Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal brought by families and insurers of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, in an effort to link the Saudi royal family to the financing of Al Qaeda and terrorism.

    The decision lets stand a lower court ruling that found Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family could not be sued in American court because of a 1976 law granting sovereign immunity to foreign countries.

    The Obama administration angered some victims’ families last month by supporting the Saudis’ claim to immunity, citing among other factors the significant diplomatic implications raised by the case.

    Lawyers for the victims’ families had wanted the Supreme Court to resolve a split among appeals courts on the question of immunity and allow the suit to move forward based on an exception to the law for countries that sponsor terrorism. Some survivors accused the Obama administration of coddling the Saudis.

    But the Supreme Court, without comment, refused to intervene in the case.

    The families will still be allowed to continue with their claims in federal court against a number of Saudi financial institutions, charities and other groups that are not directly tied to the Saudi government or the royal family. Those defendants were not affected by the court’s decision not to hear the case.

    “We intend to vigorously press those claims and are confident that the presentation of our evidence against those remaining defendants will lead directly back to government offices and royal palaces in Riyadh,” said Sean Carter, a lawyer with the Philadelphia law firm Cozen O’Connor, which is representing a number of insurance companies that paid billions in claims arising from the Sept. 11 attacks.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    Surprising that troofer loonies would post this, since it doesn't fit the nutty troofer template. 
    Troofers claim the 9/11 families think the US Government did it...then why would the families want to sue the poor Saudi government?

    The Saudi government itself has been a target of Al Qaeda, so it is, needless to say,  a stretch, to claim the Saudi government is responsible legally. Sovereign immunity makes sense.
    The Supreme Court slapped down, not the 9/11 families,  but out-of-control tort lawyers, who now want to run US foreign policy.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    Bob, you have a severe and crippling tendency to oversimplify things.


    You say you think you know what 'troofers' think, but you have absolutely no idea what I think.   Classic strawman tactic, and i'm not anywhere near dumb enough to fall for it.

    Sometimes, countries help each other with their dirty laundry.  That's all I'm gonna say.

    If I thought you actually gave a krap, I'd say more, but you don't.



    On second thought, Bob, I'll just say ....start here



    Nothing about this thing is what it looks like.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    "countries help each other with their dirty laundry"? 
    Smearing your own country is what you are about.
     Too bad the Saudis are apparently not "indigenous people" ....granola potheads need to use that term in every other sentence....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    "countries help each other with their dirty laundry"?  Smearing your own country is what you are about.  Too bad the Saudis are apparently not "indigenous people" ....granola potheads need to use that term in every other sentence....
    Posted by BobinVa



    you're wrong of course, but i know that never stopped you.

    yes.  sometimes, countries help each other do their dirty laundry.  figure it out.

    must you always behave like such a child? 



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7ZHenQnu4

    (playlist for all 3 parts is availbale)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    To the paranoid, 'dirty laundry' must mean..... the CIA!!!....
    The CIA is responsible for Al Qaeda and Iran's dissenters and 9/11 and JFK and MLK and RFK and..bad dope...and Saudi Arabia....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    To the paranoid, 'dirty laundry' must mean..... the CIA!!!.... The CIA is responsible for Al Qaeda and Iran's dissenters and 9/11 and JFK and MLK and RFK and..bad dope...and Saudi Arabia....
    Posted by BobinVa



    sad you care so little for established historical fact.

    or little things like truth, or ethics.

    please stop speaking on behalf of my country - you shame it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

    John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

    The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

    These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

    The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”.

    In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

    MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

    Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

    The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    You might also consider watching this excellent piece from the BBC,

    The Power of Nightmares - about the phantasmagorical nature of our enemy.

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F2B774C7D46C815A&search_query=power+of+nightmares
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    The US supported the Afghan resistance against the then-Soviet occupation in the 80s. Sure, we trained Muslim fighters, some of whom now have turned on us.
    That doesnt mean the CIA is responsible for Al Qaeda.

    The world changed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Former allies became enemies.
    Only those harboring a hatred of their own country, and lacking  a grounding in reality would believe a notion that the literally thousands of Muslim extremist worldwide terror attacks are "false flag" by US agents. 
    It is also racist of left wing Americans to presume Muslims cant hate the US as much as leftists themselves.....

    "phantasmagorical "...as lame a word as "indigenous"...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

     "A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported. "

    Typical troofer mush.
    The CIA was "partly culpable" because it should not have let these radical Muslims enter the country. The CIA's job was to prevent terror attacks. The CIA messed up.  

    The radical Muslims did the dirty deed. The CIA did not.
    Or is this too "simplistic"?  



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
     "A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported. " Typical troofer mush. The CIA was "partly culpable" because it should not have let these radical Muslims enter the country. The CIA's job was to prevent terror attacks. The CIA messed up.   The radical Muslims did the dirty deed. The CIA did not. Or is this too "simplistic"?  
    Posted by BobinVa



    The FBI was more to blame than the CIA for that one - and if you like, you can google up the conversation between the informant in the group and his FBI handler that the informant wisely taped.   Instead of giving the terrorists inert materials, they decided instead to give them real explosives, and let them commit the act.

    The CIA's role was more about issuing bogus passports to get mujahadeen fighters into the US for training ... the fact that they essentially enabled these radicals to not only know how to do what they did, but also, to gain entry into the country.  We made some dark allies during the Afghan war, and this part, was the CIA assessing 'blowback'.

    IF you watch part 3 of the first video i liked in this thread, you can hear testimony from Michael Springmann, former head US consular official in the Jeddah embassy about how this practice continued, and how the CIA told him to leave it alone.

    http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=us_consulate,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office

    This is not hard information to find, Bob.  I'm sorry you find it so vexing.

    Ever thought of hiring a tutor?


    And I suppose that since you only decided to take issue with the very last point in the text, you have no argument with the rest of it?  You now concede the CIA's central role in the creation of Al Qaeda?

    That's good.

    Nice try though, picking the part that gets into a different issue - but sorry, you don't get off so easy.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    "This is not hard information to find, Bob.  I'm sorry you find it so vexing."

    The research methodology of the distinguished scholar Mr Xaphier...

    Smoke a bong and go to "Prison Planet". 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    "This is not hard information to find, Bob.  I'm sorry you find it so vexing." The research methodology of the distinguished scholar Mr Xaphier... Smoke a bong and go to "Prison Planet". 
    Posted by BobinVa



    So.

    Just gonna keep ignoring all the eye witness testimony, huh?  Centent to keep repeating the same child like retorts?

    You're a sad, sad little troll, Bob.

    ****


    IF you watch part 3 of the first video i liked in this thread, you can hear testimony from Michael Springmann, former head US consular official in the Jeddah embassy about how this practice continued, and how the CIA told him to leave it alone.

    Michael Springmann.Michael Springmann. [Source: Michael Springmann]Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001] In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.” [CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Trento, 2005, pp. 344-6] Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah (see November 2, 1997-June 20, 2001), possibly as part of this program (see October 9, 2002 and October 21, 2002). [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001; CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Associated Press, 7/17/2002 pdf file; Fox News, 7/18/2002]

    Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, US Consulate, Jedda, Saudi Arabia Office, Michael Springmann

    Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, War in Afghanistan


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm


    I know.

    BBC, Prison Planet..... pretty much the same thing, right?

    And isn't it a little pathetic to leapfrog the testomony of a well positioned witness in an attempt to attack the source you IMAGINE the information comes from?

    Talk about your kooky conspiracy theories.....you need help.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    Well, no more clients for me today.

    Gonna catch a little nap, then walk the dogs, and try to enjoy this weather.

    Get back to me IF and when you go over the links I posted.

    Otherwise, I'm kinda bored of you today.

    l8r
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    This testimony was from 1989..it proves nothing. More current than the "Northwoods" conspiracy of 1962, anyway! 
    Again, no secret the US helped the Afghan resistance in the late 80s. ...

    Quite a "fast forward" from 1989 to 2001...quite a leap there, somehow because of what happened in 1989, we must believe the same happened in 2001...of course, things were quite different by then. Our allies became our enemies.

    "This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11"....evidence? None.

    To the paranoid left, there are no errors, everything that happens is schemed by the all powerful CIA. And Muslim terrorists dont exist, the CIA created them....how stupid is that theory....


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    This testimony was from 1989..it proves nothing. More current than the "Northwoods" conspiracy of 1962, anyway!  Again, no secret the US helped the Afghan resistance in the late 80s. ... Quite a "fast forward" from 1989 to 2001...quite a leap there, somehow because of what happened in 1989, we must believe the same happened in 2001...of course, things were quite different by then. Our allies became our enemies. "This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11"....evidence? None. To the paranoid left, there are no errors, everything that happens is schemed by the all powerful CIA. And Muslim terrorists dont exist, the CIA created them....how stupid is that theory....
    Posted by BobinVa



    Bob  -  slow down, breathe, and think about what you just said.

    I was responding, with that quote, to the 'rebuttal' you submitted regarding the 1993 WTC attack; 1989 was JUST before that, really.  Why you then connected that back to 2001, I do not know.

    You're being plain old dishonest now.  The 'two stepping troofers' you so love to talk about have absolutely nothing on you, in terms of weaseling out of accountability for what it is they say....

    But.

    Why is it so hard to believe that if it was policy in 1989, it could potentially still be such another decade later?  Northwoods was a plan, that never came to fruition.  It's significance, lies in the fact that members of the military proved with that plan they they were very much willing to stage terror to win support for an invasion of Cuba.  That's kind of a really big deal, Bob - the mere fact that they were willing to do it.  It proves to us what they are capable of.  It destroys the notion that their doing it is crazy to even think.  It proves character and nature of the entity.


    And now when you fast forward to the incident with the passports, you're talking about a very small gap in time - appx. a decade - and yet you act as if there is this vast chasm separating the two incidents.  Why is it you imagine that if it were so easy for the CIA to have its will done in 1989, it could not also have it's will done (in terms of getting folks into the country it wants to get into the country) just a decade later?  It's completely illogical that it should suddenly become impossible, especially considering it is an established behavior pattern of the agency.

    Just, illogical.




    It makes much more sense to assume that if they did it once, they could do it again.


    And please - there is plenty of other evidence that Al Qaeda in general was an invention of the CIA.  The name itself was one used by the intel. community to refer to its recruited and trained resistance fighters.  Again - this isn't hard to know, if you would so much as lift a finger to attempt to learn.




    I suppose though, when you've got nowhere else to go - because you are confronted with information you are congenitally allergic to, it would seem - it s to be expected that you should engage in such dishonest, base behavior.  I suppose attacking the source is really all that's left to you, when you are unwilling to let facts inform your position, rather than blind faith and sycophantic patriotism.

    Sometimes, I really do feel sorry for you.  This must be very stressful for you, for you to react this way.  Perhaps that explains why you appear to be having a full blown decompensation episode in the face of it.

    Just, take a few deep breathes, and realize that it's all gonna be ok.......





     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    When you're ready, consider the following...see a pattern yet?


    April 3-7, 1999: Three 9/11 Hijackers Obtain US Visas


    Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar’s US visas.Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar’s US visas. [Source: FBI] (click image to enlarge)9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi, and Khalid Almihdhar obtain US visas through the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. [US Congress, 7/24/2003]
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are already “al-Qaeda veterans” and battle-hardened killers. Almihdhar’s visa is issued on April 7, and he can thereafter leave and return to the US multiple times until April 6, 2000. [Stern, 8/13/2003] Nawaf Alhazmi gets the same kind of visa; details about Salem are unknown. All three men have indicators in their passports marking them as Islamist radicals (see March 21, 1999, April 4, 1999, and April 6, 1999). These indicators are used to track them by the Saudi authorities, but are apparently not noticed by US officials. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 9, 33 pdf file] The CIA claims the hijackers then travel to Afghanistan to participate in “special training” with at least one other suicide bomber on a different mission. The training is led by Khallad bin Attash, who applies for a US visa on April 3 from Yemen, but fails to get one (see April 3, 1999). The CIA will learn about Almihdhar’s visa in January 2000 (see January 2-5, 2000). The Jeddah Consulate records the fact that Nawaf and Salem Alhazmi obtain US visas a couple of days before Almihdhar, but apparently these records are never searched before 9/11. [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 pdf file]


    A consular official who issues the hijackers with at least 11 US visas probably begins working at the American consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, before this date. The 9/11 hijackers will obtain at least 15 visas from this consulate, three in April 1999 (see April 3-7, 1999), seven in the fall of 2000 (see September 3, 2000, September 4, 2000, September 25, 2000, October 24, 2000, October 28, 2000, November 12, 2000), and five in the spring of 2001 (see April 23, 2001, May 2001, June 12, 2001, June 18, 2001, June 13, 2001, and June 20, 2001). At least 11 of these visas are issued by the same consular official. It is possible that the visa issued to Ahmed Alghamdi on September 3, 2000 is the first he issues to any of the hijackers. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 33 pdf file] This consular official will not be named after 9/11 and it is not clear exactly which visas he issues, although the visas issued to Nawaf Alhazmi in April 1999 and Hani Hanjour in September 2000 are issued by different officials, who are interviewed after 9/11, so they cannot both be from him. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 36-7 pdf file] It is possible that he issues the six visas given to the “muscle” hijackers in the fall of 2000 and the five more issued to them in the spring of 2001. In any case, the official(s) who issue these visas will apparently not be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, which does, however, cite interviews with 14 other consular officials in its Terrorist Travel monograph. For example, interviews with the officers who issued non-Jeddah visas to Hamza Alghamdi, Satam al Suqami, Mohand Alshehri (all Riyadh), Marwan Alshehhi, Fayez Ahmed Banihammad (both United Arab Emirates), Mohamed Atta, and Ziad Jarrah (both Berlin) are cited in the monograph. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 10-11, 14, 16, 25, 36-38, 41, 62, 145-7 pdf file] During the Soviet-Afghan war, CIA officers posing as consular officers at the US consulate in Jeddah issued visas to unqualified applicants who appear to have been radical Islamist fighters (see September 1987-March 1989). [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004 pdf file]

    Entity Tags: US Consulate, Jedda, Saudi Arabia Office

    Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    There.

    That should pretty much close that giant gap for you between 1989 and 2001.




    I'm sorry this is so hard for you, but it is what it is, and I'm a sucker for the truth.


    Lots more here:

    http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=us_consulate,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office




    For some reason, tapping it as a link does not work.  You have to cut and paste the URL and go there......  but there's plenty more about this disturbing story at the website.  I don't think I should have to cut and paste each bit of it.  You're plenty able to go there and read things yourself.  Right?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    "It makes much more sense to assume that if they did it once, they could do it again"
    How inane is that statement?
    "they did it once" ..yes , in 1989, the CIA did its job well in the Cold War , by helping Afghan resistance fighters against Soviet occupiers.

    How does that support the troofer lunacy that in 2001, the CIA treasonously and deliberately plotted a mass terror attack against the US?

    It doesnt. You have no evidence, just paranoia. None.. Zilch... nada.

    Your paranoia assumes the CIA is all powerful. How many visas are given out annually? ...Is there ever a mistake or error in your paranoid mind, or is it all a plot? The intelligence services were not perfect,they screwed up prior to 9/11.

    To claim that Al Qaeda is a CIA plot is paranoid lunacy.  And racist, of course, assuming "Arabs" could never get the better of the CIA. At least to the extent of pulling off a terror attack.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    "It makes much more sense to assume that if they did it once, they could do it again" How inane is that statement? "they did it once" ..yes , in 1989, the CIA did its job well in the Cold War , by helping Afghan resistance fighters against Soviet occupiers. How does that support the troofer lunacy that in 2001, the CIA treasonously and deliberately plotted a mass terror attack against the US? It doesnt. You have no evidence, just paranoia. None.. Zilch... nada. Your paranoia assumes the CIA is all powerful. How many visas are given out annually? ...Is there ever a mistake or error in your paranoid mind, or is it all a plot? The intelligence services were not perfect,they screwed up prior to 9/11. To claim that Al Qaeda is a CIA plot is paranoid lunacy.  And racist, of course, assuming "Arabs" could never get the better of the CIA. At least to the extent of pulling off a terror attack.
    Posted by BobinVa



    Bob.  You need to pay attention to what you're responding to.

    Look again.  There are links to reports by congress, showing that the practice of issuing 'questionable' visas continued right up through 1999, at least.  Congress, Bob, not Prison Planet.  Why don't you FOR ONCE, go read the links I provided, instead of tossing sand in the playground?

    As for the AQ being a 'creation' of the CIA - again, I'm only going by what members of our own government have said.  Which again, you will find just above, in the links I provided.

    And of course, there can really be no debate about the FBI's decision to supply the 1993 bombers real instead of inert materials, thanks to the decision by the informant to record a conversation with his handler.  This made all the mainstream news outlets, Bob.  It's not exactly Prison Planet material.



    I give you witnesses from within the embassies, reports by congress, investigations by the BBC, etc... and you just ratchet up the wall of insults....

    Have you ever even CONSIDERED, that you might possibly be mistaken?  Even just from the perspective of attempting to be scientific about it, rather that so rabidly ideological?

    Once again - I'm sorry this is so upsetting for you.  It's upsetting for all of us, really.  Despite what you think, I do not take pleasure in any of this. 

    Perhaps from the perspective of the people who allowed these things to happen, it is not treason, but a necessary though difficult decision, in order to move our country towards military intervention in the ME, so that we might proactively secure access to a resource without which our country will essentially implode - that being oil, of course.  Whether you yourself believe in Peak Oil or not, writings from within the government suggest that our leaders do.  There is great concern that human kind is reaching a tipping point in terms of population and access to vital resources, and it may be the belief of some, that sacrificing 3,000 Americans is justifiable if it enables them to take steps to preserve thousands more.  It's twisted - it involves a serious God complex - but it might just be the way it is.

    Did you know, btw, that back when I came out of high school and went to college, I went to DC, so I could study international relations, and dreamt myself of possibly working for the State Department, or maybe even the CIA?  The more I learned, the less I wanted to be a part of it all, but I still wanted to help my country.  That's all I've ever really wanted to do Bob- help people.  Be of service. I thought it would be in government, but that wasn't to be.  So instead, I focussed on helping people on a different scale, and I spent a decade or so working with at risk kids, and then kids with disabilities - not because I hate my country, but again, because I've always wanted to be of service to it, but in a way that left me with a clear conscience.

    Finally, even having to deal with the bureaucracy of local governments and school systems wore out my patience, and now, I just try to help individuals, via my acupuncture practice, although I still volunteer in my wife's classroom, because I miss being a part of that environment.

    Do I really sound like a person who hates my country, or wants to see harm come to people?  It'd be a shame if you thought 'yes'.

    I just want to know exactly what the phuq is going on, Bob, and I put in a lot of effort to understand it.  And I also believe that it is within the power of the citizenry to take control of our government back from the hands of the rich and powerful pr!cks who are in the process of ruining it.  I don't want to be responsible by proxy for any of the evil that is done in my name, and I believe that step one in Recovering the Republic, is generating a more common awareness and dialogue about exactly what are the forces of corruption we are up against at the very top.  Without such control - without the oversight of moral leaders, I fear that we are headed towards a rapid decline, and years of ever increasing hardship. 

    This isn't about 'hating America' - this is about wanting to fix it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review , in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting). John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism , has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”. The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989. These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets. The program, reported the Independent , was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”. In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK). MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK. Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993. The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.
    Posted by Xaphius


    X, While I agree the suit should go on against Saudi Arabia (no different from Libya and Lockerbee). I see you have stretched it to the US did this to their own people which is a large stretch.

    The paragraphs above are about the US supporting Afghan's against the Soviets. As I have said on many occasions, we had to make lots of gray choices during the cold war and not all were "right". We supplied the Muslims in Afghanistan to cause the Soviets fits and it worked. The Soviets lost many men, lots of money and a large quantity of their invincibility. The fact that many of those same fighters then turned on the US isn't proof we trained them to commit the attacks on 9/11. That is a large stretch!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Xaphius. Show Xaphius's posts

    Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead

    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead:
    In Response to Re: Supreme Courts Slaps 9/11 Famillies in Face; Protects Saudis Instead : X, While I agree the suit should go on against Saudi Arabia (no different from Libya and Lockerbee). I see you have stretched it to the US did this to their own people which is a large stretch. The paragraphs above are about the US supporting Afghan's against the Soviets. As I have said on many occasions, we had to make lots of gray choices during the cold war and not all were "right". We supplied the Muslims in Afghanistan to cause the Soviets fits and it worked. The Soviets lost many men, lots of money and a large quantity of their invincibility. The fact that many of those same fighters then turned on the US isn't proof we trained them to commit the attacks on 9/11. That is a large stretch!
    Posted by brat13



    It continued.

    For example, we used the same 'assets' in the Serbian ordeal.  And if I had to bet on it, I imagine we tapped those assets (hehehe) for other never-to-be-known missions in the ME as well.

    Now, it's CONCEIVABLE, that a group within this set of hired guns, simply turned on us without our knowledge, but that is incredibly difficult for me to believe, especially considering all the advance chatter about the coming attack, and the fact that such efforts were taken to essentially quash this line of inquiry during the Keane Commission.... that, of course, and the other lies, such as told by NORAD and Cheney as per the events of that day (and that they are liars, is the opinion of many a commission member, not just myself).

    If you're interested, check out that 'history commons' page i tried to link, and see how the story and the behavior patterns continued, pretty much up to the date of the infamous attack.

    The evidence and the cover-ups are suggestive of much more going on than what we are given to believe.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share