Posted on 03/16/2007 3:59:32 PM PDT by shrinkermd
War On Terror: Al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to being the mastermind for a lot of terrorist crimes. Old news? Hardly. His confession appears to link al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
War critics argue that Saddam Hussein had little to do with terrorism, and nothing to do with al-Qaida. Since there was no Iraq-al-Qaida link, they say, the U.S. should never have invaded to get rid of Hussein, no matter how evil he was. But something interesting has come out of the interrogations of the lead al-Qaida suspects at Guantanamo.
In particular, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confirmed what was suspected all along: He was the driving force and chief planner behind 15 years of al-Qaida terrorism — nearly 30 attacks and plots in all. That includes 9/11, the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl and, much earlier, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
If so, it further cements the evidence that Iraq was, at minimum, a willing partner of al-Qaida's in the decadelong burst of terrorism that culminated in 9/11. Indeed, Mohammed's Gitmo confession neatly ties the '93 WTC bombing and 9/11 to Iraq and al-Qaida. After all, Iraq had the means — oil money — and the motive — revenge for Hussein's humiliation in the 1991 Gulf War.
Of particular interest is the revelation about Mohammed's involvement in the '93 bombing. It shows a linkage not only between the '93 WTC attack and 9/11, but also between Iraq and al-Qaida.
We already know, for instance, that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi responsible for carrying out the '93 bombing, found a haven in Iraq for a decade after the attack. Yasin worked closely with another al-Qaida operative, Ramzi Yousef, on the '93 WTC bombing.
For the record, Yousef is Mohammed's nephew. He was described by the National Commission On Terrorism's 9/11 report as 'the mastermind' of the '93 bombing. And according to U.S. intelligence, he got funding from al-Qaida.
Intelligence documents captured in Baghdad in September 2003 show that Yasin and the others received financial aid from the Iraqi government. This raises a big question: Why would Iraq, under international scrutiny for both WMD and sanctions, support a known terrorist with ties to al-Qaida? The only reasonable answer is, it wanted to keep Yasin quiet about Iraq's involvement.
There's ample evidence of Iraq's role in 9/11 too. The lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, met at least twice with Iraqi intelligence in Europe before carrying out the attacks. And Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi intelligence operative, attended a key meeting of the 9/11 hijackers and other al-Qaida terrorists in January 2000.
Upon capture, Shakir was found to be in contact with Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Iraqi Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman, a '93 WTC conspirator.
It's pretty clear that al-Qaida and Iraq, far from being enemies, were tactical allies against the U.S. As such, removing Hussein wasn't a distraction from our war on terror; it was vital to it.
"After all that waterboarding, he would confess to anything."
Rosie O'Donnell
I mentioned Ramzi Yousef, as KSM's nephew to Pataki in 2004, as he stumped for Bush. "Oh really?" he said, "that is news to me." I called Tony Snow about the connection as the first caller on his radio show in 2003. Now that he is in the White House, Tony seems distracted from connecting the dots for the American people.
I know about the supposed meeting between Atta and Iraq intel agents in Prague shortly before 9/11. But the CIA steadfastly insists Atta was in the States at the time because of phone records. When and where was the other meeting between Atta and Iraqi intel that IBD mentions supposed to have taken place? We know he traveled to Europe. But linking him with Iraqi intel is still somewhat vague. Where is the hard proof?
Not that I don't believe it couldn't have been possible. There seems to be too much smoke concerning Iraqi agents and Al-Qaeda for there not to have been some sort of cooperation in certain areas. But harder proof would be nice.
ping.
I heard it was our pro terrorist State Department -- not the CIA that kept denying the meeting. And as for proof, the diary of the Iraqi intelligence officer mentions the visit of a Hamburg student that day -- Atta!
Oh to only know how they got this canary to sing!
Bump and Ping!
The MSM will probably avoid the KSM story as long as they can. Hey even if he exaggerated he was still one awful sociopathic killer who not only orchestrated 911 but butchered Daniel Pearl. Death can not come soon enough for this guy. Although I do have another sentence in mind. Put him into a halfway house next to Rosie ODonnel's home.
Carl Levin Calls for Attacks On Syria. Admits Al-Qaeda In Iraq & Troops Need to Stay
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792200/posts
02/27/2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1783080/posts
"No Evidence Of A Saddam - Osama Link?"
Flopping Aces ^ | 02-11-07 | Curt
Posted on 02/11/2007 2:12:04 PM PST by Starman417
That's plausible but from what I've read not been confirmed. The stronger proof is Yasin vamoosing back to Baghdad after the first 9/11 bombing. No one seems to pay attention to this glaring fact. Let's restate that: an Iraqi citizen was deeply connected to the first WTC radical/Islamo bombing and was given shelter in Baghdad by Hussein. And doubters wonder why some people believed Hussein was involved with the second bombing. Well it's because it was very logical to assume that he was involved. With the first and second bombings.
And again there is a lot of smoke concerning Iraqi agents meeting with Al-Qaeda. Even the 9/11 commission affirmed they had connections. So why is it so hard for many people to believe that Hussein might have been more deeply involved in 9/11?
As unpleasant a mental exercise as it is, try to step into their shoes. If Hussein was involved in 9/11 and even more strongly in the 93 bombing, then Pres. Bush would have an even stronger causes belli for invading Iraq. This moron and ingenious deceiver, both contradictory descriptions of our President held by the liberals, would seem very justified in invading Iraq even by New York Time's standards. That can't happen in the liberal mindset so of all the concepts that must be resisted, Saddam's connections with the World Trade Center bombings must be resisted by the left most of all.
--Saddam's connections with the World Trade Center bombings must be resisted by the left most of all.--
Exactly. That would have been an INCONVENIENT
casus belli, and klintoon would have been skewered for his criminally negligent inaction in the face of state-sponsored terrorism. BJ used more firepower and manpower to kill the Branch Davidians than he ever did fighting al-Qaeda. So his Justice Dept. simply swept everything under the rug, while the media ignored the evidence.
Another convenient truth that was ignored: the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq organizing the "insurgency" BEFORE the invasion. How the heck woild hundreds of foreign fighters just cross the border into Iraq, unless they had a pre-existing network of contacts, safehouses, etc? The leftist useful idiots' groupthink forces them to say "Saddam was secular. Al-Qaeda are religious fanatics. Therefore, they could NEVER have worked together".
More recently, the useful idiots are desperately trying to deny that the Iraq surge is working (Baghdad violence is generally dropping at this time, even though the surge has barely begun). All of this BS with Plame and the US attorney firings non-scandal are desperate attempts top suck the oxygen out of the real story, i.e. we are WINNING in Iraq.
damn bush and now snow for failing to use the power of the presidency to bring forth the truth on such matters
the media for all its failings is unable to prevent the message from getting out if a leader leads
reagan was outstanding at manipulating the puppies, and bush is a complete and utter disaster
in retrospect it is obvious that volunteers like freepers (and the base in happier times) and pundits like rush carried the water for this administration while they contributed absolutely nothing in their own defense
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.