For one " the fact that none of the hijackers were Iranian citizens" is irrelevant. Yet they go on and on about it as if it is.
"certain 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to Afghanistan, without having their passports stamped."
Sounds like Iran was complicit at the very least, if not supportive.
"the terrorist nation"
doesn't read as propaganda to you?
The only quote I can find about "the terrorist nation" is referring to Saudi Arabia. Also, if a "court" finds that a nation is culpable and complicit in an action, then I would say that their country of origin has merit. If "certain 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to Afghanistan, without having their passports stamped" is a gamechanger for the courts, then I fail to see it. The post is referring to the 911 commission report for the previous quote, not the "court" ruling. I need more facts from you to corroborate your charge of Iranian propaganda from this post.
If there is evidence of Iranian involvement in 9/11, cite it. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
All governments are corrupt, destructive usurpers. The US, Iran, Israel, Russia, the UK, it makes no difference. They're all organized crime on a massive scale. But specific accusations of specific crimes still require specific evidence.
Have the transcripts from this trial been released? I assume they presented some evidence and apparently they met the burden of proof in a court of law. There must have been a preponderance of evidence.
This was a default judgment. Both sides were not heard. Don't you think that might have been a little biased, since only the US government provided input? Maybe to make the boogey man out to be someone they have been trying to go to war with? Maybe to deflect attention from the US role in the criminal act of 9/11?
That's your business as the one making the accusation. Financial records, training history, travel, SOMETHING of substance. You can't provide it. Accusations are not evidence in and of themselves.
You can't even show semi-credible government accusations of such direct involvement, much less real evidence of it. Iran has not been involved at all in 9/11. Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Syria was not involved in 9/11. If any state was, it would be "our ally" Saudi Arabia due to he nationality of the majority of the attackers. It was a kangaroo court dictate, not the result of any legitimate judicial process. That levied this "penalty" against Iran. If you believe otherwise, the burden of proof is still yours.
Sometimes facts look like propaganda when it doesn't match your viewpoint. Please point out the propaganda.
For one " the fact that none of the hijackers were Iranian citizens" is irrelevant. Yet they go on and on about it as if it is.
"certain 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to Afghanistan, without having their passports stamped."
Sounds like Iran was complicit at the very least, if not supportive.
"the terrorist nation"
doesn't read as propaganda to you?
The only quote I can find about "the terrorist nation" is referring to Saudi Arabia. Also, if a "court" finds that a nation is culpable and complicit in an action, then I would say that their country of origin has merit. If "certain 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to Afghanistan, without having their passports stamped" is a gamechanger for the courts, then I fail to see it. The post is referring to the 911 commission report for the previous quote, not the "court" ruling. I need more facts from you to corroborate your charge of Iranian propaganda from this post.
If there is evidence of Iranian involvement in 9/11, cite it. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
All governments are corrupt, destructive usurpers. The US, Iran, Israel, Russia, the UK, it makes no difference. They're all organized crime on a massive scale. But specific accusations of specific crimes still require specific evidence.
Have the transcripts from this trial been released? I assume they presented some evidence and apparently they met the burden of proof in a court of law. There must have been a preponderance of evidence.
This was a default judgment. Both sides were not heard. Don't you think that might have been a little biased, since only the US government provided input? Maybe to make the boogey man out to be someone they have been trying to go to war with? Maybe to deflect attention from the US role in the criminal act of 9/11?
I think they didn't put up a defense because they knew they were guilty.
You have far too much blind faith in the court system, and you still need to show actual evidence instead of appealing to authority.
Evidence like what?
That's your business as the one making the accusation. Financial records, training history, travel, SOMETHING of substance. You can't provide it. Accusations are not evidence in and of themselves.
lol, yes let me access my database of Iranian financial records and training histories.
You can't even show semi-credible government accusations of such direct involvement, much less real evidence of it. Iran has not been involved at all in 9/11. Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Syria was not involved in 9/11. If any state was, it would be "our ally" Saudi Arabia due to he nationality of the majority of the attackers. It was a kangaroo court dictate, not the result of any legitimate judicial process. That levied this "penalty" against Iran. If you believe otherwise, the burden of proof is still yours.