The Iraq War was about revenge for 9/11


by Gavin

Poor old Tony Blair is being slammed in the Chilcot Report, which is just saying what we have all known for years. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was removed as revenge for 9/11. The failure of the US intelligence system and airline security led to the humiliating attack of 9/11 and someone had to pay.

As for 9/11, I have flown El Al flights and the cockpit doors have been secured against hi-jackers for decades. They have also had armed security on planes for decades as well. For whatever reason the yanks thought they were safe on their own soil. 9/11 changed all that.

I was working in the US?in late 2002 to 2003, and what struck me as interesting was that the American people were being prepared for war by the MSM on a daily basis. The MSM were acting as cheerleaders for the upcoming retribution. It was quite odd for me as a Kiwi watching this process unfold as it was a subtle process of getting the people used to the idea that we were going in to sort this out. As history has shown, the evidence for going in was flawed. But, a reason to justify it to the people was necessary to have public opinion on the side of the politicians.

9/11 was a humiliating defeat for America. One of the greatest symbols of American power and influence was destroyed with relative ease. The American equivalent of the sinking of the Titanic, if you will. Stupidity combined with incompetence parallels the Titanic with scary similarity.

Post 9/11 someone had to pay. Should it have been the Saudis? The fact that Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian, as were most of the hijackers, seems to have been overlooked at the time, probably deliberately. The fact that Saudi money and influence were at play was also ignored. So, Iraq became the scapegoat and paid the price as we have seen.

Saudi Arabia?s involvement in things has never been fully scrutinised and is rather interesting. Even just looking at their current reactions to the migrant crisis in Europe, they seem disingenuous. They have taken no refugees nor expressed interest in any, or even offered help or money. Yet they are happy to pay for mosques to be built in Europe for the migrants to pray in. This says to me that their interest is to help finance the spread of Islam into other parts of the world whilst doing nothing to help their ?spiritual? brothers in time of need. Rather self-serving and heartless really.

They display the nature of this region rather well. Most of the Arab/Islamic countries are tribal or religious dictatorships. Enemies are removed permanently and loyalties are to tribes of religious groupings. Power is maintained by ruthless oppression and repression of dissenting opinions. Saudi Arabia has very public displays of punishment for transgressions. This is a very useful tool in intimidating the rest of the population to not step out of line.

If one looks at all the oil dollars that have flowed through the region, most of them seem to have been spent on weapons and warfare. Take a bow here Obama for an annual $15 billion in arms trade for the US arms manufacturers. Ironically, he appeals emotionally for gun control laws in the US at the same time.

Back to Blair though; he stands tarnished by a history that will probably judge him harshly. Not the legacy he was looking for when he took the UK into a conflict that they were never going to win.