What's new

Did Americans stage 9/11?

Iraq war can justify. But Afganisatan? A country which made living hell for a once super power, and Americans going in again to that hell hole after making such a nuisance?

Where's your logic man...! if America wants oil there are so many other soft options rather than countries like Afghanistan and Iraq or all the Arabia.

Examples.. Libya an obvious target, Nigeria, Angola, Azerbaijan etc.

Kindly read my post in context to the post I was responding to and it will be self explanatory. Furthermore, can I ask you, what was the reason for the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan? What does Afghanistan has that is so attractive for the super powers? Think about it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bombed because it was to be bombed. The case here is that US used a single atomic bomb on each city. Tokyo was hit by a saturation bombing raid and got damaged way beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

America is not a terrorist, it's doing it's part in the world history as the mightiest war machine of it's time. Through out history we have seen such a war machines rise and fall. Greeks, Persians, Romans, Mongols and Brits are just few to be named.

But the wars weren't just or righteous, correct? and that's the whole argument.
 
.
Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy

Introductory note

In the 'Times of India' article reprinted on Emperor's Clothes under the title "CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban", analyst Selig Harrison is quoted as follows:

"'The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan.' The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said."

I disagree. The creation of Islamist terrorist organizations by the CIA has been a key part of U.S. policy, first in attacking the Soviet Union, and since then in an on-going war against Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union and against Yugoslavia.

As the following article from the 'Washington Post' shows, Washington was no distant financier of the Afghan terrorists, unaware of how its money was being spent. Rather, it controlled the action. Today, Washington publicly condemns Islamist terrorism but this is two-faced for at the same time Washington and its partners continue to create, support and manage Islamist terrorist and related groups (for instance, the 'Kosovo Liberation Army' terrorists). For Washington, organized terror is a weapon of Empire. - Jared Israel.

Anatomy of a Victory: CIA's Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, 'Washington Post', July 19, 1992

A specially equipped C-141 Starlifter transport carrying William Casey touched down at a military air base south of Islamabad in October 1984 for a secret visit by the CIA director to plan strategy for the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Helicopters lifted Casey to three secret training camps near the Afghan border, where he watched mujaheddin rebels fire heavy weapons and learn to make bombs with CIA-supplied plastic explosives and detonators.

During the visit, Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory -- into the Soviet Union itself. Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union's predominantly Muslim southern republics. The Pakistanis agreed, and the CIA soon supplied thousands of Korans, as well as books on Soviet atrocities in Uzbekistan and tracts on historical heroes of Uzbek nationalism, according to Pakistani and Western officials.

"We can do a lot of damage to the Soviet Union," Casey said, according to Mohammed Yousaf, a Pakistani general who attended the meeting.

Casey's visit was a prelude to a secret Reagan administration decision in March 1985, reflected in National Security Decision Directive 166, to sharply escalate U.S. covert action in Afghanistan, according to Western officials. Abandoning a policy of simple harassment of Soviet occupiers, the Reagan team decided secretly to let loose on the Afghan battlefield an array of U.S. high technology and military expertise in an effort to hit and demoralize Soviet commanders and soldiers. Casey saw it as a prime opportunity to strike at an overextended, potentially vulnerable Soviet empire.

Eight years after Casey's visit to Pakistan, the Soviet Union is no more. Afghanistan has fallen to the heavily armed, fraticidal mujaheddin rebels. The Afghans themselves did the fighting and dying -- and ultimately won their war against the Soviets -- and not all of them laud the CIA's role in their victory. But even some sharp critics of the CIA agree that in military terms, its secret 1985 escalation of covert support to the mujaheddin made a major difference in Afghanistan, the last battlefield of the long Cold War.

How the Reagan administration decided to go for victory in the Afghan war between 1984 and 1988 has been shrouded in secrecy and clouded by the sharply divergent political agendas of those involved. But with the triumph of the mujaheddin rebels over Afghanistan's leftist government in April and the demise of the Soviet Union, some intelligence officials involved have decided to reveal how the covert escalation was carried out.

The most prominent of these former intelligence officers is Yousaf, the Pakistani general who supervised the covert war between 1983 and 1987 and who last month published in Europe and Pakistan a detailed account of his role and that of the CIA, titled "The Bear Trap."

This article and another to follow are based on extensive interviews with Yousaf as well as with more than a dozen senior Western officials who confirmed Yousaf's disclosures and elaborated on them.

U.S. officials worried about what might happen if aspects of their stepped-up covert action were exposed -- or if the program succeeded too well and provoked the Soviets to react in hot anger. The escalation that began in 1985 "was directed at killing Russian military officers," one Western official said. "That caused a lot of nervousness."

One source of jitters was that Pakistani intelligence officers -- partly inspired by Casey -- began independently to train Afghans and funnel CIA supplies for scattered strikes against military installations, factories and storage depots within Soviet territory.

The attacks later alarmed U.S. officials in Washington, who saw military raids on Soviet territory as "an incredible escalation," according to Graham Fuller, then a senior U.S. intelligence official who counseled against any such raids. Fearing a large-scale Soviet response and the fallout of such attacks on U.S.-Soviet diplomacy, the Reagan administration blocked the transfer to Pakistan of detailed satellite photographs of military targets inside the Soviet Union, other U.S. officials said.

To Yousaf, who managed the Koran-smuggling program and the guerrilla raids inside Soviet territory, the United States ultimately "chickened out" on the question of taking the secret Afghan war onto Soviet soil. Nonetheless, Yousaf recalled, Casey was "ruthless in his approach, and he had a built-in hatred for the Soviets."

An intelligence coup in 1984 and 1985 triggered the Reagan administration's decision to escalate the covert progam in Afghanistan, according to Western officials. The United States received highly specific, sensitive information about Kremlin politics and new Soviet war plans in Afghanistan. Already under pressure from Congress and conservative activists to expand its support to the mujaheddin, the Reagan administration moved in response to this intelligence to open up its high-technology arsenal to aid the Afghan rebels.

Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujaheddin rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.

The move to upgrade aid to the mujaheddin roughly coincided with the well-known decision in 1986 to provide the mujaheddin with sophisticated, U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Before the missiles arrived, however, those involved in the covert war wrestled with a wide-ranging and at times divisive debate over how far they should go in challenging the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Roots of the Rebellion

In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first -- and for many years the only -- presidential "finding" on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in "harassment" of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China's role has been one of the secret war's most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of Casey's back pocket," recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China's government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant -- 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf -- but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

Beginning in 1984, Soviet forces in Afghanistan began to experiment with new and more aggressive tactics against the mujaheddin, based on the use of Soviet special forces, called the Spetsnaz, in helicopter-borne assaults on Afghan rebel supply lines. As these tactics succeeded, Soviet commanders pursued them increasingly, to the point where some U.S. congressmen who traveled with the mujaheddin -- including Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) and Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) -- believed that the war might turn against the rebels.

The new Soviet tactics reflected a perception in the Kremlin that the Red Army was in danger of becoming bogged down in Afghanistan and needed to take decisive steps to win the war, according to sensitive intelligence that reached the Reagan administration in 1984 and 1985, Western officials said. The intelligence came from the upper reaches of the Soviet Defense Ministry and indicated that Soviet hard-liners were pushing a plan to attempt to win the Afghan war within two years, sources said.

The new war plan was to be implemented by Gen. Mikhail Zaitsev, who was transferred from the prestigious command of Soviet forces in Germany to run the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the spring of 1985, just as Mikhail Gorbachev was battling hard-line rivals to take power in a Kremlin succession struggle.

Cracking the Kremlin's Strategy

The intelligence about Soviet war plans in Afghanistan was highly specific, according to Western sources. The Soviets intended to deploy one-third of their total Spetsnaz forces in Afghanistan -- nearly 2,000 "highly trained and motivated" paratroops, according to Yousaf. In addition, the Soviets intended to dispatch a stronger KGB presence to assist the special forces and regular troops, and they intended to deploy some of the Soviet Union's most sophisticated battlefield communications equipment, referred to by some as the "Omsk vans" -- mobile, integrated communications centers that would permit interception of mujaheddin battlefield communications and rapid, coordinated aerial attacks on rebel targets, such as the kind that were demoralizing the rebels by 1984.

At the Pentagon, U.S. military officers pored over the intelligence, considering plans to thwart the Soviet escalation, officials said. The answers they came up with, said a Western official, were to provide "secure communications [for the Afghan rebels], kill the gunships and the fighter cover, better routes for [mujaheddin] infiltration, and get to work on [Soviet] targets" in Afghanistan, including the Omsk vans, through the use of satellite reconnaissance and increased, specialized guerrilla training.

"There was a demand from my friends [in the CIA] to capture a vehicle intact with this sort of communications," recalled Yousaf, referring to the newly introduced mobile Soviet facilities. Unfortunately, despite much effort, Yousaf said, "we never succeeded in that."

"Spetsnaz was key," said Vincent Cannistraro, a CIA operations officer who was posted at the time as director of intelligence programs at the National Security Council. Not only did communications improve, but the Spetsnaz forces were willing to fight aggressively and at night. The problem, Cannistraro said, was that as the Soviets moved to escalate, the U.S. aid was "just enough to get a very brave people killed" because it encouraged the mujaheddin to fight but did not provide them with the means to win.

Conservatives in the Reagan administration and especially in Congress saw the CIA as part of the problem. Humphrey, the former senator and a leading conservative supporter of the mujaheddin, found the CIA "really, really reluctant" to increase the quality of support for the Afghan rebels to meet Soviet escalation. For their part, CIA officers felt the war was not going as badly as some skeptics thought, and they worried that it might not be possible to preserve secrecy in the midst of a major escalation. A sympathetic U.S. official said the agency's key decision-makers "did not question the wisdom" of the escalation, but were "simply careful."

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, and national security adviser Robert D. McFarlane signed an extensive annex, augmenting the original Carter intelligence finding that focused on "harassment" of Soviet occupying forces, according to several sources. Although it covered diplomatic and humanitarian objectives as well, the new, detailed Reagan directive used bold language to authorize stepped-up covert military aid to the mujaheddin, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal.

New Covert U.S. Aid

The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, according to Yousaf -- as well as what he called a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. At any one time during the Afghan fighting season, as many as 11 ISI teams trained and supplied by the CIA accompanied the mujaheddin across the border to supervise attacks, according to Yousaf and Western sources. The teams attacked airports, railroads, fuel depots, electricity pylons, bridges and roads, the sources said.

CIA and Pentagon specialists offered detailed satellite photographs and ink maps of Soviet targets around Afghanistan. The CIA station chief in Islamabad ferried U.S. intercepts of Soviet battlefield communications.

Other CIA specialists and military officers supplied secure communications gear and trained Pakistani instructors on how to use it. Experts on psychological warfare brought propaganda and books. Demolitions experts gave instructions on the explosives needed to destroy key targets such as bridges, tunnels and fuel depots. They also supplied chemical and electronic timing devices and remote control switches for delayed bombs and rockets that could be shot without a mujaheddin rebel present at the firing site.

The new efforts focused on strategic targets such as the Termez Bridge between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "We got the information like current speed of the water, current depth of the water, the width of the pillars, which would be the best way to demolish," Yousaf said. In Washington, CIA lawyers debated whether it was legal to blow up pylons on the Soviet side of the bridge as opposed to the Afghan side, in keeping with the decision not to support military action across the Soviet border, a Western official said.

Despite several attempts, Afghan rebels trained in the new program never brought the Termez Bridge down, though they did damage and destroy other targets, such as pipelines and depots, in the sensitive border area, Western and Pakistani sources said.

The most valuable intelligence provided by the Americans was the satellite reconnaissance, Yousaf said. Soon the wall of Yousaf's office was covered with detailed maps of Soviet targets in Afghanistan such as airfields, armories and military buildings. The maps came with CIA assessments of how best to approach the target, possible routes of withdrawal, and analysis of how Soviet troops might respond to an attack. "They would say there are the vehicles, and there is the [river bank], and there is the tank," Yousaf said.

CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujaheddin in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons, Yousaf and Western officials said.

The first antiaircraft systems used by the mujaheddin were the Swiss-made Oerlikon heavy gun and the British-made Blowpipe missile, according to Yousaf and Western sources. When these proved ineffective, the United States sent the Stinger. Pakistani officers traveled to the United States for training on the Stinger in June 1986 and then set up a secret mujaheddin Stinger training facility in Rawalpindi, complete with an electronic simulator made in the United States. The simulator allowed mujaheddin trainees to aim and fire at a large screen without actually shooting off expensive missiles, Yousaf said. The screen marked the missile's track and calculated whether the trainee would have hit his airborne target.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of such training and battlefield intelligence depended on the mujaheddin themselves; their performance and willingness to employ disciplined tactics varied greatly. Yousaf considered the aid highly valuable, although persistently marred by supplies of weapons such as the Blowpipe that failed miserably on the battlefield.

At the least, the escalation on the U.S. side initiated with Reagan's 1985 National Security Directive helped to change the character of the Afghan war, intensifying the struggle and raising the stakes for both sides. This change led U.S. officials to confront a difficult question that had legal, military, foreign policy and even moral implications: In taking the Afghan covert operation more directly to the Soviet enemy, how far should the United States be prepared to go?

(c) 'Washington Post', 1992. Posted for Fair Use Only

Send this article to a friend! {Does not work with all email programs...}

We're free, but we do need money...

Emperor's Clothes does not charge a subscription fee. But of course nothing is free.

We rely mainly on volunteer labor. Nevertheless there are plenty of bills. For example, the cost of Lexis, our search engine, has doubled. Lexis is the best method of rapidly locating news stories from several thousand sources over the past twenty years. It is probably the best political research tool ever available. But now it costs twice as much.

We rely on our readers for contributions. If you like what we're trying to do, please help.

Please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)

Or if you have access to a computer, please go to our secure server at https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php

Or you can call us at l 617 916-1705 between 9:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Eastern Time (USA) and Bob will take your credit card information over the phone.

Thanks for reading Emperor's Clothes.
 
.
1984-1994: CIA Funds Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan
The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.” For instance, children are “taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines.” Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban will still be using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books.) [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2002; CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 5/6/2002] A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads the textbook program. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierre’s work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA. Unocal will pay Gouttierre to work with the Taliban (see December 1997) and he will host visits of Taliban leaders to the US, including trips in 1997 and 1999 (see December 4, 1997 and July-August 1999). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328]
 
.
and you say dont blame all the things on CIA. they have resources and they do every dirty thing on earth which fulfil their needs. they are our enemies and they will do every thing do destablize us.
 
.
Kindly read my post in context to the post I was responding to and it will be self explanatory. Furthermore, can I ask you, what was the reason for the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan? What does Afghanistan has that is so attractive for the super powers? Think about it.

Whoa! You think Afghanistan is a magical land that attracts super powers?

Simply Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to help Najibulla government. They wanted to stop radical Islam from wresting Afghanistan away from Soviet socialism. Further more it was a direct threat to the bordering Soviet Islamic republics if Afghanistan fell to the extremists.

But the wars weren't just or righteous, correct? and that's the whole argument.

According to you people I think some wars are justifiable like the war in Palestine
 
.

According to speaker the site where he got these photos has changed & these are not available there anymore.
Below is the link to video from which the photo on right is taken:-
www.youtu.be/uLEqjpHVPhM

=
=
=

Fake times imprinted in middle of photos ... different from time at the bottom... WHY ??? Bcoz the time at bottom didn't fit in well with time-line of the flight departures & other alleged timelines...

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/photos/airport.htm

=
=
=

Another surprise photo:- Atta still alive after 911:-
http://911review.org/atta_alive_jetport2.gif

=
=

Videos of individual speakers are available. Must watch.
=

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception - Trailer - YouTube

=

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering 10 Years of Deception - Preview - YouTube
 
.
............

Those pictures are from TWO cameras, the one on the right has a wide angle lens, but not the one on the left. The time of the two shots is also different, the woman in the purple shirt having moved further away from the metal detector arch, so the picture on the right was taken a few moments later.
 
.
OOOOOooo how could I miss that... I must be really dumb... :) I know ppl have moved.

u don't have 2 cameras so close to each other. Besides those who released these pics claimed so...
 
.
OOOOOooo how could I miss that... I must be really dumb... :) I know time is different & ppl have moved.

u don't have 2 cameras so close to each other.

Yes, several cameras can be in close vicinity, with different lenses and zoom capabilities.

PS for your edit:

Where has it been claimed that it was the same security camera?
 
.
Original photo of M.Atta at a gas station dated one month after 911....
-


.
.
.
.
.

FBI cropped ALL the pictures to hide the date on those photos & claimed they were taken a day before D-Day... (see link below)

FBI — Boston Division Seeks Assistance

Mala-fide is evident by the fact that day shown is "Monday" ... Whichever way we read the date on picture, Neither 11-Oct-01 nor 10-November-01 were Monday. But Sep-10th was a Monday.

So in a hurry to photoshop these photos to suit their concocted story,, "they" got the day right as Monday BUT messed up the dates...

=
=
=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQguLmOEGYM
 
.
^^^ Is the date and time set correctly on the recording machine? Is that sunshine through the door seen in the back at 8:30 pm, really? November 10, 2001 was a Saturday, not a Monday, BTW.

The only conclusion is that the date/time stamp on the machine is incorrect.
 
.
He says, "...it was a staged crime scene...", "If they can fool us once they can fool us again too"
,,, ALL events blatantly depicted on main stream media in a particular perspective are also "STAGED" ... !!! , to mould sheep's mind in a particular way,
=

=
=

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11:-
=
Civil Engineer:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jon Cole - YouTube
Professor of Religious Studies:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Graeme MacQueen - YouTube
A Chemist:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Kevin Ryan Day 3 - YouTube
An Architect:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Richard Gage - YouTube
Associate Professor of Chemistry:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Niels Harrit - YouTube
A Physicist & Mathematician:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Chandler - YouTube
Ex-Senator Alaska:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Mike Gravel - YouTube
Professor-Public Administration:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Day 1 Lance DeHaven-Smith - YouTube
Professor of philosophy of religion:- The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Ray Griffin Day 4 - YouTube
.............................................. The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Ray Griffin - Day 1 - YouTube

-
-
-

Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada.
=
John McMurtry - Why the Facts of 9/11 are Suppressed - YouTube
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Whoa! You think Afghanistan is a magical land that attracts super powers?

Simply Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to help Najibulla government. They wanted to stop radical Islam from wresting Afghanistan away from Soviet socialism. Further more it was a direct threat to the bordering Soviet Islamic republics if Afghanistan fell to the extremists.

I cannot be bothered to explain the significance of Afghanistan in this global arena especially when there is tons of information out there. Super powers do not simply invade countries just to put their puppets in place, they buy the ones who are in power. It is faster, cheaper and more reliable!



According to you people I think some wars are justifiable like the war in Palestine

No! We want Israel to return Palestinian land and that will be the end of it. It is Israel that wants a war.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom