Al Qaeda or Bush, who makes more sense to blame?

There's been a lot of talk lately putting the blame for 9-11 and the london bombings on Bush and Blair respectively.

What I'd like to do is outline the possible scenarios and see which ones make more sense.

To me it seems that extremist muslim militants, who have declared war on the US and it's allies seem like the likely candidates. We have these enemies and they are real, I see no need to chase after ghosts because I dislike my government.

The US has shown itself to be very bad at hiding conspiracies. Other than JFK, which I believe was a small conspiracy, all of our big undertakings have been exposed. Watergate, the Iranian hostage negotiations, Iran Contra, S&L, Enron, etc. have all been exposed because they involved so many people who knew about it.

I think it's possible that a small conspiracy with less than a dozen people involved is the only one that can stay hidden.

So what I'd like to do with this thread is weigh the differing conspiracies involving 9-11 and the July 7th London bombings. Any good conspiracy outline should account for many things.

How many people would have to be in the know?

Say that Blair ordered the bombings, how many people would have to know to pass that information on to the perpetrators. Is there a secret chain of command that exists between the PM and terrorist orginizations? Would he have to first tell someone in MI6? How exactly would it have went down.

The same for 9-11. If it's such a huge conspiracy, let's put a number on the least amount of people who would have to know.

To me if the number is too huge, it is much more believable that the two attacks are exactly what they seem.

Terrorists planning and attacking us because they see us as their enemies. No great leap of faith involved there. They do exist and they do commit such acts.

What are your thoughts?

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you're over-simplifying the situations and throwing too much evidence and other information away in the process.

LeftBehind,

So you are basing your post solely on the the number of people that must have been involved. That is truly oversimplifying. And yes, you are putting too much evidence away by doing that. There is such thing as topsecret (abovetopsecret if you wish) that puts enough pressure on those who know to keep their mouths shut. These are my thoughts.

In the case of the criminal Bush administration, there is a difference between:

(1) "masterminding" the events (such as planning the attack on Iraq and gathering lies and fraudulent evidence to engender support for the attack)

and

(2) being complicit in the events, such as knowing enough about terrorist cells and the intentions of Arab student pilots in flight schools, but calling off investigations as a factor in enabling the attacks to occur.

There is crime, there is complicity and there is also total negligence.

The Bush administration is guilty of all three at different times.

The question ignores the fact that Al Qaeda was a CIA creation and that it is widely suspected to be a tool used by Bush and others to 'frame' Muslims and Middle Eastern countries with crimes they didn't commit.

The point is that it makes the most sense (IMO) to blame them both.

Yes.

Nice longboard, RRS. It looks like a WMD.

I agree MA, and that's what I think I was trying to get at.

I think that Bush was negligent and possibly complicet in the case of 9-11, however I have yet to see any thing like that for the london bombings.

Roy, is it a fact that AlQaeda was a CIA creation?

Any evidence?

Okay Malkut, so are you saying that if hundreds of people have knowledge of the crimes, then no one will come forward?

Top Secret never stopped Iran Contra from making news, nor did it stop Watergate.

If I am oversimplyfying then please let me hear your outline of the plots. That is what I really want to hear so I can judge if makes any sense to me.

Maybe I will find your theory plausible.

here is the plot:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Yes.

Nice longboard, RRS. It looks like a WMD.

Thanks, it is in fact a 'WIP' Weapon of Individual Peace.

Otherwise known as an OLO board

Honest



[edit on 22-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Roy, is it a fact that AlQaeda was a CIA creation?

Any evidence?

There's a fair bit on the subject over here:

www.oilempire.us...

Malkut, if a card game expains your entire conspiracy theory, it sounds to me like you haven't bothered thinking it all the way through. That's great that you can just blame Bush for mass murder, but can't come up with any plausible way to do so.

I would appreciate anything with any realistic details, such as how many people would have to be in the know. Childish plots involving card games and only describing what happens is ridiculous.

Roy, care to post any quotes? Maybe more sources than one man's opinion? I admit I didn't read the whole thing, but the part I read seemed to suggest the CIA created the Taliban, not AL Qaeda.

I think you give our covert agents too much credit, and far too much power.

If they were so powerful that they pulled this off, why aren't we in full dictatorship mode now? If they can mastermind plots of this magnitude, then why even bother with pretense?


Edit: Also Malkut, you were the one complaining that I was oversimplifying before you posted the "terror rime line".

Is there no one on here with a coherent, well thought out theory on how either of these conspiracies happened?

[edit on 22-7-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Roy, is it a fact that AlQaeda was a CIA creation?

Any evidence?

There's a fair bit on the subject over here:

www.oilempire.us...

Hmmm....
en.wikipedia.org...-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) — a mujahideen resistance organization fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was a founding member of the MAK, along with Palestinian militant Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. The role of the MAK was to channel funds from a variety of sources (including donations from across the Middle East) into training mujahideen from around the world in guerrilla combat, and to transport the combatants to Afghanistan. Bin Laden and the MAK have allegedly been aided by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and indirectly (and perhaps unknowingly) by the United States, which channeled all of its support via the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate. In fact, the Arab contingent in Afghanistan during the latter half of the 1980s was quite small and not generally involved in the fighting, rather limiting its activities to logistics, housing, recruitment and financing of the mujahideen. Bin Laden, the MAK, and most of the Arab volunteers were largely unknown to the CIA and the American government during the war to oust the Soviet from Afghanistan; only later would the Arab element come to U.S. attention.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[8] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the US government, which maintains that US aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that [Afghan Arabs] had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself. [9]. The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

As far as Bush vs. Al Q...
An attack like that would take years to plan an carry out. There's plenty of evidence that what's become known as Al Qeada were doing just that.
Bush barely made it into office and was just there for 8 months.
Al Q - time, motive
Bush - ???
no time, no motive, no reason. People say getting us into Iraq could have been a motive but...there's a good chance we were going to do that anyway, whether 9/11 happened or not. The Patriot Act won't mean anything to him in a couple years. And as you can see now, it's doing nothing for his popularity.

no time, no motive, no reason. People say getting us into Iraq could have been a motive but...there's a good chance we were going to do that anyway, whether 9/11 happened or not. The Patriot Act won't mean anything to him in a couple years. And as you can see now, it's doing nothing for his popularity.

It's for oil. Familiarize yourself with the Peak Oil issue coming up. Bush and Cheney were both heads oil companies before their current jobs. And where are we going to war? The Mid-East, which supplies most of the world its oil.

As far as the CIA-al Qaeda connection, we're even taught that over here in High School. It was something alone the lines of the US funding and training Bin Laden's men to fight the Russians in its war with Afghanistan. The connections between al Qaeda and the CIA were never convincingly shut off, but that part got looked over in our history class. Nonetheless, the CIA was crucial in Bin Laden's rise to power. He wouldn't be where he is today otherwise.

Leftbehind:
Malkut, if a card game expains your entire conspiracy theory, it sounds to me like you haven't bothered thinking it all the way through. That's great that you can just blame Bush for mass murder, but can't come up with any plausible way to do so.

I never said that it explains my entire conspiracy theory. You asked me to outline my plot. Well, i believe that this card game from 1995 pretty much does exactly that. There is a lot on ATS about the ommisions, inconsistences, and direct proven lies on the side of our governments. Considering only a small portion of them, it is impossible for me to believe any official story. And believe me, I would love to be able to believe what we are told.

And of course, one cannot know the real plot, one can just speculate. Maybe we ca buy the card game and play it, that way we can come up with different plots, I guess. The one who wins, gets the award for the most plausible plot

As to why I do not mention how many people should be involved... How can I know? How can I even speculate? Everything will be just a wild guess not resting on any facts. What I can say is that it is quite reasonable to believe that the whole plot was known only to very few people. The rest who were involved probably knew only the portion that was necessary to do their part. or even more - they might have known nothing true, just what they were told. Thus their contradicting pieces of information could have served as an insurance for the real conspirators. In this line of thought - maybe even real terrorists performed the dirty work, believing they were doing God's work. Don't underestimate your government! What you mention about Watergate, is just an exception, confirming the rule...

edited: some spelling corrected

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Malkut]

BsBray, there might indeed have been a connection between Al Qaeda and the CIA, but that does not mean AL Qaeda is a fiction created by the CIA to scare us, as others would have us believe.

Malkut, I understand that you can't possibly know how many people were involved. What I was hoping for was a detailed speculation that could be believable.

As TJW stated, Al Qaeda had the motive and the time to pull it off, while Bush had only been in office for eight months. It seems to me that Al Qaeda are the ones responsible. It makes no sense that Bush would kill so many of his own people and disrupt the economy so badly, just to invade Iraq for oil.

We already have seen that he lied to get us into Iraq, it wasn't needed to kill a bunch of us.

And how exactly is Watergate the exception? What other conspiracies have been executed by our government that we don't know about? Care to explain?

As I've already pointed out, it seems that most conspiracies in our government have been caught and prosecuted.

BsBray, there might indeed have been a connection between Al Qaeda and the CIA, but that does not mean AL Qaeda is a fiction created by the CIA to scare us, as others would have us believe.

No, it doesn't mean that, but it certainly doesn't rule it out, either. I don't think it's a proven case yet, but personally I would not doubt if this were the case exactly.