9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran

[bunge]

Is this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html) the beginning of the end?

Quite a few of us believed a long time ago that entering Iraq was just the beginning to an attack on Iran. And if these ties are true as stated, I'd say the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda were far stronger than any ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Overall, the legitimate motivation to attack Iraq was far weaker than even what this article states about Iran.

Wouldn't a build up to another war pave the way for victory in November?

[segovius]

Originally posted by bunge
Is this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html) the beginning of the end?

Quite a few of us believed a long time ago that entering Iraq was just the beginning to an attack on Iran. And if these ties are true as stated, I'd say the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda were far stronger than any ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Overall, the legitimate motivation to attack Iraq was far weaker than even what this article states about Iran.

Wouldn't a build up to another war pave the way for victory in November?

It's always been obvious - I've said it a hundred times on here myself:

1) Iraq

2) Iran (or Syria)

3) Syria (or Iran)

If there are no ties they'll make some up or maybe it won't matter anyway, who needs it when the killing's underway and it never makes a difference anyway.

10,000 more dead towelheads, now or after November - doesn't matter.

Only question is really: how many dead, how many countries invaded, how much torture and rape before US citizens realize who (or what) is in the driving seat of their country ?

[BRussell]

One thing that this Iraq war has done is make sure that we're not going into any other preemptive wars in the near future.

[segovius]

Ok - more detailed response than the above which was pretty worthless. Can't say this will be any better but - some observations:

1) What does 'passed through Iran' actually mean ? The hijackers' passed through' America and Germany.

2) Assuming it means co-operation at governmental level (which it must if it's gonna float) then a total re-think, if it's true - big if, of al-Q motivation and goals is necessary - actually it's necessary anyway because the whole al-Q/terrorist deal only holds water to those who have zero knowledge of Islamic history, culture and theology.

More simply:

a) Fundamentalist Sunni Wahabis do not do deals with extreme Shi'i regimes unless they are not serious about their fundamentalist principles - here we have reached the singularity where the party-line breaks down. All the rhetoric has boiled down to mutually exclusive concepts.

Maybe they did co-operate - but the the al-Q/Islamic terrorist archetype fed to the public incessantly for 3 years is false.

Or maybe they didn't - and this is more BS from Big Brother.

3) Doesn't address the thorny old issue of the 7 (or more) hijackers who seem to be still alive and had their identities stolen.

That is to say: 14 allegedly passed through Iran - but who were these 14 ? Out of 19 hijackers 7 may well be falsely implicated - that leaves 12 (an overlap of 2) so the 'stolen identities' issue and the Iran issue cannot both be true.

Which is it ?

[rageous]

I don't find it coincidental that we've essentially surrounded Iran by getting ourselves into Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm less inclined to believe we'll start a war with them anytime in the near future than I used to be, primarily because of the way the Iraq war has polarized the nation.

[segovius]

Originally posted by rageous
I don't find it coincidental that we've essentially surrounded Iran by getting ourselves into Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm less inclined to believe we'll start a war with them anytime in the near future than I used to be, primarily because of the way the Iraq war has polarized the nation.

What's the climate in the US right now ?

Would the public buy another war - how would it play if this actually starts to look like a possibility ?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
What's the climate in the US right now ?

Would the public buy another war - how would it play if this actually starts to look like a possibility ? The majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
I don't find it coincidental that we've essentially surrounded Iran by getting ourselves into Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm less inclined to believe we'll start a war with them anytime in the near future than I used to be, primarily because of the way the Iraq war has polarized the nation. Let's not forget that Iran is not a decrepid and debillitated state, but is rather somewhat healthy and rubust despite its lopsided tyrany of Mullahs . . .. they would not crumble and roll over in favor of Improvised Explosive Devices from a distance . . . .

. . . in the Iran/Iraq war they used what was basically waves upon waves of men and boys that would just come at the opposing army . . . this was when they were less developed and robust after the Revolution . . . . how long would the US, or its soldiers accept that kind of slaughter . . . because clearly the people would be willing to die against the 'Great Satan' . . . they would embrace it . . . the unreligious would suddenly see the light . . . it would be the biggest mistake the US could EVER do!!!

Unless we suddenly decided to attack China . . .

[bunge]

My concern is the administration's ability to play up connections (fabricated or not) and start pushing towards another conflict. If we're on the verge of another conflict in November, would that push more people to "support America" and vote Bush?

The country is polarized, but especially with the help of the media, we like to unite behind our troops.

[pfflam]

We... with Iran they have a better arguement for the potential for Nukes . . . the Iranians themselves have basically said that they are working towards become a nuclear power . . . though I think they meant in terms of nuclear-power

But either way, now all the Bush admin needs to do is play-up that AQ-passed-through-the-borders-without stamps thing . . . . even if its just on the way to the border-Farmer's-market and back, . . couple that with the nuke biz and presto . . . insta rally-round the troops . . . save us Mr Big Bad Texan . . . and next . . . a terrible calamity . . .

[jimmac]

Originally posted by bunge
Is this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html) the beginning of the end?

Quite a few of us believed a long time ago that entering Iraq was just the beginning to an attack on Iran. And if these ties are true as stated, I'd say the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda were far stronger than any ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Overall, the legitimate motivation to attack Iraq was far weaker than even what this article states about Iran.

Wouldn't a build up to another war pave the way for victory in November?

Fortunately another stupid war right now would be political suicide for Bush.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by jimmac
Fortunately another stupid war right now would be political suicide for Bush.

Much like staying in office for another day. ;)

[bunge]

Originally posted by jimmac
Fortunately another stupid war right now would be political suicide for Bush.

Unfortunately he was able to make the war in Iraq seem like a good idea to a lot of people.

Pfflam is right. Iran has a Nuclear Energy/Weapons program and now (very loose) "ties to al-Qaeda" that could both be spun to look like a much better case for war than Iraq ever did.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by bunge
Pfflam is right. Iran has a Nuclear Energy/Weapons program and now (very loose) "ties to al-Qaeda" that could both be spun to look like a much better case for war than Iraq ever did. The irony is that, using the same criteria used in Iraq - WMD, ties to radical Islamic terrorists - a much better case probably could have made to invade Iran. :err:

[Anna Mated]

All it really needs is another attack on mainland US where 100+ people die, then the Al-Q, Iran link will be an excuse. Demonize the enemy, claim imminent attack, Iran has WMD, specifically nuclear that could launch in 45 minutes, and voila, justification and public support.

I'd imagine China is feeling pretty threatened at the moment, with the US establishing an empire on its doorstep. Perhaps this is the plan, the US knows China will attack one day, so lets have the battle on China's doorstep, not the mainland.

Has anyone seen a red heifer lately?

[segovius]

Iran says it has dismantled al-Qaeda within it's borders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3903723.stm).

Whether this is a response to potential US aggression or, more likely, true is as yet unclear.

Any link is far more unlikely than with Iraq. Al-Q are fighting Shi'ia in Iraq right now as we speak.

It's time people got educated about all these factions and chains of support in the Islamic world - that alone would decrease Bush's propaganda options (and hence actual ability to do real world damage) by a vast amount.

[Carol A]

Originally posted by segovius
What's the climate in the US right now ?

Would the public buy another war - how would it play if this actually starts to look like a possibility ?
Hi Segovius. :)

Right *now*, the administration wouldn't be able to get support from the public for any pre-emptive activities in Iran or anywhere else, imo.

BUT...as someone mentioned, if there IS a significant terrorist attack in the next few months, that could change everything. For one thing, it would increase the chance of Bush getting re-elected. It would definitely change the opinions of many wrt pre-emptive strategies of some kind.

I have been fascinated by Iran for years. I've read SO many articles over the last seven years, about the youth of Iran, and how totally differently oriented they are compared to the ruling clerics. The Iranian govt. seems to have supported anti-US terrorist activity for years. But the people themselves seem to yearn for freedom from theocratic tyranny.

I could be *completely* wrong/naive in my impression about all this. You would certainly know better than I. I did run across the following comment from a blogger visiting Iran. I thought it was interesting:

Comparing With the 70's

Just based upon everything I know about Iranian youth, including my current trip, its amazing to me how much they resembles America in the 70's, minus a few variables. Much like the 70's, so many of the Iranian youth are exemplified by educational and intellectual brilliance, striving for greater freedoms, but also plaqued with an increasing drug and sexual problems. Too many of the Iranian youth practice in hashish and opium and too many are engaged in sexual relations with multiple partners. As a result the fear of an AIDS epidemic is present amongst many of those I've talked to. However, this is Iran's baby boom generation. Something evident everyday as you observe hundreds of Iranians from 14-25 on the streets. I just hope that like our parents in the 70's, we will find the strength to turn ourselves and society around.
|| Nema # 7/17/2004 10:52:23 AM

http://iraniantruth.blogspot.com/

Carol

[bunge]

Originally posted by BRussell
The irony is that, using the same criteria used in Iraq - WMD, ties to radical Islamic terrorists - a much better case probably could have made to invade Iran. :err:

Exactly why I'm concerned.

Originally posted by segovius
Iran says it has dismantled al-Qaeda within it's borders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3903723.stm).

And Saddam had dismantled WMD within his borderst too.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Carol A
BUT...as someone mentioned, if there IS a significant terrorist attack in the next few months, that could change everything. For one thing, it would increase the chance of Bush getting re-elected. It would definitely change the opinions of many wrt pre-emptive strategies of some kind.

I think that's the conventional wisdom, but personally I don't think it's true. True, when there's a natural tragedy, people tend to rally round the leader. But in this case? After Bush has been running around saying "America is safer because of me" people might have a hard time re-electing him should something catastrophic happen....

But to answer S's question: the political climate here is unbelievably polarized among those who follow politics. Even among those who don't follow this stuff religiously, the rhetoric is pretty heated.

[shetline]

Bush could just say that he had Iran and Iraq confused, and that he intended to go into Iran all the time. It's only a one letter difference, after all, and it's not like he has time to pay attention to nit-picking details like that.

So with renewed resolve to mind our 'n's and 'q's, let us once more rally behind our brave troops, wave the flag high, and seek the Blessing and Guidance of Our Heavenly Father that we may, in service to Freedom and Justice for all mankind, attack the correct other country we really meant to attack the first time. Thank you, and God bless America!

[midwinter]

http://www.littlemeanfish.com/media/oops.gif

[jimmac]

Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately he was able to make the war in Iraq seem like a good idea to a lot of people.

Pfflam is right. Iran has a Nuclear Energy/Weapons program and now (very loose) "ties to al-Qaeda" that could both be spun to look like a much better case for war than Iraq ever did.

With everything that's come out about Bush's actions now I think this would be a much harder sell. He might try something like this but I think he would find it much more difficult to convince people to go for it again.

Also given the election is just a few months away it would be more than obvious. He'd need absolute proof connecting them to some new attack on the U.S. to get this one to fly.

It's something he should have tried a year ago before it became obvious how little proof he had about Iraq.

[steve666]

The only thing i can say for sure is that Iran's nuclear reactors need to be destroyed-now. The fact that they exist at all is shrub's greatest failure as President, in his long list of failures.

Iran is the problem. Saudi Arabia is the other. The Saudis are playing friend with us on one hand and fueling hatred towards us on the other. Time to give up the Royals or threaten to unless they cut the crap.

[tonton]

Originally posted by BRussell
One thing that this Iraq war has done is make sure that we're not going into any other preemptive wars in the near future.

This is my take on the situation as well. There's no way we will go into Iran without Bush and America being condemned. There's also no way Congress as it stands will support any sort of military action against Iran at this point or for the forseeable future. Unless Iran explicitly attacks somebody first. And even if Iran declared nuclear capability, there's no way the international community would support America in military action.

Bush has destroyed any power we might have had to stop something like this. We have never been weaker as an international force.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by midwinter
http://www.littlemeanfish.com/media/oops.gif LOL!! That's what I was just thinking :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by Carol A
Hi Segovius. :)

Right *now*, the administration wouldn't be able to get support from the public for any pre-emptive activities in Iran or anywhere else, imo.

BUT...as someone mentioned, if there IS a significant terrorist attack in the next few months, that could change everything. For one thing, it would increase the chance of Bush getting re-elected. It would definitely change the opinions of many wrt pre-emptive strategies of some kind.

I have been fascinated by Iran for years. I've read SO many articles over the last seven years, about the youth of Iran, and how totally differently oriented they are compared to the ruling clerics. The Iranian govt. seems to have supported anti-US terrorist activity for years. But the people themselves seem to yearn for freedom from theocratic tyranny.

I could be *completely* wrong/naive in my impression about all this. You would certainly know better than I. I did run across the following comment from a blogger visiting Iran. I thought it was interesting:



http://iraniantruth.blogspot.com/

Carol

Hi Carol - Madrid went horribly wrong, looks like I'm heading for Edinburgh ! :D Will mail you with full horrendous details heh !

Back OT:

I think wherever there is a totalitarian ruling class (theologically based or otherwise) it always causes a percentage of the population to swing to the other extreme and creates a polarised society.

Often the rulers try to neutralise or exterminate this 'opposition' (as in Iraq, Taleban Afghanistan or Saudi) but Iran has not done this so you get the liberal attitudes you point to. This is progress.

You have to realise that Iran is not by nature a radicalised Islamic state and Iranians are far from this in the main as people (horrible generalisation but I'll go with it), your observations are proof of this.

The reason that things developed as they did in Iran were purely down to the US bolstering of the Shah - an appalling despot who really did systematically abuse his people on many levels and much ant-US sentiment can be traced to this meddling.

In fact the situation is similar to Iraq where the US courted Saddam who turned into an oppressor of his people causing a swing to extremist Islam as a counterbalance.

Anyway, even Bush is not stupid enough to attack Iran, as someone said above, it would be a very bad mistake. They can't even sort out the rag tag Ba'athists and guerilla wannabees in Fallujah - and that's after decades of sanctions. Iran would take 'quagmire' to 11.

If Bush makes any move (and you get the feeling it's the only card he has to play - actually war has always been his only card) it will be Syria - anything else would be the action of a deranged madman.....uhh....err.......

[durin oakenskin]

Originally posted by shetline
Bush could just say that he had Iran and Iraq confused, and that he intended to go into Iran all the time. It's only a one letter difference, after all, and it's not like he has time to pay attention to nit-picking details like that.


Shetline, now you really scared me. That's the explanation to all of it, the whole mess was just a typo.

Would perfectly match with the Bush strategy. I really hope you American guys will fix it this year.

[bunge]

More (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/18/ixportaltop.html) big talk.

Some Bush officials are privately contemplating a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities before Russian fuel rods are delivered next year.

[steve666]

Originally posted by bunge
More (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/18/ixportaltop.html) big talk.

They should do it now

[Aquatic]

BUT...as someone mentioned, if there IS a significant terrorist attack in the next few months, that could change everything. For one thing, it would increase the chance of Bush getting re-elected.

I've always wondered why that is? Are Americans particularly retarded or is that an international phenomenon? Bush makes us LESS secure by invading another country and killing thousands of civilians and Americans, Los Alamos loses a hard drive every day that ends in the letter "y", and our nukes are LESS safe than they were before 9/11, and the public "rallies" behind him!? ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE!!!:???: :wow:

midwinter that last bit on the bottom floored me! :lol:

[bunge]

According to the L.A. Times, Bush Vows to Pursue Any 9/11 Terror Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-071904bush_lat,1,5288918.story?coll=la-home-headlines).

"We're digging into the facts to determine if there was [a link]" Bush said.

[steve666]

Originally posted by Aquatic
I've always wondered why that is? Are Americans particularly retarded or is that an international phenomenon? Bush makes us LESS secure by invading another country and killing thousands of civilians and Americans, Los Alamos loses a hard drive every day that ends in the letter "y", and our nukes are LESS safe than they were before 9/11, and the public "rallies" behind him!? ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE!!!:???: :wow:

midwinter that last bit on the bottom floored me! :lol:

Because Americans would see it as a ploy by the terrorists to sway the election in Kerry's favor. Americans dont like to be told what to do and will do the opposite of their intentions just to show them who's boss.

[bunge]

Originally posted by steve666
Because Americans would see it as a ploy by the terrorists to sway the election in Kerry's favor. Americans dont like to be told what to do and will do the opposite of their intentions just to show them who's boss.

My thought is that an attack would instill fear, like the last time. People don't like change when they're afraid.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by bunge
My thought is that an attack would instill fear, like the last time. People don't like change when they're afraid.


Yes but they're already suspicious of Bush. Also Bush knows this would be risky at best. Another country we've just got to attack! It's a little like crying wolf.

You can only go to the fear well so many times.

Also we've just begun to recover from bad economic times. I think people will be a little less likely to jump on the war band wagon again.

I think even Bush realizes his days in office are probably numbered. Best not to make the republican party look stupid.

[pfflam]

One thing that I heard an Iranian commentator say today was that the young Iranians who had been spearheading a strong reform movement and who, in large part, looked to the US and Secular Democracy, have been very very quited and shut-down, confused and disenchanted since the war in Iraq . . . and especially hit by the images from Abu Ghraib.

I also just want to point out another thing: I agree with the poster who said that Iran was not at all like the tyranical government would make us believe: namely, it is filled with enlightened and thoughtful people, rich history (as is all of the region) and openness and receptiveness to any serious culture ineterchange . . . the Revolution was a reaction to an American backed and extremely-over-funded egomaniac who spent more money on his coronation that many small nations will make in decades . . . the fanatics took charge by force . . . but the main of Iran is a decent place, with what I think are profound-spirited people . . . a friend of mine was involved deeply with the carpet business and traveled there fequently, he even had written recommendation letters from the Culture Ministry who thought highly of him: he has nothing but respect for the country and imparted some of that to me . . . the fanatics, though, are like fanatics everywhere: they are idiots!

iIt would not only be a devestatingly idiotic thing to do for the US to invade because of what it would mean for us, it would be devastating because of what it would mean for humanity and human culture . . . it would most likely put to rest a blossoming yet still nacent cultural growth that yet remains to flourish.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by BRussell
The majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

Where is this data collected? "All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older." this is hardly something I would consider basing my opinions on. In any case I dont think a war with Iran is in the immediate future, although based on our principals for going into Iraq plans may already be under way.

I say we sick the UN on them ;)

[Playmaker]

You conspiricy theorists are out of your F**king minds if you think Bush would start a war to win the god damn election. Enough Said.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by steve666
The only thing i can say for sure is that Iran's nuclear reactors need to be destroyed-now. The fact that they exist at all is shrub's greatest failure as President, in his long list of failures.

Iran is the problem. Saudi Arabia is the other. The Saudis are playing friend with us on one hand and fueling hatred towards us on the other. Time to give up the Royals or threaten to unless they cut the crap. I agree, what are the idiots going to do wait until they have the big one? Blow up the whole complex and give them 10 minutes to remove its people, and your Saudi comment is right on. we love you buy our oil while teaching the youth to hate us. This administration long list of failures is getting larger by the day. Bush is in bed with the Saudi's and the illegal Mexican. i wonder how his wife feels.:lol:

[steve666]

Originally posted by Aurora
I agree, what are the idiots going to do wait until they have the big one? Blow up the whole complex and give them 10 minutes to remove its people, and your Saudi comment is right on. we love you buy our oil while teaching the youth to hate us. This administration long list of failures is getting larger by the day. Bush is in bed with the Saudi's and the illegal Mexican. i wonder how his wife feels.:lol:

Amen, brother. I prefer to vote republican but Bush is giving me nothing. Another illegal amnesty to pander to latinos, a huge deficit, killing environmental regs, outsourcing, no price controls on drugs, a misplaced war, a failure to find Bin Laden and destroy Al Queda, and an Iran with Nuclear Reactors. I'd say that adds up to one massive failure of a President.

[steve666]

Originally posted by bunge
My thought is that an attack would instill fear, like the last time. People don't like change when they're afraid.

Its more of a way of saying F U to the terrorists more than being afraid. Although now i would say that it would just prove what a failure Bush is. He didnt finish the job in Afghanistan just like Papa Bush didnt finish the job in Iraq.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by steve666
He didnt finish the job in Afghanistan just like Papa Bush didnt finish the job in Iraq.

Shit ... does this mean we'll have to put up with the twins in office? ;)

[Aurora]

Steve666 i agree again with your statements, as independent minded and registered fella i dont subscribe to either party's propaganda and rhetoric B.S. machines. they both are shafting the American public. I vote Republican most of the time but they have gone way far right for me and top that with this President doing everything for big business and nothing for regular folks that have to work for a living plus all his lies,misdirection and naming programs with titles that sound good but hurt us regular folks like the clean air initiative???? letting polluters pollute more? wtf or no child left behind??? leaving teachers and schools behind again wtf? If he wants my vote he and the republicans need to change their far right wing ways. does anyone represent the middle class hard working American? we arent left and we aint right ! This will be my anti Bush/Republican vote. Go Kerry/Edwards hope George doesnt leave to big of a mess.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by steve666
Its more of a way of saying F U to the terrorists more than being afraid. Although now i would say that it would just prove what a failure Bush is. He didnt finish the job in Afghanistan just like Papa Bush didnt finish the job in Iraq.

But you do realize that the terrorists want exactly that, that the americans say F U and vote for Bush again, no?

So, a big terrorist-act is probably inevitable in order to help Bush out. Sure, some would say that Bush failed because of that terrorist-act, but most will vote for him, because they think that the war-faring Bush is the one who the terrorists hate the most.

Reality is that they love him the most. Why? Because they want to show to the world, espescially the islamic world, the real face of the USA, that of being a greedy, inhuman, terroristic empire, that is on a mission to steal the future of the islamic world.


And that's why the terrorists like the republicans more, they show the islamic world what the US is up to, while the democrats achieve the same but not as easily visible to the laymen.

Both, the democrats and republicans complement each other perfectly for the greater goal of the US-empire. Diplomacy, corrupting, small-scale-secret-militant operations, blackmailing, etc as long as it goes from the democrats, and then republican direct and large-scale war-fare to achieve what the former ones couldn't do, which then gets replaced again to smooth the tides etc...


Nightcrawler

[steve666]

I think they're more concerned that Bush would be the one to go after them and not Kerry. Bin Laden didnt want us to attack Afghanistan from what I read

[pfflam]

Originally posted by steve666
I think they're more concerned that Bush would be the one to go after them and not Kerry. Bin Laden didnt want us to attack Afghanistan from what I read Any President would have gone into Afghanistan . . .but perhaps with a Denocrat in we would have maintained significant numbers in Afghanistan and would have gone in faster in teh regions where it counted, such as the mountains . . .

Why, after all, did OBL have months for an escape?

[steve666]

Originally posted by pfflam
Any President would have gone into Afghanistan . . .but perhaps with a Denocrat in we would have maintained significant numbers in Afghanistan and would have gone in faster in teh regions where it counted, such as the mountains . . .

Why, after all, did OBL have months for an escape?

Because Bush is an idiot

[pfflam]

Originally posted by steve666
Because Bush is an idiot I didn't say it . . .

But there definitely was a snafu there

[BRussell]

One thing that bothers me about this, but I haven't heard put this way, is that if we knew Iran might have been involved with the 9/11 hijackers, how come the administration didn't mention this to the rest of us?

OK, so they exaggerated evidence about Iraq. But if they intentionally covered up evidence on a country that really might have been involved in 9/11, in order to keep attention on Iraq, that's much, much worse.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BRussell
OK, so they exaggerated evidence about Iraq. But if they intentionally covered up evidence on a country that really might have been involved in 9/11, in order to keep attention on Iraq, that's much, much worse.

That's a great point. I mean, I guess they could have done it just to postpone an attack on Iran long enough to attack Iraq, but why else would they have done it?

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by steve666
I think they're more concerned that Bush would be the one to go after them and not Kerry. Bin Laden didnt want us to attack Afghanistan from what I read

Exactly that was what he indeed wanted that the US-army goes big-style into Afghanistan just like the russians did and be slowly but surely defeated in a decade-long guerillia-war, but so far the US has not entered Afghanistan with major groundforces.

Ultimately death is what they seek but as long as they live they want to lure US-forces into small or big-scale wars in islamic countries, so that the masses finally awake from their selfinduced resignation and revolt against the US-puppet-regimes.

Nightcrawler

[Aquatic]

I think they're more concerned that Bush would be the one to go after them and not Kerry. Bin Laden didnt want us to attack Afghanistan from what I read

Bush didn't go after "them" because he didn't "attack" Afghanistan. What is the current situation in Afghanistan? Haven't heard a lot about it lately now have we? The "liberal" media ain't covering that too much is it? That is where a lot of the terrorists come from, trained in, and where osama bin laden STILL freaking is!!! But guess why we couldn't find him there? Our Arab language units were sent to Iraq to kill civilians. Guess why we still haven't found him? Our Arab langauge units are still killing civilians in Iraq, and getting their asses kicked. When the death toll of Americans reaches 4 digits, can we say it was worth it at the end of the day? I don't think so. Al Gore probably would have stayed in Afghanistan and gotten actual elections to work by now since he probably wouldn't have attacked Iraq, certainly not with a ground force. Haven't we been in Iraq on the ground longer now than we were last time?

And don't forget, al quaeda is now 18, 000 strong. Their highest enrollment ever!! They love Bush! in a peculiar sort of way.

Bush, he's real tough on terror. that's why our nukes are less safe now than BEFORE the 9/11. That's why hard drives walk out of Los Alamos every day that ends in "y".

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq is imho severely misguided. Does anyone here support the war in Iraq but NOT Vietnam? Does anyone here support the Vietnam war? And if so, why the hell!

[rageous]

Originally posted by Aquatic
What is the current situation in Afghanistan? Haven't heard a lot about it lately now have we? The "liberal" media ain't covering that too much is it? That is where a lot of the terrorists come from, trained in, and where osama bin laden STILL freaking is!!! But guess why we couldn't find him there? Our Arab language units were sent to Iraq to kill civilians. Guess why we still haven't found him? Our Arab langauge units are still killing civilians in Iraq, and getting their asses kicked.


Loaded with rancor. Maybe if presented in a more factual way your post would contain merit. But as is it's nothing more than a bitter diatribe.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Playmaker
You conspiricy theorists are out of your F**king minds if you think Bush would start a war to win the god damn election. Enough Said.


He would if he thought he could get away with it.;)

[pfflam]

It turns out that much of the 'information' about IRAQ and Al Queda came from an ex-patriot Iranian living in the states whom the FBI refer to as 'The Asset'.

He says that it was someone in Iran that gave him the bad info

:no:

Here (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html) -need to go through FLASH advert.

[pfflam]

Oh . . . this is rich . . . . from the same article about 'the Asset':
"'His "subsource" was somebody back home' in Iran, said the law enforcement official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. In the wake of Sept. 11, the official said, it appeared that 'somebody in Iran had some knowledge of something' related to Sept. 11.

"Although the Asset has lived in the U.S. 25 years and speaks some English, the FBI has had trouble understanding him in the past. To guard against any misunderstanding, the two FBI agents assigned to interview him in April 2001 brought along an FBI translator fluent in his native language, Farsi.

"The interview followed the standard FBI format. The agents posed their questions in English, which were then translated into Farsi. The Asset's replies were translated back into English as the agents took notes.

"According to the law enforcement official, 'there was talk about terrorists and planes,' but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

"It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be 'possibly here, but more probably overseas.' The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.

"The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were 'under training.'" :wow: