NationStates Jolt Archive

New 9/11 Probe Could Spotlight Iraq Link
Aug. 27, 2005
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/27/174809.shtml
Congressional hearings coming this fall into revelations by the military intelligence group Able Danger could spotlight other evidence overlooked by the 9/11 Commission: including a March 2001 report suggesting that Osama bin Laden was working with Iraqi intelligence operatives in Germany at a time when Mohamed Atta and two other 9/11 hijack team leaders were living in Hamburg.

On March 16, 2001, the Paris-based newspaper Al Watan al Arabi reported:

"Two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties."
Al Watan said that German intelligence was investigating "serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin.* The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies."

The pre-9/11 Al Watan report continued:

"German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin."

A timeline established by U.S. intelligence shows that three out of four 9/11 hijack team leaders, Mr. Atta, Marwan al Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, lived in Hamburg from Nov. 1998 thru Feb. 2001.

The Weekly Standard, which covered the Al Watan report this week in a story by Captain's Quarter's blogger Ed Morrissey noted:

"Despite this contemporaneous report about the nature of the German arrests and the involvement of American counterintelligence officials in the investigation, not a word of the affair appears in the 9/11 Commission's final report."

This fall's hearings will undoubtedly begin with questions about why both the 9/11 Commission and the Clinton administration dismissed Able Danger's stunning identification of Mohamed Atta inside the U.S.

But any congressional investigation that doesn't explore other overlooked bombshells - including indications of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks - will leave even more important questions unanswered.


I forgot, we're in Iraq to kill American and Iraqi youth and steal their oil...

What? You don't believe your own president when HE says Iraq and 9/11 were not connected?

Keep trying.

Here is what Wikipedia says about your stories web page:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsMax.com)


NewsMax.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
NewsMax.com is an American news website. It is unabashedly right-wing in viewpoint, promoting itself as "a leading conservative news source providing an Internet alternative to the liberal mainstream media" and featuring a section devoted to media bias.

Many left-wing commentators have condemned NewsMax.com as being a hub of conspiracy theories about Democrats, and Bill Clinton in particular.

NewsMax originated sales of the "Deck of Evil" playing cards and followed up with the "Deck of Weasels" lampooning prominent opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as the "Deck of Hillary" and the "Deck of Reagan". The website provides links to comics that Conservatives will enjoy: Dan Lacey's "Faithmouse" (conservative Christian), "The Leftersons" by Colin T. Hayes, Bruce Tinsley's "Mallard Fillmore", to name a few.

The site's parent company, NewsMax Media, also publishes a monthly magazine, NewsMax. The company's owner is Richard Mellon Scaife.

NewsMax was founded in September 1998 by journalist Christopher Ruddy, who is its current president, CEO, and editor-in-chief. Its headquarters are in West Palm Beach, Florida.


A site that admits to being conservative suddenly has a story that justifies the war at a time when support is going down? Convenient. And this is the only place I've heard of this story? Not even Fox will carry it.

Saddam had no connection to 9/11. Its time for everyone to accept that.

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

saddam huesain was a genocidal bastard and if that isn't a reason to be imprisoned then nothing is. the Iraqi people are beset on all sides by enemies and lack the ability to defend themselves and if that isn't a reason for military intervention then there is no point to having a military.

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

saddam huesain was a genocidal bastard and if that isn't a reason to be imprisoned then nothing is. the Iraqi people are beset on all sides by enemies and lack the ability to defend themselves and if that isn't a reason for military intervention then there is no point to having a military.So why haven't we intervened in other genocides, like the one underway in Sudan? Or why haven't we disposed any other dictators who oppress their people?

But the thing I find funniest about your post is the fact that Iraq had the worlds 5th largest military until we started taking it apart and you talk about them being unable to defend themselves.

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

saddam huesain was a genocidal bastard and if that isn't a reason to be imprisoned then nothing is. the Iraqi people are beset on all sides by enemies and lack the ability to defend themselves and if that isn't a reason for military intervention then there is no point to having a military.

Your right about Saddam, but if America's goal in the war was to liberate people we should have attacked Sudan. It is run by an even worse dictator then Saddam could ever become, and is on the verge of another civil war (The last only ended a few months ago.)

Saddam was a sick, evil man but there are worse out there who run even more populated nations to the ground. They should have been the ones invaded if Bush was in a liberating mood, not Iraq. And lying about why we were going and now trying to explain in vague terms why we are there isn't the way to do it.

Here's another interesting item. :)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5332

'In one editorial, two months before the attack, al-Nasiriyah -- a state-run newspaper for the Saddam regime -- managed to name all three attack targets for 9/11. They said that bin Laden had spent his time trying to work out how to bomb the White House, which would happen shortly before destroying the Pentagon. Then, in typically flowery Arabic fashion, the author claims that Americans will "curse the memory of Frank Sinatra", an odd reference -- unless one remembers that "New York, New York" remains Sinatra's signature song. In the event, the attack followed precisely this plan, except in reverse order: the World Trade Center went first, then the Pentagon, and the White House would likely have followed if the heroes of Flight 93 had not caused the terrorists to down the plane in Pennsylvania.

Even beyond that, the fawning tone and obvious support for Osama bin Laden in one of Saddam's newspapers belies any suggestion that the two could not find common ground for operations against their common enemy. Saddam wanted Iraqis to stand behind Osama and al-Qaeda and cheer on their attacks on the US. The author states: "This new awareness of the image that Bin Ladin has become gives shape to the resting areas and stops for every Arab revolutionary. It is the subject of our admiration here in Iraq because it shares with us in a unified manner our resisting stand, and just as he fixes his gaze on the Al Aqsa we greet him." '.

But of course the Left would rather we didn't notice this. :rolleyes:

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

saddam huesain was a genocidal bastard and if that isn't a reason to be imprisoned then nothing is. the Iraqi people are beset on all sides by enemies and lack the ability to defend themselves and if that isn't a reason for military intervention then there is no point to having a military.

Genocidal? Hardly. He was dealing with very problematic Kurds. I dont believe he would have dealt with any other large group of malcontents in any other way. We urge the Kurds to rise against saddam, saddam puts them down, and people cry genocide. Thats slick. Real slick.

And maybe, just maybe, the military is to defend own nation, not attack others?

But of course the Left would rather we didn't notice this. :rolleyes:
Just as the right wingnuts would like us to ignore every other scrap of evidence against it, and Osama telling Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, and so on and so forth?

Just as the right wingnuts would like us to ignore every other scrap of evidence against it, and Osama telling Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, and so on and so forth?

Wow! So you're under the impression that rival daimyos never allied against a third one? :p

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

saddam huesain was a genocidal bastard and if that isn't a reason to be imprisoned then nothing is. the Iraqi people are beset on all sides by enemies and lack the ability to defend themselves and if that isn't a reason for military intervention then there is no point to having a military.

And since the United States is the cop of the world, everything we do is right, right?

Note that not all Iraqi people are quite happy of our presence on their land. Actually most of them just wish we would just go to hell and leave them alone, a feeling that most of the world shares.

The United States has stuck it's head into too many conflicts that are not of their business; from the revolution that led into the separation of panama from colombia at the beggining of the century, the contras on honduras, the cup de etat of salvador allende and the rise of the dictator augusto pinochet in chile, the supply of monetary help to iraq in the war against iran, while secretly selling iran weapons at the same time in the eighties... the list goes on and on....

Isn't it time we stop intruding in everyone elses affairs????

Wow! So you're under the impression that rival daimyos never allied against a third one? :p
The enemy of my enemy is my friend only applies when the first enemy isn't YOUR enemy and you DON'T hate them with a religious passion.

Between Osama and Saddam, the two points are true. Osama wanted another Iran, Saddam fought that and was rather secular, a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of Osama.

But don't take MY word for it, believe the president and the 9/11 comission, that's where I got my facts from.

...and the White House would likely have followed if the heroes of Flight 93 had not caused the terrorists to down the plane in Pennsylvania.
As a point of fact, the debris pattern at the PA crash site was not indicative of a dive. Had it been a dive, we would have seen a typical wedge-shaped pattern of impact with the debris around the site in a fairly tight cluster.

What we had, in reality, was a scattering of parts and a debris zone that was actually fairly large. I'm certain someone did try to take control of the aircraft, but that plane was shot down no doubt about it.

Iraqi Ties to 9/11

News flash! There were none! Make it up if you wish, but it doesn't negate the fact that Saddam was a secular leader and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. But keep up the bullshit, some will believe! :rolleyes:

This is just my speculation on the matter, but here's what I think:
Why do terrorists hate us? Is it because they hate freedom and whatnot? Or, is it because we've had troops in Saudi Arabia for years, like they say? I'm inclined to believe they hate us for the reason that they say they hate us...the troops in Saudi Arabia. So why couldn't we just take the troops out of Saudi Arabia? Because we had to protect it from...Iraq.
So, what I think happened (and this is just my opinion) is Bush invades Iraq so we can remove our troops from Arabia, thereby giving the terrorists exactly what they want so they will leave us alone.
But, in his infinite intelligence, he failed to realize that now the terrorists will hate us because we have troops in Iraq. He can't even give in to the terrorists without scewing it up. :headbang:

Even myself, a strong supporter of intervention into Iraq, believes that there were no ties with regards of Iraq and 9/11. That still does not change my opinion of what direction we took.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend only applies when the first enemy isn't YOUR enemy and you DON'T hate them with a religious passion.

I'd say that depends on what your priority que looks like.

Between Osama and Saddam, the two points are true. Osama wanted another Iran, Saddam fought that and was rather secular, a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of Osama.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that each of them both wanted a grand caliphate with themselves as sole caliph. After the establishment of such a caliphate would the long knives come out.

But don't take MY word for it, believe the president and the 9/11 comission, that's where I got my facts from.

Well, I'm glad you believe *everything* the President says! ^_~

But have you heard of Able Danger yet? Quite a bit of it and a lot is tangled but what is coming to the surface seems interesting. You might want to hold off a bit before you declare the 9/11 commission report to be the last word on everything. There's a reason Clausewitz wrote of the "Fog of War".

So why haven't we intervened in other genocides, like the one underway in Sudan? Or why haven't we disposed any other dictators who oppress their people?

But the thing I find funniest about your post is the fact that Iraq had the worlds 5th largest military until we started taking it apart and you talk about them being unable to defend themselves.

It's sort of hard to take down a dictator when he has a functioning army.

As far as the genocide in Sudan, tough. We can't be everywhere, so we must pick and choose. Picking one that would benefit us most when we need it would be fine...

It's sort of hard to take down a dictator when he has a functioning army.

As far as the genocide in Sudan, tough. We can't be everywhere, so we must pick and choose. Picking one that would benefit us most when we need it would be fine...

Oh, so in the end it's not about spreading justice and democracy, or trying to help a nation, or making the world safer ... it's just a matter of kicking out of the way the most dangerous to us and screw the rest of the world.

And since the United States is the cop of the world, everything we do is right, right?

Note that not all Iraqi people are quite happy of our presence on their land. Actually most of them just wish we would just go to hell and leave them alone, a feeling that most of the world shares.

The United States has stuck it's head into too many conflicts that are not of their business; from the revolution that led into the separation of panama from colombia at the beggining of the century, the contras on honduras, the cup de etat of salvador allende and the rise of the dictator augusto pinochet in chile, the supply of monetary help to iraq in the war against iran, while secretly selling iran weapons at the same time in the eighties... the list goes on and on....

Isn't it time we stop intruding in everyone elses affairs????

Here is something that has seen the point.

But I'm hopeless. The next president will tell you that is patriotic to nuke Beijing, Fox News will say it is a "preventive counter-attack"; and you'll believe them again...

I wonder how can a drunk drogadict get re-elected... even believed... Yeah, he WAS; but the cerebral damage is present.


This is just my speculation on the matter, but here's what I think:
Why do terrorists hate us? Is it because they hate freedom and whatnot? Or, is it because we've had troops in Saudi Arabia for years, like they say? I'm inclined to believe they hate us for the reason that they say they hate us...the troops in Saudi Arabia. So why couldn't we just take the troops out of Saudi Arabia? Because we had to protect it from...Iraq.
So, what I think happened (and this is just my opinion) is Bush invades Iraq so we can remove our troops from Arabia, thereby giving the terrorists exactly what they want so they will leave us alone.
But, in his infinite intelligence, he failed to realize that now the terrorists will hate us because we have troops in Iraq. He can't even give in to the terrorists without scewing it up.

I don't know why have you troops in Saudi Arabia but I think that is not for protecting them of Iraq, is a question of having troops in a zone of geopolitical interest for your government... or simply an advice that says: "wahabists, don't attack Israel because we are inside you, between you, watching".

Oh, so in the end it's not about spreading justice and democracy, or trying to help a nation, or making the world safer ... it's just a matter of kicking out of the way the most dangerous to us and screw the rest of the world.

That's what we can see when we look a little deeper. That's why I'm hopeless. Some of you talk about the National Security as a New Age God. Don't worry if the police can rob my car (look the New Orleans laws at this time); it's for the National Security. DOn't worry if the FBI is reading those "hot" e-mails I send to my girlfriend now on vacations far from my side, it's for National Security. Don't worry if we encroach a country, kill 25,000 civilians, and lie to you all US citizens, is for National Security.

And you vote him. :headbang:

Osam bin Ladden's list of enemies in order

Zionists
USSR (Defunct)
The Great Satan (USA)
Betrayers of the faith (Secular muslim governments - Turkey, Egypt, and particularly Saddam's Iraq)
Conspiritors against Islam (Kuait, Saudia Arabia, Yemen etc)
India, Britain, France, China
Other western democracies
Non muslim countries
Neutral or non-extremest Muslin nations

Saddam gave money to support the families of Palastinian suicide bombers, who are a different kettle of fish from Al qaida. Al qaida is credited with at least one assasination attempt against Saddam, 1989.

But have you heard of Able Danger yet? Quite a bit of it and a lot is tangled but what is coming to the surface seems interesting. You might want to hold off a bit before you declare the 9/11 commission report to be the last word on everything. There's a reason Clausewitz wrote of the "Fog of War".
I'm following the story, yes. But I find it amusing that the congressman who claims to have a chart, lost it. And the military and this administration has noted that Able Danger didn't say what it is reported to have said.

I'll hold my final judgement, but right now there looks to be no ties between Saddam and Osama.

Osam bin Ladden's list of enemies in order

Zionists
USSR (Defunct)
The Great Satan (USA)
Betrayers of the faith (Secular muslim governments - Turkey, Egypt, and particularly Saddam's Iraq)
Conspiritors against Islam (Kuait, Saudia Arabia, Yemen etc)
India, Britain, France, China
Other western democracies
Non muslim countries
Neutral or non-extremest Muslin nations

Saddam gave money to support the families of Palastinian suicide bombers, who are a different kettle of fish from Al qaida. Al qaida is credited with at least one assasination attempt against Saddam, 1989.

I'd put Spain not in "Other western democracies", I'd put us in "Betrayers" since he told something about Al-Andalus returning to the Muslim World...

OK, let me explain this ONE MORE TIME...

Osama bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist.

Saddam Hussein was a secular fascist.

THEY HATED EACH OTHER. They wanted each other dead. They would have the other tortured and killed if they had the chance. Why? Because the ideologies are fundamentally different.

Osama bin Laden wanted an islamic government in the Middle East free from American influence, starting with Saudi Arabia...Iraq was free from American influence, but was anything but islamic. Not when observant religious people were persecuted, women could wear whatever, and alcohol freely available.

Saddam Hussein was solidly secular, because like any fascist, the thing he feared most was a division of loyalty. People sharing their loyalty with the church = bad news. So if you were islamic and in-your-face about it, you could expect a long stay in a dungeon.

These are not exactly subtle differences. This is a clash of ideology.

Do you see where the two come into conflict? But no, to most Americans, these glaringly obvious political differences are invisible because all they see is people with the same shade of skin. :rolleyes:

OK, let me explain this ONE MORE TIME...

Osama bin Laden was an Islamic fundamentalist.

Saddam Hussein was a secular fascist.

THEY HATED EACH OTHER. They wanted each other dead. They would have the other tortured and killed if they had the chance. Why? Because the ideologies are fundamentally different.

Osama bin Laden wanted an islamic government in the Middle East free from American influence, starting with Saudi Arabia...Iraq was free from American influence, but was anything but islamic. Not when observant religious people were persecuted, women could wear whatever, and alcohol freely available.

Saddam Hussein was solidly secular, because like any fascist, the thing he feared most was a division of loyalty. People sharing their loyalty with the church = bad news. So if you were islamic and in-your-face about it, you could expect a long stay in a dungeon.

These are not exactly subtle differences. This is a clash of ideology.

Do you see where the two come into conflict? But no, to most Americans, these glaringly obvious political differences are invisible because all they see is people with the same shade of skin. :rolleyes:

OMG teh darkies!

So why haven't we intervened in other genocides, like the one underway in Sudan? Or why haven't we disposed any other dictators who oppress their people?
Simple, really. The Sudaneese don't have oil.

Simple, really. The Sudaneese don't have oil.
No No No. Sudan has oil. France and China benefit from it and that's why they don't want to intervene. There are more than one crook in this world.

Simple, really. The Sudaneese don't have oil.

And the Sudan never tried to assasinate Bush I. Saddam planned to.

But of course the Left would rather we didn't notice this.
Wow you found that on the internet, it must be true!! http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440936

Good lord, does it never stop?

So why haven't we intervened in other genocides, like the one underway in Sudan? Or why haven't we disposed any other dictators who oppress their people?

we should

But the thing I find funniest about your post is the fact that Iraq had the worlds 5th largest military until we started taking it apart and you talk about them being unable to defend themselves.

5th. largest, by numbers! they could even put down the kurds!

Genocidal? Hardly. He was dealing with very problematic Kurds. I dont believe he would have dealt with any other large group of malcontents in any other way. We urge the Kurds to rise against saddam, saddam puts them down, and people cry genocide. Thats slick. Real slick.

so putting men women and children into mass graves isn't genocide if they fight back? so what did hitler, stalin and moa do again?

And maybe, just maybe, the military is to defend own nation, not attack others?

let face it - we're at such a vast vast geographic advantage that if all we wanted to do was keep people away we wouldn't need an army. the british fleet even now could keep people away and would be so inclined because of all the money they make off us, hell, the Canadians could do if if nessecary

What we had, in reality, was a scattering of parts and a debris zone that was actually fairly large. I'm certain someone did try to take control of the aircraft, but that plane was shot down no doubt about it.

why would we hide something like that

the fact that we would kill our on people to prevent an attack, and that our comman and control is ready for such a scenario is scary as shit and a far better deturent than a story about pissed off passengers craching a plane

This is just my speculation on the matter, but here's what I think:
Why do terrorists hate us? Is it because they hate freedom and whatnot? Or, is it because we've had troops in Saudi Arabia for years, like they say? I'm inclined to believe they hate us for the reason that they say they hate us...the troops in Saudi Arabia. So why couldn't we just take the troops out of Saudi Arabia? Because we had to protect it from...Iraq.
So, what I think happened (and this is just my opinion) is Bush invades Iraq so we can remove our troops from Arabia, thereby giving the terrorists exactly what they want so they will leave us alone.
But, in his infinite intelligence, he failed to realize that now the terrorists will hate us because we have troops in Iraq. He can't even give in to the terrorists without scewing it up. :headbang:

he is a far better question; why the hell should we care about what terrorists want?

You give me one country in the Middle East that wasn't harboring someone who wanted to blow something up in the US.

To Schrandtopia's last remark about why we should care about the terrorists' needs, it's because we may unknowingly be giving it to them in our quest for revenge.

News flash! There were none! Make it up if you wish, but it doesn't negate the fact that Saddam was a secular leader and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. But keep up the bullshit, some will believe! :rolleyes:That's exactly what I thought when I read the thread title. :D There are more WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda in George Bush's Texas ranch than there are in Iraq.