9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran

[MetalMilitia]

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran

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

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."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

How about that whacky Iran?

-MM- :crs:

[Sirius]

Now if they had something like that to justify the cause of the war in iraq, I would be 100% behind the decision to go to war.

[MetalMilitia]

Israel's plans for Iran strikes

Amid growing concern over Iran's alleged duplicity in declaring all its nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israel - the country that regards itself as most at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran - may be poised to revive contingency plans to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

It is hardly surprising that Israel's national security establishment has concluded that Israel would be at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran. However, if a pre-emptive attack is to be launched Israel may have to go it alone. Any joint US-Israeli precision-guided missile strike against Iran's nuclear facilities - Bushehr, Natanz or Arak - is unlikely to prove an attractive option for the US administration while it remains mired in Iraq - which shares a 1,458km-long border with Iran.

If the USA was to participate in such an operation, Washington's allies would undoubtedly denounce what would be seen as yet another example of dangerous US unilateralism. However, the real concern is that a chain reaction of unintended consequences would further destabilise the world's most volatile region. The USA's involvement in a pre-emptive strike against Iran would also undermine the Bush administration's last vestiges of credibility as an 'honest broker' in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An Israeli strike could effectively end hopes of reaching any kind of peace deal. The US administration also faces the dilemma of insisting that Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons while Israel is believed to have several hundred in its arsenal.

The controversial role of intelligence is likely to prove significant. The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) would have to produce incontrovertible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons which, given the recent damning report by the US Senate on the CIA's collection and analysis of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is unlikely. This crisis of credibility would make a US decision to launch a pre-emptive strike difficult, if not impossible, to sell to US legislators or to the wider world.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040716_1_n.shtml

A nation that actually has nuclear weapons gets ready to destroy the power infrastructure of a nation that might someday want nuclear weapons... because the nation that actually has the nuclear weapons is afraid of the nation that doesn't.

-MM- :crs:

[Sirius]

I feel if Israel does airstrikes against Iran, it will be WW3. To bad that votes of no confidence was rejected against Sharon, he's more crazy than Bush.

[MetalMilitia]

IRAN GAVE 9/11 PLOT KEY BOOST

July 17, 2004 -- Iran aided al Qaeda terrorists by allowing 9/11 hijackers to enter and exit their country unimpeded for nearly a year before the terror attacks, according to a published report.

The commission investigating the attacks is expected to release a report next week containing information that Iran had a history of allowing al Qaeda thugs to enter Iran across the Afghan border, Time magazine's Web site reported yesterday.

The practice dates to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda operatives. In some cases, Iranian border patrol officers were ordered not to stamp their passports.

A senior U.S. official told Time the 9/11 report will uncover that Iranian officials approached al Qaeda's leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 and proposed to work with them.

The official said terror lord Osama bin Laden turned down the offer because he didn't want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The information about Iran came from al Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including Yemeni-born al Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who masterminded the Cole attack.

The Iran-al Qaeda connection was discovered during the commission's yearlong investigation into the origins of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/25264.htm

Tell another. We had these reports about Iraq, which have now been totally discredited, and even as Bush and Blair scramble to escape the blame for the lies the same folks are at it again with reports linking Al Qaeda with Iran.

Sucks to be you.

-MM- :crs:

[MetalMilitia]

Regime change in Iran now in Bush?s sights

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran."

The Iranian government announced this weekend that it had successfully eradicated all al-Qaeda cells operating in the country, but the statement comes as leaked reports from the US September 11 Commission show definite links between Iran and the September 11 terrorists.

The final report from the cross-party inquiry, which is examining the origins of the September 11 attacks, is believed to contain concrete evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran.

http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

No mercy for what we are doing
No thought to even what we have done
We don't need to feel the sorrow
No remorse for the helpless one

War without end

-MM- :crs:

[Conservative Front]

Is Israel, launched airstrikes against Iran. I seriously doubt it would start WWIII. Iran doesn't have the man power nor the right techonogies to combat Israel.

---end response to Sirius---

Lets roll in the tanks then. We've knowin Iran has been sketchy and I believe it's time to but an end to there games. We've given (along with the U.N.) ample time too abandon there nuclear program and now we have evidence of a 9/11 connection between Al-Qaeda and Iran. I think we need to stop them and stop them soon. There distances from Eastern Europe and parts of western europe would allow them to launch a nuclear strike against a handful of allied countrys. (including Great Britian) now that we've cleaned up Iraq. I think we should put Iran under pressure to reform now... I'm not saying a straight pre-emptive assault against Iran. I do however believe we need to start putting strong pressure on them to abandon there nuclear program and stop the harboring of terrorist. or we plan and simple Roll In the Tanks.

[humanhybrid]

I do however believe we need to start putting strong pressure on them to abandon there nuclear program and stop the harboring of terrorist. or we plan and simple Roll In the Tanks. STOP YOUR WAR MONGERING! We are the nation with WMD and nuclear weopons and we are the ones attacking and killing without provacation on 3rd world countries. Your pathetic, trigger iching, kneejerking behavier is nothing more than BARBARIC. good day!

[stewey]

"We have WMD, why can't others" is a common reply I see in these types of forums. We have never signed a treaty saying we would not develop them (we were the first to develop the nuke, remember. there was no "don't make nukes" back then.). Saddam did.

As much as the case for the war was pathetic, I am glad Saddam is gone, the guy was a total assface.

[MetalMilitia]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20030529.gif

Two weeks ago, a highly placed source claimed that the United States gave Israel the use of two refueling tanker planes. (Anyone got a link?) This gives Israeli warplanes the range to reach all over the Mideast.

Despite the fact that Iran's nuclear weapons program is a substantive as Iraq's was, Israel will probably bomb Iran's nuclear reactors because they know that Iran will likely counter-attack in retaliation.

This is the worst case scenario, because it's our soldiers scattered all over that region.

-MM- :crs:

[ConspiracyTheorist]

Unfortunately, if Israel were to provoke Iran into attacking them, than WWIII would break out. You would have Israel, versus the entire Middle East, minus Iraq, since it is a puppet gov't right now.


As for the US wanting to start a fight with Iran, it just makes perfect sense to do so. Bush is coming to the end of his term, and come November there could be a new President. However, it times of war, the President would not be removed (I used to remember why, but can't recall for the life of me). So, Bush goes to war with Iran. If Bush were to do that, than all hell would break loose. IT would then show that Bush is slowly eliminating Muslim countries that don't "play ball" with the Pres, installing puppet governments, and having the whole thing start all over 20 years later. Remember that Hussein was put into power with the aid of the U.S.

But the Muslim countries I think would unite, and both Israel, Great Britain(everyone knows that Blair is also just a puppet), and any other country that aided the U.S. would experience a true Jihad.

[substand]

First, even if we have plenty of reason to go to war with Iran, we probably wouldn't, because the conditions there are ripe for rebellion. we may help the rebellion along, but i don't see us sending troops there unless the rebellion starts and they ask for or need our help.


it times of war, the President would not be removed (I used to remember why, but can't recall for the life of me).

It is not that the president "would not be removed." It is that a war time (US) president has never been voted out of office that you are thinking about, I think.


now that we've cleaned up Iraq. I think we should put Iran under pressure to reform now...

first, we are not done in iraq, and we shouldn't be. And we have been putting pressure on iran, whether you see it or not. It was stupid to call them part of an "axis of evil" but that added to the pressure we were already and continued to press on them. as for tanks, its probably not necesary.

[bbbv3.5]

I think us going into Iran after the election will be a smart move. And HH did you see 9/11. That came from 3rd world countries. And you just want to let them off the hook funding these terrorist groups and killing us americans!

WW3 wont be that bad....middle east really has one power...Isreal..they will be fighting all the other countries in the middle east and the US, Britain and other power countries of NAto will defend Isreal and basically end all of terror in the middle east. I wont even consider it a WW......based on the other too. The death toll will probably be lower. There are no middle east with Nukes that are not a part of NATO. I think that after WW3 we will be in peace for like 100 years and then the USA will do something stupid....funnyjunk.com/endofzeworld for details. :thumbs:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>WW3 wont be that bad

i don't believe you know what you are saying. NATO would not necessarily help Israel. France? Germany? Spain? Chances are good, they'll stay out of it. That leaves Italy, England, the US, and a bunch of smaller nations. Russia and China would prolly sell arms to the Arabs. Arms that we sold them. Many European nations are better informed about what Israel has done, than we are. Which is why they laughed at Powell when he presented his "proof" to the UN about Iraq and subsequently declined to do anything about it. They knew his evidence was unsubstantiated. Now we know, they knew. Is that common knowledge to the American ostrich?


>...and basically end all of terror in the middle east

you don't understand why terrorists exist? do you? ever hear about the IRA? and how the U.S. had funded them until 911? Howbout the Basque (?) seperatists in Spain? Those fanatic Japanese terrorists dropping chemical bombs in subways? the Chechnyan rebels?

What do you think would happen if we went into the ME right now, and regime changed all the nations there, to Democracy? Would terrorism cease to exist? Is Iraq any example?

Go ahead, vote for Bush. Its your right. :grin

[ConspiracyTheorist]

I think us going into Iran after the election will be a smart move. And HH did you see 9/11. That came from 3rd world countries. And you just want to let them off the hook funding these terrorist groups and killing us americans!

WW3 wont be that bad....middle east really has one power...Isreal..they will be fighting all the other countries in the middle east and the US, Britain and other power countries of NAto will defend Isreal and basically end all of terror in the middle east. I wont even consider it a WW......based on the other too. The death toll will probably be lower. There are no middle east with Nukes that are not a part of NATO. I think that after WW3 we will be in peace for like 100 years and then the USA will do something stupid....funnyjunk.com/endofzeworld for details. :thumbs:


What? WW3 won't be that bad?? Granted that Israel is a power in the Middle East, but if they start trouble, and they will, noone will back them up. This is what would cause a holy war. You are going to have Jewish and Christian believers against a muslim nation.

And as for 100 years of peace, I agree, because most everyone will be dead, we'll have nuclear fallout, and we'll have to live in caves.

[Conservative Front]

Of course we have WMD's and power. If it wasn't for America wars would be erupting everywhere. Remember without war there cannot be peace.

---end response to HH---


I hope it's not nessecary, to roll in the tanks, and I realize that pressure where putting on Iran, I just hope it's enough. We need to keep them under constant pressure for awhile. And I realize that we're not done in Iraq yet and I know its not gonna happen for awhile but for the most part we have cleaned in up We just need too weed out the resistance now.

---end response to substand---