Final vote tally in Congress, Authorization for Military Force Against Iraq
6 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 126 Democrats voted against the resolution in the House of Representatives. It passed with a little more than 2/3 of the votes.
compare this to the Senate vote for use of force in Afghanistan... which was unanimous. Not kidding. 98 yeas. 0 nays. 2 abstentions. Such a thing sounds impossible in today's political climate. Afghanistan was also signed off on by NATO and the UN. I've heard people call it an illegitimate or illegal war but actually it was probably the most "legitimate" and "legal" war in history if there is truly such a thing.
Iraq, on the other hand, was controversial even within the US, and extremely controversial internationally.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001
By the way, nice use of the Game of Thrones quote that I see whenever something on the Internet gets censored or deleted. It doesn't make you look predictable at all.
A group of terrorists hijacked some planes, as has been done many times before, to attack the WTC in New York, as they had several times before
was less messy or logical than this story:
george bush and his buddies in the illuminati the queen of england and the mossad and the rest of the time-traveling interdimensional lizard people who make up the elders of zion decided to stage the most elaborate and complicated false flag operation in human history so they got thousands of people and hundreds of intelligence and government agencies and media outlets across hundreds of countries to all cooperate and get in on the plot which involved blaming some fake terrorist attacks on a Saudi guy in Afghanistan which logically would make everyone want to invade Iraq...
Going to have to cut that one short because I know it goes on. But it's almost too simple, isn't it! So elegant and obvious when you think about it. Now that I'm typing it all out it just is so clear and makes such perfect sense. Man do I have egg on my face for ever doubting. Sincerest apologies.
2. even if there were... that's still a more convoluted story than the one where Al Qaeda attacked the US for the reasons they had publicly stated that they wanted to. And it raises way more questions than it answers.
3. I'm sure you could go on all day. And I could refute every point you brought up for just as long. I'm not well-versed in every conspiracy theory out there, but this one I've read about a ton, and it's all bullpoop... but... yeah... there's tons of it to sort through so I don't doubt that you could go on for a while.
Somebody’s gotta get invaded after that regardless if they had nothing to do with it. I’m sorry Americans, it might not be your fault, but your country is the most destabilising regime in the world, and surrendered the moral high ground shortly after WW2…
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 obviously were meant to inspire fear, anger, and confusion... that's what terrorist attacks do. But Osama bin Laden believed that the US was a paper tiger. His goal was to reduce or eliminate US military presence in the Middle East. He did not get what he wanted.
To your second point: actually the opposite is true. Look up the Pax Americana. I mean about being destabilizing. As far as the moral high ground goes... that's a different argument. I'd say that the US edged out the USSR during the Cold War, and after, there was no such thing as the moral high ground because there was only one superpower in the world. Nothing to compare to
Also the Q Anon people and the Flat Earthers and those worried about the lizard people have exactly as much "evidence" as you do... some of them probably disregard some of the things you believe in... believing that the Illuminati controls the world isn't the credible, reasonable version of this. It's all complete nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job or even that it was allowed to happen. None. Just like there's no reason to believe that Queen Elizabeth is a komodo dragon in a dress. Granted, a larger percentage of lay people would think the 2nd thing more preposterous than the 1st thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the same amount of evidence behind them.
The only person here attempting to minimize the loss of anyone's lives is you. and we all understand why. This is a quiz about one event and tragedy; you, because you don't care about the people who died in that due to political and personal bias, are trying to divert attention away to a different event and tragedy. Nobody said that the Chilean coup didn't matter - but it has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 - and implying that it was planned in Virginia makes you sound as daft as those who believe the Mossad destroyed the WTC.
If someone is being tortured they are more likely to provide false information to stop the torture.
Then I think of my nephews, who never knew anything BUT war, and am saddened by this.
Perhaps this was one of the silver linings of the cold war. I don't think the present generation has potential global annihilation on their minds the way mine or my parents' did. Or if they do, it's more about climate change than World War 3. It's a shame human lives and memory are so short.
Beyond the immediate impact, my generation has grown up with mass surveillance, terrorism, war, and Islamophobia/anti-immigrant sentiment as the norm. Even though these are all terrible, I think to a certain extent we've normalized it and accepted a new order that prioritizes security. I'm guessing the COVID pandemic will have a similar impact on today's kids.
Are You Too Dumb to Live?
But more likely it's that QM thinks it's potentially inflammatory and he hates moderating long chains of comments.