Now, this isn’t all that unexpected. One of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, News.com, not exactly your typical liberal or even politically neutral news online, did a quick tally of the imams in Australia’s Victoria State, and found that 8 out of 10 of them refused to identify Osama bin Laden as the man responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Needless to say, the journalist stated that the overwhelming denial was even in the face of Osama’s own confession on video. However, he did acknowledge that the imams all condemned terrorist attacks including suicide bombers.
News.com is known to be a bit of a rightwing newspaper, so while not ignoring its articles, some of which are very good, I would normally deduct a little percentage off its slant on some articles to get a more balanced sense of what’s really the case.
If my memory doesn’t fail me I recall rather vividly that immediately after 9/11, the Americans were at a loss as to who had done the terrible thing – and they didn’t mean the crazies who flew the aircraft into the buildings. They were wondering which Islamist organization had been responsible.
Several days later, the Americans pointed their fingers at Osama bin Laden. How did they know it was al Qaeda? God only knows, but the likely case could be that Osama and al Qaeda had attacked the USS Cole at Aden, Yemen and a couple of US Embassies in East Africa not too long prior to the 9/11 event.
But of course it doesn’t necessarily mean that because Organization A had attacked you 4 to 5 times just before the biggie, it would be definitely Org A that did the granddaddy of all attacks. The USA is hated by a number of terrorist groups that were/are of Saudi origin.
Could it have been a group other than al Qaeda? What if that group has close links with the Saudi royalty? Wouldn’t it be more than embarrassing for both the Saudi and US government, because the American public would definitely demand that the US military called Saudi Arabia to account? That would have been disastrous for American national interests, to alienate the Saudi government and people.
The US Administration only alienates or wallops those not dancing to its tune, whereas the Saudi monarchy is dependent upon the US government for its survival as the core of authority in Saudi Arabia, a situation which suits the USA to a 'T'.
BTW, was there any truth in the story that a large number of Saudis were quickly flown out of the USA in a special jet when all other flights were banned or grounded? I recall also that whenever questioned, Prince Nayef of Saudi Arabia, the powerful Minister of the Interior, would straightaway blame the Mossad.
The Mossad may be responsible for a lot of sinister crimes but I doubt the Israelis would be so crazy or stupid as to plan or instigate such an attack on the USA. It would be national suicide for Israel. Like Saudi Arabia, Israel's very survival is dependent upon the USA's goodwill and generosity. BTW, Prince Nayef is known to have close links with some Saudi clerics who aren't very favourable towards the Americans.
Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and UNSCOM inspector, and Middle East director for the background-check agency Owens Online, wrote in the Weekly Standard that:
"... What Prince Nayef does have, thanks to his perch as interior minister, is a better feel for the mood of the populace than anyone else in the kingdom. He sees the Islamist storm brewing and is trying to co-opt its energy to keep the House of Saud, or at least himself, in power."
"... Nayef is keenly aware that the widespread sympathy in Saudi Arabia for Osama bin Laden is a response not to bin Laden's personal charisma but to his jihadist mission, explicitly framed as obedience to the true Islam. ... Prince Nayef, it seems, has decided to deal with this threat by riding the jihadist wave." [...]
Wouldn’t it then be convenient for the US Administration to first blame al Qaeda and go after it because those arseholes have a list of crimes on their plates anyway, and at the same time do two other things, satisfy the American demand for revenge blood and show that President Bush was on top of everything. Once the bullsh*t was taken care of, then quietly, in collaboration with the Saudi government, pursued the other responsible group without the media even knowing about it?
Why do I suppose this could be a plausible case?
I recall very vividly that Tony Blair, in supporting Bush’s threat to attack and invade Afghanistan, declared that they, presumably the US and UK, “have evidence” that Osama did it. That evidence was never ever produced, not even when the Talibans demanded for it after the Americans threatened them to hand over Osama. I reckon the evidence was never produced at that stage because there was no such evidence.
I recall also that strangely Osama denied he was responsible. Now, this was a bloke who wouldn’t hesitate to boast he killed so and so. Why then, in the most notorious terrorist act of all times, would the Kahuna of all terrorists declared he wasn’t responsible? In fact, by claiming responsibility for the act, he would be BIG in the eyes of anti-American Islamist groups. Does anyone think for a second that Osama was scared?
Months later, after the Americans had invaded Afghanistan, they found, by some strange coincidence, a perfectly made video tape lying in a hut or whatever, showing Osama laughing and boasting, or so as the audio of the tape indicated, about being responsible for the 9/11 attack, exceeding his wildest dreams. They finally “found” the “evidence” that Blair said they had months before.
Some idiots must have been playing with a time machine, and forgotten to inform Tony Blair.
That is why I reckon some other Saudi anti-American group or groups did it - these blokes could have been quietly executed by now. But I reckon also that once Osama saw he was held responsible for 9/11 he stopped rejecting the responsibility because this is a man who is not shy to tell the world he kills, and loves to kill Americans, and the 9/11 notoriety would have raised his standing in the crazy world of the Islamist extremists.
So, sex, lies and videotape eh? OK, we have talked about lies and videotape but where's the sex? Well, wasn't everyone screwing everyone? Besides, how could I get you guys to read this post if I don't mention sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment