WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link (Salman Pak)

[seruriermarshal]

WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link (Salman Pak)

Newly uncovered files examined by US military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as 'a direct link' between Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America September 11, 2001.

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a 2000 Al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters reviewed by US probers, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

'Our government sources, who have seen the translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lt. Colonel,' the paper said.

Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11 style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak.

In a post obtained through Saddam's Mukahbarrat intelligence service, Shakir was stationed at the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur at the time of the 9/11 planning session.

Also in attendance, 9/11 highjackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi who piloted American Airlines Filght 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.

Ramzi al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole boming, were also at the meeting the Journal said.




From (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml)

[seruriermarshal]

http://www.djwebster.com/webart/photos/3rd-infantry-Saddam-911.jpg

[Abolith]

http://www.djwebster.com/webart/photos/3rd-infantry-Saddam-911.jpg

please tell me they burned that ****.

[Romulus]

Sad thing is ... this will get no play in the world wide media.

[Secret Squirrel]

Sad thing is ... this will get no play in the world wide media.

if it doesnt get any play in the world wide media, chalk it up to why the Nick Berg conspiracy never got any play. woot Interesting... "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." was removed from the beginning of one of the above pasted paragraphs. I wish they would name their gov. sources as i think this would be something Bush would have repeatedly mentioned and publicised himself, which really makes me question if its true or not.

[seruriermarshal]

as i think this would be something you would have repeatedly mentioned and publicised Osama .

:bash:

[Romulus]

if it doesnt get any play in the world wide media, chalk it up to why the Nick Berg conspiracy never got any play. Interesting... "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." was removed from the beginning of one of the above pasted paragraphs. I wish they would name their gov. sources as i think this would be something Bush would have repeatedly mentioned and publicised himself, which really makes me question if its true or not.

being proved wrong all the time really blows huh Squirrel boy?

[Secret Squirrel]

if it doesnt get any play in the world wide media, chalk it up to why the Nick Berg conspiracy never got any play. Interesting... "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." was removed from the beginning of one of the above pasted paragraphs. I wish they would name their gov. sources as i think this would be something Bush would have repeatedly mentioned and publicised himself, which really makes me question if its true or not.

being proved wrong all the time really blows huh Squirrel boy?

you've yet to prove me wrong Rom. Question, if this is true, why hasnt Bush mentioned it? It would obviously get him a lot of support for both the war and his handling of the war on terror and well as general domestic support. Still not sure why seruriermarshal cut one of the sentences out of the article post.

[Romulus]

Still not sure why seruriermarshal cut one of the sentences out of the article post.

Heh, probably the same reason you edit my post's to your liking.

[Romulus]

Question, if this is true, why hasnt Bush mentioned it?

Why, you wouldn't believe him anyhow.

[seruriermarshal]

Question, if this is true, why hasnt Bush mentioned it?

Why, you wouldn't believe him anyhow.

Perhaps because he believe Saddam or Osama ......

:roll:

[Kitsune]

What does the above prove?
Wasn't Osama bin Laden registered as an ally of the CIA? And does this prove that the USA are behind 9/11?

NO.

[seruriermarshal]

What does the above prove?
Wasn't Osama bin Laden registered as an ally of the CIA? And does this prove that the USA are behind 9/11?

NO.

Before Osama bin Laden is a terrorist , who know his a terrorist ? Starts the terror attack after him (including Yemen), had proven he is
a terrorist, then if some people help him, is one kind of criminality (That's Saddam).

[Secret Squirrel]

Still not sure why seruriermarshal cut one of the sentences out of the article post.

Heh, probably the same reason you edit my post's to your liking.

are you a complete moron? I cut paragraphs out of your post as your post was listed in various paragraphs from various people. But i have a problem taking anything "political reporter Carl Limbacher" says as credible if he appears on the same shows that delves into aliens and conspiracy theories (ie. he was on www.rense.com).
As far as Bush mentioning it, it certainly would give it more weight than some nut-job "news media" whos had a lot problems in the past with their "editing" and who wont list their sources. But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice? lol moron.

[scm77]

Sad thing is ... this will get no play in the world wide media.

Why not? It's not like it would help Bush or further justify the war :roll: :roll:.

[Romulus]

are you a complete moron?

This your new catch phrase dildo?

And your one to be talking about Aliens and conspiracy theories! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. rofl

[Secret Squirrel]

are you a complete moron?

This your new catch phrase dildo?

And your one to be talking about Aliens and conspiracy theories! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. rofl

when have i supported a conspiracy theory?

[Romulus]

when have i supported a conspiracy theory?

Nick Berg ring a bell?

[Secret Squirrel]

when have i supported a conspiracy theory?

Nick Berg ring a bell?

when did i support the nick berg conspiracy theory?

[Romulus]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16


depends on how and where he died if he was already dead.

[usa320]

God where do these ****tards come from...

If your in bed with terrorists and hate America, just admit it instead of trying to hide it you dirtbag.

[Secret Squirrel]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16


depends on how and where he died if he was already dead.

that shows i believe the U.S killed Berg? Or is it more to the point of the lack of blood in the video? Show me where i supported the idea that Berg was killed by the U.S. rofl I was more interested in if Berg was beheaded because of the prison scandle or if the terrorists were just airing their tape because they heard of the prison scandle and infact Berg had already been killed.

[seruriermarshal]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16


depends on how and where he died if he was already dead.

that shows i believe the U.S killed Berg? Or is it more to the point of the lack of blood in the video? Show me where i supported the idea that Berg was killed by the U.S. rofl I was more interested in if Berg was beheaded because of the prison scandle or if the terrorists were just airing their tape because they heard of the prison scandle and infact Berg had already been killed.

Perhaps you hope a test ......

[Secret Squirrel]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16


depends on how and where he died if he was already dead.

that shows i believe the U.S killed Berg? Or is it more to the point of the lack of blood in the video? Show me where i supported the idea that Berg was killed by the U.S. rofl I was more interested in if Berg was beheaded because of the prison scandle or if the terrorists were just airing their tape because they heard of the prison scandle and infact Berg had already been killed.

Perhaps you hope a test ......

I'll repost this for you incase you missed it...

But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice?

[seruriermarshal]

I have giving news address that as "From" , You can't watch it ?

[Secret Squirrel]

I have giving news address that as "From" , You can't watch it ?

why post the article if you tried to edited to state that the Wall Street Journal reported the story instead of a nut-case political reporter who appears on shows like www.rense.com that delves into aliens and such? Gee, could there be a reason you edited. LOL man you are stupid. Dont worry, I'll try not to respond to your posts anymore as it shows you like to edit the articles you post in your favor.

[Romulus]

LOL man you are stupid. Dont worry, I'll try not to respond to your posts anymore as it shows you like to edit the articles you post in your favor.

Pot calling the kettle black yet again.

[seruriermarshal]

I have giving news address that as "From" , You can't watch it ?

why post the article if you tried to edited to state that the Wall Street Journal reported the story instead of a nut-case political reporter who appears on shows like www.rense.com that delves into aliens and such? Gee, could there be a reason you edited. LOL man you are stupid. Dont worry, I'll try not to respond to your posts anymore as it shows you like to edit the articles you post in your favor.

I'm glad hear you will try not to respond to my posts , because you afraid fact .

[Secret Squirrel]

LOL man you are stupid. Dont worry, I'll try not to respond to your posts anymore as it shows you like to edit the articles you post in your favor.

Pot calling the kettle black yet again.

sorry i didnt know i had to dumb it down for you. Heres the dumbed down version...i kept all your quotes that were made by countries involved in the Iraq war since 2001. Quotes from countries not involved in the Iraq war are pointless. better? or do i need to dumb it down a little further?


http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/secret_squirrel.gif

[SpazzMunky]

If the article is credible, Bush will be all over it, because he wasts all the support he can get in justifying the war.

Somehow I don't think mainstream media will pick this up. Newsmax isn't exactly unbiased anyway.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The following is also from newsmax.com.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:46 p.m. EDT

Jayna Davis: OKC and WTC Bombers Met in Philippines

Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols met with World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines before he and Timothy McVeigh carried out their plot, investigative reporter Jayna Davis said Wednesday.
And this is a reliable and quotable source, you would think that the feds would have been all over this one like a tropical rash. :lol:

[Secret Squirrel]

Come on seruriermarshal, dont you want to defend your good name? Surely you can explain why you edited the article at the beginning of this post? The only thing worse than a liar is someone who doesnt admit to it when they're caught. How many other articles that you posted have been hack jobs? Can people believe anything you put here anymore?

[Midtown]

Holy god your annoying, shut the hell up already.

[Secret Squirrel]

Holy god your annoying, shut the hell up already.

holy god you're (not "your", still working on that GED?) pointless. But i guess you, being pro-Bush, would support tampering with the evidence to support your arguments. rofl

[seruriermarshal]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

[Secret Squirrel]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

[seruriermarshal]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

lies ? I don't know lie in my post or link is lie ? I'm give them , Including base link , perhaps you think it is lie , but where are lie in the post ? Base link error ?

[Secret Squirrel]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

lies ? I don't know lie in my post or link is lie ? I'm give them , Including base link , perhaps you think it is lie , but where are lie in the post ? Base link error ?

Heres the editing job you did...try to read it this time and stop being a ****ing moron.
But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice? lol moron.
Funny thing is, i havent seen anyone post in this thread that would support any news from newmax...maybe you should keep that in mind in the future. Also, try not to edit any more articles to your favor. rofl

[seruriermarshal]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

lies ? I don't know lie in my post or link is lie ? I'm give them , Including base link , perhaps you think it is lie , but where are lie in the post ? Base link error ?

Heres the editing job you did...try to read it this time and stop being a f*** moron.
But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice? lol moron.
Funny thing is, i havent seen anyone post in this thread that would support any news from newmax...maybe you should keep that in mind in the future. Also, try not to edit any more articles to your favor. rofl

You think I edit this post , but in this link (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)tell you I haven't edit post , and I give link .

Perhaps you fool don't believe fact .
Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak

it's said Saddam more link and 911 . Thank you show more Saddam and 911 link give everybody .

[Secret Squirrel]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

lies ? I don't know lie in my post or link is lie ? I'm give them , Including base link , perhaps you think it is lie , but where are lie in the post ? Base link error ?

Heres the editing job you did...try to read it this time and stop being a f*** moron.
But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice? lol moron.
Funny thing is, i havent seen anyone post in this thread that would support any news from newmax...maybe you should keep that in mind in the future. Also, try not to edit any more articles to your favor. rofl

You think I edit this post , but in this link (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)tell you I haven't edit post , and I give link .

Perhaps you fool don't believe fact .
Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak

it's said Saddam more link and 911 . Thank you show more Saddam and 911 link give everybody .

I'll try to explain this again, hopefully even you will understand this time. You removed the first part of a sentence in one of the paragraphs you quoted from a "news" report (easily discovered after i read the link you posted, and considering that you deleted the first part of a sentence, it would have to have been a conscious "hack" job by you). After you removed half the sentence, your article made it appear that the Wall Street Journal made the report, which it didnt. So if WSJ didnt who did? Well the nut-job from newsmax, who appears on programs such as www.rense.com. Others memebers in this thread have already pointed out the problems with beliving anything thats reported by newsmax. Any clearer now? or do i need to dumb it down further? Its amusing really that you cant own up to your attempt to deceive people here with your edited article. I for one, and probably others also, will not believe anything you say or quote anymore. If you cant admit to your mistakes, it only means you're going to keep repeating them.

[seruriermarshal]

Perhaps you hope these? (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)

nope, i had hoped you would admit to your tampering with the article. The link above is sourced to newsmax and the same writer, i wouldnt go around quoting him unless you enjoying looking like an idiot. I guess everyone now knows that anything coming from you is full of **** covered lies.

lies ? I don't know lie in my post or link is lie ? I'm give them , Including base link , perhaps you think it is lie , but where are lie in the post ? Base link error ?

Heres the editing job you did...try to read it this time and stop being a f*** moron.
But again, seruriermarshal, why did you cut "Though the Journal doesn't mention it,.." from the beginning of this paragraph..."Though the Journal doesn't mention it, Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak."..hrm the way it appears in your post it looks like it was a conscious cut and paste, especially considering it was part of a sentence and not a sentence in itself. Could it be that its not in WSJ and therefore against your "agenda"? Or maybe you thought no one would notice? lol moron.
Funny thing is, i havent seen anyone post in this thread that would support any news from newmax...maybe you should keep that in mind in the future. Also, try not to edit any more articles to your favor. rofl

You think I edit this post , but in this link (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts)tell you I haven't edit post , and I give link .

Perhaps you fool don't believe fact .
Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak

it's said Saddam more link and 911 . Thank you show more Saddam and 911 link give everybody .

I'll try to explain this again, hopefully even you will understand this time. You removed the first part of a sentence in one of the paragraphs you quoted from a "news" report (easily discovered after i read the link you posted, and considering that you deleted the first part of a sentence, it would have to have been a conscious "hack" job by you). After you removed half the sentence, your article made it appear that the Wall Street Journal made the report, which it didnt. So if WSJ didnt who did? Well the nut-job from newsmax, who appears on programs such as www.rense.com. Others memebers in this thread have already pointed out the problems with beliving anything thats reported by newsmax. Any clearer now? or do i need to dumb it down further? Its amusing really that you cant own up to your attempt to deceive people here with your edited article. I for one, and probably others also, will not believe anything you say or quote anymore. If you cant admit to your mistakes, it only means you're going to keep repeating them.

You still lie to everybody , You said this post edit by me , but link (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143171/posts) display your lie , and why sathers end that post , I think reason same you edit this post's title http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16027.