My Epiphany on 9/11 and Anthrax
In my analysis of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, I have struggled with the motives for these attacks. The overall view is that the 9/11 attacks were a new "Pearl Harbor" for the 21st century, that allowed the US to escalate defense buildups and launch new wars. But more specifically, what was the motive of the people in the US government who planned these attacks? To provoke an attack on Afghanistan? To provoke attack on Iraq? And why has the CIA been relatively outpsoken against the Iraq war, if that was a goal of the 9/11 attacks and they facilitated the 9/11 attacks? And why wasn't more of an attempt made to frame Iraq for 9/11 if that was the goal?
My epiphany is this:
1) the 9/11 attacks were facilitated by the CIA and the FBI in order to provoke an attack on Afghanistan. This was done because the CIA had built up the Al Qaeda legend which was based in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan was needed so the CIA could have more of a hand in controlling opium production. The FBI looked the other way because they were also involved in the drug trade. Oil was a secondary consideration for the CIA and the FBI.
2) the CIA did not want to go into Iraq because it detracted from the significance of their Al Qaeda legend: the evil super-terrorists who threatened the world.
3) the Bush administration, specifically the Defense Department, wanted badly to go into Iraq. This is very clear. The reasons were for control of oil and to help the security of Israel.
4) the 9/11 attacks, clearly being an "Al Qaeda" operation did not suit the Iraq invasion agenda. This is where the anthrax attacks came in. The anthrax attacks were an add-on by the Defense Intelligence Agency, to implicate Iraq as working with the 9/11 terrorists. Anthrax of course was one of the big deals that everyone remembered from the First Gulf War-- a bioweapon that was well-known to be made by Iraq.
5) thus, the original 9/11 attacks were a CIA facilitated operation designed to provoke an Afghanistan invasion. The anthrax attacks were not CIA, but rather DIA, who wanted to make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
One thing is clear, the person or persons behind the anthrax attacks was/were clearly framing muslims. My theory is this was done as an afterthought to try to link 9/11 to Iraq. Remember, on 9/11, Rumsfeld was asking for linkages for the 9/11 attacks and Iraq. So this is no great leap of imagination, and it explains a great deal.
My epiphany is this:
1) the 9/11 attacks were facilitated by the CIA and the FBI in order to provoke an attack on Afghanistan. This was done because the CIA had built up the Al Qaeda legend which was based in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan was needed so the CIA could have more of a hand in controlling opium production. The FBI looked the other way because they were also involved in the drug trade. Oil was a secondary consideration for the CIA and the FBI.
2) the CIA did not want to go into Iraq because it detracted from the significance of their Al Qaeda legend: the evil super-terrorists who threatened the world.
3) the Bush administration, specifically the Defense Department, wanted badly to go into Iraq. This is very clear. The reasons were for control of oil and to help the security of Israel.
4) the 9/11 attacks, clearly being an "Al Qaeda" operation did not suit the Iraq invasion agenda. This is where the anthrax attacks came in. The anthrax attacks were an add-on by the Defense Intelligence Agency, to implicate Iraq as working with the 9/11 terrorists. Anthrax of course was one of the big deals that everyone remembered from the First Gulf War-- a bioweapon that was well-known to be made by Iraq.
5) thus, the original 9/11 attacks were a CIA facilitated operation designed to provoke an Afghanistan invasion. The anthrax attacks were not CIA, but rather DIA, who wanted to make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
One thing is clear, the person or persons behind the anthrax attacks was/were clearly framing muslims. My theory is this was done as an afterthought to try to link 9/11 to Iraq. Remember, on 9/11, Rumsfeld was asking for linkages for the 9/11 attacks and Iraq. So this is no great leap of imagination, and it explains a great deal.
posted by spooked at 2:51 PM
1 Comments:
"In my analysis of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, I have struggled with the motives for these attacks."
I have too, but I think it's very important to isolate analysis of 9/11 events from the questions about motive, means and method. It's intriguing to try and connect the dots, but these should be separate discussions. One can speculate, but doesn't need to have figured out who, what why and how to sustain legitimate doubts about the official version of events that day. We can discuss the anomalies of 9/11, or we can get into who was behind them, but those are separate discussions. This is where 9/11 questioners usually fall for the red herrings when they enumerate the troubling facts of that day. They're met with "OK so what happened then, you think the President bombed the US." Suddenly the person asking reasonable questions has the burden of explaining everything else.
Post a Comment
<< Home