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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (881)	3/6/2005 5:38:02 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

Let's consider a theoretical possibility that a nefarious risk analysis was done comparing number of 9/11 lives that would be lost against the number of insider dollars, the extent of control over future oil resources and political capital that would be gained for the Bush-Cheney cabral. Remember, two important points as you embark down this theoretical path: 1) Ford did exactly this with the Pinto, when its risk analysis team concluded that fixing every faulty vehicle would cost in excess of 130 million, as opposed to only paying out 50-60 million from resultant deaths, injuries and lawsuits. 2) The Vietnam War was begun large due to the false Tonkin Gulf incident. All the evidence we have to date show there was ample warning Al Qaeda was going to attack inside the US. Bush, Cheney and Rice have each lied in denying they knew this. And it doesn't take a long look at history to conclude a likely target would be the World Trade Center, given it's been attacked before. So consider the possibility that OBL wanted to do it, Bush, et. al., knew this (may even have been tipped given the close association with the bin Ladin family) and that the inside-Bush-crew actually wanted OBL actually pulled it off. Why? * Bush gets to unite the nation behind him, a nation which in very large measure had been suspect as to the very legitimacy of his presidency, given he was more selected than elected as president. * Post 9/11 would make Bush a war president. War presidents are inherently popular and not a single one has ever lost a reelection bid. * Waging war on the Taliban in Afghanistan also meant a great payback against the Taliban for its refusal to cooperate (this after Bush had already delivered over 40 million in foreign aid money) on the proposed pipeline deal Enron wanted, to connect Caspian Sea oil/gas resources to Enron's failing plant in India. * Waging war would also serve to cloak a very bad demestic economy and also aid in electing both a Republican-controlled House and Senate. * Bush insiders would gain lucrative contracts by both the demolition (same company was used in New York as was used in Oklahoma) and perhaps also by rebuilding the World Trade Center; and by providing supportive services (feeding troops, building bases, providing security, etc.) to the war efforts. * Controlling a pipeline from the Caspian and controlling the future oil resources of Iraq would mean an equivalent of each Bush insider hitting the lottery a hundred times each. Billions of dollars would be made, literaly dwarfing what was calculated in the Ford Pinto deal. * From a military control point of view consider this: Chaos in Lebanon gets Syria out. With Lebanon now neutralized, now geographically move laterally across the region, here's what you see (look at a map): Israel/US(Lebanon)--Syria--US(Iraq)--Iran--US(Afghanistan) With the US military firmly entrenced in those cruicial areas, there'd be complete dominance over this oil rich region. There's probably a host of other reasons, but I'm gettin' tired typin' 'em all out. So I'll conclude with one final thought. As we know from both the Ford Pinto and Tonkin Gulf actions, this kind of thing has happened before. Why could it not happen again? Especially so if one considers that the planers were thinking only a few hundred instead of a few thousand would have died from the twin tower attacks. Consider also that the plane hitting the Pentagon was more of a diversion to make the whole matter seem so much more real and so much more worthy of a US military response which would nicely set the table for Bush. So add it all up? Whose gained the most from 9/11? Who ultimately will gain the most from 9/11? Any thoughts folks?