or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11 - Page 3

post #81 of 236
robertB -- you were laughed at because your ideas are laughable: characatures of militia reactionary-ideologue x-file silliness brought on by reading to much independent press mallarcky, psuedo 'information' from the gun toting fringe.


[quote] The Navy has always had an unofficial saying Loose lips sink ships. <hr></blockquote>
this is from propaganda posters put up in print all over the place in WW2. It is not "unofficial"

ricain's responce is very balanced and makes much sense.

clearly this was an intelligence failure&gt; and it points out one thing: we need to know why it failed to catch something on this scale.... and to do so demands an examination: a non-politically motivated investigation that will look at the loose ends that never came together to spell out clearly what needed to be seen by the people in charge:

there is always the chance that they saw it and just hoped that the meager amounts of security in place would work, however, I think that the ends just never lined up enough for it to be clear.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #82 of 236
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pfflam:
[QB]robertB -- you were laughed at because your ideas are laughable: characatures of militia reactionary-ideologue x-file silliness brought on by reading to much independent press mallarcky, psuedo 'information' from the gun toting fringe.


I am open to anyone who will point out any post which seems to be "out there" or x-file like in nature. It seems close to 70% of what I have read on this post that the gov KNEW of this attack, yet you say it was an oversight. I disagree with you on the aspect of my ideas being laughable due to the point that the cases I pointed to are real events and were mishandled in a gross fashion by the ATF and FBI. Please do not point a finger at my laughable ideals until you point a critical finger at your beleiving all the gov tells you in the news. And the inference of the "gun toting fringe" is implying an ignorant and prejudicial outlook at gun owners as a whole. Not all gun owners are irresponsible or criminals or paranoid. My eyes are open to ALL possibilities in this matter of overlooking/disregarding vital intelligence info, but I am not walking blindly buying into all that the gov has to say either. And who might be the "independent press" you are refering too? Last I heard, all newspapers are independent, are they not?
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #83 of 236
We can sum up the argument as follows: is the government evil (and apparently smart) or just stupid/inept (and presumably good in general)?

For me, the answer is that they're stupid.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #84 of 236
[quote]

Give me a break!

"It's a conspiracy!"


<hr></blockquote>

In some cases it is.The American government was threatening the Taliban before September 11,and members and ex-members of the board of Unocal were involved.You just don't want to see the facts.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
post #85 of 236
this little 'terrorist' scheme was merely triggered during the bush admin... hell, it was waiting fer big oil to get back into the white house... did someone say unocal? hehee, good clue. cute little 'temporary re-fueling base' in kyrgystan(how much you wanna bet it becomes permanent?)


yer faithful correspondent,posting from aboard the SS Condi Rice somewhere in the Caspian Sea...

cuss

p.s. wake up white people.
post #86 of 236
y'all really wanna know what's worth starting a war over? and taking hits on a couple of big buildings?

5 trillion in untapped oil reserves..
and
6.6 trillion cubes of natural gas...

aboard the SS Condi,

cuss

p.s. it's a big game(wink to bobby). here's how it's played. herd a terrorist into a country bordering the caspian, hell, it doesn't have to be real close. let him network fer a few years, make friends.. do something bad(or frame him fer something bad, or allow it to happen) and boom! ya got yer reason to go in and kick butt(aka establishing protection fer a 1000 mile pipeline routed around iran) ...and the kicker, the russians love it! they want the region stabilized bad. They just don't have the money to do it. but even Drillings and Tailings, an oil trade publication, doubts ties to lee harvey bin-laden... i dunno kids. i didn't want shrubby in there but i'm biased(i grew up in oil country and those of you from the old AI saw me stump against him very hard). and i don't know what to believe anymore... aboard this greasy old tanker.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
post #87 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

<strong>... did someone say unocal? hehee, good clue...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not a good clue. Why do so many people believe that all that central Asian oil and gas is just waiting for a pipeline built across Afghanistan? When the Unocal proposal for such a pipeline was dropped the world didn't just stop. Alternate routes were green lighted instead. So the pipeline crosses the Caspians and Turkey - a steadfast ally - instead of Afghanistan. What do we care? We're not in Kabul because of big oil, cuss.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #88 of 236
yer saying stripping shari'a power wasn't important? paramount even to stabilize the region and it's oil/gas production?

halting the possibility of another aramco(albeit shari-styled) wasn't the crux of all this?

you sure?

cuss
post #89 of 236
i'd love to get into this with you specimen...


c'mon, look at the map... the game is on again... they've just made the route a lot shorter.

they've got protections on the old, long route in place until they get it built...

steaming out to sea,

cuss
post #90 of 236
[quote]

We're not in Kabul because of big oil

<hr></blockquote>


Oh yes we are. Why do you think we are going to Iraq as well?

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
post #91 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

<strong>yer saying stripping shari'a power wasn't important?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Personally, I'm very much in favor of such a thing and I'd be surprised if there weren't plenty of people in our government who feel the same way. But you don't need to build a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to get there.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #92 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:

<strong>We're not in Kabul because of big oil

Oh yes we are. Why do you think we are going to Iraq as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Umm, how about something that even vaguely resembles an argument?

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #93 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

<strong>i'd love to get into this with you specimen...</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #94 of 236
Wow. What a cluster-fvck of a thread. You know, I think Fran and Samantha CLEARLY ought to make themselves available for Tom Ridge and his troops. With ingenious insights like "In the minds of military planners, 3000 lives [doesn't mean much]...." and "The CIA and FBI clearly need to be investigated", they are sure to benefit the Office of Homeland Security.


A. Samantha: how in THE HELL could you possibly have ANY clue what goes on in the minds of the "military planners" you speak of?? Do you have even a modest understanding of our military-industrial complex? Let's start with the basics, name some of these "planners" other than the ones we see on the news every day. Can't name any huh? Hmmm. Well, why don't you tell me about their latest budget proposals, which clearly must show some indication of the shady dealings they're invested in. Can't do that either? Hmmm. OK. Well I guess since it's all you have, just keep assuming the information you get from [our] pathetic media outlets is accurate and in the correct context.

B. Fran...just a few questions for you too, since you obviously don't think beyond what is required to make useless accusations. WHO, precisely should investigate the FBI and CIA? WHAT is it they are looking for? And HOW do you propose they will miraculously arrive at the truth, without anyone [involved] getting to them first, thus ensuring whatever we end up with is re-spun, finger-pointing crapola?

An Investigtion. That's great Fran. Call Ken Starr [so we can] throw the most bureaucratic solution we have (formal investigation with media trimmings and all) at a bureaucratic agency (no, two of them ... no, three - don't forget the NSA) and see what we get out of it.



Get this through your heads: we as a nation WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED for years. Only time will yield the answers, because getting the truth requires all the current inside players to retire first, cover their asses accordingly, and then they get the 60 Minutes / Nova interview in 2007. See how this works? No one is going to shed light on their own screw ups until they can no longer be held accountable for them. Reality sucks, huh?

Also, I think the comments made (by an intelligent person whose name escapes me) about the American public being hypocritical in their accusations is SPOT ON. People are unwilling to put up with the inconveniences required for [real] security. THAT is the root problem we face - not secret FBI documents or shady CIA power-brokers. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #95 of 236
we are now speciman...



Central Asian Oil and Gas Pipelines:

Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk, and a second route west to the Georgian port of Supsa. Transport fees have ensured the safety of the pipelines in war-torn Chechnya.

The existing pipelines are only capable of getting a small fraction of the area's oil and gas wealth to market. Central Asian republics are anxious to sell more oil. Americans, Europeans, and Russians are anxious to buy more, especially from countries that do not belong to OPEC. Investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also anxious to begin transporting more oil out of Central Asia. Only secure pipelines are lacking. The most promising routes have been identified:

1. Russia favors a northern route. Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them with the Russian network of pipelines. Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. Critics worry about the pipeline's path through Chechnya and charge that if the project was successful, Russia would enjoy too great a control over Central Asian oil.

2. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey has expressed worries about tanker traffic in the Bosporus, and worries about the damage an accident there might do to Istanbul. According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.

3. The most direct, and cheapest, route is to south, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to Asian markets. U.S. sanctions on Iran block this option.

4. Despite the staggering costs it would take to construct, China is willing to construct an oil pipeline across Kazakhstan to China.

5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.
_________________________________________________

and to the above i say... 'may be resurrected' my ass... i'll bet anything unocal is there... freshly dusted off schematics and blueprints in hand.
post #96 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by Moogs:
People are unwilling to put up with the inconveiences required for good security. That is EXACTLY the root problem we face. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.</strong>

I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of.

It was most definitely in the purview of the FBI, CIA and NSA to figure out this plot. The information was there. The line between Sept 11 not happening and happening is merely competence. Merely for the law enforcement and security agencies to do their job, what they are paid to do. All it takes is for one link in the chain of the events to be broken. Just one, and none of it involved giving up our freedoms but following through on detective work. Nearly every government agency has been poisoned by a virulence of apathy and ineptness created by entrenched political and managerial cultures (with Congress and the Executive office at the top), so it really can't and shouldn't be blamed on any person or group.

When James Woods, the actor James Woods, <a href="http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/woods.htm" target="_blank">knew and understood</a> what was going down better than our own FBI did or cared to know a month before Sept 11, then something is frelling wrong with it. I'd be damned to think I would have to give up my freedoms when people paid to assure them can't be bothered to do their jobs.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #97 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:
<strong>
Central Asian Oil and Gas Pipelines:

Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. The CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) went ahead and built their pipeline. It isnt expected to reach its capacity until 2015. The first tankers were loaded in Novorossiisk in October and November 2001. As your post noted, Turkey is concerned about tanker traffic through the Bosporus. So from Novorossiisk other oil transit options are being considred.

[quote]<strong>... Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Or it could be sent through Russias new Baltic Pipeline System or via other pipeline proposals through Bulgaria, Romania or Ukraine.

[quote]<strong> ... According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whatever. Construction is slated to beging this summer.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #98 of 236
think they'll go through with it now that a new option is open spliffy? i would fer safety's sake, but uh, we're not really talking about them are we? we're looking fer our own way now ain't we?

and the pakistanians would love to return Karachi to it's former greatness...whatever the cost or alliances. here's some pre 911 stuff...
__________________________________________________
If Adolf Hitler came back today, they’d send a limousine, anyway. The Clash.

If news falls into print and no one cares enough to read it, does it make a sound?

Pay attention: Afghanistan is at war with itself. The lower part of the country is occupied by the Taliban, who are the bad guys. The upper part is controlled by the rebel army of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who, for all intents and purposes, are the good guys. The outcome of this small, forgotten civil war could decide the fate of democracy and political stability throughout Central Asia. If the Taliban win, the United States will be partially to blame.

For the past five years, the radical Taliban militia has been trained, funded and openly backed by the government of Pakistan; in particular, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), the equivalent of the CIA. Pakistan’s goals are two-fold: 1) to install a friendly puppet regime in Afghanistan (its neighbor to the north) in order to provide strategic depth in the event of nuclear war with India (its rival to the south), and 2) to complete construction of a gas pipeline running from the oil-rich Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and into the port city of Karachi, a multi-billion dollar venture.

Who knows what has more weight, oil pipelines or democratic values? Ahmad Shah Massoud, 1998.

For the past two decades, Pakistan has received billions of dollars in military hardware and logistics support from the U.S. government. By proxy, a significant portion of the armaments find their way into Taliban hands.

In 1996, as Taliban troops captured the Afghan capital of Kabul, forcing Massoud to retreat north, the American corporation UNOCAL (a partner in the pipeline venture) invited a Taliban delegation to Washington and lobbied the White House to grant them diplomatic recognition. In return, the delegates promised to end the harvesting of opium poppies in southern Afghanistan.

Three years, one billionaire Arab terrorist, dozens of missile strikes, tons of smuggled opium and a choir of women’s rights activists later, President Clinton imposed economic sanctions on the Taliban, barring any American business from conducting commerce with the militia.

Too little, too late.

The Taliban (and their Pakistani backers) are responsible for the massacre of over 5,000 civilians in northern Afghanistan. In their recent offensive north of Kabul, they have pursued a scorched earth policy, burning opposition-governed towns and forcibly relocating residents. (It is therefore ironic that the Taliban’s women’s rights abuses have received more media scrutiny than their other, arguably more serious, crimes.)

Analysts estimate that thousands of Pakistani and Arab fighters are active in Taliban ranks. Over the past several years, Massoud’s forces in the north have captured hundreds of foreign mercenaries in battle, including Arab nationals linked to Osama Bin Laden and intelligence officers in Pakistan’s armed forces. Moreover, the recent series of terrorist bombings in Russia and the armed uprisings in Dagestan and Chechnya have substantiated western fears of a Taliban spillover throughout the region.

After years without a coherent foreign policy toward Afghanistan, the U.S. government is realizing the consequences of its indifference. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s opium harvest is grown under Taliban jurisdiction. Osama Bin Laden, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted men, has been sheltered by the Taliban since 1996.

Recently, the United Nations Security Council officially condemned Pakistan for its support of the Taliban. The State Department has also threatened sanctions against both Pakistan and its longtime ally, China, in response to heightened instability in Central Asia.

Although economic sanctions will do little to stop the current wave of Taliban brutality in northern Afghanistan, they are a step in the right direction toward forcing Pakistan to withdraw its support of the militia. American-backed sanctions, coupled with recent victories by the Afghan opposition and growing popular discontent in the south, could quickly lead to a Taliban disintegration.

The U.S. government claims it is truly interested in bringing Bin Laden to justice, ending opium harvesting (which the Taliban subsidizes to fund its war effort) and restoring human rights and civil liberties in Afghanistan. However, America has done nothing substantial to prove its commitment, such as establishing closer ties to Massoud’s embattled opposition government, which has publicly condemned the Taliban for their draconian policies toward women and sheltering of international terrorists.

This December will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For the past two decades, the scheming and manipulation of foreign entities (including the U.S.) has left the country in ruins and the entire region on the brink of political collapse. Mere sanctions against the Taliban’s benefactor (Pakistan) and condemnations from human rights groups will not be able to undo the damage of two decades of war. However, without them, there is little hope that Central Asia will see peace well into the next millennium.

Yama Rahyar can be reached at yrahyar@uci.edu

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
post #99 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:
<strong>think they'll go through with it now that a new option is open spliffy?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I keep acquiring nicknames from you. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

As for whether theyll go through with the Baku pipeline or not, Id say its more likely they will. The project has financial momentum behind it. Oil is already flowing to Novorossiisk. It has to go somewhere from there.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #100 of 236
but finanicial wisdom would prevail... and there's about six ways to skin that cat. the cheapest skinjob is in downtown Karachi.

thinkin' like a fatcat,

cuss

p.s. i now dub thee... bukkake breath!
post #101 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

<strong>but finanicial wisdom would prevail... and there's about six ways to skin that cat. the cheapest skinjob is in downtown Karachi.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All things being equal, yes. But not when the other guy has a big headstart.

[quote]<strong>p.s. i now dub thee... bukkake breath!</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #102 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by THT:

I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of....<hr></blockquote>

Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.

I don't at all think we should allow the government to have carte blanche on wire-tapping or things of that nature - not at all. I'm talking about people being hypocrits at a much more basic level. People wanting the 5 Star security, but bitching and moaning every time they have to do their part by being patient, vigilant or otherwise understanding of a difficult situation. I don't care how many high-tech task forces we build or how much money we spend ... if people don't do their part in this every day, it's all for naught. All of it. We might as well just sit back and take the next one on the chin....

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #103 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.

Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.

Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.
post #104 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jakkorz:
<strong>
So far you've been thinking about the geography of the situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No I haven't. I've shown that alternate routes already have a good deal of momentum behind them. That's about investments that have already been made.

[quote]<strong>It is of course feasible. If you add to that some marketing, you should come to the conclusion that west, east, and north there are no real markets for the Caspian Sea oil. The real market is south then heading east. There are many energy hungry countries in the south east than anywhere else. Also include the refineries, you should get the whole picture by then.

Both geography and the market are key criteria for such a plan.

Of course all this is smart guessing and reasoning the only prove would be ... well, you should be able to guess this; if you do, then everything else will fall into the proper place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.

btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #105 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

The market? The market for any oil is frequently thousands of miles - even half a world away - from where it was drilled. Oil is a fungible commodity. If it is exported north through the Baltic pipeline, it will displace some of the oil that is currently marketed in Europe (presumably North Sea oil) which will in turn be marketed elsewhere. If it goes south through a Baku or a trans-Afghan pipeline, same deal with different players affected. Central Asian oil and gas doesn't have to come out at a specific place to reach the world market. And if you want to do some smart guessing, look where the chips are already lined up. I wouldn't bet on a trans-Afghan pipeline getting off the ground very soon.

btw: you quoted my response to little cuss' post script. That didn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry about the quote. It just did not work.

Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this.

Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields (Iraqi oil goes to US due to its high quality through Syria pipelines), and USA gets it mainly from the South American fields. Eastern europe market, well it is not that demanding, not even in the near future. Oil out of the Caspian would best be routed closer to the markets that have lots of demand. While there are quiet few oil fields in South East Asia, the oil quality is not the kind that is easily produced (mostly heavy crude with lots of sulphur). Imagine if you want to route that pipeline, given all the above information, would you rather route it closer to markets which have increasing demand, or those who are already sufficient and will always be sufficient way beyond the erection of your pipeline structure?
post #106 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jakkorz:
<strong>
Regarding the market, maybe I should go further in detail regarding this...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know what you are saying but you are addressing this issue from one direction only. As I wrote earlier, all things being equal a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a good option. But all things aren't equal. Furthermore, it isn't just Southeast Asia that is ramping up it's demand for oil. China is too. Your argument can just as easily be used to stump for the Kazakhstan to China route that cuss wrote about earlier.

[quote]<strong>Russia already has enough oil for their market, they are exporting actually what is beyond their need. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, so? I didn't say anything different. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia.

[quote]<strong>Europe already has oil from the North Sea and gets more from the Middle East fields.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where is it written in stone that they need to use Middle Eastern oil and not Central Asian oil?

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #107 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by Moogs:
Who said anything about giving up freedoms? Not I. My point is that people are unwilling to deal with the general inconvenience of a truly secure nation. They don't want to wait the extra 35 minutes every time they go to the airport, they feel offended when people search their handbags at a ball game, they don't make an effort to report unusual things they may see during their daily routine (because they're lazy, not afraid or unsure that what they're seeing is unusual), etc. etc.</strong>

Hmm... James Woods did in fact report his observations. And guess what, the FBI ignored it. If it wasn't for the work of the airline trainer in Eagan MN, Mousaoui wouldn't have been caught. It was an airline trainer in Phoenix that saw something strange was going on when prospective pilots pay for their training with large sums of cash and have poor understanding of basic airline procedures that got the local FBI office to investigate.

The problem with the current airline security procedures is that they are brainless devoid of common sense. We know that it isn't making us more secure, and I think that makes people frustrated. If it works, I think people would be very patient with it.
post #108 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

Where is it written in stone that they need to use Middle Eastern oil and not Central Asian oil?

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

The quote is not working again.

I am not saying that change can not take place. There are many routes. I am only pointing out what is more convenient. A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.

The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.

We should note some quiet movement in the next few months as for where would that pipeline be routed.
post #109 of 236
Hmm...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/18/alqaeda.chatter/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/18/alqaeda.chatter/index.html</a>

Hopefully the FBI/CIA will do their job this time.
post #110 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jakkorz:
<strong>
... A port on the sea is definitely the choice that all oil producing countries would rather have.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I haven't said otherwise. The issue is where that port will be.

[quote]<strong>The topic is not an easy one to discuss by the way. There are many other things to take into consideration before a better route can be determined. You can think of it as a feasibility study.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right. Which is why it isn't wise to suggest that we are in Afghanistan because of big oil. There are simply too many variables for that to be true. Add to the mix Iran. It's my understanding routing the pipeline through Iran would be an even better option.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #111 of 236
Ok guys, even if it wasn't big oil this would work for Bush from almost any angle ( unless they found out of course ). What would have been the big story on the news in Sept. if this hadn't happened? The failing economy. Back in Sept. the economic sitituation was not good. But, it didn't get nearly the attention it would have if this hadn't happened.

What better way to bolster support for the military and more patriotic flag waiving and breast beating than we've seen in 50 years.

Did he turn his head and look the other way? We will probably never know ( I mean he's not going to remember ).

Is an american president capable of doing such an awful deed? Sure, given the proper motivation just like any of us could. There are bad apples in every barrel. If this was someone else ( like you and me ) this would already be in a court of law for gross negligence if nothing else.

The bottom line is the thought I had that morning while watching the TV : " how the hell did they get this far "? Why weren't there planes and all sorts of military activity all around the area ? If not NY the Pentigon. They did have several minutes warning that something was up and did nothing.

So if this wasn't an act of deliberate turning your head the other way, the other side is just as bad............pure unadulterated incompetence.

It appears those people on one of the planes knew what they had to do to stop the hijackers.

The irony if this does prove to be something other than the way it's been portrayed is that this came from a man who was not elected by the popular vote ( the people ) but by a contrivance ( the electoral college ).

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #112 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Did he turn his head and look the other way?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No he didn't. If he did, then he would be guilty of the worst treason imaginable and I for one would be calling for his head.

It's incredible to me that people can believe otherwise. Look, Israel has what is arguably the best intelligence capabilities of any country in the world but suicide bombers keep getting through. I'm not letting the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. off the hook but they have to be perfect in order to prevent this stuff from happening. The terrorists only need to be lucky once. Furthermore, it has been reported that some of the hijackers themselves didn't even know they were on a suicide mission. How can you be so credulous as to think that Bush might have known what some of the hijackers didn't even know?

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #113 of 236
A. How do you know for sure?

B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.

C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? The president would have been shown these reports. Lastly when you are president there's no passing of the buck.

I'm not saying I know for sure ether but, it's very strange that they could have reached the Pentigon or the center of NYC. They knew something was up with the plane for several minutes. Why didn't they do something?

As for a president doing something wrong.....WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

<strong>A. How do you know for sure?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Listen. You can indulge yourself and wander around in the fever swamps of Bush hatred where in your mind hes capable of such a monstrous evil. But frankly, people who think that way arent. I have an awfully low opinion of Clinton but I don't think even for a moment he would have been capable of such a thing.

[quote]<strong>B. In a report ( prepared for US Intellegence in reference to Osama bin Laden ) way back in 1999, it states that terrorists may start using planes as missles.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right. And in the meantime there were hundreds of other reports warning about everything from suitcase nukes to bio weapons. And 1999 to 2001 is a long time to be on alert. After a while it stops being an alert.

[quote]<strong>C. As for the FBI and The CIA, what makes it their fault? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Intel is their job.

[quote]<strong>The president would have been shown these reports. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily. Some of these reports were prepared by field agents. Those don't always make it into the President's daily briefing.

[quote]<strong>As for a president doing something wrong..... WaterGate ( and the plea from George McGovern on television the night of the break in ) is still fresh in my mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Watergate pales in comparison to what you are suggesting. The two are in no way comparable - and Watergate was pretty bad.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #115 of 236
You know, people raised Pearl harbor here, and I think there are some parallels.

We were probably complacent, and ignored signs that shouldn't have been ignored.

Also, there are wackos who believe FDR wanted Pearl harbor to happen to have an excuse to go to war, and apparently there will always be wackos who believe Bush wanted this to happen to help Cheney's former company build an oil pipeline.

The one big difference I see is that we investigated the intelligence failures of Pearl Harbor, at the request of FDR, whereas Bush is withholding information and attacking those who want a similar investigation. Although Bush is accusing others of playing politics, it's actually his people who are politicizing it.

Republicans blamed Clinton for this, and now they're indignant that others are accusing Bush of being asleep at the wheel. They used 9/11 to sell their tax cut, and they're now using it to raise campaign money. Fine. Everyone knows that 9/11, unfortunately, was the best thing that could happen to Bush politically. It's not like it's a secret.

But now they're going too far. Accusing others of "playing politics" when they want an investigation that could improve and maybe even prevent something like this from happening again is too much. Especially when, from what I can tell, the calls for investigation have been pretty bi-partisan.
post #116 of 236
If any of what's suspected is true then I wonder if Bush is capable at all.

I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.

The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job.

And once again they had ample ( in military terms ) time to do something. Why didn't they respond. A jet travels at a lot slower speed than a missle. I mean they attacked the Pentigon for christ's sake. Unbelievable.

If it's just a goof up on the governments part, maybe we need a more capable leader.

I'm just asking questions.

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

<strong>If any of what's suspected is true then I wonder if Bush is capable at all.

I don't believe he wouldn't have seen this report. Osama has been a focus long before 9/11.

The Intel knew something was possible to go down on 9/11. This means Bush would have known it. It's his job...

I'm just asking questions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, you're not. You just made a bunch of flat statements.

As for whether or not there should be an investigation, Cheney himself has said there should be one. His only caveat is that it should be done by the House and Senate Intelligence committees. What's the bitch?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #118 of 236
I wish I lived in your world where leaders aren't capable of doing wrong or investigations are really revealing or fair. Unfortunately we already know through history that's not the way things are.

Let's hope this investigation is different.

When you ask questions about something this complex you have to make flat statements to explain your perspective.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #119 of 236
I wished I lived in a world where Presidential wanna bes didn't use the deaths of 3000 people to gain political advantage.
post #120 of 236
[quote] they want an investigation that could improve and maybe even prevent something like this from happening again<hr></blockquote>

I think that sums up why we need an investigation . . . in any business if there is a massive failure of some system or another then we follow up with an investigation in order to understand what went wrong and why and how to prevent it . .

this idiocy of calling people fools because they want to know (government for the people and by the people) . . . is missguided politicking and maybe even a little fear of what might be found
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11