Who did the first WTC bombing and the one of the USS Cole?

[ButterflyBlood]

OK, we've established that there are people here who think the CIA is the only terrorist group in the world and all terrorist attacks are because of them.

so why did they do those two hits? How about the several hits on US military bases in the Middle East?

[devilgrrl]

1. To answer your question...

Saudi's were behind the first WTC bombing and the one of the USS Cole.

[ButterflyBlood]

3. likely

but some here have argued Muslim terrorist groups are so small they pose no real threat, therefore all terrorist attacks were planned by Rove. And if we throw that out based on lack of evidence or motives, it's because we're sheeple who don't think the US could do such a thing.

[_Jumper_]

2. The people who blame the CIA for all terrorism

They believe Al-Qaeda is working for the CIA. There is some evidence to suggest a relationhip between Bush and Al-Qaeda and even the CIA and Al-Qaeda. Granted, the evidence is very tenous.

[mobuto]

5. Which is?

What would this evidence be?

[_Jumper_]

9. Bush has close business ties with the Bin Ladens

French intelligence claimed a CIA station chief met with Bin Laden in the summer of 2001. Pakistan's ISI is linked to Al-Qaeda and the ISI is seen by many as the CIA's proxy in South Asia. It certainly has close ties to the CIA. Like I said, it is very tenous.

[pretzel4gore]

15. who benefits?

certainly not any arab or legit muslim org.....it seems the police statists are always the only one raking in gold and power from these manic incidence. according to the record, there were vastly more terrorist acts in the 70's compared to now....

[ButterflyBlood]

6. but who gains from those attacks?

we can see who gained from 9/11 (hence, why I believe in LIHOP), but I refuse to believe the attacks in Spain or any other attacks were done by the US without any motives at all.

[_Jumper_]

7. I agree

I was just explaining their viewpoint. Spain's attack may have been a MIHOP by its government but it is extremely unlikely the US was involved.

[ButterflyBlood]

11. finally some rationality

the people blaming the US remind me of the Freepers blaming Clinton for everything that ever goes wrong.

[tobius]

19. here is the obvious connection that needs to be followed up-

two of the planes were hijacked from boston---

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.airport.security /
October 5, 2001 Posted: 6:09 p.m. EDT (2209 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The three airports from which September's terrorist hijackings originated had some of the nation's lowest rates for detecting weapons, according to an analysis of Federal Aviation Administration data.
Logan International in Boston, Washington Dulles in Dulles, Virginia, and Newark International in New Jersey had the first-, third- and fourth-lowest weapons detection rates among the 25 U.S. airports with the largest passenger volume, according to a CNN.com computer-assisted analysis of 10 years of federal aviation enforcement information.

Boston had lowest rate of weapon detection, data shows

According to a Boston Globe analysis of test data, FAA agents, posing as passengers, slipped 234 guns and other weapons past screeners at Logan -- the worst record of any major U.S. airport in the past 10 years.

Kerry is a senator from MA, and had info on terrorism threat from clinton administration. why was this lax security not addressed?. Two of the planes on Sept. 11 were taken from Logan, who tipped them off that it would be overlooked?

[Art_from_Ark]

12. Perhaps you have not been examining the evidence

Who trained "Al Qaeda" in the beginning?
Who was in power in the US when "Al Qaeda" was being sicced on the Russians in Afghanistan?
Who was the Vice President at the time?
What position had that Vice President held 5 years before becoming Vice President?
Whose family has had a long business relationship with the family of the purported mastermind of "Al Qaeda"?

[rman]

17. it's known fact Al Qaeda was trained by CIA

to fight against the Russians in Afganistan. Back then it was the right thing to do because AQ were 'rebels' fighting the 'communist menace'.

That still leaves AQ trained by CIA. That's rather obvious evidence for a relationship between CIA and AQ.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Is an attack on a military target a "terrorist attack"?

It has been my understanding that "terrorism" targets defenseless people.

[DrWeird]

8. Is blaming the CIA any worse...

than knee jerk finger pointing at Al Qaeda?

Some time from know a police checkpoint in Northern Ireland is going to get blown up and people will blame Al Qaeda.

Some abortion clinic in Idaho will get bombed and people will blame Al Qaeda.

Some democratically elected Latin American goverment will be overthrown and a brutal dictator will be appointed and people will be blaming Al Qaeda.

[ButterflyBlood]

10. you have a point here

but Al Qaeda has a motive. Basque seperatists have a motive. The CIA has no motive.

[ConsAreLiars]

13. "The CIA" is not monolithic

For a long time there has been an open conflict between the analysts and the wet work operators.

Other internal contradictions and disputes have existed since the time the Gehlen group were brought into the CIA. Which factions have power depends largely on the priorities and ideology controlling the Executive branch of gov't, and to a lesser extent the Legislative branch.

Training the anti-Soviet Islamic Fundies was done by the wet work teams, and so the parentage of Al Qaeda includes segments of the CIA. Whether those tendencies within the CIA retain a working relationship with those they once used against the Soviet Union is unknown (to me). Whether they regard the current activities of Al Qaeda as consistent with and supportive of their (this CIA faction's) long term "vision" is arguable, but such an implicit partnership is consistent with a view that turning the US into a "national security state" by any means necessary is something that the powers-that-be are doing.

However you view the evidence, thinking of "the CIA" as a homogeneous or monolithic entity is an illusion.

[Sliverofhope]

14. I can't believe Al Qaeda is monolithic either

There is only one single Islamic terrorist group, all over the world, all interrelated, and behind every terrorist attack ever?

At the very least, it seems an excuse to keep Americans or George Bush from learning Arabic.

But then, why identify Hizbollah as distinct?

Different groups may be using the mantle of 'al Qaeda', but it's just lunging for al Qaeda every time there's a Koran involved seems simpleminded.

[pretzel4gore]

16. bush inc does (chaos).

and bush inc has a hand in the cia activity....which some cia personnel seem to resent (see wilson/plame)
also alqueda's name is (freeper braggarts claim) 'all cia does'
lol

[Solon]

23. Actually it does, is it rational, no, but it is a motive.

It is in the CIA's vested interest to keep the war on terror continuing as long as possible. It has business interests in defense, media, as well as oil and drugs. All the CIA is is an international business association, that is above the law.

[Cat Atomic]

18. The conspiracy mindset is a cancer in the progressive movement.

Such an amazing amount of wasted time and energy. So many people spending their time scrutinizing shadows on grainy photographs, and looking for the man behind the curtain.

I'm not saying conspiracies don't happen, but I think that, when you're talking about organizations like the CIA, you have to remember that they fuck things up more often than they get it right.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

20. Ah, the "they're screw-ups" argument

I never bought the argument that the CIA fucks up more than they succeed. How do we know that their supposed fuck-ups aren't covers so nobody would ever believe that they could pull off something like a 9/11 inside job? Wouldn't they put their people who are more likely to fuck up on a minimal, "Castro exploding cigar" mission than a "blow up WTC" mission?

Not that I am saying these happened. But I think that argument is easily dismissed.

[Cat Atomic]

21. Here's something that sums it up for me:

WMD's were not smuggled into Iraq. Why not?

I read an article just a few weeks back about the lack of WMD's in Iraq. The writer asked the question, "why didn't they just smuggle some in?"

An high ranking (anonymous) intelligence official admitted that the idea had been discussed informally, but was never seriously considered, since the risk of discovery was just too high.

If ever there was a call for a little CIA sleight of hand, it was in correcting the embarrassing lack of WMD's in Iraq. And yet they couldn't even seriously consider it, because they knew they'd fuck it up.

[PsychoDad]

22. Or they knew Bush would fuck it up....

Like everything else he has touched. They might have even thought he would brag about it. :silly:

[Solon]

24. Difference between fucking up and physically impossible

to keep secret. First off is the trucks, having to travel through desert, the planes needed for transport, the Chemical or Biological components, hard to aquire without faking alot of U.S. Military Lab records. Somebody would have either talked, or more likely, other nations would notice.