Two Simple Questions about the NIE

July 17, 2007

Five years and ten month ago the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. Conventional wisdom claims that a group named al-Qa’ida conducted these crimes.

Today a new National Intelligence Estimate Report says:

Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist thread to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots

Question: Why does this organisation and its central leadership still exist?

.. we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland …

Question: AQI didn’t exist on 9/11/2001. What did create AQI?

Bonus question: Why is "Homeland" written with a capital "H"?

Posted by b on July 17, 2007 at 15:54 UTC | Permalink

Comments

as in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. And the fact that Al-Qaeda Iraq is still such a threat to the USA is proof enough that it must’ve been behind 9/11.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 17 2007 16:06 utc | 1

Bonus question: Why is “Homeland” written with a capital “H”?
Because if this were 1938, it would be printed as the “Fatherland” instead.

Posted by: fallout11 | Jul 17 2007 16:53 utc | 2

Nothing to sell but fear. What a bankrupt country.

Posted by: beq | Jul 17 2007 16:54 utc | 3

This seems to belong in this thread:
Craig Paul Roberts: A Free Press or a Ministry of Truth?

Posted by: Bea | Jul 17 2007 17:27 utc | 4

It is beyond belief that two guys holed up in caves in an area under really concentrated audio and visual surveillance could be outsmarting the most powerful nations in the world.
No huge corporation could create such an organisation with secret branches throughout the world…Indonesia,Pakistan,India,Iraq,Lebanon,
and throughout Europe.
“Al Queda in Iraq”,whose executives are constantly killed by US troops, are able to defeat the mightiest armies and airforces in the world. Is this possible? A bunch of loonies armed with rifles and some home made bombs is able to outsmart tanks,radar, air surveillance, 2000lb bombs…..is this plausible?
I think not!

Posted by: LeMauditAnglais | Jul 17 2007 19:38 utc | 5

Bea,
we already have a Ministry of Fairness and Balance, it is known as Fox News. And if it tells us we are already at war with Iran, we just haven’t started launching any bunker-busting nukes yet, then we are at war with Iran, and always have been…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 17 2007 20:16 utc | 6

No huge corporation could create such an organisation with secret branches throughout the world…Indonesia,Pakistan,India,Iraq,Lebanon,
and throughout Europe.
actually, they could and did if you look at all the sources on Paul Thompson’s excellent site, Cooperative Research, specifically the 9-11 timeline sections that deal with Insider Trading/Foreknowledge and Warning Signs.
Al Qaeda is apparently in the border area of Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay, in Germany, in the U.S., in Pakistan, Afghanistan and that border area big time, and thanks to the invasion– now in Iraq…and surely other places as well.
They have been organizing and setting up strategy since 1988, tho they barely had a dozen members then. What’s amazing to me is the number of people in the U.S. who knew of the upcoming attacks. Not only intel. sources, but students in elementary, middle and high school… at least one of these has been confirmed, even when NBC tried to debunk the story as an urban legend. Others have been verified by other students in classrooms.
I know it’s not a well-regarded opinion around here to note that real terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) exist, carried out attacks, and still intend to carry out attacks. The other issues, of course, are who had foreknowledge in the bush administration, and who, other than the generally named “Al Qaeda” helped them carry out the attacks. Allowing bin laden and the ISI, etc. to leave the tora bora region was such a heinous act, in order to be able to attack Iraq, that Rummy et al should be tried in court.
No doubt more than one entity might want to piggyback on an attack for their own reasons — either american or another nation (cough, Israel) seem to be the power brokers who would benefit the most. And of course Saudi Arabia has been playing two sides of this issue for decades as well, and Pakistan is a real problem. I don’t know what would be the correct tactic to deal with SA, Pakistan, the Afghan border, — esp. the first two.
I guess this is on my mind because I watched 9-11: Press for Truth on google recently. There has been so much verified duplicity since 9-11 that I’ve forgotten some of it.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 17 2007 21:10 utc | 7

R’boy:
You mean, “The Land of the Fee, and the Home of the Slave”.
Reverse and re-combine, “The Homeland of the Fee-Slave”.
And we’re all still waiting for our 40 acres and a mule.
Ask when did our national anthem switch from America the Beautiful to “rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air, untruth through the night, flag still there” fascist mindfuck?
Ahh so, desu neh! (shout out to my homie r’giap!)

Posted by: Peris Troika | Jul 18 2007 1:43 utc | 8

When it is time for the next war to begin, it will be preceded by an attack on the USA – perpetrated by AQ Iraq with significant material help from Iran.
Opposition voices will be drowned out by the righteous voices of Americans rising up and tripping over each other to prove their zeal at defending their country by attacking (yet) another.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 18 2007 6:13 utc | 9

If you are still struggling to discuss this issue with friends and family, or if you, like fauxreal, are a still a little confused about the historical relationship between government and false flag operations, you might want to listen to this talk by Nafeez Ahmed, the author of several books including “The War on Truth,” who teaches and studies at the University of Brighton in the UK. Unwelcome Guests: #340 – What’s Behind the “War on Terror?”
Allowing bin laden and the ISI, etc. to leave the tora bora region was such a heinous act, in order to be able to attack Iraq, that Rummy et al should be tried in court.
How do we “know” that a man called “Bin Laden” perpetrated 9-11, and that he was holed-up in some god-forsaken mountain region, but miraculously escaped a barrage of bombs by walking 100 miles at night in the dark with his donkey, avoiding all heat seeking detection, which we know from videotape is able to positively kill every Iraqi moving at night, or some such cockamamie theory, except that corporate media told us it was so, and showed us pictures of some bombing? I mean really, folks, is the Spectacle that good? Would rich men like Bush and Rumsfeld actually make themselves look bad in order to advance their true objective? But, mon dieu, it could not be! Surely Cheney and Olmert must be concerned that their combined approval ratings are less than the number of digits on your two hands — right? Maybe not.

Posted by: Malooga | Jul 18 2007 9:51 utc | 10

Ah, fallout11, you took the words out of my mouth.

Posted by: DM | Jul 18 2007 11:09 utc | 11

actually, Malooga, “we know” based upon what Sy Hersh and retired pissed off military and people like Ray McGovern and reporters have said. I am familiar with false flag operations, CIA abuse, etc. I’ve posted quite a few videos and articles concerning this issue.
But thank you for your concern. Do you have any proof that the ISI and a contingent of Al Q was not allowed to leave the Tora Bora region? Just to clarify, you misrepresented what I and others said — I didn’t say they didn’t see them. I said they were allowed to leave. The issue, according to Hersh, was a stand down order. There is a tremendous difference between the two ideas. A stand down order would certainly advance the goals of empire by justifying an invasion of Iraq. Who in the U.S. would have wanted to invade Iraq if the major fear of terror was removed?
Is Amy Goodman mainstream media? I never knew. Sy Hersh, who broke the issue, has been one of the best sources of information during this time. He also broke the story of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. Does that also not exist because it would make Bush and Cheney, etc. look bad — don’t they have control over every piece of information that we receive?
As I said, I knew some of my comments were outside the boundaries of acceptable “reality” here. However, I thought the issue of the stand down order and the ISI and Al Q in the Tora Bora region being allowed to leave was conventional wisdom at MoA.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 18 2007 12:02 utc | 12

Back to Main