Was Ramzi Yousef working for Iraq?

[Bluesplayer]

Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the first WTC bombing, has clearly been identified by PNAC as working for Saddam. If you accept this as fact, how big of a jump is it to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11? Is this the simple basis for Bush's entire Middle East policy? Discussion?

[tk2kewl]

1. PNAC propaganda is all BS

any organization that would look forward to "another Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda is evil and twisted

[Bluesplayer]

2. yeah, but

aren't they sitting in the tall chairs right now?

[tk2kewl]

4. what... because they have the power they get to decide

what the truth is? Not quite yet, my friend.

[Frederik]

3. "If you accept this as fact"

...you live in a parallel universe with the neocons. The Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz etc.) dispatched neocon James Woolsey to Europe just after 9/11, to try and find something that could justify their future lies about a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and between Iraq and Yousef. Not unsurprisingly he didn't find anything, so he made up a story about a meeting in Prague which has since been debunked.

[Ravenseye]

5. Um, no.

While his nationality is in some dispute, most tend to believe that he's a native of Pakistan and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was his Uncle. You know. The Number 3 guy in Al Qaeda. The one who looked like Ron Jeremy when they caught him? Anyway the evidence supports this, as well as him being raised in Kuwait where his father was a worker, and then attended college in the UK spending time in Pakistan visiting Al Qaeda training camps.

PNAC says lots of things, but just because they do doesn't make them true. This is just more manipulation of facts to justify what they want to do. It doesn't work that way. Yes he entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport. The guy had a bunch of aliases, hence the semi-mystery surrounding the guy. Why would a man with so many aliases that nobody was 100% sure of his real name, use his real passport to enter the country? It just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention the fact that keeps getting ignored: SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA HATED EACH OTHER! Bin Laden volunteered to bring his men down to Saudi Arabia to defend the holy land against Saddam. They hated him. They weren't working with him. One of the reasons Bin Laden got pissed off was the fact that Americans went to Saudi Arabia to defend it, not him.

[Bluesplayer]

6. I guess my question

is whether this belief, erroneous or not, forms the basis for Bush's administration's collective hardon for Iraq.

[Ravenseye]

9. Doubtfull

I think the hardon is because Saddam was a thorn in daddys side and there is a ton of oil there that their controllers wanted to get a handle on.

[Clark2008]

7. Even if he was, that was the FIRST WTC bombing.

Had nothing to do with the more disasterous second attack (well, any connection is very, very loose).

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. I've read the transcripts of his trial

when they were available on line and there was no indication of any connection to Iraq. Try again.

[Bluesplayer]

10. Try what?

[fujiyama]

11. This whole myth

of Iraq having something to do with the WTC - either the '93 attack or that on 9/11 is exactly that - a myth concocted by the PNAC.

There is one country that almost every major terrorist attack has led back to, including 9/11, the first WTC attack, and the recent London bombings - and that country has benefited greatly from this administration (recieving billions in military aid).

Anyone care to take a guess? Here's a clue: They too have a tin pot dictator.

[durutti]

12. It isn't true.

I lost the link, but there's an article somewhere that debunks this conspiracy theory. Intelligence services have been under pressure fro the White House to produce evidence of a connection and still haven't.