Did Russia Play a Role in 9/11?

What is the proof or disproof, or is it classified due to Russia' heavy nuclear weapon count? I believe it could have played a small role due to losing the cold war and its later destabilization.

I suppose in a very very round about way they have a connection.

They invaded Afghanistan which brought about the Mujahaddin which later some parts of that became Al Qaeda.

Other than that, I doubt it.

What if Russia were solely responsible? How would the USA have reacted? War or nuclear war?

Yes, Russia played a role, and it still does. Russians, like other normal people of this world, KNOW that the 9-11 was an internal job, performed with the help of American secret agencies. They KNOW the truth, yet they stay silent. Just like they KNOW about the fake "Moon Landing" story.

So, in a way, they can be blamed...but since their politicians are on the same payroll as American, European and other politicians in the world, it is understandable that they will (wisely) stay silent.

Interestingly, Putin was trying to contact bush to let him know that all russian forces were standing down as a show of solidarity - first getting hold of Condoleeza, then eventually getting through to bush on Air force 1.

If they had been, would it be to cause harm, or to do "us" a favor? Again, who benefits? I don't think Russia has, so I doubt they had a hand...

They probably knew,
but I dont think they'd of played any part at all.

Its in Russias interest, as much as it is in the Americans interest not to squablle with each other.

Think. It is in their greatest interest to squabble. Right now, it's not the plan.. but it sure as hell generated money and business before.

What about this hypothesis:

Russia wants to own and control the world in the long term. How?

1) It purposely loses the Cold War to create world sympathy among future satellite nations in the long term.

2) It suffers economically and militarily to create world sympathy among future satellite nations in the long term.

3) It designs and fulfills 9/11 to make the only "superpower" of the world, the USA, look like it was poorly designed politically, militarily, and economically.

4) As a consequence of 9/11, it spurs the USA into war to make it look like it is the "bad guy" of the world.

5) As a consequence of the USA's war, Russia wins loyalty from future satellite nations.

6) Once enough loyalty and sympathy are won over from future satellite nations, Russia begins war with the USA in order to own and control the world.

This is only a hypothesis. Comments?

Originally posted by GreatTech
What about this hypothesis:[...]

I appreciate the hypothesis, and it's all vaguely possible. Sure everyone would like to run the world, and while most nations admit they have a hard enough time holding onto what they have, they are pragmatic and take advantages they see.

4) As a consequence of 9/11, it spurs the USA into war to make it look like it is the "bad guy" of the world.

But on this point, it plays out like Israeli control theories, the USA steered into these imparialist adventures against its own will. But the main thing causing such animosity now is the Iraq war, which was never inevitable from 9/11. Those guys pushed this war all on their own - they invented the Iraq-9/11 connection. If anyone's demonizing the US, it's the leaders of the US.

The only way Russia's doing or helping 9/11 makes sense to me is in the G8 New World Order construct put forth by Fintan Dunne wagnews.blogspot.com..., where the US and Russia are secret allies in a grandimperial adventure, with all friction scripted.

GreatTech,

That scenario's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. If you want to rule the world, you don't go about it by losing. Cold Wars or football games included.

Why would any "satellite" nation want to align itself with a loser? Guilt? Bad self esteem?

Seriously though, Russia and Putin were not directly involved in planning 9/11, but they sure were considered in the calculus of the plotters.

The main wargame that diverted NORAD defenses--those infamous F-16s sent from the East Coast to Canada--involved gaming a Russian strike. IIRC it was Global Guardian--hard to remember off the top of my head, there were so many...

Bush's first conversation on AF1 with another world leader was with Putin--and I'd love to have been able to listen in. My own guess is that Bush informed Putin that the Strangelovians were now in power and the shackles were off and that these guys will do anything--9/11 being the obvious proof--and that they were going into the Middle East in a big way, and just back off.

And yes, the Russians, like everyone else with a clue, know full well what really went down. But they don't say anything overt, that's just the way it goes.

But if you've listened to Putin's recent speeches at Munich and elsewhere re: the US, he is accusing BushCo of reigniting the Cold War. He's KGB, and very smart; and that he says this out loud shows you how alarming and dangerous our present course is. And of course he's right; right now our global strategy is fueled by delusion and desperation--very Stalinist in fact.

What goes around comes around. It's the height of irony; we won the Cold War but now we're the new Russian bear.

Caustic Logic, and gottago, thank you for your comments.

Originally posted by gottago

But if you've listened to Putin's recent speeches at Munich and elsewhere re: the US, he is accusing BushCo of reigniting the Cold War. He's KGB, and very smart; and that he says this out loud shows you how alarming and dangerous our present course is.

gottago, what is the relative "sub-authority power" of the USA and Russia? That is, power exercised by the military without Bush or Putin factoring in any decision made.

Originally posted by GreatTech
gottago, what is the relative "sub-authority power" of the USA and Russia? That is, power exercised by the military without Bush or Putin factoring in any decision made.

GT

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but obviously we're way ahead in any sort of calculus of raw military power. We spend more than basically the whole world combined on "defense." And that is just counting the funding we see, nothing of the black budget, which is enormous.

But raw power will only get you so far--witness Iraq. We've been made a laughingstock; essentially our military is impotent against a shadow enemy--in many ways this conflict will define future ones, and we've built an amazing but obsolete war machine.

But there are other factors to consider, so-called "soft power" for one, which is the ability to influence other actors simply by veiled threat or encouragement. Essentially, it's the effectiveness of diplomacy. BushCo has trashed that--we don't 'do' diplomacy anymore, it's for sissies--and we're deep in the red there.

This is perhaps one area where in a way you are correct--as we grow more bullying and threatening, allies will naturally peel away to "neutral" status simply to avoid us, and those already sitting on the fence may become antagonists and league against us. Natural geopolitics since time immemorial.

You also have to look at economic power, and here we are also in deep trouble, and it is the reason I believe for our current naked aggression and for the rise of the Neocons, and as an ancillary, 9/11--the enabling act.

Our economy is a debt-ridden mess, akin to Argentina's before its debt crisis--we just don't have a meltdown because the countries we are in debt to--most importantly China, which feeds our consumer goods, and the ME oil producers, who are paid in dollars--keep us afloat, because we're the 600 lb gorilla and we'd take them down with us.

And we are taking no steps to reduce our debt--instead, both privately and publicly, we spend like drunken sailors. and the debt will soon start to compound, to amass exponentially--to take off and climb the steep slope of a Laffer curve.

We also don't have any oil. We pay for our oil in dollars--this keeps the ME in line--but now there is a consortium of disaffected countries--Iran, Venezuala, even Brazil--who want to trade for oil in Euros or a basket of currencies. This is the real reason why those countries are being reported in the MSM as "dangerous" (all in line with what happens to bullies, above).

So: useless, overpriced war tech + no oil + huge debt = desperation.

On the other hand, Russia's been getting its act together. It is the world's largest energy producer, its oil and gas reserves are immense. And the -stans around it, most under their influence, are also energy rich. And their tech is very good; some of their latest weaponry is quite impressive. And Putin's been placing the most dangerous stuff with countries like Iran and Syria that are in the US's sights.

So Russia is surprisingly well-placed to make a comeback, while we are actually in a very dangerous position. We can't go on much longer with rotten foundations, and that's also why you see CEOs making obscene money grabs and engineering their own golden parachutes, and why inheritance taxes have vanished, etc. The rich are building their financial ark.

Apres Bush, le deluge.

[typos]

[edit on 13-5-2007 by gottago]

gottago, Wow! You are truly very articulate, much more articulate than I. I vote for you as President, or at least as a top political analyst.

Blessings.

Sweet Jesus Christ , what next , Switzerland !

GT--thanks alot, very appreciated!

And Gen.disarray: No, they're going to the new Switzerland--Dubai.

Just what do you think is the reason that our VP's beloved Halliburton, after having obscenely profited from Iraq and Afghanistan, is moving there?

The climate?

gottago,

From the outside looking in (at America), there are a few more points I'd like to raise.

Much of America's current foriegn policy problems begin, not with Bush, but from the end of WWII. The American political mindset has been one of 'if you are not with us, then you are against us'. There has really been no consideration of what you describe as 'neutrality'.

With this mindset, it can be seen that any country which does want to distance itself from American policy, (ie:- remain neutral) has been 'punished' by America through trade. For example, until recently India, as one of the major non-aligned countries, has not been on America's favoured trading list (in spite of the fact that India and China don't see eye-to-eye). It would appear that this has only changed to some extent because of their antagonism to their Islamic neighbour, Pakistan (itself bullied by the US into policies rather negating long life and happiness for its President, to say the least).

My observation is that with this American view of the world, any country that wishes to remain neutral is forced to arm its quite legitimate defence forces from sources other than the USA. That is to say that the American view actually FORCES those countries to buy Chinese, Russian, or other country's arms. Once again, India is the perfect example. Their forces are equipped with Russian, French and British (as well as indigenous) equipment, simply because America does not see them as 'friend' and India feels it needs to defend itself against both Pakistan and China.

Further, American foreign policy since the end of WWII, seems to have been unable to understand or anticipate the consequences of its actions.

American support for the Mujahaddin (against Russia in Afghanistan) spawned the Taliban.

American support for France in Vietnam against Ho Chi Minh (who fought the Japanese during WWII after their French masters abandoned them, only to see the French march back in after the war and want their colonies back), led to North Vietnam being forced to look elsewhere for the equipment required to continue their fight to rid their country of the French and re-unite it. This in turn made North Vietnam America's direct 'enemy' because America could only see North Vietnam as a tool of the USSR and communism. American eyes, it would seem, could see it no other way (of course this did give rise to the protest movement, which partially, did see the other side of the argument).

Similar intervention (largely by the CIA) in Indonesia, drove that independence movement to seek support from the USSR in their aim of ridding themselves of the Dutch after WWII.

Much the same could be said of Fidel Castro and Cuba.

That the Shah of Iran was considered 'friend' and he was overthrown by internal revolution, predictably makes the current political leadership of Iran an 'enemy' because, it seems, the only alternative to 'friend' is 'enemy' in American eyes.

So what I am saying is that America has not used diplomacy for many, many years. America actually pushes the 'neutral' countries into the hands of America's perceived 'enemies'. Further, it would appear from the foregoing that America is not in favour of nations gaining their independence, but rather being dependent upon the USA.

Finally, I see a fundamental tactical error in the removal of Saddam Hussein. America seems so blinded by the righteousness of American 'democracy' that it has forgotten (if it ever knew) that you cannot remove a strong regime without replacing it with an equally strong regime. Otherwise, the country will descend into conflict between a number of relatively weak factions until another strong leader emerges. (example - Germany post WWI). This is particularly true of dictatorships, as this type of regime is marked by the removal of any perceived challenger to the dictator, so the stronger the dictator, the greater the power vacuum after his removal. 1+1=2!

The Winged Wombat


Just looking over my post, a thought occurred. If I take as a basis the 'friend or foe' secenario it may explain much more than the above. There are only two major political parties in America (democracy doesn't work particularly well with more than two major parties anyway). The labelling of people as this or that with the consequence that a person is perceived to be in favour of, or against everything that the label implies. Could it be that America, both as a whole, and as individuals, does not understand that, on any given subject really, there may be many more views, solutions, or positions than merely two, many of which may be equally valid or otherwise. The world is not simply black and white.

[edit on 13/5/07 by The Winged Wombat]

WW,

You're absolutely right that post-WWII American foreign policy was simplistic in its polarity, as everything was viewed through the lens of the Cold War struggle--Commies and Capitalists. A lot of it was fueled by paranoia and militarism--'Dr. Strangelove' captures the obtuseness of the mentality perfectly.

Fence sitters and countries that didn't toe the line, like India, were harassed or purposely undermined. Absolutely. Still the case, though far less with India today--there's a new set of antagonists (for example, Venezuela) they are preoccupied with.

What is so exceptional today is that BushCo has trashed the post-war 'soft' structures that the brighter bulbs in the US foreign-policy establishment implemented to provide int'l stability and (secondarily) access to markets by US firms. The trade and monetary bodies have now simply become tools to crack open markets by force, no subtlety left.

What we're seeing now is the beginnings of reaction, countries coalescing about common interests (such as non-dollar denominated oil markets) to oppose US policies.

Right now it's piecemeal, but this will certainly gather momentum, unless the US returns to a far less aggressive world stance. Though I'd say fat chance to that.

It will only make the US more aggressive, as we've gone over the edge and it's pretty much impossible to put that testosterone-laden genie back in the bottle until its run its course. You see the mentality starkly at work in Iraq.



[edit on 14-5-2007 by gottago]

gottago,

Your scenario, I think, assumes that the Republicans (or at least the philosophy of paranoia behind Bushco) retain the Presidency after Bush.

How do you see a post-Bush America with a Democrat President?

Would that tend towards an isolationist America?

Taking the thought a little further, perhaps the politics of paranoia have already infected too many countries administrations (and in turn the mindset of the world's population) to return to diplomacy. Would that inevitably lead to global war.

Your thoughts?

The Winged Wombat

Well I think there will essentially be no difference, the two-party system is puppet theatre, and has been since the JFK assassination, when the "shadow gov't" took power; and its heirs--literally and figuratively--are still in power.

It's a complex subject, but essentially simple--the US is run by the MIC, the military industrial complex, and the major corporate and financial interests, supported by a frighteningly concentrated media that does their bidding to lull the populace into complacency. However, that said, the MIC is a Republican beast, the Dems have simply been cowed into submission. The most successfully MIC-integrated post-JFK Dem presidents were LBJ and Clinton, but Dem presidents are at best tolerated, at worst (Carter) made effective pariahs.

Dem or GOP, their agenda doesn't change, though it makes the little guy think the country is not the aquarium it is. I could go on and on to give examples, but everywhere you look, we have been fundamentally compromised, and a pack of lies has replaced the Constitution.

However, they are smart enough to let us trundle along in our mindless consumerism and TV-induced stupor, none the wiser, like goldfish in a bowl, who don't know anything other than the bowl. (This is why Americans aren't taught history or geography.)

As for the real agenda of the MIC--they obviously realize the perilous situation they're in right now--the wheels are coming off the US economy and that is why you are seeing such a rush to push the agenda forward under Bush. They want to close the deal while they still can. And they want to expand in the ME and control oil because we need it and it is a great lever of power. In a way like Japan's gambit that led to WWII.

It's a weird moment for the MIC & Co.--the best of times and the worst of times. You see 9/11 was a major element in moving their agenda forward, but it shows amazing desperation just as it does amazing control. And Iraq has turned into a nightmare; though they got what they wanted, the price is staggeringly high, and its drain on the military precludes many more such strategic misadventures.

Ostensibly they could not be more powerful, but I think that, on much deeper levels, the movement toward greater conflict--borne of their own lust for power and the natural result of reaping what you sow--will only cause their and aggression to become more overt. And I think you will see many more false-flag events and the clandestine manipulations of events.

I think that for the real rulers of the US, diplomacy has already become the same sort of puppet theatre as our internal politics. We will increasingly, and more overtly, lie, cheat and steal--we are a bully now, and bullying will be our MO.

Diplomacy in this administration is simply pro-forma, lip-service. The agenda is set, but they go through the motions of diplomacy so they can say "we tried." Then they do what they want.

Very sad state of affairs. The whole mess can't be reformed--it has to play out to its natural conclusion--which is a militarisitc/fascistic police state--and hopefully We the People will rise and reject this, not slide into that ignominy and slavery. But that is just a hope. I have no confidence in today's Americans to suddenly find a spine and a brain.

Dark view I know, but we are long since through the looking glass, and it's easy to pinpoint the date: we stepped through on Nov 22 1961.


[edit on 14-5-2007 by gottago]