Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
...but since the United States created the Al Qaeda terrorist network, has complete control over it and its members, why didn't they hire Iraqi hijackers and actually give themselves the "proof" they need?
|
Yeah find an iraqi who is willing to learn how to fly planes and sacrifice themselves by crashing it into buildings for the interest of the US.
Rumsfled rushed into the war room literally right after the attack took place and called for immediate military deployment in Iraq. How would he have known right away that Iraq/Saddam was involved? They've been pushing the Saddam and 9/11 connection until it was discovered there was none. Of course they were forced to brew the WMD lies as justification to invade Iraq, and it worked.
Bin laden, white house's number one boogeyman, was named the culprit within 4 hours yet he denied any involvement in the month after 9/11. I've not seen one convincing evidence pointing his guilt. Even if he has called for holy war against the US before 9/11 and he did say he was responsible for the attacks in audio tapes, why doesnt the FBI use it as an evidence to indict osama?
Let me back up to OKC bombing, in the book "culture of fear" by barry glassner, it stated that 70 percent of american initially thought muslims were responsible of the bombing before the real perpetrator was caught.
Like i said in the other thread, when people are frightened, they become more passive and more susceptible to propaganda. They are willing to cling on higher authority to keep them safe and believe in whatever is told. That's why Bush approval rating went up to "record breaking" 90 percent at the time. Repetive images of Osama, planes crashing into the towers and wtc collaspe were shown on TV for months during the aftermath to keep them locked down on fear, resentment toward the "culprit" and emotional distress to make it all a blur for them to see the bigger picture.