Looking for evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda/911/WMDs.

[gnomon]

Hi there, now that Tony Blair is being questioned by the Chilcot Inquiry, I was wondering if anybody actually has any credible information/evidence linking Iraq to either: 911, Al-Qaeda, or WMDs?

I ask this because I'm interested in what people believe about Saddam/Iraq etc, and whether or not they support the war?



Saddam and his sons were sadistic monsters and we are well rid of them. I support military action to depose him, and i believed like a lot of people that he had WMDs and was surprised there were none. actually i was very relieved there were none.

It's quite obvious by now that no one has established any clear links between Al-Qaeda, Saddam and 9/11 nor Saddam and WMD's beyond the remnants from the war against Iran that were already known about and posed no threat to those UN nations that defeated Iraq in the early '90's.

 

[Aquitaine]

It's quite obvious by now that no one has established any clear links between Al-Qaeda, Saddam and 9/11 nor Saddam and WMD's beyond the remnants from the war against Iran that were already known about and posed no threat to those UN nations that defeated Iraq in the early '90's.

Yeah, it just annoys me that where I live whenever I mention that it was based on lies and Oil/Defense Contracts, people look at me as if I'm some lunatic. I bet they're thinking "conspiracy therost!".

-_-

 

[gnomon]

Yeah, it just annoys me that where I live whenever I mention that it was based on lies and Oil/Defense Contracts, people look at me as if I'm some lunatic. I bet they're thinking "conspiracy therost!".

-_-

Where's the evidence that the toppling of Saddam was based on oil contracts, as well?

That the war was based on oil is not only given but not really an issue. Western involvement in the Middle East has been based on oil for decades and everyone knows that. That Iraq violated a treaty, attacked a smaller nation which had funded Iraq's war against Iran and overran that country in violation of law as well as knowing that such an action would provoke war with Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, United States and many other countries plays a huge role in the development of what led to U.S. intervention in 2003.

In other words, merely claiming that the war was about oil is nothing more than stating the obvious and the apparent immoral nature of such a concept is not necessarily true.

 

[Aquitaine]

Where's the evidence that the toppling of Saddam was based on oil contracts, as well?

That the war was based on oil is not only given but not really an issue. Western involvement in the Middle East has been based on oil for decades and everyone knows that. That Iraq violated a treaty, attacked a smaller nation which had funded Iraq's war against Iran and overran that country in violation of law as well as knowing that such an action would provoke war with Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, United States and many other countries plays a huge role in the development of what led to U.S. intervention in 2003.

In other words, merely claiming that the war was about oil is nothing more than stating the obvious and the apparent immoral nature of such a concept is not necessarily true.

Well fair enough then, no doubt there would be more reasons than just one to wage the war, but to me it seems that regardless, Iraq had been eyed-up for it's Oil by us, I think it atleast played a significant part.

There's also some documents from the Cheney Energy Task Force that were released in 2002 under the FOIA, on this site you can see that with Iraq they were interested in it's Oil fields and were planning suitable foreign companies to make contracts with.

Not only that but given the previous careers of some of the memebers of the Bush Administration, it seems rather suspicious.

 

[kai]

Well fair enough then, no doubt there would be more reasons than just one to wage the war, but to me it seems that regardless, Iraq had been eyed-up for it's Oil by us, I think it atleast played a significant part.

There's also some documents from the Cheney Energy Task Force that were released in 2002 under the FOIA, on this site you can see that with Iraq they were interested in it's Oil fields and were planning suitable foreign companies to make contracts with.

Not only that but given the previous careers of some of the memebers of the Bush Administration, it seems rather suspicious.

I think a lot of people ignore the elephant in the room when discussing reasons for war and that elephant is Saddam

 

[Aquitaine]

I think a lot of people ignore the elephant in the room when discussing reasons for war and that elephant is Saddam

Why didn't we just whack him the first time then? The then Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney argued against that idea when asked about it infront of the cameras, then he comes back a few years later with the totally opposite attitude.

 

[dust1n]

Why didn't we just whack him the first time then? The then Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney argued against that idea when asked about it infront of the cameras, then he comes back a few years later with the totally opposite attitude.

Because. Saddam is an all American man. The CIA trained him, and he's the kind a dictator the Americans really wanted there. The first visit was just a little scare if he didn't play to nicely. But when Saddam didn't sell out his country after the first visit, there was no second chances.

 

[Yerda]

I believe we are at a time when western nations should be willing and able to intervene in cases of such obvious horror such as Rwanda.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

 

[kai]

Why didn't we just whack him the first time then? The then Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney argued against that idea when asked about it infront of the cameras, then he comes back a few years later with the totally opposite attitude.

so you would have been OK with that?

 

[Aquitaine]

so you would have been OK with that?

Personally, I'd rather us just focus all our efforts to getting us off Oil. If all the money and effort used in these wars was instead poured into research & development for alternative fuels, then perhaps we wouldn't need to be so dependent on other countries' resources, and thus, wouldn't need to deploy troops to fight wars in those areas to protect said resources.

But if it was totally neccessary to whack Saddam, why not just assasinate him and replace him with someone more capable? Anythings gotta be better than just bombarding the cities with aerial attacks, and then rolling tanks in and discharging DU weaponry.

 

[crazyKiwi]

Personally, I'd rather us just focus all our efforts to getting us off Oil. If all the money and effort used in these wars was instead poured into research & development for alternative fuels, then perhaps we wouldn't need to be so dependent on other countries' resources, and thus, wouldn't need to deploy troops to fight wars in those areas to protect said resources.

But if it was totally neccessary to whack Saddam, why not just assasinate him and replace him with someone more capable? Anythings gotta be better than just bombarding the cities with aerial attacks, and then rolling tanks in and discharging DU weaponry.

Saddam was the US's man. And after they invaded Iraq and got rid of him they put in another puppet government in Iraq. Open your eyes ....It has been the US along with their toadie British government that are the real terrorists... It was for oil and Afghanistan is because of the poppies.. CIA make big money from drug imports.

 

[McBell]

Saddam was the US's man. And after they invaded Iraq and got rid of him they put in another puppet government in Iraq. Open your eyes ....It has been the US along with their toadie British government that are the real terrorists... It was for oil and Afghanistan is because of the poppies.. CIA make big money from drug imports.

Care to support this rant with some evidence?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Care to support this rant with some evidence?

Actually, I can buy the war for oil bit. There are quite a number of reports/bits of evidence showing Bush Jr. 'gunning' for Saddam long before 9/11.

But war in Afghanistan for poppy seed opiates via the CIA? :areyoucra
For THAT, I'd like to see some evidence.


P.S. -- The Bush oil barony being best pals with the Saudi royals is NOT strong evidence of collusion to war. But it is awfully convenient.
P.P.S. - The Bin Laden family (the legit portions of it) are deep into construction and oil. Question: Who were the only civilian people flying in U.S. airspace on 9/12?

 

[dust1n]

Personally, I'd rather us just focus all our efforts to getting us off Oil. If all the money and effort used in these wars was instead poured into research & development for alternative fuels, then perhaps we wouldn't need to be so dependent on other countries' resources, and thus, wouldn't need to deploy troops to fight wars in those areas to protect said resources.

But if it was totally neccessary to whack Saddam, why not just assasinate him and replace him with someone more capable? Anythings gotta be better than just bombarding the cities with aerial attacks, and then rolling tanks in and discharging DU weaponry.

Like I said, Saddam is all fashioned American-esque leader. He was trained by the CIA, he knew how the CIA played ball. He had plenty of dobbleganger, enhanced security, and a lot of devotion. Remember how long it took us to find him invading his country? The guy knew how to hide.

 

[dust1n]

Care to support this rant with some evidence?

As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled --through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies--, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath:

"Because the US wanted to supply the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan with stinger missiles and other military hardware it needed the full cooperation of Pakistan. By the mid-1980s, the CIA operation in Islamabad was one of the largest US intelligence stations in the World. `If BCCI is such an embarrassment to the US that forthright investigations are not being pursued it has a lot to do with the blind eye the US turned to the heroin trafficking in Pakistan', said a US intelligence officer. ("The Dirtiest Bank of All," Time, July 29, 1991, p. 22.)
​

Researcher Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA's covert operation in Afghanistan in 1979,

"the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985, a much steeper rise than in any other nation."

"CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.

U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there. In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. 'Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,' I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'"(McCoy, op cit).










The success of Afghanistan's 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program:

"Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban's ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control... We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year's production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.


Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement" (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html )

In the wake of the US invasion, shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as if the 2000 opium ban had never happened: ​

​

​

"the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and integrity." ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the :February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf , p. 5).










​

 

[dust1n]

Care to support this rant with some evidence?

In 2001, the Taliban claimed that growing poppy was 'un-Islamic.'

Year ................Cultivation in hectares.........Production (tons)
1994..........................71,470.............................3,400
1995..........................53,759.............................2,300
1996..........................56,824.............................2,200
1997..........................58,416.............................2,800
1998..........................63,674.............................2,700
1999..........................90,983.............................4,600
2000..........................82,172.............................3,300
2001..........................7,606...............................185

2002..........................74 000..............................3400
2003..........................80 000..............................3600




In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[34] This amounts to an export value of about $64 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords and drug traffickers.[35]






60% of American heroin comes from Afghanistan..

 

[Aquitaine]

The Bin Laden family (the legit portions of it) are deep into construction and oil.

Yeah I've heard rumours about that, there there is actually a Bin Laden investment banking group or something, led by Osama brother I think.

Also I heard (an I'll try verify it later) that Dubya's own Oil company Arbusto Energy (I believe) was also doing deals with them.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah I've heard rumours about that, there there is actually a Bin Laden investment banking group or something, led by Osama brother I think.

Also I heard (an I'll try verify it later) that Dubya's own Oil company Arbusto Energy (I believe) was also doing deals with them.

From what I understand, the Bush's and the bin Laden's are buddy buddy, but I've read much about in awhile.

 

[Aquitaine]

From what I understand, the Bush's and the bin Laden's are buddy buddy, but I've read much about in awhile.

Ah, here is the supposed document showing James R Bath authorized to use Bin Laden funds etc, Bath also was a part owner of Arbusto Energy.

 

[kai]

Care to support this rant with some evidence?

I am still waiting for the evidence too!!