# 9/11, In my humble opinion **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 13, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490 "2006-09-13T02:03:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/61 "2006-09-13T16:32:18Z")
Meh. I agree with about 50% of the OP, with 25% earning a “not really” and 25% a flat “wrong.” It is kind of amusing to see Der Trihs spitting blood, though. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/62 "2006-09-13T17:43:10Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] Gee, **Sam** , I disagree with much of \*\*Leaffan’s \*\* post, but why should he now be subject to insults and epithets because he stated his opinions and invited a similar response. He said nothing in his Op that was inflammatory, just unpopular. Seems like a very poor or at least unfair decision to move it on him. **Leaffan** , what is the basis for your belief that Iraq was a major supporter of terrorism. Iran & Syria I would agree with, but not Iraq. Why did Cheney & Rumsfeld rush the process to go to war when Colin Powell was trying to build a proper coalition? Can you cite that most people were willing to use Nukes? I mean if we knew it was Bagdad that ordered 9/11 I would have agreed with you that day, but I think I was still in the minority. Jim [/QUOTE] I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. Anecdotally there appears to be some funding connections through the “Oil for Food” program and Al Qaeda. Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. But yeah, it unfortunately looks like more of a struggle than anticipated. There’s little doubt in my mind that 9/11 provided the catalyst needed for the invasion of Iraq, but there’s no way the US government was involved in, or knew of the impending attack. I’m appalled by the fact that (depending upon which poll you read) 1/3 to 2/3 of the people in the US (and Canada too for that matter) believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the plane crashes, or at least knew exactly when and where this was to happen, but chose to ignore it. As for nukes, I doubt the vast majority of people actually would have endorsed this, but if you re-read the original 9/11 post on SDMB there were a lot of comments stating just that. My intent was to show that on 9/11/2001 people were very angry. Now 5 years later these same people are either complacent or believe that their own government was responsible for the attacks. So, what was the real reason for the invasion? Terrorists? WMD? Genocide? Oil? Retaliation for the attempt on George H.W. Bush’s life in Kuwait? Stability in the region? Spreading democracy? All of the above? I don’t know. But there are a lot of good reasons in the list as a starting point (retaliation not being one of them). ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/63 "2006-09-13T17:48:53Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] II’m appalled by the fact that (depending upon which poll you read) 1/3 to 2/3 of the people in the US (and Canada too for that matter) believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the plane crashes, or at least knew exactly when and where this was to happen, but chose to ignore it. [/QUOTE] Um… _what_? Where are you getting these numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/64 "2006-09-13T17:51:03Z")
I’m guessing I’m not the only one not seeing the “humble” part of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/65 "2006-09-13T17:54:11Z")
[QUOTE=Nancarrow] Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody’s got one. [/QUOTE] And most people prefer not to hear anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/66 "2006-09-13T17:55:23Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. [/QUOTE] He was a fanatical **secular** dictator. One of the reasons why he and Bin Laden hated each other. Tariq Azez was a Chaldean Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/67 "2006-09-13T17:55:40Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. [/QUOTE] Who is this “fanatical Muslim dictator”? Last I heard, Hussein was by far the most secular leader in the region. If things continue on the path that they seem to be going, Iraq’s replacement government will be far more fanatically Muslim than the one that was deposed. ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/68 "2006-09-13T17:56:46Z")
Damn you, **Yojimbo**. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/69 "2006-09-13T17:58:56Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. Anecdotally there appears to be some funding connections through the “Oil for Food” program and Al Qaeda. [/quote] Garbage. Saddam was an _enemy_ of Al Qaeda. Secular Muslims and religious purists don’t mix well. [QUOTE=Leaffan] Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. [/quote] We replaced a secular dictator with an American semi-puppet state, which is rapidly evolving toward an Islamic theocracy and an Iranian ally. Tell the women who are hiding in their homes that they are free. Tell it to the gays, who are dead or fleeing the country. Tell it to the people who have divorced their opposite-sect spouse out of fear. Saddam was brutal, not fanatical; his replacement(s) likely will be. We turned a largely secular country into Iran II. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/70 "2006-09-13T18:19:17Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. [/quote] IOW, you were talking out your ass. > [@](#): > > Anecdotally there appears to be some funding connections through the “Oil for Food” program and Al Qaeda. Nope, none whatsoever, as Saddam and AQ had totally different agendas – in fact, dipshit, so concludes (page 105) [The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee](http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=U.S.%20Senate%20Intelligence%20Committee). Tatto the following paragraph to your forehead – write backwards so you can read in mirror: > [@](#): > > **Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.’** > [@](#): > > Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. But yeah, it unfortunately looks like more of a struggle than anticipated. What democracy, asshole? [Iraq death toll ‘soared post-war’](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) > [@](#): > > There’s little doubt in my mind that 9/11 provided the catalyst needed for the invasion of Iraq Agreed. But what the fuck did Iraq have to do with 9/11 and why should they have been attacked when they did NOTHING to your country? > [@](#): > > there’s no way the US government was involved in, or knew of the impending attack. One name: [Richard A. Clarke](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) More later… ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/71 "2006-09-13T18:27:49Z")
[QUOTE=interface2x] Who is this “fanatical Muslim dictator”? Last I heard, Hussein was by far the most secular leader in the region. If things continue on the path that they seem to be going, Iraq’s replacement government will be far more fanatically Muslim than the one that was deposed. [/QUOTE] Well, from [Wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussain) > [@](#): > > Saddam increasingly portrayed himself as a devout Muslim, in an effort to co-opt the conservative religious segments of society. Some elements of Sharia law were re-introduced (such as the 2001 edict imposing the death penalty for homosexuality, rape and prostitution, the legalization of “honor killings” and the ritual phrase “Allahu Akbar” [“God is the greatest”], in Saddam’s handwriting, was added to the national flag.). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/72 "2006-09-13T18:44:19Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. [/quote] There are known unknowns, and then there are unknown unknowns, and then… Iraq was either a major supporter of terrorism (not just a supporter, but major!) or it fucking wasn’t. If you can’t back it up - and I know you can’t, because it isn’t true - have the humble intelligence to keep it to yourself. > [@](#): > > Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. This is so uninformed it’s sad. Saddam was bad, but it sounds like you don’t know much about him, and it also sounds like you haven’t read a newspaper in at least a few years. > [@](#): > > But yeah, it unfortunately looks like more of a struggle than anticipated. More of a struggle than the people who did the invading anticipated, yes. > [@](#): > > I’m appalled by the fact that (depending upon which poll you read) 1/3 to 2/3 of the people in the US (and Canada too for that matter) believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the plane crashes, or at least knew exactly when and where this was to happen, but chose to ignore it. Appalling if true, but I’d like a cite. > [@](#): > > So, what was the real reason for the invasion? I don’t know if I could boil it down to a sentence. But I do think the Bush administration had convinced themselves that Iraq was a serious threat, and they also felt that the war presented them with a great geopolitical opportunity. I wish they’d confined their ambitions to Risk. **Leaffan** , in context the Wikipedia cite is laughable. Saddam made a few token gestures toward Islam - like putting a phrase from the Koran on the Iraqi flag - in an effort to get some sympathy from religious Muslims and governments in the region. That hardly makes him a “fanatical Muslim dictator.” The Ba’ath party is a _socialist_ party and always has been. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/73 "2006-09-13T18:48:37Z")
I agree with **What Exit?** that this should not have been moved to the pit. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/74 "2006-09-13T18:53:31Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] IOW, you were talking out your ass. [/QUOTE] Well, that’s why it was an opinion. > [@](#): > > Nope, none whatsoever, as Saddam and AQ had totally different agendas – in fact, dipshit, so concludes (page 105) [The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee](http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=U.S.%20Senate%20Intelligence%20Committee). Well, other [articles](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp) suggest otherwise. > [@](#): > > One link ran from a U.N.-approved buyer of Saddam’s oil, Galp International Trading Corp., involved near the very start of the program, to a shell company called ASAT Trust in Liechtenstein, linked to a bank in the Bahamas, Bank Al Taqwa. Both ASAT Trust and Bank Al Taqwa were designated on the U.N.'s own terror-watch list, shortly after 9/11, as entities “belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” > [@](#): > > One name: [Richard A. Clarke](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) > > More later… So, one guy suggests that the administration needs a clear policy on Al Qaeda, and that should have prevented 9/11? Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/75 "2006-09-13T19:07:16Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] Appalling if true, but I’d like a cite. [/QUOTE] [Here](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html) > [@](#): > > A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. and [here.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/) > [@](#): > > Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? \* 66661 responses > Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day. 59% ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/76 "2006-09-13T19:10:33Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] **Leaffan** , in context the Wikipedia cite is laughable. Saddam made a few token gestures toward Islam - like putting a phrase from the Koran on the Iraqi flag - in an effort to get some sympathy from religious Muslims and governments in the region. That hardly makes him a “fanatical Muslim dictator.” The Ba’ath party is a _socialist_ party and always has been. [/QUOTE] So, he can’t be a member of a socialist part and be a Muslim at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/77 "2006-09-13T19:29:52Z")
Thank you for answering. [QUOTE=Leaffan] I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. Anecdotally there appears to be some funding connections through the “Oil for Food” program and Al Qaeda. Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. But yeah, it unfortunately looks like more of a struggle than anticipated. [/QUOTE] Before and after 9/11 I would have put Iraq fairly low on the major supporter of terrorism. Iran, Syria, Libya and our ally Saudi Arabia all appeared to the big supporters. > [@](#): > > There’s little doubt in my mind that 9/11 provided the catalyst needed for the invasion of Iraq, but there’s no way the US government was involved in, or knew of the impending attack. I’m appalled by the fact that (depending upon which poll you read) 1/3 to 2/3 of the people in the US (and Canada too for that matter) believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the plane crashes, or at least knew exactly when and where this was to happen, but chose to ignore it. I actually do believe that going into Iraq and removing Saddam was a good idea, but I also believe in the notion of world police. I did not like the claims of ties to terrorism, I did not seriously credit the WMDs. I did think building a large coalition to complete the job left undone a decade earlier would be a good idea. We allowed a pair of DRAFT-DODGERS to dictate policy however over the skilled and experienced Secretary of State Colin Powell. This was a very poor start. I do give credit to the theory that Cheney was in a hurry to start the invasion before the WMD lies were exposed. > [@](#): > > As for nukes, I doubt the vast majority of people actually would have endorsed this, but if you re-read the original 9/11 post on SDMB there were a lot of comments stating just that. My intent was to show that on 9/11/2001 people were very angry. Now 5 years later these same people are either complacent or believe that their own government was responsible for the attacks. 5 years ago I would have gladly have push that button if you showed me that there was a suitable target, but then I am a hawk. I am still very in favor of Hiroshima. > [@](#): > > So, what was the real reason for the invasion? Terrorists? WMD? Genocide? Oil? Retaliation for the attempt on George H.W. Bush’s life in Kuwait? Stability in the region? Spreading democracy? All of the above? I don’t know. But there are a lot of good reasons in the list as a starting point (retaliation not being one of them). The real reason? I wish I knew? I would like to think it was to remove a despot, but I know better. [QUOTE=Larry Borgia] I agree with What Exit? that this should not have been moved to the pit. [/QUOTE] I wonder what the thought process was. Perhaps GD as the subject was not less-than-cosmic. But GD frowns on opinion over cites. But this hardly seems like a pit Op. > [@](#): > > "What’s your favorite …?” For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/78 "2006-09-13T19:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] So, one guy suggests… [/QUOTE] One guy??? Did one gal provide a reasonable response to the one guy? [Nope](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/79 "2006-09-13T19:38:49Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Well, other [articles](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp) suggest otherwise. [/QUOTE] That article is from 2004 and doesn’t provide any evidence to back up the claim that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Qaeda. In fact, the author explicitly states that no such evidence has been discovered: > [@](#): > > To be sure, there is **no evidence of a causal connection**. But there is certainly room to wonder whether Saddam, a master of manipulation, on record as sharing bin Laden’s sentiments at least in regard to U.S. involvement in Iraq, would not have been tempted to involve himself in the terrorist boom of the next few years. The article is just a bunch of baseless speculating: “Saddam Hussein sold some oil to this company that’s currently under investigation for having terrorist ties. Could he have been funnelling money to Al Qaeda?!” Well, here we are two years later and there’s still no evidence that he was. Here’s another quote that drives home the “Gosh, could it be true?” nature of this article: > [@](#): > > Did Saddam actually send money for terrorist uses through those named by the Forward? Given the more than $100 billion that coursed through Oil-for-Food, it would seem a very good idea to at least try to find out. Well, yes, it would be a good idea. Particularly before you go around pretending that supposition is the same thing as fact. Where’s the evidence that these speculations had any basis in reality? Intelligence wins wars. Ignorance loses them. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490/80 "2006-09-13T19:41:50Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] So, he can’t be a member of a socialist part and be a Muslim at the same time? [/QUOTE] Socialists aren’t _usually_ the religious type, and the Ba’ath party was openly secular. But we’re quibbling over details. You called Saddam a “fanatical Muslim dictator,” and when asked for a cite, you said that the instituted some Sharia-based laws in 2001. That’s really weak. It’s a few token actions at the tail end of a 25-year reign. Not only that, but the same Wikipedia page you linked to spends far more space on Saddam’s secularism than those _token_ concessions he made to Islam. See the section called “Saddam Hussein as a secular leader,” which begins with this paragraph: > [@](#): > > Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser, President of Egypt. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-in-my-humble-opinion/372490.md?page=5)