Over 33% of Adults still think Saddam personally involved in 9/11

hippiemom · September 2007

Bu2 wrote:

*raises hand*

I know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and I also don't believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. It was a failure of our government's communication, but I don't believe it was a conspiracy.

So, um.......do I win something?

If you win something, you have to share it with me, because that's pretty much what I believe too

Bu2 · September 2007

hippiemom wrote:

If you win something, you have to share it with me, because that's pretty much what I believe too

Stanley Kubrick statue with a blindfold on it....or maybe it was a Nicole Kidman statue with her high heel placed firmly in Tom Cruise's eye socket....I can't really tell, but it looks great on my book shelf!!

Austicman · September 2007

JamMastaE wrote:

it was an inside job!!!

don't insinuate that you're insane if you believe anything other than the "official" story.

the "official" story is insane!!

There's two senarios that the government could have inplicated in 9/11.

1. They heard of the plot and in their arrogance thought they could never pull it off so did nothing about.
2. The more sinister version that they knew about the plot and decided to let it happen so that they could do what they have done since the attacks.

I don't believe the "official" story and never have but some of the senarios being put forward ARE PURE INSANITY.

onelongsong · September 2007

FredFlintstone wrote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"

33% of All Adults, 40% Republicans, and 27% Dems.
Who are these morons?? I wonder where these idiots got that idea? A little willful conflation perhaps?

2003 State of the Union: GWB
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."

Meet the Press (9/14/03) , Dick Cheney said:

If we’re successful in Iraq, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

These clever statement made the intention clear. Link Iraq to 9/11 while providing reagan's old "plausable deniability". Criminals.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={524F0261-37CB-40C1-8291-014E1940EC27}

This visit went well - very well. Saddam's intelligence service in essence cut a check directly to Zawahiri, for $300,000. American officials learned of this payout by "a senior member" of Iraqi intelligence. An administration official later told Stephen Hayes that the payout is so credible as to be undisputed: "It's a lock," the official said. U.S. News and World Report broke the story, and to date no one has ever come forward to question the reality of this payment. But what did the good terrorist doctor do with Saddam's cash?

onelongsong · September 2007

Austicman wrote:

There's two senarios that the government could have inplicated in 9/11.

1. They heard of the plot and in their arrogance thought they could never pull it off so did nothing about.
2. The more sinister version that they knew about the plot and decided to let it happen so that they could do what they have done since the attacks.

I don't believe the "official" story and never have but some of the senarios being put forward ARE PURE INSANITY.

let's say you're right. what would the solution have been? clinton allowed attacks for 8 years so we all knew there'd be more. bush also told us before the election that we were going into iraq if saddam didn't allow inspections. so let's say they knew airplanes were going to be used to attack buildings. the only clear option would be to start shooting down commercial airliners. when do we start shooting? in 1998 when a clear theat was made; or just every day until all muslims were dead?

catefrances · September 2007

onelongsong wrote:

let's say you're right. what would the solution have been? clinton allowed attacks for 8 years so we all knew there'd be more. bush also told us before the election that we were going into iraq if saddam didn't allow inspections. so let's say they knew airplanes were going to be used to attack buildings. the only clear option would be to start shooting down commercial airliners. when do we start shooting? in 1998 when a clear theat was made; or just every day until all muslims were dead?

the only clear option would be to impose some sort of competant security. if you know where the threat is coming from then as much as i hate to say this, you target those from that ethnic background. you go through their background with a fine tooth comb. you explain to EVERYONE that because of where the threat is coming from EVERYONE is a suspect. unfortunately when backgrounds are clear of any suspicious activity you have a major problem. but what you don't do is brush the threat off as impossible to carry out and then bitch and moan about it and then start covering your arse and passing the buck. you do everything in your power as a government to protect your people and foreign citizens who are visiting your country. this is your responsibility as a government.

Bu2 · September 2007

catefrances wrote:

the only clear option would be to impose some sort of competant security. if you know where the threat is coming from then as much as i hate to say this, you target those from that ethnic background. you go through their background with a fine tooth comb. you explain to EVERYONE that because of where the threat is coming from EVERYONE is a suspect. unfortunately when backgrounds are clear of any suspicious activity you have a major problem. but what you don't do is brush the threat off as impossible to carry out and then bitch and moan about it and then start covering your arse and passing the buck. you do everything in your power as a government to protect your people and foreign citizens who are visiting your country. this is your responsibility as a government.

I agree with Cate, here.

Austicman · September 2007

onelongsong wrote:

let's say you're right. what would the solution have been? clinton allowed attacks for 8 years so we all knew there'd be more. bush also told us before the election that we were going into iraq if saddam didn't allow inspections. so let's say they knew airplanes were going to be used to attack buildings. the only clear option would be to start shooting down commercial airliners. when do we start shooting? in 1998 when a clear theat was made; or just every day until all muslims were dead?

It's about good police work not military action. I went to New York in August 2001 and none of my bags were checked I was not searched and at the final checkpoint the customs officer mearly peeked into my duty free bag to see I wasn't bringing in to much alcohol and smokes into the country.Seriously I got off the plane, collected my bags, had my passport stamped and walked right through. Likewise it was the same returning home. Coming back into Australia still pre 9/11 Aussies customs had sniffer dog partolling up and down the queues, my bag was x-rayed and I was pulled aside and asked to open it because they're was something suspiscious in it. It turned out to be a baseball and that was re x-rayed to make sure there was nothing suss about it.

I can imagine getting into the States is a bit different now but that how it was 1 month before 9/11.

onelongsong · September 2007

Austicman wrote:

It's about good police work not military action. I went to New York in August 2001 and none of my bags were checked I was not searched and at the final checkpoint the customs officer mearly peeked into my duty free bag to see I wasn't bringing in to much alcohol and smokes into the country.Seriously I got off the plane, collected my bags, had my passport stamped and walked right through. Likewise it was the same returning home. Coming back into Australia still pre 9/11 Aussies customs had sniffer dog partolling up and down the queues, my bag was x-rayed and I was pulled aside and asked to open it because they're was something suspiscious in it. It turned out to be a baseball and that was re x-rayed to make sure there was nothing suss about it.

I can imagine getting into the States is a bit different now but that how it was 1 month before 9/11.

i agree; but how do you decide where to draw the line? people bitch about the security measures we have now; but they wouldn't have helped on 9/11. the hijackers could have pulled it off with plastic picnic knives. in fact; it could have been pulled off with a couple cups of hot coffee. scalding coffee to the face will stop anyone.
flight 93 showed us what would have stopped 9/11. citizen involvement. when you look at the other flights; how many people ALLOWED a few to take over the plane and crash it; killing many more? here's a link to an article you won't like; but it addresses the social obligation people have to eachother.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/83.cfm
we expect the police to babysit and be there if we become a victim of a crime. it doesn't work that way. police are rarely present at the commission of a crime. the police are called afterwards.
if someone wants to commit a crime; the authorities cannot stop them. in fact; our legal system is designed to act after the crime. if someone in washington heard that an attack with airplanes would happen within the next month; there is nothing they can do. if you think there is; please tell me. we can't start shooting down commercial airliners. we can't strip search every passenger because anything can be used as a weapon; and background checks for passengers are useless too.
i've asked this question over and over yet not one person can answer. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO PREVENT 9/11?

onelongsong · September 2007

catefrances wrote:

the only clear option would be to impose some sort of competant security. if you know where the threat is coming from then as much as i hate to say this, you target those from that ethnic background. you go through their background with a fine tooth comb. you explain to EVERYONE that because of where the threat is coming from EVERYONE is a suspect. unfortunately when backgrounds are clear of any suspicious activity you have a major problem. but what you don't do is brush the threat off as impossible to carry out and then bitch and moan about it and then start covering your arse and passing the buck. you do everything in your power as a government to protect your people and foreign citizens who are visiting your country. this is your responsibility as a government.

i'm with you cate; but people have rights. if you flew into N Y you'd think it was rediculous to get to the airport 8 hours early so you can be subjected to searches and background checks which would have to include religious affiliations.
when people accept their social obligation to protect their fellow man; crime will go away. not before.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

rldriver2 wrote:

it's refreshing whenever i find one of your posts on here buddy. thanks.

hehe jlew has two accounts...

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

Cosmo wrote:

Are these 33% the same ones that comprise President Bush's approval rating?

Bush compromises his own approval rating. He does it to himself.

Stop supporting an idiot regime.

catefrances · September 2007

onelongsong wrote:

i'm with you cate; but people have rights. if you flew into N Y you'd think it was rediculous to get to the airport 8 hours early so you can be subjected to searches and background checks which would have to include religious affiliations.
when people accept their social obligation to protect their fellow man; crime will go away. not before.

and everyone has a right to feel safe whilst travelling.

and yes i am prepared to arrive at the airport at whatever hour is designated in order to clear security. and trust me i am not a patient person. but if it means the difference between me arriving at my destination and having my plane flown into a field somewhere, i know i will swallow the time spent cooling my heels that most people consider inconvenient in order to be safe.

but you know you've got to be seriuos about security. you don't do a half arsed job. in recent times ive been dusted for explosives twice, had my nail files confiscated, had my boots checked and my carry on luggage randomly searched whilst flying interstate. i consider it amusing simply because i know i'm not a security risk. but on the other hand my ex was able to carry items considered weapons onto the same interstate airline within days of me flying.
inconsisitent security is not security at all.

when i speak of background checks i don't mean doing those at point of departure, that would be a tad ridiculous and possibly impossible. they should be taken care of well before the flight, like say when people apply for visas or what have you. and then keep tabs on them while they're in your country.

anway i realise i'm an idealist and governments tend to be more reactionary than anything else.

catefrances · September 2007

Austicman wrote:

It's about good police work not military action. I went to New York in August 2001 and none of my bags were checked I was not searched and at the final checkpoint the customs officer mearly peeked into my duty free bag to see I wasn't bringing in to much alcohol and smokes into the country.Seriously I got off the plane, collected my bags, had my passport stamped and walked right through. Likewise it was the same returning home. Coming back into Australia still pre 9/11 Aussies customs had sniffer dog partolling up and down the queues, my bag was x-rayed and I was pulled aside and asked to open it because they're was something suspiscious in it. It turned out to be a baseball and that was re x-rayed to make sure there was nothing suss about it.

I can imagine getting into the States is a bit different now but that how it was 1 month before 9/11.

was it one of those exploding baseballs?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

catefrances wrote:

was it one of those exploding baseballs?

I think the baseball was wearing a terrorist bandanna. Dead give away every time.

catefrances · September 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think the baseball was wearing a terrorist bandanna. Dead give away every time.

not to mention all those stitches from getting down and dirty in who knows what.

Over 33% of Adults still think Saddam personally involved in 9/11

Comments

Categories