English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Prior to the “New Pearl Harbor” of Sept. 11, 2001, the US already had attack plans drawn up and ready for a bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The neoconservatives were merely the Bush cheerleading team, touting the wars freely across the media, in personal readiness of the increased military spending to come their way via massive defense contract commissions, especially linked to the seemingly ever-threatened Israel.

In 2001, the US was the Taleban’s second largest donor; it gave $124.2 million up until May. Ostensibly for agricultural aid and humanitarian assistance, such largesse was a seduction of the Taleban into allowing American UNOCAL to build a pipeline from the energy rich Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and out to the warm waters of the Gulf and Indian Ocean. The Taleban rejected the offer. In August 2001, Christina Rocca of the US State Department warned the Taleban, “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” The Taleban instead signed a deal to build with Bridas, an Argentinean company. The following month, on Sept. 11, the Pentagon and Twin Towers were attacked and the US indeed bombed Afghanistan in October. Hamid Karzai, former UNOCAL consultant and translator for the Taleban, was installed as head of the country, the previous pipeline contract with Argentina was nullified, and the US was fully in charge.

2007-02-14 14:37:10 · 9 answers · asked by yb H 2 in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

Look into the history of the U.S.S. Maine. You'll understand why 9/11 happened.

The U.S.S. Maine was destroyed by the U.S. government in order to draw the United States into the Spanish-American War. The U.S. public would not have allowed the U.S. to enter that conflict without a reason. The reason was therefore given by the government.

The same thing can be said about 9/11. The American public would not have bought the "evidence" that was handed to us for justification of war in Iraq. Therefore a good reason was needed. The government again gave the public the reason.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

2007-02-14 14:54:36 · answer #1 · answered by Flynn380 3 · 1 1

Most people include these comments here cannot be blamed if you grow up listening to the right wing and MTV you believe we Americans can do whatever we want or in the latter we can tell you the hit song or fad of the week. Ever since England suppressed the Middle East support for Germany during World War II the Middle East has wanted their freedom. Even today, many of the countries have government set-up and supported by the West. Even prior to World War Two, Western oil barons were extracting great wealth from their oil-rich colonial holdings. They were already well aware that the potential volumes of Middle Eastern oil reserves were conservatively enormous.
However, the likelihood of the West remaining as friendly allies was being threatened by Egyptian Nationalists calling for an end to colonial occupation. A mild sense of panic was beginning to overtake the Western elite because there was growing support for the Nationalization of oil interests throughout the Middle East. This move of course would have put an end to the West's exploitation of Arab oil. The elite knew only too well that oil was inevitably going to bring not only great wealth, but immense power to the Middle Eastern countries. In fact, if Middle East supplies outlasted those in the West, the Arabs could have potentially amassed enough wealth and strategic power to rival or ultimately threaten the supremacy of the West!!



To keep wars from appearing like contests for wealth and power, the elite go to elaborate lengths to disguise the real motives,usually by camouflaging the war in a flag-draped cloak of patriotism. After all, the elite's economic well-being hinges on their ability to successfully conscript and enlist the working class to die in their service, just as serfs were forced to do in Feudal times.
When they finally hit back it is their fault? I don't think so and no I am not agreeing with them. I think they could have gotten better result by either hitting the Statue of Liberty or better threatening to do it. In fact, I think if they had just threatened it many Americans would have seen the issue and been on their side. Remember what your grandmother used to say, "you get more with a teaspoon of sugar then a gallon of vinegar"?

God Bless You and the Southern People (another suppressed people)

2007-02-15 05:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Your (long-winded) theory is at odds with the fact that bin laden was making preparations for this attack long before George Bush entered the White House.

Bin laden declared a jihad against America in the 1990's. He wants to destroy America as an economic, military and geopolitical power. That is precisely why 9/11 happened.

Until we can move beyond petty political BS like this and organize a unified strategy both here and abroad, bin laden and his pals have hope. But I fear that more casualties may be required before our politicians realize that the well being of our citizens is more important than winning elections.

2007-02-14 14:57:55 · answer #3 · answered by Ed 3 · 1 1

Muslim hatred goes back centuries. No one Muslim country can claim responsibility. They all have a hand in the terrorism happening today. The terrorist Islamists are attacking countries around the world! They will hit us again, when or where is anybody's guess. The military barracks bombings, American Embassy bombings, airliners blowing up and falling out of the skies, WORLD Trade Center bombing and crashing, terrorism against Iraqis, Russia has been hit several times, Bosnia, India, the Philipines, Indonesia, Spain, France, Germany, England, and many more countries are under attack by Muslim terrorists.
Traitor clinton allowed it to happen here. He DID NOT warn the new administration.

2007-02-14 15:25:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Ramin, you need to use spell check as well.
Stratigist?

Anyway, muslims have hated everyone since the dawn of time, so im sure this was a plan they had in mind for years. Anyone who believes that this was an inside job is just a conspiracy theorist, and they all make me laugh.

2007-02-14 17:12:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

For bizzare theory I give you A+.
For reality like all consipcaries you fail agian.
This had been debunk so many way.

The military has all sorts of plans drawn up that is what they do is plan for all possiblities.
For you viewing pleasure.
http://www.ThatsJustStupid.com

2007-02-17 23:42:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Liberal propaganda is all that is.......


1- We were not attacked by the Taliban
2- The Us (and every other country) has battle plans to attack EVERY COUNTRY in the world.....That is what a STRATIGIST does...You have to be prepared and every country knows this, we will probably not use 99% of them
3- Karzai was ELECTED....
4- use spell check

2007-02-14 15:02:41 · answer #7 · answered by raminrobert 2 · 0 1

Don't you mean Taliban? And btw we weren't just attacked by the Taliban... Think more global (you libbies like that don't you?) like Al-Qaeda. Basically, the Koran tells them that we must be destroyed. Pretty simple.

2007-02-14 14:49:54 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 2 1

Is this supposed to be evidence for a government conspiracy? If so, we'd need to know where you get your information from and it should be a little bit easier to read. Maybe your tin foil hat signals are bad because of the bad weather we've been having.

2007-02-14 14:45:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

It is all about, who is going to be the last company with oil at the end of oil.

2007-02-14 14:46:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers