Why was 9/11 treated as a terror attack?

[SHRED]

Wouldn't it have been so much simpler and saved so many more lives if the Bush regime would have treated the attacks a crime, instead?
Seems to me that instead of a criminal investigation, arrest of the planners/perpetrators, and then prosecution, what we have is an expansion beyond reason. Attacking Iraq, assault on our civil rights, etc..

Following 9/11 a reasoned approach was needed to calm a nation.
What we got instead was a whipped up frenzy to further the neocon agenda as spelled out in the PNAC. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[elehhhhna]

1. It was planned the way, that's why.

[leesa]

2. Because an investigation would have revealed BushCo's role

in 9-11. Why do you think they fought an investigation tooth and nail? Why do you think they tampered with evidence at the crime scenes?
Their response was irrational (invading and carpet bombing a country for 10 months) but it's amazing how so many STILL believe it made any sense. Denial's a powerful thing.

[SmokingJacket]

3. I've been saying that since the beginning.

Since there was, on the surface, no sign that any sovereign nation was behind it, it SHOULD have been treated as a massive crime and investigated with that kind of thoroughness and calm.

And then the attack on Afghanistan should have been a police action with the aim of getting the perpetrators.

(Of course, that's what should have happened if we buy the official story of who was behind it... which I don't)

[SouthernDem2004]

4. Because it was attacked by terrorist? That would be my guess. /nt

[SHRED]

5. Too vague

The word "terrorist", I believe, has been the key word in the Bu$h's escalation of the 9/11 attack into a "war". Another buzzword to influence the masses.

Again, find the perps and prosecute.
The "shotgun approach" has wasted lives and resources.

[SouthernDem2004]

9. How about...

Islamic extremist that believe in suicide attacks and belong to organizations nationally known as terrorist groups?

[endarkenment]

6. I think you are missing the point.

perhaps the OP did not state it clearly enough.

I think that the point is that a gang of brutal thugs committed a horrific crime and our response was to declare 'War on Terra' and then basically run around toppling regimes we didn't like, at least one of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the gang of thugs that perpetrated the 9/11 crime. What we did not do is launch a criminal investigation to determine who actually committed the crime and to bring those people to justice. Why?

[Orrex]

7. If it had been declared a crime, then

Ground Zero would have been cordoned off as a crime scene, and all the evidence impounded. Heck, Somerset county's coroner only released the site of flight 93 late last week; if Ground Zero had been closed down for almost four years, what would have happened to business?

Have you no compassion for the stock market? :sarcasm:

Besides, that kind of forensic scrutiny might have revealed something relevant about the debris...

[blondeatlast]

8. When it's put that way, you certainly have a valid point.

Had it been treated as such, we would have the sympathy of the world and possible aid in bringing those responsible to justice.

Instead, we are hated worldwide and most believe we are escalating terrorism.

In retrospect, I can see your point clearly. We messed up big time in handling 9/11, simply because of the Bush junta's desire to go after Saddam Hussein.

I'm not sure we will ever recover in the eyes of the world.

[Lerkfish]

10. because BushCo is complicit.

they knew it was going to happen, or caused it to happen.
They NEEDED 9/11 to kram the patriot act, and the Iraq war down our throats.

If 9/11 did not happen, they would have created something else.

[SouthernDem2004]

11. Nope...

A criminal investigation was done. It was determined who did the attacks. It was also determined that Bin Laden and his crew were involved. The Taliban in Afghanistan were harboring Laden and supporting terrorist groups. The Taliban refused to give him up. The Allies invaded Afghanistan and dislodged the Taliban.

So, a criminal investigation was conducted. A foreing government was found complicit and removed.

[endarkenment]

12. could you post a link to that criminal investigation?

I must have missed it.

Also, are you aware that we never formally demanded the extradition of bin laden? Wonder why we didn't?

[geek tragedy]

21. The US had demanded that the Taliban expel bin Laden and his ilk

since 1998. Allowing bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base from which to launch his terror operations was a clear provocation and fully justified the invasion.

[endarkenment]

25. The poster stated that there was a criminal investigation into 9/11

I would like to know where and when that investigation took place.

[geek tragedy]

30. Germany and Spain have both conducted criminal investigations.

Unfortunately, convictions overseas have been scuttled by Bush's perverse need to deny due process to accused terrorists.

[endarkenment]

33. wow

OK fine. let me be explicit. Did the US conduct a criminal investigation of the 9/11 incident or not?

[geek tragedy]

47. Yes. See Southern Dem's post above. eom

[ClassWarrior]

34. And your United States has bombed the shit out of innocent children.

So the answer is no.

NGU.

[SouthernDem2004]

42. Countless. it was done by the FBI starting shortly after the incident

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Feel free to wade through the whole thing...

[wli]

54. that "investigation" has been rather broadly criticized and discounted

This is why there are people still desperately fighting to get a new investigation 4 years later.

[SouthernDem2004]

57. By whom? The conspiracy types? They are not going to agree with

anyone that does not tell them what they want to hear.

[wli]

66. "conspiracy types" like Cynthia McKinney?

Sure. If you don't want to read it and/or notice the blatant lies, fine.

Don't go around trying to treat it like gospel. It's a pack of lies, and it is trivially debunkable.

[SouthernDem2004]

67. Lol, yes her...

She is special...

[SHRED]

14. And we are in Iraq

While Osama is free.

[SouthernDem2004]

37. Unrelated and not being discussed.

[blondeatlast]

18. When? Who? What?Why? How?

When did this investigation occur?

Who did the investigation?

What did they find? What foreign government was found complicit?

Why don't the rest of us know about it?

How are you aware of it and the rest of us aren't?

[SouthernDem2004]

40. The FBI began investiagting shortly after the incident...

[blondeatlast]

43. And what have they found? nt

[SouthernDem2004]

44. Fairly obvious...

They id'ed the suicide attackers and their links.

[blondeatlast]

48. Can you cite these? Link?

I'm a librarian--I need supporting data from trustworthy sources.

"Fairly obvious" doesn't cut it with my profession.

[SouthernDem2004]

49. Try the FBI....

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01.htm

[blondeatlast]

50. You made the statement; the burden's on you.

I only do that stuff when I get paid for it... :evilgrin:

[SouthernDem2004]

52. Check the link I provided in my last response. It is your answer.

It gives the updates and releases from the FBI during the investigation.

[blondeatlast]

59. Link to the one that finds a foreign country complicit and I'll leave you

alone. That's all I'm asking for. Just one link.

Then I'm done.

[SouthernDem2004]

62. Some...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/19/911.warning/
http://www.rense.com/general60/sspe.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1567752.stm

I can get more but its annoying sifting through the conspiracy sites trying to find actual info. I believe the 911 report has even more info.

[blondeatlast]

63. I still see no evidence that they found ANY foreign country

complicit.

OTOH, I said I'd leave you alone, and at that, I will.

[SouthernDem2004]

64. Bin Laden was being aided by Afghanistan. They refused to give him up.

Do not know what more you want. It was certainly enough evidence for most countries of the world including Canada. Guess you have higher standards. :)

[Al-CIAda]

22. More Kool-Aid? n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

39. Baseless insult, nice. /nt

[ClassWarrior]

27. Why? A criminal investigation isn't profitable.

The goal was never anything but profit and power.

NGU.

[SouthernDem2004]

46. You base this determination on what exactly?

[geek tragedy]

13. Because the idea of serving an arrest warrant in Afhganistan

was contemptibly stupid.

[endarkenment]

16. you don't.

1) you demand extradition of persons formally accused of a crime using internationally accepted practices.

2) if and when the nation harboring the fugitives refuses to honor treaty obligations or otherwise violates the same internationally accepted practices you then have just grounds to use force to bring those fugitives to justice.

In the case of Afghanistan we failed to abide by the international standards, however in my opinion, given that the taliban regime was clearly harboring al qaeda, the subsequent attack on Afghanistan was justified. It was however an attack which appeared to be far more focused on regime change than on apprehending fugitives, which would explain why we now occupy Kabul while bin Laden and and al qaeda and the taliban leadership escaped and remain at large.

In the case of Iraq, what is there to say? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was an enemy of Islamic Fundamentalis Jihadi organizations such as al qaeda. Our invasion has cast doubt on our motives and intentions. Serious doubt.

[geek tragedy]

17. A few problems with your post

1. The Taliban were already under a legal obligation to extradite bin Laden and close down his operations in Afghanistan because of the embassy bombings in Africa. The UN Security Council had UNANIMOUSLY levied sanctions on the Taliban/Afghanistan because they refused to do anything about bin Laden.

2. The Taliban weren't the legitimate, legal government of Afghanistan--they were recognized only by the Saudi entity, our friends the Pakistanis, and a third Gulf state.


The time for negotiations with the Taliban ended on 9/11. To be honest, we should have taken them out in 1999.

Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11, and attempts to draw a connection between Saddam and 9/11 can only be described as irrational.

[endarkenment]

23. You are correct about (1)

I happen to disagree with 2. I continue to maintain that we appeared to have little interest in catching either bin laden or the taliban leadership, and that given our subsequent actions in Iraq, our motives in Afghanistan are also suspect.

[geek tragedy]

26. Catching bin Laden would have been the PR coup of the century

for Bush. Would have guaranteed reelection by a wide, wide margin.

Incompetence and CYA explains the failures in Afghanistan.

It's a matter of historical record that the Taliban were not recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by 99% of the world's governments. They weren't a state--they were a bunch of bandits.

[endarkenment]

38. Incompetence? Not according to some reports.

A book about the whole Tora Bora incident is being repressed by the CIA. Sy Hersch wrote an article way back then that included reports that bin Laden et al were flown out of danger by Pakistani security forces. Lots of people have questions about just what sort of effort we have made to capture a group of dangerous criminals whom we seem to know pretty much where they hang out.

[geek tragedy]

45. Nothing is ever true "according to some reports."

Bush screwed the pooch by relying upon warlords and mercenaries to close out bin Laden in the hills.

The primary objective was to disrupt AQ's organizational capacity--we did that.

Unfortunately, by invading Iraq we undid all of that good work. AQ is now operating with impunity in Iraq.

[mattclearing]

19. Didn't Bush do exactly that (Demand extradition and use force)?

If not formally, he certainly made those demands on the floor of Congress shortly after the attack.

[SHRED]

20. Oh yeah...

He sure got tough with Pakistan, didn't he?
:puke:

[mattclearing]

31. Hey, just pointing out the obvious.

We all know Bush has no real intention of actually finding bin Laden. But he did make noise about those things when it seemed clear that bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

For all I know, he was on a soundstage in West Virginia. Maybe that's where they shot his election-eve advertisement for Bush-Cheney '04.

[SHRED]

35. "Soundstage"

hahaha...I like that!

:toast:

[wli]

56. the guy's on dialysis or dead; he's not in the wilds of Afghanistan

i.e. someone is harboring him. The fanciful notion that someone who needs dialysis to live through the week is somehow playing survivalist games in a cave in Afghanistan is pure propaganda.

[endarkenment]

24. You can make all the speeches you want

but you actually have to send a formal request to a sovereign state in order to extradite somebody. Anyhow - it appears that there was a an existing UN resolution demanding that bin laden et al be handed over, so I was wrong about the extradition part.

I continue to believe that we had and have little or no interest in catching bin laden.

[geek tragedy]

28. The US didn't recognize the Taliban as a sovereign state. Neither did

the UN or any single democracy on the face of the planet.

They held power, and people negotiated with them because of that.

But extradition doesn't apply when there isn't a sovereign state involved.

[endarkenment]

36. well of course Pakistan is and was technically a democracy

not that being a democracy holds more weight when it comes to sovereignty. Your statement was just an evasion of the facts, already admitted by you, that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia both recognized Afghanistan.

We seemed to have no problem negotiating with the Taliban when it came to oil pipelines. Just extradtion then, I guess.

[geek tragedy]

41. Pakistan's government was a military dictatorship during this time

period. Nobody elected Musharraf president--he took power through a military coup. That ain't a democracy.

You act like the fact that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the legitimate sovereign is relevant.

It isn't.

The United States, the United Nations, and THE REST OF THE PLANET did not consider the Taliban as sovereigns.

There is no sane reason why Pakistan and SA's judgment would supersede that of the international community and the United States itself.

We did negotiate with and demand that the Taliban stop sheltering bin Laden before 911. They alternately lied, made excuses, and flat-out refused.

[Al-CIAda]

53. The Forbidden Truth About Bush, Oil and Washington's Secret Negotiations

Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth About Bush, Oil and Washington's Secret Negotiations with The Taliban
Listen to Segment || Download
Help      Printer-friendly version       Email to a friend      Purchase Video/CD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Democracy Now! we have often called the Bush administration the Oiligarchy. Vice-President Dick Cheney of course was the president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for the oil industry. For nearly a decade,National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice worked with Chevron, while secretaries of commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Spencer Abraham, worked for another oil giant. Many of the US officials now working on the administration's Afghanistan policy also have extensive backgrounds in the world of multinational oil giants.

An explosive new book published originally in France is revealing some extraordinary details of the extent to which US oil corporations influenced the Bush administration's policies toward the Taliban regime prior to September 11th.The book is called Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth. And it paints a detailed picture of the Bush administration's secret negotiations with the Taliban government in the months and weeks before the attacks on theWorld Trade Center. It charges that under the influence of US oil companies the Bush administration blocked U.S.secret service investigations on terrorism. It tells the story of how the administration conducted secret negotiations with the Taliban to hand-over Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid.The book says that Washington's main aim in Afghanistan prior to September 11th was consolidating the Taliban regime,in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

Con't-
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0253220&mode=thread&tid=40

======

Bush, oil and the Taliban- article on Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/

[mattclearing]

Agreed.n/t

[wli]

55. sort of; he ignored the part where they said "okay, just bring evidence"

It didn't really matter that they caved to the demands, Bushler wanted his pipeline and the poppy fields back in action.

[geek tragedy]

58. The Taliban were not dealing in good faith. They were already

under UN sanctions for their refusal to do anything about bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Africa.

It was absolutely the right thing to take them out.

[kentuck]

15. Well, they are now saying it is a "struggle against violent extremism"..

But the genie is out of the bottle...

[rman]

29. Terror is more scary then crime

What would you expect, when the people who decide how things get spun, are the same people who want to further the neocon agenda?

[Bridget Burke]

32. Because 9/11 was more useful as an excuse....

For invading countries of strategic importance...

For draining the treasury for the benefit of the MI Complex--& at the expense of social programs...

For enacting the Patriot Act...

For voting for a "popular wartime president"...

[bluestateguy]

51. I would have preferred an declaration of war on Al Qaeda (what I would do)

The Constitution does not mandate that a war declaration be on a nation-state. Declare war on Al Qaeda, because what they did was an act of war under any fair reading of international law. Treating 9/11 as a routine violent crime is out of proportion with the gravity of their actions.

Leave Iraq alone and wish the Iraqis well in overthrowing their own dictator.

[Guaranteed]

60. Because it was carried out by an organization with membership in the

10's of thousands that has the express purpose of terrorizing Americans, for the purpose of terrorizing Americans.

It was a terrorist attack if there ever was one.

[paineinthearse]

61. If it were treated as a crime, the forensic evidence would have been

preserved...instead of all the structural steel being shipped off to Asia to be melted down.

[SouthernDem2004]

65. Negative, The structure was no longer of value. No different then

an arson crime scene. Once evidence is collected and everything is photograph the scene is released and cleaned up.