The final report of the 9-11 Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran...

nycflasher

Active Member
Apr 15, 2004
3,078
13
36
CT
9/11: The Iran Factor

INTERESTING ARTICLE.
I wonder if anyone would care to comment on any of the following points brought up in this Newsweek article.

1.Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Iraq was.

2.According to a December 2001 memo buried in the files of the National Security Agency, obtained by the commission, Iranian officials instructed their border inspectors not to place Iranian or Afghan stamps in the passports of Saudi terrorists traveling from Osama bin Laden's training camps through Iran. Such "clean" passports undoubtedly helped the 9/11 terrorists pass into the United States without raising alarms among U.S. Customs and visa officials, sources familiar with the report told NEWSWEEK.

3.The NSA memo adds to a large accumulation of intelligence indicating that Iran has had more suspicious ties to Al Qaeda than Iraq did. Among those who once had a base in Iran: Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, allegedly the No. 1 terrorist in Iraq today. Meanwhile the commission found there was no "collaborative, operational" relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

4.According to separate intelligence reports, Qaeda suspects also continue to hide across the border from Afghanistan. "We just don't have good intelligence about what is going on in Iran," said one senior U.S. intelligence official. That's especially true since the Iraqi National Congress allegedly told Iranian officials after the Iraq invasion that U.S. intelligence was listening to their conversations. U.S. officials say that resulted in a devastating loss of monitoring capability.

5.Grimly, what the new 9-11 report makes clear is that nearly three years into the war on terror, America is still not close to understanding the enemy. And Washington seems less able to force Tehran to change its ways, especially since Bush has removed one of the chief threats to the mullah regime, Saddam Hussein, and is now bogged down in Iraq. As one intel official said before the Iraq war: "The Iranians are tickled by our focus on Iraq."

6.Despite recent portrayals of bin Laden as a man hunted and on the run, U.S. counter-terrorism officials now say the threat today from Al Qaeda may be just as serious as in the summer of 2001. The warnings are based on unusually high-quality intelligence emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border near Waziristan, where top Qaeda leaders are said to be hiding. "This is absolutely real," said one senior U.S. counterterrorism official. "We feel very confident that they are trying hard to attack us inside the United States before the election and that some of the operatives are already here." But just as with the 9/11 attacks, officials are at a loss to say what the actual plot is, who the plotters are, how they got here—and who helped them get here.
 
You know what I find simultaneously humurous and disturbing?

When the President is re-elected and begins to get tough with Iran and maybe even arm anti-Tehran rebels in the south, there won't be a pro-war liberal as far as the eye can see.

This aspect of the report is convenient for liberals only insofar as it contributes to the anti-'Iraq War' movement.

You want my comment? Attack Iran. Oust the mullahs.


What say you? If you are against attacking Iran, let's hear it.
 
Zhukov said:
You know what I find simultaneously humurous and disturbing?

When the President is re-elected and begins to get tough with Iran and maybe even arm anti-Tehran rebels in the south, there won't be a pro-war liberal as far as the eye can see.

This aspect of the report is convenient only insofar as it contributes to the anti-'Iraq War' movement.

You want my comment? Attack Iran. Oust the mullahs.


'What say you?'

I say you're correct. Was going to say 'right' but that's a given! :shocked:
 
Zhukov said:
You know what I find simultaneously humurous and disturbing?

When the President is re-elected and begins to get tough with Iran and maybe even arm anti-Tehran rebels in the south, there won't be a pro-war liberal as far as the eye can see.

wrong. I'd be all for removing the Iranian regime.
 
It wouldn't be too hard. Turn east from Iraq and west from Afghanistan and you're there! Hell, we could even invite the Russians... they wanted to annex Iran back in the USSR days, didn't they?
 
GOPJeff said:
It wouldn't be too hard. Turn east from Iraq and west from Afghanistan and you're there! Hell, we could even invite the Russians... they wanted to annex Iran back in the USSR days, didn't they?



Hussein was a Soviet client, propped up in response to the U.S. backed Iranian Shah. As far as annex, sure, but who didn't they want to annex?

After Iraq, I doubt the Russians would help out, but who knows. It would probably be in their best interest to do so, as the Chechnyans are undoubtedly receiving most of their support through Iran. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians have economic ties with Iran, despite the situation in Chechnya, that they are simply not willing to sever.
 
gop_jeff said:
It wouldn't be too hard. Turn east from Iraq and west from Afghanistan and you're there! Hell, we could even invite the Russians... they wanted to annex Iran back in the USSR days, didn't they?

Im sure they'd be on board so long as they or France don't have some secret deal with the Mullahs going on that they dont want anyone to know about.
 
There is no way in hell that the EU is going to "allow" us to invade Iran. We would be totally on our own, even the Brits have an odd relationship with Tehran
We should (if we are not already doing so) be funding the underground movements that are looking to topple the theocracy.

But of course the LLL's will cry that we're meddling in another sovereign coutry's affairs...........
 
I just listened to the presentation of the 9/11 commissions report to the public. I found it awesome ! Not so much the report itself but the speeches given prior. Expressing the need for unity among parties to fight terrorism was something everyone needs to hear over and over !!! Also the need to attack terrorism at its sources and work on issues that create terrorists.

I LOVED IT !
 
dilloduck said:
I believe they were referring to the Madrasas----oh ya---and we should be on the OFFENSE. Liked that too!!

The Madrasas need to be shut down, but I am not sure how you do that. I can see it now..... the libs will say, "if you are going to shut down Madrasas, then we must also shut down private Christian schools in the USA or we are being hypocritical.
 
I'm not saying the left will accept this by any means but it certainly reinforces what Bush has already been doing . Gonna be tough for Kerry to counter this one.
 
Offense is good.

When you wrote about what causes terrorism, I had a sneaking suspicion that the left snuck that in because you know, terrorism is all our fault. :D
 

Forum List

Back
Top