View Full Version : Another disturbing Article...

07-19-04, 06:57 AM
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html)
Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran

Friday, Jul. 16, 2004
Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

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."

These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the Khobar disaster.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran—and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia—concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

07-19-04, 07:09 AM
Well we gote Herbert Walker's revenge out of the way. While we're in the neighborhood, let's try to give Carter his manhood back. :p

07-19-04, 08:00 AM
How about the post Shah US-Iran ties vis a vis Iran-Contra and our use of their border regions to arm and train anti Soviet mujahadeen who later morphed into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

07-19-04, 08:08 AM
So we're supposed to just ignore them then? No one's denying culpability, the threat remains.

07-19-04, 08:13 AM
Ignore? No, just making sure we remember that we're fighting a Frankenstein monster that we played Dr. for.

Now as far as these guys being in league with the Iranians, it's more likely that somone in the Revolutionary Guards let them pass through. this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5460688) tends to head that way as well, along with expressing the acting CIA heads inclination to not believe that the Iranian government was culpable. In Iran, there is a lot of infighting between regular army, Revolutionary Guards, secular vs. religious ect. I don't think the Iranian's would ever be a party to this plot, because they know we would find out. Risk vs. Reward leaves them very litte return on a very big risk.

07-19-04, 08:32 AM
So marbh, When do you criticize us for supporting the Soviets in WWII, and the nuclear threat they eventually became during the cold war? Why on earth would we do that? Oh Yeah. Although under any normal circumstances we wouldn't have supported it, Nazi Germany was a much larger and more immediate threat to us. Thus,w e had to support a country we wouldn't normally help to make sure we could take care of the larger threat.

Similarly, couldn't it possibly be that we had to support other countries as part of the Cold War. Yes, Countries that we ordinatily would not support. Yes, countries that ended up causing us problems.

But you know what? In both cases, we took care of the larger threat first, as we should have. Foreign Policy is never a choice between Good and Bad, It is usually a choice between bad and worse. And chosing inaction is generally the same as siding with the worse option.

07-19-04, 08:57 AM
IRAQ the stepping stone for the Middle East. Things are going right on schedule.

07-19-04, 09:09 AM
Comparing Soviets in WWII and Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is apples and oranges. We knew we would being squaring off with Ivan after WWII, but when the Russians left Afghanistan we washed our hands of the place, let the Taliban and Warlords beat each other up, then acted suprised when Osama showed up there. Also a big difference between sending trucks, ammo and medical and food supplies versus training people how to make bombs and stage commando raids. The bomb making experience we gave them there has shown up across the Middle East. You take a international hodgepodge of fighters, train them, sell them on liberation ideology and then when the fight is done let them go back to their home nations and think they are going to be content with the status quo? We support Egypt and Jordan and turn a blind eye when they drag people away to black holes to disappear and then wonder why we get nutball extremists on our ass. I'm not trying to play the blame game, what I'm trying to do is show that everyone playing has dirty hands.

07-19-04, 09:11 AM
The US should just stop trying to play world referee, we wind up making more bad calls than good ones lately.

07-19-04, 09:24 AM
Yes, we should wait on the UN to do something.


07-19-04, 09:32 AM
So, Meddik, when is your son enlisting?

07-19-04, 09:34 AM
Hmm... He's 2 now, so at least another 16 years.

And besides, If he was to go in, I'd probably suggest College ROTC, and he'd be going in as an officer, rather than enlisted. :)

07-19-04, 09:46 AM
post something relevant, cute, funny, thoughtful, sarcastic... whatever. But, don't post something non-relevant directed at another board member in an attempt to get a rise out of them.

07-19-04, 10:19 AM
Wraine, If people can't post things to get a rise out of others here, thats gonna cut the traffic by half!

07-19-04, 10:21 AM
Iran kind of has the US in a bad spot now. We are committed to Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, plus we have the brewing situation in North Korea. Our plate is full at the moment, so anything Iran has done is going to have to wait.

07-19-04, 10:31 AM
On the other hand, In a post-Operation Iraqi Freedom world, We now have Iran nicely sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, Making it very convenient for us to stange a 2 front war against Iran if neccesary.

But of course, you don't think that might affect the thinking of the Mullahs in charge in Iran, do ya?

Incidentally, it looks like some other problem spots with terrorist groups are sandwiched between good staging areas, like Syria between Iraq and Israel, and Pakistan between Iraq and India. Why, Its almost like someone planned it so that a regime change in Iraq would have a huge cautionary influence on the behavior of other governments in the region!

07-19-04, 10:44 AM
don't post something non-relevant directed at another board member in an attempt to get a rise out of them.

War takes lots of troops, and occupying Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran is going to take a lot more than we currently have. This is especially true since the rest of the world has proven themselves totally incompetent, so the freedom of people everywhere depends on the good men and women of the United States to send their kids off to war. Uncle Sam needs everyone to do their part. I was just trying to ensure that Meddik has the best interests of the [s:94fd8f8a2f]party[/s:94fd8f8a2f] country in mind while raising his child.


07-19-04, 10:58 AM
Point of fact- We aren't currently "occupying" Iraq or Afghanistan.

07-19-04, 11:04 AM
Call 100k+ troops in a country whatever you want.

I guess technically we never "occupied" Afghanistan or did jack **** there.

07-19-04, 11:34 AM
As long as we are quoting Orwell:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

" Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me. "

You see, Orwell hated Totalitarian Governments, Such as The Nazis and the Communists, and would have hated most of the objectively fascist regimes in the middle eastern world today.

Yes, His stories such as 1984 were talking in part about the way that fascist governments rephrase horrendous things to make them more palatable.

"People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: This is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up the mental pictures of them."

You see, it wasn't merely the use of language he was complaining about in thsoe books, His objection was primarily the things that That language was used to cover up.

07-19-04, 12:30 PM
Meddik, can you cite the first quote? I've searched in the past, but have never been able to find the source.

07-19-04, 01:06 PM
Well, I looked at an orwell Faq, and it appears that maybe that one is misattributed to him.

Did George Orwell ever say: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?" Or: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?"

Not exactly. But he did make comments that were along similar lines. In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them." (Thanks to Keith Ammann for this). And in his 'Notes on Nationalism' (1945) he wrote: "Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." (Thanks to Parbety). Where the rough men crept in is anyone's guess.

So I guess its probably one of those quotes he would have agreed with, Even if he never said it in quite that way.

Good catch!

shehab aldean
07-19-04, 04:20 PM
in other reports

the hijackers traveled to the USA passing by UK and germany airports
and they trained on flying in the USA

USA Is going to take revenge on these 3 countries ( mostly nukes ) mentioned above after taking care of iran , uae , saudi arabia , pakistan , iraq ( to make sure ) , kuwait , bahrain , qatar , oman , jordan , egypt , lybia , iraq ( third time the charm ) , and france

07-19-04, 09:06 PM
My biggest problem is the way our nation has seemingly singled out certain groups during certain eras to attack. First we had to stop communism but mostly in Southeast Asia not so much in Eastern Europe thx, and now we are after Terrorism mostly in the Middle East, but not in areas like Africa or South America or, you know, Ireland. Why, if we are so dedicated to spreading freedom, do we pick and choose? Why not stomp out injustice no matter it's location or intention?

It's hypocritical, we should either deicide to leave the rest of the world by itself, and focus soley on the defenses of our immediate interests, or we should make a genuine effort to bring justice to the entire world, not just areas with a great wealth of natural resources or locations of political interest.

07-19-04, 09:11 PM
First we had to stop communism but mostly in Southeast Asia not so much in Eastern Europe thx

Dude?? errr uh.. oh someone else tell him please..

07-19-04, 09:17 PM
I was refering to the Korean and Vietnam wars. I'm sorry I must have missed the Ukrainian war~

Mardoc the Dwarf
07-19-04, 09:27 PM
Krimzam have you actually read 1984? to compare bush or any prez/leader ever in america to big brother/the leaders in 1984 is just ignorant

07-19-04, 09:29 PM
or, you know, Ireland

Yeah the nationalists are having a field day on the Catholics now that the IRA has gone legit through political avenues. Beatings, vandalism, and arson dealt by unionist backed paramilitaries- all ignored by the Garde.

The PSNI (deputized goon squads) have been having fun squelching nationalist rights the last few weeks as well. Ardoyne, Lurgan... the fun goes on and... damn those terrorist Catholics. Taking a lion's share of the political process last month has put a bit of fear in the old boys club.

To find terrorism in Ireland these days, one must look on the other side of the Irish Sea for the interest groups dealing it out on the natives.

07-19-04, 09:37 PM
My bad all the news I seem to get nowadays either involves Kerry flip flopping on yet another issuse or a rehash about Bush's service/not service.

07-20-04, 12:39 AM
[quote]The US should just stop trying to play world referee, we wind up making more bad calls than good ones lately.[\quote]

I know what you mean, but we aren't in a position any more where we can sit by and do that.

If the U.S. was about 1/20th the power/size/wealth that it is today, yeah...we could sit back, and no one would even acknowledge us.

The problem lies within the fact that we have a global presence, and weather we chose to be an active participant in the world, or an onlooker we're always going to be in a situation where we're damned if we do, damned if we do not.

Take a look at WWII. We were like "woah, $%&@ that!". Then Japan decided "hey, lets bomb pearl harbor!"

We can clean up in Iraq...then sit back and wait for things to cool down over there, but with our already tarnished image in the middle east, it's going to take a LONG LONG time before we're viewed the same way as other countries are viewed.

Not only that, but that region is a "powder keg" of waring states. Everyone is at each others throats, and if we decide to sit this one out, more than likely another big ass war will erupt, and we'll be sucked into it like we always are.

I say it's best for us to be hated and keep the peace, then for us to be hated and have chaos ensue.


07-20-04, 09:49 AM
To find terrorism in Ireland these days, one must look on the other side of the Irish Sea for the interest groups dealing it out on the natives
Er .. I think you'll find the the Irish Nationalists are .. er .. Irish.
Makes no difference anyway who they are ... it's 99% about controlling organised crime in Ireland anyway.

And IRA never went political. Sinn Fein renounced the use of terrorism attacks as a tool of democratic politics which is why they were formally recognised as a political party again. Theoretically *cough* there is no link between the 2 organisations.[/quote]