SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Ishmael · 10-02-06, 07:37 PM

I don't think they planned the attack but I do believe they were aware of the very distinct possibility and ignored the plethora of warnings because a catastrophic attack suited their purposes in wanting to invade Iraq. Consider what we know:

1.The Project For a New American Century publishes an article in the mid-90's calling for an invasion of Iraq and recognizing that it will probably take "A Pearl Harbor-type event" to rally the nation for such an invasion.

2.According to Richard Clarke, the Bush transition team didn't want to hear about al-Qaeda and wanted only briefings on Iraq. At the same time, they hosted emissaries from the Taliban in order to secure an oil pipeline deal to connect the oil fields of Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent. They promote closer ties to Pakistan and their Interservices Intelligence Agency who not only financed and promoted the Taliban but also had members linked to providing money to the 9/11 hijackers.

3. As the 9 months between the inauguration and the attack unfold, Clarke's group is demoted and ignored. Meanwhile, alarm bells are sounding around the nation as FBI reports Muslim men taking flight school instructions only in flying without training in take-offs or landings. According to Woodward's new book, Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor is told in July by both Tenant and Negroponte that al-Qaeda is planning an attack in the US using hijacked airliners as weapons. We also have the Presidential Daily Briefing in August warning of similar attacks. All of these warnings are ignored and minimized.

4.The attacks happen and the US goes into Afghanistan. However, they use local surrogate militias under the alleigance of local warlords allowing the top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to escape Tora Bora into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier.

5. Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners that are captured are tortured, providing unreliable information that is used by the Bush administration to make their case for the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld draws down troop levels from Afghanistan and prepares to invade Iraq.

6. The US goes into Iraq with the fig leaf of the Coalition of the Willing. The Army they send is enough to defeat the Iraqi Army, but not enough to secure order in the country.
They disband the Iraqi Army and send the troops home with their arms while looting breaks out. Rumsfeld dismisses the looting as normal. The Coalition Provisional Authority is organised to run Iraqi reconstruction, but the main Hiring executive, Jim O'Beirne is more interested in hiring Bush loyalists than in hiring expeienced and competent people with backgrounds in such reconstruction. Halliburton and other US corporations are given no-bid contracts. In the ensuing months, billions of dollars disappear. The companies tasked with reconstruction hire people from other third-world countries instead of Iraqis fueling the growth of the insurgency.

7. As the insurgency developsand increases, Rumsfeld and the Bush Admin. deny it is occuring. Meanwhile, US troops spend their time in an endless cycle of clearing insurgents out of towns then move on only to have the insurgents come back as US troop strength is not large enough to hold what has already been secured. Meanwhile, the Abu Ghraib Scandal breaks further fueling the insurgency. Even though evidence and photos show that the torture is authorised by the highest levels of the DOD and the Bush Admin, and that private contracors/mercenaries from Blackwater are present during the tortue sessions, no officer, contractor or civilian official is ever punished or even charged. In the ensuing Courts-martial of the reservist enlisted men tried. The General in charge of interrogations for Iraq and Guantanamo Bay invokes his 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.

8. throughout all of this, The Republican controlled congress never has one hearing of oversight on any of these issues, essentially becoming a rubber-stamp for the administration's increasingly failed and incompetent actions and policies.

There's more I can point to, but my fingers are cramping. Is it any wonder that any reasonably intelligent person familiar with the history might think that it was an inside job?

10-02-06, 07:37 PM	#4
Ishmael Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morro Bay, Ca. Posts: 659 Downloads: 79 Uploads: 0	I don't think they planned the attack but I do believe they were aware of the very distinct possibility and ignored the plethora of warnings because a catastrophic attack suited their purposes in wanting to invade Iraq. Consider what we know: 1.The Project For a New American Century publishes an article in the mid-90's calling for an invasion of Iraq and recognizing that it will probably take "A Pearl Harbor-type event" to rally the nation for such an invasion. 2.According to Richard Clarke, the Bush transition team didn't want to hear about al-Qaeda and wanted only briefings on Iraq. At the same time, they hosted emissaries from the Taliban in order to secure an oil pipeline deal to connect the oil fields of Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent. They promote closer ties to Pakistan and their Interservices Intelligence Agency who not only financed and promoted the Taliban but also had members linked to providing money to the 9/11 hijackers. 3. As the 9 months between the inauguration and the attack unfold, Clarke's group is demoted and ignored. Meanwhile, alarm bells are sounding around the nation as FBI reports Muslim men taking flight school instructions only in flying without training in take-offs or landings. According to Woodward's new book, Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor is told in July by both Tenant and Negroponte that al-Qaeda is planning an attack in the US using hijacked airliners as weapons. We also have the Presidential Daily Briefing in August warning of similar attacks. All of these warnings are ignored and minimized. 4.The attacks happen and the US goes into Afghanistan. However, they use local surrogate militias under the alleigance of local warlords allowing the top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to escape Tora Bora into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. 5. Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners that are captured are tortured, providing unreliable information that is used by the Bush administration to make their case for the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld draws down troop levels from Afghanistan and prepares to invade Iraq. 6. The US goes into Iraq with the fig leaf of the Coalition of the Willing. The Army they send is enough to defeat the Iraqi Army, but not enough to secure order in the country. They disband the Iraqi Army and send the troops home with their arms while looting breaks out. Rumsfeld dismisses the looting as normal. The Coalition Provisional Authority is organised to run Iraqi reconstruction, but the main Hiring executive, Jim O'Beirne is more interested in hiring Bush loyalists than in hiring expeienced and competent people with backgrounds in such reconstruction. Halliburton and other US corporations are given no-bid contracts. In the ensuing months, billions of dollars disappear. The companies tasked with reconstruction hire people from other third-world countries instead of Iraqis fueling the growth of the insurgency. 7. As the insurgency developsand increases, Rumsfeld and the Bush Admin. deny it is occuring. Meanwhile, US troops spend their time in an endless cycle of clearing insurgents out of towns then move on only to have the insurgents come back as US troop strength is not large enough to hold what has already been secured. Meanwhile, the Abu Ghraib Scandal breaks further fueling the insurgency. Even though evidence and photos show that the torture is authorised by the highest levels of the DOD and the Bush Admin, and that private contracors/mercenaries from Blackwater are present during the tortue sessions, no officer, contractor or civilian official is ever punished or even charged. In the ensuing Courts-martial of the reservist enlisted men tried. The General in charge of interrogations for Iraq and Guantanamo Bay invokes his 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. 8. throughout all of this, The Republican controlled congress never has one hearing of oversight on any of these issues, essentially becoming a rubber-stamp for the administration's increasingly failed and incompetent actions and policies. There's more I can point to, but my fingers are cramping. Is it any wonder that any reasonably intelligent person familiar with the history might think that it was an inside job?