Saddam's Files Show 9/11 Link

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    able and cain version 2.0





    maybe it is the end of days?



    g












    \
  • Reply 62 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    NewsMax is no worse than the NYT.



    Yeah OK. NewsMax=Enquirer for the neo-cons.
  • Reply 63 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Just Read!



    Is this going to be one of those threads where I have to run down the information to you because you're not able to do it yourself?




    Here, I'll show you something:

    <link>ww.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?</link> This is the link to your proof.



    You are presenting opinion as fact yet again. There is an ocean between opinion and fact. Too funny.
  • Reply 64 of 98
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Newsmax! BS Inc. Doesn't Laurie Mylroie contribute to it? That should be an indicator of reliability, or lack of.



    This is a black helicopter thread.



  • Reply 65 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    You are presenting opinion as fact yet again. There is an ocean between opinion and fact. Too funny.



    They have to place it under opinion because it contains demonstrable fabrication.
  • Reply 66 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Newsmax! BS Inc. Doesn't Laurie Mylroie contribute to it? That should be an indicator of reliability, or lack of.



    This is a black helicopter thread.







    <sarcasm>Well, the government hasn't presented proof that the quiet black helicopter DON'T exist so that means they must have them. There is no refuting my logic because it should be easy to prove that you don't have something shouldn't it?</sarcasm>
  • Reply 67 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    I waited for Scott's reply all my tea-break and he didn't show - I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt so I waited an extra ten minutes (in case he got tied up with all the research and fact checking - I know how painstaking that can be) but still no sign.....and then I GOT BLOODY CANNED - for being late back from break - and then my wife left me because of it so now I have to sell the house and the kids to feed the dog....AND my tea went cold



    AND it's all Scott's fault for running off and not backing up his statements..........snarl










    ?
  • Reply 68 of 98
    As usual I tried to find the images of murals or posters photographed in buildings in Iraq of the WTC attack on Google...no luck...anyone?



    Probably not. Because all of you are so blind. Blind as all the reporters, politicians and the overall general population.



    Iraq was in on the 9|11 attacks...so what?



    This so called War on Terror has been going on for YEARS. Whether the US are to blame or some Middle Eastern country is irrelevant. Whether the attacks on us were abroad or within our own country are irrelevant. Because of what we did to others (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Palestine...take your pick), we got it right back. And the general opinion in the Middle East about 9|11 is we deserved it.



    Therefore if evidence comes to light that Iraq had some involvement in the 9|11 attacks doesn't surprise me one goddamn bit. Iraq was (and shit, still IS ALL OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS) a country without borders, where these terrorists walk in and out getting arms, recruits and training at any time anywhere!



    Clinton's fault? How about Nixon? Or Reagan? Bush the Freedom Fighter? Mission Accomplished? Again no. He's truly a puppet leader who is there for the hacks. The cronies in the background are running the show and they want their money, power and yes, OIL back.



    Wake up people. You're being duped again!







    /atleastthisblowsallthetinhattheoriesoutthewindow
  • Reply 69 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    As usual I tried to find the images of murals or posters photographed in buildings in Iraq of the WTC attack on Google...no luck...anyone?



    http://www.dtpbylee.com/blog/archive...mural-iraq.jpg

    Quote:

    Therefore if evidence comes to light that Iraq had some involvement in the 9|11 attacks doesn't surprise me one goddamn bit.



    But it hasn't yet and all we have is an article containing fabrication, as has been demonstrated.
  • Reply 70 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    As usual I tried to find the images of murals or posters photographed in buildings in Iraq of the WTC attack on Google...no luck...anyone?



    Probably not. Because all of you are so blind. Blind as all the reporters, politicians and the overall general population.



    Iraq was in on the 9|11 attacks...so what?



    This so called War on Terror has been going on for YEARS. Whether the US are to blame or some Middle Eastern country is irrelevant. Whether the attacks on us were abroad or within our own country are irrelevant. Because of what we did to others (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Palestine...take your pick), we got it right back. And the general opinion in the Middle East about 9|11 is we deserved it.



    Therefore if evidence comes to light that Iraq had some involvement in the 9|11 attacks doesn't surprise me one goddamn bit. Iraq was (and shit, still IS ALL OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS) a country without borders, where these terrorists walk in and out getting arms, recruits and training at any time anywhere!



    Clinton's fault? How about Nixon? Or Reagan? Bush the Freedom Fighter? Mission Accomplished? Again no. He's truly a puppet leader who is there for the hacks. The cronies in the background are running the show and they want their money, power and yes, OIL back.



    Wake up people. You're being duped again!







    /atleastthisblowsallthetinhattheoriesoutthewindow




    They were not, in any real capacity, involved in 911!



    These (all links in orinal thread-post) are further wishfull-thinking on the part of -(I can no longer say Conservatives, because it isn't them)- those smitten with the Administration and every calamity that it has enacted.



    It does matter, as it is further proof of the LIES told to the American people in order to further an overtly self-interested agenda with regards to the invasion of another country . . . ie 'pax Americana'.



    And it also DOES matter who is to blame for this war . . .it isn't Bill CLinton, and it Isn't Nixon or even Reagan . . it is Gearge W Bush!!

    (except, he won't take the blame . . . unless things work out . . which, so far, seems unlikely)
  • Reply 71 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    They were not, in any real capacity, involved in 911!



    These (all links in orinal thread-post) are further wishfull-thinking on the part of -(I can no longer say Conservatives, because it isn't them)- those smitten with the Administration and every calamity that it has enacted.



    It does matter, as it is further proof of the LIES told to the American people in order to further an overtly self-interested agenda with regards to the invasion of another country . . . ie 'pax Americana'.



    And it also DOES matter who is to blame for this war . . .it isn't Bill CLinton, and it Isn't Nixon or even Reagan . . it is Gearge W Bush!!

    (except, he won't take the blame . . . unless things work out . . which, so far, seems unlikely)




    pfflam...how old are you? Just curious. We seem to be similar in our feelings on many subjects...but I just don't get the whole deal here on this issue...



    I seem to remember countless terrorist attacks abroad against the US. The kidnapping of US embassy in Iran seems to come to mind...why do you think that in 9|11 Iraq wasn't involved? Saudi Arabia even? Don't you get it? Anybody? Are you too young to understand or remember? Has this Arbusto propaganda machine really done it's work on you too? Hell, I wouldn't even blame them altogether...the media has done a good job of this too...right or left.



    Do some research. Find all the terrorist attacks in the last 30 years and see which ones were done against US involvement in some place or another. Or directed towards US citizens/soldiers (hint: Beruit) abroad. How many were of Middle Eastern origin. Make a list...maybe you'll see what I'm getting at...



    I do believe that 9|11 has changed the focus on terrorism...it's unfortunate that the Arbusto company is given the task to prevent it again.



    To me all this is no "new" news. Nothing new here...move on.



  • Reply 72 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    why do you think that in 9|11 Iraq wasn't involved?



    [...]



    Do some research.




    I'm not going to respond for pfflam, but, AFAIC, part of the problem is that these two statements are contradictory.



    Then we have to wonder what exactly someone means when they say "Iraq?" Saddam? He likely didn't even really know what was going on with his own top advisors. There's more than enough evidence that indicates he was in la-la land WRT essentially everything in his country.
  • Reply 73 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    pfflam...how old are you? Just curious. We seem to be similar in our feelings on many subjects...but I just don't get the whole deal here on this issue...



    I seem to remember countless terrorist attacks abroad against the US. The kidnapping of US embassy in Iran seems to come to mind...why do you think that in 9|11 Iraq wasn't involved? Saudi Arabia even? Don't you get it? Anybody? Are you too young to understand or remember? Has this Arbusto propaganda machine really done it's work on you too? Hell, I wouldn't even blame them altogether...the media has done a good job of this too...right or left.



    Do some research. Find all the terrorist attacks in the last 30 years and see which ones were done against US involvement in some place or another. Or directed towards US citizens/soldiers (hint: Beirut) abroad. How many were of Middle Eastern origin. Make a list...maybe you'll see what I'm getting at...



    I do believe that 9|11 has changed the focus on terrorism...it's unfortunate that the Arbusto company is given the task to prevent it again.



    To me all this is no "new" news. Nothing new here...move on.







    You have never been there. Your post makes that abundantly clear. While many attacks have come from the ME that does not link SH to 911. There are many countries with many regions populated by many followers of different sects of Islam as well as other religions. You can't group them all in one big bag of evil because these places are different. The people in Jordan are different than the people in UAE who are different than the people in Pakistan. Man alive!!! You have oversimplified this into a black and white situation where we are good and the ME is evil thus SH had a finger in 9|11. Did SH order Hamas to bomb the Marines in Beirut in 83? Did SH order the attack on the Cole? Did SH order any attacks that you can think of? Was he even proven complacent in these attacks? Aside from a failed attempt against Bush I, no.



    The coup de gras of your post was when you linked a kidnapping in Iran to Saddam Hussain (mortal enemy of Iran) to 9|11. C'mon!!!
  • Reply 74 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    I'm not going to respond for pfflam, but, AFAIC, part of the problem is that these two statements are contradictory.



    Then we have to wonder what exactly someone means when they say "Iraq?" Saddam? He likely didn't even really know what was going on with his own top advisors. There's more than enough evidence that indicates he was in la-la land WRT essentially everything in his country.




    Well, I guess I should put this in another way. Terrorists don't always have a specific country that they a

    can call "their own". They will seem to go anywhere to anyone to get what they need for their cause or for safe houses and training camps. They may have a purpose to claim a country or land that they believe is theirs but in their method of terror has really no country or persons as...ah, I'm losing this...help.



    My opinon or feeling. Iraq had ties with the 9|11 atacks? Why not? If Saddam knew or not is not my point. I haven't even mentioned the far east...



    I just don't think that this is news...gone on for years.



    /imwornoutonthissubject
  • Reply 75 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    Well, I guess I should put this in another way. Terrorists don't always have a specific country that they a

    can call "their own". They will seem to go anywhere to anyone to get what they need for their cause or for safe houses and training camps.




    OK. I think I understand what you are saying here.



    I don't think anyone questions that there are Iraqi citizens involved with al-qaida. But then again, there are americans who have gone to training camps. Does that imply Bush was involved?
  • Reply 76 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    OK. I think I understand what you are saying here.



    I don't think anyone questions that there are Iraqi citizens involved with al-qaida. But then again, there are americans who have gone to training camps. Does that imply Bush was involved?




    Invade Washington. Bush as of yet has not disproven his link to AQ. Bush has WMD. Bush has attacked a foreign country resulting in 10,000+ deaths. Bush has links to SA thus he has links to terrorism. Members of the Bush admin have direct links to supplying armed rebels throughout the world (Iran Contra anyone). There are known AQ operatives in the US.



    Artman your arguments are just as valid for El Presidente' as they are for SH.
  • Reply 77 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    A couple interesting examples for comparison:



    1. Princess Haifa. Saudi Princess accused of finacing 9/11 terrorist attacks. Extremely close with the Bushes. "The Bushes are like my mother and father," she once stated.



    2. Lt General Mahmood Ahmed. Former head of Pakistan's ISI. Musharraf's #2. Resigned under allegations that he wired $100,000 to Atta.



    In other words, there is much more evidence linking Bush or Musharraf than Saddam, with or without the WSJ article that contains clear fabrications, as already demonstrated.
  • Reply 78 of 98
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Having thought about Artman's point a bit more it strikes me that (iiuc) he may be on the threshold of a profound insight here. Particularly with the idea that terrorists have no country.



    I remember once reading a sociologist defining the differences between a nation and a tribe. According to him "a nation draws its strength and security from what it has whilst a tribe draws it from what it IS."



    This seems close to Artman's idea and certainly the US is a nation in this sense. Undeniably the middle east is 'tribal' in its thinking also (in the same schemata rather than in the negative way it is often used) so it would follow that 'terrorists' of that origin would also share this mindset.



    In a sense their ideology is their country - they are secure from their beliefs rather than their material possessions (or lack of them). This is what the west has consistently failed to understand over centuries and is making the same mistake now.



    So the question in this sense would be: is their a shared ideology between al-Q and Saddam ?



    Clearly there is not - SH was far more 'western' in this sense and aspiring to be the leader of a 'nation' rather than a 'tribe' (his love of palaces, cars, stockpiling cash etc). So we can eliminate any links.



    We may not be able to yet say Saddam had no ties but we can say that if he did then al-Qaeda and the Islamists did not. They are mutually exclusive.




    Yes, nations are held together by ideology/religion/common belief (e.g. the nation of Islam), if I understand the difference between a nation and a state. States are held together by political borders. As for AQ not having a "country".... I believe the term is "fourth generation asymmetrical warfare." That is, we are no longer waging wars against nation-states (like WWII), but are instead waging war against groups/cells of dissidents who reside in multiple countries (including our own). Now, certainly, some state governments are, for political reasons, going to be willing to allow such shenanigans to go on (e.g. Afghanistan, although that's a problematic example since the Taliban wasn't really a recognized government) or will straight-up help the terrorists out (e.g. Iran).



    These points about attempting to claim that random Iraqis who are involved with AQ clearly indicate Iraq's involvement are dead on. The point, as I said very early on in this thread, is that the obsession with finding a link between Iraq and AQ stems from the mistaken and old-school belief that terrorism requires state sponsorship.
  • Reply 79 of 98
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Well, as Giant said above - if you want to hold that view and retain credibility you must also believe that the US is involved with terror attacks against itself.



    Exactly. But that logic only follows if you're willing to accept "guy X maybepossiblyperhapswemightthink knows guy Y" as proof of all of this nonsense.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 80 of 98
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Well, as Giant said above - if you want to hold that view and retain credibility you must also believe that the US is involved with terror attacks against itself.



    You are kidding right? That is the logic you are going with?



    Read what you posted, out load.
Sign In or Register to comment.