9/11 probe finds no Iraq ties

[Beast]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.

The statement appears in a report on al-Qaeda published before the final public session of the commission.

It contradicts remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein's "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda.

Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.

The 11 September attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network flew three hijacked planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with a fourth crashing in Pennsylvania.

The commission, drawn from both Republicans and Democrats, published two separate preliminary reports: an overview of al-Qaeda and an outline of the 11 September plot.

It concludes that senior al-Qaeda suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed initially proposed a hijacking attack involving 10 planes to hit an expanded list of targets that would include the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

The more ambitious plan was reportedly rejected by Bin Laden.

A final report on the commission's findings is due on 28 July.

But preliminary statements published by the commission on a range of issues are building up into a complex picture of missed opportunities and some of it does not make pleasant reading for the Bush administration, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Bin Laden spurned

The report on al-Qaeda, entitled Overview of the Enemy, describes the roots of the militant network and its activities.

It says Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

The report on al-Qaeda also finds:

Bin Laden did not fund al-Qaeda through a personal fortune - it relied on a fundraising network.

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks.

The 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania "were planned, directed, and executed by al-Qaeda, under the direct supervision of Bin Laden and his chief aides".

Al-Qaeda is "far more decentralised", now that Bin Laden has lost his Afghan base.

More attacks likely

The commission's second report, entitled Outline of the 9/11 Plot, paints a picture of al-Qaeda members integrating themselves into Western societies before coming together to strike at America, and shows Bin Laden dominating the organisation's decision-making.

The commission finds that al-Qaeda is still "extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks".

The point was reinforced by a CIA expert testifying on Wednesday.

"Al-Qaeda... has by no means been defeated and though weakened, it continues to patiently plan its next attacks," said the expert, identified as Dr K.

"They may strike next week, next month or next year but they will strike," he warned.

The expert is one of several law enforcement and intelligence experts on al-Qaeda testifying before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

On Thursday, top military and civilian aviation officials - including General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - will testify about their agencies' responses to the attacks.

[palm_w1]

to be honest i am still to see any credible evidence that Al Qaeda carried out the attack.

then again i am not privy to US intelligence, but I am pretty sure if they had any hard evidence they would produce it. seems that what was 'suspected' has become a reality.

iraq obviously had nothing to do with it, bush just needed to finish his dads work and needed an excuse, as people were still raw and emotional about 9/11 & al-qaeda(!) bush created the link to justify his war.

[Beast]

Have Al Qaeda never admitted to carrying out the 09/11 bombings? I think they admitted the American Embassy atrocities, but has Bin Ladin ever confessed to the World Trade Centre attacks?

[Jamuka]

As far as I remember Osama did finally agree that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. This was just prior to the war in Afghanistan. Anyway here is something on the WMD's in Iraq...http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

[palm_w1]

Ozzy B never admitted to the attacks, he just said he supported those who carried them out. Personally i think even that statement is pretty mashed BUT doesn't prove he did it.

Al Qaeda have always admitted to other attacks they carried out, like on the USS Cole and the bombings in africa on US embassies. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't admit to 9/11 if they had done it, not like they were trying to make friends in the US govt.

Regarding Iraq's WMD's, looks unlikely they have existed for a while, i think even the US administration have seen that now. How would Saddam get rid of them AFTER US occupation? The americans ran the country so they must have known about it, if as the article claims they were shipped out even after the war was over.

[Sherni-E-Punjab]

I don't mean to sound really stupid, but what the heck is - world tribune..A trusted name in news??

After all this is the world-wide-web, and I can type an article saying..9/11 never took place..LOL

Second of All,

Correct me if I am wrong- The US government (using various intelligences) accused Saddam Hussein of harboring the September 11 attacks, however he was never convicted and was initially as a whole bombarded because of his ownership of Weapons of Mass Destruction. [Whether that was true or not]

Also, President Bush on behalf of the American government, provided enough time for Saddam Hussein to "hand over" or "leave the country." Back then, he was being a mama's bad boy going "Who the hell are you to tell me to leave my country?" - But, then when he came face to face with the US - Maa Da Putt ..went and hid in lil bunkers underground -What the heck happened to the so called "Soorma" then...LOL!

[truth_seeker]

I dont see a connection between OBL/ qaeda and saddam, I mean OBL is radical salafi islam, while saddam was more or less secular.

[Beast]

^ I think that was apparent the moment the US/British Governments tried to establish a connection. In my opinion the respected leaders were trying to ride the wave of hate that the public had against any Islamic terrorists. It was the easiest oppurtunity for 'killing two birds with one stone".

[Jamuka]

It doesn't matter if Osama was involved in 9/11 or not. He is a terrorist who was guilty of killing many Americans. Mullah Omar was given more then enough time to hand over Osama but he refused. So Afghanistan was invaded and mind you with the help of the Northern Alliance. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the Afghanis who were against the Taliban managed to secure a sall portion of Afghanistan which was called the Northen Alliance.

[Beast]

I think its one of those things were only time will tell if the course of actions that were taken were the correct ones. I do agree with you on your points about the Taliban; although I'm still not sure of the opinion I have on whether the US should have invaded Afghanistan or not. One thing does seem certain though, the repressive Taliban government needed to be removed.

[palm_w1]

i think beast is right, if we had gone to war with iraq/afghanistan to free the people of oppressive rulers it would have been morally justified, however if u replace saddam's terror in iraq with bush's terror you haven't really helped the populous out.

another fear in the back of my mind is that both wars were conducted for $$$$$$$. Afghanistan is needed for an oil pipeline to the sea so the americans don't have to rely on the russians for pumping out oil from the ex-soviet sattelite countries. iraq obviously has its massive economic advantages to bush.

[Sherni-E-Punjab]

How more can you get it "morally justified" - What would you have done if you were in Bush's shoes?

LOL How's it Bush's terror - when on June 30th- Iraqis will be getting their own sovereignty

Afghanistan is needed for an oil pipeline to the sea so the americans don't have to rely on the russians for pumping out oil from the ex-soviet sattelite countries.

Don't be assuming things ...and if you are - please provide sufficient enough evidence.

iraq obviously has its massive economic advantages to bush.

LOL, so you are telling me Bush will be taking advantage of them massive pluses of Iraq while he is sittin and relaxin about at his Crawford Ranch?LOL- Bush don't need anything -that guy could live a easy life without ever moving his leg again..

[palm_w1]

try asking the residents of abu gharib whose terrorising them.

it would only be morally justified if bush went in to help the iraqis, but he didn't, he went in to help himself to the oil.

Also let me expand, when i say bush, i mean the bush regime, and he is doing it to consolidate americas grip on the world's oil supplies; not really for his personal profit.

as for assuming things then providing evidence on things i assume. that would be hard as assumptions tend not to be based on evidence, hence the term assumption (if u don't understand this don't worry)

And regarding the oil pipeline, i was wrong, it is actually gas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2541793.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm

[Sherni-E-Punjab]

LOL,

There is a difference between an assumption full of bullsh*t...and an assumption that is actually got valid argument, truth, evidence, data behind it. Which one is more solid - and true based on facts?

I got to go work now, will respond more later.

[palm_w1]

boombaklat

i knew u wud b 2 thick 2 understand, read between the lines. hence i put 'if u don't understand . . . . . . .'

neway boombaklat i don't know if u follwed the links (that was why i posted them). i didn't assume anything, u asked for evidence so i posted the links to a trustworthy news source showing a USer firms desire to build a gas pipeline to tap the massive hydrocarbon reserves in the ex-soviet satelites.

look forward to your responses (need something to laugh at during the day!)

[Beast]

palmeet dude, there's no need to be so offensive.

Debates carry more weight when carried out in a mature, orderly fashion. (Trust me, I know its hard. A good slanging match can be so enticing. I'm always editing my posts to remove the abuse that somehow creeps in!)

[Sherni-E-Punjab]

LOL,

First of All- In another thread, you posted the following:

yawnnnnnnnnnnn, u guys are well boring, such predictable responses. if there is anyone here who knows how to debate please step forward.

and then through threads out - you posted :

look forward to your responses (need something to laugh at during the day!)

i knew u wud b 2 thick 2 understand, read between the lines. hence i put 'if u don't understand

Could you please care to explain -when did personal level mockery become a part of "good" debating? (which-by the sounds of it- you know pretty well)

**

Second of all, I read all three of those articles - and in those three - let alone mentioning what you claimed - (Afghanistan is needed for an oil pipeline to the sea so the americans don't have to rely on the russians for pumping out oil from the ex-soviet sattelite countries.)- the word "US" - "Bush" "United States" "America" was not even correlated with anything in those articles..

Perhaps this is your own theory - and moreover - it would only benefit the economy of Afghanistan - and those teamed with the "pipeline". Infact, they don't corner it - they want the following to happen:

Afghanistan would profit by receiving millions of dollars in transit fees and construction of the pipeline would provide thousands of desperately needed jobs.

They want it to reach world markets - ", from where it could reach world markets."

Third of all, India is the largest potential buyer anyway!

[palm_w1]

who will be constructing that pipeline? which nation? who owns most of the extraction facilities in those ex-soviet sattelites? just food for thought.

and true i was a bit offensive (i wrote the post in the heat of the moment). apologies to anyone offended by my language but sometimes it is quite frustrating having to repeat the same things over and over again for someone to follow. I will try and refrain from personal comments in the future.

[palm_w1]

And regarding the pipeline, i just searched bbc because i was too lazy to surf the net. however i may as well defend myself a little better.

some of the following sites may or may not be the most trusted news sources on the net so i posted a few to get a spread of opinion. the general concensus is that although the afghan war was revenge for 9/11 a massive twin motive was to consolidate the USer regimes grip on the worlds hydrocarbon supplies. i know it is long and don't expect it all to be read by everyone but i did it for the sake of providing evidence to some of the more sceptic USers. enjoy reading:

interesting from bbc website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm: "Unocal invited Taliban representatives to their corporate headquarters in Sugarland, Tx. (11) to discuss the pipeline project. They were thereafter invited to Washington for meetings with Administration officials."

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm quotes many authentic news sources like BBC and CNN

http://www.payvand.com/news/02/jul/1040.html

The best way for transportation of the Caspian oil and gas out of the region is construction of pipelines to the open seas. In this sense, Iran is, of course, the best natural way, and at the same time, the most economical way. But the policy of the Western states, especially USA, in the last decade is based on denying Iran and the Russian Federation from getting the upper hand.

The effects of the trans-Afghan pipeline are undoubtedly very important. Some aspects of this issue are:

The diversification of resources for Western countries and their allies, and finding alternative sources that can be used in case of endangerment of Persian Gulf resources, because of relations with Arab countries and the ramifications of Arab-Israeli conflict and the American policy.

Control of the West over routes of oil and gas, especially towards the Eastern Asian countries, including Japan and China. The main market for the Caspian oil and gas is the Indian continent and also the far Eastern countries. America can have a great influence on all concerned countries by maintaining strong hand on their lifeline.

Control over gas resources in Afghanistan. Also, control over the new lifeline of Afghanistan as the transit country.

The current President of the USA is interested to follow the interests of oil and gas sector, like his father who had an eye to the same interests in the Persian Gulf War.

The Russian Federation is another big loser in case Trans- Afghan pipeline is constructed. "If this project is realized, Moscow experts say, the Russian economy will face two unpleasant consequences. Firstly, Russian energy sector will lose Turkmenistan gas that is now being delivered to Russia and, in the long run perspective, also Uzbek gas… Secondly, if central Asian gas exports are directed south, across Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean, Russia will lose transit revenue."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...,579174,00.html

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.

http://www.sentienttimes.com/02/feb_mar/oilT.html

http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm

http://www.geocities.com/goo798_eh2/Terrorism_War.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm

George W. Bush justifies his bombing of Afghanistan as a war against terror. A twin motive, however, is to make Afghanistan safe for United States oil interests.

http://www.kiddmillennium.com/Trans-Afghanpipeline.htm

ENERGY INTERESTS, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND THE POST-TALIBAN TRANS-AFGHAN PIPELINE

now i rest my tired fingers, until somebody else ignorant of current affairs requires some evidence.

[palm_w1]

boombaklat, i am still waiting for ur reply. u seem to have gone silent on this topic all of a sudden. maybe my 'assumptions' (as u label them) were based on too much reality to make comfortable reading.

[Jamuka]

Bush and 9/11 Report: Into the Frame

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

June 17, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00)

The US independent commission’s interim account of the September 11 terror attacks in the United States is full of holes and inconsistencies, according to American and Israeli intelligence experts close to the war against al Qaeda. One of its least plausible claims is that Osama bin Laden had pressed to launch the strikes in the summer of 2000, shortly after Israel’s soon-to-be prime minister Ariel Sharon made a highly controversial visit to a disputed holy site in Jerusalem. Later, he pressured the hijackers to strike in May 2001 and in June and July when Sharon would be visiting the White House. Each time, he was told the commandos were not ready, the report said.

A senior expert gave this comment to DEBKAfile: “We see here the outcome of a cynical attempt to link Sharon, Israel and the Jews to the September 11 atrocities. Sharon is suddenly being blamed not only for the Palestinian uprising - which was planned years before he visited Temple Mount - but is also being dragged into focus in relation to al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

This twisted leap is easily traced: the US commission based its findings on the testimony of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed now in US custody after being captured in Karachi.â€

Many senior counter-terror officials, some of whom have had access to Shaikh Mohammed and other top captured al Qaeda operatives, have long come to the conclusion that he and others let themselves be seized for the sake of advancing a wider al Qaeda disinformation plot. Their mission is to plant red herrings in the path of US intelligence and lead its investigators away from the organization’s real operations, especially during reorganizations of the group’s command structure and terror networks.

This is how it is managed. The designated sacrifice is discovered after tip-offs lead pursuers to his hideout. Under questioning, he spills the tales he has been briefed to reveal – usually about past operations - and withholds anything of real value about al Qaeda’s current activities. His interrogation is meant to divert US intelligence from noticing preparations for the terrorist organization’s next moves. Being thrown to the Americans for such missions is just as much an honor as dying in combat or a suicide terrorist attack.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should have been expected, say the experts, to throw sand in American eyes. Instead, he found a way to link Sharon to the 9/11 attacks and get the link accepted in an official report - just as his masters in their broadcast tapes matter-of-factly tie Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Spain into a single package. This tie-in fits the gospel drummed into every al Qaeda member, from the chiefs to the lowliest courier, that the two enemies of Islam are the Crusaders and the Jews.

By falling into the Sharon trap, the compilers of the report cast doubt on their other conclusions, although their final report due next week may make some necessary corrections.

The obvious point here is if the Israeli motivation was so important in the chain of events leading up to September 11, why did bin Laden decide to attack America and not Israel? Or why not both?

DEBKAfile’s experts on terrorism point to some more weak points and misses in the independent panel’s interim report.

1. It is claimed that the planning of the 9/11 attacks began in 1996. This is factually erroneous. The planning to destroy the World Trade Center began in 1991 or 1992 - at latest. Proof of this reposes in the archives of Manhattan federal court, which tried Ramzi Yousuf for carrying out the first attack in February 1993. He admitted that the bomb truck he had set up on Osama bin Laden’s instructions was meant to cause one tower to lean into the second, bringing both down. Yousuf told the court he was bitterly disappointed at having killed only six Americans when al Qaeda had counted on at least a quarter of a million dead. (Incidentally, Sharon held no official position in 1993, 1996 – or even in 2000)

Bin Laden and his senior lieutenant Ayman Zuwahiri have been in operation long enough for al Qaeda watchers to understand that they never give up on a target. If they fail once, they are sure to try again – whatever the cost in the lives of their own men. The organization is motivated by religious and operational fanaticism alike. Using this dictum as a working hypothesis, the heads of the US campaign against the fundamentalist terrorists are sure they have not seen the end of al Qaeda’s attacks in America.

2. Another instance of Shaikh Mohammed’s wiles is his claim that he had initially envisioned hijacking 10 planes to target CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear stations, the World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, as well as blowing up several aircraft over the Pacific. He said bin Laden had scaled the plan down. The commission fell for this too. In actual fact, there was a much older plot that never came off to hijack 10 airliners bound for New York from the Philippines and crash them over key targets in the United States. This plot originated in 1994 – not 2001. Ramzi Yousuf was to have orchestrated the 10-plane assault from Manila after he failed to bring down the Twin Towers. Shaikh Mohammed recycled this plot and mixed it up with subsequent plans in order to muddy the trail of al Qaeda agents into America and, still more importantly, to cover up a mystery that has never been solved and which the report fails to address: How did US air control authorities and its air defenses come to be blinded to the hijackings after they were already in progress?

One answer which has not been considered seriously enough is that the terrorists or their ground support commanded the electronic capabilities for jamming US tracking devices that ought to have picked up – but didn’t - the captured airliners as they cut through American air space from airport to target.

The videotape the Americans found in 2001 in Afghanistan, showing bin Laden and Zuwahiri discussing their 9/11 success and how it was prepared, contradicts the Shaikh Mohammed account. They made no reference to a big plan or a small plan. Bin Laden is seen expressing surprise at how well his plan worked. He bends his hands together to demonstrate how the towers tipped towards each other - exactly as he had planned in the early 1990s.

3. The most implausible conclusion that suggests the 9/11 panel is influenced by a political agenda is its failure to find credible evidence of links between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is on record that Musab Zarqawi, who is at present running al Qaeda’s terror campaign in Iraq, was seen in that country in 1996 or 1997. From 1998 to 2000, he set up a training base in the northern Kurdistan town of Biyara near the Iranian border, then under the control of Iraqi military intelligence and the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Iraqi intelligence officers and instructors helped Zarqawi set up laboratories in Biyara for testing chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

DEBKAfile’s report appeared in September 2000, before the 9/11 attacks and well ahead of any US plan to invade Iraq. Indeed the sequence of events that blew up in the Bush term of office was busy ticking away when Bill Clinton was still president.

Most authorities ignored the deadly Saddam-al Qaeda association for developing WMD capabilities then. Now too, the independent inquiry in Washington neglects to address crucial developments from the time they began evolving in the early 1990s until 2000. These happenings were pivotal to subsequent actions and to al Qaeda’s spreading menace.

4. Neither has the panel found evidence that the Saudi government “as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government†helped finance al Qaeda before September 11. This conclusion makes a careful point of referring to al Qaeda – not Osama bin Laden, whom Saudi intelligence most certainly did supply with funds. The Saudi ambassador to London, Prince Turki bin Faisal and brother of Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, was until August 9, 2001 the omnipotent chief of Saudi intelligence and maintained close ties with the CIA. It is common knowledge in Saudi Arabia and among Middle East intelligence and political circles that Prince Turki lost his job because of his close relations with the bin Laden clan. Through them, he stayed in touch with Osama and use roundabout channels to send him money.

The interim conclusions reached by the 9/11 commission make sense only if it is presumed that the panel was set up to whitewash certain American and Saudi political and intelligence bodies and pin the entire blame for al Qaeda’s attacks in America on the Bush administration – incidentally dragging in the US president’s ally, the Israeli prime minister. However, as a state commission charged with an independent inquiry into the causes that led up to this cataclysmic disaster, the panel is far from fulfilling its mandate. Indeed, its findings are just as misleading as Shaikh Mohammed must have intended. The captured terrorist has accomplished his mission admirably.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=865

[palm_w1]

this guy is a conspriacy nut. again a right wing jewish propoganda site.

[Beast]

lol, you always manage to bring Israel into the fold somehow!

We're not talking about Israel, we're talking about Iraq. Yes, I can see how it can be easy for you to confuse the two. After all, they both begin with 'I'.

[palm_w1]

Iraqi Democracy, US style

The USers have outdone themselves this time. As they 'civilize' the 'savages' in Iraq and bring them democracy and freedom they have actualled perverted democracy by banning certain people from standing in the elections. Could this be the slippery slope to the USers only allowing candidates who are pro US to stand in the elections?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0608-05.htm

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/...1233652,00.html

[palm_w1]

Whos really in charge of Iraq

The USers have alledgedly given control of Iraq back to the Iraqis but last night on the news it was blatant who was in charge. The old republican palace, which houses the Iraqi equivalent of the white house is a US base.

The new Govt asked for it to be returned to the Iraqis so it could be used as the seat of authority but the USers stuck two fingers up at the Govt they just created and informed them that they would be using the Palace and acres of land surrounding it as their new embassy. So much for the end of occupation.

An article showing the significance of the republican palace:

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5462