Why Does Bush’s Post 9/11 War on Terror Mysteriously Stop at the Pakistani and Saudi Borders?
Aidan Monaghan
“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
President George W. Bush - September 11, 2001
However, since these words were uttered before the nation 6 years ago, president Bush has in fact apparently allowed Pakistan to harbor not only Osama Bin Laden but even recently his reportedly strengthening Al Qaeda terrorist organization.
November 28-30, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Crosses Border to Pakistan
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a112801bordercrossing#a112801bordercrossing
“Al-Qaeda 'rebuilding' in Pakistan - Friday, 12 January 2007”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6254375.stm
President Bush’s reluctance to combat terrorism at it’s heart, also seems to apply to Saudi Arabia.
“About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,1,7067890.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
“Everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia"
John O’ Neill - FBI, July, 2001
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0701oneillrails#a0701oneillrails
Could the CIA’s long standing support of Pakistan’s ISI and its close ties to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden play any role in the United State’s refusal to invade Pakistan as it has Iraq and Afghanistan?:
1986: CIA Officially Backs ISI Program Promoting Militant Islam Worldwide.
And what of Saudi Arabia?
“1945: US State Department Official Calls Saudi Oil ‘One of the Greatest Material Prizes in World History’
The chief of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, writes in a memo that the oil resources of Saudi Arabia are a ‘stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.’”
- Badmachine's blog
- Login to post comments
Complicity
Duh. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been the - er, how shall I put it - it's not the US per-se, but rather a nexus of "in the know" governement insiders connected at the hip to the ruling elite represented by such organizations as the Trilateral Commission, CFR, etc... anyway, David Rockefeller and Zbiggy Brzezinski can always be found rallying the troops, the Neocons can always be found following the orders, and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can always be found nodding their heads and providing extra funds (in the case of Saudi Arabia), or acting as the all important "middle man" (Pakistan - more specifically the ISI) between the CIA and those "terrorists".
Arrrhghghg. 'Tis what makes selling the truth so difficult - this bizzare web of Islamic states, terrorist groups, and the US government all betwixt together in traitorous collusion and semi-secrecy is beyond what anyone hooked on the MSM zeitgeist can wrap their mind around.
Good point
While the geopolitical reasons for US support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be generally obvious, I think you raise a useful and broad talking point for 9/11 Truth.
Even though Bin Laden is probably dead, we can still use the whole "Bin Laden in Pakistan" as a response to the liberal talking point, "Invading Iraq was a distraction from the real War on Terror." In other words, when mainstream liberals parrot this Dem talking point, we should say, "Not only is Bush's invasion of Iraq a distraction from hunting al Qaeda [for those who believe this line], but more importantly Bush has actually increased dramatically support for states that have more obvious connections to 9/11."
Worse than avoiding the "real problem," Bush has increased support for "the real problem."
Pakistan received more GWOT foreign aid since 9/11 than any other country, despite being connected to the financing of 9/11. And Saudi Arabia continues to be the oil oligarchy's most influential ally, despite the fact that 15 of 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers had Saudi passports (and OBL is Saudi).
I'm not assuming the details of OBL's involvement with 9/11 are true. I'm just saying if you want to debate someone who believes the official story (and Dem talking points), you could use Pakistan and SA as obvious post facto examples of why the official story is absurd.
Be careful what you wish for..
In a world war 3 scenerio, i think we would actually clash with Pakistan, with India being on our side. Part of the design making the world population fairly even on both "sides" of the conflict, to drag it out, max damage and full post-war submission. I think theres already evidence of favor changing towards Pakistan, and it seems to me this is all via design.
Hopefully none of this happens, which i'm sure you'd agree upon.