US have been slaughtering innocent plaestinian since 60 years by a knife called Israel.
US have attacked on Iraq in 1991; for no valid reason. Yes you can say that, Saddam attacked on kuwait, but what US have to do with kuwaiti dynasty. US is being a champion of Democracy, why support to monarchy?
Again US by using UN, forced food and medicine embargo on Iraq claiming WMD (which is proven false) and because of this embargo millions of Iraq people specifically children died.
US in general is one of the worst and strongest evil ever existed on the planet.
God Bless america! huh! do whatever you can under the patronage of satan. Time won't remain same. Start counting coffins. US mothers won't be able produce more soldiers as they are busy in making their career.
2007-01-27 17:47:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes i do feel for the innocents in Iraq, but, our fellow Americans that died sep. 11 were innocent to. This whole world is so messed up, people r killing each other over stupid s*hit when sometimes there is no reason i take that back there should never be a strong enough reason to take another life. This world is crazy any more and to see so many die it hurts me even if it is a stranger, And to answer your other question yes Bush is a terrorist just like the terrorist that came here to the US and. that is y so many Americans dislike Bush He is doing the same thing to Iraq that they did to us and he will not end it he is killing more and more troops everyday for what he believes is right. How do we even know if bush is not in on it in Iraq. He cares more about seeing the iraqies succeed then the Americans.
2007-01-27 14:40:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by A soldiers wife 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Millions in Iraq?? I don't think so. Have you forgotten that it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait and killed lots of other Muslims in the process. Prior to Desert Storm the Iraqis were given the opportunity to exit Kuwait without further conflict but they did not. The US and a good portion of the rest of the world kicked them out but did not demolish Iraq in the process. If the 9/11 attackers were wanted to exact revenge they should have been going after Saddam.
As soon as the western world gets rid of its addiction to oil then the festering hole that is the middle-east can go back to its tribal wargare undisturbed by the rest of the world and if another 9/11 were to happen it would simply be answered by much much harsher measures.
2007-01-27 14:42:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by k3s793 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
great answer, Freebird. i've got no longer truly have been given something to characteristic. of course the yank government became in contact in all this. ultimately they'll all be made to pay for their crimes. the way they blamed it on Arab extremists residing in caves interior the hills of Afghanistan is basically too ridiculous to be taken severe by skill of all of us with a working braincell or 2. 9/11 became an interior pastime. How did they ever think of they have been going to wreck out with murdering 3000 people in extensive sunlight hours? this won't in any respect bypass away and thousands and thousands of individuals worldwide at the instant are keeping an intensive watch on those criminals and each little thing they do. The tide is popping and could quickly wash them away.
2016-11-27 23:35:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
1) Read "Operation Northwoods", the US government's formerly classified plans to develop a "terror campaign" to CREATE an "apparent threat to peace in the Western hemisphere" in 1962. Page 10 describes how to FAKE an attack using a commercial plane so to TRICK the public into supporting military action on Cuba/Castro. (Just for fun, pretend it says Iraq/Hussein or Afghanistan/bin Laden wherever it says Cuba/Castro, and see if anything sounds familiar.)
2) Note that Saddam Hussein was NOT tried for anything related to 9/11. Consider how much MORE money and effort was put into finding, trying, and executing HIM than in tracking down Osama bin Laden, who was allegedly responsible.
3) The man in the infamous needle-in-a-haystack "confession" tape is clearly NOT Osama bin Laden - compare with the FBI's own photos and description and see. The 9/11 attacks are not even mentioned in the FBI's Wanted poster for him. George W. Bush stated that he was "not concerned" about bin Laden because HE KNOWS that Osama had nothing to do with it, and that the U.S. already had plans for invading the Middle East as of 9/9/01, two days BEFORE the faked attacks.
4) WHY, when Bush's scheduled appearance at an elementary school on 9/11/01 had been well-publicized, didn't the Secret Service evacuate hundreds of innocent children to safety, and whisk him away to an unknown, secure location IMMEDIATELY, if the U.S. was TRULY under attack by foreign terrorists. THREE allegedly suspicious incidents involving Middle Easterners threatening Bush were reported in the Florida town where he was staying on 9/10/01, yet instead of being rushed to safety, he continued his visit with the children (rendering him unavailable to make defensive decisions that only the President can make), and then gave a press conference at EXACTLY the time and place he was previously SCHEDULED to be. When his plane finally left Florida over a half-hour later, there was still NO military security escort. Isn't the President supposed to be protected at all costs in the event of a REAL attack on the nation? Shouldn't the schoolchildren have at least been made less of a target?
5) How did a piece of PAPER from inside the clothing of a man who was allegedly on a plane that EXPLODED in a fireball that was supposedly hot enough to vaporize the entire plane AND destroy a steel skyscraper, just happen to float out safely UNSINGED? Isn't it a little too convenient that similar items were miraculously found at the other crash sites, where the planes also mysteriously vaporized, unlike other plane crashes?
6) Larry Silverstein leased the money-pit WTC buildings just 6 weeks before 9/11, and protected them with several insurance policies that would pay out over $7 billion in the event of TWO destructive incidents (convenient, huh?!). Several requests for permits to demolish the buildings had been denied because they were full of asbestos. Fortunately, Silverstein had just negotiated the right to rebuild them in the event they were destroyed.
7) WTC7, another Silverstein property insured for hundreds of millions, was only the 3rd steel frame skyscraper in history to collapse due to a fire that didn't burn hot enough to actually melt steel (WTC 1 & 2 were the first two - other steel buildings with significantly larger and longer fires remain standing). In 2005, Silverstein admitted to having approved the controlled demolition of WTC7, which occured just hours after the attacks. WHEN did demolitions experts SET those charges throughout the building that day (amidst the carnage and rescue efforts), and wasn't it a bit risky to send people in to place explosives if there were lethal fires burning inside it? Why doesn't the offcial report on 9/11 mention the destruction of WTC7?
8) On October 12, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed by a reporter about the recent 9/11 attacks. In response to a question about how it could have happened without any warnings, Rumsfeld said, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." WHY did RUMSFELD speak of a MISSILE damaging the Pentagon building, if it was really just a plane? The entire transcript of the interview is posted on the U.S. Department of Defense website, at http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845. The quote is from the 2nd paragraph of Rumsfeld's answer to the 3rd question. Read it yourself and see.
2007-01-28 00:06:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by gelfling 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lets get this straight.
You think 9/11 done on September 11th 2001
Was because of the invasion of Iraq
Done on March 20th 2003
So AL-quada has a time machine, saw the invasion of Iraq and then went back in time and did 9/11 ???
2007-01-27 14:39:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
When someone kills 3000 innocent Americans you can't just stand by and do nothing. The United States has to exact revenge on whoever took part. As for the Iraqi citazens, they don't care about us so why care about them.
2007-01-27 14:36:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by brewer82 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
We did nothing to bring about the terrible events of 9-11. Why would you give these murderers an alibi? We had no interest in them before we were attacked. Get your facts straight.
2007-01-27 14:35:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by notyou311 7
·
2⤊
4⤋
3000 inoccent people died , so don't expect us to have mercy on iraq, i don't even see how you can justify that , those 3000 americans had families that loved them and miss them
2007-01-27 14:46:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
It was Al CIAda that took down those towers . So any hatred against Arabs for that incident are unjustified.
2007-01-27 14:31:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by prole1984 5
·
0⤊
4⤋