---------- From: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:35:36 -0500 To: (Recipient list suppressed) Subject: Was the attack on Afghanistan planned prior to September 11? Sept 11, Bush and Cheney were involved! stevegrey Mon Dec 24 '01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] article#5862 http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=5862&group=webcast (Dec 20 2001) COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART ,BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA. THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11. PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS. PART 1 Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. (BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.st m ) People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn?t matter how angry the USA might have been, it?s just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn?t possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so. And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making. Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it?s reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone?s guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden?s guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It?s not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnel and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn?t care who did September 11. They were happy to use it as opportunity to attack anyone at whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges that they were already making plans for Afghanistan. These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September 11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better, from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned. While this is possible, it isn?t really probable. It?s just too convenient. It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point, assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan: 1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely suprised by it, but saw the propaganda opportunities for its forthcoming war, and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits. 2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for propaganda reasons. 3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan. While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios, common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned, then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was coming. But this doesn?t make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept 11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1) That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat. The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation.
