9/11 question?

[Verbal]

yes, the link between OBL and Saddam, and where are the WMD SaDDaM had?

What link? Saddam had no WMD's as was proven. The belief that he did was founded on one of the worst intelligence failings in the CIA's history. And linking Saddam to OBL makes no sense at all. Saddam's government was a secular regime; allowing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to operate in his country with his consent would have undermined his own authority. He probably hated them as much as we do.

I haven't laughed so much since Pompeii.

[B757300]

What link? Saddam had no WMD's as was proven. The belief that he did was founded on one of the worst intelligence failings in the CIA's history. Linking Saddam to OBL makes no sense at all. Saddam's government was a secular regime; allowing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to operate in his country with his consent would have undermined his own authority. He probably hated them as much as we do.

I haven't laughed so much since Pompeii.

You have to remember that the British, French, Russians, Germans, Chinese, etc. all believed that Saddam had WMDs. It was either an elaborate hoax on Saddam's part, or he did have them and destroyed/hid them before the invasion.

Also, he did have ties to Islamics terrorists, as he provided financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers' families and several well known terrorists were already in Iraq before the invasion, under Saddam's protection.

However, this is a topic for another thread and bringing it up is an attempt by the OP to go off on something else since he got b*tch slapped over this 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[FireLight]

good point, but when the man is saying he had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is no "real" proof that he did it, we should not be saying he was behind it, but we are.

Given that Osama both denied and admitted involvement in 9/11, both of the statements can't be true.

Consider that initially Osama was "safe" in Afghanistan more or less under the protection of the Taliban. He had training facilities and a number of other secure bases that he and the Al Qaeda organization could work from. If he admits he did it, he ensures retaliation from the Americans. As a "rational actor" it clearly isn't in his best interests to say, "Yes I did it." If he doesn't say he did it, it makes it more difficult for the Americans to act, and more difficult for the Americans to obtain support for the war in Afghanistan. Even with the tremendous goodwill the Americans had at the time, it wouldn't be that clear that the Americans would attack a sovereign country. They had even been dealing with the Taliban on areas of mutual interest like a pipeline through their country. In the end the Americans did prosecute a war against Afghanistan to oust Al Qaeda and the Taliban, with the support of most of the world community, both directly and indirectly.

Once the Americans attacked Afghanistan, then there is less of a reason for Osama not to admit involvement. (Although he could look at this like a Mafia mob boss. Even if you give approval, even in indirect ways such as the "kiss of death", you still don't want the American law enforcement agencies; FBI, police, etc., to focus their attention on you, so like many criminal organizations you don't want to advertise. Although, some do want to "advertise" say for reasons such intimidation.) However, given the nature of Al Qaeda as a somewhat political entity, they would also like to take credit for 9/11 to demonstrate their power and attract new recruits. It enhances their cause if they acknowledge their involvement, even if it is only "everyone knows that they did it, even if they don't directly say that they did it."

At the end of the day, there may not be a direct "smoking gun" such as tapes, videos, witnesses or confessions that demonstrate Osama ordered 9/11. (Even the available information is in some doubt as to it's veracity.) The case against Osama bin Laden may require a chain of circumstantial information, but it is strong enough case, based on what is publicly available that it is relatively easy to make the judgement that Osama was involved, and that he and Al Qaeda bear responsibility for the attacks. So you can say with near certainty that he was behind it, although there will always be at least some potential room for doubt given that we don't have all of the potential evidence at hand, and may never see some of the information that is classified by the world's security agencies.

[RichPhitzwell]

there is no "real" proof .

In science there are very, very few facts or proofs and a ton and a half of theories. Same can be made about any crime investigation.

Did a man name Jesus once live on this earth? Did a big bang happen? Who is 100% responsible for the car accident?

As much as I love a good theory, Im becoming quite bored of false information being spread around.

Building 7 and 1 and 2 for instance. A: they were designed differently than most buildings. very strong, but very fragile at the same time. B: metal buildings perform poorly in a fire, wooden structures actually withstand fires better...it has to do with warping. etc etc etc

the stock market is a funky place and probably a bad time to use as an example as earlier this year we were afraid of a complete collapse, some still believe the worse is yet to come. perhaps the government is selling short....oh hell I hope some municipalities had that forsite.

did i miss anything?

[RichPhitzwell]

Saddam had no WMD's as was proven. The belief that he did was founded on one of the worst intelligence failings in the CIA's history. And linking Saddam to OBL makes no sense at all. Saddam's government was a secular regime; allowing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to operate in his country with his consent would have undermined his own authority. He probably hated them as much as we do.

I haven't laughed so much since Pompeii.

Saddam did have WMDs, we sold it to him and there is plenty of proof to that. Most were destroyed and many had a short shelf life. What W was betting on was that he still had the WMD's and he had developed new WMDs out of the stock we sold him. Guess W lost that bet...

But your right about the rest, it seems that Obama and Saddam did not get along.


Oh why did the USA allow the bin ladens to leave. Simple, look at history. Obama was the black sheep of the family and they really had little contact. if the family was forced to stay here they would have been prosecuted by us and we would have damaged one of our friends. Nothing is ever simple.

[RichPhitzwell]

Why is this in the aviation forum?

[turbotraker]

Obama and Saddam did not get along.

What have I missed

[JordanD]

He's just linking to a bunch of conspiracy sites. How are these credible... at all?

[Dmmoore]

Why is this in the aviation forum?

It started out as a general statement about 9-11 which was an aircraft event. It has degenerated a bit.

[RichPhitzwell]

What have I missed

oopsie. good catch and damn that was too easy to do by accident.

[Verbal]

He's just linking to a bunch of conspiracy sites. How are these credible... at all?

Notice also how he completely ignored me when I called him out on the 757 wreckage at the Pentagon.

[HalcyonDays]

He also ignored some of my points in the earlier part of the thread, which is why I have given up : a typical internet discussion board and compulsive conspiracy tactic.

[turbotraker]

OMFG!!!

[JordanD]

Umm wow that's not the pic I copied. Holy sh*t.

[turbotraker]

Umm wow that's not the pic I copied. Holy sh*t.

One wonders what you was thinking with that on your HD anyway