DESTRUCTION: Ecuador Concert Ends In Total Chaos
- Apr. 16, 2006
According to a posting on DESTRUCTION's official web site, the German thrashers' April 15 concert in Quito, Ecuador ended in total chaos after the local promoter lost control of the 2,000 fans that wanted to attend the gig in a venue that could only accommodate half of them and that didn't have a working lighting system. "The band wanted to postpone the concert to the next day, but the local promoter had absolutely NO control of the show and audience," the posting reads. "The band is really sorry and mad as hell about this disorder! As a [security precaution], the show was delayed, which led to a destruction of the venue by pissed off fans!"
Back in September 2004, a last-minute concert cancellation by CRADLE OF FILTH in Quito, Ecuador resulted in a riot, with significant damage being caused to the amplifiers and sound equipment before the police were able to gain control of the crowd. In that incident, CRADLE OF FILTH called off the show after allegedly experiencing flight delays on their way to the Ecuadorian capital. A posting on the group's official web site blamed the cancellation on "a change in airline schedules," claiming that when the band tried to land in Quito they were told the runway had been closed for maintenance, forcing their plane to be diverted to Cali in Colombia. The posting added that once the band had arrived in Cali, "they were then told there was no confirmed departure time to Quito, but it would be at least a few hours. This meant by the time they flew to Quito, cleared customs, collected equipment, got to the venue and set up the equipment, it would have been some time in the early hours of the following day, before the show would be ready to happen."
But the band's version of what happened directly contradicted the explanation offered by the concert promoters, who claimed that the group never actually cancelled the show and, on the contrary, called from Cali to announce that they would be arriving late in Quito but would still be going ahead with the performance.
DESTRUCTION are continuing to tour in support of their latest CD, "Inventor of Evil", which is available in Europe on AFM Records and in North America on Candlelight Records.
DESTRUCTION recorded "Inventor of Evil" with producer Peter Tätgtren (HYPOCRISY, PAIN), V.O. Pulver (GURD) and their live engineer Franky Winkelmann at studios in Germany and Switzerland. The mix was done by Tätgtren at the Abyss Studios in Sweden.
To report any abusive, obscene, defamatory, racist, homophobic or
threatening comments, or anything that may violate any applicable laws,
please send an e-mail to bmouth@bellatlantic.net
with pertinent details.
Anyone posting such material will be immediately and permanently banned. IP
addresses are recorded to aid us in enforcing these conditions.
COMMENT | lol posted by : Biofreeze 4/16/2006 9:50:08 AM
lol
COMMENT | dumb ass posted by : Nederland 4/16/2006 9:54:18 AM
stupid people
COMMENT | @R-V-D posted by : Germaniac 4/16/2006 10:07:08 AM
*lol*
COMMENT | posted by : I LOVE LAMP 4/16/2006 11:21:18 AM
wow... good turn out
COMMENT | stupid ass people posted by : constipated rabbit 4/16/2006 11:25:00 AM
i agree with R-V-D though...send all the cRap groups there as well...
COMMENT | ha posted by : swedehaunted 4/16/2006 11:52:20 AM
obviously a great professional booking agent they have!
Lots of fans in South America will see a gig like this. Not many bands are stupid enough to go down there on these shitty club tour dates that they have. Great for the fans but the bands make no money.
COMMENT | posted by : death23 4/16/2006 12:49:50 PM
Excuse me???
Thrash/Death/Black bands which tour South America often play in venues much bigger than in the US plus a respectable turnout.
I'm sorry for the loyal fans in Ecuador.
DESTRUCTION strikes back, devastating THRASH ATTACK !!!
COMMENT | Cradle posted by : CronosWarchild 4/16/2006 1:17:23 PM
I fail to see the relevance of raking up the Cradle dirt in connection with this story.
Excuse YOU! I said that lots of fans will see a show like this but they dont make money and get ripped off. Great for the fans but the bands hurt from this.
COMMENT | posted by : Mr 666 4/16/2006 2:12:45 PM
South America=cool ppl, total true metal. Riot, that is what a metal show should be like.
COMMENT | burnsimonburn posted by : fjan982 4/16/2006 2:22:39 PM
what're you talking about? Are you a booking agent/band manager or something? Stupid racist motherfucker.
man i loved destruction back in the day but is anyone sick of them after 22 years of putting albums out that sound the same??????????? please understand im not knocking them for that but i just got tired of em i guess...........
COMMENT | South American fans deserve better... posted by : DMIZE 4/16/2006 5:32:55 PM
Saxonrulz...I hear you 100% on Destruction.
Having been to South America to see shows I can say that the security is nothing like it is here in the states. Cops don't give a rats ass whether a metalhead gets mugged after a show, beaten or anything else for that matter. Its like they're not human beings, just poor trash. Whether people who listen to metal in oher countries are not viewed as being educated is irrelevant, people need to be treated with respect...unfortunately, rioting will not help this issue, but the promoter should be held responsible.
COMMENT | After 20+ years in the music business posted by : hoseman 4/17/2006 12:12:04 AM
you'd think a band could get their shit together...
COMMENT | Hey I've got an idea: posted by : BlackLabelAxe 4/17/2006 11:21:31 AM
I propose a caged-in deathmatch:
KULL vs. SPOOKY1
Hopefully, after a greulling fight, you'll both fall over dead. Then we can pronounce the real winner: EVERYBODY!!!!!!
COMMENT | KULL vs. SPOOKY1 posted by : BlackLabelAxe 4/17/2006 11:46:47 AM
Italian shithead vs. American shithead
After failing to reason with both of you, I've determined that the best way to unleash your prejudice on each other is to put the keyboards down and GET IN THE RING!!!!!!
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW: Kull, the new Lacuna Coil CD is pretty good. It's got a real "goth" feel to it, and Christina's voice is damn near perfect. I guess not all Italians are losers.
""that happens when your family tree does not branch, it's called 'revenge of the double helix'. ""
When did I say I was a Eurabian or a member of your inbred family of chimps and diseased rats?? NEVER!
Owning you is like Guido the Corsican Pimp owning your mother... Way too easy. I've already knocked the shit out of your foul pothole many a time, so doing it again wouldn't be too hard. Now go back to that dumpster, you dare call a "home."
Wop-a-stan lives!! hahhaahaa
Sucka...
COMMENT | posted by : spooky1 4/18/2006 5:49:13 AM
""at least in here nobody (musicians or fans) has been shot at a gig, talk now about security dumbass, you know nothing except what the news and your goverment fuck up into your useless brain.""
hahahaha
You poor third world bitch. Wouldn't it be hard to have security when you don't even have any shows?? Bands are already too afraid to come there, since security is such a problem and you can't even get a good promoter. Ahhhh.. Life in the third world. I can see why Destruction cancelled, and why 99% of other bands stay away, with maybe one show for your whole lowlife CUNTry. Must be just as good as life in shithole Eurabia. One of the same! Now go back to your life in poverty and corrupt socialism, while I live the best life in the world, under my wonderful government who can tell me the truth about your lazy, uneducated, inbred ass.
COMMENT | At least we are warned!! Thank goodness! Save yourselves from the populace of apes!! posted by : spooky1 4/19/2006 12:55:51 AM
I've heard of shitholes and dumb-ass apes, but this takes the cake. They should definitely join the EU, since they are on about the same standard of living. hahaahahahaa
COMMENT | Here you go cocksucking junkie... Americans are happier than ever! Huge scientific poll! posted by : spooky1 4/20/2006 6:48:28 AM
You lose and your country loses, as usual. Just continue to stay envious and jealous of our great nation, which is superior over you in all.
COMMENT | posted by : spooky1 4/20/2006 6:49:48 AM
BTW.. Thanks for addressing your extreme poverty and crime rates, which was contined in my factual links. I can see how anybody would just see that and know you are a stupid, clueless, lying bitch, without hope.
OWNED!
Kill the Eurabian!
Spooky1
COMMENT | Just look at this piece of shit country.. Making drug cartels proud and prosperous!! posted by : spooky1 4/20/2006 6:56:25 AM
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Peru.htm
COMMENT | Here you go, asswipe ape! More proof we have better lives than our Eurotrash cousins! posted by : spooky1 4/21/2006 6:40:45 PM
Britons not high on the happy scale, survey says Front page / Society 03/31/2006 23:30 Source:
It might be their reserved nature, but British respondents to a poll on happiness released Friday revealed themselves to be less cheery than their North American counterparts.
The survey on happiness, conducted by pollsters Gallup in early December, asked around 1,000 people in the United States, Canada and Britain to gauge their happiness from "very happy" to "not too happy."
While 53 percent of respondents in the United States and 50 percent in Canada said they were very happy, Britons reacted more coolly. Only 38 percent of British adults aged 18 or over questioned in the telephone poll said they were very happy. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percent, Gallup said.
Britons have long been stereotyped as having "a stiff upper lip" and not being particularly demonstrative but the figures bear this out, said David A. Holmes, expert in psychology at the Manchester Metropolitan University.
"We (the British) very reluctantly say we are very happy. It's almost an admission of guilt if you are too happy in Britain," he said. "We are brought up with the ethic that the child who has a beaming smile has done something wrong."
Holmes added that in Britain there is a culture of whining that prevents many people from being completely happy. "We complain about everything, it could be the weather, the traffic, anything."
Cheer appeared to be scarce on the streets of London on Friday. Problems ranged from the pace of life and jammed subway trains to the lack of strong family networks.
"I think living in a big city with bad weather and congestion makes people unhappy," said 25-year-old legal assistant Shorai Shoniwa. "My parents live in the countryside and they are much happier than I am."
Retiree Sylvia Millgate, 68, from south London said she was happy but worried about the younger generations.
"It's a much more complicated life now. What we need is a simple life. Kids can't make their own happiness anymore like I could."
A few Londoners were convinced however, that having a little bit of what you like would quickly lift the spirits.
"As long as I can drink a beer, I'm happy. That's why everyone should take a drink," said Martin Robinson, 31, reports AP.
LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of Britons would like to emigrate from their homeland, fed up with the price of living and terrible weather, and would prefer to live in the United States or Spain, a survey published Monday said.
Fifty-four percent of Britons surveyed by pollsters YouGov for the Daily Telegraph newspaper said they would like to settle abroad if they were free to do so.
Similar polls found just 42 percent wanted to emigrate in 1948 shortly after World War II, and only 40 percent in 1975.
Of those wanting to leave Britain behind, the United States was the most popular destination followed by Australia.
However, if language wasn't a barrier -- Britons are the worst linguists in Europe according to an EU poll -- then Spain would be their preferred country of residence followed by France, with the U.S. pushed back into third place.
The survey found that being able live more cheaply and the chance of new opportunities were cited as the main reasons for moving abroad. Unsurprisingly the notoriously wet and shifty British climate was the next most popular reason for leaving.
However, the much maligned British cuisine was less of a problem with only 25 percent citing it as a problem.
The biggest draw for staying in Britain was being with family and friends, whilst the second most common reason was Britain's proud history.
COMMENT | Hey asshole... More of your COMMUNIST LIES.. DEBUNKED! hahaha posted by : spooky1 4/23/2006 9:09:45 PM
EU official: No evidence of illegal CIA action Antiterror chief advises committee By Jan Silva, Associated Press | April 21, 2006
BRUSSELS -- Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday.
The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations.
The European Parliament's probe and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights watchdog are looking into whether US intelligence agents interrogated Al Qaeda suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe.
But so far investigators have not identified any human rights violations, despite more than 50 hours of testimony by human rights activists and individuals who said they were abducted by US intelligence agents, de Vries said.
''We've heard all kinds of allegations, impressions; we've heard also refutations. It's up to your committee to weigh if they are true. It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt," he said. ''There has not been, to my knowledge, evidence that these illegal renditions have taken place."
De Vries was invited to appear before the investigating committee yesterday and made his comments in response to members' questions. It was his first update since the investigation began in January.
De Vries came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture.
''There is so much circumstantial evidence, you can't close your eyes from the fact that this is probably happening," Dutch deputy and civil liberties activist Kathalijne Buitenweg said.
The US has never confirmed or denied the renditions. The committee plans to go to Washington to interview former and current CIA officials and Bush administration officials.
The parliament committee is seeking firsthand testimony from people who say they were kidnapped by US intelligence agents and from human rights activists and EU antiterrorism officials to get a better picture of the reported US ''extraordinary rendition" flights.
The legislators also are investigating news reports of secret detention centers in Eastern Europe. They are expected to publish a final report on their findings in June.
Clandestine detention centers and secret flights via or from Europe to countries where suspects could face torture would breach the continent's human rights conventions.
De Vries told the committee no EU-US agreement authorized secret renditions of terror suspects, that hundreds of CIA flights did not occur over Europe as reported by various media organizations, and that he has no news of European countries using intelligence obtained under torture.
Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, who was fired after alleging Britain knowingly received intelligence extracted under torture, repeated his allegations to the committee yesterday. He said the British foreign service had confirmed to him that Britain had such a policy.
''I am not privy to details of cooperation between national services, whether inside the EU or with third partners. That is under full control of national parliaments," de Vries said.
De Vries said EU governments would wait for the European Parliament and Council of Europe investigations to finish before responding to them.
COMMENT | What's this??? More treason from the DummyRats?! You bet!! hahaha Sad, so sad! posted by : spooky1 4/23/2006 9:10:32 PM
Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 a.m. EDT CIA Leaker Was Top Intel Aide to Clinton
The CIA officer fired Friday for leaking classified information to the Washington Post about U.S. counterterrorism efforts once served as a top intelligence aide to President Clinton.
Appointed in 1998 by then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Mary O'Neil McCarthy held the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.
Prior to her appointment as President Clinton's Special Assistant, McCarthy served as the Clinton administration's National Intelligence Officer for Warning from 1994-1996.
The loose-lipped spy was fired from her White House job in the first few months of the Bush adminsitration and returned to the CIA.
McCarthy allegedly leaked critical national security information to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who went on to report that the CIA maintained a secret network of prisons overseas for high-ranking terrorism suspects.
The former top Clinton advisor was cashiered after reportedly failing a polygraph test conducted as part of several CIA investigations into leaks. On Thursday she was escorted from the agency's Langley campus in McLean, Va., an agency official told the Los Angeles Times.
One U.S. official indicated that McCarthy had engaged in a "pattern of contacts" with more than one reporter, the Times said. McCarthy has not been indicted in the case, though the Justice Department began a criminal investigation into the CIA prison leak last December.
COMMENT | Care to comment, Communist, Saddam sucking, loser bitch??? posted by : spooky1 4/23/2006 9:18:17 PM
Putin Vindicated?
In 2004 the Russian president said that Saddam had planned terrorist attacks on America. New Iraqi documents suggest he may have been right.
by Dan Darling
04/07/2006 12:00:00 AM
IN JULY 2004, DURING THE COURSE of a little-publicized event while on a visit to Kazakhstan, Russian President Vladimir Putin made some unusual remarks:
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received . . . information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."
Putin's remarks were little noticed by the American press, coming as they did so soon after the release of the 9/11 Commission's report. Moreover, despite his strong opposition to the war in Iraq, Putin was unabashedly in favor of Bush's reelection, having earlier criticized Senator Kerry for supporting unilateral action against Serbia while opposing it with regard to Iraq. Putin went so far as to claim in October 2004 that "The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term."
And one of the newly-released Iraqi documents, BIAP 2003-000654, indicates that Putin may have been on to something. On page 6 of the document it is revealed that:
"The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us."
Written by the commander of Iraq's Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Base, this document, if authentic, indicates that Iraq was actively recruiting suicide bombers with the intention of targeting U.S. interests at least as far back as early 2001. Nor is this the only document released with the intention of making it clear that Saddam's intentions for carrying out terrorist attacks against other nations--the plans for Blessed July appear to lay out a similar agenda focusing on using the Saddam Fedayeen to carry out a bombing and assassination campaign in London, Iran, and the "self ruled" areas of Iraq, a likely reference to Iraqi Kurdistan. While these documents do not by themselves prove the veracity of Putin's remarks, if they are deemed to be authentic they would appear to indicate that his claims did not occur in a vacuum.
IF EITHER DOCUMENT can be verified as accurate, it would seem to refute a long-standing contention among members of the U.S. intelligence community that Iraq ceased its involvement in international terrorism after its failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. Indeed, the following exchange is reported in former counterterrorism chief Dick Clarke's book Against All Enemies:
[Anti-terror czar Dick Clarke said], "I am unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the US since 1993, and I think FBI and CIA concur in that judgment?" CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin replied, "Yes, that is right. We have no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the US."
It would be sad to learn that the Russian Federation's intelligence service was better informed as to Iraq's terrorist capabilities than were their American counterparts.
COMMENT | Here's some more facts! Kind of hard to hear the truth when you live in a police state of shit! posted by : spooky1 4/24/2006 1:15:42 AM
Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2006
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. Much of his research has focused on the role that nations such as Saddam's Iraq and the mullah's Iran have played in providing support, training and funding for terrorist entities such as al Qaeda, al Qaeda's affiliates, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. He has written extensively about these connections for the Weekly Standard and in several other publications. Currently, he is organizing a research project to review and translate the millions of documents captured from the fallen Iraqi regime and the Taliban.
FP: Thomas Jocelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Jocelyn: Thank you Jamie.
FP: Recently the government has decided to release millions of documents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are these documents being released now and why are they important?
Joscelyn: For the past several years, American forces have been collecting documents and other pieces of media from the fallen regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of the Iraqi documents were authored by Saddam’s intelligence apparatus, the Mukhabarat (Iraqi Intelligence Service), while many of the documents captured in Afghanistan were authored by al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban. Despite the potentially significant intelligence value of these documents, the U.S. government has been rather lackadaisical in getting the documents translated and analyzed. To date, less than 5% of the documents have been reviewed. So, out of a total of 2 million documents, only about 100,000 documents (give or take) have been reviewed.
This woeful state of affairs came to the attention of Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard last year. Since then he has published numerous articles on what is known about the documents and called for their release. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, bloggers and others have joined in calling for the release of the documents as well. Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator Rick Santorum have carried the ball from there. Each has been pushing for the release of the documents. Finally, in February, President Bush told his staff to release the documents.
Since then, a small collection of documents has been released via the web. Why release these documents to the public now? Well, if the government isn’t going to take the time to look through them, then why not give researchers, the media, bloggers and the public a chance to review them?
The documents are important for a variety of reasons. They give us an unparalleled window into the Iraqi regime’s activities prior to the war. Saddam’s regime was extremely secretive and the truth is that we know little about what the regime was really doing. I think the documents can potentially shed light on Saddam’s Human Rights atrocities, connections to terrorism, what happened to Iraq’s WMD programs, Iraq’s gaming of the UN Oil-for-Food program as well as other issues.
FP: Do we have any idea what is in the Iraqi Intelligence documents regarding Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and global terrorism?
Joscelyn: Yes, we do. But first, a caveat. Since so few of the documents have been reviewed, it is difficult to say what the complete picture of Saddam’s activities will look like. We also know that a large number of documents and other pieces of media were destroyed as U.S. forces entered the country. Furthermore, the majority of the documents have not been authenticated. Great care should be exercised in analyzing these documents and we should always be wary of forgeries.
However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.
One IIS document, in particular, has received significant attention. The document was apparently authored in early 1997 and summarizes a number of contacts between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi oppositionist groups, including al Qaeda, during the mid 1990’s. The document says that in early 1995 bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in two ways. First, bin Laden wanted Iraqi television to carry al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi propaganda. Saddam agreed. Second, bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in performing “joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz.” That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq’s assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.
We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden’s second request. But the document indicates that Saddam’s operatives “were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up.” Thus, it appears that both sides saw value in working with each other. It is also worth noting that in the months following bin Laden’s request, al Qaeda was tied to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia.
The same document also indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to “establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq” and to “use our relationship with [al-Massari] to serve our intelligence goals.” The document also notes that Iraq was attempting to arrange a visit for the al Qaeda ideologue to Baghdad. Again, we can’t be certain what came of these contacts.
Just recently, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam had joined forces with al Qaeda prior to the war. Al-Massari says that Saddam established contact with the “Arab Afghans” who fled Afghanistan to northern Iraq in 2001 and that he funded their relocation to Iraq under the condition that they would not seek to undermine his regime. Upon their arrival, these al Qaeda terrorists were put in contact with Iraqi army personnel, who armed and funded them.
Obviously, this paints a very different picture of prewar Iraq than many would like to see.
Interestingly enough, the existence of this document was first reported by The New York Times in the summer of 2004, several weeks after the 9-11 Commission proclaimed that there was no operational relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. For some reason, the Times decided to sit on the document while splashing the 9-11 Commission’s conclusion on the front page.
But that conclusion is now more tenuous than ever. Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who served as a 9/11 commissioner, told Eli Lake of The New York Sun that the document is a “very significant set of facts.” While cautioning that it does not tie Saddam to the September 11 attack, Kerrey said that the document “does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”
That circle includes al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf, which was funded by bin Laden’s brother-in-law. One document, which has not yet been released to the public, indicates that Iraqi Intelligence also funded Abu Sayyaf. Steve Hayes first reported the existence of this document last month. The document includes a series of IIS memos from 2001 in which Saddam’s henchmen discuss funding the group, but consider withdrawing support after a string of high-profile kidnappings of westerners brought unwanted attention. But whatever concerns Iraqi Intelligence had appear to be short-lived. In 2003, one Abu Sayyaf leader openly admitted to the press that the Iraqis had been funding his group.
Still another document provides interesting insight into the workings of Saddam’s ultra-loyal Fedayeen martyrs. Uday Hussein, leader of the Fedayeen, authorized a wave of terror attacks in London, Iran, and “self-ruled” areas of Iraq (meaning Kurdish-controlled territory) in May 1999. The Fedayeen were ordered “to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings).” One such operation was called “Blessed July.”
The document recounts explicit instructions for recruiting Fedayeen capable of carrying out these attacks. Martyrs are even reminded to use "death capsules" if "captured at the European fields"--an apparent order to commit suicide if caught. What ever came of the “Blessed July” operation or similar operations, if anything? We don’t know.
We do know, however, that the Fedayeen Saddam were trained alongside terrorists from throughout the Middle East. There are a number of unreleased documents that demonstrate that Saddam was training terrorists by the thousand. For example, a team of analysts working for the Joint Forces Command reviewed hundreds of Iraqi Intelligence documents and reported their findings in a report called the “Iraqi Perspectives Project, A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam’s Senior Leadership.” Here is what they found in the documents:
Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these training camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."
Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor describe similar documents in their new book Cobra II. They say that in March 2003 Saddam called back many of the terrorists his forces had trained. Some of the documents, they write, “show that the Iraqi Ministry of Defense coordinated border crossings with Syria and provided billeting, pay, and allowances and armaments for the influx of Syrians, Palestinians, and other fighters.” Paul Bremer writes in his book, My Year in Iraq, that he too saw Iraqi Intelligence documents that showed Saddam was planning on coordinating an insurgency with various jihadists.
All of this should make anyone who wants to argue that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism or al Qaeda pause. Instead, many current and former members of the U.S. intelligence community still contend that Saddam was disconnected from the global terrorist network.
FP: Why have so many in the U.S. intelligence community been unwilling to honestly investigate Saddam's ties to terrorism?
Joscelyn: This is an interesting question. Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorist groups of various stripes: Iranian and Syrian opposition groups, Palestinian groups, etc. During the first Gulf War, in fact, more than one thousand terrorists converged on Baghdad in a show of support for Saddam. (In this regard, there are many parallels between Saddam’s behavior in 1990 and 2003.) Saddam even attempted to use some of these terrorists in operations, all of which failed miserably, against the West.
After the first Gulf War, however, the U.S. intelligence community appears to have simply assumed that Iraq was no longer a serious player in international terrorism. Even though Saddam made it clear that he would support terrorists against the West when confronted, the U.S. intelligence community was not particularly worried about this possibility. Thus, according to the Senate Intelligence Report (July 2004), we learn that there “was no robust HUMINT [Human Intelligence] collection capability targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until the Fall of 2002.” Up until then, “HUMINT collection was heavily dependant on a few foreign government services and there were no [redacted] sources inside Iraq reporting on strictly terrorism issues.”
Think about that. From the first Gulf War until 2002 the U.S. intelligence community was asleep at the wheel when it came to Iraq’s ties to terrorism. So, when evidence surfaces showing that the CIA and others may have missed some important developments during that time, it is quite natural for the bureaucrats who oversaw this mess to pretend as if that evidence doesn’t exist. Or, to pretend as if the evidence doesn’t mean anything. Or, to pretend as if they knew what Saddam and bin Laden were thinking and that they could never work together against a common foe.
For example, we are often told that ideology precluded significant cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda. That is, al Qaeda resented Saddam’s secularism and Saddam feared the rise of al Qaeda’s brand of Islamism. Therefore, we are told, even though the two shared the same basic list of enemies (America, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.), ideological differences made sustained tactical cooperation impossible. But, this is an assumption. The U.S. intelligence community did not have significant HUMINT assets inside either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda. So, how could they actually know what the two sides were thinking?
Now, think back to the first document we discussed above. What does that document tell us about what Saddam and bin Laden were thinking? It tells us that neither bin Laden nor Saddam was letting ideology preclude the possibility of working together, under certain circumstances. This doesn’t mean that we know exactly what came of all these reports, but at the very least we should be wary of the intelligence community’s simple-minded assumptions. There are countless other pieces of evidence like this, but many in the U.S. intelligence would, unfortunately, prefer to assume this evidence away.
Despite the U.S. intelligence community’s poor intelligence collection efforts, the CIA and others did collect evidence of a relationship. But this evidence came primarily from open sources and foreign governments.
FP: In fact, news that Saddam was working with al Qaeda is not really new, right? There was a time when the worldwide media reported on the relationship?
Joscelyn: This is true. Just two years prior to President Bush taking office, the connection between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda was a hot topic in the worldwide press.
The accounts started just after Operation Desert Fox was launched by the Clinton administration on December 16, 1998. Within days of the strike Saddam dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden and his top aides. A couple of days after the meeting with Hijazi, Bin Laden issued a public statement, which read (in part), “The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them.” Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two, issued similar threats earlier in the month.
The meeting, as well as bin Laden and Zawahiri’s threats, set off alarm bells around the world. Milan’s Corriere Della Sera first reported in late December that Saddam and bin Laden had “sealed a pact.” That account was quickly followed up by reports around the world. Media outlets – left and right of center - in the U.S., London, Moscow, and throughout the Arab world all reported the meeting.
But, that’s not all they reported. The meeting was viewed as just one more data point connecting Saddam and al Qaeda. Many of the press accounts discussed a long pattern of contacts, training, and other areas of potential cooperation. For example, an account in Newsweek openly worried about the possibility of an Iraqi “false flag” operation carried out by bin Laden’s operatives. ABC News aired a segment on the nightly news worried about the possibility of bin Laden getting access to Saddam’s WMD technology. One account coming out of Moscow reported, “Hundreds of ‘Afghan Arabs’ are undergoing sabotage training in Southern Iraq and are preparing for armed actions on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. They have declared as their goal a fight against the interests of the United States in the region.”
There are plenty of additional examples to choose from, but I think you get the point. While the press has had a hard time finding evidence of a relationship since 2002, this wasn’t the case in late 1998 and early 1999.
The Clinton administration was most certainly aware of all these reports. Less than two months after the meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden, Richard Clarke worried that Osama may “boogie to Baghdad” if the U.S. struck targets in Afghanistan. In fact, there were numerous reports that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven. Why would Saddam offer bin Laden safe haven if they were mortal enemies? Saddam was willing to offer bin Laden safe haven, but he wouldn’t work with al Qaeda on other endeavors?
Interestingly, we know that Clarke’s worries about bin Laden’s “boogie to Baghdad” were most certainly heightened by what the intelligence community was saying about Iraqi scientists equipping al Qaeda with VX nerve gas. While the CIA did not have good HUMINT inside Iraq or al Qaeda, the agency did find evidence of a relationship in Sudan and this evidence conflicts with the prevailing assumption that ideology precluded cooperation.
After al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, the Clinton administration destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan as part of America’s official retaliation. The destruction of the al-Shifa factory was instantly controversial. But the Clinton administration, and especially Richard Clarke, argued that al-Shifa was a front company for al Qaeda’s WMD procurement efforts. They also argued that the intelligence connecting Iraqi scientists to al Qaeda’s WMD efforts at al-Shifa was solid.
Many of the details surrounding al-Shifa remain murky. But, the CIA argued that there were several facilities similar to al-Shifa in Sudan and that Iraqi scientists were working at all of them. It appears that this was one of the rare occasions when the CIA actually put together multiple threads of intelligence from a variety of sources.
Here, the debate over Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda intersects with the controversy surrounding what happened to his WMD programs. Perhaps the Iraqi intelligence documents can shed light on this controversy as well.
FP: Is there anything in the documents about Saddam's WMD programs?
Joscelyn: It is going to take some time to determine what the documents actually say about Saddam’s WMD programs. Even in the small number of documents released so far there are countless references to weapons of mass destruction. But, at first glance, that information is often confusing and contradictory. Putting this information together into a coherent picture will take much more work.
But, I think there are a number of ways in which the documents may be able to fill in some of the gaps in our understanding of what happened to Saddam’s WMD programs. For example, we discussed the CIA’s intelligence connecting Iraqi chemical weapons experts to al Qaeda in Sudan. In fact, in every year from 1998 through 2002 the CIA reported to Congress that Iraqi WMD programs had taken root in Sudan. Yet, when you read the Iraqi Survey Group’s official report investigating Saddam’s WMD programs, there is not a single mention of Sudan. Not one.
Apparently, even though the CIA consistently said that Iraqi WMD scientists were working in Sudan, the CIA’s own Iraqi Survey Group never thought to investigate the claim. The documents may or may not fill in this gap.
There have also been a number of reports recently suggesting that Iraq may have moved stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. I don’t know if these reports are true or not, but it would be interesting to find out if there is any information in the documents that corroborates or refutes these accounts.
FP: Thomas Jocelyn thank you for joining us today.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s new book Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of the new book The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information
contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of
authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.
