Talk:Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection

message: This article appears to be very one-sided.  It is true that most U.S. investigators do not think the meeting happened, but they have not been able to rule it out.  The 9/11 Commission admits this, but that fact is buried deep in the article.  In addition, there is no mention of the fact officials of the Czech Republic continue to stand by the report Atta was there.  Perhaps most important information not on the page is the evidence tying Atta to Saddam's regime.  Here is information the article should contain:
Mohamed Atta is mentioned in a letter discovered in Iraq handwritten by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). Habbush was known as the Jack of Diamonds among Hussein's top officials. Habbush's July 1, 2001, memo is labeled "Intelligence Items" and is addressed: "To the President of the Ba'ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you."
It continues:
:’’Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [the real name behind this Arabic alias remains a mystery] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.’’ 
:’’We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him...He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.’’  
In the final analysis, the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement: "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (Page 229) 
I hope this is helpful. RonCram 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter you cite is a well-known forgery, as a simple google search would have shown.    I realize you are very attuned to possible evidence of Saddam/AQ collaboration, but if you are going to put every thing you find about such links into wikipedia, please also put in the evidence that contradicts that information.  When a letter is widely thought to be forged, it is mendacious of you to include the letter as if there were no questions about its authenticity.--csloat 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me add that there is no evidence that the Czechs still stand by the story; in fact, when the WSJ reporter pressed about it, the Czech rep threw the ball back in the CIA's court.  The whole affair was quite an embarrassment to Czech politicians who stood by the story originally, as the article correctly notes.  I will add that User:RonCram is well aware of all of this, since he has been pressing this disinformation on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page for quite some time, and we have debated this issue in the talk pages there; during those debates I frequently presented the evidence, and he would leave the debate without responding to that evidence.  Once again I will ask him to please stop inserting false information into these pages.  The claim that "officials of the Czech Republic continue to stand by the report Atta was there" is clearly false; there is no evidence of any Czech official standing by the story by 2005.  So let's keep this disinformation out of Wikipedia.  Thanks.--csloat 09:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do not remember seeing this article before.  However, I figured the claim would be that the handwritten letter was a fake.  On one hand, I find it hard to believe that forgers would try to forge an entire handwritten document.  Usually, they only try to forge a signature because that gives people less to go on to prove it is a forgery.  One thing that did make me think it might be a forgery was the comment by the Iraqi officials to the effect "It doesn't matter where the document came from or how we found it, it matters that we have it."  Of course it matters where it was found.  Chain of evidence is always important.  Of course, there is the possibility it is not a forgery and that it was obtained by some means they did not want to divulge for some reason.  At this point, I am unconvinced that it is real or a forgery.  The fact is the majority of people feel it is a forgery at this point and that is what the article should say. csloat has continued to insult me without reason.  In this case, I knew that if it was a forgery, he would be able to provide a link to support that view.  The real disinformation is keeping facts from readers and presenting viewpoints as facts. RonCram 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, I never insulted you.  It is annoying as hell, however, that you expect me to do your homework for you.  If you refuse to do the research to check something out, don't put it in an encyclopedia!  It's that simple.  If you did the research you would have seen that the document is considered a forgery.  I doubt anyone considers it real anymore (other than you); give Con Coughlin a call and see if he still stands by the document.  All I'm asking is that if you're going to add claims to wikipedia as facts that you check them out first.  And that when it has been demonstrated to you that other information is false (e.g. the position of the Czech Republic officials) that you stop adding the false information to Wikipedia.  Do not rely on me to correct your disinformation.  If you're in doubt, don't add it to an encyclopedia.  This is an encyclopedia, not a game of "where's waldo."--csloat 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloat, it is insulting to claim I purposely insert disinformation.  It is a claim you know is untrue.  The fact is the article is better now because it deals with the reported document.  What if a reader came to the article and remembered the report but never heard it was a forgery?  Now the reader has that information available to them. That is the power of wikipedia.  No one person knows everything. RonCram 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm asking is that you check your information out instead of making me do your homework for you.  If you can't be bothered with a simple google search, how is it you have time to insert this stuff into wikipedia?--csloat 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never find anything on google the first time. RonCram 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atta's links to Iraq

message: Since Atta wasn't really *in* Prague (well, he had a flight lay-over), would it be wise to just move this page to "Mohamed Atta's Alleged Prague Connections" or "Mohamed Atta and Iraq" or something?  Even "Mohamed Atta and Prague" would make more sense than *IN* Prague. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  11:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a year late, but I agree -- the title should be changed.  I'll make a move on it if nobody objects. csloat (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. csloat (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/05/39963/senate-committee-bush-knew-iraq.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F10%2F22%2Fwirq22.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806083641/http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified