Monday, March 20, 2006

How much is that fatwa in the window?

Something in Izzat al-Douri's emotional novella posted below in the docs 101 thread struck a chord. Bin Laden's subsequent fatwa in 1998 also played on the suffering of the Iraqi people under the sanctions. Here's a snippet:
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation
We should question why Bin Laden, who was vehemently against Saddam's war against Kuwait in 1991 (which led to his falling out with America and Saudi) would come around to Saddam's way of thinking seven years later.

Putting two and two together doesn't always equal four in this convoluted WoT, but so far we have a doc from the mid 90s that features al-Douri crying a river for the Iraqi people to Saddam, followed by Bin Laden's fatwa a few years later mentioning the same thing. That seems to make another document, which speaks of possible "joint operations" with Bin Laden back in 1995, a little more significant:
"We discussed with [bin Laden]his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."
Since our forces were the only foreign forces in Saudi at the time, most might deduce we were the target of the joint operations they spoke of. That would seem to bring Saddam into the suspect spotlight along with Bin Laden for the Khobar Towers attack, which occurred in 1996.

We might ask ourselves this--why would Bin Laden be lobbying for the sanctions to end if he knew Saddam was a secular monster who'd probably just pocket the proceeds? The only rational answer is because there was a quid pro quo involved, such as a future donation from Saddam to 'the base'. Perhaps future docs will shine more light.

KHOBAR 3/20

Louis Freeh was convinced that Iran was behind the Khobar Towers attack, mainly due to the involvement of Saudi Hizballah. But in Stephen Hayes latest column outlining the bin Laden connection he mentions that recordings also indicate that in addition to bin Laden, Iraq was also attempting to forge alliances with other Saudi terrorist groups:
A SECOND internal Iraqi file obtained by The Weekly Standard concerns relations between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi opposition groups. The document was apparently compiled at some point after January 1997, judging by the most recent date in the text, and discusses four Saudi opposition groups: the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights, the Reform and Advice Committee (Osama bin Laden), People of al Jazeera Union Organization, and the Saudi Hezbollah.


MORE 3/20

The hits just keep coming. While the major media has largely ignored documents and links such as the above, they will certainly be all over this story like Paris Hilton on a, well, you know.

MORE MSM !! 3/21/06

They've picked up on some of the comments uttered in the docs suggestive of Iraq's innocence of WMD stockpiles. It's much too lame to say these recordings were deliberate misinformation designed to be heard by NSA snoopers, so I won't. But they do sound quite theatrical. Or perhaps that was SOP for addressing the dictator--tell him what he wants to hear.

Since these recordings were made in the 90s it will be interesting to see if the MSM talking heads take the next step and place blame on Clinton for bombing Iraq and starving it's children for no reason.

THE AL-QUDS BRIGADE 3/21/06

Ray Robison has speculation on a document released Sunday that talks of anthrax being delivered on civilians in Iraq before the invasion using American-looking leaflets:
When you think about it, it's very clever. Half the Arabs in the world would be all too eager to believe we used anthrax on Iraq. And the method of transmission would link it straight to us. The Jihad fighters we are facing now would be many times greater, enough to possibly save Saddam's regime.

It also would explain where some of that 17 tons of growth medium went as talked about in a post below
.
They are starting to release more than just NIV stuff now. Since the MSM has picked up on the "we don't have anything" documents already, they are surely compelled to follow the story with reports on stuff like the above, right? Right?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

These documents are very interesting. I think as we (American citizens vs government translators) go through more of them, we will see more and more links between all of these nations. Al-Qaeda has it's fingers in many nations. Didn't Bush say, "If you are not with us, you are against us?" Maybe we need to remind him of his own words.

A.C. McCloud said...

It's possible Saddam's WMDs were actually stored in some other Arab country all along. After all, he was a pan-Arabist and the real enemy is Israel. If they kept stuff in other countries while he played the evil villian role that would keep the spotlight on the wrong place.

As to the docs, I think they're releasing the ones that may seem friendly to Saddam first with the more juicier stuff coming as we move closer to the election. Otherwise, why not just blast everything out simultaneously?