Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: L'avvocato del principe

Beh, questa notizia è veramente strabiliante. La traggo da "The Silence
about September 11", di William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Perspective,
Monday 21 April 2003: 
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042203A.shtml
[...]
The families of those slain on 9/11 [...] have sued the government of Saudi
Arabia for civil damages totaling $1 trillion, accusing them of harboring
and aiding the terrorists who took down the Towers. There is profound merit
to their claim, as 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 came
from Saudi Arabia, as does Osama bin Laden and the Wahabbi sect of Islam
that motivates their jihad. The suit seems logical and reasonable. It is
disturbing, then, to consider the legal team hired by the Saudi government
to defend against the charges. Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi
defense minister, is being represented in court by the prestigious Houston
law firm Baker Botts.
The 'Baker' in Baker Botts is James Baker III, Secretary of State to George
Bush Sr. and prime fighter for Bush Jr. in the Florida election brawl. Baker
also shares another employer with Bush Sr.: Massive multinational
corporation The Carlyle Group, owner of the arms manufacturer United
Defense, which is making a gold-plated mint off the war in Iraq.
I'd be gratified if someone could explain all this away. I could sleep at
night.
[...]
Eh, già: sarei "gratified" anch'io. O anche questo sarà un caso? La Bechtel
si becca gli appalti in Iraq perché è "affidabile", e non perché ha "amici"
in alto loco? E lo studio legale di Baker difende Bin Abdul Aziz solo perché
"sono bravi", e non
per garantire il silenzio su alcuni dettagli della complicatissima vicenda
dell'11-9? Mah. Qui mi pare sia ora di buttare a mare la teoria del
"complotto" (una "fonte" unica non ne spiegherebbe la "complessità
semantica"), e cominciare a ragionare partendo non dalla difficilissima
individuazione del "cui prodest?", ma dalla domanda *come?*. Shalom.
Namib

 individuazione del "cui prodest?", ma dalla domanda *come?*. Shalom.
Namib, ciao come stai?
Cosa vuol dire "cui prodest?" (scusa l'ignoranza ma il latino non l'ho mai
studiato).
E la domanda *come* a cosa si riferirebbe?
Spiegati meglio perfavore.
Guelfo

 E la domanda *come* a cosa si riferirebbe?
Come è avvenuto l'attentato? Chi l'ha ideato, operativamente parlando?
*Quanti* complici, ovvero quali entità (o FRAZIONI di entità)
politico-economiche, l'hanno posto in essere (o "lasciato accadere")? Qual è
il ruolo di al-Qa'eda? Quali sono (e quali ERANO) i fini *immediati* di
al-Qa'eda? Qual è il ruolo dell'Arabia Saudita? Quale, quello
dell'Afghanistan (o dei militari afghani)? Quale, quello del Pakistan (via
ISI)? Quale, quello degli USA? Shalom.
Namib

 ISI)? Quale, quello degli USA? Shalom.
Beh, considerando che dei 19 terroristi attentatori, 7 sono ancora vivi. E'
difficile sapere chi erano in realtà. Ma credo che BinLaden abbia avuto un
ruolo, ti ricordi il video dove si vantava dell'accaduto con i suoi amici?
Però ci sono un sacco di stranissime zone di ombra nelle indagini....
Ciao

 stato Israele. Sempre che siano stati gl'arabi di Al-Qaeda.
Israele!? O usi il termine "beneficiario" in modo ironico (= destinatario di
una minaccia?), o non comprendo il senso della tua conclusione. Chiariscimi
il tuo pensiero, per favore. Shalom.
Namib

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:s4Zoa.68191$T34.1...@news2.tin.it...

 Scusa Namib,
se ho ben capito tu vorresti discutere di come sia stato possibile attuare
l'attentato alle torri gemelle partendo dal presupposto che, come a me è
sembrato chiaro dal primo istante, Osama bin Laden non può averlo
organizzato da solo? E' questo che chiedi? Scusa se te lo chiedo ma non
vorrei freaintendere.
Augh!

 "complotto" (una "fonte" unica non ne spiegherebbe la "complessitā


 All'elenco si deve aggiungere, per esempio, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, la donna
che siede alla Corte Suprema: dichiaratamente fiera del suo ebraismo. Vero
che fu nominata a quel posto - Corte Costituzionale, il luogo supremo della
giustizia Usa - da Bill Clinton nel 1997. Ma ciò non significa che gli
orientamenti della signora sino diversi da quelli dei falchi scelti da Bush.
Anzi. Nella fedeltà alle direttive del rebbe, e al suo progetto
millenarista,  gli ebrei che contano nella politica dimostrano un'ammirevole
bipartisanship. Si prenda, al Congresso, il senatore (democratico,
Connecticut) Joseph Lieberman.
E' stato candidato alla vicepresidenza a fianco di Al Gore: avessero vinto I
democratici, sarebbe stato lui a garantire che la politica Usa verso Israele
restasse la stessa. Come del resto, sorveglia che i goym democratici non si
díscostino dalle "direttive", magari - non si sa mai, un partito di
sinistra - esibendo un fastidioso pacifismo, anche il senatore Carl Levin
(democratico, Michigan) che presiede la Commissione delle Forze Armate al
Senato. Al Senato, Levin ha pronunciato un commosso elogio degli "ideali"
del Chabad Lubavitch.
Destra o sinistra, democratici o repubblicani, i membri della comunità
ebraica non fanno nemmeno finta di nutrire posizioni diverse sulla materia
essenziale. Lo ha confermato un articolo del Jewish Times (di Baltimora, del
26 ottobre 2001). Il titolo del pezzo, "Ari Fleischer, reform Lubavitch", è
di per sé istruttivo: "come quasi tutti gli alti responsabili della Casa
Bianca, la vita del segretario alla stampa Ari Fleischer [repubblicano] è
stata un vortice incessante dall' 11 settembre. Però la settimana scorsa s'è
preso alcune ore di vacanza per andare a ritirare il premio elargitogli
dall'American Friends of Lubavitch, e per aiutare ad accrescere
l'influenza ebraica, a cui il gruppo dedica i suoi sforzi, al Campidoglio.
Sono sforzi
che Fleischer, già alto funzionario del Congresso, sostiene fin dall'inizio.
"Il gruppo [ossia Chabad] gli ha conferito l'onorificenza per la "Young
Leadership ", mentre il senatore Joseph Lieberman è stato l'ospite d'onore
della grande cena successiva, che ha attratto centinaia di pezzi grossi
della politica a Washington, funzionari del Campidoglio e miliardari
washingtoniani.
Fleischer è stato uno dei primi capi e co-presidenti del Capitol Jewish
forum di Chabad, che unisce deputati, senatori e personale del Congresso e
dell'Amministrazione per lo studio degli eventi ebraici ..... Con grande
senso dell'unità sopra le barriere partitiche, sia Fleischer sia Lieberman
hanno elevato eloquenti lodi sull'attiva opera di Chabad volta a valorizzare
l'armata dei giovani impegnati come funzionari nel governo e nel lavoro
politico".
Il Jerusalem Post, il 22 ottobre 2001, è stato anche più esplicito. "Le cene
del Shabbat di Shemtov [il rabbino-controllore] riuniscono ebrei che
sarebbero avversari politici naturali nei dibattiti della CNN".
 E cita Thomas Kahn, pezzo grosso dei democratici alla camera bassa:
"Non c'è nessuno [più di Shemtov] che sia così generalmente rispettato e
cordialmente ricevuto al Congresso, nell'amministrazione e nel corpo
diplomatico. In gran parte [Shemtov] lo deve semplicemente alla sua forza di
personalità e anche come tributo a Chabad".
Tutti i personaggi sopra nominati presenziano regolarmente ai "seminari" di
Chabad che il rabbino Shemtov tiene al Campidoglio: anche l'anonima "armata"
dei funzionari "giovani", di secondo piano ma con accesso a personalità e
informazioni di primaria importanza, nelle cucine della politica di
Washington.
Il viceministro Wolfowitz, il controllore del bilancio Difesa Zackheim, l'ex
vice segretario al Tesoro Stuart Eizenstat sono dichiaratamente dei
Lubavitcher essi stessi; ma anche chi non lo è simpatizza col movimento e i
suoi fini - e nessuno ha mai accennato a contestarlo. Una vastissima rete di
potere e d'influenza, e a maglie strette, controlla il governo degli Stati
Uniti e fornisce a chi di dovere (al rabbino) tutte, anche le minime,
informazioni necessarie perché la grande America partecipi al progetto
messianico e militare.
Non si sa, infine, se anche Alan Greenspan partecipi ai seminari dei
fanatici. Come capo israelita della Federai Reserve, la banca centrale Usa e
dunque controllore dei tassi d'interesse, egli controlla praticamente ogni
politica e procedura del governo stesso, ed è in costante contatto con la
Casa Bianca.

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:s4Zoa.68191$T34.1...@news2.tin.it...

Molti americani conoscono bene la situazione in Israele di guerra civile, e
sono stati indottrinati da una stampa filo-ebraica a credere che Israele
abbia ragione in questa guerra, dove i Palestinesi sono "nemici".
Pensa al furore degli americani, presi di mira da un attentato terroristico
terribile ad opera di fanatici arabi. Adesso anche quegli americani non
interessati al conflitto in Palestina si sentono per via diretta (sono stati
toccati personalmente dal terrorismo "arabo" e "fondamentalista islamico"),
più vicini a Israele nella loro "giusta" lotta in Palestina.
Se pensi poi, che le dirette conseguenze dell'11 Settembre siano state
l'invasione dell'Irak (grosso nemico d'Israele), e le minacce a Siria (altro
nemico d'Israele), capisci come l'11 Settembre abbia in qualche modo aiutato
Israele nella guerra contro i suoi nemici.

 Monday 21 April 2003: 
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042203A.shtml
lo so che hai messo il link ma i siti vanno e vengono, per cui per dar
modo di salvarselo posto per intero l'articolo.
The Silence about September 11 
By William Rivers Pitt 
t r u t h o u t | Perspective 
Monday 21 April 2003 
They call it "The fog of war" for a reason. A lot of things get lost in
the fire and the smoke that should not be forgotten, and yet they are,
spent and cast aside like depleted uranium shell casings left to roast
on a dusty desert roadside. In this relatively quiet space between war
in Iraq and whatever battle zone the Bush administration will next come
to conjure, it serves us to remember a few home facts that should never,
ever be lost.
I have been giving a lot of talks lately at colleges and for
organizations about the Iraq war. Always in my remarks I ask the same
question. "It has been almost 20 months since the attacks of September
11. It has been over 570 days since the Towers fell. The 9/11 attacks
are the principle reason, according to the Bush administration, which
justifies the war. Can anyone tell me why those attacks happened? Has
anyone in the Bush administration or the media come forth with a
reasonable explanation besides 'Evildoers who hate our freedom?'"
Every time I get blank stares, and always a few sets of widened eyes, as
if my question caused them to suddenly realize that no such explanation
has ever been put forward.
The fact is that the Bush administration has labored mightily and long
to make sure no such answers are coming. They fought the creation of an
independent investigative body because they wanted to be able to choose
the chairman. Once they were gifted this privilege, they abused it with
the appalling nomination of Henry Kissinger. If you want a fair and open
examination of facts, regardless of shadowy loyalties and compromising
corporate connections, you do not choose Kissinger. If you want the
master of the black bag and the black op, the undisputed heavyweight
champion of Washington insiderdom, the gold standard for cover-up and
cover-your-ass, you cannot do better than Henry. This choice told us
everything we need to know about the Bush administration's desire to get
to the bottom of 9/11.
When I ask my question at these talks, someone in the audience always
demands an answer. More often than not, I tell them about Zbigniew
Brzezinski and the Afghan Trap. In 1979, Brzezinski was serving as Jimmy
Carter's National Security Advisor, and he decided the time had come to
challenge the Soviet Union in their own back yard. At this time,
Afghanistan was ruled by a communist puppet regime of the Soviets called
the People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, or PDPA. Brzezinski
instituted a plan to train fundamentalist Islamic mujeheddin fighters in
Pakistan, and sent those fighters to attack the PDPA. The idea was not
to destroy the PDPA, but to make the Soviets so nervous about the
stability of their puppet regime that they would invade Afghanistan to
protect it. Brzezinski wanted, at bottom, to hand the Soviet Union their
own debilitating Vietnam.
The plan worked. The Soviets invaded in 1979, and over the next ten
years spent its blood and treasure trying to defeat the Afghan warriors
who banded together to defend their country. By 1989 millions of Afghan
civilians had been killed, millions more had been internally displaced,
and hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops had been killed or wounded.
In the process, the nation of Afghanistan was torn to pieces. Worst of
all, the United States – which energetically worked to start the war,
and which armed and funded the Afghan mujeheddin once the war was
underway – did absolutely nothing to aid ravaged Afghanistan once the
Soviets withdrew. Brzezinski proudly described the Afghan Trap in an
interview he gave to a French publication called Le Nouvel Observateur
in 1998:
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began
to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet
intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to
President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote
a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the
effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to
regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I
wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the
USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry
on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about
the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the
liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
How innocent we were in 1998. How gravely we misjudged the dire
ramifications of empowering the Taliban. How profoundly we
underestimated the strength of the "stirred-up Moslems" we armed and
trained with American tax dollars. What a price we have paid.
You see, the Afghan Trap led to the incredibly vicious civil war in
Afghanistan that came once the Soviets withdrew. By 1996, the Taliban –
made up of our secret allies in the Soviet war - had won the civil war
and controlled the nation. The Afghan Trap likewise gave birth to a man
named Osama bin Laden, who became a demigod to the Taliban and the
Afghan people for his service in the war against the Soviets we started
in the first place. The combination of our efforts to begin that war,
the social annihilation in Afghanistan caused by that war, the Taliban's
rise, and the succor they gave bin Laden, led like an arrow to the
attacks of September 11 and the dire estate we currently endure.
How ironic that Brzezinski's desire to end one Cold War gave birth to
another. Actions, I tell the listeners at these talks, have
consequences. You stir up a hornet's nest, best you expect to get stung.
Boy, did we ever get stung.
The actions of a Carter administration official in 1979 can hardly be
laid at the feet of George W. Bush and his administration, of course. It
is telling, however, that no one in that administration has made an
effort to put 9/11 into the historical context to which it belongs. Why
such an oversight? Perhaps the folks in the administration believe
Americans too dull-witted to comprehend the complex Cold War motivations
that gave birth to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Perhaps they are
afraid to speak of such things, because it suggests that we
inadvertently bought the trouble that came two Septembers ago to find
us.
Then again, perhaps the administration was engaged in similar
gamesmanship before 9/11. Perhaps they are afraid to address the issue
at all. The nomination of Kissinger to the 9/11 committee certainly
suggests a desire on the administration's part to never, ever, ever have
the facts of that attack come fully to light. They do not want people to
know that Brzezinski's actions in 1979, and the naiveté regarding the
potential blowback from his decisions he displayed in 1998, was
compounded by the actions of the Bush administration in 2001. Brzezinski
asked in his interview what was more important in 1979: Ending the Cold
War or creating the Taliban? In the early days of the Bush
administration, a similar question was certainly asked - what is more
important in 2001: Gaining access to an incredibly lucrative energy
supply, or the dangers of threatening the Taliban?
A pipeline project, aimed at exploiting massive natural gas reserves
along the Caspian Sea in Turkmenistan, was revived by the Bush
administration when it arrived in Washington in January of 2001. The
pipeline project, which sought to bring oil and natural gas from
Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a warm water port, had been the
brainchild of American petroleum giant Unocal for much of the 1990s.
After the destruction of two American embassies in Africa in 1998 by
Osama bin Laden, the Clinton administration forbade any American
companies from doing business with the Taliban, which had been
sheltering bin Laden in Afghanistan. Unocal's pipeline project was
frozen.
After the Bush administration came to power, reinvigorating the pipeline
project became a high-priority matter of policy. Assistant Secretary of
State Christina Rocca was dispatched to Pakistan to discuss the pipeline
with Taliban officials in August of 2001. Rocca, a career officer with
the CIA, had been deeply involved in Agency activities within
Afghanistan. A Pakistani foreign minister was present at the meeting,
and witnessed the exchange.
How does this pipeline relate to September 11th? The main obstacle to
the completion of the pipeline was the fact that it had to pass through
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The project would receive no
international support unless the Afghan government somehow became
legitimized. In bargaining for the pipeline, the Bush administration
demanded that the Taliban reinstate deposed King Mohammad Zahir Shah as
ruler of Afghanistan, and demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin
Laden for arrest. In return, the Taliban would reap untold billions in
profit from the pipeline. A central part of the Bush administration's
bargaining tactics involved threats of war if these conditions for the
legitimization of Afghanistan were not met.
The BBC of London reported on September 18th, 2001 of the existence of
war plans on Bush's desk aimed at Afghanistan. Niaz Naik, a former
Pakistani Foreign Secretary, stated that the war plans were slated for
October of 2001. Conditions set by the Bush administration to avoid war
involved the Taliban's handing over of bin Laden and the acceptance of
King Zahir Shah. Naik went so far as to doubt that America would hold
off on war even if these conditions were met.
The result was total disaster. The Bush administration fundamentally
misunderstood the Taliban regime, much the way Brzezinski did in 1998.
To bring back the King and hand bin Laden over to the West would have
been tantamount to suicide for the Taliban. The arrival of Shah would
shove them out of power, and handing bin Laden over to the West would
have been seen as a high crime to the Islamic world. Instead of
acquiescing to the hard-sell tactics of the Bush administration, the
Taliban unleashed Osama bin Laden upon America. They were going to lose
everything, and chose to attack first in the hope that all-out war would
break out in Central Asia and rally other Muslim nations to their cause.
Actions do indeed have consequences. The motivations behind 20 months of
silence regarding the cause of 9/11, along with the appalling nomination
of Kissinger as chief investigator, become far more clear.
The families of those slain on 9/11 have not taken all of this lying
down. They have sued the government of Saudi Arabia for civil damages
totaling $1 trillion, accusing them of harboring and aiding the
terrorists who took down the Towers. There is profound merit to their
claim, as 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 came from
Saudi Arabia, as does Osama bin Laden and the Wahabbi sect of Islam that
motivates their jihad. The suit seems logical and reasonable. It is
disturbing, then, to consider the legal team hired by the Saudi
government to defend against the charges. Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz,
the Saudi defense minister, is being represented in court by the
prestigious Houston law firm Baker Botts.
The 'Baker' in Baker Botts is James Baker III, Secretary of State to
George Bush Sr. and prime fighter for Bush Jr. in the Florida election
brawl. Baker also shares another employer with Bush Sr.: Massive
multinational corporation The Carlyle Group, owner of the arms
manufacturer United Defense, which is making a gold-plated mint off the
war in Iraq.
I'd be gratified if someone could explain all this away. I could sleep
at night.
The war we have waged against Iraq was justified to the American people
as being a necessary response to September 11. We were told Iraq had
terrible weapons that could kill us all, that Iraq was a major threat,
and that the country will be safer once the Hussein regime was fired.
The fact that we have found exactly zero weapons of mass destruction,
and the relative ease with which we destroyed Iraq's army, proves they
were no threat whatsoever. We went anyway, however, to make the world
safer at the point of our incredibly sharp sword.
Albert Einstein, arguably the most brilliant human being ever to draw
breath on planet Earth, defined insanity as "doing the same thing over
and over again expecting different results." America instigated a
horrible war in Afghanistan 24 years ago to make the world safer. We
have attacked and destroyed another Muslim nation purportedly for the
same purpose. One of these days we are going to realize that such
actions never serve the cause of peace, but only serve to perpetuate and
augment the horrors of this terrifying world. We will learn, for all
time, that actions have consequences.
In the meantime, though, we have silence about September. We have
evildoers who hate our freedom, and we have war after war after war,
instigated by an administration that has so very much to answer for. I
tell the people at my talks about all this, and they leave the room
quivering with rage. They have the answers, as do I, and God help the
administration because of it. Secrets love to whisper.
------- 
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books
- "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest
Sedition is Silence," now available at from Pluto Press. He teaches high
school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report. 
 
 
(*Editors Note | From day one the families of those killed on September
11th. have questioned the events leading up the attacks on the World
Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. They have
sought a just, fair and thorough investigation, they have been denied at
every turn. Moreover the entire issue has been utterly ignored by the US
commercial press and likewise by the American people. -- ma.)
Go To Original 
Statement of Mindy Kleinberg to the National Commission 
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 
t r u t h o u t | Statement 
March 31, 2003 
My name is Mindy Kleinberg. My husband Alan Kleinberg, 39 yrs old, was
killed in the WTC on September 11, 2001. As I testify here today about
the 9/11 attacks, I will begin by saying that my thoughts are very much
with the men and women who are involved in armed conflict overseas and
their families who wait patiently for them to return.
This war is being fought on two fronts, overseas as well as here on our
shores; this means that we are all soldiers in this fight against
terrorism. As the threat of terrorism mounts here in the United States,
the need to address the failures of September 11 is more important than
ever. It is an essential part of "lessons learned".
As such, this commission has an extremely important task before it. I am
here today to ask you, the commissioners, to help us understand how this
could have happened; help us understand where the breakdown was in our
nation's defense capabilities.
Where were we on the morning of September 11th? 
On the morning of September 11th my three-year-old son, Sam, and I
walked Jacob 10, and Lauren, 7 to the bus stop at about 8:40 a.m. It was
the fourth day of a new school year and you could still feel everyone's
excitement. It was such a beautiful day that Sam and I literally skipped
home oblivious to what was happening in NYC.
At around 8:55 I was confirming play date plans for Sam with a friend
when she said, "I can't believe what I am watching on TV, a plane has
just hit the World Trade Center." For some reason it did not register
with me until a few minutes later when I calmly asked, "what building
did you say?" "Oh that's Alan's building I have to call you back."
There was no answer when I tried to reach him at the office. By now my
house started filling with people--his mother, my parents, our sisters
and friends. The seriousness of the situation was beginning to register.
We spent the rest of the day calling hospitals, and the Red Cross and
any place else we could think of to see if we could find him.
I'll never forget thinking all day long, "how am I going to tell Jacob
and Lauren that their father was missing?"
They came home to a house filled with people but no Daddy. How were they
going to be able to wait calmly for his return? What if he was really
hurt? This was their hero, their king their best friend, their father.
The thoughts of that day replay over and over in our heads always
wishing for a different outcome.
We are trying to learn to live with the pain. We will never forget where
we were or how we felt on September 11th. But where was our government,
its agencies, and institutions prior to and on the morning of September
11th?
The Theory of Luck 
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence
agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have
to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of
September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the
9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over
again. Allow me to illustrate.
The SEC 
The terrorist's lucky streak began the week before September 11th with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC, in concert with
the United States intelligence agencies, has sophisticated software
programs that are used in "real-time" to watch both domestic and
overseas markets to seek out trends that may indicate a present or
future crime. In the week prior to September 11th both the SEC and U.S.
intelligence agencies ignored one major stock market indicator, one that
could have yielded valuable information with regard to the September
11th attacks.
On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September
11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the
two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these
orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both
Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such
large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These
investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September
11th attacks.
Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5
million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.
Why these aberrant trades were not discovered prior to 9/11? Who were
the individuals who placed these trades? Have they been investigated?
Who was responsible for monitoring these activities? Have those
individuals been held responsible for their inaction?
The INS 
Prior to 9/11, our US intelligence agencies should have stopped the 19
terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons, alone.
However, their failure to do so in 19 instances does not negate the luck
involved for the terrorists when it comes to their visa applications and
our Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.
With regard to the INS, the terrorists got lucky 15 individual times,
because 15 of the 19 hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably
denied.
Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and un-employed males.
They were, in short, the "classic over-stay candidates". A seasoned
former Consular officer stated in National Review magazine, "Single,
idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States
rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."
Yet these 19 young single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates
still received their visas." I am holding in my hand the applications of
the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete
and incorrect.
Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student"
failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution.
Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the US
wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the
terrorists listed their destination in the US as simply "hotel" or
"California" or "New York". One even listed his destination as "no".
Had the INS or State Department followed the law, at least 15 of the
hijackers would have been denied visas and would not have been in the
United States on September 11th, 2001.
Help us to understand how something as simple as reviewing forms for
completeness could have been missed at least 15 times. How many more
lucky terrorists gained unfettered access into this country? With no one
being held accountable, how do know this still isn't happening?
Airline and Airport Security 
On the morning of September 11th, the terrorists' luck commenced with
airline and airport security. When the 19 hijackers went to purchase
their tickets (with cash and/or credit cards) and to receive their
boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a
screening process. Luckily for those nine terrorists, they passed the
screening process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.
But, the terrorist's luck didn't end at the ticket counter; it also
accompanied them through airport security, as well. Because how else
would the hijackers get specifically contraband items such as
box-cutters, pepper spray or, according to one FAA executive summary, a
gun on those planes?
Finally, sadly for us, years of GAO recommendations to secure cockpit
doors were ignored making it all too easy for the hijackers to gain
access to the flight controls and carryout their suicide mission.
FAA and NORAD 
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear,
comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor
emergencies to full blown hijackings.
These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good
reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and
transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to
notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the
responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant
plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to
"intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the
pilot.
If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the
North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a
semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our
North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers
were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked,
loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."
Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of
September 11th.
Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example. 
American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45
a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane
occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became
unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the
plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter,
transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on
radar - even without their transponders).
Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines
reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of
injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly
clear that Flight 11 was an emergency. Yet, according to NORAD's
official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at
8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m.
-- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.
Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay
in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was
fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast
airspace?
Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in
notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are
unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC
Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not
scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight
that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in
Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C.
As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning
of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first
plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and
NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures .Who were
the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In
addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their
maximum speed.
Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of
engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within
moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before
they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.
Leadership 
Joint Chief Of Staff 
The acting Joint Chief of staff on Sept 11th was on the morning of
September 11th, he was having a routine meeting . Acting Joint Chief of
staff Myers stated that he saw a TV. report about a plane hitting the
WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went
ahead with his meeting. "Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit
by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. By the time he
came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.
Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief
of Staff? Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this
represents a breakdown of protocol.
Secretary of Defense 
The Secretary of Defense, was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77
crashed into the Pentagon.
As reported, Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside,
saw the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After
aiding the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'War Room'.
How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in
the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic
controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of
Defense also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes especially
the one headed to Washington? How is that Secretary of Defense could
have remained at this desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it
to relay emergency situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the
war room?
President 
At 6:15 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, my husband Alan left for work; he
drove into New York City, and was at his desk and working at his NASDAQ
Security Trading position with Cantor Fitzgerald, in Tower One of the
WTC by 7:30 a.m. In contrast, on the morning of September 11, President
Bush was scheduled to listen to elementary school children read. Before
the President walked into the classroom NORAD had sufficient information
that the plane that hit the WTC was hijacked. At that time, they also
had knowledge that two other commercial airliners, in the air, were also
hijacked. It would seem that a national emergency was in progress.
Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young
children and listen to the students read.
Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency?
When is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies
know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in
the Sarasota elementary school? Was this Secret Service protocol?
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that our
government has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that
these top officials are among the first to be informed--not the last.
Where were these individuals who did not properly inform these top
officials? Where was the breakdown in communication?
Was it luck or No Fault Government 
Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck
when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when
Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box
cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD
protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not
reported to top government officials on a timely basis?
To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated
pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one
cannot still call it luck.
If at some point we don't look to hold the individuals accountable for
not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists
not to get lucky again?
And, that is why I am here with all of you today. Because, we must find
the answers as to what happened that day so as to ensure that another
September 11th can never happen again.
Commissioners, I implore you to answer our questions. You are the
Generals in the terrorism fight on our shores. In answering our
questions, you have the ability to make this nation a safer place and in
turn, minimize the damage if there is another terrorist attack. And, if
there is another attack, the next time, our systems will be in place and
working and luck will not be an issue.
------- 
Mindy Kleinberg is a founding member of September 11th Advocates, a
family advocacy group that spearheaded the grassroots effort for the
establishment of the independent commission on September 11th. Her
husband Alan Kleinberg was a NASDAQ security trader with Cantor
Fitzgerald in the North Tower of the WTC on the 104th Floor. He was 39
and had been a NASDAQ security trader for 15 years.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 organizzato da solo? E' questo che chiedi?
Sě, č questo che chiedo. Ma, IMVHO, *non* č vero che al-Qa'eda non POSSA
aver organizzato "da sola" quest'attentato. Tuttavia, la
"pluri-utilizzazione" (da parte degli USA, della Russia e del "mondo
arabo" - diciamo cosě -, in primis) del 9-11 pone dei dubbi sul
*significato* (cioč sulla funzione) stesso dell'attacco, mi pare. Vorrei
perň fosse chiaro che NON sto riproponendo la tesi (semplicistica e
scarsamente logica) dell' "autoattentato" da parte degli USA. Shalom.
Namib

 Ti allego un articolo di Maurizio Blondet che puo` illustrare il COME .
Oh, finalmente una fonte onesta, scientifica, imparziale! Suvvia però
ragazzi, siamo onesti fino in fondo, citate direttamente le fonti originali,
tipo il Manifesto per la difesa della razza o Mein Kampf, così è meno
ambiguo.
(ma Giano non è bifronte? Non sarà che l'altra faccia si chiama artamano?
Vecchio clonatore!)
--
www.epw.org.in
www.eurozine.com
www.mondialisations.org

 wrote in message
news:b86feq$78d$3...@news-reader12.wanadoo.fr...

Apriro` di sicuro i tuoi indirizzi ; lo scopo di Giano bifronte e`di avere
una visione a 360 gradi , per due ragioni :
1)- E`sempre utile ottenere una visione completa per far si che la
dialettica sia costruttiva e che possa portare giovamento alle due parti .
Altrimentei a che serve l'intervento?
2)- Per guardarsi anche dietro senza effetti-specchietto destra-sinistra (
non so se mi spiego!) cosi`da evitare tamponamenti o meglio c***i in c**o !
E ancora una volta.......
--
Le nostre vite cominciano a finire il giorno in cui iniziamo a tacere sulle
cose che contano
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ciao.
Giano



Ho aperto questi indirizzi ,ma non ho trovato niente di pertinente col mio
post ; tanto cosi` per chiarezza e per non perdere tempo , puoi indicarmi
quale articolo leggere ( non conosco il tedesco e il portoghese ) mi posso
arrangiare col francese e lo spagnolo, un po piu` con l'inglese......vado
studiando anche l'italiano!
  Siri Haavie
Sterilisation in Scandinavia - a dark chapter?  (de)  (en)  (no)
What were the real motives behind Scandinavian sterilisation practices?
  Amos Elon
Israelian history lessons  (de)
Where did it all go wrong?
A closer look at Israel's occupation tactics and how settlers influence
policymaking.
  Claus Leggewie
Transnational movements and the question of democracy  (de)  (en)
How can NGOs fulfill their role within a more democratic framework?
  Miriam Holzapfel, Karin König
A History of the Anti-Globalisation Protests  (de)  (en)  (hr)
A historical background to the globalisation protests: from the first G7
meeting in Rambouillet, 1975, to the G8 in Genoa, July 2001. [Croatian
version added]
  Leonidas Donskis
George Orwell: The anatomy of fanaticism and hatred  (en)
On the virtues and possibilities of 'liberal' nationalism.
  Ulrich Bröckling
Human resources and human capital  (de)
A critique of biopolitical economics
How much are we worth and how big is the income the state generates from us?
Ulrich Bröckling deals with ideas of human accountancy.
  Rastko Mocnik
Social change in the Balkans  (en)
Is the cost that the Balkan is paying for its social transformation too
high?