The US Government is behind 9/11

[Dawkinsrocks]

The airliners were not shot down as they should have been
There has not been a thorough investigation
The president was not whisked off his schedule as he would have been if it was terrorists attacking.
The towers did fall at free fall speed.
The US Government did benfit from 9/11 a lot more tha Al Qaeda

These are just some of the absolute facts about the case.

If the US Government is clean it would welcome a throrough impartial inquiry.

If the Republicans weren't so nationalistic they would demand one.

Now if the perps were black and it was drugs at stake rather than oil you would all be sqealing like the stuck pigs you are for an enquiry (and lynchings).

But no, you cannot see that oil men, running out of oil, made up a story to justify attacking a country with lots of oil and that that is VERY suspicious.

It will come out and you will be proven to be the naive gullible idiots that you are.

What is even more pitiable is that your hroes in the Whitehouse hate you too and look down on you with contempt.

Like they do the soldiers who come home and are no longer any usue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The airliners were not shot down as they should have been
There has not been a thorough investigation
The president was not whisked off his schedule as he would have been if it was terrorists attacking.
The towers did fall at free fall speed.
The US Government did benfit from 9/11 a lot more tha Al Qaeda

These are just some of the absolute facts about the case.

If the US Government is clean it would welcome a throrough impartial inquiry.

If the Republicans weren't so nationalistic they would demand one.

Now if the perps were black and it was drugs at stake rather than oil you would all be sqealing like the stuck pigs you are for an enquiry (and lynchings).

But no, you cannot see that oil men, running out of oil, made up a story to justify attacking a country with lots of oil and that that is VERY suspicious.

It will come out and you will be proven to be the naive gullible idiots that you are.

What is even more pitiable is that your hroes in the Whitehouse hate you too and look down on you with contempt.

Like they do the soldiers who come home and are no longer any usue.

1. it is not SOP to shoot down hijacked jets. 2, it was not unitll the 2nd one hit that anyone even thought it was something to think about. 3. no one knew where the planes where, you ever try to find a random plane that is not brodcasting a single on the east coast? There where still reporting that the 2nd wtc plane was in the air a half hour later becuse they did not know where it was.

2. Yes there was, you just ignore it becuse you dont like what it said. I knew who it was the 2nd I found out what was going on.

3. No on knew it was a attack untill the 2nd plane, and a slow reaction by Bush does not mean he knew what was going ...They knew about katrian for days, but did not cause it.

4.Free fall means you just drop something...a building going down like that would not in fact fall at free fall speed, as its not a free fall. thats not even a valid argument if you could show it was true. Something the Conspiricy people are always good at.

5. Al Qaeda made huge gains are you kidding? Bin laden is a hero to many around the world now, they increased the amount of people willing to join, they launched the biggest attack on the US mainland since WWII, and the US has Spent Billions and Billions to fight them now hurting our Economy. Also the US did one of the things that was There main goal...we pulled our Troops out of SA. It was a huge Victory for them, and if you can't see that, you must not know anything about there goals, motives, and long term view.

6. Why is it the people who talk about 911 as a conspiracy always talk about Iraq....Iraq had nothing to do with 911, on any level..it the Government wanted it to be used to attack Iraq....dont you think they could have set it up to be Iraq behind it?

 

[Sihouette]

Now what would make anyone think Bush et al wanted to justify invading Iraq?

With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein, and key Bush advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, were longstanding advocates of invading Iraq.[21]After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration, and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion...

..Despite the Bush Administration’s stated interest in liberating Iraq, little formal movement towards an invasion occurred until the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on September 11..

..Shortly after September 11, 2001 (on September 20), President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress (which was simulcasted live to the world), and announced the new War on Terrorism. This announcement was accompanied by the widely criticized doctrine of 'pre-emptive' military action, later termed the Bush doctrine. Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek U.N. authorization, while still holding out the possibility of invading unilaterally.[25]

While there had been some earlier talk of action against Iraq, the Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[26] Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his September 12, 2002 address to the U.N. Security Council...

..With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.[32] This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[33]Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it. Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article532480.ece

President George W. Bush began planning a war with Iraq before he took office on January 20, 2001, and long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks gave him the excuse he needed to push American intelligence agencies to fabricate “evidence” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or plotted with Osama bin Laden to attack American.

Bush knew from the get-go that he wanted to invade Iraq. It was on his mind before the election and campaign aides say he was obsessed with “getting Saddam.”

“We’d be on the campaign plane talking about domestic issues and he’d change the subject and start rattling on about what a great evil Saddam Hussein was and how if he won the election he’d finish what he father failed to do – topple Hussein,” says campaign worker Jerry Caufield who worked for the administration one year before leaving.

Other tell similar stories. The terrorist attacks weren’t the reason Bush invaded Iraq. They provided the excuse.

“We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors,” Bush said in his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2001.

On January 21, Bush held his first meeting of the National Security Council in the White House. At that meeting he ordered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans for an invasion of Iraq as, he said, “a contingency.”

On February 16, in a press conference with Mexican president Vicente Fox, Bush said:

“Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed after Desert Storm. We will enforce the no-fly zone, both south and north. Our intention is to make sure that the world is as peaceful as possible. And we're going to watch very carefully as to whether or not he develops weapons of mass destruction, and if we catch him doing so we'll take the appropriate action.”

On February 23, in a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said:

“We spent a lot of time talking about our mutual interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and from our perspective, as you know, I made the famous statement that our sanctions are like Swiss cheese. That means they're not very effective. And we're going to work together to figure out a way to make them more effective. But I think the Prime Minister and I both recognize that it is going to be important for us to build a consensus in the region to make the sanctions more effective. Colin Powell left today, after lunch, to move around the Middle East, collect thoughts and to listen, with a policy of strengthening our mission to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he shall not terrorize his neighbors, and not develop weapons of mass destruction.”

On May 21, Bush spoke at the Naval Academy in Annapolis:

“Today, nearly one-third of our naval forces are forward-deployed overseas. The USS Constellation carrier battle group and its 10,000 sailors are plying the waters of the Persian Gulf, enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. Another 3,800 sailors and Marines stand guard nearby with the Boxer amphibious ready group, deterring any mischief Saddam might contemplate.”

If anything, Osama bin Laden was a diversion from Bush’s obsession with Hussein, a problem that got in the way.

On September 11, 2001, as Air Force One headed out of Florida, Bush turned to chief of staff Andrew Card and said “find out how soon we can be ready to go into Iraq.”Source: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7980.shtml

 

[GenSeneca]

Silly,

Removal of Saddam became POLICY during the CLINTON administration and was handed off to bush. You know this of course because you carefully edited all that stuff out of the Wiki post:

In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards “regime change,” as the U.S. Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act." Signed in response to Iraq's termination of its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August, the act provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."[18] This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687,which focused on weapons and weapons programs and made no mention of regime change.[19] One month after the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act,” the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government’s ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also hoped it would help weaken Hussein’s grip on power.

Even your girl Hillary believed Saddam had, or was in the process of obtaining, WMD as well as supporting terrorism and even Al Qaeda. Something she believed long before Bush became president and long before we went to war in Iraq - But the moment we didn't find anything SHE CHANGED HER STORY and said "Bush Lied" to cash in on the political points being offered by the Anti-War movement.

You really are silly.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Bush was not quickly moved to a secrte location because the CIA knew he was safe.
The 'wreckage' at the Pentagon shown on that ridiculous photo is a few scraps of metal but I don't see the massive hole that a crashed airliner makes.

It is civil avitaion law that you intercept airliners that have gone off course and if they are off course over a connurbation with no change of direction it is civil aviation law that they are shot down.

The reason for this law is so that hijackers don't use them as missiles to cause much greater loss of life. Er wait a minute.....

The US blamed Al Qaeda because Iraq would have even less credibility as perps and they wanted to invade Afghanistan as well as Iraq (Afghanistan has the world's largest gas reserves). Also, they knew that Americans are generally stupid when it comes to countries further away than the Carribean so they could easily morph Bin Laden and Saddam and in fact in one speech Bush got them confused.

In a televised interview with a marine when asked why he thought it right to invade Iraq he said that they had to pay for 9/11.

Bush has doen everything to try to link Al Qaeda with Iraq to continue the fairy tale.

But forget all that.

Keep this in mind.

Oil barons, running out of oil, declared war on two countries, one rich in OIL and the other in gas. They swore blind that Iraq had WMD which it clearly didn't have. They then claimed that it was regime change even though they haven't felt the need for regime change in other unpleasant countries like er oh, Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden comes from.

Given that they clearly made up a story to con the American and world public into thinking they had noble reasons for war just to get their oil interests back on track why do you think it so ridiculous that they were complicit in 9/11 to help their cause along?

Is it like, they were evil and conniving about the war but whiter than white about 9/11?

If only you could get information from sources other than Fox news.

The US has attacked 50 countries sinve WW2.

It nuked Japan (even though Japan was suing for peace) as a demonstration to Russia of its power.

It armed the Mujar Hadin in Afghanistan to 'give Russia its own Vietnam'

It armed Saddam to get him into power when they thought he would behave like the Saudis ie treat his countrymen like **** but be nice to the US.

It helped Chile install Pinochet who was a mass murderer.

It keeps trying to get Chavez removed from power in Venezuela.

The CIA teaches the opponents of these deomocracies how to torture really effectively.

Open your eyes and see where you really live

You preach democracy but your leader came to power under VERY dubious circumstances.

Yoiu imprison people without trial, for years and torture them.

You execute scores of innocent people, mostly poor black people.

Wake up, smell the cwaffee and don't listen to Fox news any more.

 

[GenSeneca]

Historic Chart of US Imports of Iraqi Oil for the Month of April:
(thousand barrels)
1998---------3,947
1999--------24,879
2000--------19,705
2001--------26,401
2002--------18,584
2003--------22,157 <--We invaded 2 months later
2004--------23,069
2005--------17,069
2006--------15,934
2007--------16,864
2008--------20,383

Compare the cost of going to war with the cost of drilling at home, where the only people you have to fight are environmentalists.

How much oil is that?

-------------------------------------
I feel better now that I know you're not an American. We don't refer to our country as "it"...

Open your eyes and see where you really live

Exactly what Utopian country are preaching to us from?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

In fact, if you want the clearest example of how naive and nationalistic Americans are consider this.

White Americans committed genocide against the native Americans launching unspeakable horror on them as they sought to steal their land and resources.

Then this act was turned into a film genre where, wait for it, the Indians were presented as the baddies who were always scalping the good white cowboys even through scalping was committed in the other direction.

And your country lapped it up.

Now, if you can believe manipulation of the truth on such an intergalactic scale as that surely you must think, heh, maybe he has a point.

You won't of course because you are not critical of your leaders.

Which is terrifying.

 

[GenSeneca]

You won't of course because you are not critical of your leaders.

Which is terrifying.

I say again:

Exactly what Utopian country are preaching to us from?

Is this you?

Give us just one "Death to America!", you know you're dieing to say it...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Here is the really sad thing

Your oil baron leaders who are running out of oil have taken your money to attack and steal oil from another country to make themselves richer.

You lose money and lives, Iraq loses money and lives and the world becomes less safe.

You are a Turkey who thinks Christmas and Thanksgiving are great celebrations to look forward to.

I have wondered so often how the US administration gets away with it.

And then I encounter you.

 

[GenSeneca]

Exactly what Utopian country are preaching to us from?

Exactly what Utopian country are preaching to us from?

Exactly what Utopian country are preaching to us from?

Whats sad is, no matter what nation you're posting from, we're better.

We probably kicked your nations ass at one time,

Or liberated you from another nation that kicked your ass,

Chances are, your nation is benefiting from America right now...

You're likely getting foreign aid or have trade deals with us...

So fix your country and its problems before you cry to us about ours.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your true colours at last.

I think that most countries that have received 'aid' from the US wish they hadn't.

And I would be careful about the ass-kicking talk because if China hears it and decides that the world's bully needs bringing down a peg or two you are in deep ****.

Now you can go back to kicking the ass of the Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Iraqis and countless others you can't conquer.

Maybe you mean kicking the ass of the native Americans or the Nicaraguans or any of those nations where your fight involved guns and theirs bows and arrows.

Quick, renew your subscription to soldier of fortune and the NRA.

Then go out and kick-ass with a bumper sticker or by eating another pizza.

That is if you can afford to with a trillion US dollars going down the drain killing people you don't care about because their skin is dark.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh, and as you can't even kick the ass of some beardy bloke who lives in a cave for, in your eyes, committing the biggest terrorist attack on the US your comments about ass-kicking are not only distasteful, they are ridiculous.

 

[GenSeneca]

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I am sure that any of your countrymen looking at your posts will be swelling with pride.

Sorry, I meant embarrassment.

Oil men stole your money, said it was to kick ass (which they knew would appeal to your sophisticated mind) used it to steal more oil and kept you happy by stories of ass-kicking.

They obviously know their countrymen well.

So long as 'ass', 'kicking' and USA appear in the same sentence then genital warts is happy.

 

[Sihouette]

Well you know when you see threats of killing and violence you're onto something. Good work Dawkinsrocks!

The old litmus test is working as usual. We've copied GenSeneca's posts and others like them. Sort of a diary really...