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

By ADAM ZAGORIN AND JOE KLEIN




Friday, Jul. 16, 2004
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."

These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which
suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian
sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military
barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to
Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in
1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged
alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived
common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the
Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the
Khobar disaster.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran-and through
intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia-concerning
the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country,
including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S.
official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the
Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is
widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as
well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

--------------------------------------------------------
So al-Qaeda approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...but Iran
approached al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their
supporters in Saudi Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago...
Iraq is first on our list because it provides a geographically strategic
location to next invade Iran and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq, Iran is surrounded. That's why Iran has been stirring up so much
trouble in Iraq. A US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station
troops there is bad news for the mullahs.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?


Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.

Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda
approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them...

It was sarcasm. Despite all of the evidence showing al-Qaeda working in
cooperation with several Middle Eastern countries, the 9/11 Commission still
goes out of its way to make up stories that discredit the notion that 9/11
was state sponsored.



What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al
Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad
man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion.

but Iran approached al-Qaeda
and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi
Arabia?!?!?

Precisely! The dichotomy makes no sense. If al-Qaeda was willing to
approach Saddam with disregard to how their supporters in Saudi Arabia would
feel, then why would they rebuff Iran?





Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because
it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran
and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded.
That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A
US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is
bad news for the mullahs.



Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed
that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting.
I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us
than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just
might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the
Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard
sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a
500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case
you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you
were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization.

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist
insurgents
sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost
instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing.

Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country
had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against
that
country?


With your military pulling equipment and soldiers out of Korea, due to
shortages in Iraq, are you in any position to invade Iran, Syria etc.


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.

NOYB wrote:


Our military is comprised of 1.4 million active duty personnel...and 1.2
million reservists and National Guard members. We crushed Iraq in less than
2 months using approximately 10% of our military. We currently have less
than 150,000 reservists, and National Guard ) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, we are capable of successfully beating Iran in a conflict.



Sorry, Bub, but no one is going to allow the lying, thieving thug Bush
start another war.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:08:38 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific
country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack
against that country?

No, not with this Bozo in charge. I fully supported the invasion of
Afghanistan and the use of all resources, short of nukes, to bring bin
Laden and those responsible to justice. After the Iraq fiasco, that goal
has mutated. I have no trust in this administration. This January,
when a new administration takes over and bin Laden is once again our top
priority, I'll reconsider.

I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was state-sponsored,
then attacking that country is our right and our responsibility.

It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:08:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I don't care who is in charge come January. If 9/11 was
state-sponsored, then attacking that country is our right and our
responsibility.

"Our right and our responsibility?" Interesting words to describe going
to war. It is our responsibility to bring those that attacked us to
justice, if that means attacking a country so be it, but I wouldn't call
it "our right."


It's sad that you let partisan politics stand in the way of that fact.

It is not partisan. It is trust. This administration led us to war for
false or faulty reasons. Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes. Yes, I want bin
Laden's head. I also want a President who wants it, not one who said, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

*PLONK* *mumbles* troll




"NOYB" wrote in message
...
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

By ADAM ZAGORIN AND JOE KLEIN