egafd.com

DAVID - please be a bit careful with the "guys" thing. You have now created a scenario of your own. I would not subscribe to it exactly. So from
my perspective you do have it wrong.
But you ask about the attack on Afghanistan. You say there is no oil. Let
me point out that a) Bin Laden was there and he was already the eminence
grise of the West preaching jihad. So to regain lost pride and prove to the
World that USA is the biggest and best Land of the Free they went after him.
They have been apparently defending us against jihadists in Afghanistan
ever since but I have so far seen not one single result except lots of British
and US body bags !!!
And there IS plenty of oil David, tons of it. Because a bloody great pipeline
runs from the khanates of the Caspian right across to France. The oil heating my apartment comes from it. If you control Afghanistan - and you
are a super power like USA, you effectively can control that oil and much more in the region - economically and geopolitically.
You are a clever man. I know you to be a strong supporter of the socialist
movement but don`t be a patsy for the Americans !! Or Big Govt generally.
I would say - very very over-simplified - that it is not impossible that some
of the CIA and US hawks might wish to "help" Al-Quaeda terrorists they
were monitoring pull off a coup in the USA. It played right into their hands
if they wanted a 2nd Pearl Harbor (see my last letter on this site), duly
stirred US public opinion behind them. The CIA knew about the jihadists
in the USA but chose not to share any of that info with the FBI - that is
now a matter of public fact.
Bin Laden was a fanatic and a huge inspiration to other terrorists. All I
would say is that while the terrorists followed one agenda, on a bigger
and different plan entirely, it is not impossible that others were doing the
same for a different agenda. Espionage is usually murky and complex.
For example here is another odd fact - the CIA had just admitted to
Rumsfeld shortly before 9/11 that it had an unexplained hole in its budget of 2.1 trillion dollars (lotta money to "lose"). Two offices were empowered
to search the accounts, one in the Pentagon and one at the CIA. Where
were they located ? One in No 7 WTC (destroyed) and one in the blitzed
section of the Pentagon. Perhaps just a coincidence. But a very convenient way of "losing" the 2.1 trillion dollars trail.

Re. Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Why do you think Bin Laden was in Afghanistan? Because the American government told you and therefore you believed their reason for the invasion? So on the one hand you do not believe the American government/security forces account of the causes of 9/11, but you do believe them when they say Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time of invasion. Why?

"Because a bloody great pipeline
runs from the khanates of the Caspian right across to France. The oil heating my apartment comes from it. If you control Afghanistan - and you
are a super power like USA, you effectively can control that oil and much more in the region - economically and geopolitically."

On the subject of oil in Afghanistan you are completely and utterly wrong.

There are no oil and gas pipelines going across Afghanistan. THere are plans but if you listened to the news today, after over 10 years fighting in Afghanistan, the global power that is the USA cannot even defend Kabul never mind a pipeline going across the country.

Meanwhile, the oil pipeline that Clinton supported, from the Caspian sea to Ceyhan in Turkey (and so avoiding Afghanistan altogether) is now open. A pipeline from Central Asia to China has been running since 2005. Afghanistan has been bypassed for obvious reasons. If a Russian army of over 100,000 couldnt control Afghanistan it would appear unlikely that the US could.

I notice you are being sidetracked by the WTC 7 stuff even though this has been rubbished comprehensively.

You have failed to explain why on earth a CIA plot to kill thousands of American citizens in an excuse to control oil supplies resulted as part of that same planning in an invasion of a country that has no oil industry and has as far as I know never been conquered in modern times.

Cheers
D

So what you appear to be saying is that

The CIA "helped the terrorists" without specifying what you mean by "helped i.e. turn a blind eye. Presumably they must have known about the exact scope of the terrorist plot in terms of bringing down the Twin Towers and the exact timings because you argue that the CIA blew up the WTC 7 tower and blitzed the Pentagon to tie in with the Twin Tower attack in order to hide a trillion dollar blackhole in their finances.

That seems to be what you are saying. Is that right?

Well, why did they not just start fires in the Accounts section of WTC-7 and the Pentagon? The CIA can do that kind of stuff, right?

"All I would say is that while the terrorists followed one agenda, on a bigger
and different plan entirely, it is not impossible that others were doing the
same for a different agenda."

I dont get this. If you are right, the CIA must have known the full extent of the plot otherwise how would they have known that they might be able to get away with blowing up WTC 7 with explosives under cover of the attack on the Twin Towers?

Alternatively, if the "help" you refer to involved conversations between the CIA and al Qaeda, don't you think al Qaeda operatives might be a tad suspicious i.e. wtf is going on here?


Cheers
D

That was because he was working undercover under the name of Abdul

[quote]If you look at the 9/11disaster as a crime scene and forget about "Official versions" etc it then starts to all look a little murky.[/quote]

No, it starts to look more mysterious and exciting, which is the appeal I think. Who wants boring 'official versions'?

[quote]The Americans used some dodgy translations of his videos to make out that he HAD admitted it, but these translations were debunked by Arabic scholars.[/quote]

Arabic scholars? He wasn't talking in ancient Hebrew. Millions of non-scholarly Arabs could have translated what he said. There's no mystery here.

[quote]and if you are Osama Bin Laden, err you want what? You want to bring down the Twin Towers, kill thousands and then???hide under the bed?[/quote]

You want to spread Islam across the world. You want to send a message to other Muslims that the richer, more successful Americans CAN be got at..........if you're willing to die for the cause, of course.

[quote]This is why the Arabs have been "Demonised", because if you thought of them as sane, objective and calm, you too would question the motives of 9/11.[/quote]

Wrong. I think most Arabs are objective and calm and that doesn't make me question the motives of 9/11. Maybe because the official accounts actually make sense.

[quote]Osama Bin Laden would have known there would be absolutely no benefit whatsoever perpetrating 9/11, for his people. He was an intelligent man, he would have known that America would have immediately launched a full scale attack on the Middle East and permanently occupied it.[/quote]

What if he was a religious nut who thought God was really on his side? Here's a bigger question for you since you say he's an intelligent man: what intelligent man goes on the run for 10 years, living in hovels and holes, but never bothers to deny he was behind the attacks in any forceful way? What did he think he was going to get out of letting the whole world think it was his doing?

[quote]Ever since the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, the West has been mindful of how vulnerable we all are to the Middle East simply turning on and off our oil as they please.[/quote]

But we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan has no oil. Also, the coastal areas of Alaska are estimated to have 6-16billion barrels of untapped oil which, as yet, the Americans haven't bothered with due to environmental concerns. 50% of the American people think these reserves should be extracted due to a massive creation of jobs and having to import less oil from overseas. If oil was the sole reason behind invading Iraq, as many claim, then it would have been 1000s of times cheaper and 100s times better for America's economy to extract the oil that's sat on their own doorstep. And, politically, it would also have been the better move as more voters would have swallowed it. Daft as it sounds the Iraq war was really about getting Saddam and his links to Al-Qaeda.

[quote]In a way our governments were thinking the "Unthinkable", ie what would happen if the oil supply stopped, dead?[/quote]

Given that oil is the only resource the middle eastern countries have, I doubt they could afford to turn the taps off for long. They'd be too scared of us drilling in the Arctic, Alaska and Falklands and finding just as much oil as they have left. They'd be afraid they might be sat on lots of stuff they can't shift without dropping the price right down and that would really send them back to the middle ages.

That's what I think, anyway. Hardly exciting or mysterious but there you go.......

Thanks Frank, leaving aside the oil for a moment, Afghanistan, if nothing else, provides a perfect forward base in the region for NATO to dominate and influence the Middle East if they so desire.

I presume the attack on Libya is also part of this game plan, 1/ To control the oil, 2/ To keep NATOS muscles flexed, keeping us in constant readiness for our next invasion.........Iran maybe.

More on Afghanistan's stategic importance:

Jim, if it is Arab looking people running around being shot at in the game, it is not quite the same as doing it to people who are specifically jews or other religions. It would be like if a load of people were running around the City of London (in a video game), all wearing pin-strip suits, bowler hats, and using long umbrellas like cane's when they walked - and the idea of the game was to try and kill as many as possible. This would not be 'Christians' they were after, just 'Brits' or 'western Europeans'. This game you refer to would have to actually specifically state they were Arabs for it to be as you say.

The song 'Killing An Arab' by The Cure. They got away with this when it came out. Today, it would be instantly banned, the group would be slammed as "racists", "xenophobes", "bigots", "Islamaphobes", "far-right", and all the other stuff you get thrown at you these days. In those days, 31 years ago, it was ok.