Raid Finds al-Qaida Tie to Iraq Militants

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gary H

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,372
Location
Texas
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030331_1922.html
"BIYARE, Iraq March 31 —

A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday.

The cache of documents at the Ansar al-Islam compound, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East, could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected, although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

There were indications, however, that the group has been getting help from inside neighboring Iran.

Kurdish and Turkish intelligence officials, some speaking on condition of anonymity, said many of Ansar's 700 members have slipped out of Iraq and into Iran putting them out of reach of coalition forces.

The officials also said a U.S. missile strike on Ansar's territory on the second day of the war missed most of its leadership which crossed into Iran days earlier.

U.S. officials said the government had reports some Ansar fighters could have made it into Iran and have been shuttling back and forth with fresh supplies.

According to a high-level Kurdish intelligence official, three Ansar leaders identified as Ayoub Afghani, Abdullah Shafeye and Abu Wahel were among those who had fled into Iran. The official said the three were seen being detained by Iranian authorities Sunday.

"We asked the Iranian authorities to hand over to us any of the Afghan Arabs or Islamic militants hiding themselves inside the villages of Iran," said Boorhan Saeed, a member of the pro-U.S. Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. "We asked them about it Sunday, and still don't have a response."

Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned the Iranians to stop meddling in the war. Tehran denied any involvement.

Using airstrikes and ground forces, Kurdish soldiers and U.S. troops have cooperated in the past week to dislodge and crush Ansar militants in 18 villages surrounding the Iraqi city of Halabja about 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.

"We actually believe we destroyed a significant portion of the Ansar al-Islam force there," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations on the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said Monday. He said forces were investigating the finds.

Among a trove of evidence found inside Ansar compounds were passports and identity papers of Ansar activists indicating that up to 150 of them were foreigners, including Yemenis, Turks, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Algerians and Iranians.

Coalition forces also found a phone book containing numbers of alleged Islamic activists based in the United States and Europe as well as the number of a Kuwaiti cleric and a letter from Yemen's minister of religion. The names and numbers were not released.

"What we've discovered in Biyare is a very sophisticated operation," said Barham Salih, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government.

Seized computer disks contained evidence showing meetings between Ansar and al-Qaida activists, according to Mahdi Saeed Ali, a military commander.

It was unclear how strong Ansar remains.

Officials from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two parties that share control of an autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, say they killed 250 Ansar members during two days of intense fighting and aerial bombardments.

"There was ferocious fighting," Saeed said. He said he chased 25 Ansar militants across the Iranian border and captured nine Ansar sympathizers belonging to a group called the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan.

The remaining Ansar fighters are thought to be in the mountains along the Iraq-Iran border, U.S. and Kurdish military officials have said.

Kurdish soldiers on Monday continued sporadic fighting in several villages around Halabja and along the Iran-Iraq border near the village of Sargat, site of a destroyed building once allegedly used by Ansar militants to produce poison.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday the Sargat compound was probably the site where militants made a biological toxin, traces of which were later found by police in London.

"We think that's probably where the ricin that was found in London came (from)" he told CNN's "Late Edition." "At least the operatives and maybe some of the formulas came from this site."

British police raided a London apartment in January and found traces of ricin, a powerful poison made from castor plant beans. U.S. officials believe the poison and those arrested were linked to Ansar.

The group's leader, Mullah Krekar, is being held in Norway on charges of kidnapping and aiding terrorists.

Krekar has denied any links to Saddam or al-Qaida, but said he considers Osama bin Laden a "good Muslim."

In a recent interview with Dutch television, Krekar said his fighters would use suicide attacks if U.S. troops went after the group.

One such attack came three days into the war when an apparent car bomb killed at least five people, including an Australian cameraman, at a checkpoint near an Ansar training camp.


Associated Press Writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report from New York."
 
You missed this, Malone:
The cache of documents at the Ansar al-Islam compound, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East, could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected,
 
Malone LaVeigh & trooper:

Do your countries use civilians as shields? Do your countries promote suicide bombings? Do your governments cut the tongues from those that criticize the government? Do your countries invade other countries without reason? Have you had thousands of civilians killed by Moslem fundamentalist? Do you have viable solutions? I know that your answer to at least some of these questions is "No", at least not in recent years.
 
Gary H,

I have never tried to justify Saddam Hussein's regime and I have absolutely no problem with him being overthrown.

I know that you are very sincere about it and that you personally have nothing but good intentions for the Iraqi people.

However, I remain critical about some of the Bush administration's actual motives. I guess that the views of people like you who support the war for good and humanitarian reasons and of those who see the war primarily as a means of gaining a geostrategical advantage eventually part at some point.

I find it disturbing, to say the least, that US camps in Iraq are named after the petrol companies Shell and Exxon ;)


Iran's in line, trooper.

Hmm. It MIGHT just be smarter to strengthen the Iranian reform movement and change the system from within. Another war against a muslim country will most certainly convince all leftover moderate muslims that they are all on your list.


Regards,

Trooper
 
Was that camp's existence known to Sodom's government? Yes, because they discussed it openly.

Was that camp under our protection, as are the Kurds? No way.

Does Sodom have a history of allowing groups he doesn't want to survive unmolested? No. Only the Kurds held out, and that was in the no-fly zones.

So, it seems self-evident that Sodom at a minimum tolerated the camp's existence, or they wouldn't be there today. Actually, they aren't here today. But neither Sodom or his allies in the UN had anything to do with that.
 
trooper:

Don't you think that spending 70 -100 billion to get an oil field just might be a really bad business decision? We could get oil in many easier ways. Folks like yourself are using this red herring to provide opposition to a country, or administration that you don't like. I just don't believe you.

Now, if you suspected that we would use our position to put pressure on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia you might just have something, but oil is a non issue. They have already stated many times that the oil will be used to rebuild the country and that the Iraqi people will control the oil.

They have named camps after states and I don't believe that we intend to admit Iraq to the United States.
 
Hmm. It MIGHT just be smarter to strengthen the Iranian reform movement and change the system from within. Another war against a muslim country will most certainly convince all leftover moderate muslims that they are all on your list.
trooper, you've been reading the program before the performance starts, haven't you...? :neener:
 
Nope. I wrote it... :)


Gary H,

Shell & Exxon were just meant to be a funny side note. I didn't believe from day 1 that the US were in there for the oil. Only people who have no idea about how economy works and who demonstrate in the streets think that way...

I believe that in fact it's all about securing a base in the Middle East that is more dependable (and under complete US control) than Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states (who covertly support terrorism anyway).


Regards,

Trooper

[edited for messing up my English vocabulary again :)]
 
I believe that in fact it's all about securing a base in the Middle East that is more dependable (and under complete US control) than Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states (who covertly support terrorism anyway).
For what purpose?
 
Trooper:

I think that we can agree on that one. It might not be politically possible to keep a base long term in Iraq, but I believe that this is what we would like to do.
 
trooper, there are objectives and then there are beneficial consequences. Our primary objective is to destroy the threat caused by the New Barbary pirates. A beneficial consequences of this will be a great position to "blockbust" as our Ingerish allies call it, if we need to.

We certainly hope that ST6, Delta, or the CIA can handle our enemies after Iraq, Saudi Royal Family, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, inter alia. However if piking the head of the raccoon of Baghdad does not work and we need to come back, a friendly Iraq will put us in an excellent position to destroy our enemies.
 
Hmmm.... I've stated before that I don't think the whole WMD thing is credible at all. While Saddam Hussein might have them I don't think he would be stupid enough to either use them or give them away to terrorists.
Also, there are numerous other resources from which you could obtain WMDs if you desire so. Most of them are not states that could be waged war against, but rather shadowy groups or even individuals.
The claims about a Qaida-Hussein connection are pretty dubious, too.

To put it short: I have no big problems with the war per se. Saddam Hussein deserves some ***-whipping. I also realize that a war always means casualties on both sides as well as among the civilian population.

But while the Iraqi people would probably benefit from a regime change, nobody bothered to ask if they would prefer to be bombed by the Allies over being oppressed by Saddam's security apparatus.

What bothers me further is that the US used arguments like the above mentioned to convince the world's public opinion instead of frankly saying that the primary reason for the war are the US' geostrategical interests.

Oh well... what a waste of time it is to look for truth and morale in international politics...


Regards,

Trooper
 
Trooper, if Saddam is willing to kill his own people--which his forces are doing now on a daily basis--and to allow his country to be destroyed just to protect his hairy butt, do you think he'd have any qualms about giving terrorist groups WMD to use against us?

There's no way we're going to maintain a troop presence in Iraq once the new government is installed (which could take a couple of years). As it is, our troops will be subject to constant attack while the new government is being formed.

But...having a government that is friendly to the US in that region, as opposed to pseudo-allies like the Saudis, can only help us.

How can that be a bad objective?
 
although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.
So, I guess Saddam didn't know that big, huge camp was there? I guess he didn't allow it to exist either? Riiiight. The fact that the camp was there looks like a connection between the two, to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top