• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iraq and 9/11

Shrinker said:
geggy, yet another stupid post. The question is not, 'why didn't they try to pin 9/11 on Iraq?'. Everybody knows they tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq but couldn't make it stick.The question is, why did they 'invent' Saudi haijackers and not Iraqi ones?
Click to expand...
Either way like it or not Geggy has a point. Though I haven't read the other threads. This one makes quite a bit of sense as a debunking point.

According to both Bob Woodward's and Richard Clarke's books as well as an admission by the Bush admin themselves, the plans to invade Iraq were made in Dec of 1999, before the chads had even settled on the floor. There was a caveat that the plans could not be implemented without some major event. I thought that was in the claim of the CT.

(Bush of course claimed the plans were just some standard contingency plan any good army would have ready if needed.)

But if Iraq was the goal and Saudi Arabia was an ally, these guys would have to be pulling one of those mission impossible schemes where you made it look like it wasn't too obviously Iraq to cover their tracks. That makes no sense. If it was a Bush plot and it was intended as a means of getting the US population to go along with an Iraq invasion, why would you make the hijackers Saudis and not Iraqis? Makes no sense.

I think I'll try this question out on my friends who have sucked in this particular CT nonsense.
 
I do think Geggy has a small point in this thread. Rumsfeld eagerness to invade Iraq would fit in a LIHOP scenario. Of course in a MIHOP scenario his point is moot because they wouldn't have chosen Saudi hijackers if the goal was to invade Iraq.

P.S. Everytime I use the acronyms LIHOP and MIHOP, I throw up a little.
 
Saudis as hijackers only makes sense if Al-Qaeda planned the attacks, since one of Osama's stated purposes was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia.

However, people in the government did try to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Cheney, in particular, repeated flogged a discredited story that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. The Bush Administration coveted an invasion of Iraq from the first moments of its existence. Rumfeld jotted down his intent to find any possible ties to Iraq five hours after the Pentagon was hit. Clarke's stories of being ordered to look again and again into possible ties to Iraq have already been mentioned. Powell had to talk all of them down from invading Iraq first at the first major meeting to determine a response after September 11th.

Every time the Bush Administration tried desperately to divert the public attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, it puts another nail in the CT notion that they planned the 9/11 attack. They would have been better prepared to blame Hussein for the attacks if they had planned it. The nimble orchestrations we have to see at the heart of even the most simple BA-planned scenario are at complete odds with the stumble[rule8] way they tried to frame Iraq for the deed.
 
skeptigirl said:
According to both Bob Woodward's and Richard Clarke's books as well as an admission by the Bush admin themselves, the plans to invade Iraq were made in Dec of 1999, before the chads had even settled on the floor.
Click to expand...
And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?
 
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
 
geggy said:
I know many of you have asked that if our govt had planned and executed the 9/11 attack, why did they not link 9/11 to Iraq. They indeedy did so.
Click to expand...
Geggy.

I would like to bring to this thread my own opinion on this. I have mentioned this before in another thread but like many threads the opinion gets lost in derailing.

There are I'm sure many people here who agree with the war in Iraq and equally so I'm sure there are many people who disagree. The war in Iraq is one of the most important issues of modern times.

Without trying to provoke argument I have stated I am opposed to this war as are many millions of people around the globe. There was and always as been an opposition to this war. Even before it started literally millions took to the streets and marched against it, I was one of them. They gave voice to the opposition. This voice as not gone away, it as remained and has got stronger. It is not just a voice from within the US it is from across the entire planet.

The Government of the UK will stand or fall in the next election dependant on what is happening inside Iraq, as will the present US administration. This issue has literally pulled the US administration down to its lowest level in recent polls

the anti war movement has stood firm in it's oppression to this war.

The truth movement or those that seek to promote conspiracies about 911 have not. They choose to tap into genuine unease about the war .They try not only to condemn this war but to use it as a whipping tool to promote their theories. They try to use the whole sale slaughter inside Iraq as justification for condemnation of the present US administration and promotion of their theories.

I have literally seen on forums pictures of dead Iraqi children thrust in my face followed by the caption “Look this is what you support”. This is untrue; it does nothing to promote a fringe movement. I have seen pictures of the tortured of Iraqi prisoners, followed by the same caption, again this is not true.

The destruction of Iraq started long before 911; the economic sanctions following the first Gulf war literally crippled this country. I have seen articles that claim that over half a million children died in the decade of sanctions. I goes unnoticed by the truth movement.

It is offensive to try and merge the truth movement with the anti war movement. They are not the same. I have many friends who support the anti war lobby, they do not support the conspirators. They do not support the inside job theories. They base their beliefs on reality.

You would do well to stop trying to demonise those that do not support you by throwing the butchery of Iraq in their faces. For they have a voice, it is in the millions.

The truth movement as no such voice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Metullus said:
And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?
Click to expand...
I heard just today planning was actually begun in 1997, however, I meant to say Dec 2000. Life gets confusing sometimes.

I will have to look into the '97 claim.
 
skeptigirl said:
I heard just today planning was actually begun in 1997, however, I meant to say Dec 2000. Life gets confusing sometimes.

I will have to look into the '97 claim.
Click to expand...
well the US has contingency plans to invade almost every country in the world, its possible the plan they used was drawn up in 1997 based on iraqs military strength at the time
 
gumboot said:
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Have you read the book, Gumboot? Looked into the guy's 30+ year career? Checked out how he got promoted to counter-terrorism chief?

I expect anyone writing a book such as his would put himself in the best light. That is a pretty natural tendency. But one can take that into consideration (plus other evidence) and still see the fact that Bush went on an anti-Clinton crusade right after taking office. Bush canceled the Kyoto treaty, stopped all involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian talks, changed course with North Korea for some examples. It seemed very much knee jerk policy planning right from the start.
 
gumboot said:
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. AFAIK, Clarke's only invention of an exercise was when he wrote "Vigilant Warrior," which could easily be confused with "Vigilant Guardian." I'm not saying he doesn't have an axe to grind, but it seems unlikely that that would include inventing an exercise that could easily be shown to be nonexistent. Seems like a simple mistake to me. Am I missing something?
 
Gravy said:
I don't understand this. AFAIK, Clarke's only invention of an exercise was when he wrote "Vigilant Warrior," which could easily be confused with "Vigilant Guardian." I'm not saying he doesn't have an axe to grind, but it seems unlikely that that would include inventing an exercise that could easily be shown to be nonexistent. Seems like a simple mistake to me. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...



Wait... I thought his reference to 9/11 wargames was as part of a claim of confusion, false blips, and so forth.

I have just realised this is probably just CT nonsense, and he never claimed it.

Oops. :o

-Gumboot
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well the US has contingency plans to invade almost every country in the world, its possible the plan they used was drawn up in 1997 based on iraqs military strength at the time
Click to expand...
It is possible the planning was innocent standard contingency plans.

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would those specific plans need revision?

Were plans revised for many other scenarios like North Korea selling nuclear weapons or China invading Taiwan or a war between India and Pakistan?

And of course the most incriminating evidence, they carried the frigging plans out, for Pete's sake! No WMD, no ties to 9/11, Bush screaming he wanted to know if Saddam was behind 9/11, faking the connection when no real one was found.....

If you want to maintain the benefit of the doubt I'd suggest you might be in denial along with a few other people in this country.
 
skeptigirl said:
And of course the most incriminating evidence, they carried the frigging plans out, for Pete's sake! No WMD, no ties to 9/11, Bush screaming he wanted to know if Saddam was behind 9/11, faking the connection when no real one was found.....

If you want to maintain the benefit of the doubt I'd suggest you might be in denial along with a few other people in this country.
Click to expand...



CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Could you review this short video about the iraq-pin, Andrew?



- Oliver
 
gumboot said:
CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely.
 
Oliver said:
Could you review this short video about the iraq-pin, Andrew?

- Oliver
Click to expand...


I watched the first 30 seconds...

*Yawn*

A lot of Clarke's claims have been proven to be false (for example claiming person Y said X at meeting Z, even though X was not topic of the meeting, and Y wasn't even AT the meeting. A lot of it appears to be exaggeration. A large percentage of it is unsubstantiated.

Something really scares me about the US government. It's the number of workers who get political. It is not a government employee's job to get political. I think it's highly inappropriate.

Steele's emotive language at the beginning is sick. What sort of person uses mass suicide as a crutch to lean their political opinions on? I am so utterly fed up with seeing people doing this. Especially senior people in government. They should know better.

It seems the entire US Government - and I mean all the way from President down to the post office clerks - have some serious need for some basic ethics and values.

-Gumboot
 
Cylinder said:
I want to see the evidence that the US government tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq. I guess the phrase put up or shut up is a decent-enough fit here.
Click to expand...

"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Click to expand...

5 hours.
 
notes.jpg


"These are Defense Department staffer Stephen Cambone's notes from a 2:40 PM meeting with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone's notes were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report's reconstruction of the day's events. The document was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Thad Anderson....."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/100545349/

http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html
Click to expand...

Transcript (to the best of my ability):

"2:40
Resume Statement:

Best info fast
judge whether good enough
Hit S.H@ same time -
Not just UBL

Tasks Jim Haynes to talk w/ PW
for additional support v/v Usis &
connection w/ UBL

[REDACTED (N.R. stands for Not Relevant)]

- Hard to get a good case

- Need to move swiftly -

Near term target needs -
- go massive - sweep it all up
- Things related & not

[ARROW]
Need to do so
to get anything
useful"
 
They needed this link for their real plan which was to have forward bases in the Gulf planned long before 9/11. It was published by the PNAC in 2000 in Rebuilding America's Defenses. There they even admitted that the issue was beyond Saddam.

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (page 14)

"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)​

Click to expand...

They got the bases.


A major sticking point will be 14 "enduring" bases under construction for U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists these facilities aren't permanent......

Click to expand...

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom