Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terror Links to Saddam's Inner Circle (newly revealed document)
FoxNews ^ | June 11, 2006 | Ray Robison

Posted on 06/11/2006 6:48:24 PM PDT by FairOpinion

What was the relationship between Saddam Hussein's inner circle and Islamic terrorists? A newly released document captured in Iraq, but never before seen by the public, offers glimmers of new insight at the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site. The FMSO is a research and analysis center under the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command. This particular document mentions two men with similar names, each with ties to Pakistani religious schools known as madrassas, Jihad training camps, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

This original translation by my translator-colleague, who goes by the nom de guerre of "Sammi," comes from a notebook kept by an Iraqi intelligence agent. It provides evidence of a cooperative, operational relationship agreed to at the highest levels of the Iraqi government and the Taliban. The notebook is lengthy and we will present it on the FOX News Web site in a series of postings. It deals extensively with meetings between Maulana Fazlur Rahman, an Al Qaeda/Taliban supporter, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice president of Iraq, and other unnamed Iraqi officials.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaedairaq; blix; bush; bushwasright; fazlurrahman; gwot; hansblix; iraq; iraqalqaeda; maulanafazlurrahman; maulanarahman; prewardocs; prewarintelligence; rahman; ramadan; saddam; saddamterrorlink; taharamadan; tahayassinramadan; taliban; terrorism; terrorismwot; waronterror; wmd; wot; yassinramadan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: RayRobisonblog
"Seems these guys are so pious that anybody who doesn't follow their dogma is an infidel. I took that sentence as more of the same, but there are many possible meanings."

Yes, it's possible he simply means because we're infidels we're the terrorists, since he considers himself too pious to be anything but morally right. Then again, I've heard before over the years Arabs claiming the US was behind terrorism and framing them for it...so yes, there are many possible explanations.

81 posted on 06/12/2006 7:51:50 AM PDT by cake_crumb (Drugs? Illegals? Legalize and Tax 'Em All, Right? Right??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RayRobisonblog

BTW, when you finish the book, let us know. I'd very much like to pre-order it.


82 posted on 06/12/2006 8:18:53 AM PDT by cake_crumb (Drugs? Illegals? Legalize and Tax 'Em All, Right? Right??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

thanks, we sure will


83 posted on 06/12/2006 8:23:18 AM PDT by RayRobisonblog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RayRobisonblog

Thank you...sounds like it'll be a VERY interesting and informative read, loaded with ammo to use against the "I don't know why were in Iraq crowd, representatives of which I argue with almost every day.


84 posted on 06/12/2006 8:32:43 AM PDT by cake_crumb (Drugs? Illegals? Legalize and Tax 'Em All, Right? Right??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Wake up and smell the coffee ping!

Thank you, I had my coffee. why Ronald Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein? Bonus questions: Why the suspect terrorists are being "rendered" to Syria if Syria were to be pro-terrorist state? Why Ronald Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein?

85 posted on 06/12/2006 8:40:17 AM PDT by A. Pole (Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"It provides evidence of a cooperative, operational relationship agreed to at the highest levels of the Iraqi government and the Taliban."

More information that doesn't fit the MSM's agenda, and therefore will never be heard by the masses.

86 posted on 06/12/2006 8:47:43 AM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Why Ronald Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein?

Ronald Reagan is president? YOU stated that none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Yet this information and others support the facts that Saddam supported al-Qaeda.

9/11/2001 happened. Everything has changed since then.

87 posted on 06/12/2006 8:49:58 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"Nothing to see here... move along!"


88 posted on 06/12/2006 8:52:47 AM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
"Why Ronald Reagan was supporting Saddam Hussein?"
Ronald Reagan is president?

Wrong response. No cookie.

YOU stated that none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Yet this information and others support the facts that Saddam supported al-Qaeda.

So why none of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq?

9/11/2001 happened. Everything has changed since then.

The rules of logic did not change.

89 posted on 06/12/2006 9:01:21 AM PDT by A. Pole (Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

I stated BUSH took the fight to the terrorists. You stated that none of the 9/11 terrorists came from IRAQ. Then you started talking about Reagan and Syria. What was your point again?


90 posted on 06/12/2006 9:05:21 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The rules of logic did not change.

So you deny Saddam was supporting terrorists?

91 posted on 06/12/2006 9:06:10 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Why did President Reagan support Hussein? Because as leader of the free world, he HAD to have a position on the war between Iraq and Iran and it sure as heck wasn't going to be Iran. He knew perfectly well Saddam hates us as much as the mad mullahs. That's diplomacy, which happens fo be as old as civilization itself. Get used to it.
92 posted on 06/12/2006 9:10:15 AM PDT by cake_crumb (Drugs? Illegals? Legalize and Tax 'Em All, Right? Right??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
"The rules of logic did not change."

So you deny Saddam was supporting terrorists?

The only thing coming close was the financial support for the families of Palestinians who died in in suicide attacks.

93 posted on 06/12/2006 9:10:49 AM PDT by A. Pole (Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The only thing coming close was the financial support for the families of Palestinians who died in in suicide attacks.

Have you even read article you are posting to?

94 posted on 06/12/2006 9:13:12 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Have you even read article you are posting to?

Yes, and I do not buy it.

95 posted on 06/12/2006 9:27:14 AM PDT by A. Pole (Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; frogjerk
Have you even read article you are posting to?

Yes, and I do not buy it.

Then go read the recent IPP report put out by the Pentagon. Plenty of Saddam supporting terrorists and training them.

96 posted on 06/12/2006 9:45:45 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Then go read the recent IPP report put out by the Pentagon

In general one should not rely on "recent" reports, especially put by the side to the controversy. It takes time to separate real facts from the noise and bias.

Do you have some "old" data which passed the scrutiny of critics?

97 posted on 06/12/2006 10:21:57 AM PDT by A. Pole (Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
In general one should not rely on "recent" reports, especially put by the side to the controversy. It takes time to separate real facts from the noise and bias.

If you do not wish to read the IPP then just say so. No cause for your dancing. I take it you know nothing of the IPP report or how it was put together.

If you have to have an "old" report then read the 9/11 report. Plenty of Saddam & terrorist ties.

98 posted on 06/12/2006 10:29:36 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

Bump


99 posted on 06/12/2006 11:48:41 AM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (You can't depend on your eyes, when your imagination is out of focus...Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Another MSM source a day late and a dollar short.
Here's a laugher; other MSM sources will soon follow up with more investigative reporting of the Saddam's terrorist connections.


100 posted on 06/12/2006 2:07:41 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson