9/11 link to Iran

#1
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13160765,00.html

Snippets
A report to a US congressional commission will allege that Iranian officials ordered border guards to leave al Qaeda members alone and, in some cases, not stamp their passports.


An Iranian stamp would have sparked suspicion in the US.

It claims the eight crossed the border 11 months before the suicide attacks on the World Trade Centre.

It also alleges Iran approached Osama bin Laden in 2000, suggesting they work together. He refused.

Iran has denied the claims, saying they are part of US election-year propaganda.
But then they say...

Acting CIA director John McLaughlin, told The Times Al Qaeda members had been known to pass through Iran but that there was "no evidence" the government had officially sanctioned their transit.

He added that there was no indication Iran knew about the planned attacks on September 11.
So an Intel report (here we go again) says the Iranian Government played a part in 9/11 then it says there is no evidence to support this !!!

As long as it is clear :roll:

So is this electioneering

Viable Intel

Or the precurser to another anti terrorist expedition to cut down a potential 45 minute threat?


The choice is yours...
 
#2
Well we won't have far to move, just nip accross the border :roll:

Infact why not just take out all neighbouring countries, can just see it now, The United States of the Middle East. 8O
 
#3
my lords ldies and gentlescrotes, i give you, clit richards and the shadows.
we are going on a summer holiday, we are going to grab an oil well or two................. :twisted:

where will it end? :roll:
 
#4
Afghanistan from the north and Iraq to the west, well guess Iran wouldn't have a chance, get ready for OP Tehran I, II,III, IV, V, VI .............
 
#6
Just a few problems with taking on Iran as well ....

1. They're better armed and more numerous than the Taliban so it won't be a rerun of Afghanistan

2. Most of them will actually fight as the West will be seen as relaunching the Crusades as a concept for the 21st century -so it won't be a rerun of Telic

3. Neither ourselves or the spams have any troops to spare

4. Iraq will go daft as a consequence - always attack when your enemy is occupied and all that

5. North Korea and any other bunch of daft tw@ts may also think it's a good time to get away with anything they can

But when did common sense ever dictate what the current US administration does ? And as Tony just does what he's told UK considerations will not enter into it.

If I was the Iranians I'd throw everything I had at the spams in Iraq on day 1, coupled with as much of a popular uprising as I could arrange. Take a few thousand US hostages, tie them to strategic targets and see what happens.
 
#7
Looks like the next few years may get busy if TBliar and GB are re-elected. GB making the plans (well as told to by Rumsfeld) and TBLiar doing as he's told to by GB.

In fact why not vote for Rumsfeld as World President, thats what he wants, isn't it? :evil:
 
#8
dui-lai said:
Looks like the next few years may get busy if TBliar and GB are re-elected. GB making the plans (well as told to by Rumsfeld) and TBLiar doing as he's told to by GB.
Next few years may be busy no matter who wins the '04 USA presidential election.

Anyone who thinks Sen. Kerry is a peacenik is unduly influenced by the Senator's youthful affectations, long hair, hippy clothing, hobnobbing with Jane Fonda, etc.

To those who are listening, Sen. Kerry has made it clear enough that W can't outdo him as a proponent of aggressive militarism.
 
#11
Mighty_Blighty said:
WWIII here we come 8O
Yeah probably but I don't think it will come about because of Iran, not directly anyway. Saudi Arabia seems to be suffering from more and more insurrection. If the house of Saud were to fall in a civil war orchestrated by Al Quaida then the Americans would have no choice but to invade in order to protect their interests (oil). With the invasion of the home of Islam we would all be up sh*t creek....
 
#12
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
dui-lai said:
Looks like the next few years may get busy if TBliar and GB are re-elected. GB making the plans (well as told to by Rumsfeld) and TBLiar doing as he's told to by GB.
Next few years may be busy no matter who wins the '04 USA presidential election.

Anyone who thinks Sen. Kerry is a peacenik is unduly influenced by the Senator's youthful affectations, long hair, hippy clothing, hobnobbing with Jane Fonda, etc.

To those who are listening, Sen. Kerry has made it clear enough that W can't outdo him as a proponent of aggressive militarism.
Its going to be busy full stop once the Defence Cuts are announced 8O :evil: 8O :evil:
 
#14
Mighty_Blighty said:
easesprings said:
Its going to be busy full stop once the Defence Cuts are announced 8O :evil: 8O :evil:
Like it's not allready :x
And thats without pledgeing Military support to the Sudan fammine :roll: :roll:
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
Forsaken_Child said:
Wait for the news that Iran is pissing about with it's reactors again and then we'll be off to stop them, nothing to do with oil at all.

Good grief people ......check out Jane's Intelligence Review at
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040716_1_n.shtml


Iran is no threat to this country....currently.
Iran is no threat (currently/directly) to the United States
Iran is no (current) threat to it's Gulf neighbours
Iran IS currently and directly a threat to Israel.

Who would benefit from a war with Iran ?
This Country ? No.
The USA ? Not really - apart from vindictive revenge for the humiliation of 1979 ....and further opportunities to make itself hated throughout the Muslim world.
The Gulf States? Saudi ? They all trade with Tehran.
Israel ?....................hmmm.


If all this manipulation wasn't so dodgy it would be laughable.

Whilst no US president seems capable of resisting Israeli interest, there seems little good reason why the UK should embroil itself any further in the frikkin' sandbox.....especially in any conflict with a country with whom until recently we have had if not cordial, then at least trading , relations.

We are at odds with the rest of Europe on this: France,Germany,Italy, Spain are all keen to open up relations with Iran, not fight the buggers.Our Euro partners are busily making money ( and keeping jobs in Frankfurt,Toulouse,Bologna and Barcelona) as a result of 'engagement' with Tehran, while we fanny about for fear of annoying the US.

THINK!


<< Foutez La Guerre...BA_A_A_AH!>>

Le Chevre
 
#16
Goatman said:
Forsaken_Child said:
Wait for the news that Iran is pissing about with it's reactors again and then we'll be off to stop them, nothing to do with oil at all.

Good grief people ......check out Jane's Intelligence Review at
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040716_1_n.shtml
If Israel strikes the Iranian atomic facilities, I wonder whether the Iranian government will draw nice distinctions between Israel and the USA.

I could imagine the Iranians thinking: USA repeatedly threatened us over our atomic energy program. USA paid for the planes. USA paid for the bombs. Sharon would not have dared to do this without prior assurances of USA support. Israel is just the eastern-most province of the USA.

I wouldn't assume that the Iranians would be looking exclusively toward Israel for some payback.

OOTS envisioned an airstrike against Iran provoking an Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq. To my admittedly unqualified layman's imagination, this sounds plausible. I could even imagine a coordinated effort between Iraqi irregulars, and their traditional Iranian enemies, with the goal of giving their Uncle Sam a terrible thrashing.

Some people view that idea as laughable. I don't.

The Germans probably thought the Soviet Red Army was laughable at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, and, at first, with good reason.

Yes, US and UK forces have qualitative superiority.

However, we also have longer supply lines. If they were able to cut off our supplies of gas, ammo, and food, our forces would be in trouble. How could they even be evacuated?

I don't see how the USA can afford to have our troops over there get mangled. A large part of our total supply of trained trigger-pullers is over there. If anything happened to them, who would be available for defending the USA?

The longer "George and Tony's Excellent Adventure" is allowed to continue, the greater the danger of some really horrible complications.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
[I wouldn't assume that the Iranians would be looking exclusively toward Israel for some payback.

OOTS envisioned an airstrike against Iran provoking an Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq. To my admittedly unqualified layman's imagination, this sounds plausible. I could even imagine a coordinated effort between Iraqi irregulars, and their traditional Iranian enemies, with the goal of giving their Uncle Sam a terrible thrashing.
Glad to hear you're coming away from the
' Hey guys - let's storm Tehran tomorrow! ' position N-W-D.....

...so write to your Congressman and tell him

1. Supporting Israel 'right-or-Wrong' is not in the US interest
2. Our boys and girls have been in the Sandbox long enough - let them come home.
3. the man Kerry looks like a dope-smokin' Paedophile - ditch him while you can !


Lee Shaver
--
 
#20
There's fairly good evidence that Iran was involved with "Afghani" Arabs in a lightweight way. They had links to the seedling operations of AQI in Iraqi Kurdistan. After the fall of the Taliban most beards fled to Pakistan but some went to Iran. Recent OBL letters have suggested AQ relied on keeping good relations with Iran to ensure its supply. It's no secret that Dr Z explicitly stated that the war with the Rafida should be deferred till convenient.

There's also direct evidence of official Saudi contact with two of the hijackers while in the US.

You can even derive weak links to Iraqi intelligence if you push the envelope.

The intelligence service with the biggest relationship to AQ was probably the ISI. The whole Haqqani network has been described as the social infrastructure that "The Base" grew on. There were direct meetings with Bin Laden at times. He was an old friend from the Muhj war.

An then there is Mullah Omar's Taliban who seem to have had not a clue what the Arab guests were plotting.

In none of these cases does this really suggest knowing participation even of individuals in as insecure a hair brained scheme as 9-11. None of these state actors stood to benefit. Indeed it was potentially disastrous for anything but a terrorist group that could fade into the woodwork. The Iranians were plainly terrified they be invaded and helped us take out the Taliban. The Saudis were very embarrassed. Pakistan seriously contemplated open war with DC and thought better of it. Mullah Omar is reported to have been in tears over hosting Osama and desperate to find a honourable way to hand the bugger over.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top