Neo-Con Abuse of 9-11

[parky76]

whether 9-11 was an inside job, will probably be debated for 100 years..with some never completaly satisfied. this we must accept.

but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.

the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?

bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.

we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.

[Garb]

whether 9-11 was an inside job, will probably be debated for 100 years..with some never completaly satisfied. this we must accept.

but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.

the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?

bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.

we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.

Why does this seem like propaganda?

[Oliver]

Maybe they´re waiting for the right time OR
they´re happy with the current political
developments...

[joobz]

whether 9-11 was an inside job, will probably be debated for 100 years..with some never completaly satisfied. this we must accept.

but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.

the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
Bush has said this since the start of the iraq war. The've made it clear that iraq wasn't part of 9-11, but they feel that by creating a democratic center in the middle east, we can minimize terrorist effects here. At least this was the thought.
there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?
this is a weak argument. I agree that terrorism has been greatly overplayed by politicians, but terrorism is occuring world wide. 9-11 is just proof that it can happen here as well.

bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.
this comment seems to have no basis in reality. We know a terrorist organization involved. We know they still exist. so the threat is still there. iraq has made IMO this threat worse, but that is a seperate issue.

we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.
fear mongering is a fact of ratings. It works as well as sex. Heck, your best advertising would be sexy fear mongering, but the kinks haven't been worked out yet.

[Hierosis]

whether 9-11 was an inside job, will probably be debated for 100 years..with some never completaly satisfied. this we must accept.

but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.

the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?

bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.

we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.


Very well said Parky. A topic that is rarely discussed because everyone seems to be so caught up in what the Loose Change guys are wearing today. Inside job or not, the neoconservatives hijacked 9/11 just like they hijacked conservatism.

[parky76]

the goal of this posting was to cut through this black and white thinking that some people seem to follow. just because you dont believe 9-11 was an inside job does not mean you love bush and his policies. it would be highly conveniemt for CTists if this was true, and many purposefuly disregard debunkers as shills for the governmant and neo-cons. its a lot easier to brush off our views..if you label us as the devil. but the world is not that simple.

[joobz]

the goal of this posting was to cut through this black and white thinking that some people seem to follow. just because you dont believe 9-11 was an inside job does not mean you love bush and his policies. it would be highly conveniemt for CTists if this was true, and many purposefuly disregard debunkers as shills for the governmant and neo-cons. its a lot easier to brush off our views..if you label us as the devil. but the world is not that simple.
now that is something I fully agree with.

To point out one form of nonsense doesn't mean that you agree with another.

[The Doc]

...and zero terror convictions.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussoui

;)

[Pardalis]

the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

I disagree. Actions would have eventually had to be taken against Saddam Hussein. But it's true that Bush used 9/11 to engage the issue and rush the decision to go in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a threat nevertheless.

there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?

Many terrorist plots have been twarted around the world, some not (Bali, Madrid, London)

Al Qaeda does exist and is willing and able top function and cause damage. Let's not forget that. The terrorist threat is still real, we mustn't be careless about it. Some of the war on terror is true. But we also must not succomb to fear and paranoia either.

[gumboot]

I honestly can't see how someone can sit there and honestly say there have been no terrorist attacks or convictions post 9/11.

Have you ever read the news in the last 5 years?

News flash, the USA is not the only nation in the world, and they are not the only target of terrorists. In addition, there is no reason to assume all attacks directed at the US would originate IN the US - indeed, given the superior security established post-9/11 it is to be expected that terrorists would change tact.

The recent London bombing attack was aimed at AMERICAN flights flying to AMERICA. Had it been successful, THOUSANDS of AMERICAN citizens would have died. Many more, indeed, than on 9/11.

Al Qaeda terrorist around the globe have been arrested and convicted for 9/11 and other attacks.

This year, to date, makes the only year since 9/11 that Al Qaeda have not staged a terrorist attack in Indonesia. I only hope the next 30 days will be equally free of their horror.

-Gumboot

[JAStewart]

and zero terror convictions

Zacarias Moussaoui?

[PerryLogan]

The Administration most certainly used 9/11 to keep the American people in fear. But the neocons' method of cashing in on 9/11 actually proves they weren't behind it.

Most of the Truthers predicted lots of big, staged, domestic terror attacks in America after 9/11. Alex Jones, in particular, went on and on about how 9/11 was only the beginning, how we were going to see more, as the Black Brotherhood tightened the screws of fear.

Check out at these quotes from Alex's cable TV show, InfoWars:

"There is going to be more. This is only the kick-off." Sept. 13, 2001.

"Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so." (10/18/01)
"Suitcase nukes are a virtual certainty." (5/16/02)
"They're preparing for new terrorist attacks that are much larger. & they're planning to bring in foreign armies." 7/11/02
"They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack...It's not a question of if & when it's gonna happen." Infowars, 9/26/02


That's how Alex and many other Truthers were talking in the aftermath of 9/11. They don't like to talk about it now, because we got no more big attacks in the U.S. Instead, we got scare tactics and fake terror alerts, which essentially prove the neocons didn't do it.

If the neocons had been behind 9/11, they could have given us real terror attacks, as the Truthers predicted. Why use fake alerts and political BS when they could have hit us with real terror?

So--while the neocons have certainly used this tragedy to further weaken and divide the United States--their actions since 9/11 make it clear they did not stage anything.

As I like to say, if this adminstration had planned 9/11, 9/11 would never have happened.

[60hzxtl]

Some people play checkers.

All the pieces are equal and have the same moves until they cross the board.

Some people play chess. The king has the power, the queen has all the moves, and you chase the pawns and keep the royal court busy while you trap the king.

De-fanging Iraq, after 9/11 with the goal of keeping 9/11 from being the first of a constant stream of economic, safety and sanity attacks seems like a reasonable plan if kept in the big perspective.

In my life and times I've heard the whining and hand ringing over:

Biafra - Why didn't somebody do something!

Cambodia - Why didn't somebody do something!

Sudan Why didn't somebody do something!

It wasn't a neo-con who said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was Ted Kennedy's brother, JFK.

[Deathshead]

But shill Clit-on could have "pulled" off the 9/11 attacks. He was a Dunceocrat after all.

[gumboot]

In my life and times I've heard the whining and hand ringing over:

Biafra - Why didn't somebody do something!

Cambodia - Why didn't somebody do something!

Sudan Why didn't somebody do something!


Dont forget the Congo, Zimbabwe... the list goes on really...

And then there's Somalia, where the world tried for a bit, found it all too hard, and gave up.

-Gumboot

[parky76]

zacharias seems to be the lone conviction in the usa..this is true. but the fact is there have been many reported terror plots in the usa...and no terror convictions after zacharias. we were told there were many terror cells operating in the usa...where the hell are they? as to terror attacks in other countries..none of them have been linked directly to actual al-qaeda operatives from afghanistan. they are all independant groups, "inspired" by bin laden.

i believe that al qaeda is real. but the last 5 years only proves that their abilities and strength was uber-hyped by the administration...to make a little rat look like a hippo. but little rats are still annoying.

as to hussein being a real threat...id gladly have hussein or any other secular dictator keeping iraq stable and quiet..over the situation we have now. not since ww1 has the situation over there been so unstable.

and fyi...hussein's only support for terrorists was giving the families of suicide bombers money...to rebuild their homes after israel clobbers them. thats not supporting terror...thats putting a roof over peoples heads.

[gumboot]

zacharias seems to be the lone conviction in the usa..this is true. but the fact is there have been many reported terror plots in the usa...and no terror convictions after zacharias. we were told there were many terror cells operating in the usa...where the hell are they? as to terror attacks in other countries..none of them have been linked directly to actual al-qaeda operatives from afghanistan. they are all independant groups, "inspired" by bin laden.


Er. That's not true.




as to hussein being a real threat...id gladly have hussein or any other secular dictator keeping iraq stable and quiet..over the situation we have now. not since ww1 has the situation over there been so unstable.


Where do you mean by "there"?




and fyi...hussein's only support for terrorists was giving the families of suicide bombers money...to rebuild their homes after israel clobbers them. thats not supporting terror...thats putting a roof over peoples heads.

You've got it backwards. Saddam said he'd give money to build a house to anyone who packed off their kid as a suicide bomber against Israel. So the Israelis promptly tore any such houses down.

I hardly think actively inciting terrorism (and suicide bombing at that) and then rewarding it counts as "only".

Do you know how many Israelis have been killed by said suicide bombers over the years?

-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Using the logic of the OP, isn't it impossible for Bush to have manipulated 9-11 since he was not convicted of it?

[WildCat]

zacharias seems to be the lone conviction in the usa..this is true.
No, it's not. Remember Ahmed Ressam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam)?

There are others.

And I have to say, I'm getting real tired of ignorant CT's like yourself who continually come here spreading lies and BS. Take that show to some site where the people aren't so smart and are gullible. The loose Change forum, for instance.

[Deus Ex Machina]

whether 9-11 was an inside job, will probably be debated for 100 years..with some never completaly satisfied. this we must accept.

I am not sure what it is you are saying "we must accept". Are we accepting the fact that there are people who will fantasize about events and come up with ridiculous explanations for things? Or that there is a real "debate" about 911 being an "inside job'?


but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.


What "insane right wing agenda" are you referring to exactly?


the iraq war..would not have happened..if not for 9-11. yet even bush now says iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.


Well, neither would Afghanistan - the question you are begging with this assertion is whether a war in Iraq was necessary.


there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?


Wow - zero terror attacks in the USA. Would that not imply that in terms of homeland defense that this strategy you seem to disagee with is actually working? Or would it be better that terrorists actually do carry out attacks just to "prove" they exist? That "dangerous enemy" has managed to arrange the slaughter of hundreds of innocent victims in Madrid Bali and London - or did you actually miss that in the news?


bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.


Have you actually read anything in the Arab press? have you read what is being preached to the Arab world on a daily basis? it sure does not seem like it. As for your "may have been the end" what are you basing this upon? You don't seem to have much information on what happens in the world and you seem to have missed large scale terrorist attacks and now you make an assertion based on... what? Your expertise? If you have the expertise please lay it out.


we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.

Not sure what your point is - that the media promote controversial and scary things to sell newspapers and ad time? Wow.

[stateofgrace]

there have been lots of terror warnings...but zero attacks...and zero terror convictions. how can it be that such a dangerous enemy..with thousands of terror sleeper cells...has failed to carry out one single attack on the usa? what happened to all the supposed cells in the usa? are they still sleeping?

bush has been trying to scare us into believing that there are evil arabs trying to eat us...and most americans have bought it. the 19 hijackers were supposed to be just the beggining...but they infact may have been the end.

we dont need any more terror attacks to scare us. we have fox news, msnbc, and rush limbaugh. the news posts terror threats that even homeland security says "are unsubstantiated"..yet by posting them the damage is done.

This is the thing. Please be assured I have absolutely no wish to offend any American that is here and posts here, but this view of the world is extremely narrow minded.

I’m sorry but the USA is not the only country on this planet that is engaged in this war or terror, nor is the USA the only country on the planet to have endured terrorist attacks by Al Quada.

Please look beyond your own shores, open your eyes to what is happening outside of the USA.

Here is a timetable of Al Quada attacks and how the WORLD has dealt with them. It is from the BBC (The British Broadcasting Corporation).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm

[parky76]

wow. it seems like some folks in here believe that if you dont 100% accept the bush administration's take on global terrorism...you must be a conspiracy theorist.

does anyone here really take any of these "terror alerts" seriously anymore? i used to...but i really stopped after the supposed bombing of the nyc subway's plot earlier this year.

terrorism is real. but is the al qeada threat as bad as fox news says it is? no. why do i belive that? because every time we hear of a new threat, it later turns out that the info was 3 years old, or homeland security knew it was unsubstantiated, or there have been no arrests or charges filed against related terrorists.

if you want to believe that there are thousands of evil terror-arabs plotting to eat you, go ahead. i'll believe it when i see it.

as to saddam offering to build homes for suicide bombers..that is complete bs. israel began demolishing the homes of he families of suicide bombers to try to prevent suicide bombers. they hoped that they would rather protect their families...rather then kill jews. i dont think it worked..so israel now has the policy of demolishing the homes of the families of suicide bombers. to counter this, saddam offered these families $30,000 or so to rebuild their homes. thats how it happened..im sorry if you see it differently.

it is very clear to me..that the bush administration, right-wing media, uses fear to try to get the american people compliant. i used to be afraid...i no longer am. does that mean that i believe the bush administration is being led by the nwo/illuminati/zionist/freemason/bilderberg conspiracy?...lol. no.

once again...all or nothing thinking. the world is not that simple.

the conspiracy theorists use fear of a hidden evil hand driving the war on terror...the bush admnistration uses fear of thousands of evil arab terror cells. i dont buy it...any of it.

[switchtech]

This is the thing. Please be assured I have absolutely no wish to offend any American that is here and posts here, but this view of the world is extremely narrow minded.

I’m sorry but the USA is not the only country on this planet that is engaged in this war or terror, nor is the USA the only country on the planet to have endured terrorist attacks by Al Quada.

Please look beyond your own shores, open your eyes to what is happening outside of the USA.

Here is a timetable of Al Quada attacks and how the WORLD has dealt with them. It is from the BBC (The British Broadcasting Corporation).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm

Not all U.S. citizens believe as parky76. I think most of us know that terrorism is a global problem. We might need to be reminded that Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization, though.

The CT nuts don't seem to remember we first entered Afghanistan to attack Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As I remember it, the action in Iraq came many months later after much posturing by both sides.

I don't think the war in Iraq would have started if the inspections would have continued - but they didn't. I don't think Saddam wanted his neighbors to know he didn't have the weapons and he didn't think the U.S. would really invade. Bad intelligence all around, I'd say.

jbs

[stateofgrace]

wow. it seems like some folks in here believe that if you dont 100% accept the bush administration's take on global terrorism...you must be a conspiracy theorist.

does anyone here really take any of these "terror alerts" seriously anymore? i used to...but i really stopped after the supposed bombing of the nyc subway's plot earlier this year.

terrorism is real. but is the al qeada threat as bad as fox news says it is? no. why do i belive that? because every time we hear of a new threat, it later turns out that the info was 3 years old, or homeland security knew it was unsubstantiated, or there have been no arrests or charges filed against related terrorists.

if you want to believe that there are thousands of evil terror-arabs plotting to eat you, go ahead. i'll believe it when i see it.

as to saddam offering to build homes for suicide bombers..that is complete bs. israel began demolishing the homes of he families of suicide bombers to try to prevent suicide bombers. they hoped that they would rather protect their families...rather then kill jews. i dont think it worked..so israel now has the policy of demolishing the homes of the families of suicide bombers. to counter this, saddam offered these families $30,000 or so to rebuild their homes. thats how it happened..im sorry if you see it differently.

it is very clear to me..that the bush administration, right-wing media, uses fear to try to get the american people compliant. i used to be afraid...i no longer am. does that mean that i believe the bush administration is being led by the nwo/illuminati/zionist/freemason/bilderberg conspiracy?...lol. no.

once again...all or nothing thinking. the world is not that simple.

the conspiracy theorists use fear of a hidden evil hand driving the war on terror...the bush admnistration uses fear of thousands of evil arab terror cells. i dont buy it...any of it.

No that is not what I believe at all. I believe Al quada is real and I believe Islamic fundamentalism is very real. I do not believe there is thousands of nasty Arabs out there wanting eat my babies.

There was a march recently in London against cartoons depicting Islam as a joke. Within the march were extremists actually dressed as suicide bombers. They had placards with slogans on it crying death to non-believers, behead non-believers.

You have a very simple view of extremism, you prefer to hide away from it, and pretend it does not exist. How could it possibly exist? How could anybody hate us so much?

They hate us my friend because of opinions like yours. You choose to ignore them; you choose to pretend they don’t exist.

Why on earth do you think 911 happened? I shall tell you my friend. It happened to wake up America. These are the words of UBL.

It was a wake up call; stop ignoring us, starts taking notice of what we say. Yet you don’t, you continue to ignore the fact that Islamic fundamentalism could actually exist and could actually be a very real threat. Not just to the US but to other countries that have taken the full force of this form of extremism.

My friend, opinions like yours are why 19 guys boarded 4 planes and killed all in their path and slaughtered thousands of innocent people.

They did this because we have ignored them; we have not listened to what they said. This you still do, you have not learnt your lesson. You bury it all in silly conspiracies; you actually insult them by not even acknowledging that they exist.

welcome to the real world.

[parky76]

weve never been really commited to afghanistan. how many troops do we have there? 13,000? yet thats where osama is and all the training camps are. if al qaeda was indeed the big threat that bush says it is...we would have had 100,000 troops in afghanistan and bombed the place until we knew osama is dead and buried. but we didnt. now the taliban again controls much of the country, taliban style laws govern the public. what kind of a "war on terror" is that?

this is not the view of conspiracy theorists. this is the view of most of the democractic party..and a good half of the united states.

the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they see actual lies and anomolies...and morph it into a giant monstrous beheamath of aliens/zionists/illumatini....bla bla bla. why they do this? i really have no clue. but what it accomplishes is that it gives moderates like me a real bad name...guilt by association. the best way to disregard an enemy is to associate him with nuts and paranoids.

[Oliver]

There´s a lot of confusion about Al Qaida.

In my opinion there are not hundreds of cells all over
the world. I believe this is fiction and fearmongering.

And concerning the reason why they did not attack
since 9/11. You should consider that they have to
be very careful since the world eyes are focusing
them.

Anyway, if it was an inside job, the US-Gov would
have started a new attack to gain support for their
unpopular war in iraq.

[Oliver]

the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they see actual lies and anomolies...and morph it into a giant monstrous beheamath of aliens/zionists/illumatini....bla bla bla. why they do this? i really have no clue. but what it accomplishes is that it gives moderates like me a real bad name...guilt by association. the best way to disregard an enemy is to associate him with nuts and paranoids.

The dislike and distrust the US Government. That´s their
reason to connect every negativ event to a global conspiracy.
And in case of the security-, homeland-, patriot- military acts,
it´s somehow understandable for me...

[scissorhands]

PDoh,

Drop the 76 at the end of your name.
Its a bit of a giveaway.
:)
Never mind research anything.
Cant you even troll properly?

[parky76]

from the 1920's through the 1950's...we had thousands and thousands of communists in the usa. many of whom actively supported the soviet union. even some of my relatives were communists. yet we had all the neccesary legal tools to prevent them from doing any damage to the usa. this in mind, i dont see why we needed any new powers to fight islamic extremists in the usa. we stopped several plots in the usa before 9-11, without new powers and rules. what we lacked on 9-11 was not the powers to get the job done...but the will to do it. i dont believe 9-11 was an inside job...but does the bush administration bear any blaim for not reading the signs and taking the neccessary precautionary steps? hell yes. a little bit of inter-agency coordination would have prevented 9-11.

[Oliver]

PDoh,

Drop the 76 at the end of your name.
Its a bit of a giveaway.
:)
Never mind research anything.
Cant you even troll properly?

Get out of my head! :D

[Firestone]

So, the neo-cons are blamed for ignoring the many threats before 9/11 (and so allowing for the attacks to succeed), and for inventing the threats after 9/11 in order to push their agenda further. :confused:

Is there some magical formula determining whether a threat is real or imagined?

Sadly, if there will be a new terrorist attack in the US (and I really really hope this will not happen), I'm sure that again the same wise guys will claim the relevant threats were ignored, the dots not connected, ...

Saddening, really.

[Garb]

from the 1920's through the 1950's...we had thousands and thousands of communists in the usa. many of whom actively supported the soviet union. even some of my relatives were communists. yet we had all the neccesary legal tools to prevent them from doing any damage to the usa. this in mind, i dont see why we needed any new powers to fight islamic extremists in the usa. we stopped several plots in the usa before 9-11, without new powers and rules. what we lacked on 9-11 was not the powers to get the job done...but the will to do it. i dont believe 9-11 was an inside job...but does the bush administration bear any blaim for not reading the signs and taking the neccessary precautionary steps? hell yes. a little bit of inter-agency coordination would have prevented 9-11.

Question: Since you obviously have a better understanding of everything than the Bush administration does, what would be your means of stopping this attack?

[Cylinder]

There´s a lot of confusion about Al Qaida.

In my opinion there are not hundreds of cells all over
the world. I believe this is fiction and fearmongering.

That's according to how one counts. Hundreds of cells trained in Afghanistan directly by Osama bin Laden exist. Probably most of those are still operating in Asia and North Africa. Certainly there are hundreds of cells that are al Qaeda assosiates operating in the West - or at least there most probably were around the time of 9-11 - though may not have trained in Afghanistan under direct operational subordination to Osama bin Laden.

Remember that the 7-7 plot involved a Leeds operational cell. Another cell, operating out of Luton, was intercepted one year before the attack and had information that turned out to be operational details of the London attacks. This interdiction led to another cell based in Canada.

The Madrid bombings, if not the work of an al Qaeda primary, was at least the work of franchise cells - using very similar tactics and objectives. Those attacks involved at least two cells - probably more IMO. The Madrid attack involved 10 successful bombs, three that failed to detonate and one that killed security forces and a terror cell as the Spanish police were effecting an arrest.

The Heathrow plot - a Bojinka redux - uncovered two (IIRC) al Qaeda-controlled cells again in the UK.

An al Qeada-controlled cell was uncovered in Lodi, CA but it is unclear how successful their recruiting effort has been.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Al Qaeda and their previous permutations were running training camps out of Afghanistan and the Sudan for nearly two decades at the time of the 9-11 attacks.

[parky76]

question. if there are hundreds of cells around the world (i recall rumsfeld saying thousands). why have there only been maybe 10 terror attacks involving cells around the world? either the number of cells has been greatly exagerated...or they are all silently waiting....to strike at any moment..with one giant coordinated attack!!!

which is more likely? remember...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.

[Oliver]

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Al Qaeda and their previous permutations were running training camps out of Afghanistan and the Sudan for nearly two decades at the time of the 9-11 attacks.

I guess that many connections within the different
networks are well known by the intelligence. This
also was the case about the hamburg and madrid
cell years before 9/11. What about the London cells
observations before 9/11?

However - personally i see no threat against me
and i´m not afraid at all. Terror attacks did happen
since i can think. It´s nothing new to the world,
i guess most americans just weren´t aware of this
fact until 9/11 happend.

[Pardalis]

question. if there are hundreds of cells around the world (i recall rumsfeld saying thousands). why have there only been maybe 10 terror attacks involving cells around the world? either the number of cells has been greatly exagerated...or they are all silently waiting....to strike at any moment..with one giant coordinated attack!!!

which is more likely? remember...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.

False choice fallacy.

[Oliver]

False choice fallacy.

I guess it was the "rumsfeld-fallacy". :D

[Garb]

question. if there are hundreds of cells around the world (i recall rumsfeld saying thousands). why have there only been maybe 10 terror attacks involving cells around the world? either the number of cells has been greatly exagerated...or they are all silently waiting....to strike at any moment..with one giant coordinated attack!!!

which is more likely? remember...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.

Only 10?

Now that seems exaggerated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1970s

[Pardalis]

I guess it was the "rumsfeld-fallacy". :D

The guy is a living, breathing fallacy! ;)

[parky76]

we are talking about international terrorism here. not regional or local disputes. while kashmiri rebels, chechen seperatists, tamil tigers, irish republicans etc...do infact engage in terrorism...they are not the focus of the so-called "war on terror".

[Oliver]

we are talking about international terrorism here. not regional or local disputes. while kashmiri rebels, chechen seperatists, tamil tigers, irish republicans etc...do infact engage in terrorism...they are not the focus of the so-called "war on terror".

And what are we talking about in here?
That the "war on terror" is a hoax in my opinion? :confused:

[Pardalis]

i dont believe 9-11 was an inside job...but does the bush administration bear any blaim for not reading the signs and taking the neccessary precautionary steps? hell yes. a little bit of inter-agency coordination would have prevented 9-11.

So the terrorist network does exist. The problem is that the USG did exactly what you do now, they ignored the problem.

See the irony here?

[parky76]

i hear a lot about coordination between al qaeda...iran..hezbollah..islamic jihad..the chechens..etc. but i have seen no evidence that it is true.

if islamic extremists were really such a threat..there would be bombs going off daily in the usa. britain has "thousands of muslem extremists"..yet only one attack..one one disrupted.

islamic extremism is real..i dont doubt that. what i doubt is the extant of their influence, power, and reach.

you say i am "ignoring a problem". that opposite is true. the best way to stop terrorism against the usa..is to stop the failed and corrupt policies that fuel hatred against us.

they dont hate us for "who we are". they hate us for what we do. if you can look at america's history in the middle east over the last 60 years..and not see that...then you really are blind.

[Pardalis]

if islamic extremists were really such a threat..there would be bombs going off daily in the usa. britain has "thousands of muslem extremists"..yet only one attack..one one disrupted.

Don't you think that one terrorist attack is one too many?

You seem to be arguing more out of incredulity than of skepticism.

you say i am "ignoring a problem". that opposite is true. the best way to stop terrorism against the usa..is to stop the failed and corrupt policies that fuel hatred against us.

It's true that US policies fuel their anger, but they would hate the West nevertheless, especially because the West supports the existence of Israel.

[defaultdotxbe]

wow. it seems like some folks in here believe that if you dont 100% accept the bush administration's take on global terrorism...you must be a conspiracy theorist.
lol

does anyone here really take any of these "terror alerts" seriously anymore? i used to...but i really stopped after the supposed bombing of the nyc subway's plot earlier this year.
you took them seriously a lot longer than i did

terrorism is real. but is the al qeada threat as bad as fox news says it is? no. why do i belive that? because every time we hear of a new threat, it later turns out that the info was 3 years old, or homeland security knew it was unsubstantiated, or there have been no arrests or charges filed against related terrorists.
no, al qaeda is not a big threat anymore, but it used to be, personally i beleive it still would be were it not for the war on terrorism, just the fact that we are "out to get them" has forced most terrorist leaders and cells underground, this means they can no longer communicate effectively with eachother and blows apart the organizational structure that made them a threat in the first place

however, if we were to back off because the threat isnt so big, they will simply rebuild lines of communication and become a threat again

once again...all or nothing thinking. the world is not that simple.
of course, just because al qaeda is not a major threat now doesnt mean they never were, and doesnt mean they never will be again

[stateofgrace]

i hear a lot about coordination between al qaeda...iran..hezbollah..islamic jihad..the chechens..etc. but i have seen no evidence that it is true.

if islamic extremists were really such a threat..there would be bombs going off daily in the usa. britain has "thousands of muslem extremists"..yet only one attack..one one disrupted.

islamic extremism is real..i dont doubt that. what i doubt is the extant of their influence, power, and reach.

you say i am "ignoring a problem". that opposite is true. the best way to stop terrorism against the usa..is to stop the failed and corrupt policies that fuel hatred against us.

they dont hate us for "who we are". they hate us for what we do. if you can look at america's history in the middle east over the last 60 years..and not see that...then you really are blind.

Let me make this clear to you. Nobody is saying that Islamic fundamentalism is anything other than extremism.

It is a radicalized Muslims that are in a minority. Nobody is blind to Middle Eastern policy and the failings.

You seem to have this view that we should all walk around peaking over our shoulder worrying ourselves sick where and when the next terrorist attack will come from. In which case the extremists win.

Is this what you expect from Islamic extremists, bombs to be going off everyday, blood in the street? Is this what it would take to convince you that a tiny minority of radicalized Muslims will fight back at what they see an injustices. Is 911 not enough for you? How about London, Bali, Madrid or don’t they count?

[scissorhands]

they dont hate us for "who we are". they hate us for what we do. if you can look at america's history in the middle east over the last 60 years..and not see that...then you really are blind.

Do you mean the support shown by the US and the west of the only democracy in that whole region? A tiny little country that has already been attacked by its large neighbours twice , and now is being threatened by a soon to be nuclear armed state of Iran.

[60hzxtl]

Put Israel into the cold war context:

If the US and Russia went to war, who would Israel have supported?

The USA.

Who would any other middle eastern nation in that position have supported?

Hesitate to give a definitive answer?

That is your answer.

[uk_dave]

Do you mean the support shown by the US and the west of the only democracy in that whole region? A tiny little country that has already been attacked by its large neighbours twice , and now is being threatened by a soon to be nuclear armed state of Iran.

Well that and the support of the US and the west for despotic non democratic countries in the region whose ruling elite are fabulously wealthy while large sections of their populations live in poverty.

[scissorhands]

Real politick in the cold war.
Countries all over the world have somehow ended up in exactly that situation without any US involvement.
Do you want me to list them?

[T.A.M.]

Fascinating Discussion.

Parky does make a few good points, but he has also fallen into a danger mode of thinking and possibly action.

I agree that the "Terror Alerts" so far, for the most part have been over zealousness. It is dangerous, however, to allow this to make us "slack" or make us fall back into our "pre 9/11" ways. If everyone stops taking these terror alerts serious, then what is the next step. We stop worrying about the guy who leaves his suitcase abandoned in the airport. We stop worrying about that moving truck parked next to the elementary school.

No, in my opinion, the world has changed forever. I will teach my children to trust people, yes, but only if earned. I will teach them that there are truely evil people in this world, and that they are to keep their "eye" on them...so to speak. I only hope that this "not taking serious" that parky76 speaks of is an exception, and not a growing trend amongst the 20 something generation, numbed to the violence and hatred.

TAM

[uk_dave]

The security services have the most difficult job these days. More so than in previous terror campaigns where suicide and mass murder tended to not be the MO of terrorist groups.

Now we have a situation where we can imagine the most terrible plots involving chemical, nuclear and biological weapons with implications far exceeding the worst attrocities committed by the likes of IRA or ETA.

But now they are faced with having to stop a plot very early on in it's planning for fear that a slip up could cost the lives of thousands. And that leads to seemingly absurd conspirators being brought before the courts for barely formed plots which we can all view as absurd or fantastic, but we are then left with the big 'what if' they had managed to go through with it?

A case in point is the recent plot against transatlantic aircraft which many people view as being ridiculous because they don't believe the type of explosive proposed would be able to take down an aircraft. But would YOU want to be on that aircraft while someone tried?

[Brainster]

Let me just say here that the word neocon gets thrown around a lot by people who don't know what it means. It literally means "new conservative" and was aimed at people who had generally socially liberal attitudes but believed that many liberal programs (like welfare and affirmative action) were not only not helping the poor, but were trapping them in a cycle of government dependence. Indeed, the guiding beacon of neoconservative thought is the principle of unintended consequences, which holds that the unintended consequences of government action are frequently equal to and opposite from the intended consequences. Given that this principle appears to be proving out in Iraq, why anybody would claim that this is a "neoconservative" war seems to be an oddity. President Bush and VP Cheney are not neocons; neither is Donald Rumsfeld. It is true that many neocons have been vocal supporters of the war, but so have many social conservatives and moderates like Evan Bayh and liberals like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman.

Although it is popular now to describe support for the war as being Republican-only, the Senate War Powers Resolution was actually supported by far more Democrats than was the case for the original Persian Gulf War. The total vote was 77-23, with a majority (29-21) of Democrats voting Aye.

[bonavada]

Zacarias Moussaoui?

a few more:-

Richard Reid (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=shoe-bomber&btnG=Google+Search)

Uzair Paracha
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4465240.stm)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ksm.htm)

i don't think the latter "big fish" hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but i can safely guess he will be.

BV

[parky76]

the democrats did indeed give bush the authority he nedded to invade iraq. they did this because bush had a high approval rating and the dems didnt want to be seen as being weak on terror. plus the iraq war, for many, was payback for 9-11. muslems attacked us on 9-11..therefore we must attack muslems as revenge. iraq's lack of involvemant was inconsequential.

and as to israel, yes, muslems hate us for supporting israel. israel claims to be the only democracy in the middle east (ever heard of lebanon and turkey?). but if you went to the west bank, you would clearly see that israel is no more a liberal democracy then south africa was.

[Deus Ex Machina]

the democrats did indeed give bush the authority he nedded to invade iraq. they did this because bush had a high approval rating and the dems didnt want to be seen as being weak on terror. plus the iraq war, for many, was payback for 9-11. muslems attacked us on 9-11..therefore we must attack muslems as revenge. iraq's lack of involvemant was inconsequential.

and as to israel, yes, muslems hate us for supporting israel. israel claims to be the only democracy in the middle east (ever heard of lebanon and turkey?). but if you went to the west bank, you would clearly see that israel is no more a liberal democracy then south africa was.

when did you go to the West Bank?

[parky76]

ive never been to the west bank. ive also never been to tibet. yet i still have the right to condemn and expose what israel is doing in the west bank..and what china is doing in tibet.

israel's rule in the west bank is very similar to apartheid. i'll tell you why if you really have to have it explained to you.

[gumboot]

Er this is getting kinda political isn't it?

But anyway... the whole "it's all about the US's foreign policy" angle is a load of BS. That's merely extremist excuse of the month number six. (Okay, it's more excuse of the decade...)

Islamic Fundamentalism has been around since the fall of the last Caliphate and their only desire is to re-establish it (globally, if possible).

Even this latest breed of Islamic Terrorist has been around longer than the US has actively been involved in the Middle East. They are the inheritors of the Nazi ideology. Because what we didn't realise about WW2 was it was an ideological war as well as a physical one. We one the physical war, but we lost the ideological one, because we allowed Nazism to transfer itself to Radical Militant Islam. And just like the Nazis, these people simply want to "kill all the Jews".

Frankly, at times Israel is a pain in the ass. They have made some really fantastically bad moves in their brief history. But the last thing the west should do is throw them to the dogs.

-Gumboot

[scissorhands]

israel's rule in the west bank is very similar to apartheid. i'll tell you why if you really have to have it explained to you.

Ok Parky, explain this comparison.
:)

And just like the Nazis, these people simply want to "kill all the Jews".


They were very willing participants in the Balkans, at least when they thought they were backing the winning side.
Set up their own ss unit.
That doesnt get mentioned much for some reason.

[stateofgrace]

the democrats did indeed give bush the authority he nedded to invade iraq. they did this because bush had a high approval rating and the dems didnt want to be seen as being weak on terror. plus the iraq war, for many, was payback for 9-11. muslems attacked us on 9-11..therefore we must attack muslems as revenge. iraq's lack of involvemant was inconsequential.

and as to israel, yes, muslems hate us for supporting israel. israel claims to be the only democracy in the middle east (ever heard of lebanon and turkey?). but if you went to the west bank, you would clearly see that israel is no more a liberal democracy then south africa was.

Wrong.

The USA did not invade Iraq for revenge. They had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 and this absurd notion that the USA attacked Iraq because it was a Muslim state is absolute rubbish.

I actually disapprove of the war in Iraq but I do so for the correct reason. Reasons of fact not rubbish. Iraq was invaded because it was believed they possessed WMD. This was later proved wrong and the weapons inspectors pointed this out prior to the invasion. It was then changed to regime removal and change.

Support or condemn the Iraq war but for goodness sake do it for the correct reason and not some nonsense about attacking a Muslim State for revenge.

Please stop trying to blame the US for everything that is wrong in the world also.

Iraq is a mess but it as absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 911 and again absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with revenge.

[scissorhands]

The concensus of all the worldwide intelligence agencies, at the time, was that Saddam did indeed have WMD. Indeed the UN was also under that impression and were simply divided on how to deal with that situation.

[gumboot]

They were very willing participants in the Balkans, at least when they thought they were backing the winning side.
Set up their own ss unit.
That doesnt get mentioned much for some reason.


For some reason the number of high-profile Neo-Nazis and Nazis involved in Islamic Terrorism never gets a mention either. And I'm not talking skinhead 20-something white males. I'm talking the real deal. People like Francois Genoud.

-Gumboot

[parky76]

the cia told bush that it was higly likely that there were no wmd's in iraq. bush didnt care. we knew that the yellow cake story was b.s....bush didnt care.

if god himself told bush that there were no wmds in iraq...bush would have still wanted to invade. he wanted to invade the day he took office...and certainly after 9-11. this is not conspiracy theory...read richard clarke's book.

the only positive result that has come out of iraq...is that halliburton's stock has doubled. gas prices are up....home heating oil prices are up. all for a war that did not have to occur.

it is true..that saddam did not want to fully come clean..because he preffered to stand defiant to the usa and be invaded..he sacrificed a lot of iraqi lives for his pride. how he is on death row.

i dont blame the usa for everything that is wrong in the world. certainly its not america's fault that india and pakistan fight over kashmir. its not america's fault that north korea is a nuclear state. its not america's fault that the bengal tiger is engandered. but america has been sticking its nose where it does not belong...and there are consequences for such actions.




Wrong.

The USA did not invade Iraq for revenge. They had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 and this absurd notion that the USA attacked Iraq because it was a Muslim state is absolute rubbish.

I actually disapprove of the war in Iraq but I do so for the correct reason. Reasons of fact not rubbish. Iraq was invaded because it was believed they possessed WMD. This was later proved wrong and the weapons inspectors pointed this out prior to the invasion. It was then changed to regime removal and change.

Support or condemn the Iraq war but for goodness sake do it for the correct reason and not some nonsense about attacking a Muslim State for revenge.

Please stop trying to blame the US for everything that is wrong in the world also.

Iraq is a mess but it as absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 911 and again absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with revenge.

[stateofgrace]

the cia told bush that it was higly likely that there were no wmd's in iraq. bush didnt care. we knew that the yellow cake story was b.s....bush didnt care.

if god himself told bush that there were no wmds in iraq...bush would have still wanted to invade. he wanted to invade the day he took office...and certainly after 9-11. this is not conspiracy theory...read richard clarke's book.

the only positive result that has come out of iraq...is that halliburton's stock has doubled. gas prices are up....home heating oil prices are up. all for a war that did not have to occur.

it is true..that saddam did not want to fully come clean..because he preffered to stand defiant to the usa and be invaded..he sacrificed a lot of iraqi lives for his pride. how he is on death row.

i dont blame the usa for everything that is wrong in the world. certainly its not america's fault that india and pakistan fight over kashmir. its not america's fault that north korea is a nuclear state. its not america's fault that the bengal tiger is engandered. but america has been sticking its nose where it does not belong...and there are consequences for such actions.

Ok, it is now apparent from your writing that you are a young guy (not as though I have anything against young guys, ok).

May I make a suggestion? That being you have a read through some of the threads that are on the go in this section and also the political section. I’m sure you will find that there are many people here who actually understand the Middle East, far better than I do. Equally so I’m sure you can now appreciate that not everybody here, in fact I would estimate a large majority of people are not simply following on blindly to what they are being told by the USG.

It is clear we have got off on the wrong foot and as such if you are here genuinely here to learn and genuinely debate your concerns, ok fine I for one am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

It is very easy to have a go a present US administration and equally so try to pin the blame for 911 entirely upon them. Before you do so , like I said have a read through some of the threads, become familiar with what has been said and please don’t try to throw in for ever debunked 911 conspiracy rubbish.

I see that the thread you started in political section is covering the same topic that is being discussed here and as such there is no point in me adding to what as already been said here or in the other thread.

Anyway Parky76, welcome to Jref

Stateofgrace.

[parky76]

:) why thank you.

[gumboot]

the only positive result that has come out of iraq...is that halliburton's stock has doubled.


While certainly the Iraq War has had its share of negative outcomes, improved profits for Halliburton have nothing at all to do with Iraq, and everything to do with success in their other operations outside Iraq.

KBR's (yes that's right, Kellogg, Brown and Root (a subsidary of Halliburton) had the Iraq contracts, not Halliburton itself) average profit margin for LOGCAP III (the publicly bid contract under which they were awared the Iraq work) was less than 2%.

-Gumboot

[Calcas]

Get out of my head! :D


He dosen't care if everyone knows.

p'duh, p'dub, p'perv, all the same...

The dude tried to hit on "Momoka" because he/she had an avatar of a 7 year old cartoon girl ...

[Deus Ex Machina]

ive never been to the west bank. ive also never been to tibet. yet i still have the right to condemn and expose what israel is doing in the west bank..and what china is doing in tibet.

israel's rule in the west bank is very similar to apartheid. i'll tell you why if you really have to have it explained to you.

Hmm - so you don't a clue what you are talking about? Why am I not surprised at all?

I don't suppose you managed to visit Israel either then?

How about South Africa under apartheid?

Or does all your drivel come from regurgitating what other people have written?

[scissorhands]

Im still waiting for him to explain his comparison, he did offer after all.:D

[Brainster]

the cia told bush that it was higly likely that there were no wmd's in iraq. bush didnt care. we knew that the yellow cake story was b.s....bush didnt care.

False. Read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html) on prewar Iraq intelligence. Not only did the CIA feel there were WMD, but they thought that Joe Wilson's much-bruited trip to Niger actually supported the Yellowcake story.

if god himself told bush that there were no wmds in iraq...bush would have still wanted to invade. he wanted to invade the day he took office...and certainly after 9-11. this is not conspiracy theory...read richard clarke's book.

A good argument can be made for these points.

[parky76]

here is why israel behaves like the apartheid regime in the west bank:

israel rules the west bank. yet they have no annexed the west bank. by not annexing the west bank, they have chosen not to apply israeli civilian law onto the lands. they have however annexed east jerusalem, where they apply civilian law, offered the palestinians the right to vote, etc.

but in the west bank, there is no annexation. yet, they have built cities and towns holding more then 250,000 people. roads criss cross the land.
these cities and towns are OFF LIMITS to anyone but jews. not even israeli arabs can more to these towns. they can build them...but they cant live in them. even the roads are segregated by religion. jew-only roads. no arabs allowed.

meanwhile, the palestinians, have no right to vote in israeli elections. they have no power to influence the politics of whats going on in the west bank. they can only vote for the PA..which controls about 30% of the west bank.

so if israel has refused to annex the west bank..what gives them the legal authority..under israeli law..to move in their civilian population? what gives them the legal authority, under isreali law, to only allow israeki jews..not arabs..to live in the settlemants??

israel has not annexed the west bank..because they would then have to offer the palestinians citizenship and the right to vote. this would make israel a bi-national state...and complete influence over the jewish state. they do not want this. so, they build their jew-only settlemants, roads, schools, and towns...without israeli legal grounding. not to mention the fact that they CONFISCATE arab land..under the premise of military neccessity..and then build CIVILIAN jew-only towns and roads.

if this is not apartheid..i dont know what is. carving out land in a territory and then building ethnically seperate settlemants even though you choose not to annex it...so as to prevent members of another racial/religous group from moving in or influencing the legislation approving them.

they say that america and israel share fundamental values. this is true...if we are talking about 60 years ago in Mississippi.

[Pardalis]

Politics forum, please. :rolleyes:

[eeyore1954]

it is very clear to me..that the bush administration, right-wing media, uses fear to try to get the american people compliant. i used to be afraid...i no longer am. does that mean that i believe the bush administration is being led by the nwo/illuminati/zionist/freemason/bilderberg conspiracy?...lol. no.

once again...all or nothing thinking. the world is not that simple.
the conspiracy theorists use fear of a hidden evil hand driving the war on terror...the bush admnistration uses fear of thousands of evil arab terror cells. i dont buy it...any of it.


All or nothing the world is not that simple? I agree but your the who said

but what we do know...100%...is that neo-conservatives have abused and manipulated the fear after 9-11..to push their insane, right-wing agenda.