Now, before we start, anyone who takes their name from a Harry Potter movie is missing a few bricks...
but, here we go:
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 03:16 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x192786
Poll question: "Saddam-did-9/11" theories are a huge embarrassment to official story supporters
Poll result (27 votes)
False (5 votes, 19%)
True (22 votes, 81%)
Now, that would mean that to five DU-ers the saddam did 9/11 theories (are there any?) are not an embarrassment to the official story supporters. (who?)
What?
LARED (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is there anyone around here
posting material that supports a ""Saddam-did-9/11" theory? I must of missed it.
I'm not sure ANYONE ANYWHERE is posting saddam did 9/11 theories...
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. doesn't matter
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 04:02 PM by JackRiddler
It exists, therefore all supporters of the official story must answer for it, even if they don't agree with it.
uh....what?
LARED (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. When did Saddam did 9/11 become part of the offical story? - nt
I swear, LARED is not my mole at DU.
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. doesn't matter
Like the "no planes at WTC" theory, "Saddam did 9/11" exists. Therefore everyone who supports any version of the official story must also answer for the "Saddam-did-9/11" variant (pushed at times by no less an official than Cheney).
Can you show me a link to something that proved Cheney said Saddam did 9/11?
LARED (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Your point is understood but silly
There is no official Saddam did 9/11 story. Those that hold to the official story being the most complete albeit somewhat lacking story don't need to answer for a Saddam story that is unrelated. Its existence does not make the official story more or less palatable.
There are plenty of CT theories about no planes, DEW, Holograms, Pods, Missles etc that are part of the CT story. Those that advocate CT's that are within the realm of reality get marginalized by them. So CT'er get the responsibility to police their own litter box.
You have your work cut out for you.
no, really. This is not my mole.
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. There is an official "Saddam did 9/11" story.
It was pushed by Cheney, the most powerful single official in the land.
By the same logic you use to imply that I have to answer for Nico Haupt, you have to answer for Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, and all the guys who pushed the story about Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague (and possibly picking up the anthrax vial while there).
These very same guys also agree with the most important part of the "official official" story of the 9/11 Commission and of LARED - that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 as a total surprise attack without any conscious facilitation from U.S. government actors.
If they agree with you about that, you must answer for everything else they say about 9/11.
There are plenty of OCT stories about Saddam links to 9/11, also links between 9/11 perps and groups in Chechnya, Indonesia, Zarqawi, Saudi Arabia and whatnot. By accepting the OCT you have to answer for all of these, whether you agree or not.
Furthermore, Cheney's outrageous conspiracy theory had awesome consequences - it facilitated the invasion of Iraq. So this is much more serious. Your irresponsibility in not devoting every resource to demanding rigorous logic and real evidence from everyone pushing OCT ideas of any kind therefore also contributed to the invasion of Iraq.
You have a lot of work to make up for that!
Where is this official story located at? Can you link it so we can read it?
LARED (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Nice try. Except there is no Saddam did 9/11 story.
Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
I swear, this is not my mole!
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Sure there is.
MODS: Link to WorldNetDaily given as an example, definitely NOT an endorsement.
Here's two I find after a minute's search... and a rant!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634
TRAIL OF TERROR
Secret intelligence memo links Saddam, bin Laden
Relationship involved training in WMD, financial support for 9-11 hijacker Atta
Posted: November 15, 2003
Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.
That's the assessment of a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee, reports the Weekly Standard.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. The memo cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources.
Douglas Feith as PNAC man and head of the Office of Special Plans was one of the key Bush admin officials in generating the propaganda preparation for the Iraq war.
WND article continues through many graphs with supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda types everywhere, including Saudi and "new information" about the fictional Atta-Al Ani meeting in Prague and also how "The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued in the aftermath of Sept. 11. An al-Qaida associate helped to set up 'sleeper cells' in Baghdad beginning in October 2002."
Then, one of the earliest leading official sources on Bin Ladin is cited:
Yossef Bodansky, who as former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare has been Congress' foremost terrorism expert, documents in his book "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" how Saddam has supported al-Qaida for over a decade.
One example, widely reported before the Iraq war, concerned the Boeing 707 fuselage Saddam Hussein provided terrorists for practicing airline hijackings. Indeed, commercial satellite photos show the fuselage at the notorious terrorist training camp near a bend in the Tigris.
Specifically, says Iraqi defector Sabah Khalifa Alami, Iraqi intelligence trained groups at Salman Pak on how to hijack planes without weapons. It's not specifically known whether al-Qaida operatives trained at Salman Pak.
Cheney:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/c... /
By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
(...) Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.
(...on Prague meeting...)
Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."
(...)
Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.
Now of course THAT was Cheney's intent: to brainwash Americans into believing that shit. Mission Accomplished. Of course it's a safe guess Cheney knew he was lying, and of course he tried to insinuate the link to 9/11 rather than say it outright, to minimize the chance he might be nailed on it later in a court. But he got what he wanted out of it.
Similarly, most of the people promoting "no-planes at WTC" (and pod/flash/hologram, which were the earlier models) know they are lying. They very consciously stress the parody element. I take that from a reading of their material. (For example when they present the NY1 video with a plane in it and claim no planes can be seen, or when they intentionally use low-resolution images to create an illusion when high-res ones are available.)
They go about it understanding that the point is not to be taken seriously, but to sabotage 9/11 truth. They have no problem when the likes of you arrive to "refute" them, that is the point.
Besides their theories, what else do they do 24/7/365? Do they ever call for disclosure? Do they ever build bridges, to anyone else? No. They attack everyone in the movement as agents or "mind-control assets," including me so yeah I take it personally. But also including Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, the Jersey Girls (!!!), Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, 911Truth.org, etc. etc. etc. even the Loose Change and Alex Jones guys. That's everyone, without exception, the 95 percent plus who don't accept "no planes at WTC."
Thus I conclude they are conducting an operation to sow division and brainwash Americans against 9/11 skepticism, just as Cheney conducted an operation to link Saddam to 9/11. I don't care what the motivation of any given one of them is, some of them are no doubt just garden variety morons. It is an operation in all of its mechanics and it's an excellent bet that it originates in some modern COINTELPRO factory. It may also be some kind of freelance or cult phenomenon, doesn't matter one bit. The mechanics of transparent lies and transparent attacks on all other members of the movement (good or bad) reveal it.
Yet by the logic you apply here, when you hold anyone who doubts the 9/11 story responsible for the "no planes" bullshit, then you too should be held responsible for "Saddam did 9/11." Because someone said it somewhere -- someone who, like you, also posits that 19 men acting alone blindsided America.
If I have to answer for "no-planes"--for that matter, if I have to answer for *anything* that I didn't say but someone else said who also agrees with me in rejecting the official story--then by that logic you have to answer for Cheney, Feith and Budansky.
what the **** are you rambling about?
William Seger (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. Who here is holding you "responsible for 'no planes' bullshit"?
Who is asking you to answer for anything you didn't say?
Here is a closer analogy for what I see in the case of Jack Riddler and HamdenRice. Suppose someone posted a "Sadaam did 9/11" and you and Hammy jumped in his shit for his stupidity. I don't post anything because I think it's just dumb, and you and Hammy did an adequate job of ripping it apart. But then, sometime later in a different post, I give you and Hammy a bunch of crap for debunking that guy but not addressing my own theory, which I haven't even articulated.
The reason that doesn't make any sense to me is that if the guy was spouting bullshit, I'm not going to criticize anyone for simply saying so. You and Hammy seem to make it more of a competition between two teams. Or (much closer to the point, I think), as competition between two political parties -- not a common quest for truth.
My biggest problem with the entirety of the "truth movement" -- you and Hammy included -- is that it is so inappropriately named.
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Dude, you obviously missed something while reading this very thread...
Like post #9 and others. Or you didn't read, or you wanted to miss it. And a lot more besides.
Jack is missing a lot more than the point, IMHO.
LARED (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. Here's the difference
Yet by the logic you apply here, when you hold anyone who doubts the 9/11 story responsible for the "no planes" bullshit, then you too should be held responsible for "Saddam did 9/11." Because someone said it somewhere -- someone who, like you, also posits that 19 men acting alone blindsided America.
If someone came out and said Saddan did 9/11, they I and many other so call OCT'er would certainly call them out on it. Whereas you and most other CT'er seem to take a hands off approach to the numerous 9/11 kooks that dilute any rational questions.
Why?
BTW you should freshen up on the definition of "did", as none of your post above indicates Saddam "did" 9/11.
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Well, there you go again.
"Whereas you and most other CT'er seem to take a hands off approach to the numerous 9/11 kooks that dilute any rational questions."
First, this is your direct and immediate contradiction to your post 31, in which you agree with Seger's post 29 that golly, you're not trying to pin the no-planes folks on the 9/11 truth movement, you're not trying to hold me responsible for things they said but I didn't, etc.
Of course you are! Of course many of the OCTists here love doing that, that's why there are several threads running right now doing that.
Second, this statmement is untrue, since I do not take a hands-off approach. If you mean that I don't bother to kick the threads of no-planes theorists or to engage them directly -- like you might in a way that gives them the legitimacy of being part of the 9/11 truth movement -- then generally, I don't.
Perhaps you engage them as a form of encouragement because they provide a quasi-pornographic confirmation of your own prejudice that 9/11 "CTs" are wrong.
Their transparent strategy of promoting a parody theory discredits the 9/11 truth movement by design. So I should engage them with what? Rational argument?
And what will happen then? Will people who only pretend they believe there were no planes at the WTC suddenly pretend they saw the light of rationality?!
I have many times denounced the no-planes ideas and the behavior of their practitioners, here and on other boards, on the radio, in a variety of forums... but in the manner that I choose as the most effective: by alerting people to the high likelihood (based on the internal evidence of disingenuity and the attack strategems employed) that "no-planes" is either a form of COINTELPRO or a freelance/cult operation modeled as COINTELPRO.
(Never mind. My correct response would have been simply to ask you, "who are these CTers you refer to"?)
Jack is one ****ed up mental dude...
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. You know, by the way, that this was the same strategem tried by Bush...
in 2004 when he suddenly claimed he'd never said there was a 9/11 connection to Iraq?
"Rely on a complete lack of memory."
Kind of like 'I never had sex with that woman', and 'Yeah, I ****ed her, but I didn't love her'.
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-07-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
52. Hey, LARED, how come you never retracted this absurdly wrong assertion?
You said, "Nice try. Except there is no Saddam did 9/11 story," basically mimicking the defense that the neocons now put out with their claims they didn't say the things we all saw them saying live on TV.
You said, "Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11." I showed you a bunch, in fact the two most important US officials pimping the Iraq war lies (Cheney and Feith) in Post 15.
Why no answer, no self-correction?
Um, no you didn't.
LARED (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-07-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Because you never refutted it. I said......
Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
You showed me US officials that implied a relationship between Hussein and OBL, none of them said Hussein was responsible for 9/11. I certainly agree with you that, that real or imagined relationship was used to further an agenda.
boloboffin (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-27-08 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Personally, I disavow the "Saddam-did-9/11" theories
And I do so on the same basis that I reject many alternate conspiracy theories about 9/11 - there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Saddam did 9/11. People who argue otherwise can be shown to manipulate the things they use to support such a false idea.
Therefore, to an supporter (like myself) of evidence-based theories, the "Saddam-did-9/11" theories are no embarrassment at all.
Ok, now you'd think that would make the loony one happy, right?
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. But there is evidence that Saddam did 9/11!
Cheney and a few of his associates and employees insinuated it. Hundreds of them, in fact. On television. That's evidence.
After all, you accept the word of Cheney and a far smaller sampling of his associates and log-book keepers as evidence in the question of what time it was on Sept. 11 when he entered the PEOC, as against the contrary accounts of Clark and Mineta and the internal logic suggested by "plane is 30 miles out... 20... 10..." (which can be AA 77 but can't be UA 93). So Cheney's word must count somehow as evidence to you.
What a small number of officials said to the 9/11 Commission constitutes most of the evidence on the present-day official story, in fact. Even when they conflict with each other. Any witnesses who were inconvenient were ignored or tossed into the footnotes.
Now add a few printed transcripts of the alleged confessions of torturees who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been KSM and crew, may or may not have been the masterminds, may or may not have told truth under torture, may or may not have had their accounts transcribed faithfully, may or may not have been taped while tortured... That's your evidence. Voila, The 9/11 CR.
Nope.
