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.

 

WAR: Iraq knew and supported Al Qaeda pre 9/11

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I will say it again, based on what was written on the citing website www.homelandsecurityus.com does not, I repeat does not support the title of this link, if it read Iraq knew Al Qaeda pre 9/11 it would be more accurate. Besides that fact, given the politics of the region, the same could probably be said of every govenment in the region including our "allies" (this is definately true of Pakastian) if they didn't have offical channels with Al Qaeda, they certianly had unoffical ones (in a post that never got approved, I cited a NSA report that claimed that the secureity appratus of Dubai and the U.A.E. had been inflitrated by Al Qaeda since at least 2000, ya know Dubai, the principality that OWNS the company that Bush supports buying management of 6 U.S. ports, a deal that still might go through via back channels) and if the governments didn't even have unoffical channels, some in their militaries had those connections, again Pakistan certianly did. The point in all this is whether it is true that Saddam and Al Qaeda had pre 9/11 links does not mean that Saddam and Osama planned 9/11 together (highly unlikely since it is reported that they dispised each other). Still I question this all together, the timing is very suspicious given the 3rd annaversery of the start of uncurious george's splendid little war, and given his poll numbers (mid-30's) if it were true or even good enough for a lie Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the administration would be shouting it to the high heavens.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Hey but who cares right? Keep believing the Bush supporters who never change their minds no matter what evidence comes out and who gives this evidence.

Two can play that game Muaddib.

What are you scared of?

[edit on 18-3-2006 by SourGrapes]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Hey but who cares right? Keep believing the Bush supporters who never change their minds no matter what evidence comes out and who gives this evidence.

Two can play that game Muaddib.


What are you scared of?


If that was addressed to me...I am not scared of anything, I don't even have a vested interest in my own opinion (I like to be correct but will concede ignorance when proved wrong), if it was addressed to Muaddib, you would have to ask him. I was just pointing out the obvious, you can inter-change bush haters with bush supporters in the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil catagory alot of the time. I don't hate bush, I would have to care alot more about him to hate him, but I do hate what I think he and his cronies are doing to this country.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

If that was addressed to me...I am not scared of anything,
< snip >
I would have to care alot more about him to hate him, but I do hate what I think he and his cronies are doing to this country.


So, you are scared.

Look, in the end, we are all in this together. A few years from now we will have a new president. But, guess what? You and I will still be Americans. Perception is everything. If you perceve your country to be the Evil that some of you claim, then so be it.

Me? I'm proud of my country. I'm so proud, that you will never (ever) catch me (nor be able to quote me) posting anything that would jeopardize this country's integrity. Pre-Bush, nor post-Bush. I held these same values when Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan were in office. I was always told, "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Go ahead and "keep biting", soon we won't have a hand (to bite!).

Can you waiver the same (be careful of how you answer, for integrity and loyalty is impossible, without trust)?



[edit on 18-3-2006 by SourGrapes]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I was always told, "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Go ahead and "keep biting", soon we won't have a hand (to bite!).


We feed them and they bit us, now every American owes $30,000 when born due to national debt.

Being a hand maiden or complacent drone to an Orwellian world is nothing to be proud of. Maybe you need to look up what we the people means rather than siding for a dictatorship.

•If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. ~George W. Bush

•Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

•Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official. ~Theodore Roosevelt

•Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

•The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Sir Winston Churchill



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I was always told, "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Go ahead and "keep biting", soon we won't have a hand (to bite!).


We feed them and they bit us, now every American owes $30,000 when born due to national debt.

Being a hand maiden or complacent drone to an Orwellian world is nothing to be proud of. Maybe you need to look up what we the people means rather than siding for a dictatorship.

•If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. ~George W. Bush

•Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

•Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official. ~Theodore Roosevelt

•Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

•The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Sir Winston Churchill



Thank you very much.

I am scared of the path, that those who think that people like me ,who object to policies of this current administration, are somehow unpatroitic, are willing to lead us. I read everything from the extreme left to the extreme right and much inbetween and come to my own conclusions based on my own reasoning ability and my heart, and I object vigorously to those who belittle my opinions because the don't agree with theirs.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
It is our responsiblity to object if we feel our government is doing wrong or leading us down the wrong path, even, or especially even if we are in the minority. To fail to do so is to abrogate our responsiblites as a free people. It is not unpatriotic, indeed it is the most patroitic thing we can do, because the oppoisite of (even heated) debate, is muffled silence. And hiding behind such silence much evil can be done.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
this is apparently such a non story that it isn't even on faux news website or cnn...not to mention there hasn't been a peep from the white house (24 hours now since this was posted) that I could find on this. So far everything I have said about it still stands, until proven otherwise.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
this is apparently such a non story that it isn't even on faux news website or cnn...not to mention there hasn't been a peep from the white house (24 hours now since this was posted) that I could find on this. So far everything I have said about it still stands, until proven otherwise.


Not on Foxnews you say? No No they covered it, you just missed it.

Fox News

They even have a video of the newscast if you want to watch it.

BTW they are carrying a new version today I just saw it


[edit on 3/18/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I will say it again, based on what was written on the citing website www.homelandsecurityus.com does not, I repeat does not support the title of this link, if it read Iraq knew Al Qaeda pre 9/11 it would be more accurate. Besides that fact, given the politics of the region, the same could probably be said of every govenment in the region including our "allies" (this is definately true of Pakastian) if they didn't have offical channels with Al Qaeda, they certianly had unoffical ones (in a post that never got approved, I cited a NSA report that claimed that the secureity appratus of Dubai and the U.A.E. had been inflitrated by Al Qaeda since at least 2000, ya know Dubai, the principality that OWNS the company that Bush supports buying management of 6 U.S. ports, a deal that still might go through via back channels) and if the governments didn't even have unoffical channels, some in their militaries had those connections, again Pakistan certianly did. The point in all this is whether it is true that Saddam and Al Qaeda had pre 9/11 links does not mean that Saddam and Osama planned 9/11 together (highly unlikely since it is reported that they dispised each other). Still I question this all together, the timing is very suspicious given the 3rd annaversery of the start of uncurious george's splendid little war, and given his poll numbers (mid-30's) if it were true or even good enough for a lie Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the administration would be shouting it to the high heavens.


Well I just read the faux news report on this and I have to say it is interesting. We shall see how this plays out but as it stands right now....what I read doesn't change what I wrote quoted above, to know and have some form of contacts does not translate to support which is what the title of this thread asserts. If it proves to be that he did give them some sort of financial or military support, it really doesn't change anything we still started an unprovoked war or choice...if it is proven he had a hand in 9/11, well thats different.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Following Muaddib's "suspicion of the media (liberal, moderate, or Democratic otherwise)", I decided to check out a web site that is neutral in all matters related to watching the media: Media Matters.org. There are a few articles related to the subject matter that are interesting and add to the debate about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. For what it is worth, take a look:

Will Wash. Post editorial page retract pre- and post-Iraq invasion falsehoods?

So, the mistrust of The Washington Post is understandable being that it is a "liberal" rag. However, media matters.org delves more into the story.

Barone misrepresented Senate report to assert possible Al Qaeda-Iraq connection

This also implicates the U.S. News & World Reports' claims of an "Iraq-Al Qaeda" connection. However, being that this is a "moderate" periodical, this might be mistrusted as well.

In fact, the Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell even claimed that the media was not interested in finding "Iraq's connections to terror". So, this might be a point in your favor. However, Media Matters.org reads between the lines and breaks it all down:

Bozell claimed media refused to give Bush "the benefit of the doubt" on Iraq's ties to terror

So, these are new articles from a neutral source that "watches" the media. I hope that this can add to the discussion on proving whether or not these ties are true. As I said before, I will keep my mind open and read about the topic based on all sides.

BTW, Muaddib, what is a "good" conservative periodical to follow since you have a mistrust of those "liberal" rags?

[edit on 18-3-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
A better one is the annenberg foundations www.factcheck.org. they cover far less than media matters but are very through.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bear in mind, that if you, or others, attempt to discredit or dismiss the link provided above, anything that you, or others, attempt to provide or counter with can likewise be discredited or dismissed--under the same reasonings as you, or others, may use to explain away, discredit, or dismiss.


Selective reasoning is a path to be well distanced from. I don't see how you avoid getting run over by a vehicle with those thick blinders on!
*joke...relax*

But by your assertion above, the truth is what you are told by the administration...and damned be the evidence? If you are old enough to remember back to when this was taking place you might have been fortunate enough to have had a friend overseas that would mention that OBL put together a little war machine front called MAK which rerouted financial aide, fire and manpower to the Afghan conflict. MAK was conditioned by Pakistan’s ISI which was the CIA's cover for covert ops against Moskow during the occupation. Gools is more or less correct even if somewhat brash in his statement. I know you would like to believe that the administration is just, fair, and righteous as would I but the evidence screams to the contrary. You don't also have any illusions that we are in Iraq for liberation and/or homeland security rather than production sharing deals and profiteering do you? Does the Halliburton no-bid contract ring a bell?

OK...to lighten things up a bit...here's a fun photo....



Greedy Talking Monkeys: Custer-Battles

OK...back on off-topic...



Indeed, the CIA is not exactly unfamiliar with bin Laden and his crew, since he and most of his apparatchiks were closely allied to the CIA during the 1980s, in the war against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. "We worked with bin Laden in the past," says former CIA agent Poteat. "He was one of the freedom fighters. And there are a lot of people [around him] who worked with the CIA and would again."


Source




Among these thousands of foreign recruits was a young Saudi student, Osama bin Laden. He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. He brought in his company of engineers and heavy construction equipment to help build roads and depots for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, that the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border. For the first time in Khost he set up his own training camp for Arab Afghans, who now increasingly saw this lanky, wealthy and charismatic Saudi as their leader.


Source

My point is...he was our covert instrument then to get into Afghanistan and I'm not so sure he is not still our instrument to get to further oil deals....

Edit: Forgot to get back to the topic...

But as to whether or not the story of Iraq having ties to Al Qaeda is true...does anyone have any links with translation. Who's to say it was not just an intelligence file on him not unlike what our alphabet agencies have on him. Both factions are vile but to say they know each other because a picture was found within Iraq intelligence files is somewhat weak.


[edit on 19-3-2006 by antipigopolist]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The truth is "what this administration says"?....

What about when Clinton was in office and the intelligence that was gathered during his term said the same thing?....

What about the intelligence of other countries which also keep saying the same thing?....

Your argument is completly false, since it was never this administration alone the one to make these claims that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and the world at large, and that there were wmd in Iraq.

The truth about this matter, or any matter these days is that there are a group of people that would try to claim that the present administration is to be blamed for everything that is happening in the world these days....

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What about when Clinton was in office and the intelligence that was gathered during his term said the same thing?


You want to make this a Republican verses Democrat issue because that gives you a small amount of ground to preach from. I did not imply the current administration. The fact is our two party system no longer works for the people but that of the corporation. Dig a little deeper. This is corporate controlled America destroying America for their own design. Every administration in the last few decades has had a hand firmly in the "pie" with regard to allowing homeland corporate coups to go unchecked. Some where just a bit more circumspect than this administration. And you misquoted me...I said "the truth is what you are told by the administration" not "this administration". But nice try, firestarter.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
"Nice try firestarter"?.... oh boy...

Shall we go over again the evidence that links Saddam with Al Qaeda?....

Let's see what I can dig once again.


Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

David Rose
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer


An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators.
Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'.


Excerpted from.
observer.guardian.co.uk...


This month, I went to Prague to meet with Czech officials who had directly handled the pre-9/11 expulsion of a senior Iraqi diplomat, a case that would became known as the Prague Connection. Because it goes to the heart of the issue of whether Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the attack on the World Trade Center, this controversy has continued to rage, without any satisfying conclusion, for more than two years.

The background: On April 21, 2001, the CIA's liaison officer at the U.S. Embassy in Prague was briefed by the Czech counterintelligence service (known by its Czech acronym, BIS) about an extraordinary development in a spy case that concerned both the United States and the Czech Republic. The subject of the briefing was Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the consul at Iraq's embassy in Prague.

The reason there had been joint Czech-American interest in the case traced back to the December 1998 when al-Ani's predecessor at the Iraq Embassy, Jabir Salim, defected from his post. In his debriefings, Salim said that he had been supplied with $150,000 by Baghdad to prepare a car-bombing of an American target, the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe. (This bombing never took place because Salim could not recruit a bomber.)


Excerpted from.
www.slate.com...

I also have to wonder, exactly how some members around here are able to claim that Saddam's regime did not aid terrorists against the U.S. as we have read some members claim, when the facts tells us otherwise.


Though they may get scant attention, some of the facts of Saddam's involvement with Islamic terrorism are not disputed. Hamas, the fundamentalist Palestinian group, whose gift to the world is the suicide bomb, has maintained a Baghdad office - funded by Saddam - for many years. His intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, has a special department whose sole function is liaison with Hamas. In return, Hamas has praised Saddam extravagantly on its website and on paper.

Since his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam's supposed secularism has looked decidedly thin. Increasingly, he has relied on Islamist rhetoric in an attempt to rally the "Arab street". Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa justified its call for Muslims to kill American and Jewish civilians on the basis of a lengthy critique of US hostility towards "secular Iraq.


Excerpted from.
www.thisislondon.co.uk...#



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
antipigopolist....where is the proof that "all those countries that have proof that there was an Iraqi Al Qaeda link are all working for the U.S. government".... It is also the exact same explanation that we usually get around here from some members claiming that "all dissidents from such dictatoships such as Saddam's Iraq, Cuba, the USSR, etc, are all being paid by the U.S. government".....

"Sensationalist claims" are often based on sensationalism, and not on the truth.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Nevermind...it seems you do not take into account why it would be in many countries best interest to link the two together and I' don't have time to give past history lessons. When you look beyond the veneer, circumstances look peculiar to say the least. It's obvious you did not consider the links I provided. No use in discussing this with you if you have your mind already made up and you choose to not recognize how deep corporations are involved in creating a certain outcome.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by antipigopolist]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Alright people, I've seen a lot bandying about of media sources, but why not just get to the heart of the matter and read the Senate Report? (2004 Senate Report on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence)

I'm going to paste the relevant portions here, the conclusions of the report that pertain specifically to Iraq's connections to terror groups. I know it's a big paste, with little commentary, and I'd love to paste a smaller portion, but I don't want to be accused of being overly selective in what is pasted and what is not.



IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 90. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.

(U) Conclusion 91. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

(U) Conclusion 92. The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

(U) Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

(BLACKED OUT) Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support/or Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. BLACKED OUT

(U) Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.

(U) Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

(U) Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.

(U) Conclusion 98. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessments on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated, though an early version of a key CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of cabinet members and some subcabinet officials in the Administration.


So... Saddam was most likely to join forces with al-Qaeda in the event of war. Awful strange that, no?

Similar conclusions were found by the Senate Pre-War Intel Committee regarding intel on Saddam's use of WMD's- which was specifically that he would only use them if he was attacked!

So, and this is important... if we had attacked Iraq, and the CIA turned out to be right in its predictions, then we were attacking Iraq.... when it would be exactly that which would cause Saddam to use WMD's and ally with al-Qaeda.

Feel safer yet?


Oh, regarding the Czech meeting, from Page 341 of the report:


The second alleged Iraqi connection to the September 11 attacks was the widely-publicized report from the Czech government to the US. that meetings took place between September 11 hijacker Muhammed Atta and the IIS chief in Prague, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Sarnir al-hi. The CIA judged that other evidence indicated that these meetings likely never occurred.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K


I'm going to paste the relevant portions here, the conclusions of the report that pertain specifically to Iraq's connections to terror groups. I know it's a big paste, with little commentary, and I'd love to paste a smaller portion, but I don't want to be accused of being overly selective in what is pasted and what is not.

IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM CONCLUSIONS

(U) Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

(U) Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.

(U) Conclusion 98. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessments on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated, though an early version of a key CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of cabinet members and some subcabinet officials in the Administration.




Those conclusions were back then, this is now. They now have more information and millions of documents they did not have back then. It only stands to reason that if they held more Senate meetings on the very same subject the above conclusions could very well change, based on this new information.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join