----- Original Message ----- From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:32 AM Subject: Re: pipeline nonsense
> Jan Matthieu wrote: > > What I called nonsense is > > what comes just before the word 'pipeline' in my text: "everyone had > > just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to build > > that..." > > The sources I provided actually point to this too. The US wanted to > build that pipeline thru Afghanistan -- the only question was when, i.e. > with or without the Taliban (who were long regarded as a factor of > stability, compared to the Northern Alliance). The talks with the > Taliban (for a cooperative solution) finally failed shortly before 9/11. > And e.g. BBC reported that the US invasion in October had been planned > since July. Anyway, do you really believe that such a large military > operation could have been implemented in just 3 weeks after 9/11 ? > No, and that's not how things work. There exist attack plans against just about any corner of this world; it's the job of military planners to figure them out, whether they will ever be needed or not. But there is more needed than the building plans for a pipeline to actually implement them. I have no doubt some people will have been very pleased with the situation created after 9/11. But I know for sure that without it, there would have been no (public support for an) attack on the Taliban. To see the pipeline as the reason for the afghan war is thus nonsense. One doesn't play his trump card (PUTIN) if one can hold on to it. > > > and 'Osama had nothing to do with the attacks on the towers' > > What matters is whether he did it, not whether he had "nothing to do with" it. > If he had done it, he would have boasted with it in the many Al-Jazeera > videos, and the US would have had no problems of providing real evidence. > But none of that materialized. Face it, Osama is just a bogeyman (which > btw had been funded by the US itself since the 1980s). > > If he did it himself he would have died in those towers and now be in paradise or hell according to Allah's or Gods opinion. He actually did boast about it, but of course, if you buy the fake video stories,... I wonder why so many people on the extreme left and right refuse to accept the simple reality that it was indeed Al Qaeda people who did this, while there is tons of evidence about that and Osama is or was their leader. Why always prefer conspiracy theories? > > and 'it's an Israëli conspiracy, because they are the ones who will > > profit most from a war against the arabs...' Those allegations are > > unfounded and unverified and yes I believe nonsense. > > They may be exaggerated on that site, but they're certainly not unfounded. > For example, what about the story about the Israeli camera team on 9/11 > that cheered at the sight (and site) of the WTC crashes? (this was > mentioned even in Haaretz) Why did Sharon immediately react with > "very good!" when asked about the effects of 9/11 ? I don't know about the truth in this story of a camera team, are there pictures of that? And if there are, are you sure THAT footing hasn't been faked too? Why would I believe that story rather than the evidence against Al Qaeda? What if it was 'mentioned in Haaretz'. A lot of nonsense is mentioned in newspapers. The story about the 4000 Israeli who didn't show up for the job onn 9/11 was first published in some Arab papers, Al Jazeera took it over and quickly it was 'mentioned' in all the serious western papers too. I saw no footing of Sharon's reaction, so I don't know that he said this, how are you so sure about that, but even if he did: for HIS political position from HIS point of view this was indeed very good. If he's a Machiavelist politician, which I don't doubt he is, that is exactly what he will have thought. Why did > Silverstein insure the WTC only 7 weeks before 9/11, after it had > been uninsured for 30 years? We should ask Silverstein. He must have known. Maybe he heard some of the rumours that were all over the place of an impending new attack, after all, the towers had been the target of attack before. Maybe the Israeli secret service, reputed to be the best in the world, was better informed than some others. But, since when exactly did he own those buildings? And how long would it take to find an insurer willing to insure them and haggle about the price? And why did he insure it for only > half the value and now demands the whole value "because it was _two_ > attacks" ? Did he perhaps know in advance that it would be two ? etc. > Maybe the premium just was too high for the full value? Why would that premium have been so high? Perhaps the insurance company also was in the know? Do you know who they are? They may be Jewish too. > These backgrounds are at least a bit strange and should be investigated > instead of being swept under the carpet... > Who says they weren't? Maybe it didn't lead anywhere. > > > I didn't write Debka is useless PR, if I thought it useless I wouldn't > > read it. > > You said Debka is unreliable, that they use very unprofessional tricks, > e.g. never revealing sources, and then staying silent about wrong claims. > If that doesn't amount to "useless PR", I don't know what does. > > Not ALL they write is like that. The trick is to see what you can trust and what not ;>) > > I wrote it makes more interesting reading because (allowing for > > the PR factor and being aware of their profound bias) every now and > > again I read something *new* on it, things I didn't know yet from > > elsewhere, and which might or might not be true. > > Well, when Debka cooks up fancy stories, it's no wonder that you > don't find it elsewhere. But since they "might or might not be true", > you can just as well cast dice. > Not exactly: once you have a story, you can check on it elswhere, find out if it is plausible, contact journalists or diplomats (we have our contacts in the regio too, you know), get it confirmed or not. That's a world of difference from not knowing anything. > > > The whatreallyetc. mostly provides info I knew already from elsewhere > > First you said their info is unfounded and unverified nonsense, now > you already knew their info from elsewhere. Contradiction? > No, it is not because I read it already elsewhere (there is a lot of conspiracy theorists on the web, from the left as from the right, and many of those stories are all over the place); it is not because I knew already that it is founded. > If it _mostly_ provides info you already knew, it _also_ provides info > that's new to you (and even more new info for less-informed people). > There are indeed new phantasies created about the innocence of Osama bin Laden all the time. One wonders what drives people to absolutely search for the atonement of this bunch of islamo fascists. Beats me. You are splitting hairs. > > > and is also deeply > > biased (but that is a matter of opinion) propaganda from the 'other > > side' (than the Israëli) > > What matters is verifiable facts, and on these, Debka rates much worse. > Some of it verifies later. All facts, by the way, are verifiable, or they wouldn't be facts. Only fairy tales can't be verified. The ongoing attempt to put the 9/11 attacks in the shoes of the Jews is such a fairy tale, until verified and properly founded. > Chris > > >
