Breaking news so still debatable. http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4190057 22 Jan 2004 21:45 Ex-spy links Iran to al Qaeda pre 9/11, court told By Jan Schwartz HAMBURG, Germany (Reuters) - Iran's secret service had contacts with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ahead of the September 11 attacks on the United States, a German court heard on Thursday. Two members of Germany's Federal Criminal Police told a court in Hamburg a former Iranian spy had informed them of the contacts and had also said he tried to warn Washington about the attacks in mid-2001, but that the CIA had not believed him. The police officers were speaking at the trial of a Moroccan accused of aiding the September 11 attacks. The Iranian, identified only by his cover name Hamid Reza Zakeri emerged as a surprise witness, postponing the verdict which had been expected to clear the defendant. His credibility is under scrutiny by the presiding judges. . . . The police officers told the court the witness had implicated Mzoudi and had said the Iranian secret service had worked with al Qaeda in 1996 in an attack in Saudi Arabia that killed several U.S. citizens. He had also said it was an Iranian, Saif al Adel, the military head of al Qaeda, who planned the September 11 attacks. . . .
Although we shouldn't discount sources (i.e. we should actually investigate this) I am suspicious of these leaks. Slowly build up ammo against Iran, true or not, then go after them if GWB gets a second term. The next step for the Project for the New American Century.
A) To be fair, nowhere in this report is there anything which would support precluding Iraq. B) Also to be fair, there is a difference between having had contact between Al Qaeda and Iranian intel officials and Iran being 'behind' 9-11. Al Qaeda is a huge organization in the area, and there is bound to be some interaction, as there has between the CIA and the mob for a long time. Not saying that Iran necessarily wasn't part of 9-11, just that having had contact itself isn't the same thing as being involved in 9-11. C) Furthermore, beyond the country of origin of the military head of Al aeda, there appears to be nothing to substantiate any official connection. In fact, according to the report, the officials tried to warn the CIA, but were ignored. D) While this is pretty thin, it's interesting to note yet another country with more potentially arguable connections to 9-11 than anything we have seen regarding Iraq.
The background of this is that a terror suspect has been in jail in Germany for a while and they would have had to let him walk for lack of evidence. Today, this is the new evidence that came up. It is not clear whether it is a desperate attempt by the prosecution to bring up something so that the guy will not walk or whether there is something to it. I would not be the least bit surprised if the mullahs in Iran were involved in 9/11, though. There is no atrocity I would not think they are capable of.
so why wouldn't the same apply to Iraq? you seem more ready to believe the possibility of an Iran/al queda ling than one between al Queda and Iraq. why, because Iraq was "secular?"
I don't get the basis for your question at all. While Iraq's position re: radical Islam would make it seem less likely for Saddam to have supported AL Qaeda, I don't see where or how that comes into any interpretation of what I said. Why wouldn't what apply to Iraq? Where do you get that I'm expressing a greater willingness to believe Iran over Iraq based on what you quoted? very confused.
Expect them to announce soon that Iran is carrying weapons of mass destruction, followed by an attack of the way the country is being led. Then they will "ask" the public what they want, and will declare war because Iranians aren't getting what they want. Repeat for N. Korea.
That's the great part about this preemption strategy -- as dozens of observers from before and after the war pointed out, from Bill Clinton to the Army War College -- you couldn't do that if you wanted to; we don't have the money or men to occupy/rebuild more than one country at a time....we blew our wad in Iraq, I hope it was worth it.
Wow! Deja vue. Shortly after 9-11, I suggested in here that the anger and fear might me used to push through an invasion of Iraq. Saw a lot of s...
This may be true, or it may not. We'll have to wait and see. But the story did get me thinking (again) about how often agencies use the word "contact" to "link" organizations together. Having "contact" doesn't necessarily mean they're allies in some giant war to take down Western Civilization. Hell, I have "contact" with conservatives here, but that doesn't mean I'm voting for Bush this November.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Do a search for Syria, Iran, or North Korea. Then see if you have another roll-eyes in you.
