• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...


The hijackers were of Saudi origin, but belonged to Al Queda. Saudi did not attack us, Al Queda did. Should we hold your parents liable for a murder you commit because the murder would never have occured had you never been born?

The reasons we are in Iraq are many and historied. I'm not going to recount it here. Do a little reading.
 
Mince said:
The hijackers were of Saudi origin, but belonged to Al Queda. Saudi did not attack us, Al Queda did.
Click to expand...


At least one of the hijackers was Lebanese. I think you guys should invade Lebanon too. Just to be on the safe side.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
At least one of the hijackers was Lebanese. I think you guys should invade Lebanon too. Just to be on the safe side.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Atta lived in Germany for some time. Bomb the heck out of it... again.

Sorry, Oliver. You can stay at my place, if the need rises.
 
Bell said:
Atta lived in Germany for some time. Bomb the heck out of it... again.

Sorry, Oliver. You can stay at my place, if the need rises.
Click to expand...


One of the hijackers roomates recently turned up here in New Zealand and started taking flying lessons.

You guys should definately invade us.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
One of the hijackers roomates recently turned up here in New Zealand and started taking flying lessons.

You guys should definately invade us.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

That be easy. You only have swords and bows to fight (I saw so in a movie). The US has sooper sekrit weapons and hushaboom bombs.

I provide a map, so the US military recognizes New Zealand.

australia-map-with-states-O.gif
 
But wouldn't that create a political vaccum between the Maori and the white population? Oh, well, let's just do it and see what happens...

:rolleyes:
 
Bell said:
That be easy. You only have swords and bows to fight (I saw so in a movie). The US has sooper sekrit weapons and hushaboom bombs.

I provide a map, so the US military recognizes New Zealand.

[qimg]http://www.wheretoenjoy.com/wheretoenjoy2002_2003/images/australia-map-with-states-O.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


:dl:

-Gumboot
 
Returning to the OP...

Geggy has it all backwards. He states:

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...

That, of course, is not the argument. The argument is, if the government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq why did they not make obvious and indisputable links between Iraq and the attacks - such as making the hijackers Iraqis (or better yet, Iraqi government agents).

The fact that they made such weak links between 9/11 and Iraq indicates they were attempting to twist the event to try and use it to help a totally unrelated agenda of going into Iraq.

This demolishes the "US did 9/11 so they could invade Iraq" theory.

-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...



I guess the phrase "What a bunch of as**oles" is a decent-enough fit here. ;)
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
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....
Click to expand...
Try Canada: War Plan Red
 
gumboot said:
That, of course, is not the argument. The argument is, if the government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq why did they not make obvious and indisputable links between Iraq and the attacks - such as making the hijackers Iraqis (or better yet, Iraqi government agents).
Click to expand...
Actually they wouldn't even needed to do that... What if, say, they'd faked some money transfers to Atta from an Iraqi source? That could be as simple as a hack of some computer records, although they could improve it with a fake photo or two of Atta picking up the cash, but either way you'd only need a few people. It would have been incredibly easy, compared to the other nonsense we're supposed to believe they did, & yet strangely they didn't bother.

What we got instead were after the fact attempts to stretch the evidence, find reasons to implicate Iraq. And that quite clearly says that while the US Government took advantage of 9/11, they didn't engineer it, otherwise they'd have created a story that was much more convenient & suited their needs.
 
MikeW said:
Actually they wouldn't even needed to do that... What if, say, they'd faked some money transfers to Atta from an Iraqi source? That could be as simple as a hack of some computer records, although they could improve it with a fake photo or two of Atta picking up the cash, but either way you'd only need a few people. It would have been incredibly easy, compared to the other nonsense we're supposed to believe they did, & yet strangely they didn't bother.

What we got instead were after the fact attempts to stretch the evidence, find reasons to implicate Iraq. And that quite clearly says that while the US Government took advantage of 9/11, they didn't engineer it, otherwise they'd have created a story that was much more convenient & suited their needs.
Click to expand...


Precisely. You have summed it up much better than me. :)

-Gumboot
 
Cylinder? I took the first evidence i could find at Google.
 
I can see the WWII UK plan. If Hitler invaded England, we were sure as hell going to kick him out. But Canada? Our neighbors to the north? Home of Anne Murray, Celine Dion, curling, and Michael J. Fox? OK, maybe those are good reasons to invade, but you guys have Randi, too. And Molson. Leave them alone, I say.
 
I'm not sure what some of you are trying to say here. The US has attempted to link 9/11 to Iraq while combining it with WMDs possession during the propaganda campaign precedng the invasion of Iraq. It was proven to be successful, afterall they did get into Iraq. CIA agent Woosley have attempted to make Atta's meeting with an iraqi intelligence agent in czech as 9/11 related but no one has found any evidence of that. It appeared that the claim, along with claims that there were no WMDs, were ignored by US officials and it is even still pushed to this day.

If the US used iraqis as hijackers for the 9/11 attack, would it appear more obvious to you that it was an inside job?

I don't recall hearing of any radical extremists involving in al qaeda being an iraqi national. Either they're part of the sunni militia or the shiites, if not the kurds. Al qaeda is a much broader network that's widespread all over the middle east, which gave the US justification to implement the so called war on terror campaign that isn't designed to do anything and invade the middle east.

Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the table before 9/11, as well. Some of the agendas were to build oil pipeline (which never happened) and to protect farmers and recultivate the opium crop (which grew from nothing to 90 percent) to channel profits through warlords, us officials in the white house and their ally in the afghanistan government. Invasion of afghanistan, I believe, was also considered as softer option and a beginning of security transformation in the middle east.
 
geggy said:
Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the table before 9/11, as well. Some of the agendas were to build oil pipeline (which never happened)
Click to expand...


It was a GAS pipeline. And the interest was luke warm at best. It dried up quickly when the situation changed.

Try do some reading.

The Caspian region is home to huge energy resources -- by some estimates, it may produce 5 percent of the world's oil within a decade -- but Afghanistan is almost entirely irrelevant to their exploitation. In fact, the country is today less likely to be a player in the Caspian sweepstakes than it was before the fall of the Taliban. "The idea of Afghanistan re-emerging as a transit corridor for Caspian oil and gas is not remotely realistic in today's circumstances -- even in a best-case scenario in which Afghanistan were to emerge from the present conflict with a vigorous, broadly based and stable government with strong international support," says Laurent Ruseckas, a Caspian expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Click to expand...

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom