If 9/11 was an inside job, why didn't US plant WMDs in Iraq?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

If 9/11 was an inside job, why didn't US plant WMDs in Iraq?

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:51 pm

.

I've surmised this question was posed on a now-deleted thread.

It's an old one.

The simple and short answer is, it was impossible. No less an authority than Scott Ritter explained it to me in early 2003, before the US invasion. Under the UN disarmament program of which he was the field commander until 1998, likely all Iraqi WMDs and at least 95% of the capacity for manufacturing them were destroyed, confirmably, by 1998. Ritter's team documented how Iraq acquired or manufactured the weapons and how they were disposed. Since the stockpiles had been substantial and the program complex and secret, some munitions or chemicals might have slipped through their net more or less by chance, but it was questionable whether even the Iraqi military could still find these minor stores. The story is told at length in Ritter's 2003 film, "In Shifting Sands."

The major powers and the UN all knew that Iraq had no WMDs -- more importantly, that its capacity to make WMDs had been eliminated, so that any stores that might have been missed were no threat. But acknowledging this meant the end of the UN sanctions program. In Aug. 1998 Ritter's boss Butler called upon him instead to back a Clinton plan to claim Iraq was still in violation, issue an ultimatum, and commence bombing. Ritter resigned a few weeks before the "Desert Fox" bombings of Dec. 1998.

Unlike with the domestic sites of 9/11, even after an invasion the US could not control the Iraqi crime scene. The US could never invade Iraq against widespread opposition among the major powers and then credibly claim to have found WMDs, unless these were presented to UN and international inspection. At that point, fakery would be impossible. As Ritter explained, starting from scratch in 2003, you cannot plant Iraqi-made poison gas of the 1994 vintage and credibly age it nine years in a fashion that will fool the UN chemists.

Ritter was prophetic. He had contacted every office in Congress with an ironclad case that no WMDs existed and that the invasion propaganda was demonstrably false but unfortunately was unable to sway the Iraq war vote (and also went completely unacknowledged after he was proven right on every point). To our group in 2003 he predicted that after the invasion, we would hear repeated announcements that WMD were in fact found, until most people would come to believe it even after each and every discovery was refuted and retracted. This is what happened.

The even shorter answer is itself question: Was discovering WMD a necessity for invading Iraq?

No.

Could you have predicted beforehand that it wouldn't have been, that the flow of events after an invasion would cause the question to recede and give rise to other justifications for the invasion? Yes.

"Well we're in there now, we have to stay in!"

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ben D » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Yes Jack, perhaps there is a good possibility that Scott Ritter was the "source close to the United Nations Security Council" mentioned in that counterpunch article,...A Neocon Plan to Plant WMDs?
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Occult Means Hidden » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:02 pm

Taking a time machine back to the 1980s we remember that there was concern the Soviet Union was selling nuclear weapons on the black market in Central Asia. This worry was especially prevelant on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now was it - impossible - to aquire vintage nuclear devices of the era and supplant them? Keeping in mind there was documentation that the Soviets lost many such devices.

I'm sure the United States had a covert, then overt policy of buying as many of them as possible. Thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads. Many of them strays. Why not configure a copy of the era's device and supplant that and then claim the warhead was not found during the disarmament program? I find it hard to believe a single stray warhead couldn't be found by the same who brought us 9/11.

And since when was it so hard to trick the establishment, when they have been so complicit?
Rage against the ever vicious downward spiral.
Time to get back to basics. [url=http://zmag.org/zmi/readlabor.htm]Worker Control of Industry![/url]
User avatar
Occult Means Hidden
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:11 pm

not the same people doing the digging.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Occult Means Hidden » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:16 pm

Yet these people can't dig into 9/11? "Not their job", isn't a good enough answer. And, United States has had a unilateral attitude and action plan for decades as evidenced by the Iraq War itself. Since when did facts get in the way?

Edit: Bio weapons of new fermentation would be ignored on that fact, but not the on fact they existed in Iraq (if planted). How many times have the experts been complicit despite an "elephant in the room"?
Rage against the ever vicious downward spiral.
Time to get back to basics. [url=http://zmag.org/zmi/readlabor.htm]Worker Control of Industry![/url]
User avatar
Occult Means Hidden
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:36 pm

i do not see the two events as directly connected.

perhaps Iraq was sort of the Neocons' short reward for their complicity in the transpolitical 911 event.

being in the right place at the right time in order to be opportunistic enough to exploit those deaths for short term profits?

it serves the useful side effect of ensuring the limited time that the obviously complicit far right remains in the spotlight. the neos were always intended to be the fall guys. they probably even knew this themselves, and got what they could while the getting was good.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:48 pm

A plausible answer IMHO immediately springs to mind ;

Has anything really changed whatsoever in terms of the genocide in the ME or colonial rape of Iraq in spite of the fact that no WMD were ever found ?

Did "they " not always know this would be the case ? Surely it hasnt escaped any true riggies attention that these people are the ultimate piss-takers

It would also make sense in the sense that these occultic assholes always hide their policies/ actions/ lies in plain sight.

9/11 of course had to be made to happen, cos as anyone with half a brain could quickly realise, this couldnt possibly happen in a million years without their full assistance
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby vigilant » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:13 pm

Antiaristo made a comment a while back. He said that this banking fiasco was "Bush Sr. getting his last grab in the till"

He also said there was a battle between two "warlords" taking place. The two warlords being Bush and Clinton.

I think antiaristo makes a lot of sense. Especially when you consider the odd circumstances that happened around Mena, Arkansas (clinton), and the Bush crime dynasty.

Both warlords have dropped bombs under some very dubious circumstances.

I think we are seeing a "changing of the bagman" right now. I believe both families are the bagmen for the real architects of the criminal hierarchy. The word "puppets" has been used for these bagmen in the past.

Just as the sea ebbs and flows, so does the shift of power. I think that Iraq, just like the banking fiasco, was only a setup for the Bush crime syndicate to bag its last big handfuls of loot from the cash register.

Hillary, as far as political tenure and experience goes, is a youngster. Suddenly there was talk of creating a "special position" for her in the government, or making her Sec. of State. Her husband opened the gate for the predatory lending that gave us the banking fiasco by repealing Glass Stegall Act.

The Bush's are oilmen. They have exploited the global oil industry and raped it as hard as any human could manage to do. I think the banking fiasco is a joint effort among the two warlords as more power shifts back to the Clinton crime syndicate. The Bush family has run their course and they are out of options. They still have Jeb and i'm sure they hope he will be the commander of the next Bush pirate ship. But for now they need to take the loot and run, and they know it.
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:08 pm

slimmouse wrote:A plausible answer IMHO immediately springs to mind ;

Has anything really changed whatsoever in terms of the genocide in the ME or colonial rape of Iraq in spite of the fact that no WMD were ever found ?

Did "they " not always know this would be the case ? Surely it hasnt escaped any true riggies attention that these people are the ultimate piss-takers

It would also make sense in the sense that these occultic assholes always hide their policies/ actions/ lies in plain sight...

Paul Wolfowitz even admitted that WMD's were just another convenient and plausible sounding cover story in marketing Operation Iraqi "Freedom".

Post 9/11 the PTB I'm sure were secure in the knowledge that the sheeple would buy whatever they were selling. It was nothing like the PR effort that went into the original Gulf War.
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fixx » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:24 pm

"If 9/11 was an inside job, why didn't US plant WMDs in Iraq?"


Because they didn't need to, they decided a simple "oops we were wrong but we're there now so we may as well make the best of it" was all that was needed then they conveniently ignore it. They don't give a fuck what the 'normal' people think/want, they decide what they want to do then do it.
Fixx
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:04 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests