Pentagon Attack on 911

[skhara]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -- Herman Goering

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

I am sorry to equate a great leader like Hitler with a stupid stooge, but here it goes...

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it. The secret to get someone to believe a lie is constant repetition. Just tell it over, and over, and over again." - Adolph Hitler

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush

Source: http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot....ge-w-bush.html

Bush, Hitler & God Gott mit uns: On Bush and Hitler's Rhetoric

President Bush told Texas evangelist James Robinson that "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it." With 49.3% of New York City residents in a recent Zogby poll believing that some people in our government knew of the 911 attack in advance and allowed it to happen, the President as right-wing evangelical prophet is under siege in his Madison Square Garden bunker. Convention watchers should take careful note of the theocratic nationalist rhetoric at the Republican convention this week.

When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct. Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin. Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God to lead their nations. With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that "I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany."

"I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker," Hitler said. Hitler stated in February 1940, "But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." After the Iraqi invasion, Bush announced, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . ." Neither the similarity between Hitler and Bush's religious rhetoric nor the fact that the current President's grandfather was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his financing of the Fuher's rise to power is lost on Europeans.

Pat Robertson called Bush "a prophet" and Ralph Reed claimed, after the 9/11 attack, God picked the President because "he knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way." Hitler told the German people in March 1936, "Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learn to pray. . . . The mercy of the Lord slowly returns to us again. And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that he may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God." At the beginning of Hitler's crusade on April 12, 1922, he spelled out his version of the warmongering Jesus: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." Randall Balmer in The Nation, noted that "Bush's God is the eye-for-an-eye God of the Hebrew prophets and the Book of Revelation, the God of vengeance and retribution."

As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting the cross while waging endless war: "To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the xxxish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit." Like Bush-ites, Hitler was fond of invoking the Ten Commandments as the foundation of Nazi Germany: "The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul."

But if you ever wondered where Bush got his idea for so-called "faith-based initiatives" you need only consult Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag. The Fuhrer begins, "Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so-called democracy is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion." Hitler goes on to document how much "public monies derived from taxation through the organs of the State have been placed at the disposal of both churches [Protestant and Catholic]." Hitler gave nearly 1.8 billion Reichsmarks between 1933-1938 directly to the Christian churches. In 1938 alone, he bragged that the Nazis gave half a billion Reichsmarks from the national government and an additional 92 million Reichsmarks from the Nazi-controlled German states and parish associations.

Hitler made the intent of his faith-based initiative clear when he noted, "With a tenth of our budget for religion, we would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty. . . . the little sects, which receive only a few hundred thousand marks, are devoted to us body and soul." Bush's assertion that "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job" brings to mind God as a dull-witted, cognitively-impaired nationalist unable to utter a simple declarative sentence who spends his time preaching "blessed are the warmongers and profit-makers." Bob Fitrakis is the Editor of the Free Press (freepress.org), a political science professor, attorney and co-author with Harvey Wasserman of George W. Bush vs. the Superpower of Peace.

Source: http://www.rense.com/general57/bushgo.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Al-Qaeda to the rescue for Bush's legacy

The Cassandra-like foretelling by American opinion makers almost uniformly makes out that Pakistan may not survive. True, it is hard to be optimistic. Setting right these disjointed times is way past the capacity of the present US administration. The only silver lining seems to be that in an year's time another team will move into the White House and a clean break becomes possible. Even ardent specialists in the US security community admit as much. A commentator for Stratfor, a think-tank closely linked to the security establishment, says, "In this endgame, all that the Americans want is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way US luck is running, they might not even get that."

It isn't quite a matter of "luck". Plainly speaking, in the winter of 2001, the George W Bush administration bit off more than a superpower should chew in the Khyber Pass. Today, it has no Plan B. The best hope for the White House is that Pakistani military chief General Ashfaq Kiani "must become Washington's new man in Pakistan" (to quote Stratfor). That is to say, let's pin the blame for Benazir Bhutto's assassination last week on al-Qaeda, get on with old business and sit out the coming 12 months.

But smart soldiers like Kiani can't be that dumb, can they? Three types of prophets of doom are setting the tone in Washington. First come the FOBs - "Friends of Benazir". The people in the media, think-tanks and government in the US over whom Bhutto cast her spell - by way of her irresistible personal charm or through the skills of her top-class public relations handlers - simply cannot think of a Pakistan without her. Second, there are America's legions of South Asia experts from an earlier era who are peeved that the administration with its neo-conservative agenda ignored their advice in the crafting of Washington's post- 2001 Pakistan policy. They feel vindicated the policy turned out to be a mess. Third comes the tribe of terrorism specialists who proliferated in recent years and are greatly experienced in the politics of fear - including some among them who seem to believe their phantom enemy is of absolutely cosmic significance.

US shuffles Iran cards

But theirs needn't be the only story. The shadow that Bhutto's assassination is casting on regional security is of varied hues. That is how it is already being felt in Tehran. In one swift sweep, almost overnight, Pakistan replaces Iran on the Bush administration's radar screen. Israel may not like what is happening, but Vice President xxxx Cheney and company won't have even a fighting chance of reviving the Iran bogey in the remaining term of the administration.

The Bush administration cannot overlook that the crisis brewing in Pakistan and Afghanistan may turn out to be manifold more serious than all of Tehran's nuclear program and its support of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iraqi Shi'ite militia in Iraq combined together, let alone the political challenge posed by Iran's rising regional influence. For the first time since it expounded the "axis of evil" theory, exactly six years ago - grouping Iraq, Iran and North Korea - the Bush administration is compelled to view Iran with a sense of proportion. The hardline policies aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime look downright irresponsible in the changed circumstances. A military option is out of the question. A regime change in Tehran? Ridiculous.

But the "Iran question" as such may not fade away from the Middle East, though rhetoric - US and Iranian - has appreciably diminished in recent weeks. Part of the problem is that a bitterly contested parliamentary election looms ahead in March in Iran. Nonetheless, Iran-US relations are poised for a change of course. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's offer to meet her Iranian counterpart Manuchehr Mottaki "any place and any time and anywhere" testifies to that. There is guarded optimism in Tehran about the upcoming fourth round of US-Iran meetings regarding cooperation over Iraq's stabilization.

Rice said a week ago, "We don't have permanent enemies ... what we have is a policy that is open to ending confrontation or conflict with any country that is willing to meet us on those terms." Mottaki promptly responded, "Ground can be prepared." He welcomed Washington's "more respectful and logical approach" toward Tehran, which, he insisted, became possible since "they [US officials] have gotten a better understanding of Iran's key role in the region and its determination to obtain its legal rights [for enriching uranium]." Iranians are pragmatists and after Bhutto's assassination they will have assessed by now that the developments in Pakistan leave the Bush administration with no option but to earnestly probe for ways of normalizing relations with Tehran.

To be or not to be ...

Iran may once again prove to be useful, as in 2001, for the logistical needs of Washington's "war on terror" in Afghanistan. Arguably, Iran can be a substitute route if the supply lines for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan via Pakistan become choked. NATO and the US cannot get a more realistic partner than Iran for stabilizing Afghanistan. Iran's cooperation will be useful in forestalling the Taliban's northwardly march to the Amu Darya region and in stabilizing western Afghanistan, where NATO forces are coming under threat.

The alternative would be for Washington to go crawling back to Moscow and ask for air and land corridors to Afghanistan. It appears NATO made some soundings at the Russia-NATO Council meeting at foreign minister level in Brussels on December 7. Following the meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We discussed the situation in Afghanistan. The vital security interests of Russia and the NATO nations coincide here. It is both the threat of drugs and the lingering terrorist threat. They have to be fought by combined efforts." Lavrov added, "We [Russia and NATO] are also considering other cooperation possibilities, particularly in logistic support of the International Security Assistance Force and in helping to equip the Afghan National Army. I think there is a good field in this regard where we can move towards finding mutually acceptable forms of interaction."

Writing in the Russian journal Ekspert a week later, in a lengthy essay on Russian foreign policy, Lavrov seemed to hark back to the discussions in Brussels when he revealed intriguingly, "We're [Moscow] also witnessing some gleams of qualitative shifts in the analysis of the contemporary phase of world developments in the US and Europe, although so far mostly at the level of the expert community. At the same time, it is obvious that our partners are thinking that the thought process has begun. One of the conclusions being drawn at that is the realization of the fundamentally non-confrontational character of Russian foreign policy."

With Bhutto's assassination, Washington must now hasten its "thought process". There is a hard decision to take. Both Iran and Russia would be sensible partners in the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. But neither would respond to a selective engagement by Washington. The Bush administration will need William Shakespeare's Shylock to weigh the relative advantage in engaging Iran or Moscow. That's where Bush's forthcoming tour of Israel, the Palestinian territories and the Persian Gulf allies could be useful.

One thing is already clear. The Iran nuclear issue refuses to go away. It may have taken a turn for the better lately, but, as China's People's Daily noted, this is far from a denouement. The US "will have to ferment new plans and work out new strategies over the Iranian nuclear issue both during and after the Bush administration ... Iran might benefit from the disparity among the world powers: it could strive for a more favorable international environment and strategic standing. In conclusion, concerned parties on the Iran issue are presently considering their own interests in relation to actual conditions in preparation for a new round of strategic contests."

Question mark on US global strategy

But Moscow poses even more fundamental difficulties. In the runup to the Russia-NATO meeting in Brussels, in exhaustive media comments, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman in Moscow underscored in December that "both successes and complications" bedeviled Moscow's relations with the trans-Atlantic alliance. He said the work ahead is not going to be easy.

Among problem areas, he listed "international legal implications" of NATO's transformation as a global political organization outside the control of the United Nations; NATO military structures "drawing closer to our borders"; further NATO enlargement plans; differences over the CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty; and "deployment of a third US global missile defense system in Europe and its conjunction with MD [missile defense] research and development within the framework of NATO." In other words, in the post-Bhutto scenario, Washington needs to rework the agenda of the forthcoming NATO summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April. NATO's third round of enlargement plans was listed as the key topic of discussion in Bucharest. Now, Pakistan and Afghanistan will inevitably overshadow.

Will Washington press ahead with earlier plans to get the NATO summit to endorse the admission of Ukraine and Georgia? In the present crisis situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, can the Bush administration afford to annoy the Kremlin? A Russian spokesman has warned, "We [Moscow] are convinced that the process of NATO enlargement has no relationship to the modernization of the alliance itself or to the ensuring of security in Europe whatsoever. On the contrary, it is a serious factor of provocation, fraught with the appearance of new dividing lines and a lowering of the level of mutual trust."

The Kremlin has clearly stated the bottom line, it will not be happy even if the US and the EU do not insist on forcing Kosovo's independence, or proceed to deploy NATO in the breakaway republic outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council. Lavrov underlined, "The main thing is the striving to jointly work on a basis of mutual respect, including respect for the analysis of each other regarding the threats, which today are common to us." He stressed that at the Bucharest summit, if NATO went ahead with its enlargement policy in parallel with the alliance's transformation, "we [Moscow] are convinced that this would not contribute to bolstering our common security or fighting the common threats to us". The implicit warning is that cooperation in the "war on terror" could be conditional on Washington rolling back its containment policy toward Russia.

It is obvious that both Moscow and Tehran now estimate that the crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan has a direct bearing on US global strategies. If NATO fails in Afghanistan, a huge question mark would arise over the alliance's future. As a US Congressional Research report in October noted, NATO's mission in Afghanistan is "a test of the alliance's political will and military capabilities". But that isn't all. What the US think-tankers obfuscate is that the US's ability to retain its trans-Atlantic leadership role in the post-Cold War era is itself in the firing line.

Both Moscow and Tehran stand to gain in a multipolar world order in which their regional influence comes into greater play. If Washington fails in its post-Cold War strategy of bolstering NATO by whipping up enemy images (eg, al-Qaeda), the process towards multipolarity will substantially gain. Significantly, Tehran and Moscow refuse to characterize Bhutto's assassination as the work of al-Qaeda. Beijing's reaction has been equally cautious. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman initially condemned Bhutto's assassination as an "act of terrorism". But Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei, who visited the Pakistan Embassy in Beijing to sign a condolence book the next day, didn't refer to terrorism at all, but expressed the hope that the people of Pakistan "could overcome the current difficulty as soon as possible and jointly safeguard social stability and development of the country".

Chinese commentators have noted that "the situation in Afghanistan proved far more sophisticated than predicted" and it had become difficult for NATO to "cover up the troops' embarrassing position in the country". A People's Daily commentary analyzed last year that the Afghanistan debacle, coupled with the deterioration of NATO's relations with Russia and the failure of Brussels' efforts to secure a footing in Central Asia, have hampered the alliance from fulfilling its target of making 2007 its year of "transformation". The commentary assessed that consequently that "the US pull within NATO has declined, and the US's trans-Atlantic role is becoming uncertain. It was widely hoped that the shift of top leadership in Germany, France and Britain might inject new vitality to US-European Union relations. But it is still hard to say whether the new 'troika' can usher in a situation Washington optimistically predicted."

All three countries - Russia, China and Iran - openly share an interest in seeing that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization play a significant role in stabilizing the Afghan situation. None of them has remained content with the US's (or NATO's) monopoly over conflict resolution in a region of such vital importance to their security, though they are supportive of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan as such. Clearly, with Bhutto's assassination and with Pakistan tottering on the abyss, what stares the Bush administration in the face is a potential unraveling of its global strategy built around the "war on terror" and "Islamofascism". The easy way out will be to goad General Kiani to become Washington's "new man in Pakistan" so that the hunt for al-Qaeda goes on.

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df02.html

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim. The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."

Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."

SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.

On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org. For press info, contact Kyle Hence 212-243-7787 [email protected]

Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Source: http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

What ever happened to fighting terrorism? Two interesting developments that the American masses (represented here by Sip) has not taken notice of, as usual. First, as soon as the assassination of Bhutto took place last month US and Pakistani officials were quick to blame "Al-Qaeda" for the act. When a large majority of the Pakistani pubic, as well as Bhutto family members began claiming that the assassination was ordered by the Pakistani government, miraculously, and quite suddenly, a teenage "Al-Qaeda" operative turned himself in and confessed quilt... And now, in response to French journalists who raised questions about "Al-Qaeda" and "Ossama Been Forgotten," the bloody dictator of Pakistan was quoted as saying - "the 100,000 troops that we are using [on the border with Afghanistan]... are not going around trying to locate Osama bin Laden and Zawahri, frankly"... What's amusing here is not the fact that the Pakistani dictator, as well as the US for that matter, could careless about finding "Al-Qaeda" leadership - the funny thing is that journalists still ask that silly question... Note: The recent fighting involving Pakistani forces in the western provinces of Pakistan signal that the Taliban (which was created by US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia during the mid 90s) has gotten out of hand.

Armenian

*********************************************

Musharraf: Pakistan isn't hunting Osama

Musharraf Says More Important for Pakistani Troops to Fight Taliban, Not Hunt Bin Laden

Pervez Musharraf says he still gets the question a lot: When will Osama bin Laden and his top deputy be caught? The Pakistani president insists it's more important for his 100,000 troops on the Afghan border to root out the Taliban than search for al-Qaida leaders. That bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri are still at large "doesn't mean much," the former general said Tuesday on the second day of a swing through Europe. He suggested they are far less a threat to his regime than Taliban-linked militants entrenched in Pakistan's west. Bin Laden and al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding somewhere in the lawless tribal areas along Afghanistan's frontier with Pakistan. "The 100,000 troops that we are using ... are not going around trying to locate Osama bin Laden and Zawahri, frankly," Musharraf told a conference at the French Institute for International Relations. "They are operating against terrorists, and in the process, if we get them, we will deal with them certainly."

A U.S. ally in its war on extremist groups, Musharraf has come under increasing pressure following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto last month and for his brief declaration of emergency rule in early November. Musharraf, who as commander of Pakistan's military seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, said the remnants of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime and its Pakistani sympathizers are the "more serious issue" for both countries. But he said there was "zero percent chance" that al-Qaida, the Taliban and their Pakistani allies could defeat his 500,000-strong army or that Islamic militants could win control of the government in Feb. 18 parliamentary elections. As part of the "multi-pronged strategy" against terrorists, Pakistan has erected fences "selectively" and set up 1,000 checkpoints along the Afghan border in an effort to stop militants from using the areas to launch attacks inside the neighboring nation, he said.

Musharraf credited cooperation between Pakistani intelligence services and the CIA, both of whom believe that Pakistani militant leader Baitullah Mehsud was the mastermind of the Dec. 27 gun and suicide bomb attack that killed Bhutto. But in Washington, the State Department's counterterrorism chief, Dell Dailey, said the Bush administration was displeased with "gaps in intelligence" received from Pakistan about the activities of extremist groups in the tribal regions. "We don't have enough information about what's going on there. Not on al-Qaida. Not on foreign fighters. Not on the Taliban," he said. Dailey, a retired Army lieutenant general with extensive background in special operations, said Pakistan needs to fix the problem. He said the U.S. wasn't likely to conduct military strikes inside Pakistan on its own, saying that would anger many Pakistanis.

Musharraf played down the impact of recent attacks by extremists in the border region of South Waziristan, calling them "pinpricks" that his government must manage — not a sign of a resurgent Taliban. Attacks on forts in that district over the last month — including a battle Tuesday — have fanned concerns that militants with links to al-Qaida and the Taliban may be gaining control in the region. Pakistan's army said fighting at the fort and another clash killed at least seven paramilitary border guards and 37 militants Tuesday. The border region emerged as a front line in the war on extremist groups after Musharraf allied Pakistan with the U.S. following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Washington has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid to help government forces battle militants.

Rising violence in the border region and a series of suicide attacks across Pakistan that killed hundreds in recent months have added to uncertainty before next month's elections, which many people predict will further weaken Musharraf's grip on power. Despite turmoil at home, Musharraf defended his visit to four European countries, saying he wasn't concerned about the stability of his regime while he was away. "I can assure you that nothing will happen in Pakistan," he said. "We are not a banana republic." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who met privately with Musharraf on Tuesday, expressed support for Pakistan's fight with extremists and promised to press for increased European Union aid when France takes over the bloc's rotating presidency in July, Sarkozy's office said.

Source: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=14385

Pakistani Teen Suspect Reportedly Confesses Involvement in Bhutto Assassination

Authorities questioned a 15-year-old boy who reportedly confessed to joining a team that killed Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, while helicopter gunships attacked suspected militant positions close to the Afghan border, officials and witnesses said Sunday. A villager said two civilians were killed in the attacks Sunday in the South Waziristan region, where a spike in fighting in recent days has killed about 100 people, most of them militants. But military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said there were no reports of casualties. The arrest of the teenager in the town of Dera Ismail Khan in Pakistan's North West Frontier province could be the first break in the investigation into Bhutto's killing on Dec. 27 in a gun and suicide bomb attack.

A senior intelligence official said the boy was arrested Thursday along with another militant suspect. He told investigators that his five-person squad was dispatched to Rawalpindi — where Bhutto was killed — by Baitullah Mehsud, a militant leader with strong ties to Al Qaeda and an alliance with the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan. The official asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Authorities have already accused Mehsud, who is believed to be hiding in South Waziristan, of organizing the killing. Interior Secretary Kamal Shah also said the boy had confessed to involvement in the slaying. Both of the detainees were being questioned in an attempt to corroborate the confession, he said. Bhutto's assassination triggered days of unrest that left 40 dead and thrust Pakistan into a deep political crisis at a time of surging attacks by Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. The violence came as the country prepares for Feb. 18 polls that many predict will weaken President Pervez Musharraf's grip on power.

Bhutto, who had returned to Pakistan in October after spending nearly eight years in exile, had vowed to support tough military measures against Islamic militants who have used the border areas as staging points for infiltration into Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the country's Shiite minority held processions and prayers to mark the festival of Ashoura, which in the past has been marred by attacks from Sunni extremists, who regard Shiites as heretics. Tens of thousands marched and beat their bare backs with chains and blades, bloodying themselves in a sign of penitence. They said the threat of violence did not worry them. "The procession is not something that could be curbed through fear of death," said Qaiser Abbas Zaidi, a retired civil servant in Rawalpindi, a garrison town close to the capital, Islamabad. "People are slashing their heads with knifes and beating their chests in mourning. It means they are ready for death." On Thursday, 11 people died and 20 were injured in a suicide attack on a Shiite mosque in the northern city of Peshawar. In the far southern city of Karachi, the police chief said officers detained five men on Saturday with explosives, detonators and a small quantity of cyanide intended for attacks on Ashoura.

"With these arrests we have foiled major attacks," police chief Azhar Farouqi said, adding that the militants may have wanted to put the cyanide into the municipal water supply. The rising violence has undermined the popularity of Musharraf, a key ally of the U.S. in its war on terrorism. He left Sunday for Europe on an eight-day trip to meet leaders and attend the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. He said the trip was aimed at "improving Pakistan's image and removing certain misperceptions," but did not elaborate, according to the state-run news agency.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324128,00.html

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

CBS NEWS Sept. 4, 2002

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation. Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden. But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden. With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Nice theatrics. The so-called "Al-Qaeda" threatens Israel and vows to "continue" the struggle against Israel for the liberation of the Palestinians... The ever illusive, indestructible, super-evil Osma Bin Laden is quoted as saying - “We are not going to give up an inch of the land of Palestine.” "The Palestinian cause is the most important factor driving Al Qaeda’s war with the West". What a nice freaking way to discredit and undermine the Palestinian cause and bolster Israel's regional agenda... I'm sure Palestinians are thrilled about this news. However, ask yourselves this question: When was the last time this organization called AL-Qaeda, an organization that has waged a war against the mighty US, attacked Israel or Israeli interests? As a matter of fact, when did the Al-Qaeda attack Jews in general? Their resume against the US and others is quite impressive: Mogadishu, Kobar towers, USS Cole, Twin Towers, Pentagon, London bombings, Madrid bombings, holding out against the might of the US armed forces for the past seven years... The Al-Qaeda has supposedly run circles around the world's greatest powers... So, I ask, when did this "Islamic" organization ever attempt to attack the Zionist state?

Armenian

'*********************

Audio Message From bin Laden Condemns Israel

Osama bin Laden vowed on Friday to fight Israel for the liberation of the Palestinians, claiming their cause was at the heart of Al Qaeda’s holy war with the West. Mr. bin Laden’s recorded statement, his third this year, was released to coincide with Israel’s 60th anniversary and was released as President Bush was completing his visit to Israel to celebrate the occasion. “We will continue our struggle against the Israelis and their allies,” Mr. bin Laden said in an audio statement posted on a Web site used frequently by Al Qaeda. “We are not going to give up an inch of the land of Palestine.” Al Qaeda is increasingly using the Israeli-Arab conflict in its media campaign to rally supporters. Israel has warned of growing Qaeda activity in Palestinian territory, although the terrorist network is not believed to have taken a strong role there so far. The Palestinian cause is the most important factor driving Al Qaeda’s war with the West, Mr. bin Laden said. He claimed it was the motivation for the 19 Muslims, most of them from Saudi Arabia, who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my nation,” he said, referring broadly to radical Islamists. “It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed.” The authenticity of the message could not be verified, but the voice resembled the one in past messages. While there was no indication of when the message was recorded, it referred to Israel’s 60th anniversary.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/wo...html?ref=world

[Sip]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Armenian, its just shear redundancy, trying to convince the sheeple about the dishonesty of government towards their citizens. It just becomes another lost cause. The naive are meant to be used, it makes you wonder why then Islam is being hijacked to counter the western sheeple? I honestly don't think any of these terrorists (Freedom fighters, call them what you want to call them!) are "hardliners", it is only a front that allows them the oppurtunity to use their sheeple.

There is really 2 kinds of sheeple ... first, the sheeple you speak of. Second (and probably the much worse kind), the sheeple that are so scared of belonging to the first group that they try to look for any and all excuses to somehow try to proclaim themselves as different ... as somehow being able to see what is really going on "behind the scenes". Of course most often, the ways and excuses they come with are in a class of "rediculousness" all their own.

This thread is a very good example of what I am talking about.

[Yedtarts]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

JFK telling us the 911 truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM&feature=related