December 24 2001
Sept 11- Bush and Cheney were involved !
COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART, BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA.
THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS.
PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN
PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.
PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER
11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED
THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH
FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES
IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS.
PART 1
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told
him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at
the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept
18, 2001). (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
)
People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous,
comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to
organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against
Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11,
and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn’t matter how angry
the USA might have been, it’s just not logistically possible. There are those
who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time.
This simply isn’t possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of
the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq
in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a
negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA
was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily
capable of doing so.
And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly
razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days,
then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on
the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced
back to the point that I have just been making.
Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the
culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to
have. While it’s reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring
to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone’s guilt that you are
prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive
to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few
hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours,
it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden’s guilt. Within
a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression,
"his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan.
This is clearly ridiculous. It’s not even enough time to set up a committee
to discuss the personnal and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed
in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But
it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn’t care who
did September 11. They were happy to use it as oppotunity to attack anyone at
whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges
that they were already making plans for Afghanistan.
These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack
on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in
itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September
11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most
plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already
planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising
September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack
in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better,
from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned.
While this is possible, it isn’t really probable. It’s just too convenient.
It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point,
assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan:
1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely
suprised by it, but saw the propaganda oppotunities for its forthcoming war,
and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits.
2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew
in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for
propaganda reasons.
3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated
plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan.
While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios,
common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned,
then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require
us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by
chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid
October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was
coming. But this doesn’t make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid
October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz
Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which
they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept
11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around
it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was
already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to
deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1)
That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within
a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot
possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose
Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and
Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat.
The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios
with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion
by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation.
PART 2
On the morning of September 11, the largest aviation crisis in the history of
the world took place. Before continuing, it is relevant to examine the standard
proceedures which take place in the event of a hijacking, the approach of an
unauthorised or unidentified aircraft, the failure of communications, or any
other unscheduled aviation activity, regardless of whether any immediate threat
is perceived. The air force is alerted and jet fighters are put into the air
immediately. According to a report on a Russian website, the commander in chief
of the Russian air force says that such a situation can be responded to in about
1 minute. In fact, he said that the terrorist attack on Sept 11, should have
been impossible to carry out, if normal security proceedures were in place,
and claimed that Russia itself had easily dealt with a similar situation there,
although he declined to give any details. (http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm)
The purpose of interception is to closely shadow the plane, thus giving exact
information about its movements, possibly keeping radio contact, and perhaps
learning more of the pilots situation or intentions. It also provides the oppotunity,
but not the obligation, to force down or shoot down the plane, if it becomes
apparrent that it’s intentions are hostile. Interception itself, is not an agressive
move. There are standardised signals, which are part of the aviation code, which
an airforce pilot will give to a civillian airliner if radio contact is unavailable.
When pilots are off course and disorientated, the fighter pilot will guide them
back to the correct course. But the airforce also has a record of having previously
forced down, or shot down civillian aircraft which were behaving in a manner
which was considered to be a deliberate agressive flouting of aviation rules,
likely to present a danger. While the end result of September 11, large commercial
airliners flying into buildings, is unprecedented, the events leading up to
the crashes are routine. Planes off course, transponders not working, reports
of hijackings. Such events are handled regularly by the US airforce with expert
efficiency. Normally, interception of these planes would have been well and
truly in place, before it became apparrent that their intentions were hostile.
What is unusual about September 11 , is that these normal airforce proceedures,
activated automatically, and without the need for high level authority simply
didn’t happen. The routine proceedures were waived for every one of the planes
involved.
The 4 hijacked planes were all being tracked on Federal Aviation Authority radar,
and air traffic controllers across the country were in communication with each
other. Since no junoir officer would have the authority to override the interception
routines. the failure to activate them, can only have come from orders to that
effect, from the very highest levels. In the case of the plane which struck
the pentagon, United Airlines flight 77, It should have been intercepted, as
it approached Washington, by fighters from Andrews airbase, a mere 10 miles
from the pentagon (see AG 631). In
fact in should have been intercepted a lot earlier than that. By 9.05 at the
very latest, the Pentagon knew that two hijacked planes, had struck the world
trade centre, and that at least one more hijacked plane was at large. It may
not have been clear by this time, that flight 77 was headed to Washington, but
it was clear that a terrorist attack of massive proportions was taking place,
and that at least one more plane probably had intentions to strike somewhere.
The fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground. By 9.25 at the very latest,
it was clear that this plane was headed to Washington. The Andrews airbase fighters
stayed on the ground, and whichever squadron was responsible for covering the
area where the plane was originally hijacked, had also failed to activate. At
9.41, just 2 minutes before the plane struck the pentagon, two F16 fighters
from Langley airbase, were dispatched to intercept it. Langley airbase is 130
miles away!They had no hope whatsoever of intercepting it. Meanwhile the fighters
at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground!The official story is that no fighters
were available at Andrews that day. This is clearly a lie. The specific mandate
of the fighters at Andrews airbase, is to protect WashingtonDC. And if none
were available, how did they miraculously appear in the sky over Washinton DC,
a few minutes after the pentagon was hit? And do they seriously expect us to
believe that the Pentagon is only defended on a part time basis? Another official
story is that, they thought at the time, that the plane was targeting the White
House. So what? Isn't that even more reason to have activated the airforce?
And if that's what they thought, why was the White House, not evacuated until
2 minutes after the Pentagon crash? As far as I can make out the timetable,
that's about 10 minutes after the plane would have flown past the target, which
they allegedly thought it was heading to! Overall, 45 minutes passed between
the time that Flight 77’s transponder was turned off, (which is when automatic
interception proceedures should have begun, even on a normal day), and the time
that it crashed into the pentagon. That there was no interception, is all the
more incredible, given that at the the time it’s transponder was turned off,
it was already 10 minutes since one hijacked airliner, United airlines flight
175, had crashed into the world trade centre, and about 5 minutes, since it
had become known, that a third plane, American airlines flight 11, had been
hijacked. At 9.03, flight 11, also hit the world trade centre, and still no
movement at Andrews. By 9.25, there was no doubt that flight 77 was headed to
Washington, and still no movement at Andrews, and no evacuation of either the
Pentagon or White House. But the Andrews fighters got into the air, and the
evacuation of the White House took place, just for show it would seem, immediately
after flight 77 had completed it’s mission. So this plane, at a time when a
security crisis of huge proportions was taking place, was able to turn off its
transponder, change course, and fly 300 miles, being tracked by radar the whole
way, without being intercepted. And then approach the nations capital, fly past
the white house, and crash into the pentagon, without even being challenged.
At 10.10, it was known that a fourth plane, United airlines flight 93 had been
hijacked. This was also spared the normal practice of interception. It crashed
in Pensalvania at 10.37. (Note:There is some discrepency between different information
sources, about the exact times involved with this one, I will confirm the exact
time in a further update, once I can establish it for certain. )It’s difficult
to say exactly what the official stories are, concerning the failure to intercept
the two planes which hit the WTC, because the stories keep changing, but it
is has been admitted by Norad that it was alerted to a hijacking as early as
8.35, but didn’t activate any airforce action until after the pentagon was hit,
while at the same time admitting that interception of civilian aircraft by jet
fighters is a routine proceedure. Their story regarding flight 93 is that they
could have shot it down if they had wanted to. This is most unconvincing. If
they "could have shot it down", then why hadn't they at least gone through the
routine proceedure of intercepting it and checking it out? They had 27 minutes
to do so, and after all, there had already been 3 suicide crashes that morning.
Exactly how were they going to shoot it down? With a plane which wasn't there?
With a long range missile, when interception by fighters would have been far
more safe, and would have also provided the possibility of forcing it down,
and also given the oppotunity to check with greater certainty that that was
the only option? And when were they going to shoot it down? How long were they
going to wait? Vice president Cheney, in response to questioning about this
bizarre scenario, has deliberately tried to confuse interception with shooting
down, trying to create the impression, that the reason nothing was done, was
because officials were agonizingly biting their nails, over whether to take
the dramatic step of shooting down a plane full of innocent civillians. Cheny
knows very well that interception, while giving the oppotunity to shoot down
the plane, does not commit one to that action. And also, at the same time that
Cheny is spinning this smokescreen, they're telling us that the only reason
interception didn't happen in the case of flight 77, is because no fighters
were available at Andrews. Make up your minds!And also, that in the case of
flight 93, that they "could have shot it down" even though no interception had
taken place, which could only be interpreted as meaning that they were prepared
to use a missile. If that's the case why such agonising over the process of
interception? And how does Cheney's statement reconcile, with Norad's admission
that interception is a routine proceedure?
There is no possible explanation for these events, and the extraordinarily garbled
confusion of unconvincing cover up stories, except that to say that someone
very high up in the Airforce or the Bush Administration was determined to nobble
the air force and make sure that the attacks were successful. We will now turn
our attention the president, and demonstrate conclusivley that he was involved.
At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at
a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children. It is curious
to say the least, that 14 minutes later, at 9.00, it seems that no one had informed
the president of the emergency which was unfolding across the nation. Not only
had the world trade centre been hit, air traffic controllers were aware of at
least one more hijacked plane at large, and may have been aware of 2 by this
time. It must have also been apparent by this time that the air force was standing
idly by, waiving normal proceedures of intervention. At 9.00, the president
had settled down with second grade children, and was reading about a litttle
girls’s pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew
Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear. According
to reporters at the scene, the president "turned briefly sombre. " Others who
claim to have seen footage of this event describe his reaction as more like
a nod of confirmation to something which he had been expecting. It becomes even
more unbelievable. The president did not react by leaving the school, convening
an emergency meeting, and intervening to ensure that the airforce did it’s job.
He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but
simply continued with the reading class, at the same time as, at 9.06, the NY
police department was broadcasting "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the
Pentagon" (NY Daily News Sept 12). The situation, then, at 9.05, is that at
least 3 planes have been hijacked this morning, and are known to be on terrorist
suicide missions, two have already struck their targets, with spectacular effect,
at least one is known to be still in the air, the airforce is doing nothing,
and the President, who has apparently only just been informed, decides to continue
reading to children about a little girl’s pet goat!
He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes!
In an interview for newsweek, Bush recalls the moment he was told. "I'm the
commander in chief, and the country had just come under attack. " So why did
he continue to find pet goats such a fascinating subject for the next 24 minutes ?
Doesn't this prove that he's indictable for high treason ?
[To see a video of Bush in the
school, and this evidence of high treason :
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/bvl.htm]
By 9.30 the president had had
enough of pet goats and decided that it might be time to say something about
the terrorist attacks, but not to do anything about them. Rather than calling
an emergency meeting, or taking direct command of the airforce, or at least
demanding to know what the hell was going on with the airforce, he decided to
stay at the school, and give a television address to the nation, to tell them
what everybody already knew, that there had been an "apparrent terrorist attack".
A totally useless response, a blatant evasion of his duty to do everything possible
to take command of the situation, even at the same time as flight 77, known,
more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked ,had now reached Washington,
being tracked by radar, and the Andrews fighters were still on the ground. Bush
either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care. By 9.35,
as the president was wasting his time with the pointless address to the nation,
the third plane was over Washington, had flown past the white house and, all
the time being tracked by radar, done a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, which
is not being evacuated, even though staff there have already heard about the
twin attacks on the World trade centre, and were already nervous about also
being a target, even before this plane approached Washington.
Forty minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that, yet another
plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president
again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce. He was
clearly involved in active collusion to ensure that the attacks were a success.
To suggest that such actions were simply a result of incompetence and confusion
is not credible. But for those who wish to cling to this implausible explanation
of incompetence, I now cross reference back to part 1, and the point about it
not being credible that the USA could organise the attack on Afghanistan in
a mere 25 days. If we are asked to believe that the USA military is so razor
sharp, that it can execute an operation of this type within a time that defies
what is known to be logistically possible, then how can we be simultaneously
expected to believe that the same country is capable of such a staggering, inconceivable
level of incompetence, in instituting routine domestic security measures? It
allowed, without even a challenge, the success of an attack, which the commander
in chief of the Russian airforce claims, should have been impossible to carry
out. Was this blundering, useless, confused thing, called the US airforce, suddenly,
in the space of 25 days, transformed into a lethal, efficient fighting force,
that has reduced the Taliban to nothing, in impressively quick time? The two
scenarios are mutually exclusive. To give any credence whatsoever to the posibilty
that the highly successful, and well organised attack on Afghanistan was organised
in 25 days, as a response to September 11, we must then, on the balance of the
evidence, accept the events of September 11 as conclusive proof of collusion,
which creates the thorny problem of why there was a retaliatory response to
something which USA authorities were themselves involved in. Or alternatively,
if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the possibility that the events
of September 11 were innocent incompetence on a staggering scale, we must be
highly suspicious, to say the least, that the attack on Afghanistan was already
into an advanced stage of planning by Sept 11, in which case we are again asking
ourselves to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just
happened, by co-incidence, to take place at a time which could not have been
more convenient, from a propaganda point of view, for the already planned war.
Just the raw facts of what actually happened on the morning of September 11
are by themselves enough to conclusively prove that USA authorities were involved
in collusion. But there is a deeper pattern to the evidence which hammers this
home even harder.
The pattern that is emerging, so far, is that if we wish to believe that USA
authorities are innocent of any involvement in Septemeber 11, and that the attack
on Afghanistan is genuinely a response to the events of that day, we find ourselves,
in every aspect so far examined, in the awkward position of having to continually
choose, one after the other, the scenario which common sense tells us is the
least likely, rather than the most, further complicated by a tangle of mutually
exclusive scenarios, whereas, when we postulate the opposite theory, everything
falls into place, as perfectly obvious events. In the light of this evidence,
there appears to be no rational, objective basis why we should not be suggesting
with some confidence that USA authorities were involved in September 11, and
had pre planned the attack on Afghanistan. The only basis for refusing to do
so, seems to be based on preconceived bias, rather than a genuine attempt to
examine the evidence objectively. And if it is to be claimed that the evidence
for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do that to its
own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist
attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously
classified "Northwoods" document demonstrates that in 1962, the CIA seriously
considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens,
in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but the favoured
option was the shooting down of a US civilian airliner. (http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm
)
And there’s plenty more: The problem of the mutually exclusive scenarios regarding
the competance, or lack of, concerning the US air force, repeats itself in relation
to US intelligence services. How is it that they can have had no warning whatsoever
of the largest, most difficult and complicated terrorist attack in the history
of the world, but then be allegedly able to nail the culprit, almost beyond
doubt, in less than a day, and beyond any doubt at all in 2 days? If they genuinely
had no warning of the attack, then we can only assume that they are lying, when
within 2 days, thay claim to be so confident of Bin Laden’s guilt, that they
are already threatening to attack Afghanistan, in response. Or if they had some
forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, if they were allegedly
on the alert for "something" from Bin Laden, then the inaction of the president
and the airforce on the morning of Semptember 11 is confirmed even more conclusively,
if that’s possible, as collusion rather than incompetence. Strong supporting
evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a
curious aside to the Pentagon attack. The plane which flew into the Pentagon,
had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot
to cripple the Pentagon’s key operations and kill many important senior staff.
But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle
just a week before. (Source, CNN TV report on the morning of Sept 12, Australian
time) All the important people and operations had moved to other side, and the
unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Very
little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon. They
swapped sides a week before the attack! This is powerful evidence that someone
very high up in the Pentagon knew that the attack was coming. Once again, to
postulate otherwise means choosing the least likely explanation on the basis
of a preconceived conclusion. How many times are we prepared to do that?
Now, we turn in detail, to the totally unsubstantiated allegations against Osama
Bin Laden:
Remember that from day 1, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence
against Bin Laden. We had, in fact, up until mid December, nothing but the continued
repetition of his name, as if by repeating something often enough, we can somehow
make it true.
Then came the video tape, which, is a complete joke. This is an age of technology
where film of crystal clear quality can show Forest Gump shaking hands with
JFK, where simulated cyclones can be animated into a movie set, where dinasours,
extinct for 200 million years can be shown so clearly, that you would swear
they were there. All this is done with such startling reality, that the only
way we know it’s not true is that we have pre-existing knowledge that it’s a
fake.
By comparison, the video tape of Bin Laden, is of such poor quality that we
have no way of even knowing for sure whether it’s actually him on the tape.
In feature movies of top quality, it is common practice to use a stand-in to
replace the real actor for much of the filming. An extra of similar hight and
build, is given the same clothing and hair style, and the two are virtually
indistinguisable. Such a substitution would be even easier on a poor quality
video. And when the main charachter has a long beard, a headress, and loose
clothing, it's an absolute snap. On the Bin Laden tape, the poor quality prevents
any analysis of whether the dialogue is genuinely live, or overdubbed. We also
have had to rely on translations of dubious independence. The timeline of when
and where the tape was allegedly made, and where it was allegedly found is also,
although possible, somewhat perplexing.
Allegedly, it was made in Kandahar on November 9, and found in a house in Jalalbad.
Jalalabad fell to anti-taliban forces on November 14. This means that there
was only 4 days in which the newly made tape could have been taken from Kandahar
to Jalalabad, which was already under fierce seige and serious threat by then.
So, we are asked to believe that upon making the tape, someone almost immediately,
for no apparrent reason, took it to Jalalbad, which was about to fall, and then
conveniently left it there, to be found by anti taliban forces. It’s not impossible,
but it does have the strong smell of a set up. Also, according to the Weekend
Australian of Dec 15/16, the sequence of real time events had been reversed
on the tape. This means it must have been edited. Why, and by whom? (A question
not examineed by the press of course, although I suppose we should be grateful
that at least it was reported.) Also, did the date stamp of Nov 9, as reported
on television, refer to the date of the filming, or the date that the edited
version was finalised? If it was the former, which would seem to be more likely,
then this leaves even less time for it to have been taken from the Taliban stronghold
of Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was on the point of being overrun. It's highly
supicious. Or was it edited by US authorities? They've been forced to admit
that the "translation" they've released is doctored. Of course they don't state
it in those terms but try to cloud it in euphemisms. "The tape is NOT a verbatim
translation of every word spoken during the meeting, but it does convey the
messages and the information flow" says a department of defense spokesman. "The
translation is what it is. We made it very clear that it's not a literal translation"
says the pentagon. But will the pentagon work at a more complete translation?
No. Will the full transcript be released to the public? No. (http://news.
ninemsn.com.au/world/story_23359.asp )
To be objective, none of this proves that the tape is a fake, but equally, it’s
authenticity can hardly be claimed as proven either. And even if it is genuine,
we've been given a selectively edited version of it. If this is the only evidence
against Bin Laden, then the case is in an awful lot of trouble. And what other
evidence is there?
It’s no surprise, therefore that no formal charges have been laid against Bin
Laden. The normal practice of the law is that it’s neccesary to actually have
evidence, in order to lay charges.
The irony, is that if the tape is genuine, it only serves to prove that Bin
Laden was NOT the mastermind behind the attacks. While it would indicate that
he had some prior knowledge of it, and was therefore, by definition involved
in some capacity, he clearly states(if we accept the tape as clearly stating
anything) that he was told about the impending the attack 5 days before it happened.
If that’s the case, he can’t possibly have been the main organiser. Who told
him about it? Presumably the person(s) who actually organised it, still unknown,
but definitely not Bin Laden. In all the frenzied outrage against Bin Laden
that this convenient tape has engendered, it seems that very few people have
actually viewed the tape carefully enough to ask the important question that
flows from Bin Laden’s admission to have been told about the attack 5 days in
advance. Who actually organised it?
Tape or no tape, if we think clearly and logically about the likelihood of Bin
Laden being involved, we actually find that it’s impossible, unless he was involved
in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context
of the USA knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him
to do it. The point has already been made about the ridiculously short span
of time which passed, before Bin Laden was pronounced guilty, and the fact that
this sets up mutually exclusive scenarios. If he was involved, then it can’t
have been a surprise, which in turn proves beyond any doubt that the inaction
of the airforce and the president on September 11 was collusion, rather than
incompetence. But the evidence doesn’t end there. It is curious to say the least,
that no other suspect was ever even contemplated, however briefly (even though
the US has plenty of enemies.) This becomes downright suspicious if we think
clearly about the logistics of actually setting up a real inquiry into the events
of September 11. Firstly, let’s put it in context. It took 17 years to catch
the unabomber, and it took 7 weeks of investigation into September 11 merely
to confirm the nationalities of the 19 alleged hijackers, while the person who
masterminded the whole thing was allegedly known within a few hours. I don’t
think so!
Now, imagine that we’re actually trying to set up an inquiry into September
11 in the first minutes after the attack, while the dust is still settling.
And it would have had to have been literally, in the first minutes, because
they claim to have had him nailed within a few hours. Who did this terrible
thing? While a list of suspects might spring to mind, it’s not as if we could
walk outside and see the letters "Bin Laden" written in clouds up in the sky.
Was not Saddam Hussein also a suspect? Libya? A Palestinian group? Cuba? Russia?
China? Local right wing militias? Anti-globalisation fanatics? Syria? Someone
completely unknown and unexpected? etc etc. The list of possibilites which would
spring to mind would be huge. Bin Laden would have only been one of these. Where
do we start, in setting up such an inquiry? Firstly, we obviously need to recruit
people with aviation expertise to the inquiry. But they must also be people
with appropriate security clearances. Start drawing up a list of possible people
who might be useful in this context. We need people with architectural expertise,
to examine the exact nature of the collapse of the world trade centre. Was it
only the planes which caused the collapse, or were explosives also used? Again
start making a list. We need people who’s main field is airport security. Did
someone in the airports deliberately let the hijackers through? Start drawing
up a list. We need people with financial expertise to try to trace where some
of the considerable funds needed for this operation came from. Start drawing
up a list. We need to examine immigration records and cross reference these
with the granting of pilot’s licences. We need an urgent review of internal
security, in case it was an "inside job. " Such a review is a delicate operation
to say the least.
As you can see, it’s quite a task, simply to start drawing up the lists of possible
suspects, possible personnel for the inquiry, and the main angles of investigation
for the inquiry.
Then all of these people have to contacted, and gotten together in a group,
or at least hooked up with communications to each other. But hang on! Aircraft
are grounded. Even the president's having trouble getting around. Many communication
networks are down, many financial instutions closed, and large parts of New
York and Washington are inaccessible. And the whole country's crawling with
security blockades. How do we get hold of the people we want? How do we get
them all together, and start delegating responsibilities? Did they all miraculously
happen to have been hanging out together, in the one place, which was also the
place where the inquiry co-ordinater was hanging out, so there was no need to
wait till people could get back from other assignments, in various parts of
the US, or overseas?
To have even drawn up a list of possible suspects, prospective personnel, and
basic strategies for the inquiry, within 2 days, would have been an astonishing,
perhaps impossible task, under these circumstances. To have actually held a
meeting of the senior agents to be involved in the inquiry, within less than
3 days would probably have been impossible. And yet, by this time, the US had
already claimed to have held it’s "inquiry" , and established Bin Laden’s guilt.
How? Was anything, ever, more obviously, a set up?
And then, once the basic parameters of the inquiry were established, and the
nuts and bolts of the everyday research and investigation were begun, in however
many weeks it would have taken to get to that stage, it’s not as if all the
inquiry personnel just sit around and say "what do we think? Bin Laden?" and
everyone says "yeah", so the team leader phones the president and says "Bin
Laden" and the president says"that’s good enough for me" and immediately threatens
to attack Afghanistan. Extensive field work, and computer work would have to
be done. The reports would have to be written up, summarised, checked for security
clearances, printed, and given to the president and his top advisers, who would
have to read at least the summaries, and then discuss them with the invetsigation
panel. And all this was done in less than 12 hours, in a country which was in
chaos and confusion at the time? This is one of the most preposterous suggestions
of this whole affair.
And even in the unlikely event that any evidence whatsoever, could have been
gathered in this time, it’s one thing to start to focus on a main suspect and
feel that you may be getting close to a conclusion, but it’s another altogether
to be so certain that you’re threatening a war over it. It simply isn’t possible.
And even if it was, it again sets up the mutually exclusive scenario, of how
someone could have organised such a huge operation in total secrecy, such that
it took authorities completely by surprise, but at the same time have left his
"fingerprints everywhere", evidence lying around in copious quantities, to the
extent that guilt was obvious within a few hours, even under the difficult circumstances
that Amercia found itself in, for several days after the attack.
Tony Blair confirmed that this whole thing is a lie, with a careless statement
made at the beginning of November in response to polls showing that support
for the war was falling in Britain. He said. "There is no doubt about Bin Laden’s
guilt. The evidence against him, first a trickle, then a flow, has now become
a torrent. " (World news page on nine MSN website)This statement was made nearly
two months after Septemeber 11. The key words are "trickle", "flow" "now" and
"torrent". Since they were already procaliaming Bin Laden almost certainly guilty,
within a few hours, Blair is inadverdently admitting that it was a lie. Did
the evidence progess from "trickle"to "flow" to "torrent" all in a few hours?
This would seem a very strange way to describe such a process, especially, when
the phrase was not employed until nearly two months later, and was described
as "has NOW become a torrent. " So, he is inadverdantly admitting that they
were already declaring Bin Laden guilty, and threatening Afghanistan, at a time
when the evidence was still only a "trickle". His words after all, not mine!(They
somehow knew at the time that it would become a "torrent" "later?) But a "torrent"
of evidence is apparently still not sufficient to lay any formal charges, or
release any of this "torrent" to the public?
An important question remains to be cleared up. The pilots were obviously on
a suicide mission, which is known to be a common theme amongst Middle Eastern,
Islamic terrorists, but totally foreign to American culture. It is difficult
to believe that Americans, or those loyal to the US would knowingly participate
in a suicide mission. But this doesn’t present any real problem for the scenario
which has been postulated. The obvious explanation is that some of the hijackers
were genuinely hostile to the USA, and were participating in an attack which
they thought would damage the US, unaware that they were pawns in a double play,
and were part of a larger CIA plan. In fact, in late November, media reports
began to emerge, that some of the hijackers may not have been aware that they
were about to participate in a suicide mission. I don’t know how this evidence
has emerged, or what the basis of it is, but that’s what’s been reported. (ABC
Newsradio report) This would fit very neatly with the rest of the information
we have. Some of those who were not aware that they would be committing suicide,
would have been the CIA operatives, probably ordered to set up the terrorists
and take part in the hijacking, while being kept in the dark about the full
extent of the plans, while those who were knowingly committing suicide, were
those genuinely hostile to the USA. (If this is the case, the final moments
of the black box flight recorder data, would make interesting listening, to
say the least. Is this why it’s being kept so quiet?).
It is clear that this could not have been organised without the use of pawns,
who thought that they were about to strike a blow against the US. This is where
Bin Laden fits in. He deceived and sacrificed his own people in the same way
that the Americans involved, deceived and sacrificed their's. The evidence that
Bin Laden and the CIA are in active co-operation in this atrocity will become
clearer in part 3. This might also explain the otherwise incomprensible scenario
of Bin Laden producing an incriminating video tape, and then immediately taking
it to a place where it was sure to fall into American hands.
PART 3
In fact, there is plenty of evidence to implicate Bin Laden, but the problem
is that it also implicates the Bush Adminsitration, the CIA , George Bush senior,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about
Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and
it’s allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family,
who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the
rest of it could not be further from the truth.
Bin Laden is well known as being a CIA operative. He had a close working relationship
with the CIA in the 1980’s. This isn’t denied by anyone. The claim is that they
have since fallen out, but this story is a lie.
For a start, many of the US military installations in the Middle east, to which
Bin Laden allegedly has a violent objection, were actually built by Bin Laden’s
construction company. There is a continuous history of close business ties between
the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, stretching back more than a decade,
and continuing to this day. (Wall Street Journal Sept 27 2001 and www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html
) The Bush Administration has attempted to throw a smokescreen over this by
claiming that the rest of Bin Laden's family has disowned him, but as we shall
see, this isn't true. The Bin Ladens are significant investors in the huge arms
dealing firm Carlyle group which, by it’s own boast, stands to make a lot of
money from the Afghanistan war. George Bush senior is a significant figure in
Carlyle group. Other major investors, or senior executives include ex British
PM, John Major, James A Baker, who was secretary of defence, under President
Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and former secretary of defence and deputy CIA director
Frank Carlucci, who is a fomer college classmate of current defence secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. A quote from Carlyle's company profile at hoover's online.
"Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list.
" "Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. " (www.hoovers.com/premium/profile/6/0,
2147, 42166, 00. html )
Neither can it be claimed that Bush senior was unaware of the Bin Laden’s shareholding.
He has met the Bin Laden family at least twice, in 1998 and in 2000, long after
Bin Laden had already been officially declared by the USA as the most wanted
man in the world, for alleged terrorist activities. Why was George Bush Sr.
meeting with this man's family, when the official story was that the Clinton
administration had already declared its determination to eliminate Al Qaida
and Bin Laden at any cost and by any means neccesary?
In 1995, US authorities named Bin Laden as a co-conspiritor in the 1993, WTC
bombing. But a year after this accusation, when the Sudanese government had
Bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the US, the US govenement
said it was not interested and told the Sudanese government to let him go to
Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has declared Bin Laden as the main
suspect in terrorist attacks on two US embassies, and for attacks against a
US warship and a US military barracks in the the Middle East (one of those which
Bin Laden’s construction company helped to build). And yet he was allowed to
invest, via his family, in Carlyle group and George Bush senior was meeting
with his family as recently as 2000. It is a lie that Bin Laden is estranged
from his family. Bin Laden is known to have talked regularly with his mother
and with other family members during this time of alleged estragement. In fact
when Bin Laden was hospitalised in Dubai, in July 2001, he is known to have
been visited by family members. And what was the most wanted terrorist in the
world doing in a Dubai hospital anyway? Why wasn’t he immediately arrested,
instead of being given hospital treatment, and then allowed to go free? During
this hospitalisation, he was also allegedly visited by the local CIA agent,
and by several prominent Saudis and Emiratis, also US allies. (Le
Figaro Nov 1 2001)
Furthermore, Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network, is known to have fought alongside
Nato forces, in the Kosovo liberation army, a terrorist group supported by the
CIA. ( www.thedubyareport.com/terrupdt.html and www.emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm
)It is no co-incidence that the Australian, David Hicks, who has been arrested
for fighting for the Taliban, has fought for Al Qaida in both the Kosovo Liberation
army, and the Taliban. So it appears that Bin Laden’s Al Qaida is our enemy
in Afghanistan, but our ally in Yugoslavia. Apparrently, Al Qaida is a liberation
force in Yugoslavia, but a terrorist group everywhere else. Furthermore, Pakistan,
another of our allies in the "war against terror" has also long been a supporter
of Al Qaida, and it is no coincidence that David Hicks also received training
in Pakistan. And we already know that Sept 11 was at least partially funded
by a Pakistani sheik, highly placed in the Pakistan secret service. He has not
been indicted or even pursued. Given that it was known that Bin Laden’s family
visited him in hospital in Dubai, it is curious that the Bush admistration and
the media continue with the lie that he is estranged from his family. While
this may be merely curious, it is scandalous that several members of the Bin
Laden family were in the US on September 11, and were allowed to leave a few
days later, without any questioning, given that the US had already declared
Bin Laden guilty without trial (or even charge).
The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in
its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and
has expressed frustration at the apparrent refusal to allow it to fully investigate
the events of September 11. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm
) It will be no surprise if Bin Laden miraculously escapes to another country,
giving the US the excuse to attack there. At the time of writing an update to
this, (Dec 20 2001), my guess is Iran. Let's see if I'm right.
PART 4
Some miscellaneous peices of information, and observations, which contribute
to the scenario outlined above. Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or
crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination
of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the
media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the
black box data. This is highly unusual. Is this information being censored?
A possible reason for this has already been alluded to.
In the first few hours after the attacks, there were immediately reports on
CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems
that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold
off before hand. There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may
have profited from their actions. For "terrorists", subsitute, "Bin Laden".
Within a few hours, the media was already into an unquestioning hysteria of
Bin Laden bashing. Bin Laden must have been insider trading, we were told. A
tautological loop had already been established. Whoever had done the terrorist
attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the
attacks, then it must have been Bin Laden who was insider trading. Since we
knew that Bin Laden had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks.
We were assuured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital
question. The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate
that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative
powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if
it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who
knew about the terrorist attacks before hand, which gives us a pretty good idea
about who did it. Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the
media, almost as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold
promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been
made. Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Laden’s guilt. And it is
information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security
implications. And yet this aspect of the investigation (if it is still proceeding
at all) is being kept very quiet. One can only assume, that it began to turn
up answers which US authorities did not want anyone to know. Given what we know
about the close business relationship of the Bush and Bin Laden families, this
is hardly surprising.
However, one financial fact which is known, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist,
highly placed in the Pakistani secret service (our allies in the "war against
terror") wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the Sept 11
group, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report)Although this fact
is known, and publicly available, the USA is quite uninterested in pursuing
any action against this person, in spite of President Bush’s huffing and puffing
that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our
allies, it seems. The Sheik was forced to resign his position, once his involvement
in September 11 became known. Forced to resign? No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan
until they hand him over? No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state? On
the contrary, the USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world
(apart from itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having
been involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan
into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden, while
showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose complicity
in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied by anyone.
The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country which harbours him.
In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in the war AGAINST terrorism!
On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA,
by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have
been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the maximum possible
damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time
that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was
sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USA’s government in one hit,
could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11.
Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown
and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It
is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they
thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were confident
enough to go for the pentagon.
In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by
September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured,
not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official.
No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to power, trasnsport,
communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the
US was(allegedly) able to organise a war in record time, despite having had
a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about how that reshuffle a week before,
meant that the Pentagon was able to get on with business, almost unhampered!)
While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage
to general public was enormous, in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while
giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA’s ability
to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be
an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of
the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing
the targets more sensibly.
IMPLICATIONS
It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a continuation
of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to
have murdered (as of 1990 )a minimum of 6 million civillians around the world,
in covert CIA operations ,over the previous 30 years, and to have , at any one
time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries. ("The
Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell) Up until now, people in the West have been
safe. The game has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands
of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the
wave of terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they
are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom
of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.
Consider the following domestic developments since September 11.
In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or evidence,
laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited power to monitor
and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and intercept email and internet
traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert law enforcement agencies, as well
as sweeping new powers of arrest, surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist"
organisations to be defined according to political belief not according to any
evidence that they are prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation
activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under the
new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens party is
now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be tried in military,
rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of the trial, and no right
of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations between the accused and their
solicitors. (That’s if they even get a trial)
In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House of
Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks of civil
liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British cabinet recently
described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the past, in the post-September
11 world. "
In Australia: laws for 48 hours
detention of anyone, without legal representation, even if they are not suspected
of terrorism, but may have information which might be useful. At the time of
writing this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government
will shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed
by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is that
there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the west now,
anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all civil rights, and
anybody can be arbitarily accused.
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would approve enthusiastically.
All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction
to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these laws are being drawn
up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered
it, the scenario is truly chilling.
And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the first
time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed president, while
the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the extraordinary resources
which were poured into George W Bush’s republican nomination push, against other
candidates, who were far better qualified to take on Gore, followed by an election
which was clearly rigged, it becomes obvious that George W Bush was always going
to be president, no matter what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back
well before November 2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been
specifically planned by then, I can’t say, but it’s clear that the wider agenda
had been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who
is a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is
set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA which
helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man who was
meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably for business
purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is that the President
is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the back of this war, and
it would appear that the alleged target of the war is also set to make a tidy
profit. Along with the secretary of state. A conflict, scripted by the protaganists,
where they are the only people who don’t get hurt.
WHY?
The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . In fact Donald
Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost defence
budgets. I'll bet that Carlyle group, and Rumsfeld's old buddy, the chairman
of the company, will get a tidy share of it. Colin Powell appears to have the
snout in the trough as well, unless he's severed all his former ties with Carlyle
group and disposed of his shareholding, in which case I apologise. Can someone
find out if this is the case?The president's father will certainly be making
a lot of money, out of increased European defence budgets. (Incidently, Bush
senior's grandfather was also an arms dealer, and didn't mind doing business
with the Nazis.) (http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm
) But the wider agenda is the pursuit of the huge unexploited reserves of oil
and gas under the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran,
I would suggest, not for much longer if the USA has it’s way. It has been US
policy since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the
Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan.
Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves. For years now,
US covert foreign policy has been to sponsor terrorist organisations in the
south of the former Soviet Union, in order to nibble away the area of Russian
territory which borders the Caspian sea, and Afghanistan. This process is now
almost complete with breakaway governments having been succesfully formed in
Kazakshtan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygyzstan, Georgia, and
Azerbaijan. Only the the area to the North of the last two, now needs to be
broken off, for Russia to lose it’s territorial rights to the Caspian Sea. Please
note that I have no problem, in principle with local regional governments being
formed to free people from the hegemeony of large powers such as Russia, but
the reality is that the local breakaway movements, which may have been genuine
in their origin, have been distorted into self-interested terrorist movements
by covert CIA action, and the new autonomous countries will now simply become
subject to US hegemony, rather than Russian, and rather than being genuine expressions
of local culture, identity and self determination, will be dominated by local
tyrants and terrorists doing corrupt deals for the sake of their own power.
The US is more than happy to talk business, in fact that’s the whole idea of
setting up these local tyrants. Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, at the time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, proudly described
his policy achievements in Afghanistan, in the following terms:
The USA, by stirring up local uprisings, did everything possible to goad the
Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and once it had achieved this, then backed
the other side (The Taliban). This had a twofold purpose. It wasted Soviet resources
in a long war of attrition, which they couldn’t win, and it destabilised a part
of the world which was strategically important, to the USA
Some direct quotes from Brzezinski:
"We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability
that they would. "
"Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect
of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it?The
day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to president Carter.
We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR it’s Vietnam war."
( http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
)
So, the 20-year civil war which has ravaged Afghanistan, and caused such apalling
death, poverty and misery, was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA, who
backed the Taliban all the way through, and is now giving them, their final
"reward. " Furthermore, the last quote from Brzezenski is a tacit admission
that much of the antagonism towards the West, amongst Muslims, was deliberately
engineered by the US, as part of its destabilisation plans for the Middle East
and South Asia. I won't go into this, any further, but considerable coverage
is given to this aspect of the history, at the first website referred to, at
the end of this document. This US plan is so far-reaching that they may find
it neccesary to pound the whole of South Asia into the ground, in order to achieve
it. One way or another, they must control all of the aforementioned countries,
as well as Iran and Pakistan. Some are likley to cave in out of a combination
of intimidation and bribery, as is so far the case in Pakistan. Others may need
to be attacked. The September 11 events gave the USA a blank cheque to attack
any country in the world, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". The three
latest countries(at the time of writing this) to be named as targets in the
war against terror, are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, three countries we’ve heard
very little about, previously, in relation to terrorism. But surpise, surprise,
one only needs to glance at a map of the world, to see their strategic significance.
Somalia and Yemen, between them, form both sides of the mouth of the gulf of
Aden, which is the entrance to the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, and therefore,
the shortest route, between Europe, and the Indian ocean, where it borders South
Asia. Control of these countries, by the US would also place extra pressure
on Saudi Arabia, and Eygpt to continue with US-friendly policies. Sudan forms
most of the southern edge of the Red Sea. Iraq is strategic because it borders
Iran on the west. The September 11 attacks also give the US and allies such
as Britain, a blank cheque to roll back civil liberties to the extent that any
of their own citizens, who might make a fuss, can be silenced, simply by uttering
the word "terrorist". It also places extreme pressure on other allies, such
as Australia to do the same. Presumably, they remember the bitter lesson they
learned about the power of domestic opposition, during the Vietnam war. When
President Bush said "You are with us or against us," it was a thinly veiled
warning to every other country in the world, including Australia, that unless
the US recieves absolute unquestioning obedience, anybody is fair game.
Doubtless, all world leaders, including Australia’s, have heard the message
loud and clear. It would also appear that the ALP heard it loud and clear. During
the election campaign, Kim Beazley was falling over himself, to make it clear
that an ALP government would obey the US totally, and without question. His
motivation may well have been more than simply oppotunistic electoral popularity.
The USA’s actions in Afghanistan, are not only directly stategic, they are delivering
a stark warning to every other country in the world, that they must be obeyed.
SOURCES
Anything which I've neglected to directly reference, can be found with full
referencing on the web sites mentioned below, except for some things which were
heard on the radio. Where possible, I've tried to write down at least some clues
for these, so that a persistent searcher may be able to find them in Archives.
This is not designed to be a serious academic work, with academic credentials.
It’s designed to expose the truth. Those who wish to do the work to verify this
information, in an academically acceptable format, will find it easy enough
to do so. While the case does pivot around a number of key facts, a lot of it
is also common-sense interpretation, of general knowledge. The Bush administration
has left a huge trail of evidence about September 11. The main reason that it
has not become obvious to the majority of people yet is, apart from the obvious
influence of the media, that everyone has been too shocked by the speed and
brutality of the events to think clearly. For myself, it took about 2 weeks
for the shock to begin to wear off sufficiently, for things that should have
been obvious at the time, to become so. Once the initial breakthrough is made,
in this regard, the inconsistancies and implausible explanations begin to develop
from a "trickle" to a "flow to a "torrent".
For example, this cracker was reported on the ninemsn website on Nov 28. An
article saying that US officials had received information that Bin Laden may
be planning a major terrorist attack on US energy facilities, in particular
gas pipelines. However, the very same article reported that the "noose around
Bin Laden’s neck" had tightened, to the point that he was pinned down to a 30
km2 area, running for his life, constantly on the move, in a desperate bid to
avoid death or capture. Pardon me, but exactly how does anyone launch a sophisticated
terrorist operation against targets on the other side of the world from this
position? Only people in a deep state of shock could fail to see that this is
a ridiculous lie. And the next day it was reported that he "may" have chemical
or nuclear weapons (although they admitted, late in the article of course, that
they didn’t actually have any evidence of this at all). So this man, allegedly
desperately on the run, is carrying truckloads of intercontinental missiles
and missile launchers, constantly between cave and cave? And they’re not being
picked up by US spy sattelites, which we were earlier told could detect the
faintest trace of heat in a cave where he may be hiding? Or does he have some
sophisticated radio network, sending out instructions to supporters, to launch
attacks from safe undisclosed locations? Signals which his supporters can pick
up, from somewhere far away, not under US control, but somehow can’t be picked
up by the US and British forces which have him surrounded, like a "noose around
the neck"? The lies and inconsistencies in this campaign are so obvious, that
I suspect that those behind it are going to need a sophisticated strategy of
continuing to keep people in a state of constant shock, fear and confusion,
otherwise the obvious truth will come out. The anthrax campaign springs to mind.
And the continual false alarms about renewed attacks from Bin Laden(remember
the golden gate bridge false alarm!), and continual, totally unsubstantiated
rumour-mongering about nuclear or biological attacks. Soon there will be attacks
on other countries, along with a torrent of propaganda about the terrorist threats
from whatever villain is identified as the latest evil murderer, who must be
hunted down at any cost. Perhaps Bin Laden has now outlived his usefulness and
will now be killed, although it is more likely that he will conveniently escape
to another country, giving the perfect excuse to for the US attack there.
This will all add to the confusion, the fear, the distraction. The ball must
be kept rolling at any cost. If neccesary, they can always launch more terrorist
attacks against their own people, to renew the shock and fear. After all, they
are playing for the highest possible stakes. Not only what they stand to gain,
which was their original motive, but now, given what they’ve done, Bush senior,
Bush junior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and probably quite a few others, all face
the possibility of charges of treason and murder and would almost certainly
face death penalties.
I’m not sure what can be done, but the first step, is that people must know
the truth.
MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT CAN BE FOUND AT
www.emperors-clothes.com/
http://nyc.indymedia.org
____________________________________
NOTE de do :
Original in english is here : http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=19316&group=webcast
The above link has changed : https://www4.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/19316.html
Vive la révolution : http://www.mai68.org
ou :
http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do
ou :
http://vlr.da.ru
ou :
http://hlv.cjb.net