Liberals: How is "some" of you are not able to see the connection between 9-11 and Iraq?

Question

Not that Im calling out a particular questioner, I would NEVER do that, but how dumb do you have to be to ask the same thing over and over and over and over? Too stoned to forget you just asked it Sparky?

Answer 1

I'm wondering who is getting more entertainment out of your questions, Conservatives or Liberals. I think you're pretty funny.

And if you re-read his questions, they are not the same. And they are actually valid questions, with good answers.

Some of us thinks the liberal media needs to start presenting the connection between 9-11 and the Iraq invasion (but we are not holding our breath). The connection is radical Islamic terrorism, and the need for democracy to invade Islam.

Answer 2

Your really behind time, Bush stated there was no connection with Iraq and 9/11. I wouldn't be calling anybody stoned if I was you because this is all old, old, news. Where are you everyday when your great President tells the truth for once and you still stating the same old song.
You must not know your politics, why do you think the people don't want the Republicans any more kick them aside. I'm sorry you probably haven't been updated that your Republican lost elections in both houses, losing the White House in 2008. Before you start calling people dumb read up on your politics, by the way, where were you when the s*** hit the fan , when your great party was fanned outside.

Answer 3

The people that are calling out the question, think they know the answer. There is much information that says the leaders of 9-11 problems was in other countries as well as Iraq. There seems to be much information that says there was very little of 9-11 to do with the original government of Iraq.

With this as a precept, ARE WE INSISTING THAT IRAQ SHOULD PAY FOR THE LEADERS OF 9-11 IN OTHER COUNTRIES? This is a wrong that most LIBERALS believe does more harm to America than any help.

Answer 4

The connection isn't strong enough to justify invading Iraq. If you took it far enough you could find justification to invade a lot of countries under the pretense that they are supporting terrorists.
It would have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia. That's were the majority of terrorists came from, and that's were the money to Al Quada as primarily came from. However, Bush needed an extra scape goat. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but not Iraq.

Answer 5

Because THERE NEVER WAS ONE!

Please. Read a book by anyone that has actually studied anything about either of these two leaders.

But, since you need the primer, here we go.

1) Saddam Hussein was not terribly religious, he would occasionally get out his mat and pray when he thought his image could be improved by the people but he wasn't particularly devout.

2) Osama, though to be fair, his goals actually involve establishing a middle eastern oil caliphate with himself as caliph, does seem to consider himself religious as well (or at the least, needs to appear so at all times to convince his followers) and thusly, whether he truly is religious or not, do you see why he wouldn't have anything to do with Hussein?

It would be like an etreme fundamentalist Christian teaming up with a Wiccan for some faith prayer. It would never happen.

Answer 6

I have read a number of your questions and your stupidity is astounding.But to answer this particular one.The reason "some" cannot see the connection is because there isn't one.Neither Iraq as a country or Saddam Hussein as it's leader had anything to do with 9/11

Answer 7

There is no connection. None of the bombers were from Iraq. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
We should have gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Saudis since the bombers were from Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis are Bush's pals.

Answer 8

yup I'm afraid those who say there was no connection are right, Saddam Hussein hated the Taliban more than we did, i fully support the war, but we in the UK never kidded our selves there was a connection, i think bush actually admitted that last year when i was in the states, there more closely related to Saudi Arabia, the country that likes to play a double game

Answer 9

Because there are NONE. ZERO. NADA!

Read the 9/11 Commission Report, or 'Against All Enemies' by Richard A. Clarke.

Saddam Hussein had absolutely NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If you still think so,

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's called 'THE TRUTH.' Deal with it.

Answer 10

Perhaps because the is not one and never was. How is it that " some " of you Cheney Admin supporters keep insisting there WAS a 9-11 connection when there is NO PROOF ?
A lie said often enough can convince others who are weak minded.

Answer 11

Sheeple People who refuse to accept the fact that the U.S. Government had their hand in the Terror Attacks of 911 are just plain ignorant. It's impossible for Jet fuel or Kerosene to melt iron...LOOK AT THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS. Also if the floors collapsed causing a chain reaction it would have taken well over 90 seconds for the buildings to come down. They came down at free fall speed....9 seconds. There is no logical argument here. Explosives were pre-planted in the building. Case closed! Some idiots will argue that the fires were raging hot inferno’s...however if that was the case then why were there people standing in the holes where the planes impacted waving for help? Their clothes weren’t even burnt. Here we are talking about the biggest crime scene in the history of the United States...and what did Guilani do?
He scooped up all the evidence and got rid of it as fast as he possibly could. Sent overseas to be recycled? I doubt it...my guess is they dumped it all in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

If any of you nincompoops would look at the evidence...it's a common tactic for a country to injure or attack itself and then blame it on the enemy. Then we can go get em. Common tactic, there is even a name for it...it’s called.. “Pretext for Military Intervention” Why don't all you wonderful wise little kids tell me why NORAD didn't scramble any fighters to escort the hijacked planes down? They didn't miss 1, but 3!! Anytime a commercial airline goes off course without explanation, within 10 minutes, fighter jets are supposed to escort them down. Especially the air space over the Pentagon! Hmmm. How convenient. You think it was because Bush ordered Cheney to take control over NORAD the same morning of the attacks? Did you also know that the WTC changed owners about six months prior to the attacks? Did you also know that the buildings were worth more if destroyed than standing? That Larry Silverstein is the man who cashed out on the scam...walking away with billions? Did you know that there was a flurry of activity on Wall Street prior to the attacks, and the majority of the trading was “Put options” on the doomed Airlines stock? Did you know that there were multiple explosions heard inside the buildings from all kinds of firefighters, police officers and witnesses? Did you know that WTC Building 7 fell at approximately 5:30 p.m.? That the building did not suffer any major damage, but it somehow blew up into a fine pile of dust? Do you Morons even know what propaganda is? Do you know that it is also a well known and effectively used tool for the government to pull the wool over your eyes? Well, don't say we didn't warn you when your asking yourself 5 years from now "How could this happen?" It's sheeple people who make it easy for the government to do whatever they want. Educate yourself and open your eyes folks. This is real, and there are more than just a couple of us who think so. Go to google and type in Terror Attacks of 911...have yourself a look at all the choices there are to choose from.