Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (13362)	12/9/2001 5:37:12 AM
From: MSI	Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900, besides the Israeli story, another curious thing is the difference between statements of concern, and the apparent lack of concern shown by the actions of government agencies - - Justice Dept has examined and arrested a thousand or so, and names are kept secret. No terrorists yet. - Several announcements of undisclosed threats are made, none with any real data. - CIA breaks tradition and would ordinarily be the worst time in history to do so, publicizes an operative's name, as if there were no real domestic risk to the operative's surviving kids, wife, or parents. It sounds at first maybe like incompetence/confusion or deception. If it's incompetence you wouldn't expect a press release to be issued without correction or retraction. If it's deception, the knowledge of the administration about the situation (terrorists/Israelis, etc.) may be much higher than is disclosed, and the threat less than we think. If true, of course, it would be a big relief. It also means there is some explaning to do. A strange thought but that's about the only conclusion I can come to...

To: frankw1900 who wrote (13362)	12/9/2001 10:23:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Then the US has one very big bone to pick with Israel, doesn't it? Well, I've discussed my views on this at length previously. But in a nutshell, I've compared such a scenario to Churchill's awareness of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, due to Britain's ability to break both their naval and diplomatic code. There would have been little chance they didn't know. As for Israel, they did provide a measure of warning, but were not specific. They merely stated that there were approx 200 Al-Qaida members operating in the US planning a large attack. Thus, they did provide a measure of "warning" to the US. But for them to provide more specificity might have actually compromised whatever source they had in place obtaining such information, and would be unwilling to share such a source with the US for their own national security reasons. (US and Israeli intelligence are naturally distrustful of one another when it comes to sharing the identity of their most valuabe field operatives). And it would not be in their national interest to warn the US. They would desire another "Pearl Harbor" paradigm that would irrefutably bring the US in on their side of this war against the extremists. But I reject the possibility that the WTC attacks were part of a complex covert operation where Israelis may have penetrated Al-Qaida to the extent that they could task their assets to conduct specific terrorist attacks. Hawk