Dont you think it is rather difficult to track every terrorist?

Originally posted by drunk
Dont you think it is rather difficult to track every terrorist?

But drunk this is not a question of track them, this is a question of FBI making the terrorist acts (not all of them) but having reasons to give to the media to play their game without get difficulties from the public...

Yeah i know but every govt always bs's as you have said
they also add that they have intelligence reports about the whereabouts of terrorists in the end they come up empty handed.

Originally posted by drunk
Yeah i know but every govt always bs's as you have said
they also add that they have intelligence reports about the whereabouts of terrorists in the end they come up empty handed.

And people after that stills believing in their intelligence agencies, gov, and media news....
What does that tell you about the people?

The very nature of our intelligence services means that they are up there to get shot down by conspiracy theorists. The fact that they act in secret and don't publicise their work means that we can attach all sorts of meanings to their actions and even create situations that never existed except in our minds.

They can't hit back at their doubters without publicising some of their operational procedures so it's a vicious circle. There are no answers to our questions and we take their silence as guilt.

You say don't trust the media, but isn't it the media who creates this uncertainty about the security services in the first place? They aren't working hand in hand. If anything I'll bet the CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad and all the others wish the media never existed for the amount of trouble that they have caused them.

I don't see a logical explanation why the FBI would help plant a "harmless" bomb. The publicity that would follow would not help them to achieve their aims. It would make people more aware of the terrorist threat but it would also mean that the security services would come under closer media scrutiny just as they are now.

Secret services try to stay secret. It's highly unlikely that they would want to publicise and gain propaganda in such a fashion.

Finally, this story doesn't matter anyway. The plan, if it ever existed, was never carried through.
And again, even if the plan did exist, isn't it the logical case of covering all of your bases? Woring out a plan for every scenario?
I'm pretty sure that all sorts of horrendous things are discussed at high level in the security services. There is a huge difference between discussing such actions and actually putting them into motion.

that sounds like the fbi and our government all right... everything is a pawn in a strategic chess game to make sure we all stay in power.. loss f life equals if you make an omlet you must cracka few eggs... if the greater good out weighs the loss it is fine... its just the greater good we prolly wouldnt understand or at least most of the american population wouldnt...

Originally posted by Leveller
The very nature of our intelligence services means that they are up there to get shot down by conspiracy theorists. The fact that they act in secret and don't publicise their work means that we can attach all sorts of meanings to their actions and even create situations that never existed except in our minds.

They can't hit back at their doubters without publicising some of their operational procedures so it's a vicious circle. There are no answers to our questions and we take their silence as guilt.

You say don't trust the media, but isn't it the media who creates this uncertainty about the security services in the first place? They aren't working hand in hand. If anything I'll bet the CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad and all the others wish the media never existed for the amount of trouble that they have caused them.

I don't see a logical explanation why the FBI would help plant a "harmless" bomb. The publicity that would follow would not help them to achieve their aims. It would make people more aware of the terrorist threat but it would also mean that the security services would come under closer media scrutiny just as they are now.

Secret services try to stay secret. It's highly unlikely that they would want to publicise and gain propaganda in such a fashion.

Finally, this story doesn't matter anyway. The plan, if it ever existed, was never carried through.
And again, even if the plan did exist, isn't it the logical case of covering all of your bases? Woring out a plan for every scenario?
I'm pretty sure that all sorts of horrendous things are discussed at high level in the security services. There is a huge difference between discussing such actions and actually putting them into motion.

The article says that they allowed it to happend, because as i told u it gives them reasons to have the policy of now "anti terrorists", because if they stop them before it happens the media will not notes anything, and they won´t be afraid of the terrorist thread, not as know they are, it´s like the disscussion of "STanD DowN" of 11-S. If 11-S would never happend, do u think all what is going now in the world would be like it is now?
Is not a question of conspiracy, u trust too much your goverment while is cheating second after second, u seem to believe more the goverment than anything else, even when u know the bad things they do to the world, and that people is getting an anti-american feeling thanks to your policy, the policy that u allow your goverment to do, and u even defend them, my question is what do u see in them to defend them that much?
U trust them?
U like them?

A variant of this information had appeared on several news outlets here (NYC) about a year ago.

The version discussed at the time (and the Village Voice was one of the sources breaking the story, they never tote the party line) was more related to the intelligence that the 1993 terrorist group had been tracked and the reports were an attempted bombing in Brooklyn (in a heavy Jewish area). This had been twarted through increased security, so the WTC ended up a 'target of opportunity' for the terrorists. I think the feeling that law enforcement agencies "allowed" it to happen came form the fact that they knew they were going to try something else, and were watching the group... and lost track of them.

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR

U trust them?
U like them?

I trust them and like them more than I do those who wanted to plant the bomb in the first place.

Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR

U trust them?
U like them?

I trust them and like them more than I do those who wanted to plant the bomb in the first place.

Does that answer your question?

It does but the gov does things much worst than planting bombs...

Its clear the only reason they did this i because of the news. I mean if they would have nabbed em them no one would have known and if the go to trial they could get off. The clandistine organization are only ridiculed never praised you know why because all we know about is there failures. The FBI knew if they planted this fake poweder in there the terrorist could attempt to hit the bomb noone get hurt and they could nab em and have no problem convicting them. Also CA how bout anarchy. A state a anarchy would be much worse than anything our gov't could do. I mean i would rather have a semi corrupt state with order than anarchy. And you baching the USA about being currupt look at any other country in the world like france or India youll see what acorrupt gov't is

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR

Originally posted by drunk
Yeah i know but every govt always bs's as you have said
they also add that they have intelligence reports about the whereabouts of terrorists in the end they come up empty handed.

And people after that stills believing in their intelligence agencies, gov, and media news....
What does that tell you about the people?

It tells me that they are full of it in other word lies,lies,lies