“To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance” p.172 of the 9/11 Commisson Report
Discuss…
Fuck off. You are a moron.
Discuss.
Saudis. That’s the elephant in the room.
…I thought it was pretty much accepted that the Saudis pay rolled it? No?
Well, whoever it was, it was a bunch of pissed off Muslims.
This is one small simple almost out of context line from an almost 600 page document. The same paragraph actually says it really didn’t matter, and that they had multiple streams of financing, meaning if one dried up, they could tap another. Or even transfer financing from another of their plans.
But pointing this out without the rest of the paragraph is kind of manipulating the facts. By posting this, either you are being manipulated, or are the one manipulating things.
Two other facts are that Al-Qaeda was actually low on funds before they had their meeting with Sadam, and then afterwards were better financed. No actual connection was made, and as far as I know no proof of moving of funds was proven, but it is an interesting coincidence in timing.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
This is one small simple almost out of context line from an almost 600 page document. The same paragraph actually says it really didn’t matter, and that they had multiple streams of financing, meaning if one dried up, they could tap another. [/quote]
I’m guessing that it didn’t matter because they didn’t want it to matter.
Is that the same meetings where he gave them his WMDs?
You need to learn the difference between an allegation and a fact.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m guessing that it didn’t matter because they didn’t want it to matter.[/quote]
They didn’t say it didn’t matter, they said roughly that they had plenty of sources of financing, and didn’t need to parse out which dollar when to which terrorist act.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Two other facts are that Al-Qaeda was actually low on funds before they had their meeting with Sadam, and then afterwards were better financed.
lixy wrote:
Is that the same meetings where he gave them his WMDs?
You need to learn the difference between an allegation and a fact.[/quote]
And here you are taking what I say out of context. Why not post the whole comment? I listed two real facts, and an interesting coincidence. In fact I didn’t say he gave them any money, just listed the facts, and mentioned the coincidence of timing. Where was the allegation?
Oh wait, you cannot believe the fact that they did meet. (Proven.) or the fact that they were low on funds, and then had a sudden boost in funds. Another fact.
Interestingly I don’t know of anybody who ever said he gave them WMD’s. Why imply that anyone did? Oh wait, I know why.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Oh wait, you cannot believe the fact that they did meet. (Proven.) [/quote]
Proven my eye!
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Oh wait, you cannot believe the fact that they did meet. (Proven.)
Proven my eye![/quote]
And another statement by me was proven.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
…
[/quote]
[i]Saddam ‘had no link to al-Qaeda’
“The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.”[/i]
And here’s the report,
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Now, go spread your disinformation somewhere else.
It’s the Jews! And the Bush administration…
Its the Illuminati, with the outer ring (Bilderbergers) being the administrators.
I’m really not supposed to discuss these matters outside of the meetings, but hey…what the fuck…
I financed it. I bought an SUV.
Oompa loompa’s. I always knew they where evil bastards.
From Lixy’s own posted source (can’t copy and paste text from the PDF):
-
Saddam answers “yes” when asked if the Iraqi government met with bin Laden (p. 67)
-
At least eight meetings took place between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda in the 1990s(p. 70)
-
Confirmed meeting in 1995 in Sudan (p. 72)
And lots of other good information w/r/t meetings.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Question: does Lixy hold some kind of a forum record for posting sources without reading them only to learn that when someone else reads them, it refutes Lixy’s claim?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Question: does Lixy hold some kind of a forum record for posting sources without reading them only to learn that when someone else reads them, it refutes Lixy’s claim?[/quote]
She sets records alright. They’re all made up, and nothing more than contrived, regurgitated talking points. But when has she ever let the truth get in the way of a good story?
[quote]lixy wrote:
[i]Saddam ‘had no link to al-Qaeda’
“The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.”[/i]
And here’s the report,
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Now, go spread your disinformation somewhere else.[/quote]
“Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show”
[i]"CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.[/i]
It was even a democrat who revealed this information. (Which was declassified 1 year post your report.)
And I was nice and posted the paragraph that said they didn’t prove a link, which is what I said. But there was a meeting, again as I said.
Are you sure you are not the propagandist? (Then again this information isn’t going to be front page news when the news organizations hate Bush.)
Now the question is did you read your posted article?
“The report is the second part of the committee’s analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq’s weapons programme.”
The report you refer to is only about PRE-WAR analysis. It doesn’t even cover any new intelligence over the last 3 and a half years.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
From Lixy’s own posted source (can’t copy and paste text from the PDF):
-
Saddam answers “yes” when asked if the Iraqi government met with bin Laden (p. 67)
-
At least eight meetings took place between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda in the 1990s(p. 70)
-
Confirmed meeting in 1995 in Sudan (p. 72)
And lots of other good information w/r/t meetings.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Question: does Lixy hold some kind of a forum record for posting sources without reading them only to learn that when someone else reads them, it refutes Lixy’s claim?[/quote]
Can’t you get all your information you need from reading headlines?
Do you know how many news article I have read where the headline was completely wrong, and you don’t find that out unless you actually read well into the article.
But news articles are written intentionally so that you can stop almost anywhere. As you read further, more information is presented. This is a normal way to present the news in print so people can go as deep as they want. Unfortunately news organizations have used this politically, and have been lazy in producing their headlines too.
By the way you did notice how lixy posted false information, then proceeded to accuse me of disinformation?
We all know it was the Liberals funded 9/11. /thread
Or was it Kyle?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
From Lixy’s own posted source (can’t copy and paste text from the PDF):
-
Saddam answers “yes” when asked if the Iraqi government met with bin Laden (p. 67)
-
At least eight meetings took place between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda in the 1990s(p. 70)
-
Confirmed meeting in 1995 in Sudan (p. 72)
And lots of other good information w/r/t meetings.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Question: does Lixy hold some kind of a forum record for posting sources without reading them only to learn that when someone else reads them, it refutes Lixy’s claim?[/quote]
Yet he never tires of streading his lies. Amazing.