From the Chicago Tribune:
The Sept. 11 hijackers made dozens of telephone calls to Saudi Arabia and Syria in the months before the attacks, according to a classified report from the office of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
According to the report, 206 international telephone calls were known to have been made by the leaders of the hijacking plot after they arrived in the United States—including 29 to Germany, 32 to Saudi Arabia and 66 to Syria.
The German report contains no information about the timing or recipients of the calls, except that the majority of them were made from a cell phone registered to al-Shehhi, a native of the United Arab Emirates. It said the telephone records were obtained by German intelligence agencies from the FBI.
That calls were made to Germany isn’t a surprise (that’s where the Atta cell was). Who were the Saudis and Syrians that the hijackers contacted? Does the FBI know their names? If so, why have the names been withheld from the public? In closed sessions, have congressional committees been told?
It doesn’t surprise me a bit. There are both sinister and innocuous reasons e.g. calling a family member for the calls.
As to why we aren’t being told I have no doubt that there’s a lot we aren’t being told because of the embarrassment it would cause to foreign governments and individuals, the embarrassment it would cause to domestic officials, security, and the desire to tamp down outrage to a manageable level.
I don’t happen to agree with any of those reasons but I do think they’re expected.
I have little doubt that if we knew what the top officials knew about the attack that the pressure to attack the KSA would be overwhelming.
This time I agree with Dave Schuler
“I have little doubt that if we knew what the top officials knew about the attack that the pressure to attack the KSA would be overwhelming.”
I believe, thirteen or fourteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. Nobody from Iraq, but according to several polls many Americans believe that Saddam was involved.
Why did not you attack Saudi Arabia instead?
66 phone calls to Syria. Wow, I curious what we learn next.
I am also surprised that Germany released this information from the FBI. Why?
In the last few months US government sources has leaked information about the involvement of Germany’s intelligence agencies as well.
Are the some American and German government folks or intelligence agents trying to annoy or embarrass each other? Why would that be? I can’t think of any reason that would make sense. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence? Well, who believes in coincidences these days?
Jorge,
Please keep your eyes open for any news about this in the German media and be kind enough to let me know about it. Thanks.
Given that al Qaeda has been active in Saudi for a long time, I am not surprised by the calls made to Saudi. The calls to Syria are to a certain extent baffling, though given the fact that al Qaeda has operatives in every country in the region, as well as Europe and Africa, it might just be an indication of how widespread its operatives were prior to Sept. 11. From what I remember al-Shehhi traveled to various parts of the Muslim world prior to the attacks, including Morocco and Egypt.
In addition Atta was contacted by Binalshib and KSM from Spain, Indonesia and Malaysia, also demonstrating the organization’s reach. As you can see that they were contacted from these places does not necessarily mean that the contacts were also from there.
My take: Breathe. Within minutes of WTC1 & WTC2 impacts, the suspected hijackers were identified. Within hours, their German call records were in hand and being walked backwards. Shortly thereafter, the recipients (undisclosed, of course) were likely ‘disappeared’ in short order, not to be found in 3-Sqaures-&-Running-Water resorts such as Gitmo.
That we are now hearing of this phone activity from another government’s report is really not much to shake a stick at, IMHO. This activity should have been assumed to have taken place (and was by those who chased them down while the dust in Manhattan still blew). So I would not get too disturbed over it at this point. Such activity was to be expected.
15 of the hijackers were from KSA. That explains their calls. Whether they were Ramadan greetings to mother or collaboration between terrorists is not discernable from our vantage point, but was by those who needed to know when they garnered the info. I, for one, trust that they nailed every lid possible within days or a few short weeks. It’s now been nearly 5 years.
The calls to Syria are not very mysterious considering the follownig paragraph in the article:
Darkazanli & Zammar’s ties are surely extensive in their native Syria, contacts no doubt shared with the glorious martyrs-to-be. Again, discerning the Ramadan calls to mother from collaboration was likely even easier in Syria, as their cooperation in the shadow of the Manhattan dust was unprecedented WRT Syria’s past cooperation on any level. Rememeber that Assad’s penalty for membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is death. What then does one suppose his reaction would be to al-Qaeda operatives with likely ties to the already outlawed Syrian Muslim Brotherhood have been, as Assad’s hands quivered nervously ahead of the unknown American reaction to their carnage?
I just say breathe a little bit. That’s all. Where do we expect that they would call, Tahiti or maybe Guam? No surprises here.
As far as conressional committees being informed about who these bastards were calling, I would offer up that this is exactly the precise kind of information that some political functionary committee simply does not have the need to know. What are they going to do, call for more hearings? Make more public? To serve what ends?
This is a case in intelligence where the less Congress knows, the better. Witness the 9/11 Commission.
My initial reaction after I read this yesterday morning/afternoon was not far off from those seen here. But since peeling the raw emotion off, my breathing became regular again.
Interesting but not really surprising, especially given the recent confirmation that Saddam’s WMDs were sent to Syria.
Syria clearly has become the terrorist Geneva, a friendly place where terrorists of all stripes can meet and discuss their next massacre of innocents.
As to why this is all coming out now, remember that the NSA phone intercepts kerfluffle is still ongoing, with legislation being considered in Congress. This news tends to not only confirm that the intercept program is a good idea but that it should be expanded to include more than just U.S. origin calls to 1-800-Jihad.
Interesting but not really surprising, especially given the recent confirmation that Saddam’s WMDs were sent to Syria.
Where is the proof of that? All I’ve seen and heard is conjecture and misinformation. Even the president has admitted there were no WMD in Iraq, pity many others are still beating that sorry drum.
Within hours of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, German agencies learned that, during their student days, Atta and his co-conspirators had been in close touch with Al Qaeda’s principal representatives in Hamburg, Mamoun Darkazanli and Mohammed Zammar, both Syrian expatriates who became German citizens.
A bombshell indeed. Why wasn’t this reported years ago? What would have happened had this been made public soon after the attacks? Why release this information now? Very, very, interesting—and not at all favorable to that ex-chancellor who is currently on the Russians’ payroll.
I think that Jorg’s question (although it was probably rhetorical) deserves an answer. There were many reasons but I’ll mention just two.
First, it would have been stupid. If any act by the U. S. could mobilize worldwide armed opposition from the Muslim world, attacking the KSA would be it. Not because there’s any particular love for the Saud family or the Saudi people (far from it) but because of the Muslim holy places.
Now it’s possible that nothing could cause that kind of mobilization but I don’t think that’s a risk that we should have taken. Besides except for the ability to withhold oil the KSA is an extremely feeble country. When completely surrounded by nascent democracies it would have hard for them to avoid genuine reform.
Second, I believe that through long association the Bush family believes that the Saud family are actually a lot better than they really are. Even the vilest human beings have their warm and fuzzy side and I think that the Sauds have the Bush’s (and a lot of other American business people and politicians) bamboozled.
General Georges Sada, who served as the second-highest ranked general in the Iraqi Air Force, recently has not only confirmed the existence of WMDs but provided the details of how, when and where they were moved out of the country, including type of aircraft used, destination, number of flights, the cover story employed, etc.
The General also provides some very interesting information about Saddam’s nuclear program: he outsourced it to China.
Who is this general and why is he believable?
His allegations remind me too much of Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, “Curveball,” if you will. What is the man’s incentive for speaking and divulging this information?
The bottom line is, the administration has admitted the intelligence was faulty or erroneous, most people have accepted that the information was wrong, and have blamed everyone from the French, to the CIA, to the administration for the false, faulty information on Saddam’s WMD/nukes. I will never get why people continue to want to hold on to this pipe dream.
Noone, apart from a few believers appears to be taking this general seriously…I mean the funniest thing would be if he was selling a book making these allegations…
You know, I was just joking about General Sada promoting a book, but then I took a look at Amazon and Walla!
Okay, so General Sada is not credible – in your mind, anyway. He was in a position to know.
So who is credible?
Michael Moore?
James Carville?
George Soros?
My 2 cents worth: in today’s world, the only people who are credible are the people who agree with you. Isn’t that where we are? How did we get here?
Worst of all: former presidents (and would-be presidents) publicly criticizing sitting presidents. How can the word of the United States be believed elsewhere in the world when Carter, Clinton, and Gore can’t keep their disagreeing (and disagreeable) mouths shut? It didn’t used to be this way. Does anyone remember Johnson taking swipes at Nixon, or Eisenhower at Kennedy, or Truman at Eisenhower?