New 9/11 Probe Could Spotlight Iraq Link

[gh0st]

Congressional hearings coming this fall into revelations by the military intelligence group Able Danger could spotlight other evidence overlooked by the 9/11 Commission: including a March 2001 report suggesting that Osama bin Laden was working with Iraqi intelligence operatives in Germany at a time when Mohamed Atta and two other 9/11 hijack team leaders were living in Hamburg.

Maybe saddam was not so innocent

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

There are other links to link Iraqi Intelligence to the '93 bombings even. Hell, Ramsey Yousef had an Iraqi passport too.

 

[gh0st]

Not to mention rewarding the families of suicide terrorist palestinians for killing innocent civilians. Great man you all are defending.

 

[MjM]

http://www.chris-kutschera.com/A/arab_press.htm

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://conwebwatch.***********/stories/2002/nmcorrupt.html
http://www.chris-kutschera.com/A/arab_press.htm

What's that have to do with the Iraqi link?

All it does is explain why the paper is based in Paris

 

[MjM]

Al Watan was, at the time, considered a semi-official Bagdad propaganda tool, so much so that its premises in rue Marbeuf were the target of a car bomb in april 1982, which partly destroyed the building. After the invasion of Kuwait, Walid Abou Zahr radically changed his stance and became totally pro-Saudi. “If your friend wants to jump from the seventh floor, you tell him he is wrong. If he does it anyway, what can you do?”, comments Walid Abou Zahr.

Were the readers surprised by this U-turn? “The newspapers owners couldn’t care less about their readers”, claims Khemaïs Kheyati. But Walid Abou Zahr had lost a big market. In spring 1992, he moved part of his organisation to Cairo, where the magazine is now printed. Today, Al Watan al Arabi has lost much of its past splendour, and sells 105.000 copies compared with 250.000 a day at its peak, claims its owner.

Dubious to say the least as a source for information.

 

[baxter]

Wow, so there really is a link, and there's me reading rubish like this.:dozey:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

 

[KoreBolteR]

good find ghost

 

[jondy]

Great man you all are defending.

Defending.


Oh, wait.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So the moral you're gleaning from this story that the most logical method of research is to make huge assumptions without evidence and then grab at the smallest scraps when you find them years later, cling to them, and cry out how you were right all along.

Well you sure showed us how to deduce and reason.

Yes, all us defenders of Saddam Hussein here have been shown the light.
Why, why didn't we blame him for 9/11 when there was no evidence? We should have just assumed he was the source of that evil for no reason, and because we didn't we are now classified as his unwavering supporters. Oh woes.

Wait, is that the word 'maybe' in your one-sentence post?

That sure is a lot of gloating, accusing and righteous indignation for a 'maybe' event that won't even happen for a month.


I've a great idea though now. I'll make a thread that goes like this:

[Quote from site that says racism is bad.]
[Link to quoted site that says racism is bad.]
Looks like all you conservative assholes on HL2.net might be wrong in your intense vocal support of the KK Klan.

Because apparently that's what passes for a quality political discussion in some people's minds nowadays.

Arguments against straw men, open prejudice, baseless speculation used as fact...
This is a lesson in how not to start any thread.

 

[Korgoth]

Not to mention rewarding the families of suicide terrorist palestinians for killing innocent civilians. Great man you all are defending.

Who the **** has ever defended saddam? Your off your goddamn rocker, so shut up. Just because you are anti war doesnt' mean you are unpatriotic, or pro saddam, you really are a feeble mind.

 

[gh0st]

Just because you are anti war doesnt' mean you are unpatriotic, or pro saddam, you really are a feeble mind.

No it means you are a ****ing moron.

So the moral you're gleaning from this story that the most logical method of research is to make huge assumptions without evidence and then grab at the smallest scraps when you find them years later, cling to them, and cry out how you were right all along.

I just post what I see on news sites. I made no assumptions in my post whatsoever. It was meant to create discussion, but I feel thats impossible for you, so why bother?

Yes, all us defenders of Saddam Hussein here have been shown the light.
Why, why didn't we blame him for 9/11 when there was no evidence? We should have just assumed he was the source of that evil for no reason, and because we didn't we are now classified as his unwavering supporters. Oh woes.

I never blamed him for 9/11, I Just posted an article suggesting there may be a less-than-obvious link between saddam and muslim fundamentalists.

Wait, is that the word 'maybe' in your one-sentence post?

That sure is a lot of gloating, accusing and righteous indignation for a 'maybe' event that won't even happen for a month.

What? What gloating? What indignation?

Way to read way too much into that article, douchebag.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If you can't keep it civil, don't post at all.

 

[diluted]

NewsMax is a right-wing magazine, not exactly a reputable source. Neeeeeeext.

 

[baxter]

Able Danger appears to have highlighted many things.
Having taken the time to find out about it, it would appear that the explosive new evidence is not the fact there could have been a tenuous link between Iraq and 9/11
The explosive new information appears to highlight the dreadful short falls in American Security services in the lead up to 9/11

Did a small intelligence group within the Defense Department identify hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of a terrorist cell operating in the U.S. almost two years before he and 18 other terrorists killed more than 3,000 people on U.S. soil in 2001? And if so, why didn't this explosive information make it into the September 11 Commission report, which was supposed to be the definitive analysis on the worst terrorist incident in U.S. history?

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050826-090148-3114r.htm

WASHINGTON — The federal commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told twice about "Able Danger," a military intelligence unit that had identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers a year before the attacks, a congressman close to the investigation said Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q="able+danger"+Weldon&sa=N&start=0

If Able Danger did exist then, yes let’s hear all about it, not just selective titbits, let’s have the entire truth.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Able Danger appears to have highlighted many things.
Having taken the time to find out about it, it would appear that the explosive new evidence is not the fact there could have been a tenuous link between Iraq and 9/11
The explosive new information appears to highlight the dreadful short falls in American Security services in the lead up to 9/11



http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050826-090148-3114r.htm


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q="able+danger"+Weldon&sa=N&start=0

If Able Danger did exist then, yes let’s hear all about it, not just selective titbits, let’s have the entire truth.

You can't just take the bits and pieces from Able Danger that you like and disregard the rest, it shows a lot of shortcomings, the lawyers stopping them, but they had no idea then, what IS a big issue, is that the 9/11 commission just disregarded them!

There's already a thread on Able Danger I made further down, yet no one would post in it.

 

[baxter]

You can't just take the bits and pieces from Able Danger that you like and disregard the rest, it shows a lot of shortcomings, the lawyers stopping them, but they had no idea then, what IS a big issue, is that the 9/11 commission just disregarded them!

There's already a thread on Able Danger I made further down, yet no one would post in it.

But why would the 9/11 commission disregard this?
If this link truly exists, why is the information from Able Danger suppressed? Why is Bush, Cheney, Rumford and co not shouting from the top of the roof that they had proof, definite proof that Iraq was involved?
Why would they sit back and take the commissions report and not say a word?
Let me put a scenario to you, here you have a Government sponsored task force, whose job it is, is to establish terrorist network links worldwide, they establish a possible link between Iraq and el qaeda but in the process they discover a whole lot more.
That more being the fact that they knew it was coming, they were told time and time again there was a real and present danger, but did nothing.
They knew it was coming and did nothing.
So hey lets just keep it under wraps, not say a word and hope it all goes away.
We went to war over this, thousands have died over this, I wouldn’t disregard anything as important as this, and hopefully we will finally be told the truth.

BTW sorry for not posting in your thread

 

[CptStern]

dont forget that Able Danger commission identified 4 al qaeda operatives in the US a year before 9/11


"The revelation that a military intelligence unit had identified four September 11 hijackers as Al Qaeda operatives working in the US a year before the 9/11 attacks has sparked a flurry of disclaimers and denials from official sources, while most media outlets have ignored the story altogether.

The fact that the government had long been tracking some of the hijackers, including the putative leader, Mohammad Atta, was revealed in a front page article in the New York Times on Tuesday. Citing Republican Congressman Curt Weldon and an unidentified former military intelligence officer, the article reported that a Pentagon unit known as Able Danger had by the middle of 2000 identified Atta and three of the other September 11 hijackers as members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US.

The former intelligence officer said that Able Danger was prevented by the military’s Special Operations Command from passing on the information to the FBI.

What accounts for this silence? A US congressman and a former intelligence official have alleged that at least a section of the American military knew the identity and whereabouts of several of the September 11 hijackers over a year before the attacks, and that they were prevented from acting on this knowledge.


source

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The Military Officer was Lt. Colonel Shaffer. A lot of information has come to light. Everybody kicked my old thread to the side (on page 2)

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89929

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Let's look at your two sentences, gh0st.

Maybe saddam was not so innocent
Not to mention rewarding the families of suicide terrorist palestinians for killing innocent civilians. Great man you all are defending.

In your second post, before anyone had replied with a counter-argument, you immediately accused every person you've ever so much as assumed as being a 'liberal' of being sympathizers to Saddam Hussein.

That there is ****ed up and uncalled for, and I assumed that you were just speaking out of some sort of stupid rage (AKA righteous indignation) and/or some haughty joke designed to rub a point in 'liberal' faces (AKA gloating) because no-one in their right mind would say such a thing as an actual point in a serious debate.

Or so I thought, because now I learn that you weren't impaired at all. And not only that; but that your accusation, that I can only describe as stupid, was a random detour entirely unrelated to your own topic.

So what, exactly were you thinking? Did you just accuse your political rivals of supporting an evil dictator offhand?
Do you honestly think that all non-conservatives love Saddam, but also that it's such a truism that you may as well be talking about the weather?
A "Hey mom, pass the beans and Clinton is a pawn of the jew-run media." sort of thing?

In that case, I apologize. Because if that is the case, I should never have tried to excuse your sad conduct as the result of an emotional instability or bizarre sense of humor.
Next time I'll just take even your most stupid points at face value, or lack thereof.

And did you just call me a 'douchebag'? How trite.
Maybe you could enhance your argument by calling me a 'sped' next. Or maybe there's some newer insult you've picked up on the playground?
Give it your best and you're sure to succeed.

 

[MjM]

Gh0st: provocateur extrodinaire!