More Evidence of an Iran-Al Qaeda Connection

A top terror operative made a Tehran visit while planning the 9/11 attacks, NEWSWEEK has learned

 

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek

Updated: 2:59 p.m. ET July 21, 2004

 

July 21 - Just eight months before the September 11 terror attacks, top conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh received a four-week visa to Iran and then flew to Tehran?an apparent stop-off point on his way to meet with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan, according to law-enforcement documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.

 

German government documents showing the previously undisclosed trip by bin al-Shibh, a captured Al Qaeda operative who played a crucial coordinating role in the 9/11 plot, is the latest evidence that the World Trade Center conspirators frequently used Iran as a safe? transit point in their travels to and from Afghanistan.

 

The final report of the 9-11 Commission, which is due out tomorrow, contains significant new information about a possible ?Iran connection? to the plot, including a U.S. intelligence analysis indicating that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members entering and exiting their country. Although the information has been known to the U.S. intelligence community for some time, President Bush told reporters this week that the U.S. government was ?digging into the facts to determine if there was? a possible Iranian connection to the September 11 attacks.

 

The president?s comments were touched off by news reports, by NEWSWEEK and other news organizations, that the 9/11 panel will reveal this week that as many as 10 of the so-called ?muscle hijackers? traveled through Iran between the fall of 2000 and February 2001. U.S. intelligence officials emphasize they have no evidence that the Iranian government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot and, in recent days, an Iranian government spokesman has called "ridiculous" reports that there was any Iranian involvement with Al Qaeda. Still,

the trip by bin al-Shibh? adds to the picture and, according to some U.S. investigators, raises new questions about whether some Iranian security officials may have been actively assisting Al Qaeda operatives while they were traveling through their country.?

 

The bin al-Shibh evidence is contained in the thousands of pages of documents compiled by Germany's BKA, or Federal Criminal Office, in the course of its investigation into the so-called ?Hamburg cell,? one of whose members, Muhammad Atta, became the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers. Bin al-Shibh, a Yemeni national, was Atta?s roommate in Hamburg and, when he was unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States, became a key coordinator of the plot, relaying instructions between 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Atta, according to the 9/11 commission. Another member of the Hamburg cell, Mounir el-Motassadeq, was convicted by a German court last year of being an accomplice in the attacks and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

 

The German documents show that, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, German investigators first sought information from the Iranian Embassy in Berlin about bin al-Shibh's travels to their country. The Iranians appear to have cooperated, turning over a copy of a two-page visa application form filled out in bin al-Shibh?s handwriting and an attachment showing his passport photograph. The document shows that on Dec. 20, 2000?during a crucial stage of the 9/11 plot?bin al-Shibh applied for a four-week tourist visa to Iran, marking a box stating that his reasons for visiting the country were ?tourist or pilgrimage.? One question on the form was, "If you are passing through Iran in transit have you obtained entry visa for your next country of stay?? Bin al-Shibh wrote an X in the box for ?nein.? He also stated on the form that he planned to take $2,000 with him on his trip.

 

A German law-enforcement report on the matter concludes that bin al-Shibh?s visa request was approved and that on Jan. 31, 2001, he flew to Iran, landing at Tehran International Report. The report states he likely flew from Amsterdam since banking documents show he withdrew money from there just a few days earlier. The report concludes however that the Germans were unable to learn any more from the Iranians about bin al-Shibh?s activities in Iran and whether he engaged in an ?illegal border crossing? to Afghanistan?although such a trip was highly likely.

 

That bin al-Shibh used the trip to cross the border and visit with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan is highly likely given his indispensable role in the unfolding 9/11 plot, U.S. investigators say. In laying out bin al-Shibh?s role in an interim staff report last month, the 9/11 commission noted that bin al-Shibh first visited Al Qaeda?s Kandahar training camp in Afghanistan in late 1999?about the same time as Atta and two other 9/11 plotters from the Hamburg cell, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah. At that time, bin al-Shibh? pledged ?bayat,? or allegiance, to Osama bin Laden in a private meeting. It was during this trip that the men from Hamburg first discussed the? 9/11 plot and that bin al-Shibh, along with Atta and Shehhi, later met with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Karachi to discuss details including ?how to read airline schedules.?

 

Bin al-Shibh remained in continuous contact with Mohammed and, according to the commission's report, was the 9/11 mastermind?s main link to Atta in the United States. Bin al-Shibh also served as a financial conduit, wiring $10,000 to the hijackers from Germany, as well as another $14,000 in early August 2001 to Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who was at the time taking flight lessons in Oklahoma. Bin al-Shibh, who was captured more than two years ago, has told U.S. interrogators that he understood that Moussaoui was supposed to be part of the 9/11 plot, but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has insisted instead that Moussaoui was supposed to participate in a planned ?second wave? of attacks on the West Coast.

 

Commission sources acknowledge they have been unable to resolve key questions about what precisely the 9/11 plotters did while they transited through Iran and, in particular, whether they were receiving active assistance from Iranian security officials, who appear to have maintained relations with Al Qaeda. But investigators say there is mounting evidence about Al Qaeda-Iranian relationships that appear to have been overlooked by a Bush administration that was far more focused on finding connections between bin Laden?s organization and the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

Indeed, during the trial of another alleged Hamburg cell member, Abdelghani Mzoudi, prosecutors? produced a last-minute witness, Hamid Reza Zakeri, who said he was a former officer of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Zakeri testified there was a meeting at an airbase near Tehran on May 4, 2001, between top Iranian leaders?including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani?and one of Osama bin Laden's elder sons, Saad, at which plans for 9/11 were discussed.

 

Zakeri also reportedly claimed he had earlier helped arrange security for a January 2001 meeting between Saad bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's principal deputy. He also claimed that he met with a CIA officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, in July 2001 and passed on a warning to the United States about the forthcoming 9/11 attacks.

 

U.S. and German authorities have never been able to corroborate Zakeri's claims about the involvement of top Iranian officials, and some officials have questioned his credibility. German government efforts to use Zakeri as a witness against Mzoudi proved ineffective; the defendant, unlike the previously convicted Motassadeq, was acquitted of charges of being an accomplice to the 9/11 hijackers.

 

But U.S. officials say they are concerned about the increasing evidence of possible Iranian connections to the 9/11 attacks, noting that as many as 10 top Al Qaeda operatives, including Saad bin Laden and another top bin Laden deputy, Said Al-Adel, fled to Iran after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. The Al Qaeda operatives are believed to be in some sort of government custody, most likely house arrest. But the Iranian government has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. entreaties to turn over the Al Qaeda leaders, and some U.S. intelligence officials believe they may be still supervising terror operations?especially in Saudi Arabia?through the use of couriers. ?This is an evolving story,? said one U.S. official about the evidence of possible Iranian ties to Al Qaeda.?

 

 

? 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

LINK

 

:mischief2 Hmmm... It is looking more and more that we invaded the wrong country. f*** it! Let's drop Iraq and go into Iran now!

More Evidence of an Iran-Al Qaeda Connection

A top terror operative made a Tehran visit while planning the 9/11 attacks, NEWSWEEK has learned

 

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek

Updated: 2:59 p.m. ET July 21, 2004

 

July 21 - Just eight months before the September 11 terror attacks, top conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh received a four-week visa to Iran and then flew to Tehran?an apparent stop-off point on his way to meet with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan, according to law-enforcement documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.

 

German government documents showing the previously undisclosed trip by bin al-Shibh, a captured Al Qaeda operative who played a crucial coordinating role in the 9/11 plot, is the latest evidence that the World Trade Center conspirators frequently used Iran as a safe? transit point in their travels to and from Afghanistan.

 

The final report of the 9-11 Commission, which is due out tomorrow, contains significant new information about a possible ?Iran connection? to the plot, including a U.S. intelligence analysis indicating that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members entering and exiting their country. Although the information has been known to the U.S. intelligence community for some time, President Bush told reporters this week that the U.S. government was ?digging into the facts to determine if there was? a possible Iranian connection to the September 11 attacks.

 

The president?s comments were touched off by news reports, by NEWSWEEK and other news organizations, that the 9/11 panel will reveal this week that as many as 10 of the so-called ?muscle hijackers? traveled through Iran between the fall of 2000 and February 2001. U.S. intelligence officials emphasize they have no evidence that the Iranian government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot and, in recent days, an Iranian government spokesman has called "ridiculous" reports that there was any Iranian involvement with Al Qaeda. Still,

the trip by bin al-Shibh? adds to the picture and, according to some U.S. investigators, raises new questions about whether some Iranian security officials may have been actively assisting Al Qaeda operatives while they were traveling through their country.?

 

The bin al-Shibh evidence is contained in the thousands of pages of documents compiled by Germany's BKA, or Federal Criminal Office, in the course of its investigation into the so-called ?Hamburg cell,? one of whose members, Muhammad Atta, became the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers. Bin al-Shibh, a Yemeni national, was Atta?s roommate in Hamburg and, when he was unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States, became a key coordinator of the plot, relaying instructions between 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Atta, according to the 9/11 commission. Another member of the Hamburg cell, Mounir el-Motassadeq, was convicted by a German court last year of being an accomplice in the attacks and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

 

The German documents show that, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, German investigators first sought information from the Iranian Embassy in Berlin about bin al-Shibh's travels to their country. The Iranians appear to have cooperated, turning over a copy of a two-page visa application form filled out in bin al-Shibh?s handwriting and an attachment showing his passport photograph. The document shows that on Dec. 20, 2000?during a crucial stage of the 9/11 plot?bin al-Shibh applied for a four-week tourist visa to Iran, marking a box stating that his reasons for visiting the country were ?tourist or pilgrimage.? One question on the form was, "If you are passing through Iran in transit have you obtained entry visa for your next country of stay?? Bin al-Shibh wrote an X in the box for ?nein.? He also stated on the form that he planned to take $2,000 with him on his trip.

 

A German law-enforcement report on the matter concludes that bin al-Shibh?s visa request was approved and that on Jan. 31, 2001, he flew to Iran, landing at Tehran International Report. The report states he likely flew from Amsterdam since banking documents show he withdrew money from there just a few days earlier. The report concludes however that the Germans were unable to learn any more from the Iranians about bin al-Shibh?s activities in Iran and whether he engaged in an ?illegal border crossing? to Afghanistan?although such a trip was highly likely.

 

That bin al-Shibh used the trip to cross the border and visit with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan is highly likely given his indispensable role in the unfolding 9/11 plot, U.S. investigators say. In laying out bin al-Shibh?s role in an interim staff report last month, the 9/11 commission noted that bin al-Shibh first visited Al Qaeda?s Kandahar training camp in Afghanistan in late 1999?about the same time as Atta and two other 9/11 plotters from the Hamburg cell, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah. At that time, bin al-Shibh? pledged ?bayat,? or allegiance, to Osama bin Laden in a private meeting. It was during this trip that the men from Hamburg first discussed the? 9/11 plot and that bin al-Shibh, along with Atta and Shehhi, later met with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Karachi to discuss details including ?how to read airline schedules.?

 

Bin al-Shibh remained in continuous contact with Mohammed and, according to the commission's report, was the 9/11 mastermind?s main link to Atta in the United States. Bin al-Shibh also served as a financial conduit, wiring $10,000 to the hijackers from Germany, as well as another $14,000 in early August 2001 to Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who was at the time taking flight lessons in Oklahoma. Bin al-Shibh, who was captured more than two years ago, has told U.S. interrogators that he understood that Moussaoui was supposed to be part of the 9/11 plot, but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has insisted instead that Moussaoui was supposed to participate in a planned ?second wave? of attacks on the West Coast.

 

Commission sources acknowledge they have been unable to resolve key questions about what precisely the 9/11 plotters did while they transited through Iran and, in particular, whether they were receiving active assistance from Iranian security officials, who appear to have maintained relations with Al Qaeda. But investigators say there is mounting evidence about Al Qaeda-Iranian relationships that appear to have been overlooked by a Bush administration that was far more focused on finding connections between bin Laden?s organization and the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

Indeed, during the trial of another alleged Hamburg cell member, Abdelghani Mzoudi, prosecutors? produced a last-minute witness, Hamid Reza Zakeri, who said he was a former officer of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Zakeri testified there was a meeting at an airbase near Tehran on May 4, 2001, between top Iranian leaders?including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani?and one of Osama bin Laden's elder sons, Saad, at which plans for 9/11 were discussed.

 

Zakeri also reportedly claimed he had earlier helped arrange security for a January 2001 meeting between Saad bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's principal deputy. He also claimed that he met with a CIA officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, in July 2001 and passed on a warning to the United States about the forthcoming 9/11 attacks.

 

U.S. and German authorities have never been able to corroborate Zakeri's claims about the involvement of top Iranian officials, and some officials have questioned his credibility. German government efforts to use Zakeri as a witness against Mzoudi proved ineffective; the defendant, unlike the previously convicted Motassadeq, was acquitted of charges of being an accomplice to the 9/11 hijackers.

 

But U.S. officials say they are concerned about the increasing evidence of possible Iranian connections to the 9/11 attacks, noting that as many as 10 top Al Qaeda operatives, including Saad bin Laden and another top bin Laden deputy, Said Al-Adel, fled to Iran after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. The Al Qaeda operatives are believed to be in some sort of government custody, most likely house arrest. But the Iranian government has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. entreaties to turn over the Al Qaeda leaders, and some U.S. intelligence officials believe they may be still supervising terror operations?especially in Saudi Arabia?through the use of couriers. ?This is an evolving story,? said one U.S. official about the evidence of possible Iranian ties to Al Qaeda.?

 

 

? 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

LINK

 

:mischief2 Hmmm... It is looking more and more that we invaded the wrong country. f*** it! Let's drop Iraq and go into Iran now!

469770[/snapback]

 

All that this shows is that iran needs to be monitored closely. The fact that iran may have terrorist ties has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

All that this shows is that iran needs to be monitored closely. The fact that iran may have terrorist ties has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

469787[/snapback]

 

Once again you are proving to me that we should have not invaded Iraq on the pretenses given to us. Iran does have all the ties and WMDs. The hypocrisy of this government has been exposed... More.

Iran's terrain is a big factor as to why would not perform the same type of invasion there. Iraq has already been attacked..get over it. The only thing this proves is that maybe we should attack Iran ALSO not INSTEAD of, because its too late for that. And I assure you that had we attacked Iran instea dof Iraq the peaceniks would have found another reason as to why attacking Iran is a bad idea (one being that we'd lose many more troops there). If you want to talk about hypocrisy how about all the anti-war people who were totally against the war in afghanistan but all of a sudden after the iraq war theyve all come out saying that afghanistan was ok, but that Iraq is the terrible one.

Iran's terrain is a big factor as to why would not perform the same type of invasion there. Iraq has already been attacked..get over it. The only thing this proves is that maybe we should attack Iran ALSO not INSTEAD of, because its too late for that. And I assure you that had we attacked Iran instea dof Iraq the peaceniks would have found another reason as to why attacking Iran is a bad idea (one being that we'd lose many more troops there). If you want to talk about hypocrisy how about all the anti-war people who were totally against the war in afghanistan but all of a sudden after the iraq war theyve all come out saying that afghanistan was ok, but that Iraq is the terrible one.

469820[/snapback]

 

And you dig yourself in deeper. I am well aware that we invaded Iraq and we can't take it back. Attacking any of those countries is a bad idea no matter what. The point is that we are in the wrong country... We should not be there period. Why couldn't we apply the same "caution" we are applying with Iran in respects to Iraq???? Oil perhaps? :plain

Iran's terrain is a big factor as to why would not perform the same type of invasion there. Iraq has already been attacked..get over it. The only thing this proves is that maybe we should attack Iran ALSO not INSTEAD of, because its too late for that. And I assure you that had we attacked Iran instea dof Iraq the peaceniks would have found another reason as to why attacking Iran is a bad idea (one being that we'd lose many more troops there). If you want to talk about hypocrisy how about all the anti-war people who were totally against the war in afghanistan but all of a sudden after the iraq war theyve all come out saying that afghanistan was ok, but that Iraq is the terrible one.

469820[/snapback]

 

And you dig yourself in deeper. I am well aware that we invaded Iraq and we can't take it back. Attacking any of those countries is a bad idea no matter what. The point is that we are in the wrong country... We should not be there period. Why couldn't we apply the same "caution" we are applying with Iran in respects to Iraq???? Oil perhaps? :plain

469826[/snapback]

 

Those last two words just ruined an otherwise logical post.

Iran's terrain is a big factor as to why would not perform the same type of invasion there. Iraq has already been attacked..get over it. The only thing this proves is that maybe we should attack Iran ALSO not INSTEAD of, because its too late for that. And I assure you that had we attacked Iran instea dof Iraq the peaceniks would have found another reason as to why attacking Iran is a bad idea (one being that we'd lose many more troops there). If you want to talk about hypocrisy how about all the anti-war people who were totally against the war in afghanistan but all of a sudden after the iraq war theyve all come out saying that afghanistan was ok, but that Iraq is the terrible one.

469820[/snapback]

 

And you dig yourself in deeper. I am well aware that we invaded Iraq and we can't take it back. Attacking any of those countries is a bad idea no matter what. The point is that we are in the wrong country... We should not be there period. Why couldn't we apply the same "caution" we are applying with Iran in respects to Iraq???? Oil perhaps? :plain

469826[/snapback]

 

Actually if you check out the oil production for Iran 3.8 bbl(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) vs. Iraq 2.8 bbl, you can see that if the war was for oil then wouldnt it be a better idea to invade the country that produces more oil? The iraq and iran situations are very different, I do not believe we should have attacked Iraq when we did, but its a different situation including the fact that Iraq violated the treaty they signed with the US after Gulf I. Both countries needed to be handled differently, so there is no comparison in the foreign relations b/w the U.S and either of those countries. I'm defintely not digging myself into any hole, the fact remains that b/c Iran has WMD does not mean that we should not have attacked Iraq, all that it means is that some may argue (not me) that we should attack Iran instead. To sum it all up : Iran being a threat has no bearing on the decision to attack iraq

Or maybe if our administration was so concerned about oil, as Lina has so politely pointed out, we'd drill our own!!! *gasp* :blink:

Iraq also was easier to invade adn push around.

 

 

Iraq also had a history with Bush's daddy.

 

 

The invasion of Afghanstan was based soley on terrorism....I must be myopic...but I dont recall many protests in teh US on this invasion.

 

 

Iraq was invaded for about 20 different reasons...changing whenever the reason for the day is proven false.

Iraq also was easier to invade adn push around.

 

 

Iraq also had a history with Bush's daddy.

 

 

The invasion of Afghanstan was based soley on terrorism....I must be myopic...but I dont recall many protests in teh US on this invasion.

 

 

Iraq was invaded for about 20 different reasons...changing whenever the reason for the day is proven false.

469899[/snapback]

 

 

There are plenty of reasons why Iraq should have been dealt with (not necessarily attacked) and I have stuck to them since i joined this board. However, im only going to post the ones relevant with the topic at hand, and I'm not going to go through the entire list like I did in earlier posts (I think it was a discussion b/w sorianofan and I). And te only reason there were no wide scale protests was b/c public sentiment at the time was that americans wanted payback for 9/11 and only the hard left actually went out to protest. But verbal protests were very numerous and many left leaning journalists and such including everyones favorite, mikey moore, were against the war in afghanistan, even though he had a convenient change of heart b4 producing f911

Actually if you check out the oil production for Iran 3.8 bbl(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) vs. Iraq 2.8 bbl, you can see that if the war was for oil then wouldnt it be a better idea to invade the country that produces more oil? The iraq and iran situations are very different, I do not believe we should have attacked Iraq when we did, but its a different situation including the fact that Iraq violated the treaty they signed with the US after Gulf I. Both countries needed to be handled differently, so there is no comparison in the foreign relations b/w the U.S and either of those countries. I'm defintely not digging myself into any hole, the fact remains that b/c Iran has WMD does not mean that we should not have attacked Iraq, all that it means is that some may argue (not me) that we should attack Iran instead. To sum it all up : Iran being a threat has no bearing on the decision to attack iraq

469878[/snapback]

 

:mischief2 Well, if it wasn't for oil, I'm still scratching my head to understand why the hell did we invade Iraq, when they posed no threat to America. Can you please tell me why did we invade Iraq? What is TODAY's reason?

Actually if you check out the oil production for Iran 3.8 bbl(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) vs. Iraq 2.8 bbl, you can see that if the war was for oil then wouldnt it be a better idea to invade the country that produces more oil? The iraq and iran situations are very different, I do not believe we should have attacked Iraq when we did, but its a different situation including the fact that Iraq violated the treaty they signed with the US after Gulf I. Both countries needed to be handled differently, so there is no comparison in the foreign relations b/w the U.S and either of those countries. I'm defintely not digging myself into any hole, the fact remains that b/c Iran has WMD does not mean that we should not have attacked Iraq, all that it means is that some may argue (not me) that we should attack Iran instead. To sum it all up : Iran being a threat has no bearing on the decision to attack iraq

469878[/snapback]

 

:mischief2 Well, if it wasn't for oil, I'm still scratching my head to understand why the hell did we invade Iraq, when they posed no threat to America. Can you please tell me why did we invade Iraq? What is TODAY's reason?

470086[/snapback]

 

 

The same reasons I (notice i said I) have stuck to since the beginning, go through my posts I have stated various reasons at different times but not once have I negated any of the others. The problem is Iraq DID pose a threat to america, to say no threat is extremely naive. But I'll assume as an educated person, what you meant to say was that they posed less threat to the U.S. thn N Korea, Iran, Syria, possibly China, but that they still posed more of a threat than England, Spain, and Canada

The same reasons I (notice i said I) have stuck to since the beginning, go through my posts I have stated various reasons at different times but not once have I negated any of the others. The problem is Iraq DID pose a threat to america, to say no threat is extremely naive. But I'll assume as an educated person, what you meant to say was that they posed less threat to the U.S. thn N Korea, Iran, Syria, possibly China, but that they still posed more of a threat than England, Spain, and Canada

470151[/snapback]

 

Explain threat. Explain reasons. I still don't get it.

The same reasons I (notice i said I) have stuck to since the beginning, go through my posts I have stated various reasons at different times but not once have I negated any of the others. The problem is Iraq DID pose a threat to america, to say no threat is extremely naive. But I'll assume as an educated person, what you meant to say was that they posed less threat to the U.S. thn N Korea, Iran, Syria, possibly China, but that they still posed more of a threat than England, Spain, and Canada

470151[/snapback]

 

Explain threat. Explain reasons. I still don't get it.

470161[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is your saying NO threat. The country led by tyrannical dictator who has used WMDs, which has continued whether successfully or unsuccessfully to produce WMDs, and which was a safe haven to terrorists (not necessarily al-qaeda but terrorists such as nidal and members of black september) is a threat. Not to mention they violated treaty agreements in 1998 when they refused to allow UN inspectors to come in, why? B/c they had something to hide, and also there is absolutely no evidence that the WMD which hussein did have in the early 90s have been destroyed or otherwise. And in fact the 9/11 report was just released in which it contains intelligence information of meetings that Saddam's henchmen met with al qaeda operatives in iraq and in afghanistan, possibly meeting with bin laden himself. And even if you believe that last part may not be accurate this is not a country which poses NO threat. And in fact I've easily won this argument simply b/c you said NO threat. If you meant that literally you're being absurd, nicaragua, colombia, and mexico can potentially pose SOME be it insignificant threat to U.S. interests. Should we have attacked Iraq? probably not, Did they pose a threat? definitely. Does iran pose a threat? Definitely. Should we attack Iran? Probably not

The problem is your saying NO threat. The country led by tyrannical dictator who has used WMDs, which has continued whether successfully or unsuccessfully to produce WMDs, and which was a safe haven to terrorists (not necessarily al-qaeda but terrorists such as nidal and members of black september) is a threat. Not to mention they violated treaty agreements in 1998 when they refused to allow UN inspectors to come in, why? B/c they had something to hide, and also there is absolutely no evidence that the WMD which hussein did have in the early 90s have been destroyed or otherwise. And in fact the 9/11 report was just released in which it contains intelligence information of meetings that Saddam's henchmen met with al qaeda operatives in iraq and in afghanistan, possibly meeting with bin laden himself. And even if you believe that last part may not be accurate this is not a country which poses NO threat. And in fact I've easily won this argument simply b/c you said NO threat. If you meant that literally you're being absurd, nicaragua, colombia, and mexico can potentially pose SOME be it insignificant threat to U.S. interests. Should we have attacked Iraq? probably not, Did they pose a threat? definitely. Does iran pose a threat? Definitely. Should we attack Iran? Probably not

470259[/snapback]

 

There is nothing to "WIN". I don't know why do you think this is a competition. I am not competing with anybody.

 

That said, threat defined by this administration means we could pretty much bomb the entire world, including the United States, because we produce WMDs, we have harboured terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, we are a threat to the entire world's peace. All I am trying to say here is that a country that never intended to launch a massive attack against the United States, a country that did not cooperate with terrorists against the United States, a country that did produce WMDs but that no longer had the capability to produce them, IS NOT A THREAT!

 

I don't care what your reasons for today are. This war was not justified.

The problem is your saying NO threat. The country led by? tyrannical dictator who has used WMDs, which has continued whether successfully or unsuccessfully to produce WMDs, and which was a safe haven to terrorists (not necessarily al-qaeda but terrorists such as nidal and members of black september) is a threat. Not to mention they violated treaty agreements in 1998 when they refused to allow UN inspectors to come in, why? B/c they had something to hide, and also there is absolutely no evidence that the WMD which hussein did have in the early 90s have been destroyed or otherwise. And in fact the 9/11 report was just released in which it contains intelligence information of meetings that Saddam's henchmen met with al qaeda operatives in iraq and in afghanistan, possibly meeting with bin laden himself. And even if you believe that last part may not be accurate this is not a country which poses NO threat. And in fact I've easily won this argument simply b/c you said NO threat. If you meant that literally you're being absurd, nicaragua, colombia, and mexico can potentially pose SOME be it insignificant threat to U.S. interests. Should we have attacked Iraq? probably not, Did they pose a threat? definitely. Does iran pose a threat? Definitely. Should we attack Iran? Probably not

470259[/snapback]

 

There is nothing to "WIN". I don't know why do you think this is a competition. I am not competing with anybody.

 

That said, threat defined by this administration means we could pretty much bomb the entire world, including the United States, because we produce WMDs, we have harboured terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, we are a threat to the entire world's peace. All I am trying to say here is that a country that never intended to launch a massive attack against the United States, a country that did not cooperate with terrorists against the United States, a country that did produce WMDs but that no longer had the capability to produce them, IS NOT A THREAT!

 

I don't care what your reasons for today are. This war was not justified.

470285[/snapback]

 

This war was not necessary, but it can be justified. Second of all these are the same reasons I've been giving since I joined this board and since the war started so stop with the 'reasons for today' rhetoric. The bottom line is we should not have invaded Iraq, but the fact that we did was not totally negative, because we did eliminate a country that did pose a threat as defined by every administration since FDr excluding Carter's. And the U.S. has never 'harbored' terrorists, they were hiding here and our law enforcement couldnt find them, our govt has never protected these terrorists.

The problem is your saying NO threat. The country led by? tyrannical dictator who has used WMDs, which has continued whether successfully or unsuccessfully to produce WMDs, and which was a safe haven to terrorists (not necessarily al-qaeda but terrorists such as nidal and members of black september) is a threat. Not to mention they violated treaty agreements in 1998 when they refused to allow UN inspectors to come in, why? B/c they had something to hide, and also there is absolutely no evidence that the WMD which hussein did have in the early 90s have been destroyed or otherwise. And in fact the 9/11 report was just released in which it contains intelligence information of meetings that Saddam's henchmen met with al qaeda operatives in iraq and in afghanistan, possibly meeting with bin laden himself. And even if you believe that last part may not be accurate this is not a country which poses NO threat. And in fact I've easily won this argument simply b/c you said NO threat. If you meant that literally you're being absurd, nicaragua, colombia, and mexico can potentially pose SOME be it insignificant threat to U.S. interests. Should we have attacked Iraq? probably not, Did they pose a threat? definitely. Does iran pose a threat? Definitely. Should we attack Iran? Probably not

470259[/snapback]

 

There is nothing to "WIN". I don't know why do you think this is a competition. I am not competing with anybody.

 

That said, threat defined by this administration means we could pretty much bomb the entire world, including the United States, because we produce WMDs, we have harboured terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, we are a threat to the entire world's peace. All I am trying to say here is that a country that never intended to launch a massive attack against the United States, a country that did not cooperate with terrorists against the United States, a country that did produce WMDs but that no longer had the capability to produce them, IS NOT A THREAT!

 

I don't care what your reasons for today are. This war was not justified.

470285[/snapback]

 

This war was not necessary, but it can be justified. Second of all these are the same reasons I've been giving since I joined this board and since the war started so stop with the 'reasons for today' rhetoric. The bottom line is we should not have invaded Iraq, but the fact that we did was not totally negative, because we did eliminate a country that did pose a threat as defined by every administration since FDr excluding Carter's. And the U.S. has never 'harbored' terrorists, they were hiding here and our law enforcement couldnt find them, our govt has never protected these terrorists.

470315[/snapback]

 

Dude,

 

When I say the reasons for today, I am not referring to YOUR reasons, I am referring to the reasons the administration seems to change every day.

 

I have never said that having ousted Saddam was not a good thing, I just think it was unnecessary and a lot of soldiers and innocent people had to die for it, not even counting the fact that we are now more unsafe than before. Al-Qaeda recruiting has increased, the anti-American sentiment is metastasized, our alliances are almost nule and we are running out of troops, increased our deficit beyond believe and we are totally vulnerable to terrorism more than ever.

 

My reference to America "harboring" terrorists is just an irony. It was to show the kind of hypocrisy we are getting from the people in this administration. They go around bullying third countries that have no way to ever attack us in a significant way, while inside our country we let them roam free.

 

My point with all of this is that this war was not only not justified and unnecessary but an absolute distraction from our real target. International terrorism.

 

For those who still think the war in Iraq was all about fighting "terrorists" they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Iraq never harboured terrorists, I don't care what you say. We actually encouraged them to go there and take hold of Iraq. This war was an absolute distraction, continues to be a distraction and this will cost us dearly. I really hope there are no more attacks against us in the future, because I personnally hold responsible Bush, Cheney and their squad for the deaths of any more Americans.

Dont tell me that abu nidal wasnt in Iraq, because its a known fact that he was there, under the protection of hussein, and nidal was definetely a terrorist. That we are more unsafe now cannot be proven with any facts at all, and those 'allies' we lost such as france were allies of saddam and thats why they were against the war (all the money hussein owed them), and because none of those countries like america, they just wait for chnces to go against us b/c they are scared that the US may get to powerful

so if canada were to harbor a terrorists should we invade them also?

so if canada were to harbor a terrorists should we invade them also?

470668[/snapback]

 

If Canada knowingly harbors terrorists and refuses to allow prosecution of these individuals non-military action must be taken. If Canada invades Mexico and we need to jump in to stop canada's invasion, thus defeating them and forcing them to sign a treaty in which they will no longer produce weapons of mass destruction or aide foreign powers in attacking mexico or its allies, and then 10 years later Canada breaks the treaty then we must act accordingly. Many factors go into the invasion of iraq its all of those things combined not just one or the other. The question you asked would only be pertinent if I said the only reason for attakcing iraq was their harboring of terrorists, however that is not the case, and that along wiht the aforementioned factors was why the govt felt they should atack iraq. It seems as though these reasons were not enough to mount a full scale invasion, but they are good reasons to believe a nation is a threat. The govt's only mistake was they overacted on this situation, but you cannot completely throw out the danger that Iraq posed to the internaitonal community b/c of those aforementioned factors

Dont tell me that abu nidal wasnt in Iraq, because its a known fact that he was there, under the protection of hussein, and nidal was definetely a terrorist. That we are more unsafe now cannot be proven with any facts at all, and those 'allies' we lost such as france were allies of saddam and thats why they were against the war (all the money hussein owed them), and because none of those countries like america, they just wait for chnces to go against us b/c they are scared that the US may get to powerful

470630[/snapback]

 

First, who the hell is "Nidal" anyway? Is he part of an international terrorist group planning attacks on America????? NOOOOOOO they're not. Then why don't we bomb Israel they are harbouring terrorists, you know like Hamas?

 

We are more unsafe, for the simple fact that we've sparked the anger of millions in the middle east to the point that they hate us with a passion beyond belief. They feared us before, now that we invaded a country on false pretenses there is no stopping them.

 

 

Das,

 

Canada is Bush's next target, don't tell anyone :whistle

I'm worried about Iran, but I also know that Israel will take out Bushehr like it did with Osirak in 1981 (major condemnations then, but still no thanks 10 years later when we learned that Saddam was on the brink of having the bomb). But if Bushehr goes critical, then I blame Bush and his appeasement of the Arab/Muslim world.

 

What is known about Iran, though, is that there is a major internal resistance movement, mainly consisting of students (the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran: http://www.daneshjoo.org/ ). I'm not sure whether there was a similar organization in Iraq pre-war, and that could be a big factor in our current blunders there.

Man, Iraq was all about finishing daddy's job and oil. That was it.

Man, Iraq was all about finishing daddy's job and oil. That was it.

470756[/snapback]

 

If you take that position, then the whole WMD argument is irrelevant...and since Kerry voted for the war, by implication, you make him a party to the daddy/oil conspiracy.

 

Are you sure this is the position you want to take?

 

There's a lot cheaper places for the US to get oil than Iraq. As a practical matter, most of Iraq's production is going to head to europe, central asia, africa.

470820[/snapback]

Of course it is. But of course Kerry was only following the rest of the Senate at that time. Go make a case about that.

Well, you know Kerry voted for the war for the same reasons we all believed at the beginning. So now don't come to give me crap about his voting record, because I don't get my information from commercials of the Bush campaign. Kerry has explained well in detail why he voted. He did not vote to go to war like Bush did. He voted to authorize the President to use force as LAST RESORT. He is pissed because Mr. Bush betrayed that trust and instead of waiting to see if the evidence panned out, he just went head on into Iraq, without a real coalition and in the way he brought down international condemnation onto us... I don't think any of the senators, including McCain imagined when they voted to authorize force that the President would be so stupid.

 

Now, Kerry voted to authorized your President, what excuse do you have for the stupidity that followed? NONE!