Okay, I think you misunderstood what "The power of nightmares
<
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares " had to say about the Soviets. There were no claims that the soviets didn't have massive arms build up, only that it might have been exaggerated by those in Washington that wanted to spend money on an American counter to this perceived threat. But looking at the situation realistically, we know for a fact that the Soviet regime by the 70's was in decline and decay, how then did the Straussian ideologues < :2006-15,GGLJ:en&q=leo+strauss manage to conclude that the military was devising some extra ordinary capabilities when the nation could hardly feed itself? The USSR by this time was slowly being eroded monetarily by the West and although they had their arsenals from the 50's and 60's by the time the 70's came their war machine was in serious decline and their need for natural resources then needed to be expanded hence the invasion of Afghanistan.
In the above example lies the strategy for what you saw unfolding before you with the whole terrorism issue. As the Straussian ideologues learned form events with the Soviet Union and their core philosophy that the struggle must be presented to the masses simply as "good vs. evil" proves highly successful when you want to accomplish other goals. They take non-existing threat or a marginally small threat and blow it out of proportions in order to scare the living daylights out of the target audience.
This now takes us to Afghanistan after the war. According to that MSNBC article you sourced. It is known that CIA was indirectly funding Bin Laden through the MAK, correct? If this is the case, why would they need an informant to tell them about "Al Qaeda?"
And I admit there was an error of fact about the 2000 date. I should have stated before this "informant" began collaboration with the Feds and other unsubstantiated rumors before then. And who was this informant who fingered "Al Qaeda?" His name is Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl. And why was he in Federal court testifying against Al Qaeda?
Here's why <
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/13/Embassy.bombings.trial/ :
Al-Fadl previously testified that he broke with bin Laden in 1996 after siphoning off $110,000 in al Qaeda funds that he could not pay back. He approached an American embassy and offered his insider's knowledge of an organization run by a man now topping the U.S. government's most wanted list.
And here's why:
David Baugh, a defense attorney for al-'Owhali, questioned Al-Fadl Tuesday. In the course of the cross-examination, Baugh produced a document showing the bill for keeping Al-Fadl in the witness protection program has cost more than $794,000 since 1999. The FBI's cost has been an additional $151,000 since 1997.
So here we have an admitted embezzler "siphoning off" $110,000 from Bin Laden and then getting nearly a million dollars from the US federal government to make a case against Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda." I, and others, see a conflict here.
Now, if you see "The power of Nightmares," in part 3 it is stated and is widely reported that the actual mastermind of 9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
<
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-15,GGLJ:e n&q=Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammad+911&btnG=Search who is believed to have sought funding from Bin Laden. Why hasn't a trail in connection with 9/11 been held against Sheikh Mohammed? Why on the FBI's own website
<
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm is 9/11 not listed as one of Bin Laden's crimes? None of this smells right.
And of course Bin Laden is going to mention "Al Qaeda" after 9/11 and after he died <
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/17/attack/main515468.shtml The people that are fabricating those "confessions" <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm need to get their act together and realize that Bin Laden, before 9/11, didn't mention "Al Qaeda" in any of his well publicized speeches. But in essence, the whole Bin Laden/MAK/CIA connection is one of convenience. Basically, Bin Laden was sent to Afghanistan in the 80's to keep tabs on the CIA
sponsored Heroine smuggling operation. He had very little to do with the actual Mujahadin resistance against the Soviets and possibly continued to run the drug running operations during the Taliban years and probably up until the US invaded. The "Islamist" resistance movement is just a front or a cover story for the real purpose of funneling millions to Bin Laden during the time frame in question and protection of the Heroine smuggling industry even during the time when we are led to believe that the Taliban had eradicated it. The Bin Laden family itself was connected to BCCI/Carlyle Group/Iran
Contra <
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-15,GGLJ:e n&q=BCCI+Carlyle+Group+Iran+Contra and the US political figures and families involved in the above criminal operations.
This is the reason why "Al Qaeda" needed pilots in "training" missions in CIA front "aviation schools <
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006 -15,GGLJ:en&q=cia+aviation+schools " and the perfect fall guys for the false flag 9/11 operation <
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-15,GGLJ:e n&q=911+false+flag .
But I think your going after Loose Change is a lost cause. There are indeed many errors of fact in it as I had pointed out two articles that really look at it critically and without using the usual "official sources" as you have used. However, muddled in the mess that is Loose Change, there are serious questions that have been glossed over by the 9/11 Commission and the conclusions of NIST. What you need to do is step back and read through the NIST report and see what they have omitted and compare that to the videos
Of that day. In that case 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It's very simple. That and the fact that, as I have shown above, Al Qaeda is a manufactured, or unrealistically projected organization, shows that the real criminals of the 9/11 attack are still at large and may strike again (if they don't get the wars that they want).
But look at it this way, how much is this war ultimately going to cost Americans <
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/08/19/opinion/20bilmes.html ? People kill people for a lot less money and in the geo-strategic climate that 9/11 has facilitated, you need to put the current "realignment" of power in perspective. A "Jihadist" could never realize the dream of turning the US into police state. But the US government can, in a time of crisis," pull off what the "Jihadist" can only dream of. There are your motives for this "war" and why it will only expand and eventually consume all of us in the USA. Bin Laden is dead <
http://whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html and the cause of the Islamic extremists is just as dead since 9/11 was the nail to their coffin. As an organized terror group, Al Qaeda never really existed. And if they were indeed based in Afghanistan, then they're remnants met their demise when the US invaded. If anything goes "boom" we'll have to look elsewhere for suspects and motive.
