"Always remember?" (GRAPHIC WARNING FOR THOSE WITH SENSITIVE DISPOSITION)

[Pab Sungenis]

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (2)

[Angry Dragon]

1. kick

[barbtries]

2. why, yes,

i believe we should all remember all of that, and never forget it, lest we become republicans.

[slackmaster]

3. I still put the primary blame on the degenerate individuals who flew those planes

Nothing our country has done to anyone in the last 60 years could possibly justify flying planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people.

To Hell with them and their demented, distorted world-view.

[Angry Dragon]

23. ..........

[Myrina]

40. Sorta like us an our 'bunker busters' annihilating entire cities of innocents overseas, yes?

An Eye for an Eye, some would say.

[slackmaster]

46. That was more than 60 years ago, so it doesn't count. Please try to stay focused.

[heaven05]

50. yeah

and your country right or wrong. No matter that our innocents must pay for the evil done in our name and that those snakes in office at the time of 9/11 had plenty of warning to be prepared for those individuals flying those planes. FOCUS!!!! right.

[slackmaster]

53. Supporting the terrorists, blaming the innocent victims

What a shame.

[heaven05]

56. oh please

spare me. I'm just as American as you, just one who wants a better america and is willing to look at the truth instead of lies. Hey I feel for all those innocents and I never said what those Saudis did was right, I just look at the whole picture and not pieces. Take your shame somewhere else

[Katashi_itto]

97. They also had inside help: Max Keiser:

"What do you call an HSBC banker working in the Twin Towers who funds the Saudi attacks of 9/11? A suicide Banker."

[PavePusher]

149. Reminds me of this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1307973

The obvious parallel is obvious.

[Blanks]

77. The first Gulf War was more than 60 years ago.

I guess time really flies whether you're having fun or not.

[LanternWaste]

80. What is the precise and relevant cut-off date? On what objective measure is that date based?

What is the precise and relevant cut-off date? On what objective & peer-reviewed measure is that date based?

Or (and I find this much, much more likely) you're simply making up whatever validates your own positions. An act of faith, as they say...

[slackmaster]

95. It doesn't matter

What the 9/11 hijackers did was morally wrong and completely without justification.

[RC]

104. It may have been morally wrong, but there was plenty of justification.

We've been meddling in the affairs of other countries since our inception.

[slackmaster]

111. I can't believe this shit is being posted on DU

[RC]

139. How can we deal with the problems, if we deny there is any?

The government's version of 9/11 is nowhere close to making sense. The known laws of Physics would have to be suspended for the government's explanations to work.

[tpsbmam]

163. Oh, please. You're absolving US foreign policy when it most certainly contributed to the hatred of

the United States by these and many other Arabs. Here are just a few ways in which the USA fucked with the Middle East (and fucked the Middle East):

-forced the abdication of Iranian Reza Shah and installed Shah Mohammed Shah Pahlavi. Remember, the guy who was a tyrant? Yeah, that guy.....the one who was ousted and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to power, that one. Maybe Americans held hostage in the American embassy will jog your memory. That was another action against Americans who fucked with a Middle Eastern country, which ended with a revolution and getting rid of the guy who was OUR choice for Iranian ruler.

-siding with Israel, right or wrong, and the Palestinian devastation -- that angers Arabs in all countries.

-and, oops! aiding (along with the UK, China and yes, other Arab countries) the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union.....the oops comes when fighters who wanted to wage jihad against the USSR, among them Osama bin Laden; look also into Operation Cyclone, a CIA program

-another direct result of U.S. (and other western countries): the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. It came in the wake of us intervening in THEIR civil war and trying to install a government to the liking of the western countries.

This is the tip of the iceberg. And yes, our screwed up foreign policies contributed to the hatred many Arabs feel for the US, including those who wage jihads against us and other western countries.

[RC]

165. I'm agreeing with you.

What part of "since our inception..." is hard to understand?

[pocoloco]

141. Tell us.....

Just who were these hijackers of which you speak??

[slackmaster]

162. You can't possibly be serious, so I'll just leave it at that

[sabrina 1]

101. Or the slaughter of over one million innocent Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Not to mention the torture and rape and destruction of their country or the theft of their resources. Who do you blame for that?

[slackmaster]

112. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that happens when you kick a hornet's nest

An unintended consequence of the 9/11 attacks.

I blame the 9/11 attackers for that as well.

[sabrina 1]

117. Lol, you forgot your sarcasm tag I think.

Why don't you blame them for Pearl harbor too while you're at it. It would be just about as accurate!

Em, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ledeen/Wolfowitz and a whole gang of neocons planned the Iraq war BEFORE 9/11. I don't think there's any doubts left about that.

We were going there for the oil with or without 9/11. It was just so coincidental that they were able to use 9/11 right when they needed it.

Why are you trying to protect Bush/Cheney and their band of war criminals? They got away with their crimes. They sure never fooled any Democrat I ever met.

Btw, what do you mean by 'unintended consequences' regarding the Iraqi people. You do know they had nothing to do with 9/11 and that OBL WANTED the US to attack Iraq being that he hated Saddam Hussein who in his mind, was an infidel.

So why would millions of innocent people deserve to die because of someone else's crime that they had nothing to with? We lost over six thousand troops not counting the allied losses. Did they deserve it also?

Btw, the country we should have attacked IF we were going to attack anyone, was Saudi Arabia.

[slackmaster]

119. This has gone completely down the rabbit hole into tinfoil hat conspiracy land

Btw, what do you mean by 'unintended consequences' regarding the Iraqi people.

The 9/11 attackers had no intention of triggering a US attack on Iraq.

[progressoid]

124. Yeah, it's a good thing we stopped using those 60 years ago.

[treestar]

45. I agree

Cannot imagine doing such a thing to any people anywhere. It's appalling.

[sabrina 1]

154. I can't either. I felt the same way when I watched Bush's WMDs falling on

Baghdad and then saw the footage of the carnage that resulted from those lovely 'fireworks' people were cheering for here, the little children dead or without arms and legs in hospitals that did not have enough pain killers to stop the pain. The lucky ones were the ones who died.

One little boy I will never forget, his name was Ali. Our WMDs killed his pregnant mom, his dad and his little sister. He lost his arms and legs and was screaming in pain in that hospital, calling for his mother. After that footage of just the first night, our media never covered those scenes again. But others did, people like Dahr Jamail and Robert Fisk so there is a record. And it is a barbaric record.

Only evil people can do that to innocent people. And those who remain silent when their own government does it, are just as evil.

[treestar]

160. Even if we don't support the war in Iraq, at least it was a war

The people who used weapons in war are doing their job, whether we agree with it or not.

Purposely flying a plane to your own and other's deaths is just a whole different thing - not equal at all. Little kids died in those planes too, burned to a crisp too and people jumped to their deaths rather than burn up. Those victims were just doing their jobs in peacetime, or trying to travel.

[sabrina 1]

164. It was not a war, it was a brutal, barbaric invasion and that is how history will record it.

I love the attempt to differentiate between a bomb penetrating an apartment building filled with women and children sleeping and a plane penetrating a building filled with innocent people.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! Stop pretending we are morally superior, we are not. Even down to trying to rationalize the slaughter of human beings which they do also. There is NO justification for it no matter who does it.

[truebrit71]

59. I agree with you, to hell with them, but you don't think that any part of the US foreign

...policy this last 60 years could possibly justify that kind of hatred? Are you being serious? Pick a decade...ANY decade and there will be PLENTY of reasons for people to hate the USA...

[slackmaster]

94. I think it really started with the way the UK partitioned what we now call Iraq in 1920

Pardon me if I didn't get the year exactly right.

[Scootaloo]

78. "Justify?" No.

But don't kid yourself that "it would have happened anyway," or something. Our foreign policy is directly related to the events of 9/11. You do not spend fifty years making yourself an enemy of every state and people in a region of the earth, fund, arm, and support mass murderers, torturers, colonizers, and dictators there while treating the people as exotic stage props, and then act puzzled when someone tried to kill lots of your people.

It's a bizarre sort of cognitive dissonance - what, only Americans are allowed to ruin the lives of millions? We're afforded that privilege because white christians are "better" than brownish Muslims? 'Cause that's been the absolute crux of our foreign policy in the middle east since WORLD WAR ONE. And even after 9/11, after our two wars in the region, we persist in the belief. When Iraqis shoot back, Americans are shocked and offended and call them "terrorists" and use that as an excuse to wipe a city off the face of the earth.

[truebluegreen]

86. "Primary blame?"

Do you mean the most blame, or the first cause?

Do you ever wonder where all this hatred, this "demented, distorted world view" comes from? If you are curious, do some research on Operation Ajax in 1953 (oddly, almost exactly 60 years ago). Islamic scholars trace the beginnings of militant Islamic radicalism to that.

[slackmaster]

93. Most blame, first cause, final cause

They could have aborted their mission at any time. At the end, after our government failed to stop them, only they could have ended the attack.

Do you ever wonder where all this hatred, this "demented, distorted world view" comes from?

It may have something do do with the way they treat women as property, think homosexuals or anyone choosing to change religions should be killed. In the case of the 19 hijackers, the fact that they thought it would be OK to slaughter hundreds or thousands of innocent people.

Yes, all of that's demented and distorted.

[RC]

106. You're kidding correct?

The U.S. foreign policy played no roll at all in turning their animosity against us, U.S.? They just woke up one day the way they are, full blown and decided to attack the United States for no reason?

[slackmaster]

113. Fuck the fucking fuckity fuck NO I'm not kidding.

The U.S. foreign policy played no roll at all in turning their animosity against us, U.S.?

I've never said anything of the kind. Please read more carefully.

[slackmaster]

96. You're citing rense.com as a source?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

140. There are several links, that was at the top

My search:
http://www.ask.com/web?q=Rabbi+Dov%2C+comptroller+of+Pentagon%2C+remote+control+for+airplanes&qsrc=19&o=0&l=dir

Where this link is:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/

And this link:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/14509.php

I have read about this several places.

[LeftishBrit]

150. VeteransToday is an absolutely horrible forum

It seems to be very right-wing and pro-Ron Paul.

Here is a link to a horrible article which accuses Democrats of totalitarianism and 'pimping for the welfare state' and calls them 'DemocRATS'.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/10/rewarding-idiots-with-democratic-totalitarianism/

It also includes some choice antisemitism: Jews control America and were responsible for 9-11; Wall Street is a 'lobby from Israel'; Greece was ruined by 'Jewish bankers'; etc.

[Mnpaul]

157. Do you want to believe

that someone who had little or no real flying time was able to pull a tight 270 degree turn while dropping a thousand feet, come in over the treetops and hit the Pentagon?

[chknltl]

110. yeah, salting their land with a WMD

did nothing to piss anyone off at us.
Tell you what, can you Google depleted uranium YouTube and spend a little time on those links? Look at all those malformed babies, look at those mothers, sick with grief over their born dead monstrosities, WHO FUCKING DID THAT TO THEM!

Their land was poisoned and will remain poisoned for millennia and then Bush Jr. doubled down by reinvading Iraq after poisoning Afghanistan.

Now Afghanistan has reason to hate us too. Have you seen this:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/ICTforAatT.html

No, Obama bin Laden did not use our use of WMD as a reason to attack us, he just wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, he wanted sanctions lifted against Iraq and he wanted us to stop supporting Israel.

You are right that we did not deserve the nightmare that was/is 9/11 if you argue from his reasoning. The Geneva Conventions deal with such war criminals, bin Laden was arguably a war criminal or at the very least an international mass murderer.

From what reasoning did Iraq, Bosnia and later on Afghanistan deserve a much much larger nightmare and why haven't the War Criminals or mass murderers who did this to them been brought to trial?

No, folks in the Middle East have no reason to be pissed at us. Should another attack like 9/11 occur, there will be many, FAR TOO MANY here who will say that we did nothing to deserve it.

I have a saying: Those who would bury their head in the sand present their ass to the world. Maybe the world would like to chat with them face to face.

[slackmaster]

114. When did the US attack SAUDI FUCKING ARABIA with DU?

WTF are you blathering about?

[chknltl]

116. Please show me where i said anyone attacked Saudi Arabia with anything.

Or did you deliberately choose to misinterpret the title?

Direct question to you: did our government perpetrate a nightmare far worse than 9/11 on the innocent citizens of Iraq prior to 9/11?

[slackmaster]

118. The 9/11 attackers were Saudis. What did you mean by "salting their land with a WMD?"

Direct question to you: did our government perpetrate a nightmare far worse than 9/11 on the innocent citizens of Iraq prior to 9/11?

It has long been my understanding that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[chknltl]

138. Evasive at best nonanswer.

But I shall answer yours directly, My use of 'their lands' refers to the Middle East. OBL, had as one of his points that we needed to lift the embargo on Iraq.

By no leap of the imagination he considered Iraq as important-important enough to be concerned for its welfare or 'our lands' in his mind. We salted DU on a part of the Middle East, in other words on 'their lands'. Hence my use.

Back to nightmares. The US government perpetrated a nightmare against a country in the Middle East, a nightmare far larger than what OBL perpetrated against us. We did this prior to 9/11.The brutal truth is that no Middle Eastern country perpetrated any attacks against us. What we did we did unprovoked.

After 9/11 we did so again, this time adding Afghanistan.

My point was and still is that our government has done worse to them, (the Middle East) than what some of their citizens did to us. We did this not once but three times, twice in Iraq and once in Afghanistan.

[sabrina 1]

145. Ask the Kurds!

Then go back to when the CIA had their chosen leader assassinated and installed their guy, Saddam Hussein, to be our puppet.

Go read some of the history of Iraq and the US. Saddam Hussein was OUR guy in Iraq. He was Ronald Reagan's favorite dictator. What he did to his own people he did with our backing, our supplies of weapons, our approval, our money.

But you don't need to go back to that history to see why there might be people who have a reason to hate us.

Just look at Uzbekistan TODAY and look at who we are propping up there.

Go to Latin and Central America. Our policies haven't changed.

Why are we supporting a dictator like Karamov of Uzbekistan right NOW? He makes Saddam look like an amateur when it comes to Dictators. But we love him. He lets us, as the Wikileaks cables revealed, keep bases in Uzbekistan, so what if he boils his own people in oil??

Karamov should take heed though of what happens to our favorite dictators when we have no more use for them. He could ask Saddam Hussein, if he was still alive. Or Noriega. We are not particularly loyal to the scumbags who sell out their own people to get our money and support to keep them in power.



Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Saddam, favorite Dictator of the US, until he was of no more use to us. I believe Donald Rumsfeld brought Saddam some gold cuff links from President Ronald Reagan during that visit. Donald Rumsfeld forgot to tell the American people when he was selling the war with Iraq, about his and Reagan's special relationship with Saddam.


And so did the US MSM.

It was a shock when Americans found out about our prior, very close relationship with the man they were led to believe was just a third world dictator we, noble as we are, had suddenly discovered.

But we won't be able to pretend we did not know about our relationships today with some of the world's worst dictators, like the Bahraini Royal Family or Karamov of Uzbekistan, when our leaders suddenly decide they have no more use for them.

[Rex]

146. Well yes, they did the actual killing but you would have to say

that the secondary blame goes to the BFEE for failing to stop the actions from happening or trying to.

[jillan]

4. I will always remember who was the President of the United States and how he did not keep us safe.

[rfranklin]

15. The NYT article today said that they had at least 80 separate warnings and did nothing....

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

On edit: I actaully heard the author on WNYC say that they had 80 different warnings. I don't think it was in the article.

[KansDem]

44. Also, the Genoa conference that Bush attended.

Missed Opportunity: Genoa and the G-8

All this followed on the heels of President Bush’s recent press conference where he said "we had intelligence from Genoa [July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy less than two months before the attacks]," adding that he had no idea that planes would be used as weapons to be flown into U.S. buildings.

However, the White House press corps never asked Bush about a London news report that said "The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present." (BBC 7/18/01)

According to the Los Angeles Times (9-27-2001) and a 7-22-2001 White House press release, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport.

In July 2000, U.S. intelligence reported the spike in warnings related to the July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. The reports included specific threats discovered by the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service that al-Qaeda would try to kill Bush while he attended the summit. (CNN, 3/02) The reports were taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, and other world leaders stayed on a luxury ship (CNN, 7/18/01), begging the question whether Mr. Bush and his secret service detail knew why anti-aircraft guns were set up around them and why airspace was being cleared. The press corps never asked.

Officials at the time stated that the warnings were "unsubstantiated" but after 9/11 claimed success in preventing an attack. The distortion of the Genoa information kept the public and the airlines uninformed about the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Reporters never asked Bush whether the Genoa anti-aircraft guns surrounding the G-8 conference would have qualified as the presidential "inkling" he needed a few weeks later before September 11, to "move heaven and earth to protect the American people."

The White House scribes also failed to question the contents of the still-secret Ashcroft "threat assessment" memos which caused the Attorney General to eschew a commercial flight to Milwaukee on 9-11, but also the July 5, 2001 intelligence memo cited by sources: "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." (CIA Intelligence Report for White House, July 5, 2001 -- 60+ days prior to 9/11 -- Newsweek, 5-1-2003 / The Hill, 5-1-2003)

Given such intelligence warnings as July 5, a case could be made that the August 6 presidential briefing was declassified to divert attention away from potentially more damaging information.

tomflocco.com

And they did nothing...they are liars and traitors!

[dogday]

63. Too little too late

This should of been exposed while the bush was in office. Now, we can't do shit. Good article, just too late.

[jsmirman]

5. And you had to include that photo without a warning

couldn't just write the words (which I would have been fine with), without the drama shock of the photo.

Well that photo isn't just drama for me - it's a visual assault.

It's amazing what sensitivity you demand of everyone else and then what insensitivity you show in using such a hurtful image to make the point you want to make (which you could have easily made without the image).

Disgusting.

[Scout]

18. so you are avoiding all visual media today?

'cuz pictures like that abound today, not just on DU.

[jsmirman]

21. I sure as heck am not turning on my tv

Yes, there are important things going on right now - both nationally and right here on DU, if you look hard enough.

So no, I'm not taking the day off from DU.

But I sure as hell am taking the day off from any other media.

[aquart]

28. Do you wear a blindfold once a year?

This is the day we look at the smoking towers. It's only a symbol. There are no photos of the smashed bodies on the ground from the desperate jumpers or pictures of the bits of human flesh in the debris of lower Manhattan. There's no sound of the fear and the last screams as the buildings pancaked on the people trying to evacuate.

Me, I've never seen a picture of the elevator door that opened on the ground floor with the burned people inside it. But I remember merely being told about it.

The smoking towers are pretty antiseptic symbols, actually. We never had pictures of what went on inside.

[jsmirman]

31. "Antiseptic" to you

a version of ptsd for me.

And I'm not going further than that. I shouldn't have to.

[Sophiegirl]

71. A photo of...

...those jumping to their deaths would be far, far worse. That photo is quite tame as opposed to what will be on the news ALL DAY LONG. Plus the text obscures much of it.

[TBF]

6. Excellent. K&R nt

[Autumn]

7. The words on your post, they should be remembered

but I do try to forget the horror of the picture you posted. I had nightmare for weeks where I saw the planes hit, over and over. K/R

[HopeHoops]

8. The shrub administration let it happen. They needed it to invade Iraq.

[classof56]

9. Yup--Dubya's Trifecta.

All that transpired in the wake of that makes me sick at heart. Did then, always will.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

[HopeHoops]

14. "Mission Accomplished"

[cstanleytech]

17. Thats speculation Hope. Not saying its impossible though because sure it could be that is

what they did and I personally wouldnt be surprised if it would to turn out to have happened however without proof it sounds like the crackpot theories people claim saying Elvis and or Kennedy are still alive or that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon.

[HopeHoops]

30. Well, perhaps. But they needed a catalyst, planned on it all along, and knew it was coming.

The response was telling, especially the failure at Tora Bora. They needed a boogie man to make the leap from Afghanistan to Iraq, and Iraq was the only serious goal, but it also served to destroy the bill of rights (ceptin' the 2nd amendment). They didn't even try to hide that. I'm not big on conspiracy theories (and yes, Armstrong did land on the moon and Kennedy is dead, but Elvis DOES hang out at the 7-11 drinking 40-oz Schlitz with Jesus and Michael Jackson - I've seen them). Nobody in the shrub administration (except maybe Powell) gave a fucking shit about human life other than their own. It was an "acceptable loss" for political gain. Keep in mind that it was only 6 months after the "dead or alive" line that the shrub said he didn't really care where bin Laden was or even think about it much.

[heaven05]

57. anything

is possible

[cstanleytech]

65. Again thats all speculation though.

I am confused how your linking Tora Bora with Iraq though but lets discuss Tora Bora itself.
Yes, its possible they let Bin Laden go to use him as a boogie man however its far more likely that he just managed to escape in the confusion of the battle and it wouldnt be the first time someone has escaped a battle and it wont be the last time either unless of course you believe in the mayan myth currently floating around that this is the end year and we are all doooooooooomed.
As for the Bush admin not caring about human life, I fully agree with you as I dont think they care or I should say cared but that is not proof of anything except that they are complete and utter assholes.

[HopeHoops]

70. Can't argue with the "assholes" part. And yes, it can only be speculation.

If there was any proof to verify it, they would have had the records destroyed. But it is pretty clear that Afghanistan was just the jump point to go after Iraq. PNAC had been planning that war for over a decade. They just needed a way of justifying it to the minions who believe the GOP and use "patriotism" to coerce Congress into going along with it.

[cstanleytech]

75. Nope, the real thing that aided Bush in getting approval for the invasion

wasnt Afghanistan it was Saddam screwing around with the weapon inspectors.
If he had just allowed the inspections and ceased stonewalling them it would have alleviated alot of the problems and it would have made just about any push by the douchebag (Bush) to invade impossible.

[polly7]

79. Ignoring Romney's Iraq falsehood, Wash. Post called ....

BEGALA: A huge mistake, a gaffe that -- that's, if this were a general election debate, would be a disqualifier. He said -- we just heard the bite -- he said that, if Saddam Hussein had allowed IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors into his country to ascertain whether he'd had weapons, we wouldn't have had this war. He did.

On September 17 of 2002, the Iraqi government, under Saddam Hussein, allowed IAEA weapons inspectors into their country. Over 250 of them went, led by Hans Blix. They searched the whole countryside and found nothing. While they were still searching, on March 17 of 2003, George W. Bush told them to get out 'cause he was starting a war. And, on March 20th, we started the war.

As Begala noted, in September 2002, Saddam agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. The UN Security Council subsequently voted to allow the IAEA and UNMOVIC to travel to Iraq and examine its alleged weapons of mass destruction programs, with the first inspectors arriving in the country in November. The IAEA focused only on Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, and on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the Security Council that, "to date," the IAEA (through its Iraq Nuclear Verification Office) had "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Just over a month later, on April 14, in another letter to the Security Council, ElBaradei wrote that the IAEA had again concluded that "n the nearly four months during which the IAEA was able to conduct inspections in Iraq, significant progress was made in assessing the status of Iraq's nuclear related capabilities" and that "as of 17 March, 2003, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Congruent with Begala's claim on Anderson Cooper, ElBaradei noted in his April 14 letter that, "[o]n 17 March 2003, the IAEA ... had to withdraw its staff from Iraq, as part of the decision to withdraw the staff of UNMOVIC and other UN staff, out of concern for their safety following an advisory of upcoming military action."

Similarly, in its May 30, 2003, report to the Security Council, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC wrote: "In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991)."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/06/06/ignoring-romneys-iraq-falsehood-wash-post-calle/139028

[cstanleytech]

81. Polly I am talking about all the stonewalling he (Saddam) did not what their reports were.

It didnt help that he made it difficult for them to inspect what weapon programs his country was working on and in fact it hurt him imo and made it easier for the republicans to shape the intel to make it look like he had something to hide not that he did.

[polly7]

84. My point was ..

they were allowed in. Despite knowing they were in there, Bush pushed on towards invasion, using the lie (one of many) that Hussein hadn't allowed inspections.

[cstanleytech]

109. Again it wasnt so much that they were allowed in as it was that Saddam made

it into an obstacle course for them to do their jobs.

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/04/iraq.un/index.html


"Iraq is tying the weapons inspectorate to other issues such as sanctions, the no-fly zones imposed over the north and the south of the country, and President George W. Bush's threats to topple Saddam Hussein."

If they had just let the UN inspectors without a fuss to do their job then President Blockhead might well have never been able to rally as much support for an invasion as he was able to.

[heaven05]

125. oh please

[polly7]

129. You said it nicer than I was thinking it. nt.

[Mnpaul]

156. Also from your article

Weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq after the Gulf War to oversee the destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

But Iraq refused to comply totally with the U.N. teams saying they had been infiltrated by spies.

and the second group of inspectors said: Hans Blix

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
http://www.mideastnews.com/blix140203.html

[Chemisse]

123. Saddam was naive.

He actually thought it was all about the weapons inspections. So he waited until the heat had cranked up, then he gave in to them.

It didn't matter. Bush et al were hell bent on an attack. Weapons inspections were not what they really cared about.

[cstanleytech]

134. Agree, I think he believed that Bush was bluffing and would backoff or atleast that he wouldnt be

able to get enough support to authorize a large scale military intervention especially considering the fact that the US was still occupied with Afghanistan because after all how many leaders are stupid enough to get their countries involved in 2 major invasions? Well other than Hitler I mean.

[azurnoir]

10. Thank you for this post

we need to reminded of how events can be twisted to lead us into unnecessary war

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Clipped from the paper a week after 9/11

[IMG][/IMG]

[jsmirman]

12. The easily offended

yep, just amazing.

You are a singular piece of work. Yes, the easily offended. As in, the people who lost people on that day.

You are something else.

[HappyMe]

13. It amazes me how callous people are here today.

[Piazza Riforma]

35. So it's callous

to remind people that this didn't happen in a vacuum? That there are very real and very tragic consequences to US foreign policy?

So it's callous to note how we went to war with a country that posed NO threat to us using 9/11 as an excuse?

So it's callous to remind people that our government dropped the ball big time when everybody short of Bin Laden himself told them an attack was in the works?

You wanna know what's callous?

It's callous that we starved tens of thousands of Iraqi children by imposing crushing and inhumane sanctions on that country.

It's callous that we have all but abandoned the Palestinian people to whatever fate Israel chooses for them.

It's callous that we give financial and military support to the oppressive Saudi royal family.

It's callous that were ramping up to war with Iran.

We lost 3000 people and in turn "meted out justice" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis and locking up tens of thousands more in places like Abu Ghraib.

Yes, I remember well that tragic day and those who were lost but I also put it into perspective.

[heaven05]

54. yep

all true.

[dogday]

64. Damn, wished I could rec this post

Right on!!

[Carolina]

73. I totally agree

with you. 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum and the US is creating more potential 9/11s right now by it's ongoing policies against innocents elsewhere.

The takeover of the American embassy in Iran in 1979 happened in large measure because of US policies and actions against democratically elected Mohammad Mossedeq (sp ?) and the installation of the Shah in 1953.

Meddling in the Middle East while mightily supporting Israel (right or wrong... mostly wrong) is producing budding terrorists intent on revenge and karma as I write

Same holds true for "droning" Pakistan...

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Sadly, innocents always pay the price here, there and everywhere. And that was true on 9/11. So while I feel for the families and all those DIRECTLY affected, I also cannot dissociate the policies of the US from the karma wrought as a consequence.

Bravo PR!

[ccinamon]

85. very good summation!

thank you for saying it better than I could!

[RC]

122. +10,000 or more!

So many here think we are the good guys. No, we ain't, not by a long shot. Blow back can be a bitch as 9/11 has shown.
And still we don't learn. We continue meddling in the affairs of other countries as before, even to the point of bankrupting ourselves..

</war>

[TBF]

167. Excellent post - welcome to DU!

I'm glad you found us

[HopeHoops]

16. What are you referring to? I thought the OP was rather appropriate.

There's no slight intended to those who lost their lives. Yes, it was tragic, but we've had many other such tragedies that most people have forgotten or don't know about. Just curious, but what's your point?

[jsmirman]

19. That same point could easily have been made

without the jarring use of a photo that is tremendously hurtful to some of us who post here.

I think I made my point fairly thoroughly elsewhere in this thread. If you read it and don't understand why I think there was no need to use the photo, I don't know what to say.

I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a problem with the use of an image that is a scar in my brain to make a point that could have just as easily been made without the photo.

[Iggo]

25. You could've just asked him to remove the photo or include a warning.

But you went the extra mile.

[Carolina]

74. there was a warning

so you could have chosen to avoid the thread altogether.

I think the picture is necessary because the US does something analogous everyday with drones. Are American lives and your sensibilities more worthy?

[HopeHoops]

32. Okay. I can see that point. I hadn't considered it from that perspective.

[jsmirman]

39. Thank you

for looking at it from that perspective.

[HopeHoops]

42. That's the best we can do - keep an open mind.

[Stryder]

91. Hear,hear.

[RC]

128. The picture behind the words is the point.

Without that, this thread would have sunk like a rock, as just another 9/11 OP on DU.
9/11 IS what that picture is about. Because of that picture, there is a long thread with lots of facts for those not paying attention at the time or to young at the time to understand. That picture is a reminder that gets you attention.

I do know some complaining about the picture in the OP, are really upset at the words themselves, as they believe we were in no way at fault for 9/11, but know better than directly support the government official line... lies in their complaints.

If anyone has a problem being reminded about 9/11, there are lots of other things you can be doing other than whining about pictures on an adult political web site, of building that no longer exist .

</war>

[DevonRex]

20. It's the picture. For some it requires a warning.

Because they had people there where the plane hit. People who died right then and there in that picture.

[jsmirman]

24. Thank you

it's just amazing to me that some people don't get that.

I don't think that places me among "the easily offended."

[DevonRex]

27. I wish I could wrap my arms around you.

But this will have to do.

[jsmirman]

34. Thank you

and thank you for your understanding.

[HopeHoops]

36. I was watching when the second plane hit. My first thought was...

... why the fuck didn't they intercept the second one? You can't tell me that JFK's control tower didn't have a track on their trajectory.

[PavePusher]

47. "Intercept"... and do what? n/t

[truebrit71]

61. Try and get it off course, bring it down in a less-populated area....Something....

...other than letting it plow into another skyscraper...

They could also have just shot it down, you know, like United 93...

[PavePusher]

148. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

[HopeHoops]

69. SOP is to shoot it down if it doesn't respond to redirection instructions.

Frankly, that's the approach the Flight 93 passengers took. ATC had to have known they were off course and heading toward the city. There were no interceptors in the sky. That just seems wrong.

[Pab Sungenis]

37. Another thing I hate about this day's usual grief porn

is people who act like they were the only person who lost someone. I lost a friend and nearly lost another that day. Don't presume that everyone who lost someone has to feel the way you do. And don't presume that the people who didn't lose someone have no right to feel either.

[jsmirman]

41. Where in fuck's name do I suggest I'm the only person that lost someone

that is, in fact, pretty much the opposite of anything I've said. What typical reality distortion from you.

I don't presume anything except that you're a lout. Actually, I imagine a few other things, but I'll leave it at that.

You really appear to not be capable of advanced thought.

Someone with my views here is stating something quite different from "I am the only person who lost someone."

That you can't see that is not only annoying, but it's sad.

[Pab Sungenis]

48. Really?

Where in fuck's name do I suggest I'm the only person that lost someone

that is, in fact, pretty much the opposite of anything I've said.

This is your comment:

You are a singular piece of work. Yes, the easily offended. As in, the people who lost people on that day.

There are thousands of us who lost people that day that are more offended by the grief porn posted by others than are offended by the basic truths.

You imply that I didn't lose anyone and didn't suffer the same that you did. That is presumptuous at best.

[jsmirman]

52. Wrong again.

I imply that people who lost people on that day are among the people who have a problem with the image and may not fall into the category of "the easily offended."

As usual, you have things "the opposite." Just because you count yourself in that number and YOU aren't offended by use of the photo to make a political point that could be made without using the photo, doesn't mean that everyone else among that number, or perhaps, at least quite a few people within that number, do not feel the same way you do.

[LanternWaste]

82. You inferred that, he didn't imply it.

"You imply that I didn't lose anyone and didn't suffer..."


You inferred that, he didn't imply it. Two different words. Two different meanings.

[Alduin]

22. Great OP.

[cali]

26. I have little but contempt for people who can't entertain

more than one thread of thought at a time regarding topics like 9/11. I have even more contempt for the self-righteous.

No offense of course.

[Whisp]

29. could you retype the text but take the picture out?

I didn't know anyone that day that died, but it is apparent that this image is very disturbing for some who did.

It wouldn't be a big deal to accommodate, would it?

[jsmirman]

33. Thank you

that's exactly what I'm asking for.

It would also be a lot bigger than a "warning" that is 1/4 warning and 3/4's a snide response.

[Webster Green]

38. Why?

This image is already burned into our memories. Removing the image would ruin the graphic.

[Whisp]

49. why? just simply because some are asking.

It's just a wee teeny small courtesy, it's just a bit of respect.

I don't understand some of you.

[Webster Green]

76. The images are everywhere today.

Anyone troubled by them should not access any media today.

[RC]

133. Remove it because some are asking to have it removed?

Naa, how about leaving it there because some want left alone because it reenforces the message?

[closeupready]

87. Maybe it would be a big deal. Did you consider that?

Maybe the threadstarter needs the picture in order to send a point in a covert/subtle way?

If I asked you to please delete your own post here because those who cherish our freedom to speak and express ourselves find it disturbing and offensive, I have no doubt you'd tell me where to stick it, but you wouldn't delete it.

Neither you nor I own 9/11.

[Whisp]

89. are you way off the mark or what.

but whatever floats your little boat.

lots of 'owners' here today, aren't there?

just a little bit of give goes a long way but no, cranky lip sticking out childishness rules the day.

have at it.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Remember what George Bush actually said at his 1st presser after the attackes were over.

To paraphrase-

"I saw the first plane hit (really?) and thought, "that's one bad pilot."

Even if he was confused about seeing the crash (pretty hard to believe he'd confuse the 1st and 2nd planes)....he's still lying about what he really thought. He knew it was an attack because we now know - years later - that he was well aware of plans for a terrorist attack. See the 8/6/01 Daily Presidential Debriefing from the CIA. He was willing to blame poor piloting when it was himself who chose to ignore the huge intel warnings of an impending attack.

He's directly responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans -dereliction of duty and gross criminal negligence, at the very least.

[Raster]

142. actually, George*, SUPPOSEDLY no one - except those on the ground - saw the first plane hit.

Only the second plane hit was televised. George*, what where you watching?

[Mnpaul]

158. George saw the video of the first plane hitting on 9/11

but it wasn't available until the next day. It wasn't a mistake. He continued to tell that story for another six months.

[relogic]

51. For those offended by the use of a pic that is universally recognized

as an act of terrorism by angry Jihadists--we should all (every American) feel the loss of every victim in NYC, DC and outside Pittsburgh. That picture should offend we who care about the million killed in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan +, 6000+ troops, millions displaced , our new, established police state, drone-surveillance presence everywhere, solidified government/corporate partnership rights mine our every keystroke, text, video upload and traffic activity...

There are simply too many ill-begotten changes from that day to list in a comment.

If two towers on fire tell us anything beyond the tragedy of lives lost--they tell us much more that, for the loss is our very republic that day. We turned our anger and fear over to the government to war against us now conceivable ways that are more horrid than the collapse of the towers--they are an ugly metaphor in light of what we are now becoming.

[Jamastiene]

55. Great post!

Welcome to DU. Great post!

[heaven05]

60. yep

spot on

[malaise]

62. Excellent post

Welcome to DU

[dogday]

66. Super Post

My son had to go to Iraq, I thought I would lose my mind waiting for him to return. This is how it all started and we must remember.

[get the red out]

58. Accurate

That's why all the American flags all over bother me. It's like the flag is taking away from what killed so many, or covering up I should say.

[closeupready]

67. I don't necessarily agree with the points, but K&R

because if they hate us for our freedom to speak, then it's disrespectful not to cherish that freedom. This is one example.

[closeupready]

68. And it's funny how offense/rioting over cartoons is poopoo'ed here but

somehow, offense over this image is 'different'.

The drama and self-righteousness are thick today. Really.

[cstanleytech]

72. Oh I suspect they would still hate us even if we had had a hands off approach to the entire

middle east for the past 60 years OP, not that our governments interference helped matters but that doesnt mean our nations policies are at fault completely.
We didnt institute their laws sayng that people should be stoned to death for example, thats all on those countries.

[heaven05]

126. oh please

[cstanleytech]

131. Sorry but I dont believe they would be all hugs and kisses like some seem to be wanting to

pretend they would be if we would "leave them alone" or that its all our fault for all their problems or that 911 is our own fault, they decided to do what they did to civilians using civilian airlines.
Would there likely be alot less problems though? Probably but thats about it imo.

[sabrina 1]

153. Who instituted our laws that put people to death? You speak as if we were so civilized

George Bush probably got a lot of his support from people who were so proud of his record of executions, but the rest of the world was horrified, and even Clinton who flew back home to put a mentally ill man to death, was one of our party.

Who instituted the laws here that allowed our military and contractors and CIA to around the world torturing people, sometimes to death, to horribly rape women AND children?

Please, we are in no position to criticize anyone. Talk that way when Muslims are invading other people's countries and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their men, women and children, and torturing them and destroying their historic artifacts and treating them 'like dogs' as General Miller said. And when we no longer fry people in our death chambers, and we no longer run a gulag like Gitmo.

And no, they would NOT have bothered with us had WE not interfered in their affairs, in their choice of leaders, such as in Iraq when we installed Saddam Hussein and killed their very moderate and decent leader condemning themto decades of rule by US backed dictator.

The bigotry that underlies our foreign invasions and policies, the ignorance of other cultures, is simply stunning .

You talk about them as if they are barbaric when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, they have their fundies, but FYI a vast majority of people in Iraq, in Jordan and elsewhere, do not like their fundies anymore than we like ours.

Imagine if the world judged us by Timothy McVeigh or Pat Robertson. Or George Bush.

We wanted their stuff. They did not come and take ours and I am surprised, considering the interference in their affairs, that it took so long before something happened.

The sheer arrogance we display, is stunning. It's okay for us to tear their countries apart, to murder and rape their women and children, and then point the finger at them. THIS is the attitude that creates whatever hatred there is.

[cstanleytech]

155. No, its not ok that our government has done some of the things its done

but nor is it ok that some of those governments have done some of the things they have done either and thats the whole point and its a bit naive to keep making excuses for either.
Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of whos doing it or why and it needs to stop.

[Tom Ripley]

83. American Foreign Policy = Chickens Come Home to Roost

[heaven05]

127. exactly

[proReality]

92. K&R n/t

[SmittynMo]

98. The Bush administration will go down in history as the worst ever!!!

An Rmoney makes him look good (intellectually speaking)

[Sophiegirl]

99. Guess you have to..

..be an established member of your DU click to have anyone interact with you.

I'll continue to read, but I won't be posting again.

Good luck with your continued efforts.

[Autumn]

100. Welcome to DU Sophiegirl.

You just picked a crazy day to become a DUer. Stick around.

[patrice]

102. I've been here over 10 years and I'm ignored more than I am interacted with. Lots of people

DO read posts here though, Sophiegirl, without interacting. They are called lurkers and they just like to read.

We also seem to have an influx of new users lately, so interaction is affected by the churn of so many people who aren't used to this environment yet.

You might also choose to go to a specialized DU forum or group here, where your interests will be amongst those who share them. General Discussion can be pretty chaotic.

I hope you'll reconsider.

[patrice]

103. NAILED it! Now, let's all politely prevent real time people from forgetting, please. nt

[tularetom]

105. Here's the image that I always remember about 9/11/01

An idiot sitting for seven minutes with his finger up his ass while the buildings were collapsing because he was scared shitless and didn't know WTF else to do.

[DhhD]

120. In Texas we call this posture, "Playing Possum".

He knew; as he was using innocence - children in a school- as cover for this day's deed.

[dogday]

135. According to the NY times article today, 80 different

warnings were sent by the CIA. Yep, he knew, they all knew, and I hope karma visits them all real soon.

[fingrinn]

108. Bin Ladens 1996 Fatwa

Outlining various reasons for 9/11.

The simple reality is that over 1 million Iraqui children died after the first gulf war due to dysentry and starvation caused in most part by blockades by the west.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[ClayZ]

115. K and R

I remember!

[npk]

121. Yeah but the people who flew the planes into the WTC were mostly Saudi's.

And the Saudi's loved us, well they certainly loved Poppy Bush and his buddies who helped make them filthy rich. I am not saying that our policies have not inspired great hatred, because they have. But the 9/11 attacks were carried about by religious fanatics, who would bomb or shoot anything that doesn't share their religious viewpoints.

[Q]

132. Of course the blame...

...has to go on those who flew the planes. But since we are never, ever shown the evidence...it's anyone's guess what parties share the blame. Throw away, hide or kill the evidence before the public can see it...then you can blame anyone you want and gear up the Military Industrial Complex and their lobbyists to keep everyone in line and patriotic.

[npk]

136. I agree the 9/11 commission was obstructed from the word go.

Bush co. shut them down, and subsequently shot down every other independent commission that tried to release the documents that the public wanted to see. Bush knew his connections to the Taliban and wealthy Saudi's would have ended his presidency. The Bush family has more blood money than any other American family I can think of, but there will always be terrorists groups, regardless of what America does in the rest of the world. It's just that Bush didn't mind profiting at the expense of those terrorist groups.

[RC]

137. Another 9/11 truth.

Keep the memory alive of the real cause of 9/11.

[Raster]

144. dick cheney* knew more about 9/11 than did Saddam Hussein

and in advance, no less.

[Raster]

143. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals

[Rex]

147. The Saudis did not love us or the fact that the BFEE

(George Bush Sr.) wanted to build air bases in Saudi Arabia. How quickly we forget.

[tomp]

151. all around the world innocent people die every day.

the fact that some people only care when innocents of their own country die is a big part of the overall problem in the world.

for myself, what i remember about the 9/11 attacks is that there has never been a thorough investigation of it.

see: http://www.911truth.org/ancien/openletter.html#testimony

answer those questions (and others), then we can talk.

[blkmusclmachine]

152. Everything's Going According To Plan.

[LWolf]

159. How can I not?

The nation's obsession with that event makes it impossible to forget.

Personally, I'd like to see that "always remember" mantra applied to the much more numerous victims of poverty, disease, and violence coming from our own citizens.

You know; sources that we could have addressed with all the $$$ sent to fight terrorists overseas. Without the loss of life incurred in the perpetual "war on terror."

How many more victims of our society and culture are harmed every year than those on that one day?

Is it just easier, and more comfortable, to point fingers at "them" instead of ourselves?

[4th law of robotics]

161. Sounds like victim blaming

what did the people in those towers do to the people in the planes?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

166. About the same the hundred thousand Iraqi civilians did to those people in the towers.

Round and round we go.