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.

 

If it was Israelis (not Saudis & 1 Egyptian) behind 9/11, would USA have bombed them?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I don’t care about their nationalities. Is there any “solid proof” that there were 19 hijackers in the first place..?

Don’t give me those “fishy –evidences- placed-by-you-know-who”!




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
In answer to the OP's question, I seriously doubt it. But then there's no evidence that Israel was involved in any way, and it doesn't make sense that they would be. Why bite the hand that feeds?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Israel can do to America and nothing will be done to them. There was Israeli connections to Kennedy's assassinations and nothing was done about it. Their fingerprints was all over 9/11 and what was done about that? All information was classified as top secret. With all the bought politicians and Israeli firsters in congress like McCain and Graham and the many dual nation Israelis that hold many seats of power in Americas government they practically rule by proxy.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


So why bother attacking a country they "rule by proxy"? Seems a bit pointless.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Specifically the Israeli's were involved with 9-11 but not in the way you think! Israel, on at least 3 occasions gave the US authorities warnings that their intelligence network had picked up threats towards the US government and possible aircraft hijackings. This was reported for several days in the aftermath of the tragedy and then died down to be replaced by the anti Jew propaganda that seems to proliferate everywhere these days!

Just like our good friend Buster here who has now even apportioned blame on Israel for the assassination of JFK! Are you really going to convince us that it had nothing to do with LBJ/Bush/Nixon and the 'military industrial complex' and that Israel was behind that??? Killed for not going to war, for wanting to reveal the truth about aliens, for wanting to issue government bank notes, yes I can believe all that but to honestly state Israel was behind the assassination of JFK is complete and utter stupidity!



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by buster2010
 


So why bother attacking a country they "rule by proxy"? Seems a bit pointless.


Like Benny said "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." 9/11 just made it easier to get Americans to want to go to war fighting Israel's wars for them. All the politicians they bought need to do is point their finger and say terrorist.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


Doubtful. If it was Canadians would we bomb them? No. If it was Mexico would we bomb them? No. What a pointless excercise in What Ifs.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I firmly believe ANY nation in the world who had not only been shown to be behind or directly supporting those who did 9/11, but then acted as Afghanistan's Taliban did, would have had a serious U.S. Military response to deal with. Bush was known as a weak figure and the media was not kind in showing him as an outsider. 9/11 gave him his big break into 'arriving' as a President vs. a lucky winner of the 'lets make a court ruling' game.

If folks think back, Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum and I'm sure he never expected them to follow up with it. I always wished they had though. It would have called his bluff and slowed his roll on the spot, with egg dripping down his face. Bush had demanded they hand over Bin Laden (Whom the US openly wanted well before that and even Clinton had looked at assassinating at least once). Predictably, their manly 'tude couldn't allow for that sort of challenge and it wasn't even considered. War was inevitable and so, it really was an offer akin to a cat letting a mouse think it has an escape.

If Saudi had, the day after it happened, gone isolationist, closed it's borders and taken a hostile stance to the US? Well, indeed, they may well have felt good reasons to worry we may come with less than gifts or greetings. I don't know what it would take with Israel ...and 9/11 may have necessitated a lesser (rendition) response akin to how Israel pursued the aftermath of Munich, and perhaps some in Washington even liking the irony that would have carried.

I don't think any nation in the world could have sponsored that act or, like the Taliban, even been associated with someone who was connected to it and gotten away with it. No one, IMHO.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Hongkongphooey
Specifically the Israeli's were involved with 9-11 but not in the way you think! Israel, on at least 3 occasions gave the US authorities warnings that their intelligence network had picked up threats towards the US government and possible aircraft hijackings. This was reported for several days in the aftermath of the tragedy and then died down to be replaced by the anti Jew propaganda that seems to proliferate everywhere these days!

Just like our good friend Buster here who has now even apportioned blame on Israel for the assassination of JFK! Are you really going to convince us that it had nothing to do with LBJ/Bush/Nixon and the 'military industrial complex' and that Israel was behind that??? Killed for not going to war, for wanting to reveal the truth about aliens, for wanting to issue government bank notes, yes I can believe all that but to honestly state Israel was behind the assassination of JFK is complete and utter stupidity!


It's not anti Jew propaganda it's anti Zionist propaganda two different things.

Israel wanted JFK out of the way because he wanted to keep them from getting nukes not to mention he signed an EO which would have ended the Federal Reserve which has always been run by a dual national Israeli. Not to mention the Israeli government was running around saying that Kennedy should be shot. LBJ was an Israeli lackey and the attack on the USS Liberty proved that when he wouldn't allow any of our ships or planes to defend it and he also said he wanted that ship to go to the bottom.
Israeli orders kill JFK



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

buster2010

JuniorDisco
reply to post by buster2010
 


So why bother attacking a country they "rule by proxy"? Seems a bit pointless.


Like Benny said "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." 9/11 just made it easier to get Americans to want to go to war fighting Israel's wars for them. All the politicians they bought need to do is point their finger and say terrorist.


But you said they rule by proxy. Which must be untrue, or they wouldn't have needed 9/11.

My point is that the inflationary nature of your language with regard to Israel rather undermines your point. Both because it's logically inconsistent, and because it suggests you have an axe to grind.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
USA did not bomb Saudi Arabia either. They bombed Afghanistan, then Iraq. If it would have been an muslim Israeli terrorist mastermind and muslim Israelis they would still have bombed Afghanistan to get them. If it would have been Israeli jews there would have been no way Nato could have entered Afghanistan under the pretext of finding a jewish terrorist sheltered by Talibans.


buster2010



Israel wanted JFK out of the way because he wanted to keep them from getting nukes not to mention he signed an EO which would have ended the Federal Reserve which has always been run by a dual national Israeli. Not to mention the Israeli government was running around saying that Kennedy should be shot. LBJ was an Israeli lackey and the attack on the USS Liberty proved that when he wouldn't allow any of our ships or planes to defend it and he also said he wanted that ship to go to the bottom.
Israeli orders kill JFK


Israel is a patsy of England and therefore Nato. JFK and the Kennedy family in general was hunted because their clan existed outside the power structures of the old establishment and therefore was not controlled by them and the clan in general seen as a threat and competition. He did his own thing and was uncooperative on a number of issues but the aforementioned was the root problem, so JFKs opposition or opinion in regards to Israel is an also and not the it.
edit on 22-2-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 

Israelis don't want anyone to suffer?
except maybe palistinians...who are according to dna the original biblical hebrews...that god gave the land to if you believe in unsigned deeds for land possesion and all
best keep the money aid at home in the US...
give it to the homeless injured and starving vets

edit on 22-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


moving on...
the sauds threatened to do terrorism at sochi if the us didn't attack syria they even offered to foot the bill...
did the US attack them for such terrorism?...
I guess with both of them supporting Al CIA DUH! and all

funny the US trained the terroists of 911 in florida...
sooner or later you all down there are going to get bombed too I'll bet

edit on 22-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 




Yea lets pretend I could have fit all that extra (2 Emeriti and 1 Lebanese) in the title.


No, that does not excuse your obvious error, if you are saying you only made that mistake because you could not fit it all in the title then why go on to say it yet again you even start you second post after your awful OP saying that



Thats the point, though. US claimed Saudis & 1 Egyptian were.....


The point is that you have demonstrated quite clearly that you thought it was 18 Saudi's and 1 Egyptian, this is quite obvious as you stated "Saudi's and 1 Egyptian" twice.

You were mistaken, you were wrong, you got a very fundamental component of your thread wrong, how about you just admit you got this wrong?

Because like i said before if you cannot get the most basic facts pertaining to 9/11 correct then what hope do you have in trying to dream up some grand conspiracy and then convince everyone else you are right. If you cannot get the basics right then why should i or anyone else pay any attention to what you have to say when it is quite apparent you dont have a clue what you are talking about?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

beckybecky

Isreal would never ever do such a heinous act as it is freedom loving democratic,civiluzed free country.

The mere thought of such a thing is anathema to any isreali.

you should not even suggest such a thing.

it is not part of their culture suicide bombings.

they don't expect 72 virgins heaven nonsense.

They are a caring people.they have suffered greatly under hitler.they know suffering.they don't want to make other people suffer.


Your joking right??
Does Israels attack on the USS Liberty ring any bells.

Maybe suicide bombings arn't part of the culture..but..."By the way of deception thou shalt do war"..all that false flag jazz is one thing Isrealis really really do well..so Jerusalem planning and carrying out 9/11 isn't all that far fetched.

That they have suffered yes..yada yada yada..but does that make it ok to do the same to the Palestinians??

As for caring.. Israel cares for Israel..nobody else. If push come to shove Isreal would willingly attack the U.S.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
If folks think back, Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum and I'm sure he never expected them to follow up with it. I always wished they had though. It would have called his bluff and slowed his roll on the spot, with egg dripping down his face. Bush had demanded they hand over Bin Laden (Whom the US openly wanted well before that and even Clinton had looked at assassinating at least once). Predictably, their manly 'tude couldn't allow for that sort of challenge and it wasn't even considered. War was inevitable and so, it really was an offer akin to a cat letting a mouse think it has an escape.

But they did call his bluff: the Taliban agreed to hand over bin Laden - as long as the US provided the evidence they said they had of his guilt. The US refused to share that evidence (and still never has), so the Taliban refused to cooperate. I think it was more akin to a cat letting a mouse think it's going to play by the rules, when really it's going to eat the mouse no matter what.

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, said at a news conference in Islamabad, "Our position in this regard is that if the Americans have evidence, they should produce it." If they can prove their allegations, he said, "we are ready for a trial of Osama bin Laden."
NY Times 9/21/2001

I think the OP's question is moot - the US was clearly going to use bin Laden's alleged involvement to justify overthrowing the Taliban no matter what, and the nationality of the hijackers wasn't going to make any difference to that, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

magicrat
I think the OP's question is moot - the US was clearly going to use bin Laden's alleged involvement to justify overthrowing the Taliban no matter what, and the nationality of the hijackers wasn't going to make any difference to that, in my opinion.


Absolutely, it was a done deal from the day Madelin Abright told the Taliban - " 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'".

Tim Osman, as he was known in the CIA, was the perfect patsy. You have one of your own take the blame and you keep him constantly one step ahead of the hunters, he's never caught, he never talks.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

andy1972
Tim Osman, as he was known in the CIA, was the perfect patsy. You have one of your own take the blame and you keep him constantly one step ahead of the hunters, he's never caught, he never talks.

Until you catch him and kill him one day after no one has seen him in ten years, without showing anyone any proof you've done it, and then you dump his body overboard in the middle of the night.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

magicrat

andy1972
Tim Osman, as he was known in the CIA, was the perfect patsy. You have one of your own take the blame and you keep him constantly one step ahead of the hunters, he's never caught, he never talks.

Until you catch him and kill him one day after no one has seen him in ten years, without showing anyone any proof you've done it, and then you dump his body overboard in the middle of the night.


Nah,...that never happened. I have family in the CIA, and they told me they bought him a takeaway called "Little Odessa Kebabs" in New Yorks Brighton Beach. He now lives under the alias of Dimitri Suckov.



Here he is with his Wife.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 

Now you're the one who's joking, right? Or are you seriously saying that one of the guys in that photo is Tim Osman? And the other guy is his wife (no offence intended, but I can't tell)? And your family members in the CIA gave you a photo of the world's most notorious villain's secret identity after his death so you could share it on internet forums?

I found the photo in this article from 2008, so I assume you're joking. Anyway, it's a cool story.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



But they did call his bluff: the Taliban agreed to hand over bin Laden - as long as the US provided the evidence they said they had of his guilt.


I seem to recall something along those lines....and most who were there in Kabul to say it, died for that stunt, too. Was it worth the joke with a fatal punchline? How many died so the Taliban could play word games and semantics? This was the same time they were telling the world they would destroy our Air Force and stop our troops with their vast batteries of Anti-Air Artillery and men willing to fight and win against any odds.

They had just one thing going for them....and still do. Attrition. They are willing and able to sustain regular losses for years or even decades, and not waiver or stumble in their determination. That will see them victorious in the end.....but damn few who caused this to happen back then, survived to this day. Let alone, survive to see the last US troops out.

So... in the end.. Bush played games with the Taliban, expecting to invade. The Taliban played games right back, thinking we wouldn't ...and Goliath ended up stepping on David like a little roach on the sidewalk.

Nothing about this was worth it...and handing over Bin Laden to international authority may have been a way out. Anything but giving the U.S. the Raspberries and a big middle finger. That accomplished only one thing. Thousands upon thousands of dead Afghanis and Arab Taliban. So much lost....for zero gain.

Nothing to admire, IMO. Just something to pity for the short sighted suicidal thinking they represent...and all sides lost this one, in the final analysis.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join