WHO FUNDED 9 11 ?

[Oleg Bach]

IF a person or state hires an assasin and funds the enterprise who is to blame? Is it the killer or the ones that facilitated the murder? As we go off into the future the past is left behind and fogotten. What's worse is no one has ever asked this simple question. Simple answers to complex matters are always key.

Sure with the war on terror emotions run high. Sure the mind becomes clouded during the fog of war- and sure logic is for the most part put aside, sometimes with intent and sometimes though the failings of human nature and mind. Why are we in Afgahnistan? The answer by most is the fact that there were training centres that housed terrorists that were supposedly out to harm the USA.

The reason for the invasion (not war) in Iraq is the supposed stock pile of weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly about to be used to harm America and American empiral intrests in the Middle East. Of course this was a ruse as we now know that the CIA and other intelligence bodies gave the Bush administration reports to the contrary prior the invasion.

Afghanistan is a primitive and backward nation that on it's own is of absoulutely no threat to Canada or the USA. So why are we wasting our time, our lives and our hard earned tax dollars there? It was Saudi Arabian funding that established the training centres in Afghanistan. No one dares to go near that issue. It was this same cruel,spoiled and barbaric Kingdom that spawned Bin Laden who supposedly was resonsible for the raid on New York that resulted in the begining of the "war on terror" - that has now become a buisness and a way of generating fear and loss of personal control of mind for millions of westerners.

So could someone tell me why - now that they can speak freely as the Bush administration finishes it's tenure...why no one has ever investigated who is personally responsible for what was some strange adventure for the bored and spoiled elite that run Saudi Arabia - the killing of American civilians for mere sport? I believe that there are those in America who know exactly what individual or group sat down and started cutting cheques to project their killing will on a civilian population thousands of miles away that was of no threat to them.

[Oleg Bach]

I suggest that the Mapleleafweb folks should pull this tread. It maybe a bit to touchy to handle - maybe in 30 years we will talk about it...is it a date?

[guyser]

I suggest that the Mapleleafweb folks should pull this tread. It maybe a bit to touchy to handle - maybe in 30 years we will talk about it...is it a date?

yea, sure ..its a date.

Of course you wont be alive to hear us not discuss this because tin foil will be obselete, but yeah, mark it in your calendar.

[Oleg Bach]

yea, sure ..its a date.

Of course you wont be alive to hear us not discuss this because tin foil will be obselete, but yeah, mark it in your calendar.

Don't be so sure about my demise my little friend - people have been known to live a long long time. What makes you believe that YOU will be pondering anything in 30 years? If you are in this state of mind at your young age - it is doubtful that any wisdom will ever form in you. All I did was ask a simple question. Not some complex and fleeting conspiratorial presentation. If you were a 12 year old kid and set fire to the barn and I were to ask "who bought you the matches"? - You would be the brat that would be holding a flame and say "what matches"? - So I guess you really don't care who puts up the money as long as their is a trickle down effect for you...sadly there will be no crumbs from the masters table - those in power have no respect for those that have no principle...nor is there loyality to those who fail to show loyalty to their fellow country men.

[kimmy]

When I saw this thread, I was hoping it would be a Polynewbie style conspiracy theory full of wacky claims, dysfunctional logic, fictional information from disreputable sources, and of course Rumsfeld talking about the "$1.3 trillion dollars" that were "stolen".

I was sorely disappointed to find that the post is actually sensible and raises a legitimate point.

Afghanistan is a primitive and backward nation that on it's own is of absoulutely no threat to Canada or the USA. So why are we wasting our time, our lives and our hard earned tax dollars there? It was Saudi Arabian funding that established the training centres in Afghanistan. No one dares to go near that issue. It was this same cruel,spoiled and barbaric Kingdom that spawned Bin Laden who supposedly was resonsible for the raid on New York that resulted in the begining of the "war on terror" - that has now become a buisness and a way of generating fear and loss of personal control of mind for millions of westerners.

So could someone tell me why - now that they can speak freely as the Bush administration finishes it's tenure...why no one has ever investigated who is personally responsible for what was some strange adventure for the bored and spoiled elite that run Saudi Arabia - the killing of American civilians for mere sport? I believe that there are those in America who know exactly what individual or group sat down and started cutting cheques to project their killing will on a civilian population thousands of miles away that was of no threat to them.

Saudi Arabia is a prickly subject for two reasons:

-they have the West over a barrel, quite literally. Energy dependence is a big stick.

-Saudi Arabia contains the holy sites of Islam. Taking any action against Saudi Arabia could turn into an all out war of civilizations if Muslims felt that Islam itself was under attack.

But you raise a good point. Saudi Arabia kind of sucks, and there's little we could do about it.

Some Saudis are choosing to spend their money on stuff that's not specifically too good for the West. Saudi money is behind the most controversial mosques in Canada, and the United Kingdom, and no doubt other western democracies. Radical Saudi priests supported by Saudi money are promoting a narrow and virulent version of their religion in western nations. When Vancouver's Rudwan Khalil turned up with his ass shot up in Chechnya, his path was traced back to a Saudi priest in a Saudi-funded mosque in Vancouver. When Britain's "Undercover Mosque" videos turned up shocking hate within Britain's mosques, it traced back to Saudi priests and Saudi money. The infamous "radical madrassas" in Pakistan that are churning out combatants to fight in Afghanistan are Saudi-funded.

It would be nice if the Saudis stopped spending their money on promoting hate.

-k

[eyeball]

WHO FUNDED 9 11 ?, This is the root question of the Iraqi and Afghanistan issue.

No its not. These issues are simply the fallout from 9/11. I suppose the question who's benefitting from these may lead to answers about the root causes of the event itself, but there doesn't seem to be any profit by going there so few ever do.

[GostHacked]

I was sorely disappointed to find that the post is actually sensible and raises a legitimate point.

Saudi Arabia is a prickly subject for two reasons:

I keep pointing out to people that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or Afghani. They were all Saudis and Pakistanis. Oleg makes a great point, which is what I have been trying to say all along, but could not put it into those words.

Another side effect of the invasion of Iraq is that the US/Iraq will have closer ties, and therefore access to plenty of oil resources. This COULD translate into depending less on Saudi Arabia for oil. Which in turn can allow the US to really confront the Extreme Islamists of Saudi Arabia and really be rid of terror.

But when you see how chummy any US administration has been with the upper crust of the Saudis' including the Royal Family, it really sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world. I guess the US does not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

It would be nice if the Saudis stopped spending their money on promoting hate.

Agreed 100%.

eyeball

No its not. These issues are simply the fallout from 9/11.

Well, if we pay attention to what Bush_cheney2004 has been saying often enough on the forums, is that Iraq was a result of long term foreign policy that began back in the 90's. So it is not fallout from 9/11. This was penciled in before 9/11 even happend.

I suppose the question who's benefitting from these may lead to answers about the root causes of the event itself, but there doesn't seem to be any profit by going there so few ever do.

[eyeball]

Well, if we pay attention to what Bush_cheney2004 has been saying often enough on the forums, is that Iraq was a result of long term foreign policy that began back in the 90's. So it is not fallout from 9/11. This was penciled in before 9/11 even happend.

BC also acknowledges that it started even before events in the 90's. These were being penciled in so to speak as far back as the 50's, one dot follows another. . . .

Edited November 12, 2008 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

BC also acknowledges that it started even before events in the 90's. These were being penciled in so to speak as far back as the 50's, one dot follows another. . . .

INdeed, which proves to me in a way that 9/11 is a result of the US's foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. It is not because they hate our freedoms, it is like what Ron Paul says :

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120309.html

"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Asked by one of the moderator if he was "suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack," Paul replied, "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time ... killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

[eyeball]

Thanks for the article. I think Ron Paul falls into the same trap people do when it comes to rationalizing the support for dictators by citing Cold War realpolitic. Paul and his right-wing detractors persist in believing that the Soviet collapse "would not have been possible without American interventionism." To me this flies in the face of the faith we're constantly told to put in free markets, capitalism and above all else democracy.

When Kruschev threatened the world with his shoe and said "we will bury you" didn't anyone think to ask 'with what', your stupid shoe or your useless economic and political system? I think the Soviet system would have collpased under the weight of its internal inconsistencies much faster on its own if we'd simply left it to its own devices. We're sustaining Islamic fundamentalism in the same way, by taking it on and giving it the oxygen it needs to fuel itself. Without an external enemy it has no fear with which it can galvanize support.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's fairly simple; if you capitulate to everything the US wants from you you're ok. Up until the moment Saddam started nationalizing the oil industry and trying to invest its wealth into the people if Iraq, he was considered an ally of the US. Once he started making noises about Kuwait and the unfair price of oil, he was an enemy.

US foreign policy does not concern itself with the internal politics of a country. Whether they're democratic or a dictatorship matters not, but what matters is, does their government cooperate with American interests. Even if those interests mean a bad deal for the people of that country, by unfair trade deals and lower wages.

Once you understand that, you understand the basics of US foreign policy. Not that our country is so wonderfully fair to the rest of the world either. We buy our cheap goods from China, India, Pakistan, made by people who live in filth and are virtually slaves, so that we get a good bargain at Aikenheads.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[Oleg Bach]

No its not. These issues are simply the fallout from 9/11. I suppose the question who's benefitting from these may lead to answers about the root causes of the event itself, but there doesn't seem to be any profit by going there so few ever do.

Simplistically the policy America attempts to govern the world by is strickly based in economics. Repeating myself once more I will make the point that aid granted Israel as compared to what is granted Palistine creates a slave state that is Palistine. Everyone wants to shrewdly say that it's a fanatic phenomena the supposed war on terror. To me it is all about money. The so-called spiritual leaders that fuel and heat up the dumb zealots into explosive action are not religious in the least - it's about power and money for them.

For instance our Christian churches are slandered by our friendly neighbourhood secularists and are in disrepair - while Canadian Islamic institutions are thriving and growing in leaps and bounds - Within these supposed holy temples there is a tacit policy that is based in Islamic emperialism and hate for us infidels..yet we welcome them dispite that they proclaim publically to our media that we are their sworn enemy. All the billions to build spectacular mosques comes from one place - Saudi Arabia - and by buying oil from these culprits we are inadvertantly funding the demise of western civilization...our Christian kindness even though nominal at this point has become our weakness.

[Moonlight Graham]

Great quote from Ron Paul.

Yes, the plans to invade Iraq were drawn up by the Neo-Cons long before Bush came to power via Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine of pre-emption penned in the early 90's. 9/11 was just a great excuse to start it.

I keep pointing out to people that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or Afghani. They were all Saudis and Pakistanis.

Then you are telling people false info. No Pakistanis. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt.

Why are we painting all Saudis as bad? I've never heard the claim that the Saudi gov't funded Al-Qaeda, in fact they kicked Bin Laden out of the country around the time Wolfowitz was penning his "masterpeice". Who funded 9/11 & Al-Qaeda? It wasn't the Taliban, it was the other way around. Bin Laden was filthy rich from early business ventures, and also came from a well-off family if i'm not mistaken. I'm sure there a few other rich anti-west a-holes who may have tossed them some cash as well.

[Oleg Bach]

Great quote from Ron Paul.

Yes, the plans to invade Iraq were drawn up by the Neo-Cons long before Bush came to power via Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine of pre-emption penned in the early 90's. 9/11 was just a great excuse to start it.

Then you are telling people false info. No Pakistanis. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt.

Why are we painting all Saudis as bad? I've never heard the claim that the Saudi gov't funded Al-Qaeda, in fact they kicked Bin Laden out of the country around the time Wolfowitz was penning his "masterpeice". Who funded 9/11 & Al-Qaeda? It wasn't the Taliban, it was the other way around. Bin Laden was filthy rich from early business ventures, and also came from a well-off family if i'm not mistaken. I'm sure there a few other rich anti-west a-holes who may have tossed them some cash as well.

Painting all Saudis as bad? Surely not all - that would be like calling all blacks and whites evil - that is humanly not possible - but - Saudi Arabians that are of the 80 thousand pensioned off elite are out of hand - speaking of hands - cutting them off is BAD - but lets not loose our heads - speaking of heads - cutting them off is bad..sure lethal injection is bad also - but we practice none of those barbaric forms of social control through terror..speaking of terror...The Saudis have been using terror to control for centuries - now they are exporting it seeing it works so well - The un-noble Royal Family - and they are huge - think it is normal to instill terror - they believe that terror is respect - no different than some dumb black gang banger at Jane and Finch..they are no better. Rich does not always equal good.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great quote from Ron Paul.

Yes, the plans to invade Iraq were drawn up by the Neo-Cons long before Bush came to power via Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine of pre-emption penned in the early 90's. 9/11 was just a great excuse to start it.

Nonsense....the US had contingency operations plans for the invasion of Iraq going back to before Gulf War I. Had nothing to do with "Neo-Cons". No wonder Ron Paul didn't get far in the election cycle.

[Oleg Bach]

Nonsense....the US had contingency operations plans for the invasion of Iraq going back to before Gulf War I. Had nothing to do with "Neo-Cons". No wonder Ron Paul didn't get far in the election cycle.

Iraq was the first fully privatized corporate war waged by a consortium of oil merchants and weapons makers. The reason these elite son's of bitches failed is because they held the military in contempt because they were from the blue collar class. They all thought that they as buisness men could become expert in warfare - apparently the board room is a poor training ground. Wonder what General Cheney is doing?

[Oleg Bach]

Iraq was the first fully privatized corporate war waged by a consortium of oil merchants and weapons makers. The reason these elite son's of bitches failed is because they held the military in contempt because they were from the blue collar class. They all thought that they as buisness men could become expert in warfare - apparently the board room is a poor training ground. Wonder what General Cheney is doing?

Speechless? A simpleton like me figured it out. Soldiers are soldiers and merchants should tend the store. The American high marshall comand were disgusted in the wasting of but one single good man in Iraq - where as the privledged took glee if someone was killed - theirs or the enemy..it did not matter. This is what bored rich folks like to do - once all avenues of thrill seeking are exausted - indirect murder gives them a bonner..

[eyeball]

Nonsense....the US had contingency operations plans for the invasion of Iraq going back to before Gulf War I. Had nothing to do with "Neo-Cons". No wonder Ron Paul didn't get far in the election cycle.

So what, the US has contingency plans for invading everybody, even Canada.

[kimmy]

When Kruschev threatened the world with his shoe and said "we will bury you" didn't anyone think to ask 'with what', your stupid shoe or your useless economic and political system? I think the Soviet system would have collpased under the weight of its internal inconsistencies much faster on its own if we'd simply left it to its own devices. We're sustaining Islamic fundamentalism in the same way, by taking it on and giving it the oxygen it needs to fuel itself. Without an external enemy it has no fear with which it can galvanize support.

Left to their own devices, the Islamist fundamentalists don't turn into happy-happyland.

Left to their own devices, the Islamist fundamentalists give you what you saw in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. They give you the violence seen in northern India that goes almost unmentioned in the west. The kind of unrest seen within many north African states, notably Nigeria right now. The secessionist violence in the Philippines. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur. And the genocide in East Timor.

The Battle of Vienna may have adjusted the scale of their ambitions, but the underlying belief is about the same.

Why are we painting all Saudis as bad? I've never heard the claim that the Saudi gov't funded Al-Qaeda, in fact they kicked Bin Laden out of the country around the time Wolfowitz was penning his "masterpeice".

I don't think anybody claimed that all Saudis are bad.

And while the Saudi government may not be to blame, some Saudi citizens with big wallets and fundamentalist beliefs seem to be sponsoring an awful lot of trouble in the world today.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

So what, the US has contingency plans for invading everybody, even Canada.

Good...thank you for admitting that any specific association with such plans and "Neo-Cons" / PNAC is only political pandering. The US not only planned contingency operations, but actually did invade Iraq in 1991.

[eyeball]

Good...thank you for admitting that any specific association with such plans and "Neo-Cons" / PNAC is only political pandering. The US not only planned contingency operations, but actually did invade Iraq in 1991.

Yes but Bush Sr didn't follow through. He backed off when the going threatened to get tough and the more pagan neo-cons who wanted to press the battle had to wait for another galvanizing event.

[M.Dancer]

Yes but Bush Sr didn't follow through. He backed off when the going threatened to get tough and the more pagan neo-cons who wanted to press the battle had to wait for another galvanizing event.

Baloney.

First off the going wasn't tough

Secondly there was nobacking off

and finally there was never a plan or a mandate to topple the regime at that time

[Mortui]

I keep pointing out to people that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or Afghani. They were all Saudis and Pakistanis. Oleg makes a great point, which is what I have been trying to say all along, but could not put it into those words.

Another side effect of the invasion of Iraq is that the US/Iraq will have closer ties, and therefore access to plenty of oil resources. This COULD translate into depending less on Saudi Arabia for oil. Which in turn can allow the US to really confront the Extreme Islamists of Saudi Arabia and really be rid of terror.

But when you see how chummy any US administration has been with the upper crust of the Saudis' including the Royal Family, it really sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world. I guess the US does not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Agreed 100%.

eyeball

Well, if we pay attention to what Bush_cheney2004 has been saying often enough on the forums, is that Iraq was a result of long term foreign policy that began back in the 90's. So it is not fallout from 9/11. This was penciled in before 9/11 even happend.

Clarification-Saudis did not send their airplanes into the towers in New York. Saudi Arabia had no impact on the Iraqi/Afghani issue. If Saudi Arabia wanted to attack the USA, then the they would just cut off our oil supply. You can't blame the "Saudis" for doing it, just because the people who flew the airplanes were Saudi, just as you cannot blame Germans for killing Jews. Yes, Germans were the ones who killed them, but that doesn't mean that everyone promoted the mass murders, just as much as you can't say that all the Iraqis/Afghanis/Saudis believe in killing people.

Don't be lame.

[segnosaur]

Afghanistan is a primitive and backward nation that on it's own is of absoulutely no threat to Canada or the USA. So why are we wasting our time, our lives and our hard earned tax dollars there? It was Saudi Arabian funding that established the training centres in Afghanistan. No one dares to go near that issue. It was this same cruel,spoiled and barbaric Kingdom that spawned Bin Laden who supposedly was resonsible for the raid on New York that resulted in the begining of the "war on terror" - that has now become a buisness and a way of generating fear and loss of personal control of mind for millions of westerners.

Well, I can think of a few reasons why we're 'wasting our time' in Afghanistan...

- While you are right in that critical funding came from Saudi Arabian and other middle eastern sources, al Quaeda would be far less effective if it did not have safe locations to establish training centers, and that means (in this case) having a friendly government such as the Taliban. Although we can and do have a problem with the Saudis, it is doubtful that the Saudi leaders would have allowed al Quaeda to set up training centers in Saudi territory. Don't belittle the value of a non-monitary contribution such as having available land for training camps

- As I mentioned before, the government of Saudi Arabia itself was not complicit in the attacks, whereas the Taliban was willing to shelter bin Laden

- Even if Afghanistan were not part of the 'war on terror', there would be humanitarian reasons to be there... the Taliban was very barbaric in its treatment of its citizens, and providing a stable and democratic government that respects human rights is a moral thing to do, even if it didn't provide any driect benefit.

So could someone tell me why - now that they can speak freely as the Bush administration finishes it's tenure...why no one has ever investigated who is personally responsible for what was some strange adventure for the bored and spoiled elite that run Saudi Arabia - the killing of American civilians for mere sport? I believe that there are those in America who know exactly what individual or group sat down and started cutting cheques to project their killing will on a civilian population thousands of miles away that was of no threat to them.

Um, what makes you think people couldn't speak freely about our problems with Saudi Arabia (even if the governement was not taking direct action)? We still had freedom of the press, and I for one saw articles and political cartoons which clearly illustrated the problems we had with the Saudis.

Its not that people can't talk about it, its just that the situation is A: very complex (such that many people don't understand all the nuances), and B: our ability to 'do anything' is so limited, because (as others have mentioned) we're dependent on their oil.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a big part of the problem with the 'war on terror'.... They support a certain very strict code of Islamic law that allows extremists to flourish, while at the same time taking a stance that they are 'friends' with the U.S. The best solution would be for the west to build a whole lot of nuclear power plants, cut back on our need for foreign oil, and watch places like Saudi Arabia become cash-starved countries who no longer have the resources to fund al Qaeda other terrorist groups.

[capricorn]

- Even if Afghanistan were not part of the 'war on terror', there would be humanitarian reasons to be there... the Taliban was very barbaric in its treatment of its citizens, and providing a stable and democratic government that respects human rights is a moral thing to do, even if it didn't provide any driect benefit.

Some 1,500 Afghan girls stayed home from school on Thursday, one day after a vicious acid attack on eight of their fellow students.

The principal of Mirwais Minna Girl's School in Kandahar said none of the 1,500 girls enrolled at the school showed up Thursday because of fear.

On Wednesday, two men on a motorcycle hurled acid at the eight girls in a shocking attack that made headlines around the world.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...81113?hub=World

If insurgents can be so cruel to their own people, it's easy to imagine what they did and will do to those they consider their enemies.

This is the type of barbarism that our troops are fighting against in Afghanistan. I can't understand why so many people don't see the merit of our presence in Afghanistan.

About Saudi Arabia, I agree with you Segnosaur. The Taliban have a friend in the House of Saud.

The history of the Al Saud has been marked by a desire to unify the Arabian Peninsula and to spread what it promotes as a more purified and simple, though often criticized as less tolerant, view of Islam embodied by Wahhabism which has gained international controversy since the events of 9/11. The House of Saud is linked with (Hanbali) Wahhabism (Saudis deprecate the term, preferring the term Salafism) through the marriage of the son of Muhammad ibn Saud with the daughter of Muhammad Abd al Wahhab in 1744.

Though some have put the family's numbers as high as 25,000,[1] most estimates place their numbers in the region of 7,000,[2] with most power and influence being wielded by the 200 or so descendants of King Abdul Aziz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud

The leaders of Saudi Arabia want the Taliban in power in Afghanistan to enable the spread of its version of Islam across Arabia. I believe the grand objective is to erect a unified Islamic front against the West.

Edited November 13, 2008 by capricorn