It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ahmadinejad: US used September 11 as 'pretext' for invasions

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The US invaded Afganinistan Because of 9/11... who knew!!!

Thankfully we have AhmedDimInTheHead to tell us these things...


Who better then a Holocast denier, to lecture people on history...

I don't want to hear anything from AhmedDimInTheHead.




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And of course shrub and his cronies are oh so objective and credible - give me a break, shrub lies his backside off on a constant basis.

Why is it that people are so keen to jump on another leaders credibilty, when their own leaders credibility has been shot to pieces a hundred times.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I can't help but wonder that in an alternate reality, that Iran would have been invading Iraq at this point. Still, it does seem to some extent that what we did was to serve them the instability at our own expense.

Ahmadinejad is most likely doing what any politician would do as a diversion from his own possibly wicked agenda and to legitimize it at the same time. Haven't we had this same BS routine with nuclear weapons with India and Pakistan? How is Iran any different or worse than these other two countries? Who or what is the lesser evil?

It's also interesting that countries who use religion in politics to point fingers as to whom is satanic or the great satan, believes they are gods chosen.

It would seem that we're all chess pieces in someone elses control game. 9/11 than wouldn't be any different and just the means to an end. You can blame it on conspiracy, but it doesn't mean it was originally a human idea or agenda either, especially when you claim demonic influence.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


It has to do with patriotism, no self appointed patriot in the US wants to have another nations leader (specially one that has been used in the propaganda against middle eastern nations tagged axis of evil) throwing the truth in their faces.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Noone cares what that crazy Iranian fool has to say. To insinuate that the US was behind the attacks of it's own people is just plain ludicrous. There are alot of way out there theories on this site, but this one takes the cake.


Have you actually read the 9/11 forums?

I think you'll find an awful lot of people who see it that way.

[edit on 10/0408/08 by neformore]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


It has to do with that I give my side much more benefit of the doubt than the opposing team, unlike some here.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I know marg, but IMO blind patriotism often does more harm than good.

In any case, patriotism should be to ones country - not the temporary money grubber who happens to be in charge...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You're absolutely right- our team never ever tells the truth, and absolutely does not have our interests at heart, but the benevolent and altruistic leadership of Iran(and various other nations/organizations in that region) have no agendas other than to deny ignorance.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I give the democrats in my country more benefit of the doubt too, so it's not just blind loyalty to one party.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I remember the news from back when Bush first became president.
Cheney was on the phone, during the inaugural, to call air strikes in Iraq, as soon as he was officially the President.
They had a war against Iraq planned, a long before 9-11.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
How about you provide facts that prove the claims. I mean clear unadulterated proof. Ya have none. Two way street. You are just stating opinion as well.


I'll even do you a favor, I'll send you over to the 9/11 discussion board.

Go research and then tell me what is really a conspiracy theory, the government's story or the supposed "conspiracies"?

Here is one I authored:

Intelligence agency involvement in 911 attacks

Read, you may learn something new.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You don't remember any such thing because that never happened. Show me one reliable source to corroborate that.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Who said blind loyalty to ANY party - I said blind patriotism.

I also said that patriotism is to ones country, not it's leader.

If stalin or hitler were leader would you still feel you owed them your loyalty, instead of loyalty to your nation?

Obfuscation is the key to your posts it seems.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I consider myself a patriot, to my nation, not the leaders and I am also from the side of the conspiracy theorist that support 9/11 as an inside job.

Why? because that is the only way that our present political leaders and its interest would have been able to get their hands on Iraq.

Plain and simple.

And as for Ahmadinejad he may be many things but he is a well educated axis of evil leader and he for onces in his life may be telling the truth.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Same here marg - my patriotism is to my country, not the people in temporary control.

These people inevitably put their own interests before those of the people, whatever public opinion says.

I thought your axis of evil comment was pretty funny too



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'll give you several, although not directly relevant to Ahmadinejad, it is important nonetheless:

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

A former treasury secretary says Bush planned 911 before Iraq, albeit to sell a book, but unfortunately that's how most information is disseminated nowadays.

I've found multiple links with O'Neill as the source so I'll save you the trouble of reading the rest of them.

Want another?

PNAC: Iraq war planned in 1998

Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 Exclusive: Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack

Wolfowitz admits Iraq war planned 2 days after 911

Bush sought way to invade Iraq




A 60 Minutes Interview:






Now I am not so sure on what date is correct. One of the more credible sources (CBS) mentions how Rumsfeld wanted an Iraq invasion on the day of 9/11.



If you really want to start some serious research on this issue, I suggest reading this:

911 war games before and after attacks




[edit on 4/10/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Who said blind loyalty to ANY party - I said blind patriotism.

I also said that patriotism is to ones country, not it's leader.

If stalin or hitler were leader would you still feel you owed them your loyalty, instead of loyalty to your nation?

Obfuscation is the key to your posts it seems.



I don't have Hitler or Stalin or anyone remotely similar to them as my leader. You'd be making the same claims against FDR and Churchill if we lived in the 1940s, by your standards.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


More skirting the issue,
really now, can't you do any better than that?

I suspect the answer is a resounding NO.

These attempts to throw threads you disagree with off-topic have really become rather comical.

And a bit sad.

I was using an example of patriotism for laeders rather than for ones country - do you honestly think you owe a politician any loyalty?

Do you think that you owe loyalty to your country first and it's leader second or the other way round?

Is your loyalty to a man who has ridden roughshod over the constitution or to the country and the constitution itself?



[edit on 10/4/2008 by budski]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Oh great, now the enemy happens to be repeating almost word per word the exact talking points of the looney left.

This is a classic case of where the "useful idiots" can also be referred to as "the enemy within".
Nice going folks!



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

A former treasury secretary says Bush planned 911 before Iraq, albeit to sell a book, but unfortunately that's how most information is disseminated nowadays.

I've found multiple links with O'Neill as the source so I'll save you the trouble of reading the rest of them.


Now I am not so sure on what date is correct. One of the more credible sources (CBS) mentions how Rumsfeld wanted an Iraq invasion on the day of 9/11.




[edit on 4/10/2008 by biggie smalls]


The question being debated was whether Cheney was calling for bombing on the day of the inauguration. None of your links corroborate that.
PNAC is a bogus source of evidence. Nowhere does it say that we should stage such an event, or that such an event would be desirable. It merely stated that an event like Pearl Harbor causes us to forget our differences, and rally as a nation.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by BlueRaja]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by BlueRaja]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join