Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed


DC09

Recommended Posts

Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."

That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.

Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.

The Iraqi Plot against Radio Free Europe

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the Czechs were closely watching the Iraqi embassy. Al-Ani’s predecessor had defected to Britain in late 1998, and the Czechs (along with the British and Americans) learned that Baghdad had instructed him to bomb Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, after RFE had begun a Radio Free Iraq service earlier that year.

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence (known as BIS), observed al-Ani meet with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Another informant in the Arab community reported that the man was a visiting student from Hamburg and that he was potentially dangerous.

The Czech Foreign Ministry demanded an explanation for al-Ani’s rendezvous with the Arab student from the head of the Iraqi mission in Prague. When no satisfactory account was forthcoming, the Czechs declared al-Ani persona non grata, and he was expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001.

Hyman Komineck was then Deputy Foreign Minister and had earlier headed the Czech Foreign Ministry’s Middle East Department. Now Prague’s ambassador to the United Nations, Komineck explained in June 2002, “He didn’t know [what al-Ani was up to.] He just didn’t know.” As Komineck told the Times of London in October 2001, "It is not a common thing for an Iraqi diplomat to meet a student from a neighboring country."

Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who had observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and told the BIS he believed that Atta was the man he had seen meeting with al-Ani. On September 14, BIS informed its CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Atta as al-Ani’s contact.

So Many Errors: the Clinton Years

Opinion polls show that most Americans still believe Iraq had substantial ties to al Qaeda and even that it was involved in 9/11. Yet among the “elite,” there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are.

America’s leading lights, including those in government responsible for dealing with terrorism and with Iraq, made a mammoth blunder. They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States. This failure left the country vulnerable on September 11, 2001. Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is “no evidence.” What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented. I myself have experienced this many times, including in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when as I responded to a Commissioner’s question, a fellow panelist repeatedly interrupted, screeching “That is not evidence,” even as C-SPAN broadcast the event to the entire country.

Former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke is a prime example of this phenomenon. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when President Bush asked him to look into the possibility of Iraq’s involvement, Clarke was “incredulous” (his word), treating the idea as if it were one of the most ridiculous things he had ever heard. On September 18, when Deputy National Security Adviser Steven Hadley asked him to take another look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, Clarke responded in a similar fashion.

Yet as we know now, thanks to Epstein’s work, Czech intelligence at that point had already informed their CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Mohammed Atta as the Arab whom al-Ani had met on April 8, 2001.

Evidence is “something that indicates,” according to Webster’s. Proof is “conclusive demonstration.” The report of a well-regarded allied intelligence service that a 9/11 hijacker appeared to have met with an Iraqi intelligence agent a few months before the attacks is certainly evidence of an Iraqi connection.

Clarke’s adamant refusal to even consider the possibility of an Iraqi role in the 9/11 attacks represents an enormous blunder committed by the Clinton administration. Following the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials in New York FBI, the lead investigative agency, believed that Iraq was involved. When Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, saying publicly that the strike was punishment for Saddam’s attempt to kill former President Bush when he visited Kuwait in April, Clinton believed that the attack would also take care of the terrorism in New York, if New York FBI was correct. It would deter Saddam from all future acts of terrorism.

Indeed, Clarke claims the strike did just that. The Clinton administration, Clarke explains in Against All Enemies, also sent “a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis saying, ‘If you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government.' It was a very chilling message. And apparently it worked.”

But if the entire 1991 Gulf War did not deter Saddam for long, why should one cruise missile strike accomplish that aim? Indeed, the Iraqi plot against Radio Free Europe—the existence of which is confirmed by RFE officials—is clear demonstration that the June 1993 cruise missile strike did not permanently deter Saddam.

Full Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • wunarmdscissor

    3

  • DC09

    2

  • Transhumanism

    2

  • Falco Rex

    1

I noticed that you used the source of Frontpagemag. That is a racial site that puts out pure false information to increase hatred of Arabs/Pakistanis/Muslims. Virtually everything on that site is outright fabricated. The editor, David Horowitz, reminds me of the Learned Elders of Zion, a fabricated document stating that Jews are out to distroy non-Jews. Well in this case, it's the Arabs who are "out to distroy all non-Arabs." So, one false racial ideology is being replaced by another.

Edited by Transhumanism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks transhumanism for the info.

Id feared a lot of the sites that kellaor posts these types of posts from are of that type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frontpagemag only has one message: all Arabs and Muslims are evil and should be killed off.

This is similar to some White Racial news sources that say all Jews are evil and should be killed off, such as Vanguard News Network

I see both perspectives as false:

There are good Muslims are bad Muslims.

There are good Jews and bad Jews.

There are good Christians and bad Chrisians.

Etc.

And this is of course just my perspective and others are free to disagree and call for the international genocide of Arabs/Pakis/Muslims, which is something David Horowitz desires but can't come out and directly say it as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well im the same however there are so many people on this forum that seem to think that all muslims are evil and cannot differentiate between the good ones and bad ones or even that the terrorists are merley using it as an excuse that its firghtening.

The seem to be completley all american as well which is another thing. It suggests that the ameircan government is not doing enough to educate its population on the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanatics on either side of the fence speak the loudest and the longest, so naturally those are the people you hear the most from..It seems a bit short-sighted to take the small percentage of Radicals as being indicative of my whole Country.

No amount of education will ever change a fanatics mind anyway, so how much the American Government tries to put forth seems a moot point..

Frankly whenever I hear that ANY Government wants to "educate" me I break out in a cold sweat.. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id feared a lot of the sites that kellaor posts these types of posts from are of that type.

one bad site and the others lose any merit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but thats a couple of threads of hers that this kind of thing has been highlighted now. Bearing in mind her sources are ALWAYS one sided then im making an assumption that many more of her sources are of the same kind of stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but thats a couple of threads of hers that this kind of thing has been highlighted now. Bearing in mind her sources are ALWAYS one sided then im making an assumption that many more of her sources are of the same kind of stock.

Yeah but thats a couple of threads of hers that this kind of thing has been highlighted now. Bearing in mind her sources are ALWAYS one sided then im making an assumption that many more of her sources are of the same kind of stock.

I post news stories from a large variaty of sources. Yes some of them are openly biased one way or the other, but aren't all news stories? huh.gif

I do not hate Arabs, Muslims or anyone else. I was not aware it was a racially motivated site. huh.gif

Sorry.

dontgetit.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how to make a Saddam-9/11 link

Saddam Hussein was alive on september 11 2001

!!!OMG HE DID IT IS IS OSAMAS WIFE OMG!!!

I think the general view on Muslims come from the way the Taliban acted, cos Muslim Women dont have to totally cover their faces, they are allowed to watch TV etc...

and if you look at Catholics, the most "pure" of the religions, how many priests are also child molesterers?

im sure there are good and bad people from EVERY religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that you used the source of Frontpagemag. That is a racial site that puts out pure false information to increase hatred of Arabs/Pakistanis/Muslims. Virtually everything on that site is outright fabricated. The editor, David Horowitz, reminds me of the Learned Elders of Zion, a fabricated document stating that Jews are out to distroy non-Jews. Well in this case, it's the Arabs who are "out to distroy all non-Arabs." So, one false racial ideology is being replaced by another.

Well, I don't know much about this site, cause I never saw it before, but I did saw something in it's main page that I know for certain that it is true:

Pro-terror Islamists have teamed up with the campus Left to demonize Israel.

But then again, it doesn't say much about the rest of the site, so it could be that he is mixing true facts with racist lies, and thus doing wrong to justice, cause later on if someone is going to tell the truth, anyone who read it in this site and knows that it is racist won't accept that truth, saying "Ah! Youre lying!".

Anyway, racism is wrong and should be discouraged and dealt with harshly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that you used the source of Frontpagemag. That is a racial site that puts out pure false information to increase hatred of Arabs/Pakistanis/Muslims. Virtually everything on that site is outright fabricated.

Ha, and Anti-Bush sites like MoveOn.org don't do the same thing to Republicans and President Bush. just put President Bush in where it says Arabs/Pakistanis/Muslims, and there you go. And Political where is says Racial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.