Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Fluffybunny

Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11

72 posts in this topic

huh.gif You mean like the ones in Iraq? Here we go again. I bet that there will be folks that will believe him this time too.

Tehran government hiding Al Qaeda members, president says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is harboring members of al Qaeda, and the United States is investigating whether the Iranian government had a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said Monday.

Bush said the CIA has found no sign of a direct connection between Iran and the suicide hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved," he said.

"I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it is a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

The bipartisan, independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks is expected to issue its final report this week.

The commission has found that eight to 10 of the hijackers passed through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001, Time magazine reported this week.

The magazine said that commission investigators have found that Iran had a history of allowing al Qaeda members to enter and leave the country across the Afghan border.

But the report does not offer evidence that Tehran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attack.

On Monday, Bush accused Iran of harboring suspected al Qaeda members and developing nuclear weapons. If the country's Islamic government is to improve ties with Washington, the president said, it must hand over any al Qaeda members to their home countries, abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program and end its support of Islamic militant groups such as Hezbollah, which the United States considers to be a terrorist organization.

"As to direct connections to September 11, we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one," Bush said.

Iran has said it has al Qaeda members in its custody and will put them on trial. It denies trying to develop a nuclear bomb, saying its nuclear program is aimed at producing electrical power.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has rebuked Iran for not cooperating with the international community.

Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union speech, along with Iraq and North Korea.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq a year later after accusing Baghdad of harboring terrorists and concealing weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors. Nearly 140,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq after the establishment of an interim government.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An odd idea, but I wonder how the German citizens of about 1940 felt when they got the news of their governement taking over Norway, Poland, Denmark, and France... I wonder if at some point if they thought that their leader was out of control...

hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahah, so anything the US says no is not true? You have to look at this intel seperately from the Iraq situation otherwise you get biased. How do you know that this intel is just false huh? Because its the USs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but somehow appropriate, I would like to add these two paragraphs from an amazon.com review of George Orwells 1984. The book was originally written in response to the communism hype, but after rereading it, it seems more appropriate today than ever;

*****************************************************************

Airstrip One is part of the vast political entity Oceania, which is eternally at war with one of two other vast entities, Eurasia and Eastasia. At any moment, depending upon current alignments, all existing records show either that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or that it has always been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia. Winston Smith knows this, because his work at the Ministry of Truth involves the constant "correction" of such records. "'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

In a grim city and a terrifying country, where Big Brother is always Watching You and the Thought Police can practically read your mind, Winston is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory still functions. He knows the Party's official image of the world is a fluid fiction. He knows the Party controls the people by feeding them lies and narrowing their imaginations through a process of bewilderment and brutalization that alienates each individual from his fellows and deprives him of every liberating human pursuit from reasoned inquiry to sexual passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so fuffmeister, you really didn't know before hand that Iran was a terrorist country? tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran a terrorist country?? youre quick to label them arent you?? ive been there, i can tell you there are no more dirty rotten lying politicans there than there are anywhere else. and at least the government dont hide what they stand for, unlike other governments i can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran a terrorist country?? youre quick to label them arent you??

To Quote Bathory:

Oh Paleeez! wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran a terrorist country?? youre quick to label them arent you??

Hitler was a nice guy rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really didn't know before hand that Iran was a terrorist country

Is everything written in really big letters in your world? what exactly is a 'terrorist country', when its at home?? What, do you think everyone in Iran is a suicide bomber?

I think that a better example of a 'terrorist' country, would be a country that terrorises other countries. Maybe one that goes to war over the most tenuous of reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read some of the 911 highjackers did travel through Iran on their way to the US; this is something that the Iranian Government have admited to, although they say that the highjackers were traveling through Iran illegally.

Does this prove that Iran was behind 911? Er, no.

But let's for a second assume that they were behind it. What is the US (and sadly I expect the UK) going to do about it?

As I've said before, invading Iran will not be the cakewalk Iraq (pre-victory) was; Iran has not been weakened by sanctions, has not had its airforce destroyed a decade earlier and has not had to quell uprisings.

The Allies are stretched enough in trying to hold it together in Iraq.

The worrying thing is, as you said Fluffy, that some people are going to buy into this; what is more worrying is that there are some who will actively support another war, when we haven't even finished winning this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and so it begins.........the US is finished with Iraq...got their bases.....now to spread to the rest of the middle east.....first Iraq....then Iran.....then Syria....then Palestine......then....

well you get the point.

dont you people see whats going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that US would attack Iran. Bush says lots of things, most of them either absurd or just plain naive. Did the terrorists travel through Iran? yeah, I think so, Did they travel in lots of other countries too during that time? yep, I think so. Not even the US (the super-doper-power #1) can afford to fight in all fronts at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe that US would attack Iran. Bush says lots of things, most of them either absurd or just plain naive. Did the terrorists travel through Iran? yeah, I think so, Did they travel in lots of other countries too during that time? yep, I think so. Not even the US (the super-doper-power #1) can afford to fight in all fronts at the same time.

The USA isn't the super-power every thinks is Number 1. The Number 1 super-power is China. China has the worlds largest army with over 2.5million serving soldiers, it also has the worlds largest air-force.

I hope the US thinks clearly before choosing a side over the taiwan issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA isn't the super-power every thinks is Number 1.

I know, I was being sarcastic. It was mainly targeted to those that keep claiming that US can do what ever it wants, specially regarding middle-east in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Number 1 super-power is China. China has the worlds largest army with over 2.5million serving soldiers, it also has the worlds largest air-force.

i think its a bit more complicated than army size

economy is a big part of it too, otherwise North Korea would be some kind of a global superpower..

and remember numbers mean didly, its all about technology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and remember numbers mean didly, its all about technology

If it was that simple shouldn't Iraq be a lovely peaceful place by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China currently employs way over 16,000 Tanks. There is no way in hell, that NATO, can match that superiority in numbers.

and remember numbers mean didly, its all about technology

I would take numbers anyday. Technologically, China is almost on par with the USA. If China wanted they could stomp all over the world. The only thing stopping them however, is nukes. And yes China does have the capability to wipe the USA off the face of the earth 3 times over. Whats stopping NKorea? China is holding their leash thats what. It would be economically viable for NK to invade the north...the more land they could grab the better. Cruise missiles and satelite technology aren't gonna be much cop when their are too many targets on the battlefield...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Contemporary military tactics (expecially when combined with the growingly complex world politics) are a multi-dimensional field of operations, that in no way is as simple as "the more troops/tanks/planes you have, the more your chances to win". This was the way wars were made until the WWI, not today.

China currently employs way over 16,000 Tanks. There is no way in hell, that NATO, can match that superiority in numbers

I won't start debating over the politics of the matter (plus ALL the economical factors). But allow me one, only one question. Which theater of operations are we talking about? NATO has at least the theoretical possibility of bringing troops to China, with a massive landing that would make usage of the multiple NATO bases around the world, Japanese, South-Korean, and the ones in Philippines being the closest. What kind of bases could China use to attack USA or Europe? What kind of solutions would China have to solve the immense logistic problems?

It's impossible for China to militarily threaten NATO, and as impossible for NATO to threaten China. But in modern times wars are not always fought with weapons and bullets, and that is another issue. And the truth is that economically, both the West and China are totally dependant on each other.

Edited by Asterix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was that simple shouldn't Iraq be a lovely peaceful place by now?

to quote myself

OH PUHLEASE

unless stated otherwise it would be safe to assume we are talking conventional warfare, the aftermath of Iraq is completely different, during the conventional phase, the US wiped the floor with the Iraqi army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and also managed to kill and mame (or however you spell it) thousands of innocent iraqis. quite a victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam killed about 300000 would you rather Saddam? rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id rather the US government stay out of iraq.its a worse place to live now than before the war. i know from friends who have relatives there. there are killings going on all over africa for example, why doesnt the US government do anything about that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH PUHLEASE

So, if one doesn't accept what US and it's allies has done in Iraq, it means accepting Saddams actions? I suppose majority of ppl don't agree with either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt the US government do anything about that???

the US can't do everything

So, if one doesn't accept what US and it's allies has done in Iraq, it means accepting Saddams actions? I suppose majority of ppl don't agree with either...

what should have been done then? the UN wasn't doing anything at all, the French/Russians/Germans were going to block any real action due to ties with saddam, so please oh please tell me what should have been done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.