•  hallettj   ( @hallettj@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      246 months ago

      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.