Who created al Qaeda?

[Axxman300]

I must openly apologize to Axxman300 for claiming he was being "disingenuous" in one of his posts. Im not here for "confrontation" but rather to promote rational, cohesive discussion into this area which i find completely lacking into mt area of study which are the events of September 1th 2001.

Apology accepted.

I happen to agree that US intelligence and foreign policy was lax on Islamic Terrorism right up to September 10, 2001. Carter gutted the CIA's HUMINT abilities which made them blind to the Iranian Revolution and the eventual take over of the US Embassy in Tehran which set us on the road we're on now. Carter made the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf a cornerstone of US national security. Reagan compounded problems with the intervention into Lebanon which saw our introduction to the suicide truck bomb. He response was to park an Iowa Class battleship off the coast and shell Shiite neighborhoods which made us a generation of new enemies in the region. All through the 80's Reagan and Bush talked tough on terror but rarely acted. This was due to our complex and incestuous relationship with the Saudis and our tricky relationship with Israel.

With Israel our thinking was that our enemies in that region are also their enemies, and since Israel has always been proactive on terror the unwritten policy was to let them deal with terrorists.

With the Saudis it more a policy of ignoring the flow of money to questionable organizations, not asking questions, and crossing our fingers that that money didn't end up paying for dead Americans somewhere. And if something did happen we had our standard two-faced reaction which was to be publicly outraged while not doing anything in retaliation beyond a strongly written letter.

On a personal note, in August 2001 I had an argument with a friend who worked in intelligence about the threat Al Qaeda posed to CONUS. I told him these guys were next level risk-takers and that it was only a matter of time before they had a big success in this country. He told me Al Qaeda's focus was the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Israel being their center of gravity. He said their threats of attacking inside the US were hot air. And this guy represented the mind set of most intelligence professionals (outside of Alec Station and the FBI's NYC office).

 

[JSanderO]

Obviously terrorists can expect nor believe they can "defeat" a large military industrial power who they (rightly?) perceive as interfering in their region of the less developed world. Colonialism and empire is nothing new and neither have endured. The ME was / is complicated by the oil under its sands. I suspect that what terrorists may believe is that they can sting the west, inflict wounds which they think will cause the West to withdraw and cease their meddling in the region. USA has used a big stick approach which is completely ineffective against asymmetrical conflicts. I also suspect that terrorism against the West will continue as long as people of the region see the West as exploiting and a force of oppression. 9/11 was a wake up call that asymmetrical struggle can have some painful consequence... and the West has not been and may still not be equipped to prevent it. Observe how many terrorists incidents there have been since 9/11. The strategy has larger been a more repressive surveillance culture which is no fun at all.

 

[Venom]

Obviously terrorists can expect nor believe they can "defeat" a large military industrial power who they (rightly?) perceive as interfering in their region of the less developed world. Colonialism and empire is nothing new and neither have endured. The ME was / is complicated by the oil under its sands. I suspect that what terrorists may believe is that they can sting the west, inflict wounds which they think will cause the West to withdraw and cease their meddling in the region. USA has used a big stick approach which is completely ineffective against asymmetrical conflicts. I also suspect that terrorism against the West will continue as long as people of the region see the West as exploiting and a force of oppression. 9/11 was a wake up call that asymmetrical struggle can have some painful consequence... and the West has not been and may still not be equipped to prevent it. Observe how many terrorists incidents there have been since 9/11. The strategy has larger been a more repressive surveillance culture which is no fun at all.

War and terrorism are two sides of the same coin.

There is no doubt in my mind that if another country bombed us or even some second civil war happens, the Cliven Bundy and Michigan Militia types, maybe some antifa groups, would be considering hostage taking and aircraft bombing.

 

[Axxman300]

Obviously terrorists can expect nor believe they can "defeat" a large military industrial power who they (rightly?) perceive as interfering in their region of the less developed world. Colonialism and empire is nothing new and neither have endured. The ME was / is complicated by the oil under its sands. I suspect that what terrorists may believe is that they can sting the west, inflict wounds which they think will cause the West to withdraw and cease their meddling in the region. USA has used a big stick approach which is completely ineffective against asymmetrical conflicts. I also suspect that terrorism against the West will continue as long as people of the region see the West as exploiting and a force of oppression. 9/11 was a wake up call that asymmetrical struggle can have some painful consequence... and the West has not been and may still not be equipped to prevent it. Observe how many terrorists incidents there have been since 9/11. The strategy has larger been a more repressive surveillance culture which is no fun at all.

Al Qaeda has its roots in the Islamic Brotherhood, an organization which was founded in 1928. At the time the colonial power in the middle east was the UK. What they feared was the modern world and all that came with it as a source for undermining Allah and the word of the prophet (radio, movies, pop-music, women's fashion, women's rights, etc). From pre-WWII onward all progress was viewed from this perspective, everything the west did was seen as a corrupting influence. WWII and the Cold War didn't help change their perspective on the west as Germany, France, Soviet Union, the US, and the UN installed or propped up dictators aligned with their cause.

In the 1990's the US intervened to help Muslims in Kuwait, Somalia, and the Balkans. Al Qaeda was nowhere to be seen. They talk a good game about western oppression yet they murdered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq. Al Qaeda is nothing but a bunch of wealthy Arabs who get off murdering people in the name of Islam while not actually practicing the 5 pillars.

 

[JSanderO]

Al Qaeda has its roots in the Islamic Brotherhood, an organization which was founded in 1928. At the time the colonial power in the middle east was the UK. What they feared was the modern world and all that came with it as a source for undermining Allah and the word of the prophet (radio, movies, pop-music, women's fashion, women's rights, etc). From pre-WWII onward all progress was viewed from this perspective, everything the west did was seen as a corrupting influence. WWII and the Cold War didn't help change their perspective on the west as Germany, France, Soviet Union, the US, and the UN installed or propped up dictators aligned with their cause.

In the 1990's the US intervened to help Muslims in Kuwait, Somalia, and the Balkans. Al Qaeda was nowhere to be seen. They talk a good game about western oppression yet they murdered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq. Al Qaeda is nothing but a bunch of wealthy Arabs who get off murdering people in the name of Islam while not actually practicing the 5 pillars.

I am by no means a scholar of the region and my understanding is informed by informal exposure to the "news" and other media presentations. Having said that the cultural / religious values are vastly different and very much incompatible between the West and the Islamic world.

I suspect there are beliefs on both sides that their way of life is better and the other side would be better if they changed. The problem comes when anyone one on either side begins to take actions toward that end. Further the West has had an economic interest... and a need for the energy under the Arab sands and this led to colonial type behavior which ultimately will lead to both collaboration of the ruling class and push back from those "ruled". And there are no democracies in the Islamic world which is another formula for push back... abuse of the governed by the "monarch". There are no peaceful possibilities with these forces in the mix.

Insurgencies opposing colonialism is nothing new. Central and South America have seen this and continue to see these struggles play out. But usually there is a colonial power which is not letting go, The US was pushed out of Cuba only to have the USSR move in... A big problem for "self determination"... the will of the people... has always been economic sustainability... and with industrialization... control and earnings from resources coveted by external interests.

Religious fundies may want to convert the rest of world to their particular religion. But this is unlikely and unrealistic. More likely is destruction and interruption of the resource extractions... and foreign military presence.

Terrorism has demonstrated that harm can be done to innocents... the public at any time and any place. But how to respond to non state actors? The response should really be a police action... find perps, arrest and bring to trial and it often means proving conspiracy... uncovering terrorists plots in the making. The possibility of stopping an act in progress is usually like slamming the barn door after the horses have left.

Hijacking is / was bad enough and a palpable fear for all travelers. Using the hijacked play as a suicide bomb makes it a danger to all civilians. Warriors though prepared to die almost never engage in suicide attacks. This may have started in the Middle east in the Israeli Palestinian conflict... with 9/11 becoming the mother of all suicide attacks... though surely not the first terrorist bombing.

But unless there is resolution to a conflict which has become "military/violent" there will always be a tit for tat... and it will become over long time spans impossible to determine who started or even what the real cause(s) are. Attacking cafes in Paris appears to be attacking Western values in a former colonial power. Attacking the WTC seems to be an attack on the West's economic domination of nations of the ME.

What do I know.

 

[Axxman300]

The WTC was targeted because it was a symbol of US financial power and because Al Qaeda figured that there'd be a lot of Jews working there.

Our main failure after 911 was to wage open war beyond tossing the Taliban out of power. We should have declared victory in 2005 and handed them their keys back while keeping Army SF ODA's in country to help security forces. We should have never invaded Iraq, at least not within the time-table that we did. It was only a matter of time before Saddam did something dumb enough to warrant legitimate military action, and then we could have built a coalition with a clear end-game in the plans.

To be blunt the problem was Bush, Cheney, and his NSC. They wanted high-profile actions to be taken, things that they could point to as being proactive on terrorism. Cheney had been a wise SecDef under the first Bush knowing when to defer to military experts, but he clearly suffers from PTSD from being in the line of fire on 911 (this is what happens when you get draft deferments from serving in Vietnam) and his judgement was shot.

Counter terrorism is a nuanced, subtle, and esoteric endeavor which takes place in the shadows. There are no high profile raids, no big explosions, and if you do it right your targets just disappear. 75% of counter terror is hunting down their finances and grabbing their money, the rest is psychological, and political. 5% of counter terror is Special Operations kicking down doors and blowing bad guys away, and even when this is done the smart move is to not take credit for their deaths (see Israel). Unfortunately none of this looks great on TV and the simpletons in the Bush White House, and later the Obama White House felt they needed more dramatic actions to be taken.

And yes, we've painted ourselves into a corner with our War on Terror.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I am by no means a scholar of the region and my understanding is informed by informal exposure to the "news" and other media presentations. Having said that the cultural / religious values are vastly different and very much incompatible between the West and the Islamic world.

Actually, I'm not sure they are so different. I've spent several years in the Gulf, and what people want there is pretty much what people want in the west. Most people want a comfortable and safe life, in which they can safely raise their families and have some fun.

I suspect there are beliefs on both sides that their way of life is better and the other side would be better if they changed. The problem comes when anyone one on either side begins to take actions toward that end. Further the West has had an economic interest... and a need for the energy under the Arab sands and this led to colonial type behavior which ultimately will lead to both collaboration of the ruling class and push back from those "ruled". And there are no democracies in the Islamic world which is another formula for push back... abuse of the governed by the "monarch". There are no peaceful possibilities with these forces in the mix.

I'm not sure I can think of many examples of 'colonial behaviour' in this context. The deposition of the Iranian President in 1953 would be one, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the other military interventions (such as Yemen and Syria) don't really fall into the category of colonial behaviour, at least not as I see it. The Iraq invasion was pure belligerence, but the aim was not to colonise: it was to display American military might (as set out in PNAC). (This, obviously, has been a colossal failure, as it has in Afghanistan). Ditto the others I have mentioned: there is intervention, but I don't see it as colonial. Perhaps you could clarify this point?
As for democracies in the Islamic world, for sure their record of democracy has been poor (Egypt is one example), but Tunisia is doing OK, Lebanon and Morocco are reasonably well-functioning democracies, as is Indonesia. There's a long way to go yet, but it is a mistake to say there are no democracies.

Insurgencies opposing colonialism is nothing new. Central and South America have seen this and continue to see these struggles play out. But usually there is a colonial power which is not letting go, The US was pushed out of Cuba only to have the USSR move in... A big problem for "self determination"... the will of the people... has always been economic sustainability... and with industrialization... control and earnings from resources coveted by external interests.

The Arab Spring revolts were not aimed at colonial powers: they were aimed at their indigenous rulers.
You said in a earlier post that the west had taken resources from Islamic countries. I would dispute this. We have bought oil and gas, and this ha made those countries immensely wealthy. Other than that, the Gulf countries don't really have any resources to take. Some 97% of the income of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia comes from oil, for example.
What resources do you think have been taken?

 

[JSanderO]

Actually, I'm not sure they are so different. I've spent several years in the Gulf, and what people want there is pretty much what people want in the west. Most people want a comfortable and safe life, in which they can safely raise their families and have some fun.



I'm not sure I can think of many examples of 'colonial behaviour' in this context. The deposition of the Iranian President in 1953 would be one, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the other military interventions (such as Yemen and Syria) don't really fall into the category of colonial behaviour, at least not as I see it. The Iraq invasion was pure belligerence, but the aim was not to colonise: it was to display American military might (as set out in PNAC). (This, obviously, has been a colossal failure, as it has in Afghanistan). Ditto the others I have mentioned: there is intervention, but I don't see it as colonial. Perhaps you could clarify this point?
As for democracies in the Islamic world, for sure their record of democracy has been poor (Egypt is one example), but Tunisia is doing OK, Lebanon and Morocco are reasonably well-functioning democracies, as is Indonesia. There's a long way to go yet, but it is a mistake to say there are no democracies.



The Arab Spring revolts were not aimed at colonial powers: they were aimed at their indigenous rulers.
You said in a earlier post that the west had taken resources from Islamic countries. I would dispute this. We have bought oil and gas, and this ha made those countries immensely wealthy. Other than that, the Gulf countries don't really have any resources to take. Some 97% of the income of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia comes from oil, for example.
What resources do you think have been taken?

Most, not all of the Arab world religion dominates.

There are hardly and democracies...

read this to learn about "colonialism" in the arab work. There are many books about it. I have read none of them.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-chapter-13

The French colonized north Africa... the Brits were in the mix as well.

and don't forget Italians in Ethiopia

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...and-ethiopia/58D77F95C4A224E18DF418F54D7ECF4B

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Most, not all of the Arab world religion dominates.

The same could be said of the US or Latin America.
This does not change the fact that people in the Arab states, from my personal experience, are essentially no different from people elsewhere.

There are hardly and democracies...

Not only is this still not true, as I have explained to you, you appear to be assuming that all Muslim countries are Arab. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are non-Arabs- C250 million in Indonesia alone, for example.

read this to learn about "colonialism" in the arab work. There are many books about it. I have read none of them.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-chapter-13

The French colonized north Africa... the Brits were in the mix as well.

and don't forget Italians in Ethiopia

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...and-ethiopia/58D77F95C4A224E18DF418F54D7ECF4B

Yes. I know this. This is ancient history. You were talking about modern-day colonial behaviour, which is why I asked you for examples. Do you have any?

 

[JSanderO]

The same could be said of the US or Latin America.
This does not change the fact that people in the Arab states, from my personal experience, are essentially no different from people elsewhere.

Not only is this still not true, as I have explained to you, you appear to be assuming that all Muslim countries are Arab. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are non-Arabs- C250 million in Indonesia alone, for example.

Yes. I know this. This is ancient history. You were talking about modern-day colonial behaviour, which is why I asked you for examples. Do you have any?

All nations have populations which belong to religions. Some nations are more religiously tolerant that others. US is a secular nation. Almost all nations are secular while some have power religious influences... such as Israel.

Islam is of course not confined to the Arab world... SE Asia has huge number of followers of Islam. Many Muslim people advocate that their societies be governed by Sharia law. USA has its own nut case xtian evangelicals. Fundamentalist of all religions appear to be remarkably intolerant. And you will recall how we were told about the moderate Muslims post 9/11. Yet radicals worked from the mosques all over the world... giving us more terrorism.

Of course most people everywhere want the same basic things in life... peace, comfort and fulfillment. These needs/goals have nothing to do with religion.

I was not referring to modern day colonialism.

http://loyolaphoenix.com/2019/03/consequences-of-colonialism-how-its-still-having-an-effect-today/

Of course modern day colonialism as it was in the 19th and 20th century is no longer practiced. It's legacy is still around and to deny that is to bury one's head in the sand. Multi national corporations don't care about political borders... they care about resources, raw materials, markets and profits.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I was not referring to modern day colonialism.

Actually, yes, you were:

The problem comes when anyone one on either side begins to take actions toward that end. Further the West has had an economic interest... and a need for the energy under the Arab sands and this led to colonial type behavior which ultimately will lead to both collaboration of the ruling class and push back from those "ruled".

The 'colonial-type behaviour' you talk about started after the discovery of oil, which happened in the 1920s and 30s. Posts about the French in North Africa or the Italians in Ethiopia (which isn't a Muslim-majority country, and was never conquered by the Italians, BTW) are completely irrelevant.
What examples of this post-oil-discovery colonial-type behaviour can you name?

Of course modern day colonialism as it was in the 19th and 20th century is no longer practiced. It's legacy is still around and to deny that is to bury one's head in the sand.

Which is something I have not done. To whom were you referring here?

Multi national corporations don't care about political borders... they care about resources, raw materials, markets and profits.

Here you restate your claim, as if I had never asked you to substantiate it.
Which resources has the west 'taken' from the Arab states?

 

[JSanderO]

I am not going to argue with you Mr. yak. I cited materials..there are other citations. believe what you want.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I am not going to argue with you Mr. yak.

That is, of course, your right. However, this is a debating forum, and, if you are going to post things that are demonstrably untrue, you should expect some reaction to that.

I cited materials..there are other citations. believe what you want.

I know you have. The problem is that the materials you have cited do not support the claims you are making.
You also freely admit you have not read much of what you cite, and also that your overall knowledge of this area is less than expert.
Fine. This is a chance for you to educate yourself. For example:
1. There are democracies in the Islamic world. They may not be the world's best democracies, but they exist nonetheless.
This is not a matter of 'believe what you like': this is simple fact.
2. The Gulf Arab states have become fabulously wealthy from selling oil. Oil is pretty much their only resource. It has not been looted, stolen or pillaged by the West: it has been bought.
This is not a matter of 'believe what you like': this is simple fact.
3. The West engaged in colonial behaviour in the past. So did the Turks: the whole area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The entire recent (i.e. C20th onwards) history of this region is about the process of removing this colonial control and establishing independent states). With respect to the Gulf, there is little to suggest that any Western country has any interest in colonising any country here.
This last sentence is more of a belief than a fact, but as you have yet to furnish any examples of this claimed behaviour, I'll stick with it.
4. That religion is a major factor in the attitudes of Islamic countries, and in their relation with the west, is undeniable. That it is the only factor, and that this divide is uncrossable, is not a claim I can accept, given my considerable experience of living and travelling in Islamic countries.
Again, not a fact but an opinion, but if you are going to assert that the world is irretrievably divided, you need to substantiate this with more than bare assertion. Alternatively, you could learn from this, and find out from someone like me whether your assumptions are well-founded or not.
So, engage or not, as you wish, but you are missing a chance to learn here.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Operation Cyclone

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken; funding began with just over $500,000 in 1979, was increased dramatically to $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

Hillary Clinton: We created al Qaeda

And there's this guy

I've been thinking about geggy a bit lately.

I searched the 9/11 CT forum and this was their last post here.

While their posts often seemed to me to be a tangled labyrinth of names, events, and places, I'd like to hear their comment on the current state of affairs in the world.

In particular, on the Mueller Report, aftermath, and impeachment process, particularly since Robert Mueller was head of the FBI during 9/11 and for the following 3 years.

Also noting the classified redactions in both the 9/11 report, and the Mueller report.

Partly posting to see if my post sends geggy a thread reply notification email or something.

Hillary Clinton's statements in that footage are insightful.

I actually doubt geggy should be lumped in with the CD truthers.

But in my personal opinion, having lived/been in Kashmir for 3 months about 10 years before 9/11, the two clips are quite believable of some of the politics and life in the Central Asia / Indian subcontinent region.
(Ignore, as always, the YouTube comments. )

 

[JSanderO]

It should surprise anyone that US intel agencies were conducting covert "foreign policy" to further what was believed to be the interests of the USA. This included both "security" and economic... which were believed to be intertwined.

Technically Afghanistan or even Iran are not threats to the US "homeland". It's pretty clear that they any all other countries have no interest in conquering the USA and grabbing its territory. Security is usually framed as protecting our interests such as access to raw materials and energy reserves.... and the general concept of protecting markets and world commerce. If world commerce takes a dive most nations will suffer. Some more than others. So.... there is a "struggle" by nations to get what they need to drive their economies. These nations will either simply buy what they need, trade in a quid pro quo... or set up favorable or puppet governments which support their mission. China has been building infrastructure in developing nations which allows them to export and import. China is getting what it wants... raw materials, energy and markets for it's products.

We also see all sorts of "proxy" wars. And with them outside support and influence and alliances. USA has engaged in all manner of interference and influence in Central and South America for more than a century.

It makes sense and is possible that the US Intel supported the insurgents who were fighting the USSR.... our supposed enemy of the cold war. It's also possible that these insurgents opposed any foreign powers controlling their land and economies. And it's also possible that some were collaborators while others would become resistance fighters and turn against the USA... believing that they were being used at tools by the USA/intel. and it's perfectly believable that these would become "terrorists" and try to sting the USA. Obviously they could not was a battle on a traditional battlefield. They could try to sting US forces stationed on their soil. And they did. They also decided to "pull a fast one" and get a punch in within the USA... 9/11.

Fighting a terrorist attack would mean immediate response. No state is set up to do this. 9/11 was a surprise attack. Further USA would not and still will not shoot down a hijacked commercial flight with innocent people aboard. Clever ploy. It worked.

Fighting "terrorism" means to prevent terrorists from developing and executing their low tech plots. This needs humit and advanced knowledge and would require a sting and a case for conspiracy. We've haven't seen much of this at all. We have resorted to drone strikes of what are believed to be terrorists. We don't capture and try them... we simply bomb them as we did to an Isis leader in Iraq recently. The public accepts this tactic.

Should intel have expected that their "insurgents" would bite the hand that fed them? I would think so. Did they somehow drop the ball before 9/11? Were there signs that these bites were coming? YES... they did the USS Cole... Khobar towers. But even if they were on to what could happen... it may be that they were not getting humit to prevent or prepare for an attack.

Looks like intel got caught flat footed on 9/11. We were told this was really because all the agencies were not talking to each other. Sounds like a lame excuse. But it also seems as if they hadn't what it took to stop it before or in progress.

Maybe

 

[rockysmith76]

Osama Bin Laden interview al-Jazeera October 2001:

there you have it, Soviet Russia created Al Qaeda.

 

[waypastvne]

We don't capture and try them... we simply bomb them as we did to an Isis leader in Iraq recently.

We sent in a strike team to capture him. He blew himself up, we did not.

 

[JSanderO]

We sent in a strike team to capture him. He blew himself up, we did not.

maybe... we didn't capture OBL

 

[Orphia Nay]

It should surprise anyone that US intel agencies were conducting covert "foreign policy" to further what was believed to be the interests of the USA. This included both "security" and economic... which were believed to be intertwined.

Technically Afghanistan or even Iran are not threats to the US "homeland". It's pretty clear that they any all other countries have no interest in conquering the USA and grabbing its territory. Security is usually framed as protecting our interests such as access to raw materials and energy reserves.... and the general concept of protecting markets and world commerce. If world commerce takes a dive most nations will suffer. Some more than others. So.... there is a "struggle" by nations to get what they need to drive their economies. These nations will either simply buy what they need, trade in a quid pro quo... or set up favorable or puppet governments which support their mission. China has been building infrastructure in developing nations which allows them to export and import. China is getting what it wants... raw materials, energy and markets for it's products.

We also see all sorts of "proxy" wars. And with them outside support and influence and alliances. USA has engaged in all manner of interference and influence in Central and South America for more than a century.

It makes sense and is possible that the US Intel supported the insurgents who were fighting the USSR.... our supposed enemy of the cold war. It's also possible that these insurgents opposed any foreign powers controlling their land and economies. And it's also possible that some were collaborators while others would become resistance fighters and turn against the USA... believing that they were being used at tools by the USA/intel. and it's perfectly believable that these would become "terrorists" and try to sting the USA. Obviously they could not was a battle on a traditional battlefield. They could try to sting US forces stationed on their soil. And they did. They also decided to "pull a fast one" and get a punch in within the USA... 9/11.

Fighting a terrorist attack would mean immediate response. No state is set up to do this. 9/11 was a surprise attack. Further USA would not and still will not shoot down a hijacked commercial flight with innocent people aboard. Clever ploy. It worked.

Fighting "terrorism" means to prevent terrorists from developing and executing their low tech plots. This needs humit and advanced knowledge and would require a sting and a case for conspiracy. We've haven't seen much of this at all. We have resorted to drone strikes of what are believed to be terrorists. We don't capture and try them... we simply bomb them as we did to an Isis leader in Iraq recently. The public accepts this tactic.

Should intel have expected that their "insurgents" would bite the hand that fed them? I would think so. Did they somehow drop the ball before 9/11? Were there signs that these bites were coming? YES... they did the USS Cole... Khobar towers. But even if they were on to what could happen... it may be that they were not getting humit to prevent or prepare for an attack.

Looks like intel got caught flat footed on 9/11. We were told this was really because all the agencies were not talking to each other. Sounds like a lame excuse. But it also seems as if they hadn't what it took to stop it before or in progress.

Maybe

This is using "scare words".

"Afghanistan, Iran, US, Intel, terrorists."

This type of language is so vague as to be meaningless, and actually harmful.

All part of the fight and flight animal instinct.

Demonising others and even killing out of fear of having to compromise on our own food, water, shelter.

In places like Central Asia and the Pakistan/India/Kashmir border, and Israel/Palestine, it's about neighbours being "at war" with each other because of inequality and national or international policies not appropriate to certain communities on the ground divided by theoretical/ideological lines.

Related:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340316

 

[JSanderO]

How many terrorist attacks post 9/11 have been stopped in their tracks? How many terrorists have been arrested for conspiracy post 9/11? How many terrorist attacks have there been post 9/11?