Al Qaeda Plans Reported

Reading British newspapers can be refreshing, in part because of the intelligence-related leaks that they report. Here in the U.S., there is only one kind of leak from the CIA and other intelligence organizations: those intended to damage the Bush administration. It seems that British spies have a different agenda, as their leaks are more often designed to alert the British public to the severity of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. A case in point from yesterday's London Times:

AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.
Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West.


The report's observations on the relationship between al Qaeda and Iran are interesting:

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.
There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.


That sounds a lot like the relationship that Saddam's Iraq had with al Qaeda terrorists (e.g., Zarqawi) prior to the war. If this report is right, Iran, like Saddam's Iraq, harbors al Qaeda terrorists, but without a formal alliance, without conducting joint operations, and with an effort to maintain deniability.

The report also places al Qaeda in Iraq within the context of the broader organization, noting that leaders of AQI felt that they needed authorization from the organization's "core" group to plan a major attack against the West. All of this would seem highly relevant to the current debate in the U.S. over Iraq policy."

http://powerlineblog.com/

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Well, not quite. In the first place British newspapers differ from their US counterparts in part in their reliance on sensational stories to draw readers. (Think NY Post, for example.) The Times is not the worst by any means, but the Sunday version is considerably more sensational than its daily counterpart.

Even so, the story is considerably less sensational than the wingnuts at "Powerline" claim.

It's hardly news, for example, that Al-Qaeda continues to plan attacks on Western nations. In fact, if British Intelligence had failed to find any evidence of such intentions, THAT would be news!

The most sensational aspect of the story is the "Hiroshima-Nagasaki" reference. But as noted in the source story, not quoted by Powerline, "Analysts believe the reference to Hiroshima and Naga-saki, where more than 200,000 people died in nuclear attacks on Japan at the end of the second world war, is unlikely to be a literal boast.

“It could be just a reference to a huge explosion,” said a counter-terrorist source. “They [Al-Qaeda] have got to do something soon that is radical otherwise they start losing credibility.”

As far as the Iran connection is concerned, the reference is actually to Kurdish supporters in Iran rather than to Iran, itself. And while as the article notes, the Iranian government "may be turning a blind eye" toward those supporters, that would be rather surprising since the Iranians and the Kurdish groups operating in the border region with Iraq have been fighting for years. In fact, Iran has repeatedly asked that the US do something about the support for Kurdish rebels from Northeastern Iraq whom they consider a terrorist group opposed to Iran's government.

The remainder of the report is even more ludicrous, dragging up the discredited claim that Saddam supported "Al-Qaeda (e.g. Zarqawi) prior to the war." Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the war. He was under the protection of the Kurds who, in turn, were protected from Saddam by the US. The claim that Saddam "protected" him is analogous to claiming that the US Government "protected" Timothy McVeigh when he lived in Michigan.

None of this information is difficult to uncover, unless, of course, one relies on sites such as "Powerline" for information.

So, bottom line is that British Intelligence has found that Al-Qaeda in Iraq would like to implement a "huge explosion" in the west. There may be evidence that they are talking about this with Kurdish rebel allies in Iran, a group that has been fighting the Iranians for years.

Sorry, friend. This is hardly earth shaking stuff, much less evidence of a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda, despite what you hope for.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

JP you are getting beyond the rediculous in your attempts to link "al Qaeda " directly with Sadam. The only truth you have is that Saddam, al Qaeda , and Iran are all bad. yet there are many bad people and bad countries in this world but unfortunately we do n ot have the resourses to kill all of them off or invade them all.

__________________
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land" - Guess Who? You go it !

OR......former Pres Bill Clinton's indictment of bin Laden which states there was an agreement between Saddam and bin Laden to work together in certain areas; like wmd.

Why are you so "in hopes" that it's something to do with the Kurds to the point that you are making things up? Does it dispel your claims about Iraq otherwise?


I didn't write it. Someone else did. I just happen to agree he might very well be onto something.

And you can pooh-pooh the threat all you want. Intelligence told us BEFORE 9/11 "something BIG" was about to happen and you would have pooh-poohed that as well.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Like Bush did?

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

No, he didn't. It's just that "something big" was going to happen wasn't specific enough. And it's the same with this latest British intelligence.....but at the same time, it shouldn't be sluffed off as unimportant....which is what jsh sought to do.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

ummm

A hijacking inside the United States with a specified time frame isnt specific enough for the MINIMUM amount of action? We did nothing with that info.

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

"Big" things" have happened when there weren't warnings. "Big things" have not happened when there were "warnings." In this case the "warning" suggests there may be an alliance between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Kurdish rebels in Iran. That seems odd given the fact that while the two groups share an antipathy toward the Iranian government, they don't necessarily share an antipathy toward the US which opposes the Iranian regime, the overthrow of which is the central objective of the Kurdish rebels in Iran.

The Iranian government may be "looking the other way." This seems odd given their antipathy toward Kurdish rebels in their own territory. But perhaps the Iranian government is "looking the other way" because they are supporting Al-Qaeda in Iraq by supplying weapons to this Sunni group. But that seems odd since, as noted above, Al-Qaeda in Iraq has no love for the Shia regime in Tehran.

If one works one's way through that twisted set of "if's," there is then the hook in the story: the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without which there would have been no story in the first place. But that reference suggests access to a nuclear weapon or at least a "dirty bomb," neither of which is likely, as the article notes.

In contrast, the warnings prior to 9/11 did not presuppose unlikely alliances between groups with very different strategic objectives. They did not presuppose access to WMD. The potential use of airliners was not only identified but subject to previous analysis. And while not specific as to time or place, the warnings indicated that Al Qaeda was determined to strike the US in the United States. To compare the two situations for any reason other than hyping an unproven and unlikely threat tied to the Iranian government is ridiculous.

I'm sure you would have been more gratified to see flag waving, excited responses that suggest we must take immediate action to counter a grave threat. And since you, Dick Cheney, and a half dozen out-of-work Neocons continue to believe that WMD in Iraq were something more than a figment of Doug Feith's imagination, it would serve as retroactive redemption of a failed policy. ("Well, we got that one wrong, but hey, look at this!)

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918