TTH wrote:old europe wrote:Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
You can base that statement on what you read and hear. I don't think you were present to know this for a fact.
Well, those who made the decision to invade Iraq and drop bombs on Baghdad weren't present either. So if that's your only yardstick, then I can reach a conclusion that is just as valid as that of the President of the United States.
Apart from that, we obviously don't get most of our knowledge from first-hand experience. How do you know, for example, how many countries there are in the world? From visiting all of them and counting them? How do you know who's President of the US? From meeting him and asking him for his name? And how do you know that there were men on the moon...? Hm?
Apparently, there are ways to learn about things that don't require your bodily presence.
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:You know, it's all fine when you're around your buddies, and everybody just voices the same opinion - that Iraq had to be invaded because of the role it played in the terrorist attacks.
I don't talk politics with "my buddies".
In that case, maybe you should.
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:But if you state this opinion here (which you can do, of course... freedom of expression and all that), you should be prepared to be asked about what made you arrive at this conclusion.
Sure you can ask, but I don't have to substantiate my opinion to anyone.
You don't
have to do anything. And you're free to arrive at your conclusion from, say, looking at the stars, or reading tea leaves.
I'm just saying that when you state your opinion on an internet forum, then people might just ask what made you arrive at your conclusion.
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:Of course the most likely reason is that you were mislead by your government. All the statements that came from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or Powell could indeed have you believe that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. However, this is not true.
How do you know it isn't true unless you were present and have some inside knowledge.
And again, you're trying to make an argument here that essentially favours staying ignorant. Most of us weren't present in what's going on in the world today. Most of us haven't been to Darfur, or Iran or North Korea. Does that mean we should all just shut up, because there's no way we could possibly voice an informed opinion?
I don't think so. There's a wealth of information out there, and via the internet it's very easily accessible for everyone. If you want get informed, you don't have to rely on what the White House says, or the major TV networks, or your local newspaper. You can easily find out what politicians and experts around the world are saying - in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia, at the UN - and compare that to what your administration officials state.
In the case of the Iraq WMD, you had the United Nations weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, going from site to site, questioning Iraqis, looking at the evidence, and giving detailed reports back to the public.
(->
The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission)
In the case of Iraq's involvement in 9/11, you had the bipartisan 9/11 commission, created by Congressional legislation, in order "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks".
(->
The 9/11 Commission Report on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
All of that isn't very hard to find.
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:And even the few conservatives here on A2K who still hold a firm belief in the war will point out that the administration never actually lied about Iraq or about Saddam's role in 9/11, but rather that they relied on faulty intelligence or that Americans simply misunderstood what they said.
I agree that some of the intelligent was faulty, I believe some of the officials even stated that.
Good. That's a first step. Now if you say you support the troops on the ground in Iraq, wouldn't you want to know what you support them for? What they are there for? Or why they had been sent there?
I mean, do you really want to support an administration that can hardly be described as "conservative", that sent the troops in harm's way, based on faulty intelligence - in a best-case scenario?
That's what I'm wondering....
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:But let's have a look at the guys behind 9/11. These are the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks:
- Mohamed Atta, Egyptian
- Waleed al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
- Wail al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
- Abdulaziz al-Omari, Saudi Arabian
- Satam al-Suqami, Saudi Arabian
- Marwan al-Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates
- Fayez Banihammad, from the United Arab Emirates
- Mohand al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
- Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian
- Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian
- Hani Hanjour, Saudi Arabian
- Khalid al-Mihdhar, Saudi Arabian
- Majed Moqed, Saudi Arabian
- Nawaf al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabian
- Salem al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabian
- Ziad Jarrah, Lebanese
- Ahmed al-Haznawi, Saudi Arabian
- Ahmed al-Nami, Saudi Arabian
- Saeed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian
As you can see, quite a large number of Saudi Arabians. And as you can see, quite a small number of Iraqis.
Of course you can say that it is your opinion that the United States were attacked by Iraq, that the right to freedom of speech allows you state that, and that you will just disagree with anyone who tells you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I guess that translates into something like a "right to remain ignorant". Which you do have, of course.
You can call me ignorant, it doesn't offend me. I never said Iraq attacked the USA. The terrorists attacked the USA. As far as your list of the terrorists, I will take your word on who they are and where they came from.
I didn't call you ignorant. See, there's no law saying that you have to look at all the information available or form an informed opinion. I said that that probably translates into something like a "right to remain ignorant".
It's true, you never said that Iraq attacked the USA. You just said that you did agree with invading Iraq, that 9/11 was a direct attack on USA soil and that the ones who played a role in anyway needed to be dealt with.
That sounds like you supported the invasion of Iraq because Iraq played a role in the attacks. However, there's no evidence that would support that opinion.
And, by all means, don't take my word on the 9/11 terrorists' nationalities. You could have a look at this
FBI press release from September 14, 2001, published in the immediate wake of the attacks. Or you could read the
The 9/11 Commission Report and see what they found.
But don't just take somebody's word for it, eh?
TTH wrote:old europe wrote:However, as I've only been guessing about your rationale so far, let me ask you here: what made you arrive at your conclusion that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks?
I believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have ties to Al-Qaeda who are responsible for 9/11.
I partly agree. I believe that bin Laden has ties to Al-Qaeda. That shouldn't be too surprising, as he was among those who founded that organisation.
As for Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda: what leads you to believe that?
TTH wrote:I believe that possibly Saddam Hussein had an indirect role in financing Al-Qaeda.
How so? How, where and when did he give money to Al-Qaeda? Or are saying that he "possibly" did that so you don't have to substantiate those claims?
TTH wrote:Even if Saddam Hussein had no role in the 9/11 attacks at all, I still blame him for this invasion.
That's a bit odd, isn't it? Did he attack the United States? Did he attack the US troops that had started with a massive build up along Iraqi borders?
See, most people would blame the aggressor - the country that sent troops around half the globe to invade a sovereign country - for the invasion.
Not the country that is being invaded.
TTH wrote:He did not follow the UN resolutions that had been passed
Really? In March 2003, which UN resolution didn't Saddam follow?
TTH wrote:and that alone, if I remember correctly, left the door open for the use of force.
It didn't. If there had been UN resolutions that had been violated, the decision to enforce them using military means would obviously have to be made by the United Nations.
Instead, the United States ignored the UN and took it upon themselves to ship massive equipment and hundreds of thousands of troops around half the globe and to unilaterally bomb, invade and occupy a country that hadn't even attacked the US.
I think it's difficult to argue that Iraq was invaded for ignoring UN resolutions when the United States showed so much contempt for the United Nations, ignored the reports of the United Nations weapons inspectors and unilaterally invaded a country without a UN resolution.
