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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

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.


The report was on pre-war intel, so the conclusions woudn't change, unless new information from the US side came to light. I would agree with the general logic of your statement, except, that report was pretty comprehensive. Every time I've been presented with allegedly new information, I go back to that report and see if it's been contained within, and surprisngly, often it has, for example, like the Czech meeting, or the Kurdistani relationship, both mentioned in this thread. I have seen no new evidence that would change the conclusions reached by the CIA before the war.

Like I said in my post before last,



Going back and reading the 2004 Senate Report on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence ... I've been unable to find how these new documents have (so far) revealed any information that was not previously known. There was, of course, a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just as there are relationships between most middle eastern nations and Al-Qaeda, there simply was no evidence that Iraq had a hand in planning 9/11 or that the relationship was substantial. The title of this thread is kind of misleading- show me the news!


The article that is the topic of this thread states that "17 March 2006: An examination of newly released documents released at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and uploaded to the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office website reveals that the Iraq government was aware of the presence of al Qaeda in their country."

Nothing new there, according to a 2004 report, unless you consider finding more documents proving what was already known news.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Nothing new there, according to a 2004 report, unless you consider finding more documents proving what was already known news.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]


Nothing New??? What are you talking about?? There are now said to be an additional 2 million documents along with who knows how many audio tapes and those all need to be translated which could take who knows how long? Neither you nor I know what information they contain so we have to wait and see.

Too dismiss these new documents as nothing new is ridiculous




[edit on 3/20/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Nothing New??? What are you talking about?? There are now said to be an additional 2 million documents along with who knows how many audio tapes and those all need to be translated which could take who knows how long? Neither you nor I know what information they contain so we have to wait and see.

Too dismiss these new documents as nothing new is ridiculous


[edit on 3/20/2006 by shots]


Maybe some would consider finding a large cache of documents as news, in which case the headline of this thread should have been "large cache of documents found." But frankly, until the documents are translated and verified, I just don't see any news. Big caches of all sorts of stuff turn up quite a lot in Iraq, including documents. Don't get me wrong, documents can be very important things, and their discovery is great, but it's happened before and will happen again. As you say, we need to wait for translation.

But, this is neither here or there, as far as what I've been trying to address in my posts- I thought the news here was that "Iraq knew and supported al-Qaeda pre-911," not, "large cache of docs found." The headline is misleading, like I said before, and have tried to illustrate. We knew Iraq knew of al-Qaeda pre-911, and we have no proof that Iraq "supported" them beyond anything already known pre-2004 report.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
I thought the news here was that "Iraq knew and supported al-Qaeda pre-911," not, "large cache of docs found." The headline is misleading, like I said before, and have tried to illustrate.


Seems rather silly to me that you would say what you are. The Intro and source article made it very clear what the thread was about, so it kind of sounds like nit picking the title rather then discussing the substance of the Intro and source if you ask me since the information is in the very first post.



[edit on 3/20/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Seems rather silly to me that you would say what you are. The Intro and source article made it very clear what the thread was about, so it kind of sounds like nit picking the title rather then discussing the substance of the Intro and source if you ask me since the information is in the very first post.

[edit on 3/20/2006 by shots]


What can I say? Sure, it seems like nitpicking the title if you take my one sentence...


And besides.. is it so wrong to want an accurate title? Especially when the discussion, which I was also responding to- not just the original article- seems to have taken its tone from that title, rather than the article itself? I think the article has led to some false conclusions here, which the title makes clear, and I've tried to address those with my posts.

Regarding substance- I've addressed the substance of the article in my first post. I won't repeat myself. I think at least we're agreed that we need to wait and see what these documents contain.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Gools
The US started, funded and supported Al CIAda pre911 to fight the Russians in Afghanistan!

Bin Laden and subsequent events are what is termed "blowback".

Sucks eh?
.

[edit on 3/17/2006 by Gools]

'

This is nothing more than half truths and twists to reflect your view, the CIA aided the MUJAHEDEEN, not AL QAEDA...


Xphiles that might be true, but weren't we also friends or aquitances with pakistan back then? Who had ties with al qaeda. Just because we funded the mujdahadeen doesn't mean that al qaeda and our supposed friend pakistan didn't get any of it either. Most people always have some sort of linkage, the owner of dubai ports world had some form of relation with osama bin laden. I'm sure someone in the pakistani government many moons ago also had some sort of friendship with one of the al qaeda heads.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
When I see, hear or read someone who is absolutely adament in their support of our invasion of Iraq, when it was obviously an ill planned fiasco...I have to ask myself what is their vested interest in all this? Why are they so unbendingly in favor of this madness? I will give uncurious george afghanistan because of 9/11, but this insanity...we will be paying the cost of this operation in ego run amok for decades to come in fininacal terms, in the families torn apart, in the bodies irraparably damaged, in the lives lost, and the minds and souls wounded to the core by the horror of it all, long after it was of any use to us. Glory be damned all war is evil, even justified ones, let me repeat myself ALL WAR IS EVIL, EVEN JUSTIFIED ONES...AND THIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED no matter how many times Bush and his blindered supporters say it is.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Besides, the US Government had 'connections' with Bin Laden and Hussein in the past. Doesn't mean we had a good relationship. Doesn't mean we helped them carry out 9/11.


I have to say I wouldn't bet the farm on this one..

Just look in the 9/11 area for more info.


Yeah, I know. My point was that having a relationship between countries or leaders doesn't necessarily mean collaboration on something.

I actually do believe we were involved in 9/11, but it's not based exclusively on the fact that we had a prior relationship. A relationship, in itself, doesn't mean a whole lot and certainly doesn't prove anything.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Well its been 3 days since this was posted and other than an article on faux not a peep about it from anywhere else including the White House. In fact on the CBS evening news they outted the Iraqi foreign minister as the highly placed informant that the administration had in Saddams regime... and they compared what the CIA claimed hussein had and what the minister told them and guess what the CIA struck out each time. I will try and find the link and post it.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Well its been 3 days since this was posted and other than an article on faux not a peep about it from anywhere else including the White House.


Give them time translating Arabic as I understand it is not all that easy. Also two of those days were on a weekend when most people do not work. Also keep in mind there are still millions of documents to translate. As for CBS
Enough said.



[edit on 3/20/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, I know. My point was that having a relationship between countries or leaders doesn't necessarily mean collaboration on something.

I actually do believe we were involved in 9/11, but it's not based exclusively on the fact that we had a prior relationship. A relationship, in itself, doesn't mean a whole lot and certainly doesn't prove anything.


Well there are people who believe in Peter Pan too, but without any evidence to prove this theory, it is nothing more than fantasy, well some will consider it fantasy to me is just a wild ranting wanting to find fault in the government for something you do not understand.

A lot of people fear the unknown. It doesn't have to be anything related to the paranormal. When a group of crazy people who believe they have nothing to lose and everything to gain and 72 virgins are waiting for them if they kill westerners, and those people could be anyone and don't have to even look a certain way, and can be any ethnicity....that is part of the unknown.

In the mind of some people they feel better, at ease, believing that it is their own govenrment who committed such attrocities, even when such belief is not based in facts.

Also, you do know that there have been dozens of countries which have been attacked by the terrorists too, countries which had to deal with more terrorism than the U.S. ever had, yet they were caught with their pants down....

Are you also going to claim that all those governments which were attacked were also involved in the attacks?.....

Are we having the CIA now come up with a new slogan (Looking for young Muslim looking, Arabic speaking, and Allah fearing recruits looking foward to killing themselves as well as many westerners as possible, the rewards would be given to you in the afterlife and which include a heaven with not a pig in sight, and 72 virgins.....)

Unless you find a slogan like that made by the CIA, all the wild rantings of some people claiming that the CIA was behind 9/11 and our government was behind 9/11 are nothing more than....wild rantings.

You actually think we need wild rantings with all the real threats we are having all over the world?

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well there are people who believe in Peter Pan too, but without any evidence to prove this theory, it is nothing more than fantasy, well some will consider it fantasy to me is just a wild ranting wanting to find fault in the government for something you do not understand.




I'm sorry Muaddib but I fear you are too young to see the forest for the trees, a little too trusting of a corrupt system, and not very well educated about what our administration has been up to for the last 50+ years. Our left and right political parties are a nothing more than a smoke screen for bankers and corporations. For your sake I hope you take the time to research both sides before coming to a conclusion. Once you step back to see the historical picture, it's not as cut and dry as you would have others believe.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by antipigopolist



I'm sorry Muaddib but I fear you are too young to see the forest for the trees, a little too trusting of a corrupt system, and not very well educated about what our administration has been up to for the last 50+ years. Our left and right political parties are a nothing more than a smoke screen for bankers and corporations. For your sake I hope you take the time to research both sides before coming to a conclusion. Once you step back to see the historical picture, it's not as cut and dry as you would have others believe.


Your whole argument is that I am too young?

...I doubt that you even know me.... and I doubt that you have been in these forums long, because you would understand that I base all my conclusions on research...not on "a feeling".... Feelings are emotions, all part of the spiritual world....in the physical world more often than not you need hard evidence. All sorts of people are having all sorts of feelings nowadays, and more often than not they contradict each other....

If you don't believe it, go to the streets and try to ask what are the feelings of a Democrat, a Liberal, A Republican, then ask the feelings of a Christian, a Buddhist, an Atheist, etc, etc.... I am sure they all will have different feelings about what is happening....

Anyways, any real evidence to back your "argument"? No?.... Ok....


[edit on 24-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
This is nothing more than half truths and twists to reflect your view, the CIA aided the MUJAHEDEEN, not AL QAEDA...

My god there is still people out there that don't know that 'AL QAEDA' was a fabrication, see my signature for details. It's nothing more than a list of the Mujahdeen we funded, trained, and supported. If Bin Laden was really such an item just prior to 9-11, then why was the CIA meeting him in Dubai? It's not even really worth debating, its a matter of public record and historical fact. The US has been screwing around and regime changing over there since the Barbary Pirates.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
More documents are now out since this story was posted,


"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:


That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

ABC NEWS


While not supporting any absolutist view either way these documents sure fit with what might have been Saddams motivations after Gulf war I.

In the main whats been released so far shoots down the theory that Sunni and Shiite could never have cooperated because of the sectarian differences.

Can't wait to see the other few million documents released, then we'll at least have a clearer picture of things from the other side.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
My god there is still people out there that don't know that 'AL QAEDA' was a fabrication, see my signature for details. It's nothing more than a list of the Mujahdeen we funded, trained, and supported. If Bin Laden was really such an item just prior to 9-11, then why was the CIA meeting him in Dubai? It's not even really worth debating, its a matter of public record and historical fact. The US has been screwing around and regime changing over there since the Barbary Pirates.


My God/Godess/Virgin Mary and every other Gods and divine entities that exists...are there people that still believe that Al Qaeda was a fabrication?..... (sarcasm off)

What about all the evidence some other members and I have posted which proof there is no fabrication of Al Qaeda....

People change sides all the time, but i guess to some it has to be some conspiracy by the government or "CIA" instead of what has been happening since the advent of time.... PEOPLE DO CHANGE SIDES.........

Read a bit on history and you will find truces between enemies to fight common enemies, to them have supposed allies start battles with each other after their common enemy is gone.....

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I'm just not sure how the admin can expect people to believe them any longer. There is a need to express information to citizens but after it was revealed that US and Britain went to war in Iraq under false assumptions, how can citizens support a clearly dishonest government?
So when more information is "released" about Iraq and Al Qaeda in bed together, who's going to believe it anyways?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and I doubt that you have been in these forums long, because you would understand that I base all my conclusions on research


Had you done a simple profile check you would find that I was around here for awhile when you joined ATS and I have witnessed your one-sided arguments many a time before. I guess your conclusion that I've not been a member here for long is based on more of your stellar "research". You are blinded by Uncle Sam, prone to soapboxing and there is no point talking to you. And yes, the benefit of age and experience are helpful. And whatever tangent you were on about with this whole "feelings" diatribe...who knows.




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
no matter how many boxes of evidence their are, one thing is for sure the honorable president Mr. BUSH will be out of office before they can be translated maybe he had a hunch and it payed off or he blew it only time will tell us the answer



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Funny how some have applied false validity to the documents when the government hasn't and posted a disclaimer to that fact.


Foreign Military Studies Office
Joint Reserve Intelligence Cente
Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.

fmso.leavenworth.army.mil...

Other released documents can be found at:
www.ctc.usma.edu...


Maybe they need 13 weeks of bootcamp with CSM Haney to get the
funk out of their bunks and learn the meaning of "attention to detail".
ATS: Delta Force founder: Bush may have started World War III



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join