Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
- Status
Badger Kitten
oof
Do you think pre-9/11 Pakistan ISI or Saudi intel was passed on, but not acted upon, passed on to low-level officers but not acted upon by high-enough authority, (ie. lost in ''chatter'') or was withheld?
The Bob Woodward book State of Denial has the Saudi aide, Bandar, passing on info from Riyadh to Bush post 9/11 and Bush micromanaging intel that was too vague and low-grade for the President to normally bother with, which makes me wonder whether they knew there was a major cock up, flags missed etc pre- 9/11 and therefore the administration were extra-jumpy retrospectively.
The Bob Woodward book State of Denial has the Saudi aide, Bandar, passing on info from Riyadh to Bush post 9/11 and Bush micromanaging intel that was too vague and low-grade for the President to normally bother with, which makes me wonder whether they knew there was a major cock up, flags missed etc pre- 9/11 and therefore the administration were extra-jumpy retrospectively.
Badger Kitten
oof
@Jonti, meh, well, never mind 
He can go and blow steam out of his ears for 24 hours and calm down nicely
He can go and blow steam out of his ears for 24 hours and calm down nicely
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Jonti said:
Which is a fair cop. Take an example closer to home, it's a fair bet that elements in the British security forces either knew about, or actively colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles.
Does this mean that this was an active state policy, or was even known about by senior members of the British Security Services? No.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
It's not just a fair bet, it's a racing certainty.
Actually, I think it has been established in Court that elements in the British security forces either knew about, or actively colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles. The McGuire family comes to mind as having been victims of this sort of collusion.
And no, it does not mean this was an active state policy, or was even known about by senior members of the British Security Services. It *could* just mean that a blind eye was turned to such connivance. But whatever, it certainly does mean the British Security Services were not functioning altogether as they should have been, I'd say.
Actually, I think it has been established in Court that elements in the British security forces either knew about, or actively colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles. The McGuire family comes to mind as having been victims of this sort of collusion.
And no, it does not mean this was an active state policy, or was even known about by senior members of the British Security Services. It *could* just mean that a blind eye was turned to such connivance. But whatever, it certainly does mean the British Security Services were not functioning altogether as they should have been, I'd say.
Augie March
blahem
Jonti said:
Perhaps because I don't see the terms being wholly different from one another. I just feel that if people start throwing around phrases such as the 'Zionist world', as Mr Cossiga as done, that they seem to be making a far more sweeping genralisation about the Jewish people, than as if they were just making reference to a particular political movement.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, as I make no pretense that I'm well-read in Jewish theology, but I just got the impression from the translated text, that Cossiga was leaning towards a rather anti-semitic point of view, as opposed to just an anti-zionist one.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
I think you'll find the ideas are quite different.
I for one see the question of the existence of Israel as being entirely separate from the question of equal civil and legal rights for all. And it seems to me that Zionism is even, far too often, diametrically opposed to civic equality.
That is why I am careful to distinguish opponents of "a Jewish State for the Jewish People" (who may or may not be Jewish themselves) from the anti-semitics.
I for one see the question of the existence of Israel as being entirely separate from the question of equal civil and legal rights for all. And it seems to me that Zionism is even, far too often, diametrically opposed to civic equality.
That is why I am careful to distinguish opponents of "a Jewish State for the Jewish People" (who may or may not be Jewish themselves) from the anti-semitics.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Jonti said:
You're speaking to an Irishman who's worked on documentaries on the subject matter, it's never been proven aside from the fact that handlers of one British agent turned a blind eye to his carrying out violence.
As to the McGuire family I think you mean the Maguire family, there was no collusion there just corruption and bias among the British police and legal system.
Well yes, but by it's nature a security service often engages in activities their senior members don't want to know about.
To bring this back on track, while it's possible that elements of the ISI were a little too close for comfort with the Taliban and even Al Qaeda, there's no evidence that this link was sanctioned or even tolerated.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
butchersapron said:
There are 2 "Rs" and 1 "m" in "tomorrow".
Augie March
blahem
Jonti said:
Fair point.
But you have to admit that anti-semites can dress up their views as being anti-zionist. You see that's the impression I got from Cossigas translated statement, that perhaps it was more of a slur on the people, rather than just the politics.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't know about "fair bet", more of a proven fact, what with Brian Nelson.8den said:
Depends what you mean by "senior members". If you're talking directorate-level then probably not. Operational minutiae tend to be kept at operational level, if for no other reason than to allow "plausible denial".
Whilst I don't think much of the OP's antics here at all, this is certainly a worthwhile thread. Indeed you've asked for a translation of the Italian article and I've leant on a friend to provide you with it. So why are you calling for the bin? Now that is rather childish too, and suggests that you simply don't want to look at information which might challenge your preconceptions.Badger Kitten said:He's also called me a 'dog', a 'big cock', 'thick as shite' and ''a sour old fuck'' as well as 'chunky'
He's insulted everyone on the thread AFAICS and totally failed to progress his OP. Bin race?
Badger Kitten
oof
Badger Kitten said:
Because despite people's efforts it didn't seem to be going anywhere other than an FAQ-busting insultathon. I am glad it is not in the bin. Happy?
I have commented since Dr RD left the thread about foriegn intel pre and post 9/11 but yeah, whatever, I am not in the mood and would rather read an interesting thread so consider the bait not risen to, nor will it be, and I'll probably just read and not comment from here on because I do not want to be in a flame war, thanks
Jonti
what the dormouse said
... and are careful not to know about; or to keep open the possibility of a plausible denial, should the need arise.8den said:
As with all crimes, the question one must ask is cui bono? In the case of 9/11, the answer seems to be "a motley crew of thugs and idealists".
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Hm. ISI infiltration into activities in that area (as you'd expect really) is fairly well documented; they supported the Taliban, and it's a matter of debate as to how much the Taliban were actually aware of and involved in bin Laden's specific activities (I suspect, not a huge amount: they would have been aware of his existence but not necessarily what he was planning, it's a chaotic area, and it clearly wouldn't be in their interests to spur the previously-supportive yanks to invade!) but overall I think it is reasonable to say that if any intelligence service could have expected to be aware of them, it would be the ISI.8den said:
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Not only but also: it was a bunch of (mostly) upper middle class Saudis that did it, with the planning and logistical support of another (fabulously wealthy) Saudi.FridgeMagnet said:
Not that I'm saying the crime was committed for financial gain; there are other powerful motivators.
Jonti said:
What you are saying is that "The Men In Black" are just human after all.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Badger Kitten said:He's also called me a 'dog', a 'big cock', 'thick as shite' and ''a sour old fuck'' as well as 'chunky'
You poor thing. Go write a book about it.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
What you failed to notice is BK you started the abuse and then manipulated the result for your own ends.
Sounds like the sort of thing a city advertising exec would be happy with?
Sounds like the sort of thing a city advertising exec would be happy with?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Augie March
blahem
Badger Kitten said:
Well, that was a nice idea I suppose.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
fine
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
How long's he been banned for now then?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Personal abuse gets a banning? WTF?
These boards are full of personal abuse, loads gets dished out, it might not be nice but is not rare at all and if all the posters who indulged were banned this would be a much smaller forum. I don't condone the abuse BTW just the rarely applied rule.
These boards are full of personal abuse, loads gets dished out, it might not be nice but is not rare at all and if all the posters who indulged were banned this would be a much smaller forum. I don't condone the abuse BTW just the rarely applied rule.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
