What if evidence has been found to indicate that the WTC attack had been arranged by Saddam Hussein. A lot of the terrorists who work for Bin Laden will also work for Saddam, especially if he is funding the attacks.

Bush said that a lot of information would remain classified, so that the enemy would not know what we were up to. Yet Bin Laden is all over the media as the person who is responsible. Wouldn't this serve as a good deception, the perfect cover for what we are really going to do?

Iranian sources say we now have 41 warships in the Persian Gulf, within easy striking distance of Iraq, with more on the way. But the government and the media keep telling us that we are scouting things out in Afgahnistan. Maybe they have even fooled Saddam into believing that our intent is to attack Afghanistan, when the real target is Iraq.

-- (what do @ you. think?), October 01, 2001

Answers

shhh. you are blowing our cover.

-- dumbya is an edsel (gore@really.won), October 01, 2001.

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr010919 _1_n.shtml

Who did it? Foreign Report presents an alternative view

Israel’s military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington. Directing the mission, Aman officers believe, were two of the world’s foremost terrorist masterminds: the Lebanese Imad Mughniyeh, head of the special overseas operations for Hizbullah, and the Egyptian Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, senior member of Al-Qaeda and possible successor of the ailing Osama Bin Laden.

-- does this answer your question? (ask@mr.owl), October 01, 2001.

Wow, Thanks Mr. Owl! It was just a hunch on my part. Everything is so obviously pointing to Bin Laden, it just seems phony. There has got to be a bigger story behind what we are being told. If Saddam is behind this, we could be in much deeper shit than we think we are. I was afraid that Egyptians could be involved too, NOT good news. I wonder if our gubmint is going to go after the real culprits now or just be content to let Bin Laden be the scapegoat temporarily, to avoid a much bigger mess.

-- (is Bush just @ putting on. a charade?), October 01, 2001.

I think you're ignoring the most obvious possibility of all: that Bin Ladin, Hussein *and* a few others ALL had a hand in it.

In that case, we just get 'em one at a time. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 01, 2001.

The conspiracist theory people are just going to love this one.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

The idea that Saddam Hussein is behind this is a conspiracy theory???

You don't think he has the motive? Remember Bush's Daddy in 1991? Does Desert Storm ring a bell?

-- (duh@get.real), October 01, 2001.

Why pick on just one? They all hate us don't they? They are jealous of everything we have worked and fought for so hard over the years. Its all of them I tell you. Don't believe anything different Duuuuuuh.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

"I think you're ignoring the most obvious possibility of all: that Bin Ladin, Hussein *and* a few others ALL had a hand in it."

I'M ignoring the OBVIOUS??? I'm the one who started this thread suggesting that maybe there is more to it than what we are told by the media. If this is so OBVIOUS, why isn't the media saying anything? Everyone is saying Bin Laden this, Bin Laden that, everyone is convinced that he is SOLELY responsible! Tell it to the rest of America, they're the ones who don't seem to have a clue.

-- (people are @ buying. the scapegoat story), October 01, 2001.

I haven't seen any news reports that claim that Bin Ladin is "solely" responsible for the attacks on Sept 11. I have seen plenty of reports that have linked in Iraq, Iran and Palestine as well.

You need to get out more.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 02, 2001.

"I have seen plenty of reports that have linked in Iraq, Iran and Palestine as well."

REALLY!

Then how come, according to the media, all of our investigative and military resources are being focused on Afghanistan?

You must have some very unique news sources. Please provide links.

-- (prove@it.now), October 02, 2001.

Personally I think Israel, Bush and my NWO thug buddies are behind it all.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Or it could be that the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Transcendental Meditators are behind it in order to rake in more cash for themselves.

Peace answer seen in 40,000 By JANE NORMAN Register Washington Bureau 09/29/2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Washington, D.C. - World peace could be achieved through establishing a group of 40,000 experts in India practicing transcendental meditation techniques, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said in a press conference here Friday relayed via satellite from Holland.

"This is the solution," said the maharishi, who has not made a public appearance for seven years but claimed that he was compelled to speak out after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "This is the time in the long, long history of man that total knowledge is available to us."

He said he wants to "stop, completely stop, all the wild gestures of this most important country" to retaliate against the attacks, as President Bush mobilizes the nation's military to strike back at Osama bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire living in Afghanistan and suspected to be the mastermind behind the attacks.

The maharishi said it is "insane" to believe that such an approach can work. "This man, this president of America, is not an educated man - he doesn't know science," he said. "Who is this man who can say, 'I can stop crime"?"

If the proposal for 40,000 meditators succeeds, there will be "a happy, affluent world without negativity, without problems," the maharishi said.

His latest proposal is for a billionaire or group of wealthy people to establish an endowment of $1 billion, the interest from which would be used to support the 40,000 meditation practitioners in India. The young men are from families in India that traditionally have practiced the technique and would each need about $200 a month to sustain them.

John Hagelin of Fairfield, the Natural Law Party presidential candidate in 2000, said Bush deserves everyone's support in the fight against terrorism, but at the same time it is "vitally important we do something that can disarm terrorism."

The group of 40,000 meditators would be large enough to create an "upsurge in positivity," initiate global harmony and unity, and deter terrorism, Hagelin said.

He said construction of a facility in India that would accommodate 16,000 meditators is already under way. ________________________________________________________________

Note that Maharishi says of Bush:

The maharishi said it is "insane" to believe that such an approach can work. "This man, this president of America, is not an educated man - he doesn't know science," he said. "Who is this man who can say, 'I can stop crime"?"

Even this con man thinks Bush is the Village Idiot.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

If a con man thinks poorly of you, then you must be doing something right.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 02, 2001.

I don't know about that J. Newt Gingrich thought poorly of Clinton. Surely you are not saying Klinton did anything right are you?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Of course not.

The error in your logic is that Newt Gingrich was not a con man.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 02, 2001.

Well, Poole Fool?? Still waiting!

-- (prove@it.now), October 02, 2001.

Matter of opinion.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

"prove it now" I don't know what news you've been watching, but the Bush Administration has been saying all along that Bin Laden is not the only target.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 02, 2001.

Buddy, you sound just like Poole Fool, willing to shoot off your mouth but not to provide any proof!

This is typical of the statements that I have been reading in virtually all mainstream media...

"Robertson would not go into the details of the U.S.' evidence, but said the "facts were clear and compelling and point conclusively" to the role of the al Qaeda worldwide network, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taliban regime."

Now, if there WERE other parties involved, WHO ARE THEY????

WHY ARE WE NOT ATTACKING THEM AS WELL???

LET'S SEE THE NEWS REPORTS, DIPSHIT!!

-- (PUT UP @ OR. SHUT UP), October 02, 2001.

I live in Newt's old district. Believe me, he was a con man extraordinaire.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 02, 2001.

See, independent confirmation J.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 03, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Sorry, but confirmation from someone who gets his kicks from assisting in the killing of unborn babies doesn't mean anything to me.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 03, 2001.

Actually, I get my kicks in lots of different ways. Defending women against the thugs and troglodytes who would prevent them from exercising their free choice is just one of them.

Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that Newt was, and still is, a con man.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 03, 2001.

The opinions of someone who supports abortion rights doesn't merit any consideration, hmmmmm. But someone who gets his kicks by killing civilians (including children I believe)in a cowardly bombing attack deserves your worship or at least vehement support? I am speaking of Timothy McViegh but the comparison to the terrorist attack last month does seem interesting.

Help me out here J. I am having trouble trying to get a handle on your personal philosophy (I know that it doesn't matter if I understand you or not but humor me). What am I missing here?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 03, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Your premises are wrong, so your conclusions end up being wrong, as well. I certainly don't worship McVeigh, nor do I "vehemently support" him. What he did was wrong.

My having pointed out that McVeigh took the murders at Ruby Ridge and the slaughter at Waco as his rallying points was none too popular with most of the posters here. The horrendous nature of the OKC bombing seemed to prevent most people from even considering, let alone acknowledging, that our government's transgressions against its own citizens obviously played a role in the motivation of Timothy McVeigh.

You are most certainly missing more, but that's a start.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 03, 2001.

Okay so McVeigh thought the government was oppressing its citizens. So to fight back he stages a cowardly bomb attack on a building where there were known to be civilians and even children, blows the place up and thinks that he taught the evil government......... what? You don't think the man had one or two screws loose? Or that he murdered children in a cold-blooded, calculating way? To make his point? World Trade Center sounding familiar here?

I still don't see how this man's actions are justified. And I also remember that you WERE more than just pointing out his rallying points. You indicated a modicum of justification for his actions given the allegedly opressive actions of our government. So if you even have or had the slightest thought that McViegh was justified or forced into taking action because of a government intruding into the lives of private citizens how come you are so critical of Tarzan doing whatever he did (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't blowing up a building) all the while resisting the government imposing oppressive restrictions on a woman's ability to have an abortion?

Sorry this is so rambling, but it is late. I will look for your reply later.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 03, 2001.

JBT,

You've got to understand where J is coming from. He is an inbred paranoid sociopath who has been living out in the woods all of his life. VERY paranoid, and pissed off at the world. He's probably cooking something up out there in his shack just like the Unabomber or McVeigh, but even bigger. The trouble is he's an imbecile. He'll blow himself up before he could hurt a fly!

-- (J is @ wacko.), October 03, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

I don't know what it was that he thought that he was teaching the government. Perhaps that lives will be exacted for lives? Or perhaps nothing at all. I don't know.

I never said that I didn't think that the man had some screws loose.

I never said that the man's actions were justified. I said that he obviously believed that they were justifed.

I was definitely doing more than just pointing out McVeigh's rallying points; I was also sharply criticizing the government of the United States of America for its murder of American citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Just because I agreed with McVeigh on the point that the government was terribly wrong for murdering its citizens, it does not follow that I agreed with him on the point of blowing up the Murrah federal building. In hindsight, this was obviously too fine of a distinction for most here to be able to draw.

I said that if a government murders its own citizens, then they have, in effect, suspended the rule of law. I said that once a government suspends the rule of law, that it should come as no surprise when one or more of its citizens suspends the rule of law.

Abortion is not, in my eyes, about "the government" not "imposing oppressive restrictions on a woman", but rather about the government not protecting the lives of its most helpless citizens. I believe that every citizen should have the right to do whatever it is that he or she wants to do, right up to the point where his or her actions infringe upon the rights of someone else. I do not believe that a woman's pursuit of happiness outweighs an unborn baby's right to life.

No apology necessary, for your post was not too rambling at all, and it was very late.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 03, 2001.

J: Just curious here, but Gary and a few others have been pointing their fingers at liberal Americans for suggesting that the terrorists had strong reasons for the WTC/Pentagon bombings based on [perhaps] previous "encounters" [for lack of a better word] with the U.S. government. Since you claim to be a conservative, may I ask how you differentiate one act of terrorism from the other?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

I'm talking about this thread, J.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

"I said that if a government murders its own citizens, then they have, in effect, suspended the rule of law. I said that once a government suspends the rule of law, that it should come as no surprise when one or more of its citizens suspends the rule of law."

Sounds like the same sort of "non support" (wink wink nudge nudge) the government of Afghanistan has given those who attacked the WTC.

Do you also think this bombing was "unadvisable", Dennis?

-- Anonymous Coward (dennisisj@jis.dennis), October 03, 2001.

Anita,

I am not exactly sure what it is that you are trying to ask, but I will give it a go anyway.

I am assuming that you are trying to draw an analogy between McVeigh citing the U.S. government's murdering of citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco as reason for his attack, with Osama bin Laden citing U.S. troops on Saudi soil as reason for the jihad (including the WTC/Pentagon attacks). If that is a correct assumption, then I further assume that you are asking specifically how I differentiate between the two attacks? Is that it?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 03, 2001.

J: I'm not convinced it's clear in my mind why [in either case] folks would find justification for terrorism, but, yes, I AM interested in your differentiations of the two cases.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 03, 2001.

"then I further assume"

Do not assume, it makes an ass of u and me.

-- anonymous coward (comment @ peanut. gallery), October 03, 2001.

Anita,

I don't have an answer for what it is that is inside of people that makes it possible for them to blow up entire buildings, especially when certain people kill themselves in the process. From a tactical standpoint, however, it is obvious why people use terrorism tactics when facing a far superior military foe: it is their only choice for a chance at victory. Notice that Osama hasn't called President Bush and said, "Meet me at the Pakistani border on Friday".

Anyway, there is a major difference, not in the acts themselves (as both were completely wrong), but in the events that motivated the perpetrators to commit those acts.

As an American citizen, I am still appalled at what went on at Ruby Ridge and Waco. The U.S. government was guilty of murder in both cases, violating the very Constitutional rights of the citizens that it is supposed to protect.

On the other hand, the United States is not wrong in my opinion to have troops stationed overseas; especially when it pertains significantly to vital American interests (read: oil), and it is at the behest of the host country (Saudi Arabia).

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 03, 2001.