Alex Jones and 9/11 conspiracy theorists

[protege]

I don't think Saddam said outright either way that he did or didn't have WMDs. However, the way he was acting--not letting inspectors in, being shifty about things, not to mention using chemical weapons against the Kurds in '88 during the Iran-Iraq war--didn't help things. In fact, it only fueled suspicions about what he was up to. Throw in the photos of recovered MiGs being dug up in the desert (no bombs though, just planes...several of which did *not* date before the 1st Gulf War) and something doesn't seem right.

[Greenday]

Citation, please?

I don't have my book, but read the book written by the previous head of the CIA. He spends a lot of time talking about the facts leading up to going into Iraq. Good read. My copy is at home and I'm at school so I can't look for the specific citation.

We all know he chemical and bio weapons. That's a known fact. He's used them, thus he has/had them.

[AFPheonix]

Ah, we knew about the chemical and bio weapons, and Blix and inspectors were in the process of getting them and destroying them. Those would have posed no threat to us here, a half a world away.

We went to war over some greatly exaggerated reports over yellowcake.
Yep, this administration lied and tried to make us think he had nukes.

[Greenday]

We went to war over some greatly exaggerated reports over yellowcake.
Yep, this administration lied and tried to make us think he had nukes.

All evidence pointed towards them having nuclear stuff. And they DID have yellowcake.

[AFPheonix]

No, not really.

[Greenday]

I didn't say the yellowcake Iraq had was from the "Niger uranium".

Yes really.

[Slytovhand]

You know, I actually did a reply to this way back in the week, and lo and behold... it ain't here! Damn!

Oh well...

Firstly, in response to FoJK's OP and replies... there is also 'evidence' to say that what happened on that day wasn't as per the official version. There are also world reknown experts who have commented on what they have seen and been informed of that say things along the lines of 'no way could that have been done without inside help', or that the physics of what was shown and 'demonstrated' does not add up to the rest of the planet's version of physics.

Sure, there are a stack of 'coincidences' that keep us conspiracy theorists going, but those in themselves are circumstantial... but there's a hell of a lot of them.

Mysty, what shits me even more is that as soon as you label a valid hypothesis as 'conspiracy theory', any and all logic and rationality about the argument gets canned as being sensational hype. It means that no further looking need be done, and no explanation of what is suggested need be given... other than - 'that's just a conspiracy theory, so it's all crock'.

As I've said elsewhere, there are people who are sitting in offices whose very job it is, is to calculate 'profit and loss' when it comes to this sort of thing. "Ok, if this scenario happens, what are the consequences, do we end up ahead or behind, and by how much? If not, then what about....." etc etc. In the grand scheme of things, I can easily see military and intelligence personnel in the US gov't thinking "Hmmm... we lose 6000 people, we gain X billions of dollars, some territory, some bases in XYZ countries, X amount of secured oil reserves for the next Y amount of years... and get to remove a mild thorn in our side to boot. Yep - sounds a good deal - let's suggest it to the prez". (Hmmm - maybe the CIA hacked the site and removed my original posting.. )

And Boozy - while you may be quite correct on the Bush administration's ability to cover ears and eyes - there's also the military and intelligence agencies which had been operating for decades (in some cases, centuries - in one form or another) which wouldn't have been so ... ignorant.


Greenday - No, not really.... (ok, I just wanted to say that ) well - actually, the one thing I do note that's missing from that article is the date of this supposed deal.. no mention of that at all!!! Not even a year!

In general to Hussein's stance... it's called 'bluffing'. It's a way to keep face while telling the US to sod off. What annoyed me about that whole lot of things was that Bush drew a line, which Hussein complied, so the US drew another line, which Iraq again complied, and then the US drew another line.... etc etc. Basically, the US wanted a war, and was going to make damn sure they got one (I wonder if the next line would have been "Step down or we invade"). That, to an extent, is what pissed off the rest of the world (not touching the validity of evidence by the inspectors...)

(did I miss anything??)

Slyt

[Greenday]

Here's another link on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

They are all around the same time. July 4th weekend this year.

[AFPheonix]

Of this year. Not the year that the Niger yellowcake was used as a pretense to start a war.

[Slytovhand]

A question to the official version believers... why did it take so long for this official enquiry to take place, and why, when compared to so many other 'incidents' that have occurred, was so little time, effort and money, allocated to it?? I mean, $50 million was thrown at the whole Monika Lewinsky thing... the offical 9/11 was lucky to get itself $3 million, under duress.

[Greenday]

Of this year. Not the year that the Niger yellowcake was used as a pretense to start a war.

I don't know why we made a fuss over the Niger yellowcake. We knew they already had the yellowcake we just took out in July.

[Flyndaran]

Eh, Bush was going to start a war with Iraq, and no amount of pesky facts were going to get in the way.
When surrounded by hand picked yes men, who was going to tell him differently?

The fact that he diverted troops from Afghanistan to run his despicable and despicably ran delusion fest really pisses me off.

He would have had to remove his head from the "clouds" to even contemplate anything as complex nevertheless obscene as 9/11.

[AFPheonix]

I found this, it was a bit more in-depth than the MSNBC article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...q/tuwaitha.htm

So from this, it sounds like the IAEA had already pretty well nullified any weapons programs Saddam had after the 1991 Gulf War. All that was left was material that would not have been easily turned into weaponry, and had tabs on it.
Still not a reason to start a poorly planned war and leave an entire country in shambles.

[Slytovhand]

I certainly have to agree with Flyn on what you said about Bush picking his people - so no-one was going to convince him otherwise. It's the same for any politician - and really is a standard for humanity. How many people have some great ideas, only to have the people around to tell them they're bad ideas? We tend not to do this in life, why should politics be any different.

I also agree with some of the other bits of that conspiracy - Bush didn't have a lot to do with it, but was incredibly easy to manipulate (it happens that way when someone has delusions, and people can manipulate those delusions to their own ends...).

Slyt

[friendofjimmyk]

The only thing that bothers me about these people, or ANY conspiracy theorists, is that THEY KNOW THE TRUTH AND YOU DON'T. If you offer them evidence that they're wrong, they explain it away in some bullshit way or just flat ignore it. They think they are the ONLY people smart enough to know the truth, and all the rest of us are blind sheep just baaing after whatever gets fed to us.
It's their arrogance more than anything that drives me up the wall.

YES! Exactly! If you try to have a intelligent debate with them....not an insulting attack...but just a meeting of the minds, they absolutey shut down, start calling you "sheeple" and telling you that you "suck on the NWO hooter". They also only reiterate the same information OVER AND OVER AND OVER again and its the same information that they all know. Nothing original, nothing new.