Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Here's a repost in its own thread of my article on this subject.

    Today is Wednesday.The Sunday Times reference article is still up, not edited in anyway, the linked URL is active. This inidcates the report stands on its merit.

    __________________________________________________ __

    UK Bombshell: America Negotiates with Islamofascist Terrorists


    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/758


    By Sean Osborne, Associate Director, Military Affairs


    UPDATED WITH CRITICAL INFORMATION

    10 December 2006: A tremendous bombshell appeared in today’s edition of The Sunday Times. The bombshell within the article datelined from Amman, Jordan concerns a series of apparently top secret negotiations which have been ongoing for all of 2006. These direct negotiations occurred between the Muslim US Ambassador to Iraq and the senior commanders of the Sunni islamist jihad – including members of the "Al Qaeda" umbrella organization. If accurate, and there's scant reason to believe it is not, this article constitutes either a leak of extremely grave political damage to the United States of America, or a blatant attempt to cause extremely grave political damage. The devil of which in this case are the specifics cited by this report.

    According to the Sunday Times report these negotiations have been hosted by the formerly Ba’athist, former Prime Minister and “secular” Shiite, Iyad Allawi, at his Amman, Jordan villa since January 2006. These negotiations were attended by US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, (reportedly soon to replace outgoing US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton) and senior commanders of the Sunni islamofascists, which include the infamous Ansar al-Sunna. More on Ansar al-Sunnah to follow below.
    The direct reference to "Al Qaeda" is as follows:

    “Last week the long-awaited report of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman, called for America to seek to engage with all parties in Iraq, with the exception of Al-Qaeda.
    However, the insurgents’ account of the hushed-up meetings reveals that concerted attempts to engage them in negotiations had already failed earlier this year.”


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2496369,00.html

    The reference to the "Al Qaeda" umbrella organization is made primarily due to America's fixation on Usama bin Ladin and "The Base" group of international terrorists and state-sponsored agents he utilized. These terrorists and state-sponsored agents have attacked America repeatedly, and were directly involved the first World Trade Center attack of February 1993; the planning and execution of the April 1995 attack on the Alfred P, Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and the horrific events of September 11, 2001 as well the subsequent anthrax letter mailings throughout the United States.

    This report cannot be filed in any semblance of a finalized version without firmly identifing who these islamofascists are, who the enemy is in Iraq and who America is reportedly negotiating with. Far more important than the members of "Al Qaeda" within the Ansar al-Sunnah terrorist group, it must be acknowledged that the leadership of the vast majority of terrorist and military actions in Iraq is not "Al Qaeda" per se, but remnant members of the Ba'athist regime itself, the Fedayi Saddam, the Al-Mukhabarat (Iraqi Intelligence), and former-regime Special Forces/Special Republican Guard. This is who America's representative in Iraq is negotiating with? Unfortunately, it appears so.

    So now, America, you know what needs to be known. This is what our military forces in Iraq need to concentrate on with extreme urgency at the direction of the Commander-In-Chief. This is the opposing force we must focus on to ensure a result of "Mission Complete". Get your pen or keyboard readly America, your mission will be tasked at the end of this article. But first, there is more that you need to know.

    I have been advised by Dr. Laurie Mylroie that during a recent visit to the United States, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a senior Iraqi Shiite theologian and leader of the primary Iraqi political group known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) did not even mention the name "Al Qaeda" during numerous speaking engagements and meetings in Washington DC in November 2005 and again as recently as last week. Not that he would point an accusing finger at Iran or the presence of Iranian-supplied Hezbollah training cadres as a source of terror and military activity in Iraq, they are also a serious factor, but the fact that he focused on the remnants of the former regime as what should be a primary objective is paramount in terms of its tactical importance.

    It is common knowledge that the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton has advocated the insanity of opening direct negotiations with Syria and hell-bent-for-nuclear weapons Islamofascist Iran on a political solution for Iraq. The Sunday Times report makes the obvious connection to such a scheme since these ongoing negotiations failed, at least in part due to the Ba’athist leadership and their Sunni Islamofascist allies chaffing at the idea of inviting the Iranians and Syrians to sit at a more inclusive negotiating table. With such an abundance of card carrying former-regime Ba'athist Party members and their Islamofascist allies at the negotiating table why bother to exclude "Al Qaeda?" This makes no logical sense to me seeing how the invitation includes the primary "Al Qaeda" state-sponsor from 1991 until 2003 - the regime of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, and for the moment, I am inclined to accept that this extremely damaging leak as some weight to it. This is where Ansar al-Sunnah as a participant in these negotiations is extremely, extremely relevant.

    Getting back to the report, it specifically names one of these terrorist participants, Ansar al-Sunnah. Ansar al-Sunnah is an acknowledged ally of the late-Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s "Al Qaeda in Iraq" terrorist organization. In fact, Ansar al-Sunnah is an off-shoot of Zarqawi’s original "Al Qaeda" cell known as Ansar al-Islam. Both currently operate in the Sunni triangle, Al Anbar province and in Mosul. Most of the members are imported foreign Islamofascist terrorists. Iraqi intelligence officers report they also receive a certain amount of assistance from both Iran and Syria.

    Moreover, these are the same Islamofascist terrorists who bombed the US dining facility on Forward Operating Base (FOB) Marez in Mosul, Iraq two years ago next week and which killed over 20 and wounded at least 50 more. Their cold-blooded murder victims also include numerous beheading victims as well as Margaret Hassan.

    I have gone to some length here to inform you of who these terrorists are because the mainstream media have bent over backwards in their untiring efforts to apply the politically correct label of “insurgents” to these demonic bastards. Again, this is who America negotiates with? I hope now you understand the gravity, the seriousness of this report, the tremendous damage it can, and probably will cause to be inflicted upon America.

    Reports such as this create more questions than they answer. Questions such as, who will be held accountable for this revelation? James Baker, Lee Hamilton and the ISG? The U.S. government? The Bush Administration? Whatever the case, there is nothing good to come of this situation as it stands, and I fear for the future of my country because of it.

    To my mind the most important questions to ask at this point are:

    1.) How do WE address the problems just identifed?

    2.) When do WE execute the return to the proper and prudent course of action, defeat the enemy and pro-actively move towards a mission complete status begun in March 2003?

    3.) When do WE express our sovereign will to bring our sons and daughters home flush with complete victory?

    I believe the most correct answer lies with you, the American electorate, and with your outstanding ability to use your pen and keyboard. The victory we all desire begins with We The People and flows downhill to Washington, D.C. For the future and the sake of our progeny it is what we do now that is of critical importance because all of us and our children will be its ultimate victims if we do nothing but sit comforatbly at home reading the tallies of our bank statements and 401K accounts. We are also going to become victims of the current no-win situation because, as many of us suspect and a few of us know for certain, the agenda of America's "elite" is terribly self-serving and nowhere near in synchronization with the best interests of this nation, its people, or our Constitution. Their self-interests have as much to do with why America is losing this war as the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and Iranian subversion do. These are the people sitting at the negotiating table in Amman, Jordan.

    So, America, what are YOU going to do about it?
    Last edited by Sean Osborne; December 13th, 2006 at 09:36.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Just for the knowledge... I web googled "Secret American talks with insurgents break down".

    Results : 879,000 for Secret American talks with insurgents break down. (0.23 seconds)

    Then I news googled it. 6 returns with The Sunday Times referenced article at the top of the list.

    When I news googled the same phrase but with the final word as breakdown this article from The Australian came up. The bold words in this report are consistent with the same in my original article.


    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...63-601,00.html


    This story is from The Times
    Iraqi PM under pressure


    November 30, 2006

    THE Iraqi Prime Minister left political chaos behind him today as he flew to Jordan for two days of crisis talks with President George Bush about the breakdown of security in Iraq.

    The departure of Nouri al-Maliki for Amman triggered a protest in Baghdad by 30 MPs loyal to the radical Shia leader, Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, who suspended their participation in parliament. Six Cabinet Ministers also joined the walkout, but they did not resign.

    A statement from the group said they regarded Mr al Maliki's talks with the US President as a "provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights".

    "This visit hijacked the will of the people during days when the sons of Iraq write their destiny with blood and not ink," said the statement, which referred to Mr Bush as "cursed", the "world’s biggest evil" and a "criminal".

    The Iraqi Prime Minister's relationship with the followers of Hojatoleslam al-Sadr and his powerful Shia militia, the Mahdi Army, has been a defining element of his troubled premiership.

    Their support was critical to his nomination as the leader of the government of national unity earlier this year, but his resulting reluctance to control the militia and its death squads has contributed to the growing levels of sectarian violence in Iraq and doubts in Washington over whether he has sufficient authority or ideas to stop the bloodshed.

    The New York Times published a secret memo today from the US National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to President Bush, in which Mr Hadley portrayed Mr al-Maliki as unable to control a relentless Shia grab for power in Baghdad.

    "In my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so," Mr Hadley wrote of an encounter with the Iraqi Prime Minister on October 30.

    "His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change," the memo said. "But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

    The White House played down the leak today, insisting that Mr al-Maliki "has been very aggressive in recent weeks in taking on some of the key challenges" in Iraq.

    "The President has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki, and also the administration is working with the prime minister to improve his capabilities," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.

    The reception for Mr al-Maliki in Jordan was subdued. He was driven straight to a meeting with King Abdullah II. The reception for Mr Bush, who is expected to land in Amman this evening after flying from the Nato summit in Riga, will be more hostile. Thousands of protesters gathered in the streets of Amman today to voice their disapproval of the American leader on his visit to the country as President.

    "It is a hated name... Bush has been practising black vengeance," said a prominent Islamist, Sheikh Hamza Mansour, looking ahead to his arrival.

    "This is a very sad day. Bush has become a symbol of bigotry and injustice towards Arabs and Muslims," Yusef Mustafa Nimer, a 32-year-old engineer and protester told Reuters. "There he is slaughtering my brothers in Palestine and Iraq and is now hosted and feted by our leaders. I am ashamed."

    Mr Bush is expected to join talks with Mr al-Maliki and King Abdullah this evening before meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister again tomorrow. Tonight Arab diplomats will present a plan to the American and Iraqi leaders proposing new measures, including the formation of a new government, aimed at restraining the country's ceaseless violence.

    • Scattered mortar attacks, roadside bombs and raids against insurgents cost the lives of 13 militants and 15 civilians in Iraq today. The bodies of nine people who had been tortured and kidnapped were also discovered. Two women were shot during a US-led operation north of Baghdad. Two US soldiers were killed.
    Last edited by Sean Osborne; December 13th, 2006 at 20:21.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Here's another version from Qatar from the same author as The Sunday Times article.

    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/com...tary412006.xml

    American talks with insurgents break down (By HALA JABER)

    SECRET TALKS in which senior American officials came face-to-face with some of their most bitter enemies in the Iraqi insurgency broke down after two months of meetings, rebel commanders have disclosed.

    The meetings, hosted by Iyad Allawi, Iraq’s former prime minister, brought insurgent commanders and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, together for the first time.

    After months of delicate negotiations Allawi, a former Ba’athist and a secular Shi’ite, persuaded three rebel leaders to travel to his villa in Amman, the Jordanian capital, to see Khalilzad in January.

    “The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans. It wasn’t because they loved us but because they didn’t have a choice,” said a rebel leader who took part.

    Last week the long-awaited report of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman, called for America to seek to engage with all parties in Iraq, with the exception of Al Qaeda.

    However, the insurgents’ account of the hushed-up meetings reveals that concerted attempts to engage them in negotiations had already failed earlier this year.

    Hopes were high when the insurgent leaders greeted Khalilzad in Amman. The Iraqis had just held their first democratic elections for a permanent government and the US ambassador hoped to broker an enduring political settlement.

    Feelers had been put out to Iraqi insurgents before but not at such a high level. “The Americans had been flirting with such meetings for a while, but they needed to sit down with people who carried more weight in the insurgency,” said one leader of the National Islamic Resistance, an umbrella organisation representing some of the main insurgent groups.

    The trio of Iraqi negotiators claimed to represent three-quarters of the “resistance”. It included Ansar Al Sunnah, the group responsible for a suicide bombing that killed 22 in a US army canteen in Mosul in December 2004, and also the 1920 Revolution Brigade, which has carried out many kidnappings and claimed to have shot down a British Hercules aircraft near Tikrit in January 2005, in which 10 people died.

    At the first meeting with Khalilzad on January 17, the insurgents expressed concern about the emergence of Iran as a new regional power.

    With America equally worried about Iranian interference, the two sides appeared to have found some common ground. The talks continued in Baghdad for about eight weeks, sometimes on consecutive days at Allawi’s home outside the green zone, the fortified area of Baghdad.

    At one point the insurgents offered Khalilzad a 10-day “period of grace” in which attacks on coalition forces would be suspended in return for a cessation of US military operations.

    They called for a “timetable for withdrawal”, saying that it should be announced immediately although in practice it would be “linked to the timescale necessary to rebuild Iraq’s armed forces and security services”, according to one commander.

    Other demands said to have been received sympathetically by Khalilzad, such as an amnesty for insurgents and a reversal of the “de-Ba’athification” process that stripped so many Sunnis of their jobs, have now been urged by the Iraq Study Group.

    There was more. Brushing aside the results of Iraq’s democratic elections, the insurgents proposed that an emergency government be formed under Allawi’s leadership.

    Non-sectarian politicians should be appointed to the crucial ministries of defence and the interior, they urged, because they would be responsible for rebuilding a strong national army and security service. Under this proposal, the newly elected Iraqi government would, in effect, have been sidelined.

    “I told Khalilzad that we had the know-how and the manpower to regain control of Baghdad and rid it of the pro-Iranian militias,” one of the insurgent commanders added.

    “If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days.”

    The atmosphere eventually soured at a meeting said to have been attended by Khalilzad and six US generals as well as tribal leaders from Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala and other hot spots. Each side apparently accused the other of stepping up attacks during the supposed period of grace and the insurgents refused to have lunch with the generals on the grounds that they were military occupiers.

    The talks were further complicated by the different demands of warring Sunni rebel groups. A close associate of Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri, Saddam Hussein’s former vice-president and the king of clubs in the US “most wanted” deck of playing cards, said that many of the insurgent groups were still being directed by Saddam’s former party and military leadership.

    According to a senior Ba’athist representative, insurgent groups linked to Al Douri would not sit down with the Americans unless they first agreed to a series of other conditions ranging from compensation for Iraq’s losses during the war to the reinstatement of Saddam’s military.

    The final blow to the negotiations came in mid-March when Khalilzad said that he would be willing to talk to Iran about resolving the conflict in Iraq. The news came as a bombshell to the Sunni insurgents, who complained to the ambassador at their final meeting.

    Shortly afterwards the government of Nouri Al Maliki was formed with the support of pro-Iranian elements. The Sunni insurgents responded by sending a memo to Khalilzad – now tipped to become US ambassador to the United Nations – suspending all meetings and accusing the Americans of “dishonesty”.

    According to one commander, the insurgent groups were told: “Place your faith in Allah, the gloves are off. Carry on with your resistance.”

    A US embassy spokesman in Baghdad on Saturday declined to comment on the talks but said that the United States remains committed to the current government and to “an inclusive Iraqi political process, with representatives from all Iraq’s communities”.


    -THE SUNDAY TIMES

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/


    So Much For Negotiations With 'Insurgents'

    The Times of London reveals that the American consulate in Iraq spent two months in high-level negotiations with the insurgencies in Iraq, including some groups previously thought to be associated with al-Qaeda. The talks collapsed earlier this year when Nouri al-Maliki, sympathetic to Iran, formed the government -- a move which the insurgents saw as a betrayal:
    SECRET talks in which senior American officials came face-to-face with some of their most bitter enemies in the Iraqi insurgency broke down after two months of meetings, rebel commanders have disclosed.

    The meetings, hosted by Iyad Allawi, Iraq’s former prime minister, brought insurgent commanders and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, together for the first time.
    After months of delicate negotiations Allawi, a former Ba’athist and a secular Shi’ite, persuaded three rebel leaders to travel to his villa in Amman, the Jordanian capital, to see Khalilzad in January.

    “The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans. It wasn’t because they loved us but because they didn’t have a choice,” said a rebel leader who took part.
    The Iraq Study Group included in its recommendations that the Americans hold such talks with all insurgent groups excepting al-Qaeda. Apparently, they didn't ask whether or not George Bush had already tried that tactic, because Zalmay Khalilzad's effort seems very comprehensive indeed. In fact, it included Ansar al-Sunnah, a group known to at least coordinate with al-Qaeda in Iraq when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was alive. Ansar al-Sunnah killed American soldiers, including 22 in a suicide attack in a Mosul Army base in 2004.

    So what happened? Khalilzad initiated the contacts in an attempt to do exactly what the ISG proposed for a resolution of internal conflicts in Iraq. This was one of the recommendations that actually made some sense, along with the recommendations on oil revenue, constitutional modification efforts, and the like. After pressing in late 2005 to get a meeting with the insurgent leaders, they finally agreed to meet once with the American diplomatic corps in Amman.

    Khalilzad built some trust, based on common ground among the insurgencies: Iran. The Sunni and secular insurgencies all feared the rise of the Iranian hegemon in Iraq, apparently mostly centering on Moqtada al-Sadr. All sides recognized their mutual interest in keeping Iraq from falling into the Iranian orbit, and talks proceeded apace towards resolving enough of the issues to get the insurgencies engaged in the political process. It all ran aground, however, when Khalilzad offered to hold talks with Iran in March of this year, and when Sadr's ally Maliki became the US choice to form the new government. The insurgents saw this as a betrayal of the weeks of work between themselves and the Americans, and broke off all contact.

    With the Times story as background, I don't see how another spin with the insurgents will work. They would not likely trust us enough even to take a meeting, given our work with the Maliki government this year. Even if we put some distance between ourselves and Maliki -- which, given the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, would probably be another mistake -- our entreaties would not likely move the leaders of these groups. After all, the ISG just told the world that we should turn the future of Iraq over to a regional conference, a group that would be dominated by Syria and Iran. That would be an even worse situation that Maliki taking the reins in Baghdad.

    The ISG panel didn't note any of this. Khalilzad comes up once in the ISG repot -- in a listing of embassy personnel. Ansar al-Sunnah gets zero mentions. It seems that we keep discovering how little their contingent actually discovered during their study period, and how useless their slate of recommendations are.

    UPDATE: Changed an "Iraq" to "Iran"; thanks to Peyton in the comments.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    http://allthingsconservative.typepad.com/all_things_conservative/

    Talking With Terrorists

    The Sunday Times reports that the U.S. has been engaged in secret, and unsuccessful, talks with insurgents in Iraq:
    SECRET talks in which senior American officials came face-to-face with some of their most bitter enemies in the Iraqi insurgency broke down after two months of meetings, rebel commanders have disclosed.
    The meetings, hosted by Iyad Allawi, Iraq’s former prime minister, brought insurgent commanders and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, together for the first time.
    After months of delicate negotiations Allawi, a former Ba’athist and a secular Shi’ite, persuaded three rebel leaders to travel to his villa in Amman, the Jordanian capital, to see Khalilzad in January.
    “The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans. It wasn’t because they loved us but because they didn’t have a choice,” said a rebel leader who took part.
    What now? Well, obviously these talks make the U.S. look weak, and you can expect the violence to spike, as it already has. Moreover, it shows a serious deterioration of will on the part of the Bush administration. We need more troops in Iraq, and we need to crush the insurgents. The Marine commander of Anbar province recently said that he had enough troops to train Iraqis, but not enough troops to defeat the insurgents. This is unforgivable.
    As for the U.S. looking weak, don't take my word for it, just listen to one of the leaders of the insurgency:
    “The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans. It wasn’t because they loved us but because they didn’t have a choice,” said a rebel leader who took part.
    Can talks with Iran and Syria be far off, if not already underway?
    On the homefront, it would appear as though the Bush administraiton has done what many on the Left wanted it to do, talk with our enemies. That has failed. Will the Left now but politics aside and support a military solution in Iraq? Not on your life.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?


  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    The answer to the title of this thread is YES.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    I was sent the following in a just recieved email. This is a different story than the report I filed, but is directly related due to the context of the information.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=117127


    (IsraelNN.com) The United States has been talking with an Al Qaeda-sponsored terrorists group in Syria in an all-out effort to topple the regime of President Bashar Assad, WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farrah reported Sunday.

    The American National Security Council staff met at the White House twice in August with members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and with a former Syrian vice-president, Farrah wrote. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.





    Last edited by Sean Osborne; December 13th, 2006 at 14:58.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Here's the source story for the Arutz Sheva (INN) report above.


    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=53309


    Iran? Syria? U.S. already
    talking to al-Qaida allies
    Bush administration negotiates with terrorists
    who recruited 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta



    Posted: December 10, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    Editor's note: The following report is excerpted and adapted from the current issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


    WASHINGTON – With suggestions the U.S. negotiate with Syria and Iran dominating the news, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reports Washington has already been talking quietly to a Syrian dissident group linked directly to the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsors in al-Qaida.


    The group is the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, known for its association with al-Qaida and allied with former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

    The Bush administration sought out the terrorists because of its desire for regime change in Damascus – apparently at almost any cost.

    The National Security Council staff in August met twice at the White House with members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and former Syrian Vice President Abdul-Halim Khaddam, says the report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

    Together, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and Khaddam are part of a larger opposition group, the National Salvation Front, comprised of a coalition of Syrian opposition figures in exile. The NSF is led by Khaddam. The head of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is Ali Sadreddine al-Bayanouni. Now, the National Salvation Front is preparing to open a Washington office which some critics claim may be nothing more than an outlet for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to lobby Congress and the administration, reports G2 Bulletin. Some reports suggest that the National Salvation Front already has the tacit approval of the National Security Council, whose officials met with some of the organization's members in August.


    For years, Khaddam, now in exile in Paris, allegedly worked with then head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, Maj. Gen. Ghazi Kanaan, to extort money from Lebanon.
    Khaddam also was instrumental in extending the term of pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud beyond constitutional limits. The move emboldened Syrian influence over the internal affairs of Lebanon.

    Khaddam then implicated President Bashar Assad in the February 2005 assassination of Rafiq Hariri, infuriating Damascus. In response, Khaddam's vast assets in Syria were frozen. Damascus also asked Interpol to return Khaddam to Syria for trial, which it agreed to do.
    Because the United States has been seeking regime change in Syria, it has refused to talk to the Assad government. The United States accuses Syria of trying to bring down the fragile Lebanese government and being a transit point for insurgents into Iraq.

    The meeting of a member of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and Khaddam with staff of the National Security Council is not the first encounter of U.S. officials with Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members.

    For years, the Central Intelligence Agency was involved with elements of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood residing in Hamburg, Germany. Those individuals not only were Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members but were members of al-Qaida.

    These Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members had escaped from Syria after the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad murdered some 20,000 of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members by raiding the Syrian town of Hama in 1982. A number of them sought refuge in Hamburg, Germany, among other places.

    As early as 1986, CIA began to develop ties with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Former CIA operative Bob Baer referred to such efforts in his book "Sleeping With the Devil."

    Both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. For years, bin Laden gave financial assistance to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Saddam Hussein provided material support due to his Baathist opposition to the late Hafez al-Assad.

    Bin Laden also has a close connection to Syria. His mother, Alia Ghanem, is from the Syrian coastal city of Latakia. She is said to be from the same Alawite group as al-Assad. She also is known to have ties to elements within the Syrian intelligence service.

    Members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood adhere to Wahabbism from which bin Laden based his religious fanaticism.

    Since 9-11, CIA had touted how Syria aided the United States in the war on terror. There is some debate, however, whether it was a Syrian setup to con the CIA into thinking it was sincere on the war on terror.

    Prior to U.S. action in Iraq in March 2003, CIA jealously coveted its direct ties to the Syrian intelligence service. U.S. policymakers for years have gone out of their way not to interfere with that relationship.

    After the ouster of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, however, that relationship began to sour following allegations that Syria harbored Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and fleeing Iraqi officials. It prompted former CIA Director George Tenet in October 2003 to pay a secret visit to Syria in an effort to mend fences.

    The outreach of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is rather extensive throughout Western Europe. For example, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members in Hamburg had ties to similar Brotherhood members in Madrid, Spain.

    Spanish investigators linked al-Qaida leader Imad Eddit Barakat Yarkas in Madrid with fellow Syrian Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammad Haydar Zammar in Hamburg.

    Along with Barakat, Spanish authorities arrested five other al-Qaida members of Syrian descent. Yarkas and Zammar knew the Egyptian, Mohamed Atta, reputed leader of the 9-11 hijackers.
    Investigators report that Zammar not only had created the Hamburg al-Qaida cell but recruited Atta as well.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Not exactly 'America negotiating with terrorists' but this is close enough to warrant a post in this thread... Breaking News

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html

    Ignoring Bush policy, senator meets Syrian president

    POSTED: 2:25 p.m. EST, December 13, 2006





    WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a direct affront to the Bush administration, a Democratic senator spent an hour Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus, asking him to do more to stabilize Iraq.

    Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, met with Al-Assad after the State Department said that it disapproved of his trip.

    The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations, and President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.

    Al-Assad "clearly indicated a willingness to cooperate" in controlling its border with Iraq, Nelson told reporters in a conference call following the meeting. The U.S. says foreign fighters often enter Iraq across that boundary.

    Nelson said he reported the information to embassy officials and will brief his congressional committees on the trip. He said he expects Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, to also visit Syria.

    The diplomatic push from Congress comes on the heels of a recommendation by a bipartisan panel that the U.S. engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq. Bush has remained cool to the proposal by the Iraq Study Group, which was led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana.

    Nelson said he ultimately received logistical support from the State Department in what he called a "fact-finding trip" across the Middle East, being transported by embassy officials from Jordan's capital city of Amman to Damascus. Prior to heading to Damascus, Nelson met with top Israeli and Palestinian officials; in coming days, he plans to visit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iraq.

    Nelson said he was not interested in visiting Iran "at this time" and did not say why.

    However, the senator did say that he raised the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran to Al-Assad, saying "he ought to understand that that's not only a threat to him, Syria, but to the entire world."

    "He took note," Nelson said.

    The senator said he also expressed to the Syrian leader the problems caused by Hezbollah and Hamas and urged Al-Assad to support the release of captured Israeli soldiers. Nelson said the Syrian president responded by saying Israel had 20 Syrians in captivity, one of whom died recently from leukemia.

    The senator shrugged off suggestions he was challenging Bush's authority by sidestepping administration policy that the U.S. have no contact with Syrian officials.

    "I have a constitutional role as a member of Congress," Nelson said.
    Meanwhile, Bush criticized Damascus anew and called on it to free all political prisoners.

    In a statement, the president expressed support for the Syrian people, and said they "deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force."

    The U.S.-backed government in Lebanon led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is being challenged by the Hezbollah-led, pro-Syrian opposition. Bush said Syria should disclose the fate of the many missing Lebanese citizens who disappeared following their arrest in Lebanon during decades of Syrian military occupation.

    "The Syrian regime should immediately free all political prisoners, including Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Mahmoud Issa, and Kamal Labwani," Bush said. "I am deeply troubled by reports that some ailing political prisoners are denied health care while others are held in cells with violent criminals."

  11. #11
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    That is the stuff *I* was trying to show to back you up. The only meetings that I could come up with from a RELIABLE source ( I do NOT consider anything British reliable) was about democrats meeting these clowns.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Has America negotiated with Terrorists?

    Rick,

    That's understood and I did read those posts.

    However, here is the crux of this issue - what it really means - as I have gathered it from intensive discussions with some very well connected individuals.

    1.) The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, (offical title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America) is the personal representative of the President of the United States, George W. Bush to the Government of Iraq. President Bush put him in that role on April 5, 2005.

    2a.) That Ambassador Khalilzad would sit in a third country (Jordan) at the same table and negotiate directly with Ansar al-Sunnah (i.e.: Al Qaeda) is exceptionally important and exceptionally wrong. We are in Iraq to defeat islamofascist terrorism - not negotaite with it.

    2b.) Khalilzad's nearly year-long attempt to negotiate with Ansar al-Sunnah (Al Qaeda) and the remnants of the Ba'athist regime of Iraq makes an absolutely mockery of everything we conservatives are saying regarding the Iraq Surrender Group suggestion that we also negotiate with Iran and Syria.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •