|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Peace |
|
The Pearl Harbor Lie And September 11 (Oct.26, 2002 Version) |
Current rating: 0 |
by Adrian More
(No verified email address) |
26 Oct 2002
|
|
I argue that President Bush may have known in advance of the planned September-11 attacks but may have allowed them to happen (or had them perpetrated himself), and why. |
The Pearl Harbor Lie And September 11 (Oct.26, 2002 version)
a T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by
Adrian More
president,
the arguable likelihood (especially after Robert B. Stinnett's wonderful 'Day of Deceit', The Free Press, 2000) that FDR had foreknowledge of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor, but didn't tell to whip Americans up into a war frenzy, prompts me to ask a few analogical questions about September 11:
1 - Is it true that the local CIA station chief, Larry Mitchell, met Osama Bin Laden at the American hospital in Dubai on July 12, 2001, as reported by Le Figaro and by Radio France Internationale starting Oct.31,2001 [Bryant, Elizabeth: 'Radio Reports New CIA-Bin Laden Details', United Press International, Nov.1, 2001, http://www.intellnet.org/news/2001/11/02/7975-1.htm ]?
If it isn't true, then:
- why wouldn't Doctor Terry Callaway, reported to have treated Bin Laden, HIMSELF PUBLICLY comment on the reports? Is it out of fear you would have him harmed if he went public and confirmed the Figaro story?
According to Le Figaro as translated into English in:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0111/S00018.htm
Dr Callaway "reached by telephone, several times...did not want to answer our questions."
- Why did you reportedly recall the CIA station chief Larry Mitchell on July 15, the day after the reported departure of Bin Laden from Dubai?
- Why did Emirates officials make no comment on the reports?
- Why didn't the U.S. embassy in Paris refute the reports [U.P.I., Oct.31, 2001, http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=31102001-035336-4200r ]?
- Last but not least: WHY HAVEN'T DOCTOR CALLAWAY AND CIA AGENT LARRY MITCHELL BEEN SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY, LIVE AND ON PRIME TIME CNN, BEFORE A SERIOUS, INDEPENDENT 911 INQUIRY PANEL, AS REGARDS THE DUBAI STORY?
2. Is it true that "FBI agents in the U.S. probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama Bin Laden before Sept.11 WERE TOLD TO BACK OFF SOON AFTER GEORGE W. BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT [my caps]", as reported by the AFP and the Hindustan Times on Nov.7 2001 (report based on a BBC's Newsnight issue)?
And: is it true that, as the BBC's Newsnight reported, "secret documents from an FBI probe into the Sept.11 terror attacks [...] showed THAT AT LEAST TWO OTHER US-BASED MEMBERS OF THE BIN LADEN FAMILY ARE SUSPECTED TO HAVE LINKS WITH A POSSIBLE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION"?
And: is it true that "the FBI was on the trail of Bin Laden family members living in the U.S. before, as well as after, the terrorist attacks"?
Sources: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/AFP111A.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HIN111A.html
3 - Is it true that "bin Laden was all but trapped" at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001 - but that American commanders, arguably on your orders, mr Bush, let him escape?
Source: The New York Times, Sept.30, 2002: '10-Month bin Laden Mystery: Dead or Alive?', by John F. Burns;
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/international/asia/30OSAM.html
According to my source, the suspicion is of 'indecisiveness on the part of American commanders, or perhaps reluctance to risk casualties'.
But: why would American commanders possibly become 'indecisive' before the golden opportunity of finally capturing or killing the man most wanted for 911 - the man the Afghan war was all about?
As for the casualty risk, it's alleged because the commanders refused to block the mountain trails from Tora Bora to Pakistan with troops: "high-ranking British officers were saying privately that American commanders had vetoed a proposal to guard the high-altitude trails, arguing that the risks of a firefight, in deep snow, gusting winds and low-slung clouds, were too high."
So check this out reader: American commanders refused to block bin Laden's escape routes to Pakistan alleging the risk of a few military casualties - so the man was let escape who allegedly murdered thousands of (mostly civilian) Americans on 911 - and might do it again? And, according to you Bush, HAS done it again already: killing hundreds of Westerners, including Americans, in Pakistan, Tunisia, Kuwait, Bali - in 2002?
How is one supposed to capture or kill bin Laden without a risky firefight?
Moreover, if American troops had been blocking Tora Bora's exits to Pakistan, bin Laden may have been sighted and air strikes called in to kill him - without any risky ground combat at all.
THEREFORE A CRITICAL THINKER MAY ONLY CONCLUDE THAT BIN LADEN WAS WILFULLY LET ESCAPE FROM TORA BORA BY AMERICAN COMMANDERS IN DECEMBER 2001 - ON YOUR ORDERS, MR PRESIDENT?
4 - Is it true that by mid-July 2001 you had already planned the war on Afghanistan and its October timing, and that you had already stationed military advisers in Tajikistan, and that senior US officials told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, in mid-July (BBC World News, September 18,2001,11:27 GMT 12:27 UK)?
The BBC story did indeed describe an already planned war, as everyone can verify: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
Here are some excerpts [I capped all-important details]:
"Pakistani official claims US PLANNED INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO WTC EVENTS...Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that MILITARY ACTION AGAINST AFGHANISTAN WOULD GO AHEAD BY THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER... Mr Naik told the BBC that...the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden...and Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to TOPPLE THE TALIBAN REGIME AND INSTALL A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT OF MODERATE AFGHANS IN ITS PLACE...Mr Naik was told that WASHINGTON WOULD LAUNCH ITS OPERATION FROM BASES IN TAJIKISTAN, WHERE AMERICAN ADVISERS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE. He was told that UZBEKISTAN WOULD ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPERATION... Mr Naik was told that IF THE MILITARY ACTION WENT AHEAD IT WOULD TAKE PLACE...BY THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER AT THE LATEST...And he said he was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered...by the Taliban".
QUITE AN ACCURATE PROPHECY, ISN'T IT? WERE ALL HIS DEAD-ON-TARGET DETAILS OF THE FUTURE REVEALED TO NAIK IN A DREAM? HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING AS EARLY AS SEPT.18, 2001 (OR EVEN EARLIER, IF HIS STATEMENT'S DATE DOESN'T COINCIDE WITH THE BBC REPORT'S DATE), HAD NOBODY TOLD HIM?
Furthermore, president, you knew all too well, just like FDR back then, that YOUR PLANNED WAR WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY ENOUGH AMERICANS WITHOUT A COLLECTIVE SHOCK OF SEPT.11 (PEARL-HARBOR) MAGNITUDE. Neither would most of the rest of the world have greenlighted your war so easily, without Sept.11. That's why you needed Sept.11 so badly, right? That's why you may have allowed it to happen, thus co-massmurdering so many of your fellow citizens.
Given the plausibility of Naik's story, it would at this point make perfect sense if, around the same time (July 2001), you, president, had both geared up for your Afghan war and had Osama treated at the American hospital in Dubai: Osama had to live - until Sept.11. Had Osama died of kidney failure, there would have been NO SEPTEMBER 11 - NO MASS CONSENSUS FOR WAR IN THE U.S. - NO WAR - NO U.S. MILITARY/BUSINESS EXPANSION IN CENTRAL ASIA. Bin Laden, unwittingly or not, has been your and your criminal oil/defense regime's best friend - thus far.
5 - It is known that:
a) renewable-energy lobbies don't have the kind of soft money the oil industry has;
b) U.S. oil reserves are dwindling fast;
c) the U.S. won't depend on Gulf oil alone;
d) Caspian oil seems at present a significant additional source;
e) radical, anti-american Islam has been threatening to seize power in the Caspian area; Iran, Russia and China are in the game too;
f) the best (for the U.S.) Caspian oil- and gas-pipeline route would have to cross Afghanistan and Pakistan, to avoid Russia and Iran. Even the newly announced construction start of the BTC pipeline through Azerbaidjan, Georgia and Turkey, also bypassing Russia and Iran, would never have been made without the "reassuring" presence (as of July 2002) of 7,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, U.S. airfields all over the Caspian region, hundreds if not thousands more U.S. troops in other Caspian states (including Georgia): all of which is a result (or better the achieved goal of) 911. The BTC had been on hold for 10 years. Coincidentally, after 911 it's magically coming true. In other words: you mess with the BTC pipeline - Uncle Sam is right around the block (Afghanistan etc.) ready to kick your ass. Moreover, the old Unocal project of 2 other pipes through Afghanistan to carry Caspian oil and gas has not been shelved: it would serve another huge market: India. Again to the profit of Western multis;
g) Russia needed the Taliban to go or be curbed because they were the rear base of Chechen rebels; therefore weak Russia had to come to terms with U.S. military presence in central Asia, and give up a chunk of oil/gas business to U.S. companies;
h) Chinese influence in Central Asia is contrary to American interests;
i) imperial wars are best served in 'self-defense' sauce.
6 - Just out of curiosity: on September 11, 8:46am you famously happened (?) to be in Florida - safely out of harm's way. Colin Powell happened (?) to be in Peru - safely out of harm's way. But - it escapes me - where exactly was Rudy the Hero? CIA director Tenet? FBI director Mueller?
To sum it all up: you are not yet another U.S. President who will live on in infamy - are you, mr Bush?
Oct.26, 2002 version; I wrote the first version on October 29, 2001.
Adrian More
No rights reserved. This material MAY be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.
Other 911 T.I.P.s by Adrian More:
- Fuzzy Math
- Zac In The Bush
- Immoral Tenet & His Blind-Eye Surveillance
- The Twin Cowards
- Catch 9
- Shredding The Constitution!
- Air Farce One
- Mr Push, Where Is Your Wife?
- Have A Last Stroke & Die
- Willie Brown, You Talk Too Much
- Rudy The Zero |
Comments
|
Bad Premises Undermine Clarity |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Oct 2002
|
If you start off with the premise that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Peral Harbor attack, but somehow let it happen, it simply does not match the current state of scholarship on this issue. I have not read the Stinnett book, so I don't know if Stinnett drew an invalid conclusion or if More is misinterpreting him.
For a truly precise and balanced take on the evidence available on this issue, I recommend David M. Kennedy's "Freedom From Fear." Kennedy does an excellent job of delineating the complicated issue of Roosevelt's preparing the nation for war before Dec. 7, 1941 between pages 500 and 526. But what Roosevelt did not do was leave Pearl Harbor open to attack. U.S. forces were under a general state of alert for aggressive Japanese moves, but no one in the military expected it to be at Pearl Harbor.
The failure to be better prepared there rests with local commanders, who were somewhat complacent, but no more so than in many other places, although even then the attack was one that they would have had trouble dealing with regardless if they the actual warning had reached them in time to help (which it did NOT.) The reality was that the Japanese acheived a brilliant, but incomplete tactical victory, aided in part but a smug, racist dismissal of Japanese capabilities on the part of U.S. military commanders.
As for 9-11, I've read enough of More's clumsy and repetitive compilations of conspiracy theory endlessly reposted to the global IMC Newswire to know that More is far more interested in rehashing the speculations of analytical lightwieghts than he is in coming up with an original look at what happened on 9-11. Obsession doesn't equal insight and speculation is the father of misinformation. |
|
ML |
by brian AKA Dan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Oct 2002
|
|
go read stinnet, but leave your prejudices outside. |
|
More Is An Original |
by Reviewer AKA Dan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Oct 2002
|
Adrian More is one of the very first 911 authors - on a par with Israel, Ruppert and very few others who got the whole thing started.
If the possible assmole "ml" means otherwise, he'd better prove it or give up his baseless spamming. |
|
My Name Is Reviewer... |
by Reviewer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Oct 2002
|
|
...not "Reviewer Aka Dan" - I don't know where the "Aka Dan" popped up from because I did not post it. |
|
