Anyone else find it exceedingly strange how...

reply to post by 4hero


Wow............no other word can describe it. I mean, I've met some oblivious people before...but...wow.........

Must not have been awake and paying attention from 2001-2011.......

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Alfie1

 

? Were any of the hijackers from Iraq? Was Bin Laden in Iraq? One piece of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with it? Never mind. You can't find one - -because even WE admitted there was none...after lying openly about the "secret meeting". How about this scenario:

15 men take over a bank and rob it. 12 of them are CRIPS. The police response is to attack and destroy the the Boy Scouts HQ. Makes about as much sense, yes?

CJ

Precisely. So why do truthers believe 9/11 was an inside job to invade Iraq and get the oil, if they used Saudis for the attacks and invade Afghanistan. Also, Iraq was invaded in 2003, TWO YEARS after 9/11. So why do truthers insist that 9/11 was a false flag/inside job/plot/etc, to invade Iraq? It makes ZERO sense.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Right, right... who trained and supported OBL in his rise to "power?" who practically made the Mujahideen what they are militarily? Who was proposing publicly to further finance the Taliban $43 million May, 01 for their fight against the cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan?

Oh, wait... that country's not in the ME...

The Mujahedin were not Taliban or AQ. They were a coalition of Afghans of various backgrounds, beliefs and creeds united together to fight the Soviets. That is like saying Africans are all terrorists and pirates due to the Somali pirates.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by 4hero

 

Wow............no other word can describe it. I mean, I've met some oblivious people before...but...wow.........

Must not have been awake and paying attention from 2001-2011.......

If you say so, but your 'opinion' bares no relevance to my extensive research.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Alfie1

 

? Were any of the hijackers from Iraq? Was Bin Laden in Iraq? One piece of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with it? Never mind. You can't find one - -because even WE admitted there was none...after lying openly about the "secret meeting". How about this scenario:

15 men take over a bank and rob it. 12 of them are CRIPS. The police response is to attack and destroy the the Boy Scouts HQ. Makes about as much sense, yes?

CJ

Precisely. So why do truthers believe 9/11 was an inside job to invade Iraq and get the oil, if they used Saudis for the attacks and invade Afghanistan. Also, Iraq was invaded in 2003, TWO YEARS after 9/11. So why do truthers insist that 9/11 was a false flag/inside job/plot/etc, to invade Iraq? It makes ZERO sense.

From the US War Resolution to attack Iraq:

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

This was approved in October 2002, little more than one year after 9/11.

Iraq War Resolution

Seems the government thinks differently than you do.

CJ

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Right, right... who trained and supported OBL in his rise to "power?" who practically made the Mujahideen what they are militarily? Who was proposing publicly to further finance the Taliban $43 million May, 01 for their fight against the cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan?

Oh, wait... that country's not in the ME...

The Mujahedin were not Taliban or AQ. They were a coalition of Afghans of various backgrounds, beliefs and creeds united together to fight the Soviets. That is like saying Africans are all terrorists and pirates due to the
Somali pirates.

Hardly.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Arab Muslim adherents of jihad took up the Afghan cause as the first step in creating an Islamic state. (Afghanistan's population is Muslim, but they are not Arabs) One of most vocal Arab voices on behalf of jihad, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to fight in Afghanistan as a religious duty. Osama bin Laden was one of those who followed the call.

The name most visibly associated with jihadi ideology today is Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. As a youth in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was highly influenced by Arab Muslim teachers and others who were radicalized in the 1960s and 1970s by the combination of:

jihad

And here is the definition of mujahideen

Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهد‎ muǧāhid, nominative plural مجاهدون muǧāhidūn, oblique plural مجاهدين muǧāhidīn "strugglers" or "people doing jihad") are Muslims who believe they struggle in the path of God.[1][2] The word is from the same Arabic triliteral root as jihad ("struggle").

Ahem.

mujahideen means jihad

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Thank you.

Furthermore, there's no evidence (that I'm aware of) that "al Qaeda" was used (by OBL) to define a particular group before 9/11. Word is he only started using it afterwards because that's the name he and his followers were given by the U.S.

The Mujahideen were "aided" by the CIA under Bush Sr. by sending arms through Pakistan's ISI. There's no telling how many hands the weapons went through, nor should anyone reasonably doubt OBL and the future "al Qaeda" most likely got their hands on some amount of those weapons unused.

reply to post by GenRadek


Seriously, haven't you seen Wolfowitz' (as Dubya's Sec. of Defense) testimony to the Senate on why we were in Iraq in 2003? He really didn't say anything of worth, just "blah blah al Qaeda blah blah Semptember 11th blah blah Saddam linked to terrorism blah blah September 11th blah blah weapons of mass destruction..." effectively using the phrase "September 11th" 6 times in less than two minutes of talking...

reply to post by jlm912


Exactly. It is amazing how we forget. To see that video again brought up the anger in me. Is it not clear we had to keep making things up to justify this? The "proof" of the "secret Al-qaeda" meeting in Prague was eventually, quietly admitted to be false. And that was it for their proof of "terrorism" threatening the US from Iraq. But it most certainly WAS used to legitimize the war. To deny this is to deny the evidence.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Small correction: the meeting between Atta ("al Qaeda" agent) and Iraqi agents was supposedly in Prague as reported by Israeli and American intelligence; however, the "American" intelligence was traced back to Douglas Feith, who was caught allowing Israeli generals into the Pentagon without having them check in (essentially "spying"), which means it was probably solely Israeli "intelligence"(blatant lies).

In particular, the report concluded that analysts working for Feith presented top policymakers with “alternative” intelligence assessments that suggested a direct link between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda (as well as a possible Iraq connection to the September 11 attacks). The analysts did so, the report concluded, without fully disclosing that their portrayal of the evidence conflicted with the consensus views of the U.S. intelligence community.

Source

In the build-up to the Iraq War, Feith had a phalanx of Israeli generals visiting him in the Pentagon and ignored post-9/11 requirements that they sign in.

Source

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I'll state it again. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Why Iraq? This is like saying a majority of Ecuadoreans were hijackers and we invaded Tibet. Makes tons of sense.

Dude there's no way you can't not know this. The terrorists were Saudi citizens, NOT agents send out by the Saudi gov't.. It's the same reason we didn't level sanctions against Holland after Natalee Holloway was snuffed by Van Der Sloot. We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11- we invaded becuase of horribly bad intelligence saying Iraq was stockpiling illegal weapons. Saddam Hussein being an idiot and wanting to tweak the lion's tail by pretending he was warlord of Iraq instead of trying to diffuse the issue on his end didn't help the situation either. We DID invade Afghanistan because they were openly protecting the ones who did send out the terrorists. It's the same reason we DID level sanctions against Libya for sending out the bombers that destroyed the plane that crashed in Scotland.

I don't mean to sound rude, but jeez, guy, all this was going on and discussed throughout the last ten years and it was your obligation to know this already, particularly if you're claiming to be a "truther with a sincere desire to discover the truth behind the 9/11 attack".

Erm. Oh, we lost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars because "Saddam Hussein being an idiot and wanting to tweak the lions tail"...okeeedokey. That in and of itself should be enough to make you angry; now if you believe this, I really can't say anything more. Have you seen this?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a proponent of the theory that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague, acknowledged in an interview on 29 March 2006. "We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place."[102]

And if it has NOTHING to do with 9/11, why did the 9/11 Comission report on it specifically?

The Commission still could not "absolutely rule out the possibility" that Atta was in Prague on 9 April traveling under an alias, but it concluded that "There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

January: Captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, after being secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States for interrogation, gives specific and elaborate details of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, included training in explosives, biological, and chemical weapons. His account, which has since been repudiated by himself, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA as being fabricated under duress (see below), nevertheless provides much of the basis for United States claims of the threat from Hussein's continued regime, including Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN the next year.

25 September, Washington, DC: President Bush tells reporters, "Al-Qaeda hides. Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. . . . [Y]ou can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."[160]

It is your obligation to know this. You've had plenty of time. By the way, did you really mention Natalie Holloway? By your logic we should have attacked the tiny island nation where he did his deeds, not Holland. And really, please refrain from calling me a "truther". Please point to my "truther-ness" in any other posts (see where I have almost 4,000 posts?) Do you call any one who has questions regarding what is certainly a questionable period in our lives a "truther" because it somehow demeans them? I don't get it and that should tell you about my "truther" stance. May I ask, are you a "liarer"?

CJ

reply to post by jlm912


Yes, it was. Noted in my last post - thanks for being someone who actually can remember!

CJ

Originally posted by GenRadek
So why do truthers insist that 9/11 was a false flag/inside job/plot/etc, to invade Iraq? It makes ZERO sense.

Make sense yet?

reply to post by PsychoReaper4


Well, shucks, I shouldn't talk...but this seems like a single thought that could have been slid into any thread re 911.

roof creaks directly overhead

Hey, you know I was thinking that powerful men are really not powerful, because they are basically below the zero on the number line. Their power is actually negative power, because they went the wrong way. They need to resort to dirty deeds in order to get stuff done, and then, sometimes, when they step off the plane to carry out their sanction, a ufo appears at their gate...or maybe the ground beneath their feet trembles when they get the hit orders.... In fact, hell is just a lollipop with a poo center, a delicacy, compared to justice.

It has been knocking at my door a lot lately, this thought, and I wonder if it could start up a thread. I do believe this to be true, btw.

Of course it's strange, OP. Just like everything about it. But they found the guy's passport, see...

It's terribly obvious that the plan was going to be unfolded, right down to the drones and mk paraphernalia, and sanctions. 3 Days of the Condor is rife with clues. Lots of Hollywood films are.

Guess what? Hell's a cakewalk compared to justice. And justice will have the last laugh. You cannot fool, cannot defeat God. Think of the hell to pay for these poor bastards. With every beat of their heart, every blink of their eyes, they come one bit closer to it. They'll be begging for death, annihilation, and it just won't come.