this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
248 points (100.0% liked)
196
16264 readers
2130 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You believe the conspiracy theory that the evidence was fabricated? Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job? /s
the us claimed that Iraq had wmds, but it was later revealed Iraq has no usable wmds (they had some sarin that expired in the 70s) and the us had a congressional hearing where the armed services confirmed that they considered the unusable wmds as active wmds, even though they could not be used. it was not a conspiracy later proven true like the Tonkin incident, but just using the vague definition of WMD (there is no offical one delcared by the UN) to the army's advantage
Thanks! I remember vaguely. I didn't understand the details back then but I remember that everyone knew it's bs already back then. I put "/s" for a reason under my first comment
The justification for invading Iraq was a claim that they were developing nuclear weapons. It was well known at the time that the evidence was flimsy, and that even if true it was a flimsy excuse for an invasion. The main piece of evidence was an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes that were soon shown to have nothing to do with a nuclear program. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes). That one is not a conspiracy theory.
And when it became clear that there were no nuclear weapons, it became a dishonest equivocation about weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, there was also loads of dishonest communication about Iraq's coordination with terrorist groups.
Honestly, it's much easier to come up with a reasonable conspiracy theory around 9/11 than most people think. There's proof that the FBI and DHS knew that the attacks were being planned (iirc they were warned multiple times by Mossad), so it isn't that much of a stretch to believe that the US intentionally ignored the warnings with the knowledge that such an attack would justify another war in the Middle East.
Ignoring the warnings would be a win-win. You get to go to war for oil if they're real, and if they're fake, then nothing happens and life goes on like it always has.
I think the DHS was set up in response to 9/11 so it didn't exist yet, but the CIA and the NSA also knew about the upcoming attack before it happened.
Yeah, I might have misremembered that part, I do remember reading that the US had received multiple warnings about it.
I think the us government dug its head in the sand on purpose so that they could invade Iraq and take oil
Eh I feel like it's easier to chalk up to organizational incompetence