9-11 And Saddam

[Major B]

Memo: 9-11 chief
trained by Saddam
Document says Atta in Baghdad under Abu Nidal's tutelage just before attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 13, 2003
8:05 p.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Mohammed Atta, the hijacker believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, claims Iraq's coalition government.


Mohamed el Amir Atta

The leaders says a handwritten secret memo to Saddam Hussein gives details of a visit by Atta to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before the attacks, reports the London Telegraph.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaida," said Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man presidential committee, according to the London paper.

"But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far," he said. "It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaida, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

The memo, obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, was written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. "

Full article at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36124

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Major B:
1)9-11 chief
trained by Saddam

Document says Atta in Baghdad under Abu Nidal's tutelage just before attacks

2)he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

1)Okay, I'm confused. The headline said that Hussein trained the man. But then it says that Abu Nidal trained the man. Are Hussein and Nidal the same person?

2) The only thing I saw in the article is that "a handwritten secret memo to Saddam Hussein gives details of a visit by Atta to the Iraqi capital", but the story sounds like Hussein was being informed after the fact, not that he met with the man.

I think WorldNetDaily needs to edit their story so that it is more clear for we dimmer bulbs.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
1)9-11 chief
trained by Saddam

Document says Atta in Baghdad under Abu Nidal's tutelage just before attacks

2)he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

1)Okay, I'm confused. The headline said that Hussein trained the man. But then it says that Abu Nidal trained the man. Are Hussein and Nidal the same person?

2) The only thing I saw in the article is that "a handwritten secret memo to Saddam Hussein gives details of a visit by Atta to the Iraqi capital", but the story sounds like Hussein was being informed after the fact, not that he met with the man.

I think WorldNetDaily needs to edit their story so that it is more clear for we dimmer bulbs. </font>[/QUOTE]I waiting for the full details of the London Telegraph report, which was scooped by someone at WND. As I read it, Nidal, Iraqi intel, and Saddam, were all a part of this.

 

[The Galatian]

It has to be vague. The idea is to leave it unclear so that people might draw the conclusion that Saddam was actually involved in 9/11.

It's the Bush program; hint broadly, but be vague enough that you can later deny that's what you meant.

 

[Major B]

Here is the London Telegraph blurb.

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)


Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.

Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
It has to be vague. The idea is to leave it unclear so that people might draw the conclusion that Saddam was actually involved in 9/11.

It's the Bush program; hint broadly, but be vague enough that you can later deny that's what you meant.

So, the London Telegraph works For GW? Ingenious.

 

[KenH]

Okay, here's what I understand the story to be saying:

1) Nidal is not the same person as Hussein.

2) Nidal trained Atta for three days, not Hussein.

3) Hussein was told the details of Atta visit after Atta had left.

Is that about right?

 

[Major B]

Knowing that in Saddam-ruled Iraq, such a thing could not have happened without prior approval.

 

[KenH]

It will interesting to see if the story turns out to be true or not.

 

[InHim2002]

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

 

[LadyEagle]

That was in September, InHim. It doesn't count.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
It has to be vague. The idea is to leave it unclear so that people might draw the conclusion that Saddam was actually involved in 9/11.

It's the Bush program; hint broadly, but be vague enough that you can later deny that's what you meant.

So, the London Telegraph works For GW?

Don't know about them. But worldnet daily seems to be a cheerleader for Dubya. And not surprisingly, they copy his style.

Ingenious.

More like WH issuing talking points to friendly media. I guess, since we knew that there were terrorists training for 9/11 in the US, that proves George Bush must be involved. After all, if any covert activity goes on in a country, the head of state has to know and approve.

 

[LadyEagle]

London Telegraph and World Net Daily must be in cahoots.

 

[InHim2002]

Actually the Telegraph does appear to have worked with the US admin on breaking a number of stories that have later turned out to be false

 

[Daisy]

Didn't Abu Nidal commit suicide - Iraqi style - in Iraq? They found four bullets in the back of his head.

This was on C-Span this morning - I don't remember which paper. My overwhelming impression is that Saddam had much to fear from al Quaida and vice versa.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Didn't Abu Nidal commit suicide - Iraqi style - in Iraq? They found four bullets in the back of his head.

Could you please explain how you commit suicide with four bullets in the back of your head?????? To get one bullet in the back of your head would be a great enough feat ... but three more????

My overwhelming impression is that Saddam had much to fear from al Quaida and vice versa.

No reasons that I know of have been given to think that. If Atta was in Baghdad, it is a sign that the Iraqi government, under the rule of Hussein, supported and encouraged them. A memo sent to Hussein about it would show a high level of involvement and knowledge. If it had been Atta meeting with some group apart from the government it is hard to explain why Hussein would have gotten a memo. I don't think anyone ever suggested that Hussein himself was doing the training. The accusation was that Hussein's government was supporting and encouraging them. This evidence, if true, shows that certain people here have some backtracking to do.

I also saw a report over the weekend about finding some new handwritten memos detailing Iraqi acquisitions from African countries, possibily uranium. Did anyone see these new reports?? I can't remember where I saw them.

 

[The Galatian]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Didn't Abu Nidal commit suicide - Iraqi style - in Iraq? They found four bullets in the back of his head.

Could you please explain how you commit suicide with four bullets in the back of your head?????? To get one bullet in the back of your head would be a great enough feat ... but three more????

He used a WFTH-I automatic pistol, not a revolver.

Daisy writes:
My overwhelming impression is that Saddam had much to fear from al Quaida and vice versa.

What, just because Saddam tortured and killed Islamists, and Osama declared that Saddam was an apostate, you think that means they didn't like each other?

If Atta was in Baghdad, it is a sign that the Iraqi government, under the rule of Hussein, supported and encouraged them.

"If the 9/11 hijackers were in America, it is a sign that the Ameican government, under the rule of George Bush, supported and encouraged them."

No, that reasoning seems wrong, somehow...

I also saw a report over the weekend about finding some new handwritten memos detailing Iraqi acquisitions from African countries, possibily uranium. Did anyone see these new reports?? I can't remember where I saw them.

I don't think anyone has ever been sold the Brooklyn Bridge twice, but there's always a first time.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Could you please explain how you commit suicide with four bullets in the back of your head?????? To get one bullet in the back of your head would be a great enough feat ... but three more????

Well, duh! I did say "Iraqi style", meaning that the court coroner declared the official cause of death to be suicide.

I believe a lot of Saddam's foes committed suicide in a similar fashion.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
No reasons that I know of have been given to think that. If Atta was in Baghdad, it is a sign that the Iraqi government, under the rule of Hussein, supported and encouraged them. A memo sent to Hussein about it would show a high level of involvement and knowledge. If it had been Atta meeting with some group apart from the government it is hard to explain why Hussein would have gotten a memo. I don't think anyone ever suggested that Hussein himself was doing the training. The accusation was that Hussein's government was supporting and encouraging them. This evidence, if true, shows that certain people here have some backtracking to do.

Same reason the Sauds are afraid of them. It's the old church-state power struggle.

I also saw a report over the weekend about finding some new handwritten memos detailing Iraqi acquisitions from African countries, possibily uranium. Did anyone see these new reports?? I can't remember where I saw them.

So far the reports seem to all be from NewsMax, FrontPage, WorldNutDaily and the UK Telegraph. The story should make it into the mainstream news sources.

Even if it's true, look what became of Nidal. I don't know whether it was in retaliation for disobediance or just to shut him up, but I don't think he needed shutting up....We'll see - should be interesting.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Well, duh! I did say "Iraqi style", meaning that the court coroner declared the official cause of death to be suicide.

Well Duh ... if you had explained what you meant by "Iraqi style" that would have been clear ... ... But you didn't so I wasn't sure what you were saying