Bush The Warmonger

Alias Bob

BUSH THE WARMONGER

North Korea has condemned President Bush for stating the communist country is part of an "axis of evil." Government officials say George Bush's statement is little short of a declaration or war.

Russia, China, North Korea and other far eastern countries are beginning to unite as they are threatened by a renegade warmonger.

At the last G8 Summit. President Putin, is alleged to have signalled the coming together of Russia, China and Korea. This was noticed by the media and others that Putin had travelled to the meeting via China and Korea.

There is strong belief that a Supreme Far Eastern Alliance is being formed

As soon as Bush came to power he was threatening others with the use of Star Wars. Then came the near War situation with China.

I do not believe that America was attacked by Arab Terrorist, the military precision of the entire WTC attack leaves myself to believe that this was executed by a highly trained and intelligent third party.

Whilst America had Clinton, the county prospered, as for the Monica Clinton affair for all we know Clinton may well have been set up as a strong sexual stimulant such as Viagra may have been applied to Drinks or even sprinkled on to food. In this case anyone who is under the influence of drugs of any type is Legally not responsible for their actions.

Had The WhiteHouse security staff investigated along these lines the embarrassment to the American nation could have been avoided?

We now need to ask ourselves was this the game plan to destabilise the US Economy?

I personally have a great respect for American people and therefore a great liking, but there are those who's methods and actions need to be questioned.

What do you the public really believe or are you too scared to say?




Hi Boys!

Alias is back.

Yeah thats right, I missed you lads too

DadaKopf

It's also been reported that the Iranian parliament has overcome its in-fighting to come together and condemn Bush's "axis of evil" name tag too.

Funny how Bush is using the same language as the "evil hoardes" he's condemning.

Bush has decided to give his "rogue" states an opportunity to let them tell him to go fúck himself before he starts bombing them with his "righteous" weapons. As opposed to the infidels' "evil" weapons.

However, his intentions as stated in his State of the Union speech are yet to become policy if they do at all. He implicity said he was going to strike Iraq but without provocation, I'm not so sure how likely that is. If any of his plans go through, though, he's set to plunge the world into war and the US economy into further deficit and debt.

Of course, Bush has given birth to a realtively new phenomenon, in the last two generations anyway: perpetual war. Admitted as a prolonged war, without a forseeable end, Bush is asking America and the Western world to embrace America's role as the light that will deliver freedom to us all - as other's expense. Mind you, this military industrialists are gonna be sitting pretty. But sure, that's all Bush and his mates care about.

Sand

Iran,Iraq and North Korea cant be that surprised. Its not as if they were really ever in the USs good books for the last decade or more. A lot of it is pep talk imo. North Korea is not worth the trouble tbh, Iran is a similar proposition- the americans would not have much in the way of a grateful population.

Iraq is the likeliest- but the US milatary is way off from what it was in the Gulf War - Clinton has left his mark there. Any conflict will not enjoy any support from the middle east states either. However from what was seen in Desert Storm Hussiens army is not ready to fight to the death for him, and his populace is not fond of him either.

Iraq brings its own troubles as well- should central authority break down in Iraq , its likely the northern kurds will attempt to go for a Kurdistan- and who can blame them given the oppression under Hussein. Only trouble is Turkey will not take kindly (to the point of milatary conflict maybe) to any Kurdistan being formed , given its own troubles with Kurds in its territory.Would the US be willing to offend a criticial ally ( A secular Islamic state- rather rare) in such a fashion? Shi'ite (not sure on spelling) Iraqis in the south are also independantly minded- these are the people the US sold out in the aftermath of the gulf War and later on set up the no fly zones to protect. The US doesnt seem to want to "destabilise" anywhere, but particularly the middle east- even if they believe they can win the war, can they prevent Iraqs breakup? Personally its probably in their interests to encourage any breakup as it will reduce their dependance on any one government for oil.

I dont believe attacking Iraq would plunge the world into war, the Europeans are unlikely to support any attack (unless of course they get their own WTC when they might get a bit more agressive) so it would be pretty much the US going it alone, which theyre capable of doing.

Dont think you can claim Bush has spawned the continous war thing- Hes only fought one so far after all- Clinton has had more - usually one per sex scandal:) Other administrations and governments have entered into conflicts with no certain outcome or length throughout history.

China and North Korea have always tended to be close. Russia is becoming a show democracy - any alliance with China will probably revolve around the Transcaucus region where in the aftermath of the Afghan war the US has a lot of power. Previously, the "stans" in the area had to deal with Russia or China- now they (Russia and China) have competition from the US and theyre obviously not happy about it.

Celt

Originally posted by Sand

Dont think you can claim Bush has spawned the continous war thing- Hes only fought one so far after all- Clinton has had more - usually one per sex scandal:)

Why are you incapable of referring to clinton without also making a comment on his sex life?
Is it a fetish for you or something?

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Iran,Iraq and North Korea cant be that surprised. Its not as if they were really ever in the USs good books for the last decade or more. A lot of it is pep talk imo. North Korea is not worth the trouble tbh, Iran is a similar proposition- the americans would not have much in the way of a grateful population.

Inumerate US citizens six months ago
Why should the US be the world's policemen? Let all of those people help themselves, it's not the place of the US to go sorting out the worlds problems. We can go it alone.
GWB
The US will not be nation building
GWB Senior
Read my lips, no new taxes

Sand

Please dont try to go off topic Celt.

GoneShootin

Victor

Alias Bob, is this part of an article, something you wrote or just a rant / troll?

Originally posted by Sand
However from what was seen in Desert Storm Hussiens army is not ready to fight to the death for him, and his populace is not fond of him either.

(a) I understand the Arab format for names is Familyname Givenname. Hence, if one refers to Bush and Blair, one should refer to Saddam. To refer to George and Tony, hints at sarcasm.
(b) Desert Storm was not a typical Middle Eastern War. Particularly relevant to your comment is that the American concept of "Air Land War" meant that much of the Iraqi Army was subjected to constant bombing for up to a month - not necessarily just to kill them, but to keep them awake. If you haven't slept in a month, it is difficult to fight. Contrast this with the Iran-Iraq war, where the war dragged on for 8 years.

Sand

And here was me thinking they were being overly familiar calling him Saddam:)

I agree with your second point but I dont see the americans altering their gameplan too much , seeing as it worked so well last time- just a case of building up to the point where they can carry it out again.

Alias Bob

To Victor

Your asked>>>
Alias Bob, is this part of an article, something you wrote or just a rant / troll?

My answer>>>
Part of something much bigger, is as close as I may disclose at this point - in-time.

B]There is strong belief that a Supreme Far Eastern Alliance is being formed[/B]

Yours

Alias Bob

Hobbes

South Korea aren't too happy about the speech either, they have for some time now in the process of patching things up with North Korea. This sort of stuff doesn't help, but then the US do have a lucretive military contract with South Korea.

North Korea population is mostly dying of starvation and south Korea have (at least for over a year that I know of) been helping them.

Btw, the survivors of Nogeun-ri are currently trying to bring the US to court over war crimes during the Korean war (where US soliders shot Korean refugees).

As for Iran, I'll have to read up more (or if you the ability prehaps go link hunting) but on Sky news they had a political analyst on he mentioned that Iran is actually three different countries, one of which has a lot of western ties and business and wasn't too happy with being tied in as "Evil".

Shinji

Iran is particularly unhappy about the whole affair because they'd actually reopened diplomatic links with the US quite recently, and the country appeared to be on a path to reform. Being described as part of an "axis of evil" by the man seen, rightly or wrongly, as the figurehead of the western world is NOT going to help matters there a lot.

Clintons Cat

There is strong belief that a Supreme Far Eastern Alliance is being formed

The Americans have for the first time in history established a base in the central asian republics former Soviet Soil with the blessing of the former head of the KGB.To beleive that this is part of some Anti american Russo-Sino plot would be to stretch credibillity a little.

I do not believe that America was attacked by Arab Terrorist, the military precision of the entire WTC attack leaves myself to believe that this was executed by a highly trained and intelligent third party.

please explain what level of precision is required to hijack four planes at once.
As stated before Osama Bin Laden studied civil engineering and came from a construction based background, he had more than enough experience to foresee the likely partial collapse of the WTC as was his stated veiw on the Contreversial Video, the plan suceeded beyond his expectations.

as for the Monica Clinton affair for all we know Clinton may well have been set up as a strong sexual stimulant such as Viagra may have been applied to Drinks or even sprinkled on to food. In this case anyone who is under the influence of drugs of any type is Legally not responsible for their actions.

As far as i am aware Viagra does not impair judgement.How much viagra would need to be administered for a case of diminished responsibility to be proven?

Had The WhiteHouse security staff investigated along these lines the embarrassment to the American nation could have been avoided?

The American security services could have been better employed investigating the threat posed by Project Bojinka.

We now need to ask ourselves was this the game plan to destabilise the US Economy?

What are you talking about?The WTC Attack or the lewinsky case?
I presume the former.
In which case i would say that those who planned the WTC attack would have hoped to achieve that aim.
If you are talking about the latter,it would be factually incorrect to say lewinsky brought down the clinton administration.Clinton saw out both terms of office and there is no evidence that the lewinsky case was the sole or even a major influence at the Bush/Gore election.Clinton took the democrats to an unprecedended post war second term victory.To claim the democrats had a third sucessive victory in the bag would be a gross distortion of history.

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
Iran is particularly unhappy about the whole affair because they'd actually reopened diplomatic links with the US quite recently, and the country appeared to be on a path to reform. Being described as part of an "axis of evil" by the man seen, rightly or wrongly, as the figurehead of the western world is NOT going to help matters there a lot.

I agree. While I think Bush's language was deliberately provocative, I also think he has sent the wrong message by naming Iran.

When Iran condemned 9.11, and re-opened ties with the US, we heard Powell et al telling us how delighted they were that Iran seemed to be "coming round" and that it looked like relations would be continuously improving, adn that the US would be encouraging Iran to be less oppressive etc.

To then turn around and call them one of the top 3 "evil nations" in the world is basically sending a message that the beginnings of reform are a waste of time. If you're in the bad books, its no good trying to get out of them by becoming nicer.

It is also telling that a large number of western nations are getting very nervous about this latest beliggerant attitude being fronted by the Bush Administration. As the Economist mantioned recently - to fight an Axis of Evil, you need an Axis of Good. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doeesnt seem to want to fall into Bush's shadow in condemning these nations outright and saying "youre next pal".

Personally, I think the US will find international support much lighter on this one. Sure, the US army can take out any and all of these nations. But would the Chinese let the US send a carrier fleet to Korea - within striking distance of the Chinese mainland? Similarly - will the ME allow the US to stage into Iran? Without the level of international support they had, the US military would have had a seriously tough job trying to get anything accomplished in Afghanistan.

I also noted that the US have still not managed to refute the concept that "no war was ever won in the air". Granted, very few (if any) wars are won without air superiority, but if the US do not have willing ground troops to help them (as with the Northern Alliance) then the US will have to send its own sons and daughters into the firing line if they take military action against any of these countries. Does it have the will to do this, and to suffer possible international backlash from currently-allied nations who do not approve of the path Bush appears ready to walk.

jc

Clintons Cat

Here is some useful information from the state department briefings q&a relevant to Iran and the state of the Union Address

QUESTION: On Iran, do you have any comment on reports that Iran has been arming people inside Afghanistan in the Herat region to possibly stage an insurgency against the Karzai Government?

MR. BOUCHER: We have commented before on the issues of Iran's involvement in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: I'm hoping you'll be a little more specific.

MR. BOUCHER: And we have tried to make clear that we feel that all the parties should abide by the Bonn accords. We have made clear that Iran needs to respect the new government of Afghanistan and abide by the Bonn accords to support broad-based government.

Now we have reports of heavy fighting between local commanders in Paktia Province in eastern Afghanistan. We are calling on them to end their fighting immediately, to work out their differences peacefully, and to use the help of the Interim Authority in Kabul to do that.

As I mentioned, the parties came together in Bonn to create the Interim Authority, and that needs to constitute the basis for a political settlement of the conflicts and the differences inside Afghanistan. So we have called on the external parties to continue to work with and support the Bonn process, and we have called on the internal parties to do that as well.

QUESTION: But in light of new indications that's not happening, you don't have any extra concerns to possibly pass along to Iran?

MR. BOUCHER: We have passed these concerns and will continue to pass these concerns quite directly to Iran to make clear that our view is that no country should be supporting factions or warlords or individuals within the Interim Authority; but, rather, that we should all be encouraging, as we did in Bonn, all the parties to cooperate with the Interim Authority and to work out these differences peacefully.

QUESTION: Have you sent a message to the Iranians through the Swiss or --

MR. BOUCHER: We don't talk about how precisely we communicate with the Iranians, but we have communicated with the Iranians

press briefings

The State of the Union Transcript

yankinlk

Yankinlk - if you dont have anything useful to add, then add nothing.

Alias Bob

To
Clintons Cat

You say>>>
The Americans have for the first time in history established a base in the central Asian republics former Soviet Soil with the blessing of the former head of the KGB.To believe that this is part of some Anti American Russo-Sino plot would be to stretch credibility a little.

I say>>>
Remember the saying>> Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.

You say>>>
Please, explain what level of precision is required to hijack four planes at once.
As stated before Osama Bin Laden studied civil engineering and came from a construction based background, he had more than enough experience to foresee the likely partial collapse of the WTC as was his stated view on the Controversial Video, the plan succeeded beyond his expectations.

I say>>>
There is a vast difference between a civil engineer and that of which was used to remote control those planes. The correct speed and trajectory required, to not only impact the towers, but to cause complete demolition.

You say>>>
As far as I am aware Viagra does not impair judgement. How much viagra would need to be administered for a case of diminished responsibility to be proven?

I say>>>
The amount of said substance is not the point as to legalities, only the fact that if there were traces of such found in either drinks or food, this would have thrown the case out of the window.

I must say, that overall I have been quite impressed by the replies.

Take care lads, and keep that crate of Guinness nearby for should I arrive in Ireland. I look forward to meeting you all sometime.


Yours


Alias Bob

bonkey

Originally posted by Alias Bob
To Victor
You asked>>>
Alias Bob, is this part of an article, something you wrote or just a rant / troll?

My answer>>>
Part of something much bigger, is as close as I may disclose at this point - in-time.

Ah - so effectively we are simply to take you word that you have some inside information and are not a pro-US, anti-Asian conspiracy theorist then? Well, until you have any form of credible references, I think it would be safe to class this as a ludicrous conspiracy theory, rather than anything remotely plausible.

Lets assume that the Eastern nations actually do want to form this Clancy-esque SFEA that you mention. Lets Ignore the vastly differing political and social ideals in such nations which would almost immediately preclude this from occurring. Lets look at a simpler issue.

What right does the US have to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations and any mutual treaties they wish to sign???

The theory you are putting up now is a variant of one which a lot of people used to criticise the US involvement in Afghanistan. At that point in time, the pro-US faction basically laughed such conspiracy theorists off the face of the planet, using the old "but the government say they have proof" line.

What are you saying now? That the US government lied about the proof it had concerning who was behind all of this? That some mystical forthcoming alliance plotted against the US, succesfully framed Al Qaeda, foiled the US intelligence, media, public, and so on?

What you are posting smacks of a new wave of propaganda to garner popular support for the US to go after other nations (its new Axis of Evil) in order to save the western world. Now that its Afghan ops are more or less complete (and Afghanistan is back to happily supplying the US with poppy-dust), the US is turning its sights on other nations. The world in general is becoming highly critical of this war-mongering stance.

All of a sudden, we see posts from a traditionally pro-US poster telling us of this scary new eastern alliance (wooooo) which is really dangerous. So.....what? The US is justified in smacking Korea, Iran and Iraw upside the head? Really? Why dont they go after the only nations in such an alliance who could actually give it any serious clout? Why not leave off the North Koreans and go after the Chinese? I mean - if they're in the new SuperAsiansAgainstTheWesternPigs alliance, why would N.Korea be a concern. OR even the Russians. Yeah - they'd be a more significant target, what with all that nuclear tech they have lying about.

Your attempts to discredit Al Qaeda involvement are exactly what was being argued by anti-invasion factions last September, and it was rubbished by US intelligence experts at the time. Exactly why should we doubt its veracity now?

Incidentally - if the US was wrong to go into Afghanistan - if Al Qaeda were not behind this - then exactly what reperations should the US be making, and how can you have any faith in any information about your new "ScaryAllianceOfAsians", given that the US intelligence service was so completely duped over Sep 11.

This is farcical.

And you still havent learned how to use the BBS. Please go and read the FAQ. Find out about how to quote people. Please.

jc

GoneShootin

evil

Alias Bob

To Bonkey

You say>>>
What are you saying now? That the US government lied about the proof it had concerning who was behind all of this? That some mystical forthcoming alliance plotted against the US, successfully framed Al Qaeda, foiled the US intelligence, media, public, and so on?

I say>>>
There is nothing mystical about the FEA.

The draft proposal, for what was original named The Strategic Far Eastern Alliance include the following:

 The necessity for a change of: Presidential leadership in Russia.
 The signing of a Friendship agreement between China and Russia.
 New Trading Gates between Russia and China to be opened.
 The possible merging of the UAE into the FEA at a later date.
 The movement from Taiwan to China of key personnel in Chip manufacturing etc.


As to Al Qaeda, The wording a rag tag army of misfits, looking to try and achieve global notoriety just about sums them up.

You say>>>
What you are posting smacks of a new wave of propaganda to garner popular support for the US to go after other nations (its new Axis of Evil)

I say>>>
That is contradictory to my post," Bush the Warmonger," is it not?

You say>>>
Foiled the US intelligence, media, public, and so on?

I say>>>
That is the simplest thing to do.

Last but not least. The FEA was not originally formed as a military alliance; it was formed in the interest of creating better trading partnerships between one country and another. However some may interpret Star Wars as a threat, might they not?


Yours

Alias Bob
Don't forget the crate of Guinness.
Oh Dear! Had to re-edit this Guinness is stronger than I thought.

Sand

Alias, please before Bonkey (It was Bonkey you quoted not Gone Shootin, gone shootin is the guy with the one liners and the links) gets his hands on this please for gods sake edit it. Adding some sort of link to even an opinion piece regarding your above claims would be a start. As for the crate of Guinness, dont you think youve had enough already?:)

Lemming

Originally posted by Alias Bob
Last but not least. The FEA was not originally formed as a military alliance; it was formed in the interest of creating better trading partnerships between one country and another. However some may interpret Star Wars as a threat, might they not?

Erm ... I think that there's a *little bit* of a fundamental difference between economic trading partnerships and the starwars program, wouldn't you agree?

I wonder why the star wars program is considered a threat "by some"??

GoneShootin

gone shootin is the guy with the one liners and the links

and proud of it


a thread "by some"??

i guess they think "if this lunatic is gona go ahead with it, best get on his good side and keep out of the "firing range"

Alias Bob

To LEMMING


You ask>>>
Erm ... I think that there's a *little bit* of a fundamental difference between economic trading partnerships and the starwars program, wouldn't you agree?

I say>>>
Yes you are perfectly correct as to fundamental differences, yet we must remember that the drafting of this agreement was done at the height of the Kosavo crisis. Hence it is reasonable to assume that this could serve as a multi-functional agreement to strengthen the alliance against Warmongers such as Bush.

You ask>>>
I wonder why the star wars program is considered a threat "by some"??

I say>>>
I do believe President Putin, has already aired his opinion on this one.

My own opinion is:

Prior to WTC incident America was experiencing an embarrassing power crisis, being unable to supply power to the industrial sectors without having to turn off power to the general public.
They had already tapped their reserves and the situation was getting worse by the day. With this in mind, the UAE and others could have easily stopped supplies had they wanted to and watched as America ground to a halt.

The UAE can afford to sit on their black gold, whereas America is desperate for fresh oil supplies. It is reported that Bush threatened the Taliban, that failure to comply with his demands as to allowing the pipeline to go through Afghanistan would result in a carpet of bombs. Well now that is a coincidence isn't it?

Did Bush have a crystal ball, as to WTC incident or what?

Yours
Alias Bob

Don't forget my Guinness chaps.
:cool:

Hobbes

The power crisis had nothing to do with Oil. It was basically greedy electric companies.

bonkey

Before I start this...>I'm confused as to what AB is actually trying to imply here - what his grand conspiracy theory is saying. Was the US *attacked* by the non-existant Eastern Economic Alliance , or was Bush's warmongering somehow behind it.

So - Bob - despite me pretty much dismissing everything you have alleged (see below), rather than trying to asnwer me point by point, could you make a post which basically outlines the core underlying conspiracy.

Who is doing what to whom, and why?

To date, you seem to have implied a number of vastly differing possibilities, and I have no idea if you're just rambling, trolling to see if anyone jumps on board with you, or you have a solid underlying theory. At the moment, I'm leaning away from the third option, because I've seen no evidence of it.

Originally posted by Alias Bob
It is reported that Bush threatened the Taliban, that failure to comply with his demands as to allowing the pipeline to go through Afghanistan would result in a carpet of bombs. Well now that is a coincidence isn't it?

America has a power shortage because the power companies have been too busy raking in profit instead of reinvesting in additional generation capacity in time to meet demand.

While it is true to say that this shortage could be exacerbated by cutting their oil supply, this is a misleading idea, because an oil crisis would flatten transport before power generation. In fact, even were the US without a power shortage, an oil crisis would still bring it to its knees (even allowing for it being only 15% of US oil at most coming from external sources).

Furthermore, in terms of generation expansion, oil is not necessarily the best choice, and in fact many people are predicting a return to nuclear power with new 4th generation designs which are more efficient, less dangerous, and which are not actually creating fissile byproducts.

So - as to Bush threatening the Taliban. What do you mean by "it is reported". Reported by whom? Where? Or do you meant that it is alleged....where there is no proof other than (perhaps) some conspiracy theorist.

The simple fact is that threatening the Taliban would have done nothing. They were not against a pipeline. It was the political and military instability brought about by having warring factions at each other constantly which was the problem. Threatening to "drop bombs" would be pointless. In fact, threatening the Taliban would be pointless.

I would further point out that Afghanistan, while it does have gas deposits (and I believe some oil) would only ever be an easier pipeline to existing fields. In such a case, the US could still be held to ransom by the same people you say could do it now. If they arent shipping, there is no benefit in having a pipline - it doesnt *make* the oil or anything.

Political stability in Afghanistan allows the possibility of more efficient pipelines, to more suitable ports, resulting in more options and probably cheaper shipping costs. This would be worthwhile.

Even were this incorrect - even if Afghanistan had oil, exacty how would it stop the US from being dependant on ME oil. If they refused to sell - what? The US would take over the oil producing nations? Or would it magically build rigs and pipelines overnight in Afghanistan to prvent the shortage?

So - this brings us back to the fac that the assertions you make are taking a simple fact (pipelines through Afghanistan would be economically useful to the US) into an ill-thought conspiracy as to why the US went into Afghanistan. Saying they went in so they could build pipelines makes sense. Saying they went in to prevent being held hostage for ME oil is ridiculous.

Did Bush have a crystal ball, as to WTC incident or what?

As to how any of this (your allegations or the facts) implies that Bush had a crystal ball is beyond me. You discounted Al Qaeda being behind it earlier, and now somehow believe that Bush threatening the Afghani's ruling faction was a precursor to the attacks. The only possible scenario where Bush could have had a crytsal ball would be where the US organised the attacks. Of course this would destroy the other half of your "economic instability argument". It would also completely throw out the question of Bush being a warmonger. If he is being targetted, he is not a warmonger for replying in kind. Violent, yes, but warmonger - thats the person/group targetting the US.

So - who was behind this? Either someone played into Bush's hands (he wanted an excuse to attack Afghanistan and someone gave it to him) or Bush created the situation. In the former case, then your crystal ball comment is ludicrous. In the latter case, your economic instability argument (while already incorrect) is even more ludicrous.

You dismiss Al Qaeda as a bunch of little more than cave-dwelling savages (a rag tag army of misfits). So - are you saying that the USS Cole attack was also a set-up? By the US as well, or some faction of your new Super Eastern ECONOMIC Alliance? And the embassy attacks? All of these were set up by who? Are you saying that the US severely damaged one of its own warships as a prelude to WTC? And if not, is it not possible that those forces who successfully attacked a ship of war of the most advanced army in the world could not also pilot a few commercial planes with reasonable accuracy.

So - either the US has been systematically targetting itself over the last few years in a buildup to this operation, or your crystal ball theory appears to be about as accurate as most crystal balls predictions are.

IN short - you are making a number of unconfirmed/unconfirmable allegations, combining them with some misinterpretations of the state of affairs, and adding in a splash of paranoia, and coming up with a self-conflicting set of conspiracy theories - none of which stand on their own, let alone together.

jc

Hobbes

So - as to Bush threatening the Taliban. What do you mean by "it is reported". Reported by whom? Where? Or do you meant that it is alleged....where there is no proof other than (perhaps) some conspiracy theorist.

I think he may be talking about this.

http://www.rense.com/general17/before.htm

The simple fact is that threatening the Taliban would have done nothing. They were not against a pipeline.

The problem wasn't the deal afaik, it was actually dealing with the Taliban.

A number of oil companies where trying for an Oil deal in Afganistan and contacting other sources. UNOCAL where dealing with the Taliban and even flew a few of them over to the US for training in the hopes of securing a deal. They were told to back off by the US goverment and then critisized when they didn't.

even if Afghanistan had oil, exacty how would it stop the US from being dependant on ME oil.

afaik they just want to plonk an oil pipe through Afganistan. Dealing with the Taliban meant dealing with the main superpower in Afganistan, bare in mind the NA wouldn't of gotten anywhere if it wasn't for US air support.

No point dealing with the warlords when you could just go to one source and supply them with the items required to hold the peace.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
No point dealing with the warlords when you could just go to one source and supply them with the items required to hold the peace.

OK, but this leaves five possibilities :

1) Al Qaeda hate the US and attacked it - same as current beliefs.
Most accepted theory to date. Not much to say here.

2) The Taliban attacked UTC in response to threats.
Ummm...not likely. Self-defeating. Besides, why would an organisation who sponsors terrorists get involved directly, when there's a terrorist group handy to carry out the attacks.

Also - doesnt it almost seem like a self-defeating action. Oh - youre threatening to bomb us out. I know - we'll attack you and give you every reason you need to bomb us out.

3) The US manufactured the attack so they could get what they want
Sure. And they manufactured the attacks on the USS Cole and the embassies long before the 9.11 events so that they had sufficient background to blame Al Qaeda and enter Aghanistan. Hell, they could probably have used the Cole itself as enough of a reason, even several years on.

Also, there is no indication that the US *will* get what they want yet. Also, as pointed out, while pipelines would increase port options, it wont necessarily provide any more oil from the fields. Finally, it remains to be seen if Afghanistan remains politically stable for long enough.

Surely a formal backing of the NA would have sufficed - given tha they were recognised as "legitimate" more than the Taliban. This seems like more the US style - they have backed numerous "freedom fighters" in the past. Why change tactics now?

4) Some thid-pary organised the attack, and Al Qaeda were implicated.

Right. So, some eastern alliance managed to fool the US into believing Al Qaeda were behind things, but were so unaware of the US/Afghan/Oil issue that they ended up playing into the US' hands. Not very likely for a group who have apparently deluded the entire US intelligence operations, especially when someone has managed to write a book already on these issues.

This would also question the evidence produced to date. Who made it? The US, to back up their own misguided retaliation, or the eastern powers to fool the US? Is either of these likely?

In the former case, it implies the US already know the Afghanis werent behind it, which calls the Camp XRay stuff into question.

The latter implies is that the US is still fooled, and is getting further and further off track. So - we now are saying that not only is the evidence fabricated, but that it is fabricated so well that the US military and intelligence experts are genuinely fooled. Which is kinda odd, because almost everyone credbile who criticised the tapes of bin Laden said that their veracity could be determined by access to the original tape, as opposed to real or digital copies.

5) Some third-party orgniased the attack, but the US decided to frame Al Qaeda to give them a lead into Afghanistan.

If there is some third-party rising power trying to affect the US, can Dubya be dumb enough to believe they'd let his pipeline go through after they attacked his country to cause economic instability? Hardly likely. Unless we want to believe that he took Afghanistan out cause he could, and is now rolling on to the real targets.

Of course, this once again implies that all evidence against the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been manufactured, and that Camp X-Ray is a sham. Funny way to do business - raise issues all over the world about the humane treatment of prisoners, when you dont even need anything from them.

conclusion
Basically, none of the "alternate" theories hold up under inspection, and would also require that we immediately declare as false pretty much all of the evidence supplied to date.

Also, that URL you point to alleges that the attacks benefited no-one bar the US. Does anyone seriously believe this? If so, then it once again flies in the face of Bob's "third party" theory, but rather goes for the Operation Northwood approach.

Which brings me back to my confusion. Bob appears to be mixing and mashing allegations from several different theories. None seem fully credible on their own, and combined, seem farcical.

Of course, you shouldnt believe a word I say, because apparently I'm anti-American

jc

Hobbes

hey I'm apprantly anti-american too! :rolleyes:

Some factors have to be taken out of that.

1. Al-Quida is not the Taliban. They are two seperate organisations. While supposedly the Taliban did have Al-Quida members in it, it would be false to say that they go hand in hand.

2. Al-Quida is not Afganistan. It is terrorist organisation with sites in a number of countries around the world (England is one for example). So your option 5 could certainly of been Al-Quida and Bush hitting Afganistan to kill two birds with one stone.

Also, that URL you point to alleges that the attacks benefited no-one bar the US. Does anyone seriously believe this?

Yea, sorry about that I quoted Rense which tends to get carried away a bit at times.

But in the end who does benifit out of all this? It's certainly a question that should be asked. Certainly the US (population) didn't.

It is keeping the Bush administration alive though. If the Enron thing had happened and no 9/11 he would of been crucified, and it has helped them pass laws that have been rejected for years.

Then there is the matter of the airline stocks before the attack, with most of the companies under investigation having CIA ties (ex CIA on the board, etc).

I would surmise that people in the US were aware something was going to happen but weren't aware of the scope. Had the plane/s just been hijacked it would have dropped the airline stock and a load of people would of gotten richer without anyone really noticing.

Then you also have the Anthrax drug which was cited and caused a massive run on it, when the drug had side effects and there were other safer and cheaper alternatives. Who got rich off that?

It may of been one factor in the attack but I don't think the causes or the outcome where based on one factor.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
1. Al-Quida is not the Taliban. They are two seperate organisations. While supposedly the Taliban did have Al-Quida members in it, it would be false to say that they go hand in hand.

2. Al-Quida is not Afganistan. It is terrorist organisation with sites in a number of countries around the world (England is one for example). So your option 5 could certainly of been Al-Quida and Bush hitting Afganistan to kill two birds with one stone.

OK - I was actually trying to keep them seperate, and not use the terms interdependantly. Look at point 2, for example. If the Taliban wanted to go after the US, it would have made more sense for them to "contract" Al Qaeda to do it....after all its the type of thing Al Qaeda are supposed to be aiming for....

Also, my use of the term thid-party was in response to Bob's assertion that Al Qaeda (the rag-tag-army-of-misfits as he sees them) were not behind the attacks, but rather some well organised third party.

Maybe 5th or 6th party might have been more correct

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Alias Bob
There is a vast difference between a civil engineer and that of which was used to remote control those planes. The correct speed and trajectory required, to not only impact the towers, but to cause complete demolition.

Speed and trajectory weren't the big factors, having a largish plane with a near full fuel load was.