Quantcast

Wait! I thought the hippies said Iraq had no links to terror.

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
WASHINGTON — Six Iraqis in two foreign countries have been arrested in the midst of planning terrorist attacks on U.S. interests, Fox News learned Friday.

The plots have been foiled and the terrorist material, i.e. explosives, were confiscated, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said.

"The planned attacks were not successful," Boucher said, adding that many Iraqi intelligence service members abroad continue to be a threat.

"Officers in the Iraqi intelligence service remain a threat because of their history of support for terrorism. The U.S. will continue to monitor this situation and will work with partners and allies to ensure the safety of American citizens and our facilities overseas," he said.

In one country, four people were arrested and in the other country, two were arrested. One of the six arrests was yesterday; the others were spread out over the "last few days." The arrests were carried out by local law-enforcement authorities, not Americans.

The individuals, identified as members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service operating under diplomatic cover, were said to still be in the planning stages of attack. According to officials, if executed, the attacks would have caused "serious damage."

In one country, which officials decline to name for fear that they would tip off Iraqi agents under investigation in other cases, Iraqi terrorists had been planning to hit a U.S. embassy. In another country, the Iraqis had not identified a final target, but among its target set were private, non-governmental organizations.

Sources told Fox News that U.S. intelligence officials are "pretty damn certain" that the agents were working directly for Saddam Hussein since they were Iraqi nationals operating with diplomatic cover. They said in some cases, the Iraqi intelligence agents were primary over the Iraqi ambassadors stationed in those countries.

"They outranked their ambassador, in effect," one official said.

The United States has asked a number of countries to expel suspected Iraqi intelligence officers based on "the significant threat posed by their presence," Boucher said.

To date, the United States has asked 45 countries to expel suspected Iraqi agents. So far, 17 countries have complied. By comparison, 19 countries expelled Iraqi diplomats during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Last week, three Iraqi diplomats stationed in Washington, D.C., were expelled from the country.

Last month, officials in the Philippines expelled an Iraqi consul, Husham Husain, over suspicion of links with Filipino Muslim extremists.

The Philippines, one of Washington's staunchest Asian allies in the global war on terrorism, has increasingly been sensitive to possible security threats, especially after it joined last week the coalition of countries backing Washington's military action against Iraq.

And this week, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordered the expulsion of an Iraqi diplomat and another Iraqi Embassy staffer in accord with the U.S. request.

She said there was "some evidence of espionage" against the two.

All the countries that have or had Iraqi diplomats have been informed of the latest information, an official said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Al Qaeda fighters may be in southern Iraq, coordinating grenade and gun attacks on British forces in a town near Basra, it was reported last night.

"The information we have received from POWs today is that an Al Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them," a British military source in Iraq told a reporter for The Scotsman.

British troops were believed to be planning a military strike on the Al Qaeda hideout, the newspaper said.

If the prisoners’ reports are true, they may provide a concrete link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center.

Several links between Al Qaeda and Iraq have been reported previously:

-- In northern Iraq, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group called Ansar al-Islam is allegedly plotting suicide attacks on U.S. forces and has allegedly experimented with chemical weapons.

Two members of an Afghanistan-based Al Qaeda cell were killed this week in a shootout between U.S. and Ansar al-Islam forces, and the group’s base also has been bombed.

Reports say Ansar al-Islam has about 600 members -- and it may be getting reinforcements from Al Qaeda cells in Chechnya and other regions, sources told The Post earlier this week.

The group also is blamed for a suicide bombing Saturday that killed an Australian TV cameraman.

-- Two dozen "Al Qaeda affiliates" followed terrorist Abu Mussab al Zarqawi when he sought medical treatment in Baghdad, and remained there afterward, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last month.

-- In the Philippines, a terrorist with the Abu Sayyaf Muslim extremist group -- believed to be loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda -- allegedly telephoned an Iraqi diplomat in Manila last year with the same cell phone used to trigger a bomb attack.

This same report appears in todays Sydney Morning Herald
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
So is regime change in Chechnya and the Phillipines next?

It would seem that Iraq is a likely place to find anti-US terrorists at present. Of course the fact that we are invading the country has nothing to do with terrorists planning attacks on US/UK targets..

Call me naive (you will anyway), but I doubt we will see an end to terrorism when Saddam is deposed. Overwhelming military force is probably not the answer, a more enlightened foreign policy might help though.

Shock and awe is a double-edged sword.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Originally posted by fluff
So is regime change in Chechnya and the Phillipines next?

It would seem that Iraq is a likely place to find anti-US terrorists at present. Of course the fact that we are invading the country has nothing to do with terrorists planning attacks on US/UK targets..

Call me naive (you will anyway), but I doubt we will see an end to terrorism when Saddam is deposed. Overwhelming military force is probably not the answer, a more enlightened foreign policy might help though.

Shock and awe is a double-edged sword.
I heard that once .........ahem....."we" win the war, and Sadam is dead, it will cure cancer. Won't that be nice?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by fluff
So is regime change in Chechnya and the Phillipines next?

It would seem that Iraq is a likely place to find anti-US terrorists at present. Of course the fact that we are invading the country has nothing to do with terrorists planning attacks on US/UK targets..

Call me naive (you will anyway), but I doubt we will see an end to terrorism when Saddam is deposed. Overwhelming military force is probably not the answer, a more enlightened foreign policy might help though.

Shock and awe is a double-edged sword.
It certainly is but so is doing nothing.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by DRB
It certainly is but so is doing nothing.
If that is in reference to disarming Iraq then I would challenge the implication that nothing was being done. Iraq were destroying missiles only a few days before military action begin.

That looked like progress to me (admittedly slow), and I think that the UN, its weapons inspectors and a few members of the UN security council felt the same.

If you're talking about something else then you'll need to elaborate as I am a poor mind reader (as many of my ex's would testify...)
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
Ok, so we've got un-identified people doing un-identified things in un-identified countries and all this comes from that bastion of fairness and balance, FOX News. Hey, I'm convinced:D ;) . BTW DT, thanks for the heads up about the Iraqis, here I was thinking they were the good guys.
All sarcasm aside, I remember reading a book by David Yallop about Carlos the Jackal. Conventional wisdom says that Carlos was backed by our old friend the Libyan colonel (among others) but Yallop came to the conclusion that it was actually Saddam who was Carlos' patron. Anyone heard anything of this?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by fluff
If that is in reference to disarming Iraq then I would challenge the implication that nothing was being done. Iraq were destroying missiles only a few days before military action begin.

That looked like progress to me (admittedly slow), and I think that the UN, its weapons inspectors and a few members of the UN security council felt the same.

If you're talking about something else then you'll need to elaborate as I am a poor mind reader (as many of my ex's would testify...)
But 12 years? At point is enough enough? I guess that's the real question.

Do you think that Saddam intended to truly cooperate with UN weapons inspectors ever? Based on the history of the last 12 years, I would have to say that I don't. Right under the noses of the inspectors they developed both chemical and biological weapons in the early 90's. Only thru dumb luck did those get found. Why did there have to be negotiation to even get inspectors back in the door? He was destroying missiles that inspectors found, again by accident. But how come he didn't admit that they had them? Remember he knew what was allowed regarding missiles they could have. It was Iraq's own test data that indicated these missiles went too far not some UN test.

You say you saw progress, I saw continued deception. He sensed (saw) the potential for a split in the UN and exploited it. He did so by appearing to give on specific issues. But again why was this a negotiation. The resolution said fess up, show us everything completely. Even right up to the end you were getting "Oh you meant that weapon or those records...." Its not like they didn't know what the inspectors wanted.

Chechnya is a whole other kettle of fish. But as for the Phillipines. The government isn't building weapons of mass destruction for one. But more importantly in regards to that government, it is actively pursuing the terrorists that exist within their own country.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
One mans terrorist is another mans enemy combatant. If they were arrested in countries that are part of the allied forces against Iraq then these men are POW's.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,212
17
Blindly running into cactus
Originally posted by fluff
Iraq were destroying missiles only a few days before military action begin.

That looked like progress to me (admittedly slow), and I think that the UN, its weapons inspectors and a few members of the UN security council felt the same.

that's called "stalling".
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by manimal
that's called "stalling".
Kills fewer people than war though.

How's the logic go? 'Hey, you guys are not getting rid of the stuff we think you have as fast as we want you to so we going to kill you'?
 

Stellite

Monkey
Feb 21, 2002
124
0
ManASSas, VA
Originally posted by rubberpoliceman
What do you think the US would do if the UN requested to inspect weapons here? I think you would see some real "stalling" then.
The UN would never request that because ALL the major council members have those weapons. FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, CHINA.....The difference is that the threat of WMD use against these nations is what keeps them from using the weapons.

We are talking about treaties and keeping small little tyrants who will use these weapons from obtaining them.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by Stellite
The UN would never request that because ALL the major council members have those weapons. FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, CHINA.....The difference is that the threat of WMD use against these nations is what keeps them from using the weapons.

We are talking about treaties and keeping small little tyrants who will use these weapons from obtaining them.
You avoided the question. Answering would have been much better.

If the UN wanted to do weapons inspection in the US do you think they woudl comply even a tiny bit? No. So why does everyone expect that Iraqis would have acted any other way than they did. That we made any progress at all is quite impressive. But clearly not enough for that little tyrant in the White House.

If they're never going to use them why do they need so many?

Oh, and don't forget that the US refused to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq....
 

Stellite

Monkey
Feb 21, 2002
124
0
ManASSas, VA
Originally posted by fluff
You avoided the question. Answering would have been much better.

If the UN wanted to do weapons inspection in the US do you think they woudl comply even a tiny bit? No. So why does everyone expect that Iraqis would have acted any other way than they did. That we made any progress at all is quite impressive. But clearly not enough for that little tyrant in the White House.

If they're never going to use them why do they need so many?

Oh, and don't forget that the US refused to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq....
yes, but the US does not have a record of using Chemical or Biological weapons like some other countries.

We have a record of using Nukes:eek:
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by fluff
You avoided the question. Answering would have been much better.

If the UN wanted to do weapons inspection in the US do you think they woudl comply even a tiny bit? No. So why does everyone expect that Iraqis would have acted any other way than they did. That we made any progress at all is quite impressive. But clearly not enough for that little tyrant in the White House.

If they're never going to use them why do they need so many?

Oh, and don't forget that the US refused to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq....
The US does submit to inspections of its chemical weapons stockpile (which is slated for complete destruction by 2004 by congressional mandate). Russian inspectors review the destruction procedures, records and actual stockpiles on a regular basis. The Russians barely require any inspections as they found they were redundant.

US doctrine does call for the use of WMD in response to the use of WMD. Since the only active WMD that the US has in its arsenal is nuclear, that's what you get. You can call it what you want but the deterence of the Cold War worked. The US developed chemical and biological weapons as a response to the development of those weapons by others. After a time it became apparent that those types of weapons were complete unreliable and unusable in any sort of acceptable tactical manner. Additionally, the development of the US ballastic submarine programs led to the ultimate deterent. As such the offensive biological weapons program was stopped in the early 70's with the chemical weapons program stopping soon after that.

Minus the use of defoliants in Vietnam (bad idea) and tear gas type agents the US has never used chemical or biological weapons in any manner. Can the same be said for France, Britian, Russia, German or Iraq?

As such why do you think the US would not allow the UN to review the destruction or control of chemical and biological weapons? The US doesn't have anything to hide in this regard.