Posted on 11/02/2017 8:11:42 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The CIA’s release of documents seized during the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has again raised questions about Iran’s support of the extremist network leading up to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
U.S. intelligence officials and prosecutors have long said Iran formed loose ties to the terror organization from 1991 on, something noted in a 19-page report in Arabic that was included in the release of some 47,000 other documents by the CIA.
For its part, Iran has long denied any involvement with al-Qaida. However, the report included in the CIA document dump shows how bin Laden, a Sunni extremist from Iran’s archrival Saudi Arabia, could look across the Muslim world’s religious divide to partner with the Mideast’s Shiite power to target his ultimate enemy, the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
freaking hilarious now the CIA and deep state is trying to turn the Saudi 9/11 attack into an Iranian attack!
They really want their war with Iran and for Sunni Islam to win the islamic civil war.
Fake raid!
This coincides with an account offered by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission, which said Iranian officials met with al-Qaida leaders in Sudan in either 1991 or early 1992. The commission said al-Qaida militants later received training in Lebanon from the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, which Iran backs to this day.
U.S. prosecutors also said al-Qaida had the backing of Iran and Hezbollah in their 1998 indictment of bin Laden following the al-Qaida truck bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.
Saudis? Yep. Iran? Maybe. But we can be sure of who did NOT help carry out 9/11...the one Chimp Bush invaded and wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars...Iraq.
Against the Infidel there is no Sunni-Shia divide.
How times have changed. Now Iran and Hezbollah are fighting al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria.
Some of the Iran-Bin Laden linkage idea does not surprise me, as a possibility with merit.
Bin Laden and the Mullahs of Tehran surely had fundamental religious differences between them, in as much as they represent the main division with Islam, the Sunni and the Shiite sects.
Yet, both Bin Laden (& Al Queda, the Talian & ISIS) share, along with the Mullahs in Tehran, many fundamentalist ideas about Islam in the modern world; with all of them seeing regimes like the Saudis as decadent and corrupt and any Muslim country on good relations with the west as suspect if not apostate.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden asked the Saudis to let him mount a Jihad on Saddam to take him out. They said no; they wanted the U.S. to do it. Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the last time after that, and because G.H.W. Bush failed to pull the final trigger on Saddam the Mullahs of Tehran had ten more years to burrow underground within the Shiites of Iraq (were they just waiting for the U.S. to continue the job, when they would be even stronger within the Iraqis??; why take out Saddam themselves with subversion, let the U.S. do the hard work for them).
Bin Laden and the Mullahs of Tehran had additional shared enmity towards the Saudis at that point, in spite of their Sunni-Shiite divide.
It also would not surprise me if the Mullah’s divide-and-conquer strategy was behind a lot of the Sunni-militia versus Shia-militia versus Al Queda sectarian strife that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq (playing all against each other; keep the Iraqis so at war with each other the U.S. will walk away - which they might have gotten away with, if true).
What I am trying to say is, I think the Mullahs of Tehran and Bin Laden had more than one common enemy and more than one common interest, which could have easily led them to cooperate. We know how easily in war, the enemy of my enemy can be my friend, even of only a friend of temporary convenience.
9/11 was not a Saudi attack.
14 ignorant muscle men of Saudi origins led by an Egyptian means nothing.
The Egyptian, Atta, is more important than the muscle on the flight as to who attacked.
Atta was Zawahiri’s man; he was also a member of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood according to very early reports about his Hamburg Cell, a cell based out of a radical mosque in Germany led by a Syrian imam who was a nasty piece of work connected to numerous other terrorist attacks.
Zawahiri is the Egyptian head of al Qaeda still today...and was always the brains of the operation since he partnered with the exiled bin Laden, who was the fundraiser and figurehead. He has family connections to at least one Iranian mullah.
9/11 was the culmination of Zawahiri and the Blind Sheikh’s efforts to topple the towers that began in the half arse bombing in 1993. The Blind Sheikh was an Egyptian with ties to Iran, too... not a Saudi.
The Blind Sheikh was known as the leader of the men who carried out the Luxor massacre with the help of the communist American lawyer who acted as his messenger. After Egypt’s Mubarak went after the Blind Sheikh’s men they fled to the Balkans where they joined muslims there fighting for control of those countries. [Zawahiri had earlier connections to the region during the Chechnya War and spent 5 months in a prison as a guest of the Russians before being released, at least that’s the explanation for his mysterious time in Russia.]
Their group al Jihad was also the recipient of 2 million from Iran for the purposes of helping to overthrow the Egyptian government...which would have been to Russia’s advantage as well as the government was a US ally.
There are more ties to Damascus and Tehran than to Riyadh. that doesn’t get Riyadh off the hook for some in the Royal Family were supportive of the Salafists, the virulent wing of Wahhabism... but as far as the brains go, they were most certainly not in Riyadh.
No, you are not certain of that either, because Iraqis were certainly involved, because without Saddam Hussein there would be no ISIS, after all, Saddam harbored the founder of ISIS, the Jordanian Zarqawi, and two or three of his terrorist cells, one of which, in Baghdad, was composed of Egyptians since at least 2002 and was dealing with the Egyptian Zawahiri since 1999. Just as Saddam Hussein’s red-headed General al Dhouri , the same guy who advised Saddam to court the islamists rather than fight them, to build the great mosque, same guy who advised Saddam to impose shariah law on his people before the US invasion and to open his jails to let just the islamists out and not other political prisoners, was the cofounder of ISIS and the guy whose followers led ISIS back into Mosul from Syria.
Bin Laden’s right hand man as early as the Russo-Afghan war and later in his exile in Sudan was an Iraqi engineer/ former soldier named Sa’ad.
Then there’s al Ani, the Iraqi facilitator and former soldier who met with two if the 9/11 hijackers in Malaysia when the USS Cole plot was formulated. al Ani was caught in a Gulf country and later imprisoned in Jordan before being released under the pressure of leftist human rights groups, after which he fled to Saddam’s Baghdad. When searched he was found to have contact information for the 1993 plotters, the NJ cell in the US and a number of other people of interest including people involved in the 1998 US Embassy bombings.
This is one reason the USS Cole trials are so slow. The bombing is intertwined with too many things still going on.
Why not- the Syrian leader Assad first supported the al Qaeda groups in Syria and allowed them to gather recruits fro Europe via al Qaeda’s Milan Cell, etc., to fight the US in Iraq. Now he gets some blowback from his old AQII buds.
These files pretty definitively show that GWB should have gone after Iran instead of Iraq if he was really serious about protecting Americans. No more Iran => no nukes -> no disintegration of Iraq -> no ISIS
Isn’t it interesting how the elites think they can control these guys and use them for their own geopolitical purposes, and then there’s - blowback.
(I remember when Von Papen told the German businessmen they should support Hitler because Hitler would suppress the Communists, and he (Von Papen) could control Hitler.)
[snip] The US position on Saudi Arabia cooled demonstrably during the Obama administration. This cooling was not due to a newfound concern over Saudi financial support for radical Islam in the US. To the contrary, the Obama administration was friendlier to Islamists than any previous administration. Consider the Obama administration's placement of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in key positions in the federal government. For instance, in 2010, then secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to the department's Homeland Security Advisory Board. Elibiary had a long, open record of support both for the Muslim Brotherhood and for the Iranian regime. In his position he was instrumental in purging discussion of Islam and Jihad from instruction materials used by the US military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Obama administration's cold relations with the Saudi regime owed to its pronounced desire to ditch the US's traditional alliance with the Saudis, the Egyptians and the US's other traditional Sunni allies in favor of an alliance with the Iranian regime. During the same period, the Muslim Brotherhood's close ties to the Iranian regime became increasingly obvious. Among other indicators, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president Mohamed Morsi hosted Iranian leaders in Cairo and was poised to renew Egypt's diplomatic ties with Iran before he was overthrown by the military in July 2013. Morsi permitted Iranian warships to traverse the Suez Canal for the first time in decades... The timing of the administration's release last week of most of the files US special forces seized during their 2011 raid of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was likely not a coincidence. The files, which the Obama administration refused to release, make clear that Obama's two chief pretensions -- that al-Qaida was a spent force by the time US forces killed bin Laden, and that Iran was interested in moderating its behavior were both untrue. The documents showed that al-Qaida's operations remained a significant worldwide threat to US interests. And perhaps more significantly, they showed that Iran was al-Qaida's chief state sponsor. Much of al-Qaida's leadership, including bin Laden's sons, operated from Iran. The notion -- touted by Obama and his administration [plus a number of obnoxious web trolls] -- that Shi'ite Iranians and Sunni terrorists from al-Qaida and other groups were incapable of cooperating was demonstrated to be an utter fiction by the documents. [/snip]
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.