Article: Al Queda Lured Us into Iraq (1 Viewer)

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,158
Reaction score
21,172
Offline
Al-Qaida 'planted information to encourage US invasion'
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday November 17, 2006
The Guardian


[/FONT] A senior al-Qaida operative deliberately planted information to encourage the US to invade Iraq, a double agent who infiltrated the network and spied for western intelligence agencies claimed last night.The claim was made by Omar Nasiri, a pseudonym for a Moroccan who says he spent seven years working for European security and intelligence agencies, including MI5. He said Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who ran training camps in Afghanistan, told his US interrogators that al-Qaida had been training Iraqis.

Libi was captured in November 2001 and taken to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured. Asked on BBC2's Newsnight whether Libi or other jihadists would have told the truth if they were tortured, Nasiri replies: "Never".Asked whether he thought Libi had deliberately planted information to get the US to fight Iraq, Nasiri said: "Exactly".

Nasiri said Libi "needed the conflict in Iraq because months before I heard him telling us when a question was asked in the mosque after the prayer in the evening, where is the best country to fight the jihad?" Libi said Iraq was chosen because it was the "weakest" Muslim country.

It is known that under interrogation, Libi misled Washington. His claims were seized on by George Bush, vice-president, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell, secretary of state, in his address to the security council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Though he did not name Libi, Mr Powell said "a senior terrorist operative" who "was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan" had told US agencies that Saddam Hussein had offered to train al-Qaida in the use of "chemical or biological weapons".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1949927,00.html

Even if this is true we still had an influential faction here that wanted to go into Iraq for its own reasons, so we were likely to go in no matter what disinformatioin Al Queda put forth.
 
Last edited:

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,423
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
More like the Iranians lured us into Iraq. Chalabi's group (including the infamous "curveball") was the principal vehicle of "mis"information which lead to the US caus ballis for war. Chalabi appears to have been an Iranian plant and his falling out with the US came when it was exposed that he was turning over US intelligence to the Iranians.

Al Qaeda had absoloutely nothing to do with the Shia defectors who lead the US in to war. This is just their usual propoganda (Iraq is great for us, we want the US here, we cause everything, everything benefits us, rock on).
 

BullDawg

Gone but will never forgotten. R.I.P. Nate
Joined
Aug 13, 1998
Messages
41,147
Reaction score
3,271
Age
49
Location
Anniston, AL
Offline
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1949927,00.html

Even if this is true we still had an influential faction here that wanted to go into Iraq for its own reasons, so we were likely to go in no matter what disinformatioin Al Queda put forth.
Wow. If this is true, it puts a whole new spin on the situation.

While it is speculatively true that we would were likely to go in regardless, it still indicates the "dishonesty" of Bush and Co. might not have exactly been of their own doing.

Also of interest is the timing of this article....after the elections. :scratch:
 
OP
blackadder

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,158
Reaction score
21,172
Offline
More like the Iranians lured us into Iraq. Chalabi's group (including the infamous "curveball") was the principal vehicle of "mis"information which lead to the US caus ballis for war. Chalabi appears to have been an Iranian plant and his falling out with the US came when it was exposed that he was turning over US intelligence to the Iranians.

Al Qaeda had absoloutely nothing to do with the Shia defectors who lead the US in to war. This is just their usual propoganda (Iraq is great for us, we want the US here, we cause everything, everything benefits us, rock on).
I guess that article is down to the credibility of the Moroccan "double agent," which I have no basis to judge one way or another. But, yes, AQ would probably take credit for it whether they did it or not.

As for Chalabi, and any other liars our neoconservative friends were taken in by, I have to believe they let themelves be taken in so easily because they wanted to be taken in. They were looking for an excuse to go into Iraq and jumped anything without thoroughly vetting the source.

As much as some want to pile on "intelligence failures," the CIA was sceptical of Chalabi and his claims but their cautions were ignored by the necon axis around Cheny and Rumsfeld.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,423
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
We knew the information was coming from shadey sources before. Again, "curveball" who provided much of the intelligence the US used to justify going to war. It was Chalabi's group who provided much of the impetous. And Chalabi has openly admitted to falsifying information, is accused of turning over information to the Iranians, and is suspected to be a collaborator with them.

We knew already (before today) that the information was falsified to draw the US in to war.

It was not Al Qaeda however, and assuming Al Qaeda has connections is the old exiled Shia community is silly, it was Iran who has very strong connections. This is a garbage statement from Al Qaeda, which they are only slightly prone to do.
 
OP
blackadder

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,158
Reaction score
21,172
Offline
We knew the information was coming from shadey sources before. Again, "curveball" who provided much of the intelligence the US used to justify going to war. It was Chalabi's group who provided much of the impetous. And Chalabi has openly admitted to falsifying information, is accused of turning over information to the Iranians, and is suspected to be a collaborator with them.

We knew already (before today) that the information was falsified to draw the US in to war.

It was not Al Qaeda however, and assuming Al Qaeda has connections is the old exiled Shia community is silly, it was Iran who has very strong connections. This is a garbage statement from Al Qaeda, which they are only slightly prone to do.
But the disinformation alleged links to Saddam, not the Shia...
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,423
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
As for Chalabi, and any other liars our neoconservative friends were taken in by, I have to believe they let themelves be taken in so easily because they wanted to be taken in. They were looking for an excuse to go into Iraq and jumped anything without thoroughly vetting the source.

As much as some want to pile on "intelligence failures," the CIA was sceptical of Chalabi and his claims but their cautions were ignored by the necon axis around Cheny and Rumsfeld.


That's possible. Even probable. I said he provided a "caus ballis", ie reason for war, but the decision to invade was predetermined (check the 9/11 report). German intelligence for example warned the us "curveball" was a shakey source. Despite this the us used that intelligence as a center piece when it presented before the UN. The reason being they didn't care if it was true, their concern was to get the worlds acquiessance to invade.

But it IS important to know the source of who brought us to Iraq. Iran saw the US as a round about means to knock off the Sunni domination of Iraq and free up the majority Shia population Iran had already organized so that Iran could dominate Iraq. That's what we're facing there. Not Al Qaeda.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,423
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
But the disinformation alleged links to Saddam, not the Shia...
Yes I understand what he said. I doubt that was the information used to justify the war. The case for Al Qaeda - Saddam links was never very strong. WMDs was the case put before the UN and in the State of the Union. The meat of the caus ballis was WMDs, and those were manufactured in large part by the exiled Shia community.
 

DCSaints_Fan

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,910
Reaction score
1,950
Location
San Jose, CA
Offline
Iraq was in the crosshairs since the day Bush was elected. It was like Kennedy with Cuba, except more discreet. No one "lured" us there. 9/11 gave us an excuse but the evidence was so flimsy the Bush administration needed time to conconct "intelligence" about Saddam's supposed WMD programs, which was supposed to pose an "imminent" threat to U.S. national security Intelligence agecies were under politicawl pressure to tell the administration what they wanted to hear, and any dissent was stifled.
 

killah

Very Bland
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
11,322
Reaction score
566
Location
29.95-90.07
Offline
I wonder if the war would have been going well? Would the Guardian then publish this most unlikely story?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom