>>6133230
9/11 ref
On the subject ‘How and Why America was Attacked on 11 September, 2001’, the best,
most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed[1] . . . Yes, yes, I know he is
one of Them. But they often know things that we don’t – particularly about what we are up
to. A political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and
Development[2] ‘a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of human rights, justice and peace’
in Brighton. His book, The War on Freedom[3], has just been published in the US by a small
but reputable publisher.
Ahmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan, a view that in no
way coincides with what the administration has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most
tellingly on American whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and bear witness –
like those FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was planning a kamikaze
strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they went public with these
warnings they would suffer under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have
engaged David P. Schippers , [4] chief investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary
Committee, to represent them in court. The majestic Schippers managed the successful
impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war
should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who allowed the
American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two of our cities as
pre-emption of a planned military strike by the US against the Taliban.
The Guardian ( 26 September 2001 [5] ) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested
parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Lee Coldren, as
he passed on a message from the Bush administration that ‘the United States was so
disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action . . . the
chilling quality of this private warning was that it came – according to one of those present,
the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik – accompanied by specific details of how Bush would
succeed . . .’ Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that ‘Osama bin Laden and the
Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months
before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington . . . [which] raises the possibility
that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.’
A replay of the ‘day of infamy’ in the Pacific 62 years earlier?