He didn't plan them, he did not set them in motion, but did provoke them

[liberaldemocrat7]

The 9-11 attacks.


9-11 appeared PROVOKED.


I'm going to say this no matter who does not want to see this. The 9-11 attacks appeared as blowback for secret foreign policy between George W Bush and his Republican party and the Taliban terrorists and their Al Qaeda friends. 9-11 did not appear unprovoked. 9-11 happened for a reason.

What did George W Bush do between Jan 21, 2001 and July 2001? He negotiated with the Taliban terrorist government for the right for the US oil companies to buiild gas and oil pipelines across Afghanistan. In July 2001, the Taliban would not go along with any deal after months of negotiations. The frustrated Bush administration warned the Pakistanis in Germany in July 2001 at a diplomatic meeting, that the Taliban refused to attend, that The US would invade Afghanistan unless the Taliban went along with these pipeline projects, and to tell the Taliban this. When the Pakistanis informed the Taliban of the impending invasion, the Taliban did not wait, they got their friends Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin laden and Struck us first.

I doubt that the 9-11 attacks would have occurred if George W Bush had not pressured the Taliban to accept oil pipeline building contracts, under threat of invasion.


John Charles Brisard and Guilliaume Dasquie wrote a book "Forbidden Truth: SECRET US - TALIBAN Oil diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" You can obtain it from amazon.com


Both Bin Laden and George W Bush bear responsibility for these 9-11 deaths and the attacks that caused them.

[snappyturtle]

1. Very interesting! Thanks. nt

[bryant69]

2. It's a good theory, in the sense that it's very hard to disprove

Unlike the LIHOP MIHOP theories, this one seems plausible and within the bounds of human capability. That said, it's greatest strength is it's weakness as well - it's difficult to prove or disprove.

My personal feeling is that AlQaeda was probably planning this long before July 2001, and they had plenty of reasons to hate us without this pipeline.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CBGLuthier]

3. One timeline issue though

While they may have decided to go ahead and "pull the trigger" because of events in July of '01, most of the 911 hijackers had already gone to flight school half a year or more before that.

But I am a MIHOP'er so I have my own views on all of it.

[eccles12]

6. The possibility of the pipeline began back in the late 80's though.

So this could very well have been a part of it.

[liberaldemocrat7]

4. Here, from their book.

[eccles12]

5. I remember this. There was discussion about this issue on the boards

and in print. Of course, no politico will discuss this in public. Also, the Bush administration had several bones to pick with Saddam none the least of which was Saddams threat to go EURO over dollars.

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. I bought this book about 4 years ago.

The 9-11 commission either did not read it or they discounted and discouraged people from believing it.

One of the authors worked for French intelligence. France appears led by a conservative government by the way.

Save the pages and send them to the press.

By the way you can also bring up pages 36 to 45 by changing the page number on the url.

One of The authors did the Phil Donahue Show on MSNBC before he got fired before the Iraq invasion.

One of the authors did the Amy Goodman Democracy Now a few years ago where he did more explicitly accused the Bush administration of provoking these attacks.

[eccles12]

9. Thanks! nt

[liberaldemocrat7]

8. kick

kick

[BrotherBuzz]

10. MIHOP or LIHOP

the end results are the same, no?

[BlooInBloo]

11. How about "MOLHOP"? :)

[Blackthorn]

12. I don't buy it.

If 9/11 was as a provoked attack by the Taliban, why the eagerness to get into Iraq? Iraq has always been the focus, and Afghanistan was simply a stopover.