« So what's the problem? Weren't they elected? | Main | Governor Tin-Ear »

An Underreported Arrest

Ray Robison at The American Thinker has a post about the arrest of the man said to be the Defense of Taliban, Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, that has gone essentially unnoticed. After examining the story further, Ray found something noteworthy:

Although Obaidullah is widely reported to be the Defense Minister of the Taliban, there is another man who has alternately held that position. That man, Mullah Abdul Razzaq has been noted in the Southwest Asia media, but mostly left alone in the western media. The western media has labeled him the Taliban Interior Minister, and with such an innocuous sounding title, he seems hardly noteworthy. Not to mention that his personal name, Mullah (title) Abdul Razzaq (alternate spelling Razzak, Razaq) seems to be the Afghani equivalent to 'John Smith' and thus hard to follow through media reports. However, there is definitive media reporting that says he was the Defense Minister of the Taliban.

Or at least, that is what the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) called Razzaq, when he was meeting with Saddam's Vice President in Iraq in 1999. As part of my research investigating the documents captured in Iraq, I did an expose on a notebook kept by an IIS agent. In that notebook, as published at the Fox News website, we provided this fragmentary translation from the notebook:

"The Taliban defense minister is Abdul Razzak (unclear) Association of Muslim Clerics."

At the time the article was published, the fragment did not seem particularly noteworthy. But with further research, I discovered why this entry was in the notebook. The first translation of the series contained a meeting between Taha Yassin Ramadan, one of two of Saddam's Vice Presidents and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a major terrorism supporter called the Father of the Taliban in Pakistan. At the time the article ran, I mentioned that I had not identified the other men listed as being present at this meeting. It was a major oversight on my part not to put the two references together, but now I can do so.

One of the men listed at the meeting with Ramadan was Abdul Razzaq, the same man the IIS agent calls the Taliban Defense Minister. Therefore, the Defense Minister of the Taliban was meeting with the highest officials in Saddam's government. Of course, this is a nasty thing to discover for those so fond of pointing to the picture of Donald Rumsfeld, our own "Defense Minister" at the time, meeting with Saddam as proof of our culpability for Saddam's actions. Will they now apply the same standard of logic to determine that Saddam was therefore responsible for the Taliban's actions and therefore complicit in 9/11?

Go and read the rest of Ray's post.

Comments (10)

One wonders as to the degre... (Below threshold)

One wonders as to the degree of identity of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

"Will they now apply the sa... (Below threshold)

"Will they now apply the same standard of logic to determine that Saddam was therefore responsible for the Taliban's actions and therefore complicit in 9/11?"


It's too big a leap of partisan faith to conclude that a meeting such as the one alleged here proves Saddam's complicity in 9/11. Physical connectivity does not imply motive or action on Saddam's part. Let's call this exercise "6 Degrees of Saddam Hussein" and keep it in perspective; nothing more than an amusing parlor game.

Let's say it's more than a rhetorical exercise. What was the degree of Saddam's complicity? Did he smile and say "Git r' done?" The hijackers were Saudis, so we attack Iraq? Does that justify the billions of dollars and thousands of American lives spent? There was no objectively supportable reason for invading and occupying Iraq, only smoke, mirrors, fear and lies. Stop making excuses and start thinking about a solution for this mess.

For all to remember, we are... (Below threshold)

For all to remember, we are at war with the Taliban because of 9/11. They are not innocent bystanders as the leftists want to suggest. We are at war with them right now because they provided the security and assistance to al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, those who provided direct military assistance to the Taliban to keep them in power are complicit in 9/11. There is strong documentary evidence that Saddam did exactly that. The list also includes Pakistan and Lybia as far as official government support. Pakistan and Lybia cooperated after 9/11 and thus were not invaded. Saddam told us to piss off, thus Iraq was invaded. This is why we went into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, the act of citizens from Saudi Arabia versus official government assistance from Iraq are seperate issues. Al Qaeda is/was a Saudi opposition group and not supported by the ruling family (although there are surely some rogue elements in the family that support al qaeda in their own nonofficial actions). And again, after 9/11 the Saudis were also forced to chose sides. Remember all that "you are with us or against us" stuff Busg said that you libs whine about? Who do you think Bush was talking to, France? No, it was Pakistan, SA, UAE, Iraq, and other rogue ME and SW asian nations. But this is a little complicated and it is to be expected that most liberals can't follow the evidence to the logical conclusion.

You da man, Ray.====... (Below threshold)

You da man, Ray.

Will they now apply the ... (Below threshold)

Will they now apply the same standard of logic to determine that Saddam was therefore responsible for the Taliban's actions and therefore complicit in 9/11?

Will they now apply the same standard of logic to determine that the United Arab Emirates was therefore responsible for Al Qaeda's actions and therefore complicit in 9/11?

On Feb. 8, 1999, the Pentagon and the CIA were preparing a military strike on a luxury hunting camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden had been sighted. Satellite imagery revealed the presence of a military aircraft belonging to the U.A.E., and "policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by," according to the 9/11 Commission report. Sheikh Hamdan stayed in Afghanistan for three full weeks during the 1999 hunt, Parrot said, while supplies were ferried back and forth to the luxury camp by a U.A.E. Ministry of Defense C-130 cargo aircraft.

Read the whole story on NewsMax.

I completely support any an... (Below threshold)

I completely support any and all efforts against the Taliban. I just wish this administration had remained focus on that task, instead of embarking upon the colossal, tragic bungle that is Iraq. On what basis are we to assume that the meeting referenced above constitutes "direct military assistance" provided by Saddam specifically re: 9/11?

In case you haven't noticed there's some pretty strong documentary evidence suggesting that action against Iraq was being seriously contemplated, even planned, long before 9/11 gave George II political cover for his audacious move. If you're attempting to provide justification for a full scale military invasion, occupation and the resulting chaos, you've got a long way to go. Keep digging, but I think the horse has long since left the barn on this one.

You're right groucho, the p... (Below threshold)

You're right groucho, the planning for action against Iraq does indeed predate 9/11.

It goes back to at least 1998.

Also, it is worth noting th... (Below threshold)

Also, it is worth noting that a full text translation of the IIS notebook referred to earlier contains meetings with Saddam in which they discuss a plan to meet secretly with a member of the UAE royal family in Jordan in 1999(Saddam said he wanted it in Iraq because of Jordanian intelligence but the UAE didnt want to be detected meeting in Iraq). The entry does not say why they were having a secret meeting in a third country. But it is worth noting that these secret meetings were planned to occur in Jordan just prior tp the arrest of an al qaeda leader in Jordan who was caught with WMD materials according to Steve Koll in his book Ghost Wars. This is also the time frame that the UAE royal family, I believe King Zaed (off the top of my head, may be spelled wrong) was sending his sons to go falcon hunting with UBL in Afghanistan. The UAE royal family, Pakistani ISI, Lybia, Saddam and the Taliban were all keeping the same company (al Qaeda) and this company attacked the US on 9/11. Not a coincidence my friends. To the above about UAE, yes, UAE was probably involved but again, after 9/11, they were given a choice, with us or against us, and they started handing over terrorists like crazy realizing they were on the list with Iraq and Lybia to have a bad day.

sorry, meant Libya... (Below threshold)

sorry, meant Libya

You da man, Ray.====... (Below threshold)

You da man, Ray.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy