Tom Ridge, Bin Laden and the War on Terror

By Dark Politricks

Just heard Tom Ridge the ex Homeland Security Secretary from 2003-2005 talk on CSPAN’s Weekend Journal about the real and existant threat of Al Qaeda on American citizens. He was talking about the next possible threat and why certain security apparatus needs to be in place and then he made an interesting aside at the end of the statement when he said that the threat to Americans from Al Qaeda was real “whether Bin Laden exists or not.”

Now this just may mean nothing at all or it may mean everything and be a freudian slip alluding to what many people already suspect in that Bin Laden is dead and has been since 2001.

Obviously there are many real terrorists out there in the world. There are also many terrorist groups who have been inflitrated by various intelligence agencies such as the CIA, MI6, Mossad, FSB, ISI, RAW and any other combination of capital letters you can think of.

We know from history that when terrorist groups have been infliltrated by various intelligence agencies with either plants, informers or persons who have been caught and freed on the proviso they provide intel that the worth of the intelligence gained from being within such an organisation often outweighs the possible dangers to the public that the group may or may not pose.

We all know that our police force regularly infiltrates important crime gangs and even no so important protest movements such as the recent revelation that our UK Police force felt it appropriate to spend large amounts of public money in keeping undercover agents implanted for years at a time inside various protest movements.

We also know from books, TV programmes (documentaries and fiction) and interviews that on many occasions the handlers and their superiors will allow certain events involving these groups and their agents to take place without fear of arrest so that further intelligence can be gained. Like a drug arrest where the arrestee is flipped and then the chain is worked up so that a bigger fish can be caught. Large amounts of drugs are brought into the country, informers are given a free reign to carry out their own illegal acts as long as rivals are handed over on a plate and the implanted officers are even allowed to commit various crimes themselves so that their covers are not blown.

Now replace the local or state police force with your national intelligence agency of choice or even the intelligence agency of a rival not so friendly country. The methods are the same, the decisions that are made can still effect innocent people and there are many examples of the public being served up on a platter so that intelligence can be gained.

Can you now think of an intelligence agency who may have control over a terrorist organisation in a similar manner who gained intel that an attack was planned on another country apart from their own. Lets take the Mumbai attacks on India for a perfect example of two countries who are enemies, both countries with powerful intelligence agencies and both countries engaged with terrorist organisations.

As Bob Woodward disclosed in his latest book the ISI created and helped fund the Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation behind the Mumbai attack and the head of the ISI admitted in the aftermath of the attack that the planners of the attacks had ISI links but it was not an authorised operation. Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the Pakistani ISI admitted that they were agents of his but “rouge” ones and the Americans took him at his word apparently.

Whether you believe they were rouge or the attacks were authorised it was apparent that the terrorists had ISI links. How many other terror attacks have been carried out by rouge agents I wonder? How many other attacks were authorised but then once the links to an intelligence agency made clear used the “agents gone rouge” excuse.

Can you imagine the flip side. A terrorist group inflitrated or partially controlled by India who receives intel that an attack is likely to occur not on an Indian city but in Islamabad or Karachi. Would they allow the attack to happen maybe in revenge for the Mumbai attacks or would they immediately call their ISI counterparts and warn them.

What about if instead of Pakistan and India it was Russia and the USA, China and Japan, Israel and Iran or the UK and the French. All countries who have a history of animosity towards each other. Does it depend on who the intelligence comes to for authorisation. What if the person making the decision had a personal grudge against his counterpart or political aspirations that he could see being furthered by not going up the chain or not passing the intel along.

Would they feel that any potential intelligence they may receive from having overt or covert control of this group would be worth the 50 or 60 lives lost in the attack on their perceived enemy? What if they knew some major geo-politcial goal could be achieved or advanced by allowing the attack to occur?

What if the attack was not on an opposing country but on their own? Can we all be 100% sure that these types of decisions are always made in our best interests and not the interests of the few?

These decisions are made a lot of the time and whether people like to think about it or not there is plenty of evidence that our governments feel that your life, my life and many other peoples lives are worth less than any potential intelligence gained or any political capital that a successful attack may gain them if it’s allowed to achieve fruition.

With the recent Moscow Airport bombing which was caught on camera and killed 35 people we can only remember the staged terrorist attacks that brought the previous president and current prime minister Vladimir Putin into power.

The FSB apartment bombings killed 300 people, involved FSB agents caught in the act of planting explosives and has seen many people who brought government involvment in the attacks to public knowledge assassinated as well as wall of silence from the current Putin regime who refused to co-operate with an attempted independent investigation into the matter.

These bombings on Russian citizens that many people believe were authorised by Putin to propel him into power, cement him as an authoritarian strong man and deliver him his much wanted second war with Chechnya. There is good evidence that these bombings were either staged or manipulated by agent provacateurs working on behalf of the Russian state apparatus.

Once you have seen all the evidence it’s not hard to believe is it? That someone like Putin in a country just coming out of Communism could do something like this to his own people. That agents of the ex KGB like Alexander Litvinenko are telling the truth when they say that they used to assassinate political and business rivals on Putin’s direct orders.

Now lets flip this over to the great conspiracy theory of the 21st century, the attacks of 9.11. The attacks that we joined with Israel and went to war with Islam for. A war in search of oil, precious metals, drugs and other Central Asian real estate whether by design or just happy co-incidence. The events that put Tom Ridge into his position as head of the new American Stasi at Homeland Security.

Can we be totally satisfied after the failure of the 9.11 commission to properly investigate the whole event rather than just the “intelligence failures” that led to it that no-one in any of the myriad of US intelligence agencies didn’t have to make some sort of decision as those I have just mentioned.

Whilst the US political apparatchiks have decided that no more questions surrounding 9.11 need answering others do not and more and more people are realising that unless these questions are not answered conspiracy theories will flourish and grow in their place. Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights activist was recently attacked for being anti Israeli just for diplomatically making the legitimate statement of fact that serious questions remain over the events of the day. Questions such as:

Why has Bin Laden not been caught. Why does no-one seem to care whether he is caught or not. Why do so many people believe that he is dead yet the the USA are still apparently searching for him? If he is actually dead then who is making all the false video and audio recordings of him and who is planting all the stories about his whereabouts being in the next target for attack Iran?

Why were the people who should have lost their jobs for failure to protect the country all promoted e.g:

  • Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
  • Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
  • Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
  • Brigadier General Montague Winfield
  • Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
  • Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness
  • Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit
  • Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York

Why has no authority explained the collapse of WTC-7 the third tower, not hit by a plane, that collapsed into it’s own footprint later that day. A building that has been admitted by NIST broke the laws of physics by freefalling for over 2 seconds which could not have happened without a controlled demolition.

Why has there not been more video released of the Pentagon attacks. Why cant all the video tapes confiscated from nearby garages and hotels just after the event be released. Unlike the WTC attack no idenependant witnesses caught the plane hitting the building therefore to dispell consipiracy theorists all video tapes should be released whatever they show.

Why did it take freedom of information requests and over 9 years to get evidence of explosions and witness testimony of said explosisons released. Why did they feel the need to keep this quiet if they had nothing to hide?

Why did none of the extremley expensive supposedly automated defence equipment that is supposed to protect the most restricted piece of airspace in the world go off on 9.11. Why was no effort made at all to shoot down the incoming plane that was approaching this supposedly safe airspace?

What is the meaning of the “let the orders stand” quip by Cheney as the blip approached and then hit the Pentagon as testified to by Norman Mineta. What were those orders. The logical inference from the statement and the fact that the plane was allowed to hit it’s target is that the orders were not to shoot it down otherwise some form of action would have occurred. What is the official explanation for this?

What is the nature of the massive roundup of Israeli citizens after the attacks and the Israeli Art student spy ring that were trailing some of the hijackers from town to town sometimes living literally only doors away. Were they spying on the hijackers and if so did they know of their plans and if they did which authority or persons in the US government did they inform and what did they do about it?

What is the real story behind those dancing Israeli’s who were “Sent to document” the event. How did they know this event was to occur. How did they know to put the camera in the right position to follow the planes into the building. Who were they and who sent them and what political pressure was put on the US government to release them.

What of the other Israeli’s who were rounded up and arrested after the 9.11 attacks some after police chases, smelling of explosives, with box cutters, passports and lots of cash. Why were they held for so long and what information did they reveal?

What is the official explanation for the explosive materials & molten metal dust particles found on nearby buildings after the WTC collapse that were found during Deutsche Banks insurance claim? What is the official explanation for all the secondary explosions we now know did occur after the initial planes hit their targets and which were denied up until recently released tapes proved they happened.

And what of Sibel Edmonds repeated claims that the US maintained close and intimate relations with Bin Laden right up until the events of 9.11. Who was the last agent from the USA to contact Bin Laden and what did they discuss. What were the nature of these intimate relations?

Are all of these questions really not worth trying to answer? Can any discussion of the unanswered questions surrounding 9.11 in the mainstream media always be shut down by a strongly worded letter from certain pro Israeli lobby groups or people who feel that any attempt to solve such questions only casts aspersions on their past president or current administration.

It is only by trying to answer such questions that conspiracy theories can be put to bed, families rest in peace and reckless wars and foreign adventures come to an end. If we are all still fighting to catch Bin Laden and he is dead as Tom Ridge may have accidentally acknowledged this morning then we will be stuck in this war on terror for a very long time. Certain quarters may feel that this is desirable but the majority of citizens do not.


Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Tom Ridge, Bin Laden and the War on Terror”

  1. Christopher Hinn Says:

    If Osama Bin Laden is dead, we should not let our guards down because the terrorists are still out there waiting to strike at any moment. We should be aware that there are still some high ranking terrorist that is roaming freely in our streets.

    • darkpolitics Says:

      There is letting your guard down and dismantling all our freedoms and liberties that have been built up over many years and which were hard won in the first place.

      We should remember that once we give away all our freedoms in the name of security
      a) We are very unlikely to get them back. Government never likes giving more freedom to the people unless forced to (after popular revolt or rebellion or a court ruling etc)
      b) We are basically winning the terrorists war for them. George Bush was very fond of saying how the terrorists were attacking us because they hated our freedoms. Obviously this was bullshit they were attacking us because of our support for Israel and corrupt Middle Eastern dictators and our one sided and very hypocritical foreign policy. However if we are silly enough to believe GW then we are playing into the terrorists hands by just handing all our freedoms away. Either that or we are to believe that if we gave up all our freedoms then there would be nothing left for Al Qaeda to hate us for?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: