Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligence chief casts doubt on Atta meeting
Prague Post ^ | 2002 07 15 | Kate Swoger

Posted on 07/17/2002 2:26:07 PM PDT by Plummz

The chief of the Czech foreign intelligence has cast doubt on government reports that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague before last year's terrorist attacks in the United States.

It was the first time a ranking Czech intelligence figure had publicly challenged official accounts regarding whether the meeting took place.

Frantisek Bublan, director general of the Office of Foreign Relations and Information (UZSI), the nation's foreign intelligence wing, told The Prague Post he doubted whether Atta would have met Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, so close to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Atta, an Egyptian, is believed to have piloted one of the hijacked commercial airliners used to destroy New York City's World Trade Center twin towers.

Some officials have suggested, without proof, that he may have received logistical support from the Iraqi agent.

"If Mohamed Atta was here [in Prague], he was just passing though," said Bublan. "If there were any meetings [between Atta and al-Ani]... they have not been verified or proven."

That is not what government officials have said so far. They have stated repeatedly that Atta and al-Ani met at least once in Prague, suggesting the encounter occurred in early April 2001. Al-Ani, suspected of plotting an attack on the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) on behalf of Iraqi intelligence, was expelled from the Czech Republic April 22, 2001 -- soon after the alleged meeting -- for abusing his diplomatic status, a charge usually associated with spying or terrorism.

Bublan said that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

U.S. military officials are considering such action.

"But the question must be asked whether Atta, who was supposed to be getting ready for [Sept. 11], would risk meeting with an Iraqi diplomat in Prague. It would be even more risky if that diplomat was suspected of being an agent," said Bublan.

Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, in an Oct. 26, 2001 press conference, confirmed at least one meeting between the two men, but refused to reveal further details. The existence of an encounter has been debated since then.

In May, American media quoted senior U.S. government sources as insisting the meeting never happened, attributing its creation to overzealous Czech officials.

These disclaimers led Prague's envoy to the UN, Hynek Kmonicek, to reiterate in June that an encounter had taken place.

Bublan said solid evidence existed proving that Atta had entered and left Prague. "Once he arrived by bus and continued by plane, the next time he arrived by plane and left by plane," he said.

"It may be more important that he lived in Germany and no one picked up on what was going on," Bublan said, rejecting the idea that the reputation of Czech intelligence had lost prestige over its handling of the Atta case.

"[Atta] also traveled to Spain and Switzerland. He moved freely."

The Washington Post, citing U.S. intelligence reports, said July 14 that Atta had met with fellow plotters in Tarragona, Spain, a Mediterranean resort, on July 9, 2001, only two months before the attacks. Prague was not mentioned.

Bublan is a veteran intelligence officer. He worked with the Security Information Service (BIS), the Czech domestic intelligence arm, for seven years before taking over the country's foreign intelligence network in February 2001. The BIS is handling the Atta case.

He said the unpredictable nature of terrorist activities makes tracking past behavior only relatively important.

"We can use information on past events, but we have to allow space for the fact that [terrorists] will come up with something new," he said.

Terrorist organizations are less orderly than the way they are publicly portrayed by their members, Bublan said. He said Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization, credited with masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, are little more than loose trademarks for worldwide groups that act independently.

"We've abandoned the idea that there is a center of terrorism somewhere," Bublan said.

His said his agents use a variety of techniques -- he disclosed none -- to track terrorist activities, but must adjust to unexpected opportunities.

"It's difficult to reveal [terrorists'] intentions before they act," Bublan said. "We have to do what we can and rely on 'intelligence luck.'"

If Prague was ever marked for a terrorist attack, he said the target would probably be a symbol of U.S. power, such as the Prague 1 headquarters of RFE/RL. Security around the building has been reinforced since Sept. 11, with local traffic cordoned off. The government is negotiating to have the broadcaster move from the city center.

Another obvious target would be the NATO summit, set for Nov. 21 and 22 at the city's Prague 6 Congress Center.

"But, so far, I stress that there is no indication that there will be any such real danger," he said.

Bublan, a former Catholic priest and dissident who signed the landmark Charter 77 rights manifesto, entered the BIS in 1991, after spending years under surveillance by its communist-era predecessor. He began his agency career tracking fringe religious groups.

Still, he was chilled by the Sept. 11 events and the realization that its organizers might be preparing other attacks.

"These are people who think they are the owners of the truth and are willing to do anything to achieve that truth," Bublan said.

"If you tell them that they are wrong, you take away the one thing that they have in life."

It will take another generation to eliminate that way of thinking, he said. And it will involve a lengthy, unpredictable struggle.

He regrets that he and his colleagues will inevitably be unable to anticipate and prevent future terrorist acts.

"You can't take on absolute, total responsibility," he said. "And it's very difficult to live with that."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthraxscarelist; czech; iraq; mohamedatta; samiralani; uzsi
Bublan said that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
1 posted on 07/17/2002 2:26:07 PM PDT by Plummz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Well, they finally found one. This is the first Czech to come out against the story. The story mentions Stanislav Gross, but there are several others who insist that it's true, and that there exists a videotape of the event.

"But the question must be asked whether Atta, who was supposed to be getting ready for [Sept. 11], would risk meeting with an Iraqi diplomat in Prague. It would be even more risky if that diplomat was suspected of being an agent," said Bublan.

But we know for certain that Atta made the same kind of trip to Spain, where he risked meeting with known Al-Qaeda members.

If not to meet with Al-Ani, then why did Atta go to great lengths to make his one documented trip to Prague in May-June 2000? No one has supplied any other explanation.

2 posted on 07/17/2002 2:37:53 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plummz; Mitchell
Yeah, but it was the Czechs who came out with this first, and early on. It was the American Govt. that tried to underplay it. Then the Czechs came out again to say it was true.

This guy says nothing. He says not "verified" or "Proven". If he's the head of an intel org, why doesn't he just say it straight - didn't happen.

Consider his own motives for deflecting or covering up.

3 posted on 07/17/2002 2:39:46 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Bublan said solid evidence existed proving that Atta had entered and left Prague. "Once he arrived by bus and continued by plane,[May-June 2000] the next time he arrived by plane and left by plane,"[summer 2001] he said.

This is also significant. Most of the people debunking the Atta-Al-Ani story insist that this visit never occurred.

4 posted on 07/17/2002 2:42:50 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
"Once he arrived by bus and continued by plane, the next time he arrived by plane and left by plane

Good spot. Why doesn't he give us the dates? And wasn't one of the 2001 meetings in the airport itself? The other meeting near RFE studios could be mistaken, or overthought by some local agent.

5 posted on 07/17/2002 2:46:25 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
"If Mohamed Atta was here [in Prague], he was just passing though"

Uh, from where, and to where. I having difficulty coming up with an itinerary that has one "passing through" Prague for no apparent reason.

6 posted on 07/17/2002 2:49:47 PM PDT by LouD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
The article almost says the opposite of the headline, substantiating that he was in Prague twice, and giving specifics of how he got there. It is not really plausible he was there with no purpose at all. The lack of an alternative explanation speaks volumes.
7 posted on 07/17/2002 2:53:11 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Anthrax_Scare_List; The Great Satan; Fred Mertz; Mitchell; gumbo; eno_; Betty Jo
I wonder why this Czech guy agreed to go along to this extent.
8 posted on 07/17/2002 2:53:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouD

Sure, happens all the time.. I think I pass by there on the way home from work.

Why just last week someone said to me: "Hey, it's tuesday.. Let's go pass through Prague!"

9 posted on 07/17/2002 2:54:09 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
The actual dates of Atta's 2001 trip to Prague are April 8-9, according to most sources. Not summer 2001 as I wrote above.
10 posted on 07/17/2002 2:54:33 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LouD
For the beer?
11 posted on 07/17/2002 2:55:08 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Bublan said that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Bullsh*t. The CIA immediately shot the story down as bogus, even as the Czechs were insisting that it was true.

12 posted on 07/17/2002 2:56:16 PM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting: Kmonicek says Al-Ani, Atta spoke in Prague [Newsweek=Lies]

The Czech envoy to the UN has confirmed that an Iraqi agent met with suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, in the latest rebuke to widespread U.S. media reports dismissing the Prague encounter as a fabrication.

"The meeting took place," Hynek Kmonicek, a former deputy foreign minister, told The Prague Post flatly in a New York City interview.

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters.

The controversial meeting became known as "the Prague connection" and was mentioned frequently as a possible pretext for renewed hostilities between the United States and Iraq...

So Does the interior minister know better than the Foreign intel guy what happens inside Czech? Close reading of this guy - he doesn't say Atta didn't meet with any Iraqis, or others, only not "Al-Ani".

Plus since Isikoff said it didn't happen...I believe the opposite! :)


13 posted on 07/17/2002 2:58:25 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; Fred Mertz; appeal2; Nogbad; LarryLied; keri; The Great Satan; Mitchell; Tymesup; ...
Some interesting new info here

Old thread:

Mr. Atta Goes to Prague (william Safire)

14 posted on 07/17/2002 3:04:08 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Very strange. I don't see why anybody is denying it, though. Who benefits?
15 posted on 07/17/2002 3:38:32 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I having difficulty coming up with an itinerary that has one "passing through" Prague for no apparent reason.

Sure, happens all the time.. I think I pass by there on the way home from work.

Why just last week someone said to me: "Hey, it's tuesday.. Let's go pass through Prague!"

A professional acquaintance of mine was posted to London in 2000 and had made it his business to frequent the capitals of the old and new regimes in Europe, being that he was single and had some coins in his pocket.

In Spring of 2001 he went to Prague and found himself talking to a young thing in a pub.

The next thing he knew he was being slapped awake at the constable's office, wearing his only his underwear and a huge gash/lump on his head, missing his wallet, phone, cash and passport.

He didn't get out much after that.

16 posted on 07/17/2002 3:41:21 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: livius
Very strange. I don't see why anybody is denying it, though. Who benefits?

It's disinformation, to try to light up the channels we're watching for information.

If you stop and consider it in that light, there's been alot of this lately.

17 posted on 07/17/2002 3:42:33 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; aristeides; Fred Mertz; OKCSubmariner
This afternoon, on MSNBC,Laurie Mylorie(sp)and Ed Peck, ex ambassador to Iraq were talking about invading Iraq,and Laurie brought up this meeting in Prague,and Peck and the host said it never happened.

So, when will we really know?

This wasnt the meeting where "VIALS" were given is it?
18 posted on 07/17/2002 3:45:05 PM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo
Well, if he was just following the standard disinfo given about a month or two ago, that's where his info came from.

typically, the deniers say "that meeting" didn't take place, assuming a certain allegation, which actually might have been incorrect. They never say there was "no" meeting by Atta with anyone in Prague.

19 posted on 07/17/2002 3:55:50 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
"Consider his own motives for deflecting or covering up."

The CIA has asked him to, pretty please, blow some smoke...???

20 posted on 07/17/2002 4:01:33 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Sure took long enough for anyone to come forward. Wonder how much Saddam paid him?
21 posted on 07/17/2002 4:04:34 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo
"This wasnt the meeting where "VIALS" were given is it?"

It looked "like a Thermos bottle". No way of knowing whether it contained "VIALS"...

22 posted on 07/17/2002 4:05:35 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
I think I used to date her..
23 posted on 07/17/2002 4:06:59 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Czech Official Affirms Atta Met Iraqi Agent

"...But Kmonicek, a government official with top security clearance, was adamant that al-Ani and Atta met in April 2001, as Czech officials have stated repeatedly.

"At the time [of the meeting] I was in Prague," he said. "It's not like they [the Czech government] sent me a cable saying, 'Say this because you are our ambassador.' It's not like that. I was the person who had to [expel] al-Ani." ..."

24 posted on 07/17/2002 4:09:47 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Someone has Isikoff by the short hairs. (ewwww!)
25 posted on 07/17/2002 4:10:38 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
If you stop and consider it in that light, there's been alot of this lately.

Like those Iraqi war plans stories?

26 posted on 07/17/2002 4:11:35 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Here's a thought - after Osama Bin Laden discovered that Afghanistan was simply too rugged and too poor to create the kind of force he needed to roll back the West, or to overthrow the Saudi royal family, he may have cast his eye on Iraq.

Without Saddam Hussein around, AlQeada would have access to just about everything it needed. To top it off the West would probably cheer their having overthrown him.

No doubt AlQeada has cells in Iraq. They are not necessarily friends of the present government.

27 posted on 07/17/2002 4:51:16 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Without Saddam Hussein around, AlQeada would have access to just about everything it needed."

We are talking about the SAME Saddam Hussein who pays $25,000 to the families of Pali homocide bombers, has family ties to the Saudi Royal family, and is, IIRC the uncle of the current King of Jordan, are we not?

28 posted on 07/17/2002 5:04:45 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Well, for me, going through Prague is the shortcut to the nearest Blimpies'.
29 posted on 07/17/2002 5:06:18 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Saddam Hussein is from the slums. If he had relatives among the Saudi royals it did him no good. There are a lot of guys named "Hussein" in the Middle East. Few of them are relatives!

Here's another thought for you - it's possible that Atta and Osama Bin Laden thought Saddam Hussein would be blamed for the attack, and that we would remove Hussein from power. He could then move in later in a coup.

There have certainly been any number of people in FreeRepublic ready to blame Hussein for everything without clear evidence. Do we know who these people are and who they work for?

30 posted on 07/17/2002 5:41:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Then, going beyond all of that, exactly who was it who talked Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait a decade ago?

Could it have been friends of Osama Bin laden?

31 posted on 07/17/2002 5:43:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
but there are several others who insist that it's true, and that there exists a videotape of the event.

Yeah...where is it then?

32 posted on 07/17/2002 5:54:09 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
We are talking about the SAME Saddam Hussein who pays $25,000 to the families of Pali homocide bombers, has family ties to the Saudi Royal family, and is, IIRC the uncle of the current King of Jordan, are we not?

Hussein is DEFINITELY not related to the Jordanian Royal Family AT ALL and I'd frankly be surprised if he's got any ties to any of the (enormous) Saudi Royal Family. Got a cite for that?

Hussein (and Atta, for that matter, which has caused infinite confusion as well) are about like "Smith" and "Jones" in Arabic.

Heck, the 9/11 operation could have been funded individually by a few of the wealthier FReepers, based on cost, much less Bin Ladem; there would be no reason for Al Queda to get any help from Iraq at all.

Simply WANTING Al Queda to be connected to Iraq doesn't make it true. And there are still plenty of good reasons to attack Iraq even if they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

33 posted on 07/17/2002 6:15:01 PM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
where is it then?

We'll see it the day we start bombing Iraq, I imagine.

34 posted on 07/17/2002 6:46:20 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Saddam uses chemical weapons on his own people, takes all the food he gets from trading his oil while his people starve, and the money he gets from selling oil illicitly is used to buy weapons, build palaces, and pay $25,000 a pop to Pali homocide bombers.

He made the claims of relationship, not me. (lest you misunderstand, I have the utmost respect for King Abdullah of Jordan, and admire his courage in attempting to modernize Arab thinking)

Usama trying to get us to attack a worthless sandbox which has no infrastructure and hardly any oil?? Us just blindly falling for it?? Man, if THAT ain't a veiled slam against two Presidents Bush, I don't know what is. I suppose next you'll tell me that US sanctions are to blame for the deaths of millions of Iraqi children.

35 posted on 07/17/2002 7:14:38 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eno_; Mitchell; Nogbad
The article almost says the opposite of the headline, substantiating that he was in Prague twice, and giving specifics of how he got there. It is not really plausible he was there with no purpose at all. The lack of an alternative explanation speaks volumes.

Correct. This undercuts Newsweak's attempt to discredit the story, which was based on the suggestion that the FBI had no record of Atta making the 2001 trip to Prague under his own name. I remember that the very first time I saw this story reported, back in October I think, it was already being spun to divert the reader from drawing the obvious conclusion. The argument was much the same then as in this story -- why would Atta risk meeting an Iraqi spy in public? Well, one might as well ask why Atta would risk asking the USDA for a loan to buy cropdusters and take out their seats to replace them with chemical tanks, and why would he ask the loan officer about security at the WTC and Washington, DC monuments. Or one might ask why an uninvolved Saddam Hussein would have his media sing OBL's praises after the 9/11 attack, thereby painting a target on his own, perfectly innocent, forehead.

There are a variety of forces at work here seeking to muddy the waters. Of course, leftists in the government and media are solidly opposed to implicating Iraq in 9/11 for obvious reasons. The same is true of the arabists in the US State Department and the British Foreign Office, and presumably their European counterparts.

But there is another factor here, one which exactly parallels the FBI's tacit encouragement of Useful Idiot Barbara Hatch Rosenberg in the anthrax misdirection. Our leaders cannot point the finger at Iraq definitively for 9/11, because Iraq built in a very effective back-end threat to deter them from doing just that, namely the anthrax. If either the anthrax or the Atta meeting were unequivocally tied to Saddam, Bush would be in the position of admitting that Saddam had scored a massive military bow against the US, one to which we cannot presently respond without risking the loss of millions of lives and the total economic loss of our major cities. So, until such time as Bush feels the risk-benefit ratio is acceptable, it is in the administration's interest to let both the Atta story and the anthrax story bubble away with no definitive answers emerging in public.

Bush knows the answer to both these questions, and has done since last year. The significance of these stories is far too important for him not to know. The only way to make sense of all this is to look at the wider context and think through the logical implications of the different possibe scenarios. That's what the administration did last September. Everything we see them doing now is the consequence of the analysis undertaken back then, including the pubicly agnostic stance on Iraq-9/11 connections and the source of the anthrax letters. We are at war. Transparancy isn't the overriding objective. Winning is.

36 posted on 07/17/2002 7:21:29 PM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John H K
Saddam made that claim. I'm looking for some confirmation now....I'm not dissing Jordan, and I admire King Abdullah. I've posted enough links to the good things he's doing for his peple and for peace, and stated my admiration of his courage often enough right here on FR.

I should have specified "claims" in that statement of mine...I apologize. By now you've seen enough of my posts to know I don't slip like that often. Darn. That doesn't make it right, I know.

The part about killing his own people and paying Pali homocide bombers should need no citation....

I agree there are plenty of good reasons to attack Iraq without an al Qaeda link, but sincerely doubt our government just made the Atta/Prague link up off the top of it's head while the country was reeling from 9-11....just so we could attack Saddam.

The guy isn't THAT important. Diplomatic pressure from the entire coalition would do more than going into another war when we are done with the first...because I don't believe the president sat there on 9-11 and coldly thought "Hey, I can USE the horrible deaths of thousands of Americans JUST TO GET THE NUTCASE IN THAT NOWHERE COUNTRY OVER THERE!!" I cannot and will not believe that.

37 posted on 07/17/2002 7:27:14 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: livius
You ask the right question: why deny it?

The FBI denies terrorism as a motive in the LAX shooting. The Finns deny terrorism in their car bombing. There's a third recent example, but I forget it. Why the epidemic of denial?

38 posted on 07/17/2002 7:33:06 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Thanks for the heads up!
39 posted on 07/17/2002 7:41:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You see, the nice thing about FR is that we can engage in far-reaching speculation about whether, for example, the Air Arrow crash was an Al Quaida op in good faith, while correctly labeling babble like this as a cross between tinfoil hat-ism and disinformacia. The most likely to be correct interpretation of the relationship bewteen Saddam and bin Laden is that of a loser extending his reach through a deniable, and willing, proxy. Your line of speculation leads straight to tinfoil land where the 9/11 planes were a remote control Mossad op.
40 posted on 07/17/2002 9:00:41 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
What are the political leanings of the Prague Post? Papers in that part of the world often put ideology over reality.
41 posted on 07/17/2002 9:34:34 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
The FBI denies terrorism as a motive in the LAX shooting. The Finns deny terrorism in their car bombing. There's a third recent example, but I forget it.

The Tunisian government originally claimed that synagogue attack which killed twelve people was due to a gas leak. The French government recently claimed that the burning down of the Israeli Embassy in Paris was due to an electrical short. The US government originally called the shoe bomber a lone nut, attributed the first anthrax killing to natural causes, and has systematically avoided even the suggestion of an Islamicist motivation for the downing of EgyptAir Flight 990.

Do you see a pattern emerging?

42 posted on 07/18/2002 1:49:44 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eno_
No, my speculation leads right to the use of an AlQeada cell or two in America to crash planes into major landmark buildings AND to mount an anthrax attack at the same time.

Osama and his cronies would have hoped the US public would fly off the handle as a result and force the government into attacking Iraq.

The US public was more sophisticated in its thinking than anticipated by AlQeada's analysts. As we have seen in this whole affair, AlQeada's analysis has been off the mark on just about everything. Apparantly they thought the WTC buildings would just topple over - which they didn't!

43 posted on 07/18/2002 4:32:46 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; Plummz; rdavis84; Fred Mertz; mancini
Bublan, a former Catholic priest and dissident who signed the landmark Charter 77 rights manifesto, entered the BIS in 1991, after spending years under surveillance by its communist-era predecessor. He began his agency career tracking fringe religious groups.

I guess 80 something "religious fanatic" scalps will move you right up the ladder here, too. ask bill buford?.

44 posted on 07/18/2002 5:38:45 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan; Shermy; dawnal; Sawdring; Sal; Boyd; aristeides; Plummz
Do you see a pattern emerging?

It's very clear to those whose eyes and ears are open.

Shermy, thanks for the heads up. This is a very interesting and informative thread.

45 posted on 07/18/2002 6:43:17 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
You're right, it's very relevant to track the whereabouts of these terrorists. I find it hard to believe he just "happened" to be in prague. There is a reason for everything.
46 posted on 07/18/2002 8:13:30 AM PDT by Rocketwolf68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
I haven't followed this Atta meeting with Iraqi spies. What do you think the pattern is? I don't see Iraq as a big sponsor of terrorism against America. Perhaps it could change but I think Iraq is more of a regional threat to US interests in the area.
47 posted on 07/18/2002 3:38:52 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
Some here think Iraq is behind the Anthrax attacks here; it is essentially a blackmail message from Iraq to America: mess with Iraq and hundreds of thousands (pick a number) of Americans die.

It is a plausible theory.
48 posted on 07/18/2002 6:55:25 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
I think the anthrax attack was from a US lab, but don't think the US government did it of course but beyond that I don't have a clue.
49 posted on 07/18/2002 7:57:37 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Thanks. I saw it in the European press.

Funny how them stories differ. Wonder why?

50 posted on 07/19/2002 7:46:12 PM PDT by Boyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson