MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
War on Terrorism (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

KSM has confessed to everything, you name it, he has confessed to it. If they want him to confess to killing JFK, he will ....

The real sponsors of all this, in the Pakistani ISI, are now moving into the end game phase, and it is going very well indeed, they will soon have total control of a nuclear Pakistan and a "client" government in Afghanistan, and all funded by US dollars, brilliant.

If the ISI need to eliminate Bin Laden, or give him up, they will, as they know where he is, ... if alive, he will likewise "confess" to everything. But for the time being that "great western obsession" with Al Quida serves the ISI ends, they need the dollars and Obama will be very generous indeed.

The only comparable performers to the ISI are Mossad but that's another story....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
KSM has confessed to everything, you name it, he has confessed to it. If they want him to confess to killing JFK, he will ....


Source? Evidence?

The real sponsors of all this, in the Pakistani ISI...


A culprit that certainly had opportunity, but what motive? ISI supported and continues to support the Taliban. 9/11 reduced Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and could have hardly led to any other outcome.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
The only comparable performers to the ISI are Mossad but that's another story....


And what influence does Israel have among the Pakistani Baloch?

Was Israel also behind the first WTC bombing?

What is your evidence?

The first and second attacks on the WTC are clearly linked. Yet what links them is not Al Quida. What links them are a single family of Pakistanis of Baloch decent.

You see, the problem with popular thesis concerning 9/11 is the same problem that confronts us in scientific and academic matters: The competing camps split between the rationalists -- who rapidly attach themselves to a reasonable explanation that leaves few gaps between facts -- and crazies, who fill up those few gaps with their own fantasies.

The crazies are always useful though, even in this case, as they doggedly identify the gaps the rationalists pretend do not exist. The rationalists are unable to address these gaps themselves for fear of encouraging the crazies.

Our job is to eliminate the gaps by developing a more adequate rational explanation.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

KSM.... "confessions"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6452789.stm

Motivation?.....

ISI supported, organised and used the Taliban against the Soviets... whilst they did that the dollars poured in and they gained in strength and prestige, confidently, waiting for the civilian government to implode. With the Soviets defeated, the dollars would have dried up, and the Pakistan "civilian" government might have felt more confident to move against the ISI. After 9/11 the ISI were back in action, benefiting as a lead organisation from the "War on Terror"

The US government, has now abandoned any pretence of supporting democracy in the region and the ISI are well placed to take over.

Note that because the ISI were so successful in organisng the Taliban, and their friends, against the Soviets, they must have fully infiltrated these groups. They know the whereabouts of Bin Laden and it was probably them who masterminded his escape from Tora Bora. The ISI needed to keep the war on terror going, so despite having kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan, they keep up the pretence of the so called "ungovernable regions" and the Al Quida threat to the west.

Once Pakistan is totally destabilised they can take over with American blessing, and continue undermining India. Only at that point will they destroy Al Quida.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On Mossad...

I simply meant that both ISI and Mossad realised that a "War on Terror" would result in the Americans becoming dependent on their services, and took full advantage.

Mossad didn't orchestrate 9/11, it saw an ideal opportunity after 9/11 to further its ends and grasped it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

None of you seem to mention the basic, underlying factor to the entire struggle which is that the Taliban is merely the majority-tribe-in-arms (ie the Pushtuns) in their never-ending struggle against the northern tribes (Tajiks, Uzbeks etc).

And of course it is the key to the situation in Pakistan too where the Pushtuns are now engaged in their never-ending struggle against the tribes to their south (Punjabis and Sindhis).

Once we split Afghanistan into its constituent parts (handing the north to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc) and handing northern Pakistan over to the new state of Pushtunistan (and handing Kashmir over to Pakistan to sweeten them -- them being a nuclear state and all) then the problem will be solved.

Oh, yes, sorry, I should have mentioned that it will be solved after considerable bloodletting and ethnic cleansing on a scale which will mean The International Community will step in to ensure that the whole process comes grinding to a halt and that the boil be not lanced for another few generations.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
KSM.... "confessions"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6452789.stm


Sorry. You are not permitted to respond on this message board in this fashion. You must summarize in your own words the relevant data. Don't expect anyone to waste their time reading random links to the BBC.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Motivation?.....ISI supported, organised and used the Taliban against the Soviets... whilst they did that the dollars poured in and they gained in strength and prestige, confidently waiting for the civilian government to implode. With the Soviets defeated, the dollars would have dried up, and the Pakistan "civilian" government might have felt more confident to move against the ISI. After 9/11 the ISI were back in action, benefiting as a lead organisation from the "War on Terror"


This is another example of the "three dimensional chess" fallacy.

Every conspiracy theory attributes to its favoured actor foreknowledge of the pattern of events that has followed the action. The "conspirator" is always a mastermind, playing the game behind the scenes, three and four steps ahead of the rubes who fail to see the truth of what's going on.

Events in the real world never work that way. The game of international relations is not 3D chess; it's checkers. Or maybe just tic-tac-toe.

Insofar as a hidden actor may exist, it can only ever be an agent interested in the immediate outcome. That is, in either attack on the WTC, the attacker must have wished harm to America. Not as the means to an end but as an end in itself.

And in the real world, events go awry more often than they go according to plan. If the agent you suspect benefited from every consequence to follow from the event (in this case, 9/11), you can safely rule out that agent as a suspect. The odds of a plan of such complexity producing exclusively those beneficial outcomes predicted by the provocateur are so low as to be statistically impossible.

Any real hidden actor will suffer as much as benefit from the event set in motion by his agency.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The US government has now abandoned any pretence of supporting democracy in the region and the ISI are well placed to take over.


Right. And American support for Pakistani Democracy was high on the U.S. agenda prior to 9/11? Remember when candidate Bush couldn't remember even Musharif's name?

Note that because the ISI were so successful in organisng the Taliban, and their friends, against the Soviets, they must have fully infiltrated these groups.

They know the whereabouts of Bin Laden


Hey! So do I!

A coffin.

...and it was probably them who masterminded his escape from Tora Bora.


The "escape" from Tora Bora is a myth. One needed to save face. Millions of tons of bombs were dropped on some mountains and afterward, nothing was found. No evidence Al Quida had ever been there.

Obviously, Bin Ladin was never in Tora Bora, but that could not be admitted to. So the myth of his escape was born.

The ISI needed to keep the war on terror going...


You mean war in Afghanistan, I presume. They sure waited a long time to "keep it going". About 25 years or so between instalments. And how is part two supposed to do for them what part one failed to do?

Once Pakistan is totally destabilised they can take over with American blessing, and continue undermining India. Only at that point will they destroy Al Quida.


More three dimensional chess.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
Mossad didn't orchestrate 9/11, it saw an ideal opportunity after 9/11 to further its ends and grasped it.


Making your mention of them utterly superfluous.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Once we split Afghanistan into its constituent parts (handing the north to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc) and handing northern Pakistan over to the new state of Pushtunistan (and handing Kashmir over to Pakistan to sweeten them -- them being a nuclear state and all) then the problem will be solved.


Assume this is a solution. What exactly does it solve?

It solves a political dispute within a two-bit, fourth-world, desert country no one in the West gives a shit about. Even Pakistan, with the demise of the USSR, barely registers as a Western concern. Nobody cares if Pashtuns don't get along with Azerbijanies -- or whatever the fighting ethnic groups are today. Let them kill each other till Armageddon. We don't care.

And that is my point.

The U.S. has had no interest in that part of the world for 25 years. 20 years at least. And that part of the world has no interest in America. The Baloch peoples (who are the majority population in western Pakistan, Southern Afghanistan and Eastern Iran) have greatest animosity toward the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran -- only one of which wasn't an active opponent of America prior to 9/11.

So why would the Baloch suddenly attack the United States?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I expect it boils down to oil. It usually does where America is concerned.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael said
So why would the Baloch suddenly attack the United States?

But how many actual hijackers were Balochis? I thought that most were Saudis.

Also, your idea ignores ideology. Surely more Arab terrorists have been inspired by charismatic individuals like Qutb and Bin Laden than by just tribalism.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael said
And in the real world, events go awry more often than they go according to plan. If the agent you suspect benefited from every consequence to follow from the event (in this case, 9/11), you can safely rule out that agent as a suspect. The odds of a plan of such complexity producing exclusively those beneficial outcomes predicted by the provocateur are so low as to be statistically impossible.

But most conspiracy theories state that the motives were much more general, not detailed. The two favourites are:
1) The attack enabled America to attack Iraq as the supposed chief supporter of 9/11.
2) The demonisation of the Arabs.

Motive (2) was a given after the attack and as for (1), even now most Americans believe that Saddam supported bin Laden.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
But how many actual hijackers were Balochis? I thought that most were Saudis.

As I explained, examination of the established KSM operational model (which I expect will show duplication in operations in Indonesia as well) suggests that Bin Ladin provided the staffing for the operation. I can't help but notice the careful ignoral apparent in the follow-up comments to my post. No one has picked up on the thesis I actually presented.

The impetus and likely the funding for both WTC attacks came from a single family of Pakistani Baroch (the unexplained wealth of KSM and his extravagant lifestyle are well-attested to in the reportage).

Also, your idea ignores ideology.

When you show me where ideology has relevance, I'll promise not to ignore it.

I do acknowledge the role played by ideology in Human Resourcing. Bin Ladin of Afganistan was the recruiting agency for the second WTC attack. Sheik Rachman was the recruiting agency for the first WTC attack. Ideology was key to their ability to provide effective service to customers such as the Pakistani Baloch, KSM and his "nephew", Ramsi Youssef.

Sheik Rachman did not instigate the first attack on the WTC. Neither did he provide any financing. The impetus and the money came from elsewhere. All Rachman did was send some kids to a job interview. These facts are not currently disputed.

If Bin Ladin's role in the second attack on the WTC is analagous to the pattern established by Rachman (which is what I am alleging makes most sense of the facts) then bin Ladin did not instigate the plan, nor did he provide the financing*. The impetus and the money for 9/11 came from elsewhere.

The "elsewhere", as it stands, are the Baroch of Pakistan.

----------------------------------
* Even the 9/11 commission report, which I have read, reports that Bin Ladin was broke after he left Sudan. The same report includes no information concerning how Bin Ladin might have replenished his coffers. Not one word is said concerning this mystery.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 65, 66, 67  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 67

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group