Saddam / Osama September 11th link

[MASTER G]

Hi everyone, I'm a newbie to this site so I just wanted to investigate a querie because this interests me. I live in England and over here the government has never mentioned a link between Saddam and Osama and 9/11. It seems to me like a lot of people in America believe that the events of 9/11 are a strong argument for going to war with Iraq and that they believe Saddam and Osama were linked. I would just like to hear people's opinions on this and for them to argue their point.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

no one has mention saddam was involed with 9-11 but saddam is linked to obl as well as many other terrorist groups that have targeted the US. links to Abu Nidal and 93 bombing suspects Abdul Rahman Yasin amoung many many others.

 

[Psychoblues]

Very little has been said concerning the Saddam/bin Laden connection. But one thing is certailnly clear. Even not saying much, this administration certainly implies that the connection is/was there. A recent Zogby poll suggests that about 65% of Americans believe there to be a connection. I think my number is correct but it is only from memory and at my age my memory fails me sometimes.

I don't believe there was any connection. In fact, I believe that Saddam and bin Laden each considered the other a heretic. It has been shown, however, that there were sites in Irag where al queda trained and that al queda members have been reported to have visited Irag on multiple occasions. Of course it is now known that al queda regularly visited flight schools in Arizona, Florida, Montana and a few more. They also visited most major cities in this country and a bunch of them are still here in my honest opinion. But that doesn't make us complicit in the evil doings of the al queda, does it?

 

[MASTER G]

Could you please provide a little more evidence of Saddam's links with terrorists, I would like to hear any theories please. Personally, I don't believe Saddam and Osama were linked fundamentally because of their differences of religion, and we all know how extreme OBL is about religion. I was reading up on this and I now believe that Osama had in fact wanted to kill Saddam when Saddam was a large benefactor to the U.S. for arms dealings, and the government at that time wouldn't allow this to happen and this is one of the reasons Osama turned against the west. I agree George & Co. have never said out loud that they were linked and he was linked with 9/11, but they certainly do imply it. Why else would George endlessly mention 9/11 in his speeches on the war in Iraq. I've just had a week of listening to him telling me about freedom ect, and it sounds to me like he used 9/11 as a scapegoat to persuade the people of America to support a war against Iraq. I have seen endless news reports with interviews with americans and a sizable majority of them mention 9/11 when asked about the war. That is what gave me the impression that many people in america believe in this link with no proof actually being given.

 

[Psychoblues]

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. Classified don't you know? Just kidding you Master G. Really, there has been no evidence whatsoever that I've ever seen or even heard strong rumors about concerning the Saddam/bin Laden/911 connection. Just a lot of implications from this administration. Like you, I think that Saddam and bin Laden are so fundamentally different on their world, political and religious views that there would never be any kind of mutual collaboration on the 911 thing or about anything else.

By the way, WELCOME to this board!!!!!!!!! I hope you enjoy your time here. I'm a newbie as well, just joined last evening. I really think this board will take off given some exposure.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Eh.. I'm not really sure where I stand in comparison with you two. Do I think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? No. BUT I do believe there is an Al-Queda / Iraq link. Where the two religions share hatred for each other, the two leaders also share hatred for the West. I believe their hatred for the West would overcome religious affiliation.

Why else would George endlessly mention 9/11 in his speeches on the war in Iraq

On this.... I see this in a completely different light. George Bush's reference to 9/11 in his Iraq speeches more leans toward terrorism in general than trying to tie the two together. I see it as a "look what happened on 9/11 when we ignored terrorism. Look what could happen again if we ignore terrorism in ANY nation, including Iraq".

But again, thats just how I look at it. I'm sure many people with disagree, but I just thought I'd toss my two cents in the pile.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Abu Nidal
Abdul Rahman Yasin
Iraqi Intelligence THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters
JUDGE FINDS OSAMA-SADDAM LINK
The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back'
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers

just a few. you can do a search on abdul rahman yasin on cbs site and watch video of him being interveiwed on 60 min 2 in baghdad.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Thanks for the links Lefty. I just clicked on a few and browsed real quick.. something ill dive into later when I get home from work and have more time.

I'm thinking the links were put there mainly in response to MasterG's question, however, i wanted to clarify something on my behalf that didnt seem to come out clearly:

Do I think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? No. BUT I do believe there is an Al-Queda / Iraq link

I do not believe Saddam helped in the planning and with the finer details of September 11th. I believe that was OBL. However, I think he's linked in all other ways, from helping train terrorists to [probably] supplying weapons to Al-Queda, possibly even knowing there was a plan, even if he didnt know what that plan was. So... do I think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? No as far as planning the finer details, but yes in most other aspects.

These are stricly opinion with no links to back it up, just different pieces of information I've picked up here and there. (and admittedly I've read little on the direct link between Iraq/OBL... this is something that, with much more research, my opinion could sway one way or the other)

Regardless, I just wanted to clear up my first post, it didnt seem as clear as I wanted it to. thanks again for the links.. it will make for some interesting reading later.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

iraq was a one stop shop for terrorist. saddam might not have known about/involved with 9-11 but there is more then enough evidence to show he made contacts with obl. the czechs still stand behind their iraqi intel officer-atta meeting in prague. we've got the officer in question in custody and he's talking quite nicely.

as far as obl and saddam hating each other you know what they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. the best link i posted is the 93 bombing one. it talks about iraqi involvement in it. the article is from 95/96. remember when you reading it that ramzi yousef's uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed mastermind of 9-11 and the camp where the plan was hatched and the first little bits of planing were done was one of the camps bombed by clinton in 98.

 

[5stringJeff]

I read a book about a year ago called "A Study of Revenge." it was about Saddam Hussein/Iraq's support for the 1993 WTC bombing, through money, hiding terrorists, etc. I can't remember the author (sorry) but the book came out in 2001, right around 9/11. A very interesting book, and one that lays out Saddam's ties with terrorism, if not al-Qaeda in specific. After reading the book, I am convinced that Saddam's support of terrorism made him a legitimate target in the War on Terrorism.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

when we caught ramzi yousef in pakistan he said he was on his way back to iraq. he original came to the us on an iraqi passport. one of his other partners in the 93 bombing Abdul Rahman Yasin was and still is free in iraq as we speak. the artilce about the 93 bombing talks about saddam and the bombing and it's from 95/96 so no one can say its all new stuff linking saddam to it to justify the attack.

 

[5stringJeff]

Here's an Amazon.com link to that book I was talking about:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1070314059/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0576595-2321461?v=glance&s=books[/ame]

BTW - my post above was #13,000, if I'm not mistaken. I think I joined around post #3,000!

 

[Sevendogs]

Link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam did not exist. There are no evidences for this.

 

[dijetlo]

The problem I've always had with that argument, lefty and Jeff, is we started this war to get OBL in Afghanistan. At that point we were looking for OBL and Al-Qaeda.
Somewhere along the way, the target morphed from the people who were attacking us to people our leaders would like to attack. Hussein has a connection with Al-Qaeda? Not demonstrably, (barring a revelation from leftys incarcerated Iraqi Intelligence Officer) the administration has been trying for two years to put one together that will survive scrutiny but they have been unable too. That's why they say thier are "indications", or they "could make the case" but have never actually make the case. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible Bush is funding Bin Laden (Bushs' family has had more contacts with Bin Ladens family the Saddam had, he's also been involved with them in financial dealings). I tend to scoff at people who post "Bush masterminded 9/11" rants, though they are using the same logic the authors of leftys articles use in their assesment of Husseins connection to Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers prepared for their attacks in a state controlled by Jeb Bush, for example. GWB got all the Bin Ladens out of the country just after 9/11. Attach as much significants as you like to that, I doubt Jeb knew what was going on and I doubt GWB was motivated by anything other than a desire to protect the Bin-Ladens from mob violence in the wake of 9/11. Do you guys see my point or am I being a little too obtuse on this one? We need to be careful about constructing conspiracy theories in a vacuum or investing too heavily in the veracity of articles and essays that purport to link the two without some sort of verifyable evidence. GWB and OBL can be casualy linked in the same manner.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The problem I've always had with that argument, lefty and Jeff, is we started this war to get OBL in Afghanistan. At that point we were looking for OBL and Al-Qaeda.

that was just a start in afghanistan. we're in a globel war on terror.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Somewhere along the way, the target morphed from the people who were attacking us to people our leaders would like to attack. Hussein has a connection with Al-Qaeda? Not demonstrably, (barring a revelation from leftys incarcerated Iraqi Intelligence Officer) the administration has been trying for two years to put one together that will survive scrutiny but they have been unable too.

tons of ducuments have been found linking the two in iraq. just click on the "we'll pay link for more info".

Originally posted by dijetlo
That's why they say thier are "indications", or they "could make the case" but have never actually make the case. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible Bush is funding Bin Laden (Bushs' family has had more contacts with Bin Ladens family the Saddam had, he's also been involved with them in financial dealings).

there's a problem with that arguement and it's a huge one. for starters there are at least at least 55 bros and sis of obls that come from at least 11 known wives of his dad. here's a pic to demonstrate it.

theres at least 30 more brothers and sisters not pictured

Originally posted by dijetlo
I tend to scoff at people who post "Bush masterminded 9/11" rants, though they are using the same logic the authors of leftys articles use in their assesment of Husseins connection to Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers prepared for their attacks in a state controlled by Jeb Bush, for example.

nope. wrong. a number of the highjackers lived in san diego amoung other places. there's also a problem with that arguement about where they were. cali and fla are right up at the top of the list as far as immigrants entering the country. so naturally they would wind up there.

Originally posted by dijetlo
GWB got all the Bin Ladens out of the country just after 9/11. Attach as much significants as you like to that, I doubt Jeb knew what was going on and I doubt GWB was motivated by anything other than a desire to protect the Bin-Ladens from mob violence in the wake of 9/11.

thats right. because you know if anyone found about a bin laden was around they would be dead.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Do you guys see my point or am I being a little too obtuse on this one? We need to be careful about constructing conspiracy theories in a vacuum or investing too heavily in the veracity of articles and essays that purport to link the two without some sort of verifyable evidence. GWB and OBL can be casualy linked in the same manner.

while the article from 96 deals witht he evidence that the trials of the bombers in that case. other articels are dealing with the findings of documents in iraq so it's hardly just guessing anymore.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
that was just a start in afghanistan. we're in a globel war on terror.

When did that happen? A huge problem with that, Lefty, is we don't even have a definition of "terrorist". Since we are militarily occupying Iraq, the adjective "terrorist" doesn't really describe Iraqis who are resisting us, though it could describe the non-Iraqis.
Do we have a plan to win the "Global War on Terrorism"? Does it involve something other than beating the arabs until they start to like us?

tons of ducuments have been found linking the two in iraq. just click on the "we'll pay link for more info".

Don't beleive everything you read on the internet. If GWB could prove a terrorist connection, the weaklystandard would print a special issue to disseminate it. The last "Case Closed" they put out got disavowed by everybody but its' author. The author is a DOD employee and PNAC contributor named Doug Feithe. He is the target of a senate investigation into the handling of Iraqi intelligence.

there's a problem with that arguement and it's a huge one. for starters there are at least at least 55 bros and sis of obls that come from at least 11 known wives of his dad. here's a pic to demonstrate it.

Cool pic, Satan at 14 !!!!!
I agree, the argument cannot be demonstrated through a dispassionate examination of the facts, neither can yours. For that reason I attach little credence to either one pending disclosure of conclusive evidence.

while the article from 96 deals witht he evidence that the trials of the bombers in that case. other articels are dealing with the findings of documents in iraq so it's hardly just guessing anymore.

None of us has the data to assess the veracity of the the articles you've linked to and mentioned. The people who do (DIA, CIA) do not endorse Mr. Feithes finding. He argued the same case and got slapped down by the intelligence analysts who do this for a living, what does that tell you about the assumptions these theories are based on?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
When did that happen? A huge problem with that, Lefty, is we don't even have a definition of "terrorist". Since we are militarily occupying Iraq, the adjective "terrorist" doesn't really describe Iraqis who are resisting us, though it could describe the non-Iraqis.

i think we have a pretty clear definition of terrorist which is a person or group that attacks innocent civilians for the purposes of advancing a political agenda.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Do we have a plan to win the "Global War on Terrorism"? Does it involve something other than beating the arabs until they start to like us?

i think we do. it's a long term stategy though. reforming the middle east little by little that way the extremist ideology that these nuts use will no longer seem relivent. look whats happening in jordan now. the king has said they need to move to a more democratic society. a more open society. by doing so it will give the people more chances to advance themselves socially and economically. when thats start to take place people will relize they have other things they can do with their lives then to blow themselves up therefore making people like obl and hamas obsolete.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Don't beleive everything you read on the internet. If GWB could prove a terrorist connection, the weaklystandard would print a special issue to disseminate it. The last "Case Closed" they put out got disavowed by everybody but its' author. The author is a DOD employee and PNAC contributor named Doug Feithe. He is the target of a senate investigation into the handling of Iraqi intelligence.

belive me i don't. i relie on creditable sources for my info. here's a connection:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml

'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back'
(Filed: 27/04/2003)


Document 1, dated February 19, 1998

Marked "Top Secret and Urgent" in the margin and signed by "MDA", thought to be the codename for the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat.

"The envoy is a trusted confidant and known by them. According to the above mediation we request official permission to call Khartoum station to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

At the foot of the page, after the signature, the director recommends bringing the envoy to Iraq because "we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general gives a signature of approval.

Document 2, dated February 23, 1998
Addressed to codename "M4/7", marked "Information M4 D1/3/4" and given the number 375 by the Mukhabarat bureaucracy.

"The permission of Mr Deputy Director of Intelligence has been gained on 21 February for this operation, to secure a reservation for one of the intelligence services guest's for one week in one of the first class hotels [the Al Mansour Melia hotel in Baghdad]".

Signed by "M.D. 1/3", next to which is written February 22.

In the margin it is written that this has been done in co-ordination with the chief of the Saudi section and that they write to extend the period of host for one more week.

A note at the bottom of the page says "The envoy H arrived 5th March". Another note mentions "room 414" next to the name, Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed.

Document 3, dated March 24, 1998

Written by hand and labelled number 736 and marked "Secret" in the margin. This paper has been given the code number M 4/7/2 and is addressed to codename "2/D1/3".

"Your information numbered D1/3/4/375 dated 23rd February 1998, we enclose herewith the bill to host a guest in Mansour Melia Hotel. Please let it be known and get the official permission to spend the amount and return the permission back with our regards. Include the name of bills of the hotel." Signed by another official with the codename M.M. 4/7

At the foot of this document there is another note, dated April 13, that says that after 21 days:

"We have been informed by Saudi section chief [of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the Mukhabarat] that we get permission to send the amount and the permission is sent to directorate accountant."

Originally posted by dijetlo
None of us has the data to assess the veracity of the the articles you've linked to and mentioned. The people who do (DIA, CIA) do not endorse Mr. Feithes finding. He argued the same case and got slapped down by the intelligence analysts who do this for a living, what does that tell you about the assumptions these theories are based on?

i'm not relieing on anything that the weekly standard said. i'll give you stuff from months before that years if you want. the 93 bombing link is one of the best. it's before most people heard of obl and al queda. their not even mentioned but things we've learned since then link obl to it. weather its the KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED-Ramzi Yousef family connection or AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI was Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman number 2 man in the 70's early 80's connection, to the same mosque that Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman was in charge of is being investigated for funneling money to al queda etc etc. the judge link above is an interview with a us judge,a democrat,who was working in baghdad who found connections between the two when he found documents on it. one of these days when we have everything translated,all the people debriefed the full spectrum will come out on what saddam was up to. it'll take awhile but it will surprise a lot of people. even if they release the the court docments from the trials from the 93 bombing it's going to shock people. but they haven't done it yet but one of these days the flood gates will open on these things and people will be shocked at what was known about obl's doings in the 90's.

 

[Psychoblues]

First off, I'm not trying to get in between this present on-going dialogue. I find it very interesting, even fascinating. But let me point out something about documents as they relate to contact.

I've been involved in politics for most of my life. There are hundreds, nay, thousands of documents that will contain my signature or a reference to me or my offices. They were written by members of my own offices or by members of other offices. The documents are official and they are from Republicans, Green Party members, Progressives, Reformers, Union officials, corporate reps, charity reps and a few more. I have collaborated with all of them. I've had lunch, dinner and breakfast with all of them. But I remain opposed in certain ways with all of them but I've found it important to know things about them and their activities. But my objectives are those of an elected Democrat. Given the documents I suppose the argument could be made that I was up to no good concerning my political manuveuring and legislative aspirations. Such is not the case at all.

I pointed out in another thread that many members of the al queda have resided and trained, even attended many universities and graduated with accolades here in the US. Does that make us Americans complicit in their plans as terrorists? NO!!!! It certainly does not.

I just thought I'd throw that out for you.

Please, carry on.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
i think we have a pretty clear definition of terrorist which is a person or group that attacks innocent civilians for the purposes of advancing a political agenda.

The slope is slipperyer than that, Lefty. That definition can be used to describe Paul Bremer.

it's a long term stategy though. reforming the middle east little by little that way the extremist ideology that these nuts use will no longer seem relivent. look whats happening in jordan now. the king has said they need to move to a more democratic society. a more open society.

I don't see how our invasion of Iraq made the extremists less relevant. As for Jordan, I think your right, it appears the Monarchy is going to allow a political government rule in its' stead. This trend is not related to the Iraqi war, it began under Abdullahs father, who made similar efforts to democratize the country.

belive me i don't. i relie on creditable sources for my info. here's a connection:

Read the source more closely, like an analyst would. Try to divorce yourself from what you want it to say, and look at what it actually sais.
In 1998, some one in Iraqi intelligence, possibly the Saudi Section cheif tried to set up a meeting with Bin Laden because they beleived he was the leader of the opposition to the Saudi Monarchy. Its' authorized by the deputy director of Iraqi intelligence.
The Saudi section cheif of Iraqi intelligence wants to meet with Bin Laden. Does he want to offer assistance? Is he going to tell Bin Laden to cool it? Does he want to use Bin Laden to overthrow the Saudi Government or is he just being a dilligent section cheif and he wants to know all the players in his arena? Who was the emmissary, did he really know Bin Laden? Did he really have a message. Without more documentation we'll never even know if the meeting happened. Yes a hotel room was booked and used but their is no supporting documentation to even prove it was OBLs' emmisary that used it. What about this proves a connection between Bin Laden and the Mukhabarat? Did the mukhabarat assist or aid OBL? Your source indicates possible contact between mid level emissaries, nothing more.
I also find the general credibility of the source questionable, since it appears to have been leaked. Things rarely leak by accident, normaly they find thier way into the public domain because someone who is not worried about getting prosecuted for releasing classified data wants it out here.

but they haven't done it yet but one of these days the flood gates will open on these things and people will be shocked at what was known about obl's doings in the 90's.

I doubt it Lefty. You can bet the CIA/DIA boys have all the documents pertaining to the trial and they still say "no sale" on the theory.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The slope is slipperyer than that, Lefty. That definition can be used to describe Paul Bremer.

i don't see him telling people to go on a bus and blow themsleves up.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I don't see how our invasion of Iraq made the extremists less relevant. As for Jordan, I think your right, it appears the Monarchy is going to allow a political government rule in its' stead. This trend is not related to the Iraqi war, it began under Abdullahs father, who made similar efforts to democratize the country.

that process was stalled years ago. even look at the pro democracy protest in saudi arabia. the extremist are less relevent because once people see there is another side to life i don't think they'll have much motivation to blow themselves up.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Read the source more closely, like an analyst would. Try to divorce yourself from what you want it to say, and look at what it actually sais.
In 1998, some one in Iraqi intelligence, possibly the Saudi Section cheif tried to set up a meeting with Bin Laden because they beleived he was the leader of the opposition to the Saudi Monarchy. Its' authorized by the deputy director of Iraqi intelligence.
The Saudi section cheif of Iraqi intelligence wants to meet with Bin Laden. Does he want to offer assistance? Is he going to tell Bin Laden to cool it? Does he want to use Bin Laden to overthrow the Saudi Government or is he just being a dilligent section cheif and he wants to know all the players in his arena? Who was the emmissary, did he really know Bin Laden? Did he really have a message. Without more documentation we'll never even know if the meeting happened. Yes a hotel room was booked and used but their is no supporting documentation to even prove it was OBLs' emmisary that used it. What about this proves a connection between Bin Laden and the Mukhabarat? Did the mukhabarat assist or aid OBL? Your source indicates possible contact between mid level emissaries, nothing more.
I also find the general credibility of the source questionable, since it appears to have been leaked. Things rarely leak by accident, normaly they find thier way into the public domain because someone who is not worried about getting prosecuted for releasing classified data wants it out here.

those papers weren't leaked. those were found by the reporters from the telegraph in iraq after saddams fall. those aren't the only ones that are out there either. many other papers from many different places had reporter going though the papers that were literally everywhere before we got to them.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I doubt it Lefty. You can bet the CIA/DIA boys have all the documents pertaining to the trial and they still say "no sale" on the theory.

techically true but any of the papers or info used in any of the sealed indictments were handed over to the court and are now locked away in some fed office building. and the theory that is laid out in that paper uses testimony that was laid out in open court and unsealed court papers.

i made the little connections between AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI and Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman in case you didn't know them. you can if you want search for video of Al-Zawahri arrest in egypt in the early 80's when he was rounded up for possably have connections with sadats murder. you'll see him talk about how he's a follower of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and he's one of the leaders and the usual down with america crap. very similiar to what he says now with obl. the video is actually ok quality. you'll see him in the jail cell with about 15 others and he's pointing through the bars ranting and raving. maybe you can search msnbc site for it. i know they included it in a pre 9-11 bin laden special. as far as yousef-mohammed family thing pick a news site of your choice that'll have their bios and there you go.

but lets get real: clinton really didn't have them look for any connections in the 93 bombing. he said the were criminals and the investigation for the most part stop at our boarders. i don't know of any criminals in the history of the world that would have tried to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb and also had plots to blow up the lincoln and holland tunnels as well as the un among other places. so the cia might have had theories on it but buried in the clinton years because the became so pc it wasen't funny. you think clintons people would have let them say there more to this story then meets the eye? come on. look what clinton did after they tried to kill bush 1 and the future first lady laura bush. he bombed an intel building at night. what does that do? and that was for a presidental assisination attempt. you could only picture what he woudl have done over the bombing of the wtc.