by AlicetheKurious » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:39 pm
GM, you haven't put words in my mouth. Just because you're so nice, I'll stick my neck out and do something I really don't like to do, which is to post a highly controversial hypothesis at 2:00 am with no time to back up anything I say. The night before a very busy day.
What we know: Al Qaeda was created by the CIA decades ago to fight the government in Afghanistan. The CIA got their Saudi "allies" to massively fund al Qaeda and to assist in recruiting "jihadists", but it's highly revealing that while they relied on the Saudi regime for the cash and the personnel, in the thousands of new, fanatic madrasas that they founded all over Afghanistan with the help of their other "allies", Pakistan's ISI, the atrocious textbooks -- urging Muslim children to poke out the eyes and tear the limbs off 'infidels', were written and printed in Nebraska (using USAID funds). This indicates to me that they did not trust even their Wahhabist Saudi 'allies' to devise sufficiently crazed indoctrination materials for small Afghani children.
Over 15 years, al Qaeda -- "the (data) base" became a massive organization, headquartered in the complex at Tora-Bora, which was designed by U.S. engineers but financed and built by Saudi Arabians, including Osama bin Laden's construction firm. But the organization was far from limited to the borders of Afghanistan. Pakistan's ISI oversaw much of it for their American bosses, and helped with some of the logistics and infrastructure (telephone and electricity systems). As far away as the capitals of western Europe and among Muslim populations in eastern Europe, agents provocateurs were embedded to ensure a constant supply of fresh recruits. In this endeavor, the CIA was able to count upon the enthusiastic collaboration of a number of Western intelligence agencies, including the British, French and German, not to mention the Egyptian and others, who probably appreciated the potential advantages represented by such a pool of agents and cannon fodder for black ops.
So far, so good? Al Qaeda worked out very well for the Americans: not only were the Soviets defeated in Afghanistan, this defeat contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Afterwards, the Americans found many other uses for their creation, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, in the Philippines and elsewhere.
The Saudi regime was perfectly happy to continue to provide financial and logistical and recruitment support: not only was al Qaeda a convenient way for them to get rid of troublesome elements, but they were openly supportive of al Qaeda's Wahhabist form of Islam being spread far and wide, thus bolstering the legitimacy of their own corrupt, Western-based rule by identifying themselves as religious authorities and patrons. At the same time, Western governments were happy to turn a blind eye to some of the more unsavoury activities of certain Saudi royals, including drug smuggling, human trafficking and other criminal activities, as long as the Saudis remained such loyal and generous friends.
Here's what I believe: although al Qaeda certainly did exist, and was implicated in various operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere in eastern Europe and Asia, there is no credible evidence whatsoever, none, that al Qaeda had anything to do with the September 11 attacks.
I think the September 11 attacks were a very carefully planned, high-tech crime that was designed to fulfill the objectives I've listed in my previous posts on this thread, and at the same time ensure that the blame would be assigned to "Arab Muslim fanatics". The clear evidence of the existence of the al Qaeda network was simply appropriated and used as "proof" that al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks, even though there is no evidence linking the two.
The whole visa imbroglio, very strong evidence that the designated "hijackers'" had doubles, the initial reports that many of the "hijackers" had attended air force and navy military training facilities in the U.S., the truly bizarre behaviour of the "hijackers'" probable doubles and other anomalies, combined with the absolute lack of any evidence that any hijackers boarded those planes, the laughable planted "evidence", etc., all point to a deliberate frame-up of the designated "hijackers" whom the FBI so quickly named, despite later admitting that the hijackers had left no paper trail, and despite the fact that even seven years later we have yet to see any credible evidence that actually tied them, still less al Qaeda, to the attacks.
Furthermore, as I also mentioned earlier, there was no benefit to any of the designated Official Perps, nor to any of their countries of origin to be expected that would justify such a complicated, byzantine, incredibly difficult and fantastical plot, not to mention that none had the resources to pull it off. No motive, no means, no opportunity, no evidence. Nothing at all.
I also think that after the fact, the Bush administration offered inducements to their Saudi 'allies' to shut up and not make a fuss. It's very interesting to compare the initial reaction of the Saudi and Egyptian regimes to the attacks: the official airwaves and media were flooded with outraged aviation experts, military pilots and political analysts highlighting the weaknesses of the official story. Contrary to unaltered's ignorant mutterings, these did not focus on the lack of Jewish victims (although there were, intriguingly, only three Israeli victims -- including Daniel Lewin), but were far more concerned with the flight paths and the impossible level of expertise and experience required to carry out the flight maneuvers, not to mention the bizarre and inexplicable lack of a military response to an attack on what is known to be the most protected air space on earth.
However, this lasted for a very short time after the attacks, perhaps a few days, after which the Americans' official story suddenly became gospel. The previous experts were unceremoniously yanked off the air, to be replaced with other 'experts' who sneered and smilingly ridiculed 'conspiracy theories'.
What happened during that time to create a climate of zero-tolerance for questioning the US-version of the attacks? Threats? Bribes? Probably plenty of both.
The result is that questioning the Americans' version of the September 11 attacks and who planned and executed them, is officially as taboo in 'friendly' client states in the Middle East, as it is in the U.S.
Anyway, I think that with the invasion of Afghanistan, the genuine al Qaeda, cut off from its funding and the crucial support it received from western intelligence agencies headed by the CIA, its subsidiary the ISI and the Saudis, was pretty much kaput.
Everything we've seen since then is pure psyops, smoke and mirrors, with a few lame attempts to recruit a few thugs, arm them, invent a suitably sinister and shadowy leader for them, and then use them as a pretext for diverse skirmishes in the War on Terror, mostly in Iraq, but also in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon (near where the U.S. wants to set up a military base). The "Al Qaeda" bogeyman was also waved around in the Madrid bombings under the right-wing Aznar government to suppress the growing dissent over Spanish troops in Iraq, and in the London bombings to suppress the growing dissent over the passing of mandatory electronic ID cards. "Al Qaeda" has always been a handy tool, and some people see no need to give it up just because it no longer exists.
Anyway, that's the best I can do, given my level of exhaustion and my lack of time. Discuss.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
