https://newsmakingnews.com

WHAT'S THE BUZZ?  SEPTEMBER 14, 2001 IN AMERICA. The national day of remembrance and prayer.

Nina Totenberg, National Pubic Radio 9/14/01 (All Things Considered) reported :

1. There is a substantial trail of NSA information which was there over the last few months and which was never translated or even transcribed.

2. The strong feeling developing is that you don't learn to manipulate and dead reckon, over a complex course, a sophisticated jumbo jet at a flight training school in Florida. This is definitely a result of skilled pilotry which can only be found in training by state supported airlines.

3. "One of (her) sources told (her): 'there is going to be a post hoc investigation that is going to make your skin crawl.'"

This may well be why we are seeing this clamp-down (on leaking government information)

They may have a major public relations disaster on their hands - in addition to wanting to protect assets and plans for what may be forthcoming. http://www.nrp.org


NPR's "Talk of the Nation" tonight with the WashPost Pentagon reporter- he quoted a high-level general who said that if we truly intend to use military force to route out terrorism in all locations, it will be like "fighting the Viet Cong but all over the world. We have no idea how immense the difficulty will be, and we should consider very carefully whether we want to go down this path."


After being alerted that there had been some sort of accident at the twin towers, Sean Hughes was worried about his wife, Melissa, who was at a conference near the top of the north tower. Sure enough, she had tried to contact him and left a message.

“Sean it’s me,” she says, struggling to contain her fear. “I just wanted to tell you I love you. I’m stuck in this building in New York. A plane hit the building or a bomb went off — we don’t know. But there’s lots of smoke and I just wanted you to know that I love you. Bye bye.”

She then hangs up, apparently because other people were queuing to call loved ones.


While bin Laden is being targeted, according to the latest news reports, almost all of the highjackers were Egyptian nationals or Saudi nationals.

If that is indeed the case, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and especially the PLO and bin Laden are now suspects.


Click. New life for Iridium (Bin-Ladin's brother's firm) as the Pentagon contributes $72 million to keep their satellite system alive.

It is clear that the Pentagon bailed out or bought out Iridium. (What explicit or implicit agreements did the military have with Iridium before this time?) Is the bail out going in any way to the financial benefit of Hasan Bin Laden (brother of terrorist Osamu Bin Laden).  Is it going to the financial benefit of the Bin Laden family. Then the big question is: if the financial benefits flow toward the Bin Laden family, do they go to aid the finances and/or power of the terrorist. himself? Do I see the Pentagon paying money to a terrorist at some level?  I cannot show this tracing of financial benefit and power, with a CPA's fine review, but I can see the outlines of tracing of funds are quite apparent.  Another question is who owns the intellectual property in the bail/buy out?  Does the Bin Laden family retain any intellectual property, either by law or by a type of misappropriation of secrets?  And does the terrorist possess any of this intellectual property?

The current trial of Usama Bin Laden and others for the August 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar al-Salaam, Tanzania, has shed new light on the efforts of Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, Al-Qa’ida (“The Base”), to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Prosecution witness Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl detailed his efforts to assist Bin Laden in an attempt to acquire uranium, presumably for the development of nuclear weapons, from a source in Khartoum, Sudan, in late 1993 or early 1994. Although Bin Laden has made statements in the past regarding his interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction for a jihad (holy war) against the West, Al-Fadl’s testimony—if it proves to be credible and accurate—provides important evidence of his actions to do so. Click.


Osama Bin Laden attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction from Chechnya. Indeed he is believed to have hired former Soviet nuclear scientists to help him achieve his stated aim as reported in a Time magazine interview from December 1998. I quote the article, when asked whether he was seeking to obtain chemical or nuclear weapons, he replied: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so." He responded similarly to the same question in an ABC News interview two days later, stating: "If I seek to acquire such weapons, this is a religious duty. How we use them is up to us." So your readers who somehow have reached the opinion that we must be careful in our response to this atrocity should think about what would happen if this man is allowed to carry on a holy war against America. Who knows what country could be his next target. And then the casualties could run into tens of thousands with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of years to come.


I am happy to hear Falwell say, "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle...all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" not because I agree. But it will show the world what an idiot he is. Not being religious, I don't know how informed a theologian he is, but he is very stupid when it comes to public relations. Go ahead Falwell, keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Trust Falwell to remind us how much we love the American constitution.

Bush's (somewhat broken) speech yesterday outside Pentagon included in his definition of terrorism "Anyone who doesn't share our values" - by which I presume he means all-American God-fearing apple-pie values.

What we're overlooking is that Bush II holds Falwell in high esteem and hopes to include his garbage in "Faith Based Initiatives".

Interesting that "good Christian" is reading the Advocate, a homosexual mag. Click.


Sending in ground troops to kill Bin Laden is a high risk move. The Delta estimate was 50 percent causalities. Which under normal circumstances is unacceptable.

Now, it's a different story. Bin Laden has to be taken, regardless of cost. It doesn't matter who the president was, losing 50 percent of Delta on a risky operation was a no-go.

It wasn't worth the risk, especially after his network was prevented from their millennium attacks.

That attack was to be limited in scale, maybe Delta alone or Delta and a company of Rangers. Now, I wouldn't be surprised to see a brigade of the 82nd ABN tossed in the mix along with God knows how many other troops from NATO.

There is no way Clinton could have justified such a massive intervention in 2000. Now, we have carte blanche. There is no need for subtlety.


Bush just said we have an historic chance to eradicate terrorism to benefit generations to come. Doesn't that mean that we have to go into Iraq and eliminate its nuclear and bio-weapons research programs? If the Iraqi's are making any research progress at all, eventually they will develop a nuclear device someday in the future (and probably use it) . . . . and they stopped letting the UN investigators into the country a while back . . . . . . . .

Even if we're not sure if Iraq was involved in the WTC, don't we have to go after them anyway?


It sounds like thousands and thousands of American and foreign casualties. It sounds like a state of war at home as well as abroad and the curtailment of civil liberties. It sounds like we should all take a deep breath and count to ten before any we charge ahead into escalating this into a major war in which all of us - not just the people in uniform, but all of our children - are in imminent peril.

Do we really want to go there?


This may sound naive, but I have a real question...to rid ourselves of every country that tolerates terrorism is an endless task...Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, the list goes on and on and on.

Could this go nuclear?


Nuclear to that end would be a huge mistake and is simply unthinkable.

Each of those countries is run by, under the control of, or substantially influenced by, Islamic extremists. It is radical Islam that is the real danger. In eliminating radicalism, we must keep in mind that both the real estate and the natives will be there afterward. On another thread, a poster quite sensibly pointed out, that something akin to a Marshall plan will have to be undertaken once radical Islam is eliminated as a force.

Bush must enlist international support for his effort to dismantle Islamic extremism and keep the players on board for the duration. Next task will be to keep it buried. To have the best chance of that, something must be substituted in its place. That "something" must be defined, implemented by that same international coalition until it becomes self sustaining.

All of this requires foresight and long term planning of the military and political variety. The Bushies are a smart and experienced group. Their efforts will only be amenable to accurate evaluation a period of time has passed. Until then, we must wait, watch and support our government.


We would be entering into a highly unstable domestic dynamic, and no matter how much firepower we take in, losses would be significant and strategic gains would be meager.
Ask any military expert, they will tell you whata logistical nightmare a war in this region would be.

Iraq is a slightly better prospect, where at least there is a clear and present danger in the form of Hussein.
We absolutely should have driven to Baghdad in '91, but I realize that Bush Sr. probably didn't have the public mandate to do so. Never the less, it seems we might be reaping the fruits of that decision now.
Eventually we will learn that a war half won is a war lost.


After WTC / Pentagon, what are the money people saying? After all, some of those folks have got to feel like they are wearing a bulls eye after this.....


I can say in all candor that not even I thought that it would get to this point.

However, are they capable of human sacrifice for political exploitation? Absolutely.

Whether it be AIDS, Smoking, Oil, Auto Safety, Ecological Issues. You name it.

They have well substantiated their lack of concern - no, their contempt - for human life in pursuit of election.

The Constitution? Shit. Last December taught us all their "honor" of that document.

So, was this their plan?

No. What happened here was that this just got way out of hand much quicker than they expected.

Note well the work done earlier this year by a bipartisan committee relative to the threat of terrorism which was laid to the left side of Cheney's desk.

Note well the removal of America from the world stage. And, the arrogance of that removal.

Treaties torn up. Alliances weakened.

Virtually cutting us out of involvement in the Middle East; sending the CIA director to negotiate. (Too bad he didn't do just a wee bit more due diligence there in retrospect, huh?)

Telling the Racism conference to go to hell instead of stepping up to the plate as the sole super power should and working toward some meeting of the minds.

And, the biggy: sending some one hundred million plus to the Taliban; irrespective of the form of the aid, any fool knew it was going to be converted for the use of bin-Laden.

Not to mention that just how does something this relatively complex get pulled off under the nose of an empire like America.

On the watch, no less, of that fine military man, CokedUpFratBoy! Help is on the way, Indeed, Sir!

Thirty billion damn dollars (published; probably three times that secret) in CIA funding.

So, what happened? They were probably hoping for a nice little conflict that they could pre-ordain and pre-arrange in a neat and simple way.

And, that they could orchestrate so that The Simian Prince would look, well, princely.

Instead they got one big can of whop-ass.

Most importantly, they could push to the side issues (which are now very, very well put to the side) such as : Rove and Ethics, Cheney and Oil/Disclosure, The Stem Cell Lie, The Miniaturization of Space, and numero uno : Social Security, The Budget, and The Economy.

As for the last week and the pile of dog do they've found themselves in, he has failed miserably by just about every conceivable measure. He has looked the fool that everyone knows him to be and that he knows himself to be.

Sure, America will stand behind him for the next few months as we go about the exercise of revenge and righteousness.

But this time, considering the magnitude of this catastrophe, I suspect that America is going to demand much, much more in terms of results and quality. Long term results and quality.

Long term security and confidence.

George just ain't got the goods. Plain and Simple. He's on the wrong side of too, too many issues and matters.

We all know it. For the time being most continue to support the text of the play which was written back in December because they've been afraid to face the truth of what happened. It was too inconvenient.

That is : You just can't win the people unless you have won the election.

We're going to see the next act of this little show play out over the next few months.

The final act's going to be spectacular.

But, no one's going to be clamoring "Author, Author" I can assure you.


War is Inevitable -- STRANGE PHONE CALL FROM MY DAD! 
 
Hi Everyone:
 
I thought that I'd share with you a phone call that I received from my father today. 
 
I'm sharing this with you for your input, to see what you think of it.  I'm a little alarmed because it is uncharacteristic of the correspondence that I typically have with my dad (we talk for 1-2 hours each week).  He's never acted so concerned himself. 
 
From 1974 until December of 1999, my father was the personal physician to several NATO generals, as he still is to various members of the Luxembourg parliament and the EU council.  Today, he called me with an alarming message, warning me not to tell anyone:
 
"We are going to war with the Islamic nations, with Russia as their ally. "
 
His source, "a friend who is a very reliable source", gave him the information over the phone. 
 
His friend informed him as a warning, yet hopes that this is a false alarm.  As he put it, his informant has no history of false alarms and would have no apparent reason to lie to him, so it should be credible.  I was "warned" just because he is my father. 
 
I was informed that passing on this information was "strictly verboten"  but ... what the hell ... I mean, what harm is there to pass this on?

Knowing my father, he is not really one for taking speculations very seriously unless they are virtually guaranteed.  His investment history of keeping his money (a small fortune to most of us) out of the tech stocks reflects this.  He did not give me any time table, but his source was concerned that it would be "soon", which would probably mean some time in the next few months.  As my father would be the first to say: remember these things are usually planned in advance. 
 
He told me to relocate to my property in Canada ASAP.  
 
I personally don't know what to think, but it is something to consider. 
 
Sincerely,

The 20th century was dominated by an internal clash in western civilization. Communism and fascism were perversions of western philosophy. the 21st century will be dominated by the clash between Muslim and Western (Christian and humanistic) civilization. Its going to be one hell of a ride.


The Afghans are a quarrelsome people, used to guns. But most of them want little to do with the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden. The religion of the Taliban is a pain in the ass.

Bin Laden is the muscle for a fairly unpopular government, and most of his men are not Afghans, but Arabs from Saudi, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan. He's the Islamic Che Guevara. A rich kid playing revolutionary.

His view of the West is fairly simple minded, that the Jews run everything. His popularity comes from his ability to attack the West in clever ways.

Of course, everyone likes cheap victories. Or they look at the Russians and see the future. They the Russians, they'll beat us.

Well, this is not going to be a cheap victory. Al Queda, his movement, is going to wind up like the Viet Cong.

One of the lesser known stories of the Vietnam War is how completely the Special Ops Units, Macv-SOG, Op Delta, gutted the VC. They killed the paymasters, hunted down regional VC commanders, killed Main Force commanders, political commanders. The VC infrastructure was eliminated.

By 1969, the VC basically no longer existed as a separate movement. It's leadership was either turned or dead.

Anyone who thinks that isn't what is going to happen is wrong. The CIA and Mossad know who the people who make terrorism work are, the banks, the people who give up the cash.

Swiss bankers will get midnight visits from people in black. Who they are will be a mystery. Could be Delta, SEAL's Dev Group, SAS, GIGN, GSG9. But they'll come in the dead of night and they'll ask for the account numbers.

Some guy in a flat in Marseilles will be snatched up off the street and wind up in another country, with two very large men smacking him around.

Bin Laden's organization will wither as the US starts quietly kidnapping, killings and interrogating people. Places like Syria and Lebanon will no longer be safe, as the secret police start arresting people quietly.

The pressure on Bin Laden and his allies will grow beyond anything he could ever imagine. Most of it will be subtle and unseen by the public.

When someone compares it to fighting the VC, they forget that we beat the VC and the NVA only won when we withdrew the bulk of our forces. We could not make the ARVN fight for Vietnam. We defeated the VC leadership and in the field. If there had been no NVA, the VC would have been eliminated by early 1969.

If Fighting Bin Laden is the same, those are odds I like.


CounterPunch has also learned that an internal memo was sent around Goldman Sachs in Tokyo on September 10 advising all employees of a possible terrorist attack. It recommended all employees to avoid any American government buildings.

That said, according to Rep. David Bonior, the Michigan Democrat, the Congress was the last to know. Even after two planes had struck the World Trade Center towers and another had smashed into the Pentagon, Bonior says congressional officials were not warned by the CIA or any other intelligence arm of the federal government that the 30,000 workers in the Capitol might be at risk of an attack. Bonoir has been one of the few members of Congress to openly question the value of bowing to the demands for more money made by CIA and other intelligence agencies. "If they can't even warn members of Congress about an ongoing attack, you really have to wonder what good they are," Bonior said. 

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=63713&group=webcast