It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Emir of Dubai, is a hunting companion of Osama

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Source

Well, this is new and different, i think.

I dont know since i havent been able to google this myself. Maybe you folks can help with this one:





Lots of stuff has been going back and forth over the whole Dubai Ports scandal, but one thing that has been neglected has been the phrase in the media:

"There are connections between the United Arab Emirates and Al Qaeda" but it's been vague and hasn't really said much, other than some people from the Emirates participated in 9/11. Considering that any independent person from there could have been involved, that's not much of an indictable offense.

Well, I decided to start googling and this is what I came up with.

The Emir of Dubai, and the head of the family that owns Dubai Ports is an associate and hunting companion of Osama Bin Laden.








Could this be true? I cant research at this time (i'm not home). It would be interesting if someone could google this and try to come up with the same thing? Thank you.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by dgtempe]

[edit on 24-2-2006 by dgtempe]




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

www.cooperativeresearch.org

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)]
People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden



mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 24-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

www.cooperativeresearch.org

The Desert Camp, February 1999

During the winter of 1998-99, intelligence reported that Bin Ladin frequently visited a camp in the desert adjacent to a larger hunting camp in Helmand province of Afghanistan, used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located there, and apparently remained for more than a week. This was not in an urban area, so the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Intelligence provided a detailed description of the camps. National technical intelligence confirmed the description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the UAE. The CIA received reports that Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited with Emiratis. The location of this larger camp was confirmed by February 9, but the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. Preparations were made for a possible strike at least against the larger camp, perhaps to target Bin Ladin during one of his visits. No strike was launched.

According to CIA officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike might kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. The lead CIA official in the field felt the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the UBL unit chief at the time agrees. The field official believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

Clarke told us the strike was called off because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to him as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. Documentary evidence at the time shows that on February 10 Clarke detailed to Deputy National Security Adviser Donald Kerrick the intelligence placing UBL in the camp, informed him that DOD might be in position to fire the next morning, and added that General Shelton was looking at other options that might be ready the following week.

Clarke had just returned from a visit to the UAE, working on counterterrorism cooperation and following up on a May 1998 UAE agreement to buy F-16 aircraft from the United States. On February 10, Clarke reported that a top UAE official had vehemently denied that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. Evidence subsequently confirmed that high-level UAE officials had been hunting there.

By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on and the immediate strike plans became moot. In March the entire camp complex was hurriedly disassembled. We are still examining several aspects of this episode.


mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 24-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Mythatsabigprobe, thank you for that and very interesting.

Thank you for your work on this thread,
, its a subject apparently people dont want to touch???


Everything is coming apart, eh??

Anyone else care to discuss this one? Do you think this is too insignificant??



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The reason I didn't touch it was I thought it was completely ridiculous. Now that I see that the 9/11 Commission Report details the connection, I have something to say.

So one country (Iraq) has questionable and unfriendly ties to 'Al Qaeda' and we attack them and have a bloody 3+ year war with them on the basis of 'terrorism'.

Another country has known friendly ties to Osama Bin Laden, head of 'Al Qaeda' and we sell our ports to them...



I must have gotten something wrong here...

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It's probably a helluva lot safer than hunting with dead-eye Dick Cheney



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
the echoing laughter coming from a cave in the mountains can be heard for miles.

the whole concept of turning our ports over to ANY country is a bit scary, in my opion. we couldn't protect NY and DC using our own personel. How do we expect to do it thru another country, especially one that is clearly tied to terrorists?

the current administration has proven time and again that what little thinking actually goes on in the white house is misdirected towards financial aspects of every decision. The fact that the POTUS didn't even know the port was being sold to them is scary enough but his stubborn ignorance to defend his group by refusing to put a stop to the sale is the exact kind of stupidity that will result in another attack on our soil.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
We only have his word he knew nothing about the sale which, based on previous events, doesn't really carry much weight. If this deal was really done as far back as November then it makes his denial even more incredulous, coupled with his eagerness to veto any decision against the sale.
There again, a ship sailing into a port and blowing it up, whilst run by Arabs would be mighty convenient in the finger pointing game



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I can't imagine he would lie about this one.


it makes him look even less in control.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Personally, I think this whole thing is overwrought.

1. The UAE wouldn't "TAKE OVER" our ports.

2. A international company based in the UAE, Dubai Ports World, is bidding on a lease to load/unload CEU's (those stackable container thingies) at sevearl US ports.

3. There are around 3200 ports in the USA. the company in question wants to bid on lading contracts in six of them.

4. While the US navy is the sole maritime superpower in the world, we simply don't do our own civilian shipping. The company that used to do it in Baltimore was British, and was legally purchased by DPW

5. The vast majority of such leases in the US is owned by some foreign/international shipper. At the port of Los Angeles, 80% of port facilities are administered by foreign companies. Did you ever read the sides of those containers on a train? Maersk is a Dutch company. Hanjin is Korean I think. Y carriers is a supsidiary of Yang Ming. The only "American" container supplier is "Evergreen," which is owned by Walmart, which is actually not an American but is more of a "transnational" corporation.

8. Still, 19 out of 20 workers unloading the CEU's will be the same mafia-administered longshoremen that have been doing it for the last hundred years. Its just that the profits will go to UAE instead of Rotterdam or Liverpool before being dispersed to shareholders.

9. SINCE 9-11, UAE has been at the fore-front of nations complying with new American requirements for shipping to US ports. One of the reasons the DPW wants the contract is that they believe they can negotiated the maze of new US laws.

10. Most of the executives who run DPW are actually Americans.


source



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Well if there is another attack, i wonder if the American people will remember this sale and start rioting, etc.? Bush et al may have signed their own death warrant with all their hubris...

-Forestlady



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well, i am shocked you thought this story was ridiculous! Arent you used to being shocked on a daily basis by now??


When is the next shock coming? Still, this is not enough evidence (although i have noticed some to be agreeing with us more) for some to see the forest for the trees.

Everyone is entitled, i guess.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

www.cooperativeresearch.org

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)]
People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden



mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 24-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


This is an outright lie; there's declassified doccuments in print (don't have any online sources but i'm sure they are there too) that proves that Clinton did not bomb the hunting party because....

BECAUSE

The hunting party was from the UAE and Osama Bin Laden was not there.

The doccument specifically talks about the Tomahawks being spun (which happend twice in the Clinton Admin) which means they are waiting for one more confirmed source.

Because they only had one source saying Osama was there but no other sources to corraborate but they had numerous sources identifying them as having just arrived there and not having anything else going on (that is no others meeting with them, they didn't fly to anyone, they were in the middle of nowhere).

So it became apparent Osama was never there.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
By the way, dr_strangecraft that was an excellent and rational post. I think people in general should excersise more reason but this is not possible and the Founding Fathers knew that...too bad the rest of the nation no longer seems to know the same.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

www.cooperativeresearch.org

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

...snip...



This is an outright lie; there's declassified doccuments in print (don't have any online sources but i'm sure they are there too) that proves that Clinton did not bomb the hunting party because....

BECAUSE

The hunting party was from the UAE and Osama Bin Laden was not there.



I think you should come up with these documents and an explanation of why they disprove the CIA's version of the event, before you label the official 911 Commision Report an "outright lie".

You can read the full report here on MSNBC's website - www.msnbc.msn.com...

I'll be waiting right here.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
They are going to compromise.
At the same time they are installing new sirens in major communities......

:shk:



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
They are going to compromise.
At the same time they are installing new sirens in major communities......

:shk:


Who? What? What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Some communities are installing a new siren system, unlike the old ones with the noise only, they have a new improved
one, ones that can send spoken alerts to communities.

Its the latest technology, and according to CNN, MSNBC, they plan on installing these at telephone/electricity poles throughout the nation.


I dont know if its on the internet yet, but it sure was on tv yesterday.


Of course, the purpose of these are for natural disasters.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
BH,

This is the new system.www.washingtonpost.com... 2006/01/24/AR2006012401545.html

I will try to find the story.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

www.cooperativeresearch.org

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

...snip...



This is an outright lie; there's declassified doccuments in print (don't have any online sources but i'm sure they are there too) that proves that Clinton did not bomb the hunting party because....

BECAUSE

The hunting party was from the UAE and Osama Bin Laden was not there.



I think you should come up with these documents and an explanation of why they disprove the CIA's version of the event, before you label the official 911 Commision Report an "outright lie".

You can read the full report here on MSNBC's website - www.msnbc.msn.com...

I'll be waiting right here.


I think you should merely quote the 9/11 Report because it doesn't say anything of the sort.

If you believe the Media you're a fool...the Founding Fathers would have nothing to do with the press because they "personalized and dramatized everything to work against it".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join