It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Connections between Iraq and 911

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:00 AM
First of all I'd like to say I've always thought Iraq was overstepping it somewhat in terms of America's response to 911. Finish Afganistan first then maybe another country. But there may only have been this small window of oppertunity, so the decision was made to convince the people of the need to strike Saddam and Iraq.

This first youtube clip is the President responding to a reporter's question about the connections between 911 and Iraq.

Is this the first public admission that there was no initial link between Saddam(now dead) and 911?

Part of the reason I'm doing this thread is a 26 year old coworker made a comment to me about how it was great that Saddam was dead so he would pay for all the people that died on 911.
Now I really didn't know what to say for a couple of seconds, but I eventually asked why he thought Saddam was responsible for 911.
His response was predictable, because didn't the President and Vice President say so?

Now wether they did say so or not is the question.

In this next clip is the Vice P. and the infamous Prauge meeting between Atta and a member of Saddams government.

Sort of contradicts himself somewhat, after all preemptive war is pretty serious buisness don't you think?

After 911 and the Anthrax scares(there is currently a thread here rehashing the anthrax thing) Congress signed away it's athority to declare war to the President.

Now my point I'm trying to make here is this, Iraq never happens unless there's a 911.

How were so many fooled and why weren't the voices of reason heard?
Were we all just huddling sheep blindly following the shepards?

This last clip is Colin Powell addressing the UN. Who ever posted it did some editting so there is some oppinion being injected, however I still think it's worth 5 mins of time.

This speech and cartoon presentation never works unless of course you have 911.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:28 AM
I can understand why nobody wants debate this issue, it's like the 900 pound gorilla on your sofa. You want to do something about it but what?

The way 911 was used in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq was complete oppertunism run wild. The current administration wanted to invade from the beginning but the people never would have go along until 911.

So the real conspiracy of 911 isn't CD's or missiles but the huge money grab associated with the invasions and subsequent rebuilding efforts buy private contractors that now outnumber our troops in Iraq.

If I could ask the President one question it would be this.

"Do you have monthly or quarterly meetings with heads of the private security firms currently working in Iraq?"

What would you ask the the leader of the free world?

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:02 AM
Bush did use 911 for his invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt about that. His speech to the world outlining the threat Iraq had on the world (october 2002) was filled with false statements and fear tactics.

Most of us bought them.

Bush had a war plan outlined to attack Iraq prior to 911, and even spoke of getting Saddam prior to being "selected" in his first term.

After 911, it was known that Bush was trying to pin it on saddam.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:04 AM
I have a huge list of things I'd like to ask the leader of the free world (I resist putting the phrase inside quotation marks, though it deserves to be so for any number of reasons), but I would assume Dick Cheney would have to be there to answer most of them.

But then what answers would you get, lacking truth serum?

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:17 AM
Iraq did not take part directly in the days events on 9/11. Saddam was disposed due to the possible threat (and purported harboring of some individuals) from Iraq's WMD program.

Intelligence reports from Russia, France, Germany, Great Britian and the US, showed Iraq had 'huge' stockpiles of WMD's and the fact that Saddam had not only ignored 17 UN resolutions and well as violate the cease-fire terms agreed to after the Gulf War. It was decided to remove him from power.

*on a side note, I think Iran has been the main target all along, now Iran is 'surrounded'.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Bush did use 911 for his invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt about that. His speech to the world outlining the threat Iraq had on the world (october 2002) was filled with false statements and fear tactics.

Most of us bought them.

Yeah, I bought em' mainly because the media played along with the foreknowledge of huge ratings when the invasion began. More oppertunism.

However I was for the removal of Saddam when most of my close friends were not simply because we created Saddam by selling him all the weapons and hardware he could buy, essentially selling the future for profit.

Now it seems the same entities that made all that money are raking it in again, profitting off others misery.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:53 PM
Did Iraq have WMD? Well we haven't found any. If any were found, you KNOW Bush would have been all over it and have a victory party. If some of the insurgents have stumbled across them, you can bet your butt that they would have used them by now.
Could they have smuggled them into Syria? Maybe.
The point is, Colin Powell (who i admire) IMO was coerced into telling the UN the pack of lies he did about the mobile chemical factories that made Chemical Weapons, and other shady "evidence."

The UN resolutions were violated since Daddy Bush was in office....Face it...if there wasn't a 911...The American public and congress would have been MUCH more hesitant to agree with sending out kids over seas.

Look at the most recent report from Iraq:

Official: Report will say none of Iraq’s goals met
Draft, coming out this week, expected to accelerate debate on withdrawal

WASHINGTON - A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:37 AM
The original plan of invasion included leaving most of the military and police forces in Iraq intact. The person who Bush put in charge of coming up with this plan(can't recall his name at the moment) was quite qualified for this task.

Just prior to the invasion the plan was changed for some reason and someone else was put in charge.

It almost appears that making the right calls and fixing the things that need to be fixed took a back seat to profits.

How many different commanders were used in the first 12 months of the war? Stay the coarse my ass! The coarse is profits, profits, profits!

Big oil is in a win win situation, if we create a friendly gas station in the middle east, win.
If not and chaos ensues thats a great reason to raise the price of gas, win.

Not to mention the stratigic position of Iraq militarily.

Congress is making noise about a pullout, but I think this is just another smoke screen. I'd be surprized If we pull out in the next ten years.

As far as Iran goes they seem to have also bennifited from the US occupation.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:47 PM

Denying that the war triggered al-Qaida's operations in Iraq, President Bush again links isurgents to 911 terrorists.

by Ben Feller
The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. — President Bush today lashed out at critics who say that al-Qaida's operation in Iraq is distinct from terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The merger between al-Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail," Bush said.

Citing security details he declassified for his speech, Bush described al-Qaida's burgeoning operation in Iraq as a direct threat to the United States. Bush accused critics in Congress of misleading the American public by suggesting otherwise.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:18 PM
Man I'm still learning the ropes of computer communications.

Intelligence is sited so many times here it makes my head hurt. Is this the same intel. that got us into Iraq in the first place?

And to declassify stuff just so you can rebuff your critics, simply amazing! Will anyone be aloud to think diferently without being labled an appeaser?

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:40 AM
My brother in law has returned from a year in the "Green Zone" of Bagdad, anyone have any questions not pertaining to national security?

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:12 PM
I talk to a lot of people in my line of work. (Insurance Broker) Most feel
that Bush invaded Iraq to finish what his Dad get rid of Saddam.
Once there, he saw an opportunity to develop a controlling U.S.
presence in the Middle-East.

Although war is deadly, it does create lots of jobs in the defense industry
and for companies that support the defense industry. I have two relatives
who are living very well these past 4 years because the companies they
work for are supplying parts and materials for that country and the
the defense industry. You never hear from these folks on forums like this
though. They're just raking in the dough, taking really nice family
vacations and fattening up their retirement and kid's college funds.

The U.S.A. will be there for a long, long time, but hopefully it will be
in more of a support role with less sacrificing of lives. Time will tell.

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:47 PM
Well its nice to hear some people are bennitfiting from all the blood shed and sacifice our brave troops are giving in the name of national security. Not to mention all the Iraqi casualties and suffering now that their country is torn assunder and slipping into civil war, not because of the invasion, but the failed policies of the occupation, you know spending 500 billion$ with little to no oversite.

[edit on 8/4/2007 by infinityoreilly]

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:42 PM
I would just like to interject..............if there were a 900 lb gorilla on my couch I would find that quite cool. As a matter of fact, I would probably charge the neighbors to come see it.

And to be a bit more on target, you said it all when you said "there would be no Iraq(war) without 9/11."

That statement tells you why 9/11 had to happen.


posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:11 AM
Wise words jasn,even about the gorilla on the couch!

Ferretman,i have just looked at your profile to see who you are.I always do that when warmongers post to see if they are men enough to show their real identities online while they bang their internet inflated chests like war drums with their normal blinkered posts

I couldnt see anything,are you perhaps shy? lol

anyway lil dig aside,Ferretman you prob are a cool dude offlline and i am sure a lot of net stuff can be taken out of context.

The UN called Irag an illegal war my friend,those dodgy dosiers that the UK labour party produced are nothing but fabricated essays with no foundation of truth-Those ceasefire wobbles with Saddam must be when he locked radar on our patrols flying overhead then protecting the fly zones north and south?If that is the case if had every right too,i know damm well both our countries would do the same

As for the wmd's-there not there,they were not there and if they where i have a sneeky feeling he would have used the bloody things on us when we attacked him(actualy the 1st faulty intel of the war stated he was dining in a Restaurant and Bush invaded before the deadline to leave the country was reached!That man bush cant even stand by his own words-shamefull-of course no one was there apart from hotel workers,chefs,waiters-so the 1st bomb of the war was a miss!)

Anyway,just so you know Iraq is an Illegal war oposed by the vast majority of the world population but the Media are wagging their tails as thier masters demand them

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:37 PM
Bush invaded afghanistan for good reasons, and invaded Iraq because he wanted to be seen as a savior or some other silly crap. He wants so bad to be the "good guy" but he's so incompetent it will just never happen. If he were smart he'd take our troops out of Iraq and then the history books might favor him a little more than they will if he doesn't. It looks like it might happen too, so good for him.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:16 PM
Pray to God he comes to his senses and a controlled withdraw starts as soon as the next update from the generals on the ground reaches his desk. Or does he answer only to himself?

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Pray to God he comes to his senses and a controlled withdraw starts as soon as the next update from the generals on the ground reaches his desk. Or does he answer only to himself?

His most recent comments seem to indicate he's coming to his senses.

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:29 AM
I've just recently read another article that shows how politics tries once again to link Iraq and 911. It was on msmbc's web site, but was written by Peter Baker of the Washington Post updated on Sept 11 2007 at 11:59 p.m..

In the article it mentions a new advertising campaign that is supported by the Bush administration where they have a disabled Iraq vet saying "they attcked us on 911".

I'm saddened by this continued type of propaganda, but it seems the norm these days as our once proud country slips into a state of division and disassociation.

Will we wake up and see the light in time to do something about it?

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:42 AM
I agree Infinity..
I've worked in some political campaigns in the past and it's just so mind boggling that so many of our citizens are so clueless about local and national politics. They don't know who their representatives are, nor do they even care and I'm talking about the vast majority here.
And then, of course, we all know that only a small percentage of people in our country even vote -- let alone that they are even registered to do so.
So is it any wonder why most just take for granted that what they read in the paper is the truth and that our gov't is telling the truth also. Most people don't even question that the information they see and read in the media is anything but the truth. Unfortunately, the day will come when they will see that they should have been more attentive to what's really going on with this current Administration. I think that day has arrived because most want us out of Iraq but they are also seeing that it's not quite that easy. I wonder if they've learned anything from this lesson?

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in