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: TIME Magazine to Report 9/11 Commision Finds Al Qaeda Ties to Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Some analysis and reporting has offered Iran as the next country on the list of "the axis of evil" to be attacked or overthrown by the Bush administration, I have been skeptical of any overt effort up to this time what with the US intensely involved in Iraq and its effort to promote peace and democracy in that country it has been hard to imagine a concerted effort against the Iranian regime even with their intransigence on nucleal issues. It is more expected that Israel is the more directly threatend by Iran therefore an attack would most likely come from that area - not the US directly. That opinion may take a radical change soon with the release the 9/11 commission final report as mentioned in the TIME article.
 



www.time.com
A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If its true that the bi-partisan commision on 9/11 reports that there are in fact ties between the 9/11 hijackers and Iran then we could be at war again sooner than expected.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Phoenix]




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So does that mean there next? What is going on over there. This so much fun.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Yeah, that means Iran is next. This is scary.
I guess its a good thing they told us there is no plans for a draft.

This .line just hit me out of the blue, but it shouldnt have I guess.
I seem to recall a couple of fleating stories about Iran in the last few weeks.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Ahhh, the plot thickens. I just want to bring attention to "Summer Pulse '04". The US has 7 CSG's already deployed. I believe only a "True" Link to an attack on the US will determine a "War". If there is an attack, as we have been warned, coming to the election; There will be a "True" link. IMO



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I've got to say that TIME is not known for being an administration flack publication that produces pro Bush propaganda, if its in Time I guess you can take it seriously that an al Qaeda connection was indeed found in Iran.

After the election no matter which one is elected you can betcha something is going to happen in Iran. My prediction.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I've got to say that TIME is not known for being an administration flack publication that produces pro Bush propaganda, if its in Time I guess you can take it seriously that an al Qaeda connection was indeed found in Iran.

After the election no matter which one is elected you can betcha something is going to happen in Iran. My prediction.



Phoenix, I am in no way saying there is not a connection. I'm referring to a reason to "Go to War", not as it was with Iraq. I think most of us could agree the War in Afghanistan Was Justified. I don't recall such backlash for it, I very well could be wrong, but nothing sticks out. Most have doubts of the reason behind the War in Iraq, however I don't think that will happen if we go to war with Iran.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The Iranian people are actually pretty progressive, the people there want thier MTV and Starbucks. President Khatami is a reformist, and it seems the masses agree with his liberal policies. It's the hardliners who crack down whenever democracy looks like they will lose power. In fact, the people are getting mad that Khatami can't do more against it's repressive regime BBC. I think democracy can flourish there, unless we mess it up with some strong arm policy.
We should help the people nurture thier burgeoning need for freedom and democracy, not make them hate us even more. It's going to take some finesse, not a bunch of knee jerk recations about Al Queda that I'm sure will come.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The main thing that scares me about Iran is that it's not like Iraq. They are well-organized, and they have quite a backbone. This is a dog that will bite back if we decide to go in. Hopefully the Bush Administration will pursue diplomatic means, and not try "shock and awe".



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
if we invade iran next, Im going to faint



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 04:06 AM
link   
It's a big difference if the Iranian government hosted Al-Quaida members and supported them or if certain individuals(maybe in the government, border patrol etc) were bribed and helped or are active members of Al-Quaida.

The difference is important. Attacking a country because a minority of them is supporting our enemy is not just wrong, it's suicide - politically and military.

However it will be, neither the Iranian government(as being troubled with the extreme religious) nor their religious leaders represent the opinion of the Iranian people who are actually very western and modern.
But that's something American media seems to hide away from their people - at least that's my impression from visiting ATS the last months.

@curme - thanks for the valueable reply



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Ok here is another link on this story.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

BTW, not a lot of people know that many, if not most, Iranias are pro-American, and want to get rid of the regime they are under now.


The Islamic Republic of Iran seems to be facing a similar situation. With increasing threat from the United States the Iranian regime feels more vulnerable than ever, but instead of having learned a lesson from the Iraqi case it has increased its suppression of the Iranian population, especially students who have participated in protests against the regime.
.......................
Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was considered the most stable country in the region and one of the main US supporters. It was not only a bulwark against the Soviet Union but a protector of Western interests in the region.
.........................
The suppression of the Iranian population would precipitate regime change in Iran. In the event that the United States attacks Iran or tries to change the regime in any other way, instead of opposing the US, many Iranians if not actively aligning themselves with the US, will support US action. This is a very unfortunate situation for a regime which has alienated itself.


Excerpted from.
www.kurdishmedia.com...

This is not the first time that I hear that now Iranians are more pro-American than ever before, and that they want the US to help them get rid of the oppressive regime they are under right now.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
 



www.time.com
The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If its true that the bi-partisan commision on 9/11 reports that there are in fact ties between the 9/11 hijackers and Iran then we could be at war again sooner than expected.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Phoenix]


Well I hope this isn't true because if it is then Iran is guilty of "an act of war" against the United States. This would justify a whole differant kind of war then we've seen in Afganistan and Iraq. That was a controlled war where the US has triied to spear the average person. All out war is something more like the Iraqies brought to Kuwaiit or Nazi Germany briought to Europe.

By far a much simpler situation to manage. I pray for Iran and the innocents IF the above is true and proven out.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Interesting how "Al CIAda" pops up whenever we want to invade someone. What's next? Al Qaeda in Alaska trying to build a natural gas pipeline? "They must be stopped. Send Halliburton."



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
What in the world is this mad man trying to do colonize the entire Middle East with Americans troop’s death bodies?



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
What!? I'm shocked! Al Qaeda with ties to Iran! This can't be. The Iranian government is made up of fine and peaceful people. Surley they wouldn't have anything to do with - with terrorists - would they? Well let's hope not! But I'm not worried about there nuclear capability, after all, they've told the UN that they're not developing any weapons with their capabilities.


[edit on 7/17/2004 by CommonSense]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What in the world is this mad man trying to do colonize the entire Middle East with Americans troop’s death bodies?


Whoa, thats to big of a leap there marg. First off Bush certainly does not control information from the 9/11 commission and neither does he control what the Iraninians do in their country.

From analysis I've seen Bush is more for helping an internal overthrow of the Mullahs than he is for direct action.

Of course all of this depends on what happens in the next few months in regards to election, Iranian action or reaction, public reaction here in the US.
And lets not forget that Al Qaeda could once again change the landscape too.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   


helping an internal overthrow of the Mullahs

Humm, that wouldn't violate any UN resolutions by chance would it?



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog



helping an internal overthrow of the Mullahs

Humm, that wouldn't violate any UN resolutions by chance would it?


Ask me if I care, really it comes down to the peoples wishes in Iran does it not? or are you implying that the mullahs should remain unmolested irregardless of the Iranian peoples desires? and that the UN should be used to prop up murderers and torturers.

Besides if the UN actually enforced its resolutions we wouldn't be in Iraq now would we?

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I mean, its fairly obvious we are going after Iran despite the Time article. Look at a map, Iraq and Afghanistan are on either side of Iran. Iran will be a lot harder to take down than Iraq and afghanistan.

As far as terror links, I don't believe it, simple as that. People can tell me all they want that there are terror links, but until I see some documentation (even this is sketchy), talk to some people on my own, or experience it in Iran, I'm not going to believe it. Politicians and the government have ruined it for me and I have determined that I can no longer trust them. I am not going to be that GULLIBLE anymore.

But, within the collective reality that this news will create, we will be going to Iran eventually and this will create a complicated mess of a thing.

I also wonder why they haven't elaborated on the links with the government. They just say al qaeda and the government did this, border patrol let in terror operatives. I really hope this gets more in-depth, because it would be sad to see another broad target for war. If we can't find the main guys in the government who are responsible for this, than there will be a lot of people dying in an Iran war.

It's like the "war on terror," what the hell is that? We were going after al qaeda, now we are going after everyone else. literally, everyone is a suspect now in this war on terror, its #ing ridiculous. everyone is the enemy, how paranoid are they trying to make us feel.

They better provide some more information though, very, very specific information before they try to start a war in iran. No more of this, they have stockpiles of weapons crap. Where, how much, what are they doing with it, when did it get there, how long is it going to be there, etc., etc.


We need to remember to ask question before jumping into another war. The public deserves to know every last detail before we send another troop possibly to his death in Iran. Who in the government is responsible? etc. etc. I know many of you like Bush, but I urge you not to be so gullible in respect to the war on terror. Ask as many questions as you can, and if you are not satisfied than you don't have to accept it. We need to know everything before jumping into another war.

BTW, nice propaganda Muadibb, why don't you take that crap to another thread. There is a hint of a mention that al qaeda is connected to iran and you are ready to jump into war, trying to give justification already. Give us a break man. You don't have to be so gullible all the time. Just question your fixed beliefs once in awhile and see what you come up with.

[Edited on 17-7-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I guess we will wait until election and then Bush eyes that has been on Iran also with executed, how can we forget the rich Iranian soil (in OIL) Right? And for god sake everybody knows of Al-queda ties to Iran, Arabia and every single country in the Middle East.

What was the Cheney dream? Oh we have forgotten? And oil pipe line to unite the rich oil lands from Africa to...............does it ends?

We have been posting all kind of scenarios all this months about the situation in the Middle East, my presumption is just another one



[edit on 17-7-2004 by marg6043]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join