You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
9/11 commission links al-Qaeda with Iran
2004-06-27
While it found no operational ties between al-Qaida and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq’s neighbor and historic foe, Iran. Al-Qaida, the commission determined, might even have played a “yet unknown role” in aiding Hezbollah militants in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, an attack the United States has long blamed solely on Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors.
We at Rantburg have known differently for a while.
The notion that bin Laden might have had a hand in the Khobar bombing would mark a rare operational alliance between Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups that historically have been at odds. That possibility, largely overlooked in the furor of revelations released last week by the commission, comes amid worsening relations between the United States and Iran. The Sept. 11 panel’s findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had not developed a “collaborative relationship” with al-Qaida despite limited contacts in the 1990s. That appeared to conflict with previous characterizations made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials in their justifications for launching the war against Saddam Hussein.

In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence “showed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida than many had previously thought.” The commission’s Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, also said in a TV appearance last week that “there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq.” But perhaps most startling was the commission’s finding that bin Laden may have played a role in the Khobar attack. While previous court filings and testimony have indicated that al-Qaida and Iranian elements had contacts during the 1990s, U.S. authorities have not publicly linked bin Laden or his operatives to that strike, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. A June 2001 indictment of 14 defendants in the case makes no mention of al-Qaida or bin Laden and lays the organizational blame for the attacks solely on Hezbollah and Iran. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand Corp., said that although bin Laden’s then-fledgling organization was an early suspect in the blasts, “the evidence kept pointing to an Iranian connection, so people tended to discount a bin Laden connection.”
Posted by:Dan Darling

#12  They are just trying to confuse the issue. Cheney and Bush have already decided that Iraq is Al-Qaida. People should stop investigating this and kill non-Americans! Rush was right (as usual)!
Posted by: Bootlicker   2004-06-27 2:06:59 AM  

#11  At first I thought you were right, Capt America, and the Comission was coming on strong in regards to Iran. Then I re-read the article and realized that the comission is just pulling that old bait-and-switch routine. They're not really saying that Iran is in league with al Qaida, they're only using those "unconfirmed" ties to contrast the "lack" of Iraq-al Qaida ties.

For instance:

"Iran. Al-Qaida, the commission determined, might even have played a “yet unknown role” in aiding Hezbollah...[with the Khobar bombings]."

That sound like plausable deniability from the Comission to me. If some unfavored President were to use that as an excuse to attack Iran, you'd see some backpedaling real quick like. I can hear the cries of "faulty intelligence" and "[blank] lied, people died" even now.

Again:

"In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence “showed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida than many had previously thought.”"

Potential, huh? Not proved. No reason for war. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Posted by: beer_me   2004-06-27 4:19:25 PM  

#10  Leading sentence tells all. WaPo now refers to "no operational ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Last week it was "no connection found," Iran-al-Qaeda is old hat.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-27 2:21:00 PM  

#9  They say "7,8,6"
I say "5,4,3,2,1,0" BLAMMO
Posted by: meeps   2004-06-27 2:00:03 PM  

#8  ... Why are those crickets chirping?
They are talking about Alaska Paul the Terrible and the shotgun massacre.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-27 1:15:56 PM  

#7  What an injuction against nicknames?
Surely.
I have no nick, only a nom-de-blogguerrie.
Posted by: abu abu to you   2004-06-27 10:30:41 AM  

#6  Thanks Rev. Interesting thread you posted there. The moderator got a bit snippy when answering the question. He wasn't too pleased to see the reduction of the Quran or anything Islamic. My favorite quote:

"It is a conspiracy against the Holy Book of Allaah."

Always with the conspiracy. I had no idea the word of God was so easily corrupted.

Also interesting was the injuntion against nicknames. It's pretty funny that the moderator who describes nicknames as a sin calls himself "the_rocky_tract". I guess there's nothing in the Quran about hypocrites.
Posted by: beer_me   2004-06-27 4:37:31 AM  

#5  beer_me,
http://forums.gawaher.com/index.php?showtopic=5295
The innovation of writing '786' replacing 'Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem' ("In The Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful") has been adopted for a long time and the majority of the Ummah is still indulged in it inadvertently.

Personally, I prefer the number 19.
Posted by: Rev. Farakan   2004-06-27 4:11:50 AM  

#4  Oh come on Fred. Why did you delete Bootlicker? I thought his website was kind of funny.

By the way, I clicked over to one of your sponsors, Islamic Jewellery World. Do you, or anyone else, know what the significance of "786" is? It's on a couple of their items, but there's no explaination. Is it the foundation year of Islam or something?

I assume it's not a good luck charm for blackjack.
Posted by: beer_me   2004-06-27 3:26:23 AM  

#3  Wow, thanks Mullalicker. I was confused, but now I know who the real enemy is.
Posted by: beer_me   2004-06-27 2:13:09 AM  

#2  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Bootlicker TROLL   2004-06-27 2:06:59 AM  

#1  So I guess that means we have a green light for the first Iran War, right?

... Why are those crickets chirping?
Posted by: beer_me   2004-06-27 2:05:02 AM  

00:00