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

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Look, this has nothing to do with pro-American Iranians. You're argument is trying to invoke emotional feelings and ethics and trying to ascribe them to logic. The logic is we only attack in cases of threat and more recently with Clinton and others, in ethnic cleansing. Obviously, right when this commission report comes out, you will scoop it all up and take everything as truth no matter how broad the statements. Thats my opinion

I remember just 2 weeks ago you were telling me how crooked the 9/11 commission was when they released a report about the lack of wmds. I know you personally don't like oppresive regimes, but we can't just attack Cuba anytime we like and start making a fuss about Castro. War is a serious matter to take lightly...

Yes it is important to know that Iranians want a regime change, and that they are pro-American. There are many ways of helping in a regime change, not only through war. I don't think we should be getting involved right now in another war. Althou I also do know that Iran has made a few threats to the western world.

I have never said, that i remember, that the 9/11 commission were crooks. What I remember saying is that the media has in many times not reported exactly, or correctly, what the 9/11 commision has found. For example, the media keeps saying that the 9/11 commission never found a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when in fact what the 9/11 commission has said is that they didn't find irrefutable proof that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. There are links to Iraq and Al Qaeda, and there are links between Saddam and terrorism in general against Americans and Jewish people.

I don't even know why you are including the comment of Cuba in here. Unless you are actually trying to imply that I am in favour of all these wars because I want something done in Cuba.... I am almost sure this is what you are trying to imply. If i wanted something done in Cuba right now and that was my only reason, or even a reason for being in favour of any war, I would be arguing about us helping Iraq, Sudan or Iran, instead of helping Cuba.....

But you are right, i don't like real oppressive regimes, no matter where they are, and the US is not an oppresive government contrary to what many Americans and others think. Many people really have no idea what an oppressive government is.
---edited for spelling errors------


[edit on 18-7-2004 by Muaddib]

I'm glad to see that a lot of people in this thread realize that most Iranians are really 'pro-US'. (I'd use that term somewhat loosely, but I certainly would use it.) As curme said, "they want their MTV". They hate their government almost as much as we do, but they're directly under their thumb and therefore can't do much, or indeed even be very vocal about it, without getting waxed.

The Iranian government IS indeed trying to make nukes, HAS plainly stated that destruction of the US is their goal, and HAS been busted trying to cause trouble in Iraq.

I think it's kinda funny-they catch 6 Brits near their waters (I really think the Iranians crossed the line, snitched them, and claimed trespass.) and parade them around as supposed proof of some intended invasion, yet we have several thousand Iranians being held in Iraq for confirmed insurgency, yet that doesn't come out in the news until some reporter tries to make it a scandal because it hadn't. Even then, everyone just saw the report and shrugged, because it was no big surprise.

I wouldn't doubt their involvement with the 9-11 terrorists at all. If given wind of such an operation their response would clearly have been "great! how can we help?"

I believe the current hope is for revolution from within, although the chances of this succeeding are somewhat slim. At any rate, there will be no action until after elections regardless. Afterwards...again, I am pleased to see that it has not slipped others attention that US forces are effectively set up for a pincer movement on Iran at this time. While it's true that our forces are spread thin at this moment, as time goes on and things settle down in Afghanistan and Iraq, we'll have enough forces over there to pretty much do whatever (whoever) we want to before we pack up and head out. I do agree that the situation will escalate politically, if not militarily, in about a year (give or take).

Yeah, everybody is pro American to do the dirty jobs of taking out regimes and them making US take the blame and do financial obligations for rebuilding those countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) at the expenses of US citizens and we the American people get stuck with the burden of these wars.

Where are the pro Iraqi wars living in America or other country?

Does anybody think that the pro Iranian war living in America and enjoying our democracy are going to get their hand dirty in and Iran war?

No, let the Americans sons and daughters do the dirty job of cleaning Iran and die doing it in the name of democracy.

I got my own scenario, this is my country and with other fellow American country men and women we are going to vote in the next elections, we do not need any other wars we need our Americans back in America and let the citizen of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to fight their own wars. This adminstration have a duty to this country first and to the needs of our citizens not to the rest of the world.

I think the Irainian people are pro-American, but would never accept the idea of the US as liberators. We don't have a lot of legitimacy in that respect. They may want freedom from their repressive regime, but not at the expense of US tanks rolling through Tehran, no matter how good our intentions. We could be the unifying force of hatred, a common enemy. I think their still is a large level of cultural mistrust, that's why any type of military action would be the worse way to handle it. We need to use diplomacy and help from third parties.

Thanks curme,

Some people of the male genders, think wars are cool lets go to war but they don't even stop to think the reality of what the decisions of war is doing to our country in and around the world.

Originally posted by marg6043
Yeah, everybody is pro American to do the dirty jobs of taking out regimes and them making US take the blame and do financial obligations for rebuilding those countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) at the expenses of US citizens and we the American people get stuck with the burden of these wars.

Where are the pro Iraqi wars living in America or other country?

Does anybody think that the pro Iranian war living in America and enjoying our democracy are going to get their hand dirty in and Iran war?

No, let the Americans sons and daughters do the dirty job of cleaning Iran and die doing it in the name of democracy.

Blablabla. The first gulf war was financially covered by other countries and it was the US weapon industry and economy that favoured most. The 2nd had no international support so, bad luck

You seem to missunderstand something. "Pro-US Iranians" does NOT mean that they would like to see the USA freeing them from their regime with the help of a war. So why are you already ranting about others that want US citizens to fight a war in Iran. Nobody wants that, neither I or the Iranians.

Jesus, by reading your post again I get the feeling that in your mind the only way to help the Iranian people is a war in Iran. Crazy!

[edit on 18-7-2004 by shoo]

Originally posted by marg6043
I got my own scenario, this is my country and with other fellow American country men and women we are going to vote in the next elections, we do not need any other wars we need our Americans back in America and let the citizen of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to fight their own wars. This adminstration have a duty to this country first and to the needs of our citizens not to the rest of the world.

Marg....I guess you have no idea where we fought WWI and WWII.... Or that the French came to help us fight the British when our forefathers wanted independance from Britain.... Even thou it seems that France has forgotten what they used to fight for....

We have allies in the world, our duty and the duty of any administration is not only to ensure our safety, including abroad, but to help our allies when they are in need, and if the safety of us, our allies or other countries is in jeapordy we have to anwser that call. You are saying that we should just become isolated, close our borders and don't think about anyone.... That would be a bad idea. At the beginning of WWI we did pretty much just that, until we realized that Hitler was not only a threat to Europe, but to the world, the US is part of the world.


[edit on 18-7-2004 by Muaddib]

It's not about who is pro-American or anti-American. I mean, a lot of Iraqis didn't have a bad opinion of Americans before the war. The thing is, if the U.S. goes to Iran, it may be for completely another reason, which has little to do with liberation or democracy.

1) War is good for business. Companies like Halliburton, with ties to the administration, stand to gain and cash in on any new conflict.

2) War, in some measure, prevents too much criticism of the President. It draws attention away from other issues, and leads people to say "We are at war, we must stand united behind our President."

3) Perpetuating a climate of fear of a terror attack, as well as a pressure for patriotism and unity in times of war, allows the administration to take the opportunity to do what it wants to do - secure the Middle East's oil resources for itself and its (contributors) allies.

So... it's no wonder that suddenly there are allegations that the WMDs weren't found in Iraq because they were transferred to Syria before the Americans arrived... It's also no wonder that Iran is suddenly a focus. Those are the two places they may go next.

until we realized that Hitler was not only a threat to Europe, but to the world, the US is part of the world.

That's an interesting point. Who is "we"? It wasn't Bush grandfather, Henry Ford or IBM. Same with Saddam. Same with Osama. See a pattern?

Looks like WND has a few more details on the information to come out in the report this week. If the Iranian government is found to be "officially involved"
there will be no telling what the consequences are.

I find it interesting that the Iranians today admitted themselves that AQ operatives did indeed pass through Iran prior to 9/11, why the two year wait for them to admit this and how did they all the sudden know without a doubt that AQ crossed their territory illegally - the smell on this subject is getting heavy.

Former CIA analyst Douglas MacEachin, a member of the 9-11 commission staff, said in testimony last week Iran and its terrorist group ally Hezbollah were linked to the al-Qaida terrorist group.

Other U.S. intelligence officials said there is also evidence Iran is linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the officials, two of the hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were aboard the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, had stayed at the Iranian ambassador's residence in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, before entering the United States in January 2001.

WND

Originally posted by Otts

So... it's no wonder that suddenly there are allegations that the WMDs weren't found in Iraq because they were transferred to Syria before the Americans arrived... It's also no wonder that Iran is suddenly a focus. Those are the two places they may go next.

UNMOVIC reported on its last report that iraq had been exporting at least 1,000 tons a day of scrap metal and other materials to scrapyards around the world. Furthermore UNMOVIC (a UN agency set up to monitor Iraq wmd program) has satellite pictures that entire factories, which were monitored because of their uses for wmd, have been dismantled and equipment and other material which were in possession of Iraq until late 2003 were being sent to scrapyards all over the world.

UNMOVIC has found in those scrapyards high radiation and banned rockets for banned missiles which were also in possession of Iraq in 2003.

Iraq did fire on the coalition at least one scud missile (scud missiles were banned from Iraq) and at least 2 other missiles which were banned from Iraq, which several have been found in scrapyards around the world.

Also to note, even thou some people might disagree, the Butler report has found and agrees with most of the administration statements for going to war with Iraq.

I could get going but its really getting tired of mentioning these facts over and over. Also look at the 9/11 commission findings, not on what the media is reporting on the 9/11 commission. The media most of the time either exagerates, playing on the sympathy of its readers to make more sales and sell their own propaganda, or they don't report entirely what the 9/11 commission, UNMOVIC, or the Butler report have found.

A little story thats might interesting on this topic:

During my civil service year I met a doctor who helped out in times where our doctor was ill or on holiday. He was born in Iran and moved out as he was already 16 or 17.

From what he told me it's a wonder that the Iranian officials know that those terrorists passed through Iran. Birth records, records of all kinds in general - that's what western states have but Iran knows so little about their people and who comes and goes around.

It might have changed meanwhile but I doubt it. I hear frequently about whole families from Turkey(even from there), Iran, Iraq, India etc that need medical help and while taking their data the assistance realised that the whole family is born on the first day of the year. So you have a family with 1.1.1900, 1.1.1873 etc - you just laugh your ass off.

What I am trying to say is, that if they can't keep the easiest and most fundamental records, how could they watch border crossings and record them properly? Or even say that they have an intelligence service that could ensure anything?

You seem to missunderstand something. "Pro-US Iranians" does NOT mean that they would like to see the USA freeing them from their regime with the help of a war. So why are you already ranting about others that want US citizens to fight a war in Iran. Nobody wants that, neither I or the Iranians.

Shoo what is your point?

You seem to disagree with me, but agree at the same time in not wanting Americans to go into war in Iran, so to me I know what my point is but you seem a littler bit confuse.

muaddib - I've just gone through the Butler report and what I see is that its conclusions are mitigated. I would not say that most of them corroborate the British government's reasons for going to war.

First of all, the cautious notes:

465. "We conclude that it was a serious weakness that the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)'s warnings on the limitation of the intelligence underlying its judgements were not made sufficiently clear in the 2002 intelligence dossier" (used to justify going to war with Iraq)

472. "We have noted that, despite its importance to the determination of whether Iraq was in further material breach of its obligations under Resolution 1441, the JIC made no further assessment of the Iraqi declaration beyond it's 'Initial Assessment'. We have also recorded our surprise that policymakers and the intelligence community did not, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became increasingly apparent, re-evaluate in early 2003 the quality of the intelligence."

484. "We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda, there was no evidence of cooperation."

545. "The evidence we received on aluminium tubes was overwhelmingly that they were intended for rockets rather than a centrifuge (Otts note: a centrifuge is necessary to build a nuclear weapon). We found this convincing. Despite this, we conclude that the JIC was right to consider carefully the possibility that the tubes were evidence of a resumed nuclear programme. But (...) the JIC omitted the important information about the need for substantial re-engineering of the aluminium tubes to make them suitable for use as gas centrifuge rotors."

565. "We conclude that, in the case of plague (as a biological weapon), JIC assessments reflected historic evidence and intelligence of dubious reliability, reinforced by suspicion of Iraq, rather than up-to-date intelligence."

584. "We note that much of what was reliably known about Iraq's unconventional weapons programmes in the mid- and late-1990s was obtained through the reports of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There international agencies now appear to have been more effective than was realised at the time in dismantling and inhibiting Iraq's prohibited weapons programmes. The value of such international organisations needs to be recognized and built on for the future.

On the other hand... yes, the Butler Report does say that Iraq was out to restart its nuclear program... BUT... there is no credible evidence that it had "chemical or biological weapons fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them."

As for the reason to go to war with Iraq... the Butler Report says that the decision seemed to stem not from any acceleration in Iraq's weapons program, but in an unwillingness to tolerate the existence of that program in the aftermath of 9/11.

All,
According to an anonymous US Govt. official, the US will not use it's millitary to enact a regime change in Iraq. It will use covert means of overthrowing the govt.

www.sundayherald.com...

A.
"US Govt Official" could be anyone though. We'll see what's up after the election. Personally *IF* we handle Iran, at least at the surface-level I would rather it be this way. Another Military conflict is only going to get our Military complex fatter, which it does not need right now especially considering how much waste is going on.

B.
I suppose we can assume the Iran link is legitimate. The conclusion was founded by the bi-partisan 911 commission. At first I was hesitant to believe it. Remember Bush's supposed hard evidence of Iraq's involvement? Remember how long he took to reveal it, and when he did, no one really bought it? This evidence seems to come from a stronger source.

C.
Anyone have any thoughts on who could possible profit from a regime change there? Militarily it could provide a powerful launching-off point. Nations friendly to the US will allow the US to land their troops, and gear, and use their land to allow the US unfettered access to other potential problem-areas.

-P

Breaking news


Until President Bush decides the time is right to announce Osama's bin Laden's capture, he remains in a drug-induced coma in a secret room in the White House basement.

though it is not yet and i dont know when it will be reported in the mainstream papers who the real "terrorists" are. i know. i am really weary of the al CIA da deal, lets add in mossad, too then you do have your terrorists.

this is i think another ploy to go for iran, as we were ployed to go for iraq with WMD, wake up all. beter keep an eye open for those moving vans from israeli persons too, esp by nuke plants. and, watch very carefully all news stories reporting about persons of "middle eastern origin" would make you think alcaida terrorist, but thinking here mostly, israeli, mossad, terrorist