Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
He said in his documentary, that obviously terrorism can occur in our countries. it happened in the past, it will certainly occur in the future.
The real question is: how do we deal with this threat? How can we make sure the risk is limited?
So far, most of the actions taken, like the "war on terror" are a huge failure, and actually contribute to create and fuel new forms and origins of terrorism.
How can anybody not see this? That in the poor neighbourhoods of Bagdadn Mugadiscio, Cairo, the terrorists of tomorow are being nurtured by our failure to understand the real roots of terrorism?
B
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
This particular brand of terrorism is unique. The root of this particular breed of terrorism is Radical Islam. Terrorism is not the threat. Radical Islam is. As long as people teach a religion of hatred that encourages people to blow themselves up in the name of their God, this particular form of terrorism will never go away.
-Gumboot
But radical islam only holds sway over people because they have nothing else.
As gravy says, this is more a political forum debate, but it's interesting that 'truthers' have a tendency to hold up 'the power of nightmares' as some kind of proof that aq and islamic terrorism doesn't exist, simply because in the last episode the programme spent a lot of time trying to play down the organisation (AQ) which it had spent the first two episodes playing up.
The threat exists, for various reasons, and we saw it in action on 9/11 and 7/7.
There's no need for a govt conspiracy. All the bad guys are already out there.
As gravy says, this is more a political forum debate, but it's interesting that 'truthers' have a tendency to hold up 'the power of nightmares' as some kind of proof that aq and islamic terrorism doesn't exist, simply because in the last episode the programme spent a lot of time trying to play down the organisation (AQ) which it had spent the first two episodes playing up.
The threat exists, for various reasons, and we saw it in action on 9/11 and 7/7.
There's no need for a govt conspiracy. All the bad guys are already out there.
These terrorists don't want to attack other countries in the main. They are attacking America and the US primarily, and it certainly isn't because of hating freedoms. It is because of foreign policy.
Radical Islam will eventually fade away, and it will do so even faster if we are wise enough not to "throw fuel on the fire".
Hintington dark visions about "clash of civilization" were initially a theory, theory that we have done everything to transform it into a reality.
Radical Islam was at the beginning a small force, driving Islam's tortuous way to modernity. These countries are poor and weak. they can kill some innocent citizens, but provided we prevent them from using WMDs, there is no major threat for the West. 3000 people in NY is nothing compared to the Soviet threat (sic).
We try so hard to invent, create and nurture a new threat to justify military budgets.
Here is my view of what's happening in Islam: it is based on what serious Islam specialists will tell you:
Now, you say that the US had become complacent about its security. But didn't Clarke try to warn Rice, Cheney, and Bush? Why wouldn't they listen? In my view, the US are complacent because they let the roots of terrorism grow bigger and deeper:
- by supporting dictatorships: Egypt, Saudi Arabai, Jordan. These contries produced the terrorists. Why? Read the story of Sayed Al-Qutb, of Zawahiri. These mad men became what they are because they hate their governments, supported by the US. What happened in Iran in the last 70s will happen in these countries where radical political Islam is spreading. The same causes that led to the revolution in iran in 79 will produce the same effects in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Pakistan.
- by ignoring that force alone cannot defeat radical islam. For its roots are misery, ignorance. The US (but also Europe) trade policies contribute to prevent poor countries from developing. As a matter of consequence, mark my words, terrorism will spread in Muslim Africa. Recent US action in Somalia is just the seed of future terrorism.
- last but not least, by ignoring that the Is-Pal conflict is the deep cancer that kills any progress in the Muslim world.
The US is of course not the only cause of terrorism. Actually, they are only seconday. It is a Hegelian rule of History that people, when they progress toward modernity, go through a deep crisis. As fertility rates go down, and litteracy rates go up, there is always in every country a deep crisis. This is due to the fact that people whowere earlier poor farmers, whose world was limited to their neighbour's fiel, is now opened for a new and dangerous thing: ideologies. The list is long:
- Europe: nationalism and eventually fascism
- US: civil war
- Russia: communism
- China: communism
- Japan: militarism
etc... If you check the figures (fertility, literacy) these crisis roughly happened at the same time: transition toward modenity.
So, that is precisely what the the majority of the muslim world is going throught right now. And, ironclly, the muslim transition so far proves a lot less violent, in terms of casualties, than let's say WWII!
What's my point?
Well my point is: we, developped and civilized nations, must understand that they are going through their crisis. It might take a few decades, but eventually it will be a lot smoother. Take Iran: paradoxically, even though Ahmadinejad is a mad bastard, the Iranians are almost through. (2,1 children per women, 95% literacy rate). On the other hand, you have Pakistan: our next bomb. When Musharaf blows up, we gonna have a lot of trouble (Pak has the nuke!)
So, what should we do? Well, simple thing: Do not throw fuel on the fire!!
But that's what the US are doing right now. It is understandable that they were pissed off about 9/11, and they attacked AF. Fine! But Iraq, for christ sake!!?!! What better way to throw fuel on the fire!
I will stop here, but I'm so sad that the US, this great nation, land of freedom and opportunity, sells its soul in a stupid and unwinnable "war".
And 9/11 was the beginning of this. When this is all over, we'll the immense waste that all was.
CONCLUSION: if we are wise enough, then we will understand that the greatest issues we have to face are: peaceful rise of a multipolar world and global warming.
Focusing so hard on radical islam, which is a threat, but truly a minor one compared to Communism in the Past and global warming today, is just a way of hiding realities.
And until the US, and more generally the West doesn't understand, we will face constant failures and disillusions, just like since 9/11.
Sounds like you now believe the official account?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Busherie why do you say this? Are you saying that only you are aware of the problems that this war has brought and everybody else is blissfully unaware?
Of course people see it, everybody sees it. Why do you think Bush has plummeted in the opinion polls? The war inside Iraq and the war on terror in general in very unpopular.
Please stop assuming that because people do not agree that the USG planned 911, that everybody simply does not see anything beyond. In one thread recently many people voiced their objection to the invasion of Iraq, the same people that voice their objections to 911 conspiracies.
What does that tell you Busherie?
IMO, it tells you this, to voice your objections to this war, you must do so on reality, you must do so based on genuine believes. Not same make believe whereby it was all engineered this way.
Busherie, you are simply watering down your own objections to the worlds injustices by promoting and believing that this war was started by anything other that the US reaction to a terrorist attack. You are making it harder for people to form their ideals based on fact because you are trying to twist them.
People are aware Busherie, people do object, not because they believe the USG murdered 3000 of their own, but because right now the reaction to such a dreadful event is being seen as disastrous.The way this event has been used to push foriegn polices is a distaster. So people object.
Last edited:
I almost agree with you. Note that I don't believe in MIHOP theories. The difference between you and me on this topic is that the USG knew something big was coming, and let it happen wittout trying to do anything serious to stop it, in order to go on with their plans.
You don't believe governements can let their citizens die "because of the long term interest of the country"? I think you should think again.
I roughly agree with you. but the US think "they hate our freedoms". so convenient...
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
A bunch of Bush supporters and people who don't have enough time in their life to stop and think about this may believe that, but certainly not "the US" as a whole.
Bush didn't use the phrase "attack our freedoms" accidentally. It was a subtle way to convince people that taking freedoms away was a good thing.
The most sickening thing about the post 9/11 action was when they announced the patriot act with the words "one of the greatest gifts we give to our people is civil liberties..."
No, sir, you don't give us anything. You serve us.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Come on man, you cannot honestly believe this. Yes I know throughout history Governments have committed acts of genocide upon their own citizens but look what 911 has brought the US, nothing but disaster after disaster.
The attacks themselves cost close to 90 billion, it grounded the entire air transportation system,almost sent the economy into nose dive and cost three thousand innocent lives. The attack was on the WORLD trade centres. They were destroyed.They attacked the status of American power.
Then take the follow on events, the war on terror has cost something like 450 billion, over three thousand US military causalities and thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, you said so youself and I read somewhere that acts of terrorism have actually increased four fold since the invasion. Anti American and western feeling is now higher than it ever was.
The USG is one of the most unpopular Governments in history if not the most unpopular and doubtless will be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.
How? How on earth can 911 ever be described as "in the long term interests of a country"?
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
That's simply not true. Radical Islamic Terrorism in its modern form has been around for over 80 years, and has brought death and suffering to people all over the globe.
Were the moderate Muslims slaughtered in Algeria killed because of US foreign policy?
What about the massacres in Bosnia? US Foreign policy? The desecration of Buddhist holy sites? Must be the US again. The chaos in Somalia. Yup, must be the US! Who else?
The torture, beating, murder, and mutilation of Muslim women around the world... yup, I blame the US, don't you? The generations of Palestinian children raised to hate. Damn Americans have no shame. As for Islamic Extremism throughout Europe, yeah that has to be America's fault.
-Gumboot
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I have no doubt some Islamic terrorists use U.S. foreign policy as the reason for their actions. So what?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I agree. One should always separate the governement and the people. And in particular with he neocons.
Interesting question. Despite the obvious fact that Bush was elected twice (though the frauds' role was never fully explained), one cannot mix the American people and their goovernment. So I used the term USG.
What does that mean? There are two situations for which I use the expression:
- when it is related to LIHOP theories, i try not to sue the expression USG, because only few people could reallt get the "whole" but still partial picture of the mounting threat in the summer of 2001. i'm still not sure Bush was in the loop, because at the time he could not tell a chinese from a algerian.
- concerning foreign policy issues, the USG means the administration in Power, ie political steering of the actual administrative personnel and equipement, rather than the civil servants themselves.
I certainly agree with you that almost all of the neocons foreign policy actions are a terrible failure.
So "why LIHOP when you see how bad it's got since 9/11?". Actually, the neocons did not think ex ante that their policies would end in failure. When it became clear, they still believed that time would prove their decisions right. And remember some objectives have been achieved:
- a lot of money for a small group of companies,
- effective control of the Malacca strait, putting pressure on east asian countries oil supply, including China and Japan,
- effective disunity among the EU countries through the Iraki conflict and the anti-missile batteries they want to install in easter europe,
- strategic rounding up of the iranian regime through military presence in AF (east), IQ (West), Saudi Arabia (South): the trap is fully implemented, they are now just looking for a pretext. No wonder why the Iranian regime wants the bomb so hard!! (if you thought their only idea is to destroy Israel)
Remember also that in internal affairs, they have achieved some goals: better control of the american public through "the need for security", effective tax cuts for rich people, etc..
So the neocons have managed to use 9/11 effectively. If you combine the partial succeses and the fact they believed invading IQ would prove a success, you understanf why Rumsfelf called 9/11 "a blessing".
No, I'm not saying the US foreign policy is THE source of radical Islam. Certainly Islam itself and Muslim countries have a lot of problems to deal with. There emergence toward modernity (low fertility rates, high leracy rates) is slow and full of hurdles.
I'm saying that the US are "throwing fuel on the fire". If you read books about Islam, you will see that just as hardcore political islamism was declining (for instance in Algeria) after all the failures and the blood spilled, the new form of radical islam embodied by UBL managed to become a gobal force. Why? Thx to 9/11 of course but most of all because all the US has done against it is just counter productive.
And what about the US using radical islamism for their actions?
It is somehow political but it is 9/11 related, becase I'm trying to show you why LIHOP is credible, and supported by evidence.
PS: sorry for the absence, i was in the countryside.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Thank you. The reason I asked who you are describing as the "USG" in your LIHOP scenario, is that normally, intelligence about terrorism goes through many channels and is handled by many people before it gets to the leaders of the USG.
I can envision other possibilities. For instance, if an al Qaeda operative in custody spilled the beans about 9/11 directly, and only, to CIA Director George Tenet or FBI Director Robert Mueller, that would eliminate all the middlemen. As far as I know, nothing like that happened.
It's my understanding that when a possible threat is discovered by intelligence agencies, many people and resources are devoted to determining if the threat is credible. The people who do this work are not the "USG," but are people from many walks of life (and pay grades), who have chosen to devote their professional lives to protecting the USA from threats.
Unless these people are somehow taken out of the intelligence loop, and foreknowledge of 9/11 is limited only to a few players at the top who – and this is not a small condition – agreed that allowing an attack was a good idea, I don't see how your LIHOP scenario is plausible.