My Photo

Feeds

  • Add to My Yahoo!

« The al-quds document | Main | Iraqi memo about intelligence precautions for a secret arab group in Afghanistan. »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c663a53ef00e55066b60b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hi UK Guardian/Lemonde readers- here's what you missed:

Comments

The Liberal Avenger

I was going to come here and tease you relentlessly - but then I saw that you had the additional authority of THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION backing you - and I knew that I'd lost the battle before it even started.

Dr Victorino de la Vega

Yet more lies fabricated by the Pentagon’s PR & Public Communication Department, and sheepishly relayed by the “Meekly Standard” of neo-independent journalism…

And as much as I have no sympathy for today’s MSM appeasers and other pinko obfuscators, I’m afraid the Neocon media still aren’t less parsimonious with the truth.

Take Fox News or the New York Sun for the sake of argument: the latter recently published yet another article purporting to “prove” the existence of secret links between the Iraqi Baath party and Al Qaeda- see link below:
“Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show”

However, reading the article in question only “reveals” that:
“The document has no official stamps or markers”
“The question of future cooperation [between Saddam and Bin Laden] is left an open question”
“New documents […] did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001”

Funny how after their Iraq debacle, the Neocons haven’t stopped peddling the tall tale of Saddam’s alleged “connections” with OBL: the Leninist thugs of Washington are decidedly obsessed with Saddam and the Baath party…even after they’ve been rendered inoffensive- assuming they ever posed a threat to America any other country.

Bush, Cheney & Co. have always lied about the nature of the Iraqi regime, repeatedly accusing Saddam Hussein of being an Islamic fundamentalist in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban: unfortunately, after having been bombarded with fabricated infomercials produced by Israeli “Middle-East experts”, the American public eventually came to believe exactly what the Neocon wanted: that Saddam was kind of a later days bloodthirsty Saracen, on the verge of conquering the Infidel pastures of Wyoming and Oklahoma!

Yet, as we now know, the truth is otherwise: there never were any “links” between the Baath party and Al Qaeda, no spooky “secret meetings” in Vienna or Prague or “somewhere in Eastern Europe” between “Saddam’s diplomatic envoy and Bin Laden’s righthand man” as Vice-President Dick Cheney had alleged on numerous occasions


In Fact, Saddam Hussein was a staunchly secular Arab nationalist, a disciple of professor Mitchell Aflaq, the French-educated Orthodox Christian philosopher. And, if anything, Christian minorities and women were generally overrepresented in Saddam’s government: Vice-President Tareq Hanna Aziz was actually Catholic and so were Saddam’s Chief of Staff and many of the senior civil servants working at the presidential palace.

And check out this article for a fascinating firsthand description of Saddam’s Tickrit “spider hole” hideout:
“Pinned to the outside wall of the hut was a cardboard box depicting biblical scenes such as the Last Supper and the Madonna and child with the English inscription "God bless our home." Inside the bedroom was a 2003 calendar in Arabic with a colorful depiction of Noah's Ark. Soldiers were surprised at the Christian decorations”

Yes these US soldiers were “surprised” after having been brainwashed about Saddam’s penchant for Islamic fundamentalism…which turned out to be just another lie churned out by Washington’s Neo-Conmintern propaganda factory.

Like him or not, Saddam Hussein was a truly modernist, Westernized Arab head of state who protected women’s rights and enforced affirmative action programs in favor of Iraq’s tiny Christian minority. “Old Europe’s” foreign policy establishment viewed the Iraqi Baath party essentially as a strong bulwark against both Persian-Khomeinist fundamentalism and Wahhabi-Afghan terrorism.

The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons thought otherwise: now we have to deal with the strictures of Sharia Law in Afghanistan, the rise of Hamas and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which they have deliberately brought to power…

lilbitthunder

Did you not see the mass graves in Iraq? Is that not enough reason to take Saddam out of power. Not a threat to anyone? At the very least he was a threat to his own people...but I guess that was ok, after all, he had women in his Baath Party. And let us not forget his son's....very cruel men. Oh yes....they were Christians....riiight. Do you not remember Saddam celebrating the attack of 9-11, the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans? Doesn't it make sense that two leaders that hate the US would join together to try to defeat us? OBL wanted everyone to know he did it, and Saddam had the capital but wanted to keep silent about it, so he could deny it for political reasons.

Ray Robison

Dr V said "Bush, Cheney & Co. have always lied about the nature of the Iraqi regime, repeatedly accusing Saddam Hussein of being an Islamic fundamentalist"

This has never happened, or else prove it with a citation. Nobody in the administration calls Saddam an Islamic fundamentalist. The argument is that Saddam would use these fundamentalists outside of Iraq as they would use Saddam for assistance. Saddams only Islamic credintials are to appeal to pan-Arab supporters in time of need, a lie like everything else he did.

But nice job defending the Hitler of our time. Joseph Gerbals would be proud of you.

swamp6

Ah I was wondering when LA would show up. I kinda prefer his snide, bit generally short and seeminly good natured comments to the inane rantings of the other libs that have showed up to comment.

"Aren’t journalists supposed to report and not make judgments in the articles? "
That is what I thought too, apparently Scott from NYTimes has different understanding of what he is supposed to be doing. That is not surprising since he does work for the NYTimes.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” H. G. Wells

Keep up the good work Ray

Scott Malensek

“Our missiles could not reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike.”
-Saddam Hussein 9/3/98 (3 months before the 911 plot was set in motion)

"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001
hmmm, when did the anthrax attacks begin?

David M

UK Guardian readers also appear to have missed the messages our host deleted from yesterday - specifically the ones where I contested his faulty interpretation of the mixed reporting. (If you are going to invite comments, Ray, then you should expect your assertions to be tested.)

Mr Robinson claims that Iraq was actually planning to execute what the communique distinctly regards as scuttlebutt.

Ask yourselves this question: Why would the Iraqis include in a planning document reporting that they clearly regard as propaganda (line 2) and rumour (line 5)?

Ray, can you also answer the following questions for me please?

1. What was the nature of your work with the ISG? Were you a weapons inspector or just a librarian?

2. Do you actually have any transcribing skills?

Thanks.

swamp6

Good stuff Scott. I am definately going to buy your book now, I would like to know more facts like these.

upyernoz

um, why no link to the original arabic document?

Ray Robison

DM said: Ray, can you also answer the following questions for me please?

1. What was the nature of your work with the ISG? Were you a weapons inspector or just a librarian? I analyzed and archived captured documents from Iraq.

2. Do you actually have any transcribing skills? I assume you mean translation and no, I am not and have never claimed to be a linguist. Which is why I quote from translations.

upyernoz, because the link is in the posting below the new one.

upyernoz

hey ray,

i hate to disappoint you, but you've mistranslated the words "impaired broadcast." the original arabic words are: "idha'a sawa"

"idha'a" means "broadcast" but it's more commonly used as the word for "radio"

a more likely translation is that the al-quds brigade was reporting what it heard broadcast on radio sawa. radio sawa, of course, is the u.s. financed propoganda station in the middle east. it first started broadcasting in 2002 and, as of the date of the memo, was passing on all kinds of now discredited allegations about iraq's WMD capabilities.

it seems to me those facts give the document a completely different spin, don't you think?

David M

What analytical skills do you possess? Critical thinking is a necessary required asset. I see no evidence here that you were qualified for such a job.

The Liberal Avenger

I analyzed and archived captured documents from Iraq.

We civilians call that "light filing work." Now that you're out of the service, you can call yourself a "filing clerk."

Did you come across a lot of secret Iraqi documents when you were working artillery in Kosovo?

The Liberal Avenger

Nice sleuthing, uz.

Given:

A. That there were no anthrax-impregnated fliers let loose upon the population

B. Occam's Razor

What conclusion would you draw from the document?

Ray Robison

upyernoz, to state again, I am not a translator so the correct assertion would be that the person who produced the translation for the government did an incorrect interpretation. Now that I have cleared that up, you note the word for broadcast might as well mean "radio". The problem with you assumption?
1. If it was on the public radio then it wouldn't need a secret document would it?
2. Radio can also be a reference to a tactical miliatry radio which is the common military usage in most armys. We call them "radios", so even if you are correct, it does not change the analysis. Thanks for your thoughtful comments however, it is a nice change from the normal fair that gets spewed by contrarianists.

The Liberal Avenger

fair = fare

- Roy's Editor

Ray Robison

LA's editor
Disabled vet= joke material

upyernoz

1. If it was on the public radio then it wouldn't need a secret document would it?

then why does the document call the information "open source", in your translation, if the information was secret? what do you think "open source" means?

in any case, the words you have translated as "open source" is "masaadir 'aliniyya." "masaadir" means "origins" "'aliniyya" means something like "announcement" (but it's an adjective modifying "masaadir") the words you call "open source" clearly are describing the origins of the information

but to answer your question more directly, a lot of information in secret documents comes from public sources. with all your alleged experience in these kinds of things, i thought you would know that. it seems to me that if the al-quds brigade hears a broadcast saying that they have anthrax, they might send a secret cable to HQ to find out what the deal is with that.

of course, i'm just guessing, but my guess, i think, is more plausible than your interpretation under the circumstances.

2. Radio can also be a reference to a tactical miliatry radio which is the common military usage in most armys. We call them "radios", so even if you are correct, it does not change the analysis. Thanks for your thoughtful comments however, it is a nice change from the normal fair that gets spewed by contrarianists.

first, just because the military refers to tactical military radios as "radio" in english doesn't mean that an iraqi unit would use the word "idha'a" to refer to their own tactical military radio

second, if they were referring to a secret military radio band, then why was it "open source" (see above)?

third, your explanation doesn't account for the word "sawa."

finally, do you honestly think saddam's military wasn't monitoring and reporting what radio sawa was broadcast in the days before war broke out? if they did, how were they supposed to tell the difference between reports about "idha'a sawa" (meaning radio sawa) and reports in which the same term meant their private military frequency? your explanation simply doesn't make sense

The Liberal Avenger

So I'm having trouble following this, Roy...

Who was supposed to impregnate the fliers with anthrax? The Americans? The Palestinians? The Iraqi Secret Police posing as Americans? Was al-Qaeda involved?

Where were they going to drop them and who were they going to try to infect with anthrax by doing so?

What happened with this operation? Is the MSM covering up all the anthrax deaths that took place in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003?

Scott Malensek

"Would you speak to the Inspectors privately?" I asked Dr Taha. "No I do not trust them. It is better to have witnesses," she replied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm
2/9/03

-----

Duelfer Report vol III
"Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi offi cial until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_bw-03.htm
-----

GREAT REPORT ON DR GERM and the NON-WMD threat of Saddam perception that so many cling to even today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340765/

-----

EVEN MORE on the ANTHRAX Saddam claimed he had, then said he didn't (anyone believe that little boy who cried Wolf after he lied a half dozen times-like Saddam?)
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html

-----

FACTS ARE THIS:
Saddam claimed he had no anthrax. Then he got caught with anthrax, and admitted to having it. Then inspectors were kicked out, and in 2002, he claimed that even though inspectors had been kicked out, he took it upon himself to have anthrax destroyed. UN asked for evidence and suggested at the very least to present a detailed report of how the anthrax was destroyed. None was offered-even the Iraqis themselves admit the 12/02 declaration had nothing new in it. So, US invades, finds no anthrax. Saddam is captured, the Dr in charge of the anthrax explains that inspections never would have resolved the anthrax issue because she personally destroyed it with no witnesses, evidence, or documentation, but she did so close to a palace Saddam was staying at, and she claims she was afraid to admit it because she thought Saddam might see it as an assassination attempt and have her familiy tortured and killed in front of her (the guy so commonly described as "a bad man" by the war's opponents was a little bit more than just "bad"). Still, the ISG interrogates her and others and finds the story not-credible.

SO, if someone has evidence that the anthrax was destroyed (pics, documents, witnesses) please....let us know. Otherwise, there is actually more evidence and witnesses claiming that Saddam hid (true to his pattern of hiding wmd) his anthrax and that it was shipped out by Russians to Syria.

Evidence of anthrax destruction: only one report, and that's not credible

Evidence of anthrax hidden and moved pre-war: a dozen good sources with corroborating stories backed up by electronic monitoring of traffic, MSM news reports corroborating the scenario and details of it, and the logic that if it can't be proven destroyed...then it must still exist.

My point is this: the remaining WMD issues listed on pg 56+ of vol III of the Duelfer Report (issues listed there are those presented by UN-not US btw), should not be dismissed out of hand. Those that HAVE been resolved, can be dismissed, but those that have not been resolved cannot be dismissed.

Man, you don't even wan to get me started on Saddam's Ties to Al Queda....

upyernoz

"Man, you don't even wan to get me started on Saddam's Ties to Al Queda...."

you're right about that!

Ray Robison

upyernoz, "open source" this is where context comes in. This is a week before the attack that the al-Quds are well aware is about to happen. It is quite likely they know that secret documents may be captured. If they are given this information by say, Saddam's sons, they are not going to attribute that right in the document for the world to see. That is deception which anybody who has studied the Iraq regime knows is integral to daily operations.

"announcement" could very well be the al-Quds intelligence officer "announcing" to the intelligence headquarters the orders he has received.

"i think, is more plausible than your interpretation under the circumstances"
Based on what? The fact that two of the three action items in the statement did in fact happen? You deduce from that fact that this is a rumor? I question your judgement about what is a straightforward logical deduction. If they say it is going to happen and it happens 2 out of 3 times, then it is an "announcement" of a plan and not rumor collection. Or else why is the 5th line specifically designated a rumor and not the first three.
Yes, everybody calls a radio, a radio, because a military tactical radio is a radio.

I have had others tell me (and my opinion as well) is that "impaired broadcast" refers to the quality of the signal on the tactical radio, thus warning that parts of the message were hard to make out.
I have looked up Sawa and it also is defined as "together". So if that is the literal translation then it could very well mean "radio together impaired" or "all radios impaired" which would make sense considering we were almost surely jamming their radios at that point.

David M

For the record, Iraq only ever managed to produce poorly refined liquid bulk anthrax with a limited shelf life.

Naturally, pouring that stuff over leaflets would have about the same effect as pouring water over a piece of paper!

The Liberal Avenger

Man - so even the Russians and the Syrians were involved. Wow.

If you can drag the Iranians into this, too, then you'll have hit a grand-slam homerun!

sgo

so Ray... if you have such a solid background in this stuff and you claim to have such a clear and correct grasp on the contents of these documents (documents that the US Govt. has already looked at and dind't find as you do).... why oh why oh why are you not working for the Govt. and getting this information out officially?

~

The comments to this entry are closed.

TipJar

Tip Jar

Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

google

Newsvine World News