Is there a link between Iraq and 9/11?

Question

(Don't call me stupid for asking this. I just want to see what people say.)

Answer 1

Invasion of Iraq was being discussed at top level long before 9/11.  The U.S. and Great Britain have had their fingers in the Middle East pie for decades, and common sense tells why. (Hint: it's not because they have a lot of sand.) For the same reason, Bush, McCain et al are eager to establish "temporary" military bases in Iraq "for a hundred years". It's so transparent that it is difficult to believe that anyone could seriously think that this is all to give those poor people the great gift of democracy.

So yes there is a link — the link is that the same motivations are involved in all of the previous, ensuing, and present policies.

Answer 2

Yes, both have cost a lot of American lives.

Answer 3

Yes..... his name is George W. Bush

Answer 4

No there isn't.  Absolutely not!

Answer 5

The only link is that in the process of taking out saddam hussein and creating a democracy in iraq would force the surrounding terrorist nations to protect themselves against this new blissful democratic government in which capitalism is making it powerful. Now all we have to do is support them with equipment and let them do all the work. A lot of people dont understand that everything is a chess game and a lot of people are no good at chess. George bush is smarter than a lot of people give him credit for

Answer 6

Yep, Iraq's fall and 9/11 were both fixed by the oil companies.

Answer 7

No! go to Loosechange.com and watch the documentry and you'll see things so differently.

Answer 8

to be quite honest.. arent people in Iraq because of 9 11?

lol

Answer 9

No.

Don't think so.

Only part of the mystery on what went wrong out there.

Without being aware of it being expose in time.

When the mess happened.

It all happened at the same time.

That got everyone at loss and blurr out there.

Iraq itself has a three in one mess out there.

Even has nothing to do with oil.

That need time to split it up.

In tracing the faults.

How the children in the fields expose they were at loss and blurr out there on what went wrong out there.

Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49

What do you think?

Answer 10

People have been arguing this point back and forth since 9/11 took place.  There is a good chance that there might be a small connection but, again, no one knows for sure now.  Unless, of course, the government has some information they are not giving to the public (maybe they can't because of the way it was collected - someone might be "fingered" as a spy by another country, for example).

You'll probably get a lot of answers from conspiracy theorists (which is okay - they're entitled to their opinion) but right now I don't think there's definitive proof "out there for Scully and Mulder to find!

Answer 11

Not a direct link.

9/11 was conducted by the al Qaeda organization, and there was found to be no direct operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam's government.

There were some indirect links, such as both Saddam and al Qaeda supporting other terrorist organizations.

Answer 12

That's what this stupid a*****e president thinks. He actually thinks that 911 was an Iraqi attack. For those who don't believe WATCH this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNIOmbm3K...

He wouldn't correct himself until the reporter brings to his attention that the terrorists are not necessarily Iraqis.

Come on dude, it's so obvious....

Answer 13

only connection is the oil fields in Iraq and the oil that powered the airplanes that caused 9/11

Answer 14

No. Bin Laden, the money and 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

There's a link to Afghanistan because that's where Bin Laden was hiding. But no link to Iraq. I mean, think about it. If you wanted to keep something a secret, would you have even TOLD Sadam?

There wasn't any attempt to buy uranium from Nigeria.

The infamous "Nuclear Fuel Enrichment Tubes" had "76mm Rocket" stamped on them in Russian and were too large to enrich fuel in.

The "540 tons of Mustard Gas, ready for deployment within 45 minutes" that Colin Powell showed the UN sattelite photos of never turned up.

If there were Al Queda cells in Iraq prior to the Coalition Invasion, they were lying low, becuase they hated Sadam and he knew it.

The "Necessary Regime Change" ain't going so well. Polls consistently show that Iraqis feel they were better off under Sadam. Something about being able to go to the market without somebody blowing themselves up at you. You'd be surprised what folks will put up with if the alternative is a 5 way Civil War.

But Bush did get oil up to $150 a barrel for a while. So, I guess he and his Saudi friends got something out of it.

Answer 15

I promise I won't call you stupid, because it certainly isn't stupid to ask this, but I'm afraid we'll probably never know.

I think there was, though...and I think the same person was directly involved with both...not naming names, though...

Answer 16

yes, terrerists.

Answer 17

No, there never was.

I feel sorry for those who have died over there for the rightwing nuts in the US who used propaganda to go to war. How many of the leaders of the US have lost sons or daughters there? I bet none.

Answer 18

Saddam trained terrorists to hijack planes.  He had an Al Qaeda training camp in Iraq with required tacit government support since he was a dictator.  He had used massive amount of chemicals in his attempts to exterminate the Kurds and some of the Shia not to mention using them on Iranians.  He tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons as was testified by Joe Wilson in the Senate.  He wasn't directly linked to UBL but the network wasn't linked to any governments.  He refused to abide by the terms of the ceasefire from the Kuwait war, so because of 9/11, it was decided he was too dangerous to just let it go.  He could have just cooperated with the UN inspectors but the world is better without him.  Bush repeated over an over that he was attacked because he was a supporter and sponsor of terrorists and not because he personally had anything to do with 9/11.

Answer 19

Not that I ever knew of. The Bush administration keeps flip flopping on its story. The CIA came out back in 2004 or something and said they didn't have any info that would connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

When a campfire burns hot there are lots of flames. When a campfire is burning cool, you see mostly just smoke. It's the same with a burning building. Take at look at the link below at the images of burning steel highrises that were ENGULFED in flames (unlike the Twin Towers) and never fell. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis...

Did you know that the Twin Towers fell at free-fall speed on 9/11? If you were to drop a basketball from the top of one of the towers when they began to fall they would both hit the ground at the same time. Watch any video on the falls and think about this: How in the world does a floor of a building crash through 80 something floors below without meeting any resistance? Impossible you say? Well then how did it happen on 9/11?

You think there are no scientists who say what I say and don't believe the official story? Don't let the media fool you. And what about building 7? No plane hit it and FEMA even said thy don't know what brought it down.

Three building fell that day, and yet most peopleonly know that two fell. Cover-up? Hmm...?

Answer 20

Yes - the Bush Administration

Answer 21

The 9-11 terrorists wanted to impose Sharia law on their hapless "subjectss"

Saddam was their moral enemy.  As a secularist, women and minorities had more rights under his secular rule than they will ever hope to have under Bush's "democratic rule".

Answer 22

No you have it all wrong. Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with 9 11 and it is a common misconception. The terrorists where from afgahnastan. Also the war in iraq was due to oil and dictaroship. You probably need to do some studying