Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Batz on December 15, 2003, 03:56:36 AM
-
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F14%2Fwterr14.xml
-
Bush fooled the American public.
There is no Al Queda in Iraq.
Bush lied.
DEATH TO AMEREEKA!
SCREW U INIDELS!
-
Originally posted by Batz
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Wasn't this already reported and proved to be B/S? Didn't Bush get alot of flak for reporting it and then blamed the CIA for bad information?
If so, what is it doing amongst this factual link about an AL Quieda connection?
-
Patience guys, Times they are a changing.
I predict in the next 6 months, crow will be served.
Not to the extent some imagined but greater then many thought, the truth will be revealed.
I would hold off going on any record for a bit, as I don't know how crow is served in Iraq.
-
oooh, Lance is NOT going to like this at all!
-
Telegraph = National Equirer = Globe....
Very reliable source of information.
The CIA has debunked the Niger info.
The White House, NSA, CIA and GCHQ - have ALL debunked the Iraqi-Al Qaeda link.
I hope Bush likes his Crow served in STOCK PILES!
-
I'd say the Telegraph is a lot more reliable than the National Enquirer. Still has a strong Tory bias though.
The uranium theory was thrown out as a forgery.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'd say the Telegraph is a lot more reliable than the National Enquirer. Still has a strong Tory bias though.
The uranium theory was thrown out as a forgery.
I'm not saying the uranium report was true but there is a possibility that it was true but for lack of evidence documentation was fabricated.
-
No it wasnt proven false, however it wasnt proven true either. There wasnt enough evidence to make a conclusion 1 way or the other.
I dont have time to do a search but i am sdure you can find the facts.
-
One memo that places the 9/11 terrorrists in Iraq and validates the nigerian WMD ploy.
Does it say anything about the grassy knoll?
Does it say who Deep throat is?
Grow up guys..jeez.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
One memo that places the 9/11 terrorrists in Iraq and validates the nigerian WMD ploy.
Does it say anything about the grassy knoll?
Does it say who Deep throat is?
Grow up guys..jeez.
The repeated terrorist attacks against the US over a decade resulting in thousands dead is no conspiracy theory.
-
Stick a fork in them. I think the 9 dwarfs running for Dem. primeries are done.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The repeated terrorist attacks against the US over a decade resulting in thousands dead is no conspiracy theory.
...and has nothing to do with the validity of this article.
"The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph,"
A copy of a handwritten memo...ooohhh. Please, I could just as easily write one.
"Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine."
Cripes, well if Dr. Allawi gives says it genuine. :rolleyes:
Damn but this is pretty desparate.
-
:::chuckles::: Why would you think I don't like this, Rip? If/when this memo is verified by multiple sources and endorsed by the U.S. and British government/intelligence services, then I'll give it some serious consideration. Until then, it reeks of being just another example of a right-leaning "media outlet" jumping on a propaganda piece. You know, like all that evidence of WMD (mobile WMD labs, chemical warhead artillery shells, etc...) that was reported as found by similar news purveyors -- all of which turned out to be BS.
-
Just a while ago it was said that Atta wasn't the mastermind of 9/11.
-
I'm not saying the uranium report was true but there is a possibility that it was true but for lack of evidence documentation was fabricated.
I'm sorry, but do you even read what you write? Basically you're saying that someone wanted something to be true so much that they fabricated evidence to 'prove' it; they lied.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
...and has nothing to do with the validity of this article.
"The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph,"
A copy of a handwritten memo...ooohhh. Please, I could just as easily write one.
"Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine."
Cripes, well if Dr. Allawi gives says it genuine. :rolleyes:
Damn but this is pretty desparate.
I saw an interview of Con Coughlin by Brokaw on NBC where he said that the Telegraph had other samples of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti (the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service) handwriting that was obtained from an independent source. The "hand written note" and these "known hand writing samples” were sent to experts and they concluded they were a match. This is supported by the same type of hand writing analyses that Dr Ayad Allawi and Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee had done, which also confirmed the note as genuine.
While there may be plenty of reason to view this "note" with suspicion you certainly don't have any evidence that proves it false.
Face it, if WMD were found in a hole in Iraq tomorrow you and your liberal brethren would claim they were "planted".
-
Seems too good to be true.. But if they can prove its authenticity then it's very interesting data.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'm sorry, but do you even read what you write? Basically you're saying that someone wanted something to be true so much that they fabricated evidence to 'prove' it; they lied.
lol was thinking the same thing...
-
Seems too good to be true.. But if they can prove its authenticity then it's very interesting data
I agree but there is more "evidence" to support this then the leftist claim that "Bush is Hitler" and the “War for Oil” garbage espoused by the left.
At least there is some “evidence”. I am still waiting for some leftwing group to produce DNA samples confirming Bush is Hitler…
-
Originally posted by mora
Just a while ago it was said that Atta wasn't the mastermind of 9/11.
pssst is doesnt fit ... he was in iraq, so he was :)
-
BBS Political Discussion - A one Act Play
Lib - "This might not be true you know"
Con - "So you're a terrorist lover?"
Lib - "No, I'm just saying..."
Con - "And a communist too huh?"
Lib - "But if you use some logic...."
Con - "Then you conclude that Bush is Hitler!"
Lib - " I never.."
Con - "Why don't you move to the Middle East you commie Bush hater!"
The End
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
BBS Political Discussion - A one Act Play
Lib - "This might not be true you know"
Con - "So you're a terrorist lover?"
Lib - "No, I'm just saying..."
Con - "And a communist too huh?"
Lib - "But if you use some logic...."
Con - "Then you conclude that Bush is Hitler!"
Lib - " I never.."
Con - "Why don't you move to the Middle East you commie Bush hater!"
The End
Damned hollywood commies.... ;)
-
lol
nice one midnight :rofl
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lib - "But if you use some logic...."
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Lib- If you USE SOME LOGIC????
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
Come on, Midnight. Be intellectually honest, will ya.
Watch, it's not hard.
See, I'm conservative. And while I'd love for this note to be true, it's too damn flimsy to even consider. Some one else said it best...
What does the note say about the grassy knoll?
Libs and Logic!!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Batz
I saw an interview of Con Coughlin by Brokaw on NBC where he said that the Telegraph had other samples of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti (the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service) handwriting that was obtained from an independent source. The "hand written note" and these "known hand writing samples” were sent to experts and they concluded they were a match. This is supported by the same type of hand writing analyses that Dr Ayad Allawi and Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee had done, which also confirmed the note as genuine.
Thanks for the info Batz.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'm sorry, but do you even read what you write? Basically you're saying that someone wanted something to be true so much that they fabricated evidence to 'prove' it; they lied.
I said the report may have been based on a fabricated document but that doesn't automatically make the events reported false. Can you still not understand this concept?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
...and has nothing to do with the validity of this article.
My post was in response to Pongo's ridicule of conspiracy theories. I didn't realize every post had to answer the original post. Come to think of it, who elected you topic sheriff?
-
I can see I need to explain what I mean a little better for some. Here's an example: There is an armed robbery. The cops arrive just time to see a car drive off and an attendant runs out pointing at the car yelling they robbed him and have a gun. The cops give chase and drive over a bridge where they see the driver toss out his gun. They catch him and plant a gun.
See, they lied and were wrong but the bad guy did have a gun. Get my drift?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, the "guilty until proven innocent" ploy, or rather the "true until proven false" ploy US right-wingers are so fond of these days.
If you commit a wrong you are guilty as soon as you do it, not as soon as a judge says you did it. Innocent until proven guilty is a legality.
Interesting that you basically said righties are fond of true (innocent) until proven false (guilty). Which is it?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Come to think of it, who elected you topic sheriff?
Crap, don't tell me you didn't get the memo. :(
;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you saying that anything is true until proven false? Your logic is flawed in the extreme, you cannot prove a negative. True is not synonymous with innocent, neither is false synonymous with guilty, learn your own whoopee language.
Nowhere did I say or allude to anything being true until proven false. Are you intentionally putting words in my mouth or do you really have that much of a problem understanding my simple point? You are the one that tied innocent until proven guilty to true until proven false. It seemed to me you were making a comparison. If not I stand corrected, if you were then you are being deceitful and small.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I tied "guilty until proven innocent" to "true until proven false", can't you for once get things in the right order?
So I typed to fast, sue me. I got it right the first time.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
NO YOU DIDN'T! Look again.
You're not getting it. Maybe I shouldn't attempt subtlty.
You said the right believed:
"Guilty until proven innocent"
and
"True until proven false"
I thought I already admitted to equating true/innocent and false/gulty. My post was an attempt to show you your error.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure you did ... liar.
Sure I did what? Sack of ****.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You must be drunk.
I respond negatively to name calling, drunk or sober.
-
Pointless to continue this conversation, have it your way.
-
Its kinda hard to have discussions about Iraq-Al Queida connections, when all the anti-war types react with "that is just a fabrication" to whatever source one presents.
Heck, even if old Saddy himself would hold a press conference tomorrow detailing the cooperation, some guys would still go "that is just a lie, he is lying because of [insert whatever looney reason here, preferably one involving Oil, Haliburton, the Florida recounts, US mid-east policy in 1980 or even better, all four]".
We could have video images of Atta handing out t-shirts to his fellow hijackers on 9-10 with the text "Our terrorist leader went to Iraq and got to stay in Saddams palace, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt" and it wouldnt matter to some of you.
The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".
The WMD's are in Syria btw. And when they show up, you guys will be going with either option a) The US planted them there, or b) those are not the WMD's from Iraq, those are Syrian WMD's.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".
The WMD's are in Syria btw.
Wow, you must be party to some pretty hot intelligence. Or are you making a guess and presenting it as a fact. That's also know as lying.
You're wrong btw. An arguement becomes pointless when you post nothing more than illogical assumptions and insults.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, you must be party to some pretty hot intelligence. Or are you making a guess and presenting it as a fact. That's also know as lying.
Nice strawman. So tell me, do you want me to take part in the discussion at all, or would you prefer to sit alone and first make stuff up and then critizising it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
BBS Political Discussion - A one Act Play
Lib - "This might not be true you know"
Con - "So you're a terrorist lover?"
Lib - "No, I'm just saying..."
Con - "And a communist too huh?"
Lib - "But if you use some logic...."
Con - "Then you conclude that Bush is Hitler!"
Lib - " I never.."
Con - "Why don't you move to the Middle East you commie Bush hater!"
The End
Roll credits......
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Nice strawman.
That's not a strawman arguement. There's nothing to argue regarding your "fact". It was completely unsupported.
So tell me, do you want me to take part in the discussion at all, or would you prefer to sit alone and first make stuff up and then critizising it?
Heads you win, tails I lose? I don't think I'll play. I would prefer if you presented reasonable logical arguements that are backed up with data when necessary. If that vast bulk of your posts are going to be hate towards the other people discussing with you, rhetoric and poor reason then you don't need to stop posting, I can exercise my free choice to ignore it. Your signal to noise ratio has gotten pretty bad Hortlund, at least in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's not a strawman arguement. There's nothing to argue regarding your "fact". It was completely unsupported.
[/b]
Since there are other alternatives than the two you offered, then you are indeed making a strawman argument. "Either you are stupid, or you are making stuff up" is a type of strawman...just like "Either you are a party to some very hot (?) intelligence. Or you are making a guess and presenting it as a fact."
Either way, you have contributed precious little to this argument yourself. Pot kettle black...and all that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Its kinda hard to have discussions about Iraq-Al Queida connections, when all the anti-war types react with "that is just a fabrication" to whatever source one presents.
Heck, even if old Saddy himself would hold a press conference tomorrow detailing the cooperation, some guys would still go "that is just a lie, he is lying because of [insert whatever looney reason here, preferably one involving Oil, Haliburton, the Florida recounts, US mid-east policy in 1980 or even better, all four]".
We could have video images of Atta handing out t-shirts to his fellow hijackers on 9-10 with the text "Our terrorist leader went to Iraq and got to stay in Saddams palace, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt" and it wouldnt matter to some of you.
The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".
The WMD's are in Syria btw. And when they show up, you guys will be going with either option a) The US planted them there, or b) those are not the WMD's from Iraq, those are Syrian WMD's.
Look up "Straw Man" in the dictionary and this post should be there.
"Straw Man Argument - "Straw Man Argument" is a misrepresentation of the opposing view, set up in such a way that it is easy to demolish. This "set-up" is meant to bring the opponent's position into disrepute, in the hope of avoiding having to address the real arguments. "
-
The WMD is in Syria. Hortlund read it on some website.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The WMD is in Syria. Hortlund read it on some website.
If they aren't hidden, and they aren't in Syria, then where are they?
Everyone knows they had them. Where did they go? Were they destroyed? Where are the records of their destruction? Were they all used? Then where were they used?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
...and has nothing to do with the validity of this article.
"The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph,"
A copy of a handwritten memo...ooohhh. Please, I could just as easily write one.
Hehe, yep...laughable.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
from the article...
A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.
So, it seems that some hacks story has more weight in this UBB than our own intel to some here....the grasping at straws is fun too watch though.
-
I did a quick search for that interview I saw of Coughlin by Brokaw but didnt find a complete text. On Dec 17 (the day the article ran) on a Special edition of Meet the Press with Tim Russert:
The Capture of Saddam Hussein.
A breif interview between Brokaw and Coughlin took place
Brokaw: And tell us about the article that you have today in the Sunday Telegraph about Mohamed Atta and any connections that he may have had to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
Coughlin: Well, this is an intriguing story, Tom. I mean, basically, when I was in Baghdad, I picked up a document that was given to me by a senior member of the Iraqi interim government. It's an intelligence document written by the then-head of Iraqi intelligence, Habush to Saddam. It's dated the 1st of July, 2001, and it's basically a memo saying that Mohamed Atta has successfully completed a training course at the house of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, who, of course, was killed by Saddam a couple of months later. Now, this is the first really concrete proof that al-Qaeda was working with Saddam. I saw your interview with James Woolsey earlier and he was talking about the article in The Weekly Standard. And there is a lot of detail there. But this is a document, and I've had it authenticated. This is the handwriting of the head of Iraqi intelligence, Habush, is one of the few people still at large who is in the pack of cards. And it basically says that Atta was in Baghdad being trained under Saddam's guidance prior to the 9/11 attack. It's a very explosive development, Tom.
So if he then says
Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior" member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.
Then clearly at some point he is a liar.