9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran

It's always been obvious - I've said it a hundred times on here myself:

1) Iraq

2) Iran (or Syria)

3) Syria (or Iran)

If there are no ties they'll make some up or maybe it won't matter anyway, who needs it when the killing's underway and it never makes a difference anyway.

10,000 more dead towelheads, now or after November - doesn't matter.

Only question is really: how many dead, how many countries invaded, how much torture and rape before US citizens realize who (or what) is in the driving seat of their country ?

One thing that this Iraq war has done is make sure that we're not going into any other preemptive wars in the near future.

Ok - more detailed response than the above which was pretty worthless. Can't say this will be any better but - some observations:

1) What does 'passed through Iran' actually mean ? The hijackers' passed through' America and Germany.

2) Assuming it means co-operation at governmental level (which it must if it's gonna float) then a total re-think, if it's true - big if, of al-Q motivation and goals is necessary - actually it's necessary anyway because the whole al-Q/terrorist deal only holds water to those who have zero knowledge of Islamic history, culture and theology.

More simply:

a) Fundamentalist Sunni Wahabis do not do deals with extreme Shi'i regimes unless they are not serious about their fundamentalist principles - here we have reached the singularity where the party-line breaks down. All the rhetoric has boiled down to mutually exclusive concepts.

Maybe they did co-operate - but the the al-Q/Islamic terrorist archetype fed to the public incessantly for 3 years is false.

Or maybe they didn't - and this is more BS from Big Brother.

3) Doesn't address the thorny old issue of the 7 (or more) hijackers who seem to be still alive and had their identities stolen.

That is to say: 14 allegedly passed through Iran - but who were these 14 ? Out of 19 hijackers 7 may well be falsely implicated - that leaves 12 (an overlap of 2) so the 'stolen identities' issue and the Iran issue cannot both be true.

Which is it ?

I don't find it coincidental that we've essentially surrounded Iran by getting ourselves into Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm less inclined to believe we'll start a war with them anytime in the near future than I used to be, primarily because of the way the Iraq war has polarized the nation.

What's the climate in the US right now ?

Would the public buy another war - how would it play if this actually starts to look like a possibility ?

The majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake.

Let's not forget that Iran is not a decrepid and debillitated state, but is rather somewhat healthy and rubust despite its lopsided tyrany of Mullahs . . .. they would not crumble and roll over in favor of Improvised Explosive Devices from a distance . . . .

. . . in the Iran/Iraq war they used what was basically waves upon waves of men and boys that would just come at the opposing army . . . this was when they were less developed and robust after the Revolution . . . . how long would the US, or its soldiers accept that kind of slaughter . . . because clearly the people would be willing to die against the 'Great Satan' . . . they would embrace it . . . the unreligious would suddenly see the light . . . it would be the biggest mistake the US could EVER do!!!

Unless we suddenly decided to attack China . . .

We... with Iran they have a better arguement for the potential for Nukes . . . the Iranians themselves have basically said that they are working towards become a nuclear power . . . though I think they meant in terms of nuclear-power

But either way, now all the Bush admin needs to do is play-up that AQ-passed-through-the-borders-without stamps thing . . . . even if its just on the way to the border-Farmer's-market and back, . . couple that with the nuke biz and presto . . . insta rally-round the troops . . . save us Mr Big Bad Texan . . . and next . . . a terrible calamity . . .

Fortunately another stupid war right now would be political suicide for Bush.

Much like staying in office for another day.

The irony is that, using the same criteria used in Iraq - WMD, ties to radical Islamic terrorists - a much better case probably could have made to invade Iran.

All it really needs is another attack on mainland US where 100+ people die, then the Al-Q, Iran link will be an excuse. Demonize the enemy, claim imminent attack, Iran has WMD, specifically nuclear that could launch in 45 minutes, and voila, justification and public support.

I'd imagine China is feeling pretty threatened at the moment, with the US establishing an empire on its doorstep. Perhaps this is the plan, the US knows China will attack one day, so lets have the battle on China's doorstep, not the mainland.

Has anyone seen a red heifer lately?

Iran says it has dismantled al-Qaeda within it's borders.

Whether this is a response to potential US aggression or, more likely, true is as yet unclear.

Any link is far more unlikely than with Iraq. Al-Q are fighting Shi'ia in Iraq right now as we speak.

It's time people got educated about all these factions and chains of support in the Islamic world - that alone would decrease Bush's propaganda options (and hence actual ability to do real world damage) by a vast amount.

Hi Segovius.

Right *now*, the administration wouldn't be able to get support from the public for any pre-emptive activities in Iran or anywhere else, imo.

BUT...as someone mentioned, if there IS a significant terrorist attack in the next few months, that could change everything. For one thing, it would increase the chance of Bush getting re-elected. It would definitely change the opinions of many wrt pre-emptive strategies of some kind.

I have been fascinated by Iran for years. I've read SO many articles over the last seven years, about the youth of Iran, and how totally differently oriented they are compared to the ruling clerics. The Iranian govt. seems to have supported anti-US terrorist activity for years. But the people themselves seem to yearn for freedom from theocratic tyranny.

I could be *completely* wrong/naive in my impression about all this. You would certainly know better than I. I did run across the following comment from a blogger visiting Iran. I thought it was interesting:


http://iraniantruth.blogspot.com/

Carol

I think that's the conventional wisdom, but personally I don't think it's true. True, when there's a natural tragedy, people tend to rally round the leader. But in this case? After Bush has been running around saying "America is safer because of me" people might have a hard time re-electing him should something catastrophic happen....

But to answer S's question: the political climate here is unbelievably polarized among those who follow politics. Even among those who don't follow this stuff religiously, the rhetoric is pretty heated.

Bush could just say that he had Iran and Iraq confused, and that he intended to go into Iran all the time. It's only a one letter difference, after all, and it's not like he has time to pay attention to nit-picking details like that.

So with renewed resolve to mind our 'n's and 'q's, let us once more rally behind our brave troops, wave the flag high, and seek the Blessing and Guidance of Our Heavenly Father that we may, in service to Freedom and Justice for all mankind, attack the correct other country we really meant to attack the first time. Thank you, and God bless America!

With everything that's come out about Bush's actions now I think this would be a much harder sell. He might try something like this but I think he would find it much more difficult to convince people to go for it again.

Also given the election is just a few months away it would be more than obvious. He'd need absolute proof connecting them to some new attack on the U.S. to get this one to fly.

It's something he should have tried a year ago before it became obvious how little proof he had about Iraq.

The only thing i can say for sure is that Iran's nuclear reactors need to be destroyed-now. The fact that they exist at all is shrub's greatest failure as President, in his long list of failures.

Iran is the problem. Saudi Arabia is the other. The Saudis are playing friend with us on one hand and fueling hatred towards us on the other. Time to give up the Royals or threaten to unless they cut the crap.

This is my take on the situation as well. There's no way we will go into Iran without Bush and America being condemned. There's also no way Congress as it stands will support any sort of military action against Iran at this point or for the forseeable future. Unless Iran explicitly attacks somebody first. And even if Iran declared nuclear capability, there's no way the international community would support America in military action.

Bush has destroyed any power we might have had to stop something like this. We have never been weaker as an international force.

LOL!! That's what I was just thinking

Hi Carol - Madrid went horribly wrong, looks like I'm heading for Edinburgh ! Will mail you with full horrendous details heh !

Back OT:

I think wherever there is a totalitarian ruling class (theologically based or otherwise) it always causes a percentage of the population to swing to the other extreme and creates a polarised society.

Often the rulers try to neutralise or exterminate this 'opposition' (as in Iraq, Taleban Afghanistan or Saudi) but Iran has not done this so you get the liberal attitudes you point to. This is progress.

You have to realise that Iran is not by nature a radicalised Islamic state and Iranians are far from this in the main as people (horrible generalisation but I'll go with it), your observations are proof of this.

The reason that things developed as they did in Iran were purely down to the US bolstering of the Shah - an appalling despot who really did systematically abuse his people on many levels and much ant-US sentiment can be traced to this meddling.

In fact the situation is similar to Iraq where the US courted Saddam who turned into an oppressor of his people causing a swing to extremist Islam as a counterbalance.

Anyway, even Bush is not stupid enough to attack Iran, as someone said above, it would be a very bad mistake. They can't even sort out the rag tag Ba'athists and guerilla wannabees in Fallujah - and that's after decades of sanctions. Iran would take 'quagmire' to 11.

If Bush makes any move (and you get the feeling it's the only card he has to play - actually war has always been his only card) it will be Syria - anything else would be the action of a deranged madman.....uhh....err.......

Shetline, now you really scared me. That's the explanation to all of it, the whole mess was just a typo.

Would perfectly match with the Bush strategy. I really hope you American guys will fix it this year.

They should do it now

I've always wondered why that is? Are Americans particularly retarded or is that an international phenomenon? Bush makes us LESS secure by invading another country and killing thousands of civilians and Americans, Los Alamos loses a hard drive every day that ends in the letter "y", and our nukes are LESS safe than they were before 9/11, and the public "rallies" behind him!? ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE!!!

midwinter that last bit on the bottom floored me!

Because Americans would see it as a ploy by the terrorists to sway the election in Kerry's favor. Americans dont like to be told what to do and will do the opposite of their intentions just to show them who's boss.

Yes but they're already suspicious of Bush. Also Bush knows this would be risky at best. Another country we've just got to attack! It's a little like crying wolf.

You can only go to the fear well so many times.

Also we've just begun to recover from bad economic times. I think people will be a little less likely to jump on the war band wagon again.

I think even Bush realizes his days in office are probably numbered. Best not to make the republican party look stupid.

One thing that I heard an Iranian commentator say today was that the young Iranians who had been spearheading a strong reform movement and who, in large part, looked to the US and Secular Democracy, have been very very quited and shut-down, confused and disenchanted since the war in Iraq . . . and especially hit by the images from Abu Ghraib.

I also just want to point out another thing: I agree with the poster who said that Iran was not at all like the tyranical government would make us believe: namely, it is filled with enlightened and thoughtful people, rich history (as is all of the region) and openness and receptiveness to any serious culture ineterchange . . . the Revolution was a reaction to an American backed and extremely-over-funded egomaniac who spent more money on his coronation that many small nations will make in decades . . . the fanatics took charge by force . . . but the main of Iran is a decent place, with what I think are profound-spirited people . . . a friend of mine was involved deeply with the carpet business and traveled there fequently, he even had written recommendation letters from the Culture Ministry who thought highly of him: he has nothing but respect for the country and imparted some of that to me . . . the fanatics, though, are like fanatics everywhere: they are idiots!

iIt would not only be a devestatingly idiotic thing to do for the US to invade because of what it would mean for us, it would be devastating because of what it would mean for humanity and human culture . . . it would most likely put to rest a blossoming yet still nacent cultural growth that yet remains to flourish.

Where is this data collected? "All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older." this is hardly something I would consider basing my opinions on. In any case I dont think a war with Iran is in the immediate future, although based on our principals for going into Iraq plans may already be under way.

I say we sick the UN on them

You conspiricy theorists are out of your F**king minds if you think Bush would start a war to win the god damn election. Enough Said.

I agree, what are the idiots going to do wait until they have the big one? Blow up the whole complex and give them 10 minutes to remove its people, and your Saudi comment is right on. we love you buy our oil while teaching the youth to hate us. This administration long list of failures is getting larger by the day. Bush is in bed with the Saudi's and the illegal Mexican. i wonder how his wife feels.

Amen, brother. I prefer to vote republican but Bush is giving me nothing. Another illegal amnesty to pander to latinos, a huge deficit, killing environmental regs, outsourcing, no price controls on drugs, a misplaced war, a failure to find Bin Laden and destroy Al Queda, and an Iran with Nuclear Reactors. I'd say that adds up to one massive failure of a President.

Its more of a way of saying F U to the terrorists more than being afraid. Although now i would say that it would just prove what a failure Bush is. He didnt finish the job in Afghanistan just like Papa Bush didnt finish the job in Iraq.