What if evidence existed that Iran was responsible for 9/11?

[Vizsla]

What if evidence existed that Iran was responsible for 9/11 but it was never investigated properly?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...opic:featured2

When the commission did get into the NSA archives during a frantic, down-to-the-wire weekend search in June 2004, it found explosive material suggesting links between the 9/11 plotters and the government of Iran and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants of Lebanon. The Iran material was forced into the commission's final report with limited context and without any chance for followup by the commission; the panel was about to shut down. (I revealed much of this in my 2008 book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.)

Or even unofficial Saudi involvement?

the commission may have missed other evidence at the NSA of foreign support for al Qaeda; the congressional investigation turned up evidence that some officials of the government of Saudi Arabia, including a Saudi diplomat based in Los Angeles, may have provided assistance to the 9/11 hijackers after they arrived in the U.S.

So if Iranian involvement was proven should we do something about it now or just let it slide?

Same goes for Saudi connection?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

presumably Iran gave money to someone for something and through the extremely complex web of islamic extremism it ended up in the base's coffers.

that doesn't mean they are responsible. The USA has given AQ loads of money.

[athanaric]

Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other's guts.

Also, this:

presumably Iran gave money to someone for something and through the extremely complex web of islamic extremism it ended up in the base's coffers.

that doesn't mean they are responsible. The USA has given AQ loads of money.

[Ojf]

USA couldn't hurt Iran, especially now Iran has nuclear power and the US has a Muslim president

[Tiberios]

Lol



Anyway, I agree with irelandeb.

[Platon]

I'm sure when the US is ready to attack Iran, that "evidence" will be examined very properly. Then Hillary will put a nice show at the UN 'a la Powell' to justify a new "operation Irani Freedom"

[Jaketh]

Iran would be a smoking heap of charred ruins

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Iran would be a smoking heap of charred ruins

I think Iran has quite a good army.

I would like to see how an invasion would go. Doubtless it would take longer and take more casualties than the Iraq war.

[Fluttershy]

I think Iran has quite a good army.

I would like to see how an invasion would go. Doubtless it would take longer and take more casualties than the Iraq war.

compared to other middle east countries? sure. Compared to a western army? its a joke... The USA would easily destroy Irans army in weeks, both sides know this. Its the following insurgency that would make Iraq look easy that will guarantee the USA stays out unless Iran does something insane

[removeduser_4536284751384]

compared to other middle east countries? sure. Compared to a western army? its a joke... The USA would easily destroy Irans army in weeks, both sides know this. Its the following insurgency that would make Iraq look easy that will guarantee the USA stays out unless Iran does something insane

I am certainly not claiming they could hope to resist invasion, I am just saying they would hold out a lot longer than Iran. Their armour force is pathetic - it's tiny and uses completely obselete stuff like the Patton series and the T-72. They even have Chinese models of the T-54 and a couple of ancient APCs. But they have a lot of things Iraq didn't have.

They have effective Soviet-designed ATGMs, and lots of them - certainly enough to issue them widely to their infantry. The AT-5 is a very effective ATGM and probably outclasses the TOW. The AT-13 is an effective shoulder launched weapon, comparable to the Javelin although not as good.

They have a lot of SAMs, and while they are mostly ancient models easily destroyed by SEAD, experience in the former Yugoslavia tells us they would probably cause some casualties. They also have over a thousand MANPADS comparable to the Stinger that would play havoc during an occupation and could be useful against helicopters during the invasion. There is a rumour they have 1-4 S-300 launchers and some missiles. Those would be extremely dangerous, they have a phenomenal range and are extremely accurate. They were probably the best SAMs of the cold war, so if Iran has some watch out.

They also have some attack helicopters, Vietnam-era AH-1s although the USMC still uses upgraded versions. While I can't imagine them lasting long against the US air force, they could potentially cause some damage.

Their air force is larger than Iraq's was and a lot better. Their best air fighters are 40 MiG-29s. That's not many, the rest of their air force is obselete planes like the F-4 Phantom II and Dassault Mirage. Again these are easily defeated but they could possibly cause casualties. Isreal has fought air forces comparable to Iran's (Egyptian and Syrian) while vastly outnumbered and still won completely with no casualties, so maybe they aren't that much of a threat.

Still I wouldn't like to fight my way through a couple of million men dug in, especially if they had ATGMs and MANPADS. Infantry dug in with such weaponry are great defenders.

Once the insurgency starts they would have access to a couple of hundred shoulder launched anti air rockets comparable to stingers, which could cause terrible damage. Add to this a much larger insurgency than Iraq and it would be a very hard war.

[Ojf]

I am certainly not claiming they could hope to resist invasion, I am just saying they would hold out a lot longer than Iran. Their armour force is pathetic - it's tiny and uses completely obselete stuff like the Patton series and the T-72. They even have Chinese models of the T-54 and a couple of ancient APCs. But they have a lot of things Iraq didn't have.

They have effective Soviet-designed ATGMs, and lots of them - certainly enough to issue them widely to their infantry. The AT-5 is a very effective ATGM and probably outclasses the TOW. The AT-13 is an effective shoulder launched weapon, comparable to the Javelin although not as good.

They have a lot of SAMs, and while they are mostly ancient models easily destroyed by SEAD, experience in the former Yugoslavia tells us they would probably cause some casualties. They also have over a thousand MANPADS comparable to the Stinger that would play havoc during an occupation and could be useful against helicopters during the invasion. There is a rumour they have 1-4 S-300 launchers and some missiles. Those would be extremely dangerous, they have a phenomenal range and are extremely accurate. They were probably the best SAMs of the cold war, so if Iran has some watch out.

They also have some attack helicopters, Vietnam-era AH-1s although the USMC still uses upgraded versions. While I can't imagine them lasting long against the US air force, they could potentially cause some damage.

Their air force is larger than Iraq's was and a lot better. Their best air fighters are 40 MiG-29s. That's not many, the rest of their air force is obselete planes like the F-4 Phantom II and Dassault Mirage. Again these are easily defeated but they could possibly cause casualties. Isreal has fought air forces comparable to Iran's (Egyptian and Syrian) while vastly outnumbered and still won completely with no casualties, so maybe they aren't that much of a threat.

Still I wouldn't like to fight my way through a couple of million men dug in, especially if they had ATGMs and MANPADS. Infantry dug in with such weaponry are great defenders.

Once the insurgency starts they would have access to a couple of hundred shoulder launched anti air rockets comparable to stingers, which could cause terrible damage. Add to this a much larger insurgency than Iraq and it would be a very hard war.

the fact that Iran has much better defences than Iraq and much better terrain for defending would be a great benefit, the American public couldn't handle such a war, would be worse than Vietnam. i really doubt the modern American has the stomach to handle that many casualties, especially with all the fuss the Iraq war made

[Jaketh]

yeah it would be much tougher then Iraq but still no contest, although didnt we sell them F-15's awhile back when thier government was friendly towards ours?

[3izah]

2001: What if evidence existed that bin ladin was responsible for 9/11?
2003: What if evidence existed that iraq was responsible for 9/11?
2010: What if evidence existed that iran was responsible for 9/11?
20**: sorry no countries left

[mrmouth]

There are more than a few ex-CIA people who have written books that suggest a significant state power in the Muslim world played a role in 9/11 by suppressing intelligence. Mostly by creating false intelligence and helping to bury the trail that exist when anyone does anything, prior to the attack. They also directly aided the facilitators of the attack in moving funds around.

They never name what country that is, but one book more than hinted that it was Iran.

Even if that is false, there isn't really anything that goes on in the world of terrorism that Iran doesn't either have a small role in somewhere along the line, or at least have significant knowledge of. What is amazing, is there are cities in the world that act as bases for terrorism. Some of there groups have store fronts. Iran has a footprint in all of these places, and more. They are deeply entrenched in that world.

[Viking Prince]

This is not political in the abstract. Also it seems to be a bit of a troll to use a trollish blog as a source.

For now, this is closed.

PM me and make a very clear case if you disagree.

VP