Non-LIHOPers - Here's your chance!

Kindly offer a plausible explanation for the following sequence of events:

In May 2001 the U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm


Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-091701scheer.column
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html


Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf


In July 2001, the private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html


In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160


In October 2001, with flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting

nt.

n/t

They sure did hit the trifecta.

...that are just too horrible to contemplate. That does not meant they didn't happen (such as a planned extermination of Europe's Jews), it's just that people are unwilling to accept that their government could be so vile as to act that way. Yet the more I read and hear, the more I think that you are absolutely correct. This, of course, means we are living under a regime who's like has not been seen for 60 years.

I've been jumping up and down about this for months!

Please, help spread the word and check out the Whispering Campaign link below.......

How about 228 years? On July 4, 1776 we rebelled against King George.

There has never been a regime like BushCo.

...I think of the Nazis as the masters of the oppressive regime, but an earlier Georgian Empire had similar traits of hubris with an overlay of stupidity and madness...this is just the latest.

The Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' was MIHOP. The destroyers that were 'attacked' were not in neutral waters, as the US claimed, but rather, they were in N. Vietnamese water conducting reconnaissance/spy missions.

Suggested reading
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670030309/qid=1081654075/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4342540-6981622?v=glance&s=books

Ellsberg spends the first couple of chapters on this. And the lying that took place AFTER Tonkin is pretty well known.

To say that we have not seen this in 60 years, much less 228 years, is an overstatement. Rare, but not that rare.

To say that LBJ's administration was anything like BushCo is just crazy.

Bush is the worst. The absolute worst president we have ever had. Period.

Yes, LBJ passes Civil Rights laws but Tonkin + LIHOP/MIHOP assassination of Kennedy = pretty fucking sketchy

seized power in a coup and then suspended large swaths of the Constitution.

LBJ was no bushgang. HE was not part of broad-based conspiracy as this administration is. LBJ did not want to conquer the world.

How else are we expected to drag the public into funding and fighting wars for the profits of the wealthy. MIHOP is old hat even in the good ole USA.

September 9: the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masoud. Pakistan's ISI, patron of the Taliban and Central Asian proxy of the CIA, is rumoured to have played a role. Killing Masoud just two days before 9/11 is highly suspicious, and convenient for the US:

"A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, with heavy involvement by Abdul Sayyaf, an Afghan mujahideen commander very close to the ISI and the Saudis. From Washington's perspective, this was also a gift. Masoud was the crucial Afghan nationalist leader, supported by Russia and Iran; after the Taliban being smashed he would never have accepted a feeble, US-sponsored, Hamid Karzai-style government."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

Maybe the BushCo ideologues actually thought that it was mearly going to be a hijacking. (They've proven that their minds aren't in reality.) A simple hijacking would have been enough for them to rally around and push for pro-police state reforms.

My mixture of incompetence and let it happen theory.

Would hijackings have been worse than the embassy bombings, or the Cole?

Responding to a hijacking would have been a "swatting at flies." It wouldn't have been the catalyzing event to reorder the world. And what happened on 9/11 was that.

They got exactly what they expected. (Or near exactly. I believe they'd intended to let Flight 93 crash into the Capitol building, but as its departure had been delayed 40 minutes and three planes had already long-since crashed, failure to respond would exceed the envelope of plausible deniability. And so it was shot down.)

Maybe that would explain George's expression in that classroom....

This is more damning than the spaced out look in the classroom (IMHO).

How to spot a liar Flash Presentation - (Make sure speakers are turned on)

- that dazed, deer-in-the-headlights look - was a stunned George thinking to himself "They did it.....they really, REALLY did it.....and all this time I thought they were joking and having fun with me.....oh damn, THEY DID IT!!"

government. Clinton has said that the reason we were able to organize a strike against the Taliban so quickly is because it was the Clinton plan. BECAUSE OF THAT you say it proves LIHOP? that is rediculous.
It's like saying the Beatles albums prove Paul is dead.

it took me a lot longer -- and MUCH research -- to finally get to that point.

What Luna posted is but a very small fraction of what is out there.

Start by reading all about The Project for the New American Century's agenda and see just how many of their members are involved at the highest level with this admonistration.

Stephanie said it best -- these people hide in plain sight.

It's ALL out there if you bother to look at it.

I fought it hard for a very long time, but I finally could come to no other conclusion.

I haven't avoided it. I've spent hours reading cooperativeresearch.org

But the people putting alot of this stuff have agendas too. Notice how they alot of them link to Marxist and anti-Israel/zionist websites? The majority of the people putting this stuff out are way out there I'm sorry. The progressive caucus democrats even seem to shun it, and they will until any tangable evidence emerges, and if any does, I'll be the first one to write my congresspeople about it.

You call these provable facts "way out there", yet you belive, without ANY concrete proof, the mythology of a man, on dialysis, in a cave in Afghanistan with fewer than 2000 followers world-wide brought about 9-11 without any help on the inside. Why? Because the President told you and he wouldn't lie to you.

YOU are way out there

What's posted above is just a small excerpt from a piece that offers far more context. You might be interested in checking out "The Whispering Campaign" link below....it's really a PNAC 101 Primer that pulls it all together.

Hmmmm....Some might say that is somewhat of a "tell".

Now if you'd like to offer a plausible explanation and substantiation to dispute the facts outlined above, then we can continue our discussion.

ya know?

Why do you pretend that that is the only thing that supports his position.

What * wanted was a reason to attack Iraq. Even after 9/11, he wanted to invade Iraq, not Afghanistan. If * was really behind the attacks then why wouldn't he have left more evidence connecting it to Iraq. Getting rid of the Taliban was a necessary thing for America since they harbored terrorists that were even then responsible for attacks on America and were planning more attacks on us. Look at the countries that you mentioned as wanting to get rid of the Taliban. Russia, Germany, Iran, these are not PNAC friendly countries. Clarke also wanted to take out the Taliban, and I know he's not part of PNAC. All of these people opposed PNAC but saw the Taliban as a threat, so I think this is one of the (few) instances where the oil companies plans and the good of the world came together. Not to mention I'm still a little miffed about what those fundamentalists did to the massive ancient Buddhist sculptures which "promoted idolatry", (yes, I know destroying irreplaceable artifacts aren't worth starting a war, but it sure made me sympathize with them less).

I don't believe the MIHOP theory that Bush helped plan the thing. However, there is a weaker form of MIHOP that I do think is plausible. It is that Bush made Bin Laden's job easier by doing things like pulling the FBI away from suspected Saudi Arabian terrorists and creating confusion (or a direct stand-down order) to prevent the planes from being intercepted. The plan was Bin Laden's, Bush just greased some of the gears. Given that Iraq had absolutely no ties to the Taliban or Bin Laden, I don't think Bush could have done much in the way of leaving evidence connecting the two.

After learning about OPERATION NORTHWOODS, I'm not willing to put anything past our government. But I still think there needs to be more evidence before coming to that conclusion. All the evidence I've seen so far can be explained by extreme incompetence, and I try to follow the old adage "Never attribute malice to what can be adequately explained by stupidity." What is needed is an insider to either come foward or leak a document that suggests a direct relation ship between * and OBL. Also, if * knew beforehand of 9/11, why didn't he get all of his arab business friends out of the country before 9/11 instead sneaking them out afterward? I'm inclined to believe Clarke's version of events. * was to incompetent and preoccupied with Iraq to concern himself with petty matters like terrorist attacks against America. He ignored them all the way up until they happened, and then afterward took only the most bare minimium of actions possible because he is still more concerned with "important" matters like Iraq. He is also obviously covering up for his family allies in Saudi Arabia, and allowing war profiteers to rip off the country.

to prove anything more than extreme incompetence. And I don't have answers for your questions like why wait to get his Arab friends out until afterwards. It is possible that Shrub is incompetent and knew nothing and that some other PNACer (Cheney?) was MIHOP. It is also possible that Shrub knew something was going down and let it, never expecting that it would be as severe as it was. Perhaps Shrub just didn't anticipate all of the fallout. LIHOP and incompetence are certainly not mutually exclusive. :)

1) Saddam had been under sanction and closely watched for ten years. Placing the blame on him would have been difficult considering the international scrutiny he had received. You must consider that the 911 event was primarily designed to be total, mind-bending propaganda to reshape the public's perceptions so they could be easily led anywhere the Bush* Admin wanted to take them. The timeline above is just an excerpt from a longer piece that offers more context for the sequence of events above but here's another quick excerpt to offer more depth to the point I'm trying to make here:

While the nation was stripped to the emotional bone and painfully vulnerable, the White House capitalized on the opportunity to reshape public perceptions and responses to conform with the PNAC's new American agenda. Rather than buoy the "can do" American spirit with optimism and hope for the future as Presidents before him had done in times of crisis, Bush spoke with an alarmist and pessimistic tone that served to perpetuate the high anxiety, excitability and fear in the populace.

To hear him speak, the world was a dark, evil and dangerous place....terrorism was here to stay....it would be a long struggle....America was helpless without the military might of the Government to keep the nation safe. The intent was to create a psychologically broken, weary and docile populace that would be easier to lead into war.

Fear became the Administration's strategic tactic for reprogramming the public into accepting the PNAC's militaristic designs. Still shell-shocked and exhausted from the enormity of the WTC and Pentagon tragedies, the public's panic shifted into frenzied over-drive when anthrax-laced envelopes arrived in government and media offices, killing five people. A perpetrator was never identified but the investigation eventually centered around the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, one of the nation's main anthrax research centers.

Using classic "operant learning" techniques from the realm of consumer psychology, the public was purposely kept on High Alert and continually "shaped" with ominous sound bites on the nightly news and "Level Orange Terror Alerts" at regularly scheduled but discrete intervals.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html
http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/#Perception

2) The G8 is a meeting of the world's largest industrialized democracies who meet annually to discuss major economic and political issues. The countries involved in the 911 plot wanted a share in Afghanistan's bounty.

Afghanistan was strategically located between the Mideast, Central and South Asia as well as Turkmenistan, China and Japan. Turkmenistan was a natural gas bonanza but the only export route to exploit this valuable natural resource was through Russia. The road to riches needed alternative pipeline routes but the incessant civil wars in Afghanistan made construction impossible. And so it was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so the golden pipeline could one day emerge through the rubble.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm

Afghanistan was also strategically important to the U.S. for another reason - it was the world's foremost opium and heroin supplier. U.S. control over this veritable gold mine could help finance their special military operations without accountability to the prying eyes of the public, reminiscent of the Iran-Contra Affair.

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/deep_black_1_2.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/total_coverage/coke.html

And, of course, it's close proximity to Iraq - the PNAC's Crown Jewel - made it all the more sweet. By blaming 911 on Bin Laden, the Afghanistan connection and link to "terrorism" could be made and they were off and running with their Grand Plan. Soon afterward the "war on terror" was morphed into the "axis of evil" when Bush addressed the nation in his State of the Union speech and publically identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the mortal enemies that threatened the peace of the world. Saddam's fate was sealed whether the public knew it or not.

It is about a pretext to do whatever the want to and with any Middle East country. OBL was that pretext. He did not have to be Iraqi for the Neo Cons to use him to attack anyone they choose for all eternity.

To us being reasonable people who read the news and think for ourselves the PNACers are clearly insane and their plan makes little sense. That however has not stopped them from implementing it %100 percent.

Now we have a “War on Terror” that can be taken to other shores even after Iraq is done. If we pinned 9-11 on Iraq then Iraq would have to have been the end of it.

OBL pretty much covers the entire Islamic world for the purpose of giving the US a pretext to get tough with anyone who “wants some”.

Stranger coincidences have occurred. Besides, I would think that if there *was* a conspiracy, they'd do a better job of covering it up.

Also, I've seen nothing that would convince me that the neglected warnings weren't simply a result of official incompetence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

that would be Let It Happen Through Gross Incompotence. i really can't picture a cabal so arrogant they'd let the BBC report on their plans.

the most arrogant I have ever witnessed, I don't know what is.

From the moment they stepped into the White House they have done NOTHING but act arrogantly, with the secret energy meetings, the executive order that stopped the release of the Reagan papers, their refusal to step in when CA was being raped by their buddies in the energy industries (you know, the ones they were meeting with at the time?), the bold-faced lies they told us to push Iraq on the country...

And let's start from the VERY beginning -- stealing an election and overriding democracy is damned arrogant in my book.

This is not correlation this is proven information, corroborated. NONE of the circumstantial information linking 9-11 to Al Qaeda has been proven, yet you have no problem believing THAT conspiracy theory even though it is probably the least plausible one out there.

Your President told you that's how it happened and you swallowed it without any problem despite the incredible inconsistencies and peculiarities involved with it. They would never lie to us.

i guess it cant be found any more. but i have it if anyone wants it.

for those who haven't seen it, it is a clip from a tv show. the plot included terrorists hijacking an airplane. they had no intentions of crashing it into anything. but rogue elements in the gov't hijacked the hijackers, took control of the plane and attempted to crash it into one of the WTC towers.

'never thought of it' farfetched my a$$

Another good try, guys!

A long list of coincidences, meaning nothing.

But, keep trying.

It's remarkable how people will eagerly swallow the notion of a vast conspiracy among impoverished people, many of whom live in caves, mud huts, or tents in third-world countries, and deny that there's any malicious, exploitative collaboration among global corporatists who benefit enormously from these events.

and YOU KNOW BETTER than to trust those thuggish brown types. They ALL carry knives!

I believe it has been proven that the Admin. did not care about terrorism issues becuase it had other priorities: Iraq, Star Wars, Tax Cuts, etc.

I believe it can rightfully be called depraved indifference becuase there were more than enough warnings and intelligence that were not acted on.

Based on PNAC doctrines, it seems clear that the Amdin. would not consider a terrorist attack on domestic soil to be bad for the long term state of the nation.

All of that that leads pretty conclusively to the level of Depraved Indifference. Beyond that, is still lots of speculation, open questions, and inferential supposition. The seeking process should continue. We would have invaded Afghanistan no matter what, that's what that chain of evidence tells me. It is just as easy to imagine a situation in which 9/11 was not specifically planned by the Admin, but they rejoiced when it happened, as the perfect excuse for doing what they were going to come up with an excuse to do anyway, and that is invade. To me that seems just as plausible.

But I have no more evidence than you for that, which is why we should keep asking questions.