It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Can you prove this report wrong!

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 11:52 AM
In a report on Newsmax titled "Saddam Warned of WTC Attack Before 9/11, Praised bin Laden Afterward" the authors seem to have presented information completly exonerating Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Knowing how inflammatory this information is to some here on the board and also knowing that some will discount it because of the source, My question is "can this Iraqi government sponsored newspaper story be shown to not have been published before 9/11"

Thats the answer I'm looking for - "not a bunch of politically fired rhetoric please." Please read the link before responding to this post - maybe even do some research.

Again I'm looking for information proving this story never existed.

Newmax Story

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:23 PM
It seems congress had included Naeem Abd Muhalhal's article in a report of inquiry shortly after September 11th. This report was included as part of the Homeland Security Act.

This link seems to prove the assertion that Hussein did have prior knowledge, or at least Muhalhal did...

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 Page S8525 -- (Senate - September 12, 2002)

Much obliged,

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:49 PM
Well, there is a US military site that mentions the same article so it's probably legit.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:55 PM
Same info. Different source. Good to corroborate from different sources. So now we've got Congress and USCG/Homeland security.

I'm surprised that this piece of information hasn't been used by the Bush administration in defense of the Iraqi invasion.


posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:59 PM
Yes, it seems legitimate. But we already knew that Saddam praised bin Laden after the attacks. I think the comment 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' best describes Saddam's rhetoric after 911.

The problem with considering this to be ample reason to attack Iraq this is that in other countries, even Britain, fundamental Muslims praised bin Laden's actions - yet only Afganistan (where bin Laden was believed to be hiding) and Iraq were attacked.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:15 PM
Ok, yes...very bold using your source...but what can you do?

The article that was less than months from the attacks seems rather damning, but you have to realize that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. I could say that Al Qaeda will strike us soon by the information presented at ATS. Would that make me a supporter if it happened? It shouldn't. After all, they are terrorist...that is their job. It is making a guess that he will based on things that Bin Laden had said.

Besides, if you were going to support these terrorists, would you put that type of information in your newspaper? Wouldn't that kinda hurt the element of suprise for this rag tag team. If anything, this only gives credit to us knowing about the attacks before hand. If we didn't know of this article before the attacks, where the hell is the money that we spend on Intelligence going? But, then the article continues with other failed predictions...

The article by Uday is nine years before 9-11 happened. The one from Saddam in "the late 90's" is old too. What terrorist attack happened after those? Where are the "Iraqi" missles? (BTW, I don't believe any of the highjackers were Iraqis, but alot of Saudi's
) Where are the Iraqis who should be chasing us into every corner?

The fact is, this article makes me see the Husseins as nothing but trash talkers and nothing else. Do I think that him and his regime are very bad people...yes. But, it still seems like nothing but coorelations and no damning evidence other than his hatred for the States.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Pisky
Yes, it seems legitimate. But we already knew that Saddam praised bin Laden after the attacks. I think the comment 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' best describes Saddam's rhetoric after 911.

The problem with considering this to be ample reason to attack Iraq this is that in other countries, even Britain, fundamental Muslims praised bin Laden's actions - yet only Afganistan (where bin Laden was believed to be hiding) and Iraq were attacked.

If the article was all about praise for the "cause" I would'nt have paid it much mind nor given it much veracity but when I saw this phrase that got my attention,

Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

This prediction made just a few months before 9/11 is just to much of a coincidence for Saddam to not have known anything.

And then there is this coded phrase from the same article,
"the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic "New York, New York."

Now with all three targets picked out this is no coincidence at all to me.

Special thanks to DeltaChaos and AceOfBase for the independent corroboration of this information.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:56 PM
OXmanK I've got to agree that "Intell" was laying down on the job and I've got to agree that had ATS seen the information available it probably would have connected the dots - I am amazed both the FBI and CIA directors still have jobs, I realize they could not share information because of existing law created to prevent domestic spying but ........ hindsight is 20/20 they say.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:13 PM
At best, all of their previous threats and the like made Iraq seem like it is just crying wolf. "It's gonna happen!" And it doesn't. "It's gonna happen!" And it doesn't. "It's gonna happen!" And it finally did. Perhaps, they were just a part of a disinformation squad to throw us off and make us not believe what is coming out of there.

As far as a connection, it is still speculation. I'm not saying we should trust Washington, but many are still bickering over whether Al Qaeda and Iraq are linked and I believe it is leaning toward the negative. A case is mounting on misleading information that has come out in the rally for the war. I believe at last count, there are around 250 misleading quotes from the Fab Five in Washington.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 05:30 PM
Yup, but this one story that so far has NOT been refuted sure starts backing up a great many of those assertions from the fab 5 as you would call it. IMHO this sure goes a long way toward the claim "Saddam is a threat" and "Saddam works with Al-Quaida" WMD or not.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 05:46 PM
But, the stuff in the article has been in Washington for quite a while and they are still questioning a link. If it was easily that blatant, I believe the Administration would be waving it around a lot more often now. It definitly supports your belief, but if there are still enough people in Washington and Intel questioning the validity of a connection, we can't say case closed. They have to have something over there, other than pure politics, keeping them from saying for sure there are links and calling the fab 5 out on misleading the people.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 05:57 PM
Whether Saddam/Iraq and Bin Laden schemed this or not, the evidence(s) is less than circumstantial, though I do feel in time, when intelligence and committee documents become open to public scrutiny, the evidence(s) may be more than circumstantial.

This would and will apply to the evidences linking Saddam/Iraq connection with Al-Qaeda, regardless of involvement with 9/11 and prior to 9/11. Clintonites, his previous administration, and Clarke (in his book) say that there is 10 years worth of documentation to say that Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda are linked. 9/11 involvement would just be icing on the cake.


posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:44 PM
So what if he knew something was going to happen... it doesnt mean he was involved...

Say someone gave Hussein information that bin laden (who, by the way is a shi'ite muslim, saddam hated shi'ite muslims... probably still does) was planning to attack the states... even though Saddam hated bin laden, i think he hated america more... it isnt a crime to withhold information, hell the US government withholds info on threats to other countries i could almost gaurantee you of that...

just because he may have known some info... dont forget the CIA/FBI had info something was going to happen and they did nothing... does that mean they were involved too? i bet that there were alot of countries who had info this may happen and didnt come forward... i actually seem to remember (but dont quote me on this) that Mossad had accurate information but didnt forward it to the US because it was against they're interests... like i said dont quote me on this but if Mossad had info should that mean they were invovled... somehow i doubt it.

Hussein made it clear many times he disliked Osama, so i doubt he would work with him (difference in religious values isn't the only thing he dislikes him for), he may well have had info, but if you were saddam would you have helped bush?

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:50 PM
I feel that i must interject.

It is not the measure of a statement if you can prove it wrong or not, the true measure lies in whether you can adequately prove it to be true.

"Prove" not "Disprove"

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:52 PM
Bush couldn't have waved this around earlier.

Don't forget that the vast majority of the Western populations aren't conspiracy theorists. To some of us here, if the report actually is true, it would be a certain vindication of Bush because there are many here who believe that he was directly linked and may even have participated in carrying out 9/11.

To the vast majority though, this is proof that the Bush administration and the NSA screwed up. They had ample warnings of the attacks but still didn't prevent them. It's damning evidence in the eyes of the mainstream.

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Leveller]

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:55 PM
Good point specialasianX...being that the FBI was forbidden to share knowledge with the CIA. Remember talk of this a short time after 9/11?
Found this just a few minutes ago, doing some digging:
FBI informant revealed 9-11 plot in April 2001

Also, the Clinton administration was served notice of this: Operation Bojinka:
Operation Bojinka

And then this commentary concerning the Clinton administration prior to leaving office:
Rolling Back Clinton

One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy (in areas like environmental protection) and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done."


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 09:23 PM
That the article was written and published on July 21, 2001 by the Al-Nasiriya newspaper, is true. It is also true that the author of the piece is in favor of bin Laden and views his attacks on Western civilization as heroic. The quotes that were printed in the Newsmax article, however, did not tell the whole story. Here is the part of the actual article. It contains both of the mentioned quotes:

...The man responds with a thin smile and
replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will
continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the
Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on
an exercise called ``How Do You Bomb the White House.'' And
because they know that he can get there, they have started to
go through their nightmares on their beds and the leaders
have had to wear their bulletproof vests.
Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban
movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he
continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the
seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he
will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White
House . . .

The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the
Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the
stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with
promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their
abomination and their corruption
, the man (bin Laden) had to carry the
book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white
paper ``If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the
Kaaba, I will do so.'' It seems that they will be going away
because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very
convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is
already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant
leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones''
and will curse the
memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.
new awareness of the image that Bin Ladin has become gives
shape to the resting areas and stops for every Arab
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. We hail his tears as they see the planes of the
Western world taking revenge against his heroic operations by
bombing the cities of Iraq . . .

It is common knowledge that the majority of Arab Islamics do not like America, or what they think Americans represent. It should have been no surprise that people in Iraq were celebrating when the WTC was attacked. Afterall, to them, WE are the ones representing immorality and evil.

As for the remark about Sinatra, when read in full, it appears to be more of a dig at America's worship of pop culture and it's icons, then a particular song.

If al-Qaeda had attacked something in Chicago instead, would you assume that the statement alluded to Sinatra's song, "Chicago"? What was the part about Indiana Jones or Whitman an "apparent reference" to?

How does a newspaper article prove a link between anyone other than bin Laden and the author of the story? Does the fact that people in Iraq are supportive or sympathetic to bin Laden's propaganda, justify attacking their country? People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how offensive they are to us, and the most one can imply about Hussein from the article is that the Iraqi government wasn't interested in censoring anti-American sentiments in it's media. Nothing indicates Saddam was in league with bin Laden.
The author's support for Usama actually appears to stem from his disgust of the official leaders Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 09:26 AM
Thanks for a very informative post Jezebel, I'm wondering what the "the man" (Bin Laden) meant with the comments, "will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman" nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' I'm going to have to chew on that for awhile.

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix
Thanks for a very informative post Jezebel, I'm wondering what the "the man" (Bin Laden) meant with the comments, "will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman" nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' I'm going to have to chew on that for awhile.

Read through thess and see if you can find anything specific:

A sample of his work:

COME, I will make the continent indissoluble,
I will make the most splendid race the sun ever shone upon,
I will make divine magnetic lands,
With the love of comrades,
With the life-long love of comrades.

I will plant companionship thick as trees along all the rivers
of America, and along the shores of the great lakes, and
all over the prairies,
I will make inseparable cities with their arms about each
other's necks,
By the love of comrades,
By the manly love of comrades.

For you these from me, O Democracy, to serve you ma
For you, for you I am trilling these songs.

VERY interesting read!
I would suggest going through all of it.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by AceOfBase]

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 11:44 AM
This is a stretch but please keep an open mind.

Indiana Jones may have referred to the actor Harrison Ford.

In 1997 Ford starred in Air Force One as the president of the United States.

Here's the plot of the movie:

The movie opens with President James Marshall (Ford) delivering an intense, anti-terrorism speech at a Moscow dinner reception. The reception was to celebrate the capture of General Alexander Radek (Jurgen Prochnow), a dictator who had slaughtered some 200,000 people inside a former Soviet state. But, Marshall takes the opportunity to lament the fact that it took so long for him to be stopped, even in the face of the slaughter of so many innocent people. He proclaims a "zero-tolerance" policy that will prevent any negotiation with any terrorist for any reason.

After the speech, Marshall boards Air Force One, the President's high-tech plane, along with a group of supposed Russian journalists led by Ivan Korshunov (Gary Oldman). As the plane lifts off from Russia, the journalists reveal themselves to be terrorists and assume control of the plane from the inside -- a scenario that had never been thought of by security experts in Washington

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by AceOfBase]

top topics


log in