GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Even More from the Saddam Files — Ties Between Taliban and Iraq

by

I am glad that the blogosphere took to heart the call by Rep. Peter Hoekstra to help translate the volumes of documents discovered by coalition forces following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Here is yet more evidence showing that Iraq was a force of terrorism directed against the United States and was an obvious strategic military target for the US following the 9/11 attacks on America.

Iraq VP and Taliban meet pre-9/11 – Ray Robison

“Both in One Trench”

ISGP-2003-00014127

Ray: Sammi provides us with a follow up meeting between a Pakistani cleric and the Vice President of Iraq. The main topic is establishment of a secret relationship between the Taliban and Iraq through Iraqi Intelligence apparatus for the purpose of assisting each other against the United States. Context: before the Taliban took full control of Kandahar, there were several factions fighting to gain power.

There is another document at the FMSO website in which Saddam and his ministers discuss Afghanistan and how the different factions are vying for control. These meetings lend very strong support to the conclusion that the Taliban sought Iraq’s support to not only take and maintain control in Afghanistan but to be an allie against the U.S. and that Iraq chose to support the Taliban.

Sammi: Translator’s notes:
-The diary is 76 pages on the computer screen. Many screens cover 2 pages in the diary. -The diary belongs to someone called Khaled Abd El Majid and covers events taking place in 1999 since the diary is for the year 1999 (Page 3/76).
-On page 5/76 he has a note reminding him of a “Meeting with Mr. Taha Yassin Ramadan” with the house’s phone number. Ramadan is the vice-president of Iraq from March 1991 to the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
– There are two important meetings with a Pakistan Islamic cleric named Fadl Ur Rahman. His plan is to establish relations between Baghdad and the Taliban. The second meeting is taking place on 28/11/1999.
-The Pakistani is not from Taliban but in contact with them.
-The diary is hand written which makes it sometimes difficult to read.
-Since Arabic is written from right to left, the meeting starts on page 20/76 and ends on page 17/76.
-In 28/11/1999 Ossama had already struck the two US Embassies in Africa and officially declared war on America.
– In 28/11/1999 Ossama was already in Afghanistan, hosted by the Taliban regime.

There is a full translation of the second meeting at Ray’s site where the Iraqi VP and the Taliban rep agree that they are “both in one trench”.

Somewhat like Mussolini and Hitler in World War II. Remember what alliances are all about??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. But but but… We only conquered Germany for the oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If we had focused all our resources on just getting Yamamoto and Tojo – which, by the way, we NEVER DID, due to the DANGEROUS INCOMPETENCE of the Roosevelt administration – then international fascism would have instantly disappeared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. This does not prove what you say it proves, instead it proves the Taliban wanted Saddams help, but it does not prove that Saddam gave help to the Taliban, so really your just re-hashing information the 9-11 report already told us, but nice try to ‘come up’ with evidence to support your illegal war.

  3. Robert, what part of “There is another document at the FMSO website in which…meetings lend very strong support to the conclusion that…Iraq chose to support the Taliban” do you not understand?

    But as it happens, you are correct, in a technical sense. Evidence is not proof, it is only evidence. Bruce wrote, “Here is yet more evidence showing that Iraq was a force of terrorism…” – Emphasis on the word “evidence” was Bruce’s.

    OK? Clear?

  4. Robert Bayn said…

    “This does not prove what you say it proves, instead it proves the Taliban wanted Saddams help, but it does not prove that Saddam gave help to the Taliban, so really your just re-hashing information the 9-11 report already told us, but nice try to ‘come up’ with evidence to support your illegal war.”

    I have no comment whatsoever about this statement.

    I just thought it was so goddamned hysterical that it deserved a rerun.

    Eric in Stitches (for the fourth time today)

  6. I think what is Hysterical, if your taking one statement of one article, that DOES NOT SHOW A LINK, but rahter a want from the Taliban for Iraq’s help, this does not show that Iraq did help, so keep trying.

  7. Robert whined said…

    ”
    There is no definite proof, but keep trying to “find” information to support your WAR.”

    …and then continued to keep digging by stating…

    “I think what is Hysterical, if your taking one statement of one article, that DOES NOT SHOW A LINK, but rahter a want from the Taliban for Iraq’s help, this does not show that Iraq did help, so keep trying.”

    The lesson in asshattery vehement denial continues.

    Eric Still In Stitches

  8. What is hysterical Robert, is that mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence of Saddam’s support for international terrorists of various kinds have been accumulating for years, but people like yourself can’t admit it. Ever.

    ‘Nuff said.

  9. Hey all…

    I heard there was a loony here, and since my Haliburton pimps and I love nothing more than a few lines of coke, some good beer, and exterminatin’ species, I thought I’d drop in and take me a few shots at the little fella!!!!

    Here, moonbat, moonbat, moonbat….!

  11. Show me the mountain of evidence, just don’t make a statement with no proof, don’t just sidestep the issue, don’t just take one piece of information and claim to means one thing when it dosen’t.

    I do love when people get upset when someone invades there little, Kiss my ass, “no your right, no your righter”.

    There are many ways to look at this issue, i have yet to see any proof that is exact, i mean if your looking to defend the war, that’s fine, but give me more proof.

    I do smell something, but it’s not stew.

  12. Robert you can find it.

    Google “Ansar al Islam” (al Qaeda terrorist group that established bases in Iraq in 2002, yes before the war, on Saddam’s invitation).

    Google “Stephen Hayes” or “Thomas Joscelyn” – who have been writing on the mountains of evidence for years.

    I think we do smell something here… and it’s you. But we’ll see.

  14. Oh, but one other thing I just caught in your words, that we should deal with first.

    Remember again, the distinction between “proof” and “evidence”.

    As I said, the evidence of meetings and ever-growing links between Saddam and al Qaeda is large. But if you want the tape of the phone call where Saddam phones Osama and says “Hey buddy, let’s make love while our henchmen plot 9-11 together” – That will never happen.

    Your post very carefully said “proof” instead of evidence. Let’s hope that doesn’t just mean you moving the goalposts to the moon, like a true moonbat would do.

  17. Robert Bayn, what part of “For the future we think that we will arrange relations between us, as an intelligence service, and them in a SECRET (translator’s emphasis) way to establish the strong base of this relation. ” does not provide evidence that they were working together. This is the VP of Iraq committing to do exactly that. You should read before you comment and save yourself the embarassment.

  18. No sorry, that does not prove it to me, when evidence is provided that the Taliban and Iraq worked together agains the U.S., and sponsored together Al Queda, you bring me to your side, i have yet to see that information, it may be in the evidence found, time will tell, however i will wait, and i will not jump to conclusions, to say this evidence does prove anything, because i do believe it does, YET.

  20. #18: What the good folks here don’t mention is that only three countries recognized the Taliban regime in 2001 and Iraq wasn’t one of them. Saudi Arabia was one. Yeah, that’s right, the same Saudi Arabia from which 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came. Now remind me how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq: anyone? Bueller?, anyone?

    Oh, and lookee here, guess who was being feted in Texas by Unocal in December 1997: none other than bigshot Taliban government officials. And the U.S. continued to negotiate with the Taliban regime over a pipeline right up through mid-2001 when oilman Bush was President. So by all means, go after connections between Saddam and the Taliban but never forget that your own US government was dealing with the Taliban too AFTER the embassy bombings and AFTER the bombing of the USS Cole.

    The information is out there but here’s a start:
    http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

  21. Ooooh, diplomatic recognition!

    That’s more useful to a regime or a terrorist group than the medical shelter/treatment, training assistance, and financial aid that Saddam has been documented as having given al Qaeda. Right?

    So if Saddam gave that other stuff to al Qaeda and probably the Taliban as well, but withheld diplomatic recognition, then clearly nothing was going on there. (chffff… cough)

    I see the long, long, LONG-debunked “Unocal pipeline” canard re-emerges. (See Ian, I’ve been at this too long.) Let me guess: You also liked the fantasy movie Fahrenheit 9-11?

  22. #21: This thread is about ties between Saddam and the Taliban NOT al Qaeda. Goodness, I hope you’re not getting so bored with Dan’s posts that you’re not reading them with the care they deserve.

    BTW, nothing I have said about Unocal, the pipeline and negotiations between the US and the Taliban regime have been debunked. Otherwise, I’m sure you’d provide links. 😉

  25. All the evidince in the world supporting this or that reason for invading Iraq will never change the simple fact that against international law and treaty, we premptively invaded another nation. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but if one looks to the rules of ethical war and compares it objectively to that invasion – it was quite questionable. With a lack of any concrete evidence or even likelyhood that Iraq had or was close to WMD’s and no evdence, at least at the time, that there are any connections between AlQueda and Iraq, there was simply no justification to invade. And any document showing up from “Saddam’s” files, are frankly, suspicious. Being released from a government that has paid hundreds of miilions to media outlets here and in Iraq to print their propoganda, it’s validity is questionable at best.

  26. #23 continued – I created a huge long post of links for you Ian. Blog filter flagged it; waiting for an administrator to restore it.

    #25 – “All the evidince in the world supporting this or that reason for invading Iraq will never change the simple fact that against international law and treaty, we premptively invaded another nation.”

    Bull.

    Iraq had no sovereignty under international law. A sane Left writer, Christopher Hitchens, lays it out best:

    “Iraq had lost its sovereignty as far as a state can do under international law. There are four conditions under which a state may be deemed or said to have sacrificed its sovereignty. These are: if it participates in regular aggressions against neighboring states or occupations of their territory; if it violates all the letter and spirit of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, and in other words, fools around promiscuously with the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; third, if it should violate the Genocide Convention, the signatories to which are obliged without further notice to act either to prevent or punish genocide; and fourth, if it plays host to international gangsters, nihilists, terrorists, and jihadists.

    “Iraq met all these four conditions repeatedly, and would demonstrate its willingness to repeat them on many occasions. Its sovereignty was at an end, it was under international sanctions, it was a ward of the international community. Its people were being starved in order to build palaces for their psychopathic dictator. And it was further more imploding as a state and as a society that the divide and rule policy of the Baath party had led to appalling ethnic and confessional hatreds within the country.”

    But I prefer to go by U.N. resolutions. Sixteen of them, over twelve years! Resolutions 687 (or is it 678?) and 1441 would only be the biggest highlights.

    The important point to remember here is that no peace treaty was ever signed for Gulf War I. Legally speaking, Gulf War I was still in effect. Saddam was merely being held under certain cease-fire conditions – which by the way were also the legal basis of sanctions.

    Saddam violated his cease-fire many times. The U.N. said just that, many times. 1441 promised him war if he did not immediately cut the crap and give the U.N. total co-operation. He didn’t. Hence, legally the cease-fire ended and Gulf War I conditions resumed.

    So please, no rubbish about “against international law, we invaded another nation” or whatever.

  27. #23 P.S. –

    The very first link, if/when it is posted, goes into the Unocal thing.

    It’s true that the rest of what I gave, if/when it is posted, sidetracks into the Saddam – al Qaeda thing which I think is more interesting, or the real subject, and which again you suggested in #20 in bringing up 9-11 hijackers.

  28. #20

    #20
    Oh, and lookee here, guess who was being feted in Texas by Unocal in December 1997: none other than bigshot Taliban government officials. And the U.S. continued to negotiate with the Taliban regime over a pipeline right up through mid-2001 when oilman Bush was President…..BTW, nothing I have said about Unocal, the pipeline and negotiations between the US and the Taliban regime have been debunked. Otherwise, I’m sure you’d provide links.

    Here ya go, ass!

    During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998.

    Now again, who was president in 1998?

    The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

    And some others for fun:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/278rxzvb.asp?pg=2

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

    BTW, that’s not Michael Moore’s cock you’re sucking. It’s a roll of fat.

  30. “Dissenting opinions” and based on incorrect facts, untruths and urban legends deserve to be attacked.

    I don’t accept Michael Moore Talking Points as a valid argument, sorry bro.

    Neither do i accept republican propaganda to defend a war that every reason has turned out to be untrue, or the truth stretched.

  31. #29 – Bottle of single malt?

    Ian, we have this comment from you in which you piously profess never to engage in ad hominems.

    You don’t get it, do you? It’s not a matter of authorities. It’s a matter of facts and logic to one’s argument. I mentioned Christopher Hitchens because he happened to be the author of the best instance or summary of what I regard as my argument. Refute my argument.

  32. #28: Even your sources admit that Taliban officials were meeting with Bush Administration officials in Washington in 2001 prior to 9/11. That is a FACT confirmed by the sources you provided and the dates of the meetings with the Taliban are AFTER the embassy bombings and AFTER the attack on the US Cole. Also my date for the visit of the Taliban to Unocal in Texas is conformed by the sources you provided. So thanks for providing additional backup for my points.

    BTW, one of the blog hosts has asked everyone to halt their ad hominem attacks. I’ll do my part. Won’t you do yours?

  33. #31: I wasn’t aware that Hitchens was involved in the discussion here but perhaps he is. So I will refrain from impugning his sobriety. Of course, I expect that you and your friends will refrain from hurling ad hominem insults at Bill Clinton, his lovely wife Hillary, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Cindy Shehan and all those other “leftists” whom you hold in such high regard. 😉

  34. #33 – Since you yourself mentioned Hitchens in #29: you were aware.

    As for Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, etc., after long study I have reached a certain conclusion about them and I will say my conclusion, and Dan can throw me out if he pleases (he/Bruce are the bosses): They are not only anti-American, they are crazy (a.k.a. moonbats).

    But Ian, please note: Unlike you, I haven’t recently claimed to be totally above ad hominems nor conclusions. In other words, I don’t have the the record to defend here. Sorry man.

  35. #34: Sorry, we’re talking Hitchens as a third party not participating in the discussions here here and you know it. Plus I don’t think Mr. Hitchens would deny that he has a fondness for Macallan’s 18 year old scotch. Apparently, Johnnie Walker Black will do in a “pinch.”

    In any event, my comment about Mr. Hitchens is quite a bit different from the invective, some of it even scatological, hurled directly at me in thses discussions.

  36. Robert Bayn, I will let you know when I find a notorized document with emblazened seal and Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s signatures in blood with a valid DNA test so that you may have evidence that Sadam worked with terrorists.

  38. #35 – Different how?

    After claiming to be above ad hominems – and more important, while apparently not possessing a response to a valid argument made by one of your opponents – you dealt with your opponent’s argument by making a slur on an author that was quoted.

    How much more need I say?

  39. P.S. I have rather less time today, and your new form of resistance to the obvious is already starting to leave me bored again. No threat here, but fair warning.

  40. Unfortunately, what Ian doesn’t mention is that anything that took place between 1997 and 2001 took place under the Clinton administration and included meetings with the Clinton administration.

    It was known that the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden AND that he was a danger to the United States as early as 1996.

    Since guilt by association is the rule, why are the Clintons immune?

    Also, Ian, when do you intend to answer my question about why Democrats like you insisted that inspections continue even though the evidence was clear that Saddam was paying the UN and its member countries to sabotage inspections and ensure that no WMD material would be found?