Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Conspiracy Makes No Sense - Where was Iraq on 9/11?

Let's say I was behind 9/11. If my evil grand master plan was to give America a "self-inflicted wound," to terrorize it on 9/11 in order to invade Iraq - WOULDN'T I PLANT A SINGLE IRAQI ON THE HIJACKED PLANES?

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi -- our major ally in the region. Why would the conspirators put them on the planes with no intention of invading Saudi Arabia? The others were from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE. NOT ONE WAS FROM IRAQ. NOR WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE LINKING THE ATTACKS TO IRAQ.

In fact, Bush, Cheney, and their cronies spent the 2 years after 9/11 drumming up reasons for an invasion of Iraq, trying to link Saddam Hussein to the WTC attacks any false way they could, or to show that he had Weapons of Mass Distruction -- neither of which they ever found evidence for.

So tell me again why they would flawlessly plan 9/11 in order to invade Iraq, yet utterly fail to link 9/11 to Iraq?

The reality is much more obvious -- Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, an attempt to bust into the Middle East and transform the region.

4 comments:

  1. Great insight! The truth movement will not be pleased.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "WOULDN'T I PLANT A SINGLE IRAQI ON THE HIJACKED PLANES?"

    Oh yeah right, so what's ur plan, find 15 Iraqi and tell them: "Ok guys listen up, u gonna hijack some planes and fly straight into buildings, giving your life for your coun... hem... for America". "Subsequently and thanx to you guys, we gonna ravage your country, kill you kids and steal all your wealth" "Ok sign here, here and here".

    Rrrrright!

    The rest of your post is even more incredible because full of your own conspiracy theory recipe on your own blog against conspiracy theories [lol]:

    - "NOR WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE LINKING THE ATTACKS TO IRAQ" -> So basically what u are saying is that there was no link whatsoever between Irak and 911, yet they said there was and based on that they still went to war. What u say here is that they lied = Conspiracy theory.

    - " Bush, Cheney, and their cronies spent the 2 years after 9/11 drumming up reasons for an invasion of Iraq" = Conspiracy theory
    -> N.B: A government is to act rightfully and within the law, it doesn't "drumm up for reasons"! Unless obviously it's a crooked one. Doesn't sound like a trustworthy government in my book.

    - "trying to link Saddam Hussein to the WTC attacks any false way they could, or to show that he had Weapons of Mass Distruction" = Conspiracy theory
    -> N.B: So let me get this straight, the US government tries to link Saddam to 911 by lying to the citizen and successfully attempt to compel them to go to war by inventing a bigger lie, a woolly story about WMDs allegedly buried in Irak's sand, right? Now let me ask u this, are u an infiltrated "Truther"? Because u are doing their job here and a pretty good one... just saying.

    But the worse was yet to come: "neither of which they ever found evidence for."...!! O_O
    -> I'm speechless here... So u know they boldly lied, right? So what's the reasoning here, since they lied on that matter, they wouldn't dare lie on other matters? Or nobody would lie twice in a row in the same year? Or anybody only has token for 1 lie in his life and when used u can't ever lie ever ever again?
    Again, all i'm saying is, that all things considered, it doesn't look like a trustworthy government. But what does untrustworthy mean? It means, very likely to have the nerve to boldly lie, manipulate and deceive.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PART 2:

      As for your main claim/argument/question "So tell me again why they would flawlessly plan 9/11 in order to invade Iraq, yet utterly fail to link 9/11 to Iraq?", i would answer that the very question is irrelevant since they DID go to war based on lies and fallacious arguments. Maybe they thought they wouldn't need any proof, that they could make us believe anything. Maybe they thought Good-Boy Colin with his plastic cup full of pee in front of the U.N would be enough to convince the world [they were right!]. Maybe there was a "planted proof" but something went wrong. Maybe Irak was never the main target [Iran, Syria, Afghanistan]. Maybe they just didn't care. Who knows? Who cares?
      The point is, there WAS no [serious] link, yet they still managed to nuke 'em with YOUR tax money and the whole damn world watching.

      All that being said, i love the ending of your post, it sums it up pretty well and represents an incongruity on its own: "The reality is much more obvious -- Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, an attempt to bust into the Middle East and transform the region."
      -> Sometimes i think u don't know what u say man, u seem lost in a world of unknown words. "Obvious, Excuse, Invade, Middle East, Transform the region", explain me again how this is any different from
      an average conspiracy theory? What u claim to be "obvious" here is basically what the "Truthers" say about that matter as well.

      Your blog should be called "How to defeat the purpose 101".


      As for me, i'm neither a "Truther" nor a "Believer" because i deeply think that the truth tends to lie somewhere between dogmatic certitudes.

      Delete
  3. 9/11 was used for Afghanistan not Iraq!

    ReplyDelete