the year I spent working with the Iraq Survey Group analyzing and processing these documents, but I will try.
This is the al-Quds document translation that was posted by FMSO:
Secret
*********************************
See link for more.....
IMPORTANT UPDATE!
Sorry all, I posted a translation which had been done by someone other than jveritas, and had not been reviewed for accuracy. I pulled the incorrect translation.
As per jveritas:
There is a major problem with the original translation of the document by whoever translated, in fact the English translation was attached to the original pdf posted on the Pentagon site together with the Arabic text and the translation was not accurate in the first sentence and hence it is causing major misunderstanding by whoever is reading it. This is basically an Iraq intelligence report talking about what Radio SAWA (Pro US radio in the Middle East) is reporting about Iraqi are going to use leaflets with Antrax and such, it was not an order to the Iraqi army to do so as it is has been interpreted by many.
I think the government translated it, but I am not 100% sure.
Thanks for the update.
Document IZSP-2003-00003336 has been wrongly understood by many. The document is sent by an Iraqi intelligence officer to his boss asking him to review a report of what a radio station called SAWA (It is a Pro-US station) has been broadcasting which is that the Iraqi Army is going to use leaflets that contain Anthrax and that some Iraqi army units were going to wear US military uniform and commit massacre against the Iraqis and accuse the US troops of doing it.
The misunderstanding going around is that this document was an order to the Iraqi army to do such things where it was simply a report about a broadcast from radio SAWA.
If you open this document you notice that Page 2 is an English translation that was part of the original document, and it makes an inaccurate translation of Radio SAWA and called it (impaired broadcast). I think this has caused some confusion and many thought this document is an order to the Iraqi Army.
For an ACCURATE translation the first line of the translation should read the following:
“ The Missan division in the Al Quds army provided us with information (Public Sources) (Radio SAWA) that says the following:”
The remaining of the original translation in English is correct.
Thanks for posting that MAJOR find.
**************************** AN EXCERPT**********************************
THE NEW YORK TIMES today joined the debate about Iraqi documents with a front-page news article and an op-ed by Peter Bergen. It's been nearly two weeks since the first documents were released, but a belated acknowledgement of the news is better than nothing. One might have expected such a longtime champion of open government as the Times to have aggressively led the effort to have these once-secret documents released. Not this time.
The front-page story seeks to dismiss the importance of the documents while the op-ed by Bergen seems to find them only significant enough to warrant an attempted deconstruction. Both of these efforts fail badly. Reading the two pieces together, one gets the unmistakable impression that the Times doesn't want to know more about the documents, their contents and what they tell us about prewar Iraq. The Times, it seems, has chosen ignorance.
The news piece deserves little in the way of a response. Reporter Scott Shane casts the story as a battle between diehard supporters of the Bush administration and the truth, noting most helpfully that in other Internet projects "volunteers have tested software, scanned chemical compounds for useful drugs and even searched radiotelescope data for signals from extraterrestrial life."
Shane ignores the mostly-thoughtful commentary and analysis of the documents and chooses to quote an exuberant conservative blogger proclaiming that one document shows that Iraq had WMD and connections to terrorism, only to knock that claim down later. "The anthrax document . . . does not seem < to prove much," Shane writes. And he liberally sprinkles his piece with quotes from anonymous intelligence officials who downplay the significance of the document release. (In one case, Shane names the intelligence official, Michael Scheuer, but neglects to include any mention of Scheuer's self-contradictory analysis of Iraq and terrorism or any reminder that Scheuer might not be a disinterested party.)
Lost on Shane, it seems, is that these documents were released in large part so that we would no longer have to rely on the opinions of anonymous intelligence officials who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report, knew very little about Iraq before the war. It should hardly be surprising that the U.S. intelligence community would seek to downplay the significance of these documents after paying them little attention for three years. In any case, the release of the documents allows the debate to move from speculation to fact. It is a development one would expect the Times to welcome.
Thanks for the ping.
It would be good to know who did the original translation.,....Ray Robinson mentions someone that could be doing some translation, but if so he messed up .....are you having any communication from RR?
He ought to know about your reading of the document....
Stephen Hayes understood that this document is not accurate and that why he politely citicized Robinson "exuberant conservative blogger one document shows that Iraq had WMD and connections to terrorism, only to knock that claim down later ".
"about what Radio SAWA (Pro US radio in the Middle East) is reporting about Iraqi are going to use leaflets with Anthrax and such"
Here is the problem.
The leaflets are dropped so the Iraqis would read them. Why would a U.S. propaganda station make that claim and PREVENT people from reading them? I appreciate the fact that any analysis of a translation runs this risk, and I even stated "Unless we see a translation that is different". But in another discussion it came up that Sawa also means together and that this word is not necessarily restricted to referencing the radio station.
Posted by: Ray Robison | Wednesday,
his blogging email is rayrobisonblog###hotmail.com
replace the ### with an @
The democrats and other far-left wing groups still won't admit that Slick was offerred Osama THREE TIMES by Sudan. What makes you think they will change their minds on this one?
Thanks for the clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.