• 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

geggy

Muse
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
598
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.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11(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.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

Although it was proven false that plans to strike Iraq did not begin on 9/11. It was actually way, way beforehand. Despite the push of 9/11-iraq link by the white house that still continues to this day, the FBI and the senate, who weren't "in on it", have found no evidence of Iraq and 9/11 link.

Former CIA Director Looks for Evidence that Iraq Had Role in Attacks
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON--Senior Pentagon officials who want to expand the war against terrorism to Iraq authorized a trip to Great Britain last month by former CIA director James Woolsey in search of evidence that Saddam Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. officials told Knight Ridder.

The unusual, semi-official trip was at least the second such mission undertaken this year by Woolsey, a leading proponent of the theory that Iraq masterminded both the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and last month's suicide hijackings, said the officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Atta met twice with Iraqi intelligence
October 11, 2001 Posted: 10:04 PM EDT (0204 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials revealed Thursday that Mohammed Atta -- one of the suspected suicide hijackers -- had two meetings, not one, with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague, Czech Republic.

The first meeting was in June 2000 and the second one was in April 2001, sources said. In both cases Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence officers operating under cover as diplomats.

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

 
NO geggy, finish the other thread(s) first. You still haven't answered my question.
 
This is nothing new to me at all.

@admins: We are talking about a conspiracy theory made by the US. Not about US politics.
 
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?
 
This reminds me of....


From Rolling Stone.....


.....Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

More.....
http://tinyurl.com/oagtw
 
Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power. But will we actually invade? Almost certainly not.

But do we have a contingency plan to invade, say, Venezuela? I've got fifty bucks that says we do. Just in case....
 
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?

I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.
 
Our argument is that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, not that Bush & co are tactical geniuses. If you have a problem with US foreign policy step into the politics forum. I'm sure you'll be most welcome.

Now, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was IMO embarrassingly badly made by Bush. Why did the evil conspirators make it so difficult for themselves? Why did they not plant convincing evidence of a link?
 
Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power. But will we actually invade? Almost certainly not.

But do we have a contingency plan to invade, say, Venezuela? I've got fifty bucks that says we do. Just in case....
Actually, I do find it a bit sinister. Richard Clarke reports in his book that Bush had forced him to check again for any connection to Iraq immediately following the attacks. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claims Bush was trying to find a way to invade Iraq from the inception of his presidency. So, it was certainly more than a contengency plan.

However, I think this goes further to show that he had no involvement in the attacks. Again, had he wanted to place blame on Iraq, he had ample time to leave Hussain's fingerprints on the whole mess. Instead, it appears he's simply an opportunistic S.O.B. who used the deaths of thousands of individuals to further his own political agenda.
 
Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power.


I hear tell that immediately prior to WW2 the US had a contingency plan to invade the UK.

-Gumboot
 
Actually, I do find it a bit sinister. Richard Clarke reports in his book that Bush had forced him to check again for any connection to Iraq immediately following the attacks.


Richard Clarke also mentions, in his book, a supposed NORAD exercise that doesn't even exist.

-Gumboot
 
Richard Clarke also mentions, in his book, a supposed NORAD exercise that doesn't even exist.

-Gumboot
Well, he didn't work for NORAD, however he was directly asked by Bush to check yet again for any links between Iraq and the attacks.
 
I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.

How's 'bout that Al Qaida was given shelter in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia? And the Taliban refusing to turn over OBL? Also, you might want to keep Iraq out of your question. Just a simple answer, geggy.



Now, can you give a simple answer to my question?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2025856&postcount=44

This is the SEVENTH time I ask you to answer this simple question.

Or are you just so dumb to link to an incredible piece of evidence, evidence you couldn't even read yourself, and then make a claim that piece of evidence said something it actually didn't?

I'll give you three options:

1.) Answer my question: "I read that memo twice just now. Where does it talk about hijacking planes AND using those planes as missiles?"
2.) Admit you're dumb because you linked to the evidence without knowing what it actually said.
3.) You did read the evidence but thought you could get away with it, and when confronted, you lied about watching it on a cell phone.

(no Planet X option this time)
 
I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.

And how does that relate to 9/11 being an "inside job"?

:confused:

How does that work?

-The US did not invade Saudi Arabia. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, therefore 9/11 was perpetrated by the US to justify invading Iraq.

-The US invaded Iraq. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Therefore, the US perpetrated 9/11 to not invade Saudi Arabia.

:confused:
 
And how does that relate to 9/11 being an "inside job"?

:confused:

How does that work?

-The US did not invade Saudi Arabia. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, therefore 9/11 was perpetrated by the US to justify invading Iraq.

-The US invaded Iraq. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Therefore, the US perpetrated 9/11 to not invade Saudi Arabia.

:confused:

Makes sense to me!![/CT]
 

Back
Top Bottom