I don’t want to interrupt. I’m not sure this was addressed to me. But could you point to the place where anybody said this? I’m not disputing, mind. I just don’t see it in mine or Jojo’s posts.
I think we were begining to suggest that the value of the sanctions as a recruitment tool for AQ was not so much less than the value of the war for the same purpose. This is a little different than suggesting that the war was a way to placate the Muslim world.
Nonsense.
Agree with General Zinni, or not?
For pervert:
No. Its’ not.
I agree that containment worked in regards to Saddam’s conventional arms and his ability to deliver WMD. I disagree that this can be said to “be working” in all repsects or that it is sufficient to keep the world safe. Its a value judgement.
I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that inspections were useless. I am only saying that they were no longer sufficient to keep the world “safe enough”. I recognize that others might differ on how much is enough.
Regarding your quote from Jojo, and without speaking for him, I’d say this does not say what you claimed when you wrote “I think we were headed to a discussion of whether appeasing the Muslim Arabic world was a genuine reason for ending the sanctions regime. You say it is.”
I think he is saying that over time the invasion will prove less of an iritant than the inspections would have. I don’t think that he is saying this was one of the reasons for the invasion. At least not in the sense you mean it.
As I said, I would never presume to speak for anyone else. Also I am willing to believe that it is possible I misunderstood your rephrasing of his position.
Finally, if you were addressing that comment to Jojo, I will respectfully withdraw from that poin and allow him to speak for himself.
And your argument merely assumes that General Zinni did not have this broad concept of safety in mind when he spoke. The evidence of his speech contradicts your assumption.
No, it does not. He specifically mentioned the containment of the communists and North Korea. He specifically mentioned missile systems. He did not mention WMD possession or ties to terrorists. Perhaps you can point me to the part of that interview in which he did take these into consideration?
Please don’t accuse me of merely assuming something when I clearly posted quotes and my interpretation of them. If you disagree with my analysis, show me which part is flawed.
Again, I will agree that to a certain degree, he was considering world safety. But I contend that he was considering it from too much of a cold war mentality for my taste. As I said, not a disagreement on substance, but on value.
Your argument advances the proposition that General Zinni, then a serving general in the US armed services, charged with enforcing sanctions against Iraq, was unaware of the context when he spoke of those sanctions as “working.”
I have already outlined the common sense rationale behind my assertion in considerable detail in my previous message. Apart from that, statistics on this kind of thing are difficult to collect, and we do have to consider specific factors such as the “fall” of the Taleban, which would have dealt a significant blow to al Qaeda membership. But we do know that:
levels of animosity towards the US have risen to alarming leves generally all around the globe and in particular in MENA and among global Muslim populations (precisely the sort of thing al Qaeda – Islamist terrorists in general since AQ is a blurred term – want)
Animosity (to say nothing of terrorist attacks) directed at the “West” in MENA and among Muslims appears to have also risen, thanks partly to the idiotic, irresponsible, and undemocratic (although often merely titular) support of several “Western” nations in the Iraq farce.
(on the positive side, there appears to be a growing revulsion in the Muslim world with the actions and philosophies of Islamist militants, but that’s a different matter and does little to address radical or potentially radical populations who are unlikely to view negatively any action against a perceived evil)
The Insitute for Policy Studies together with Foreign Policy in Focus issued this report on the mounting costs of war in Iraq last month collecting some of the data and expounding the case. The report seems fairly heavy on the facts, and I found it useful because it gathers exactly the evidence we are looking for. Here is the relevant section (numbers in superscript are their own cites):
I am saying that more people now have reason to vent frustrations through such channels as militant Islamism or terrorism than they had before the war. These are not new materials or suppositions, they are not exotic, nor is this by any means the first time they have been brought up. My assessments of our discussions have been that your “simple questions” are more likely intended as rhetorical devices rather than honest requests for information, since you are otherwise fairly well informed in your various spins and revolutions on this situation.
skipping ahead to more substance:
Saddam made life for inspectors less than perfect, but he was hardly withholding cooperation in any meaningful manner, particularly towards the end of UN inspections – since you claim that he was not cooperating I would expect the relevant citation from the group directly involved, being the IAEA and not the White House and their organs, trying to spin the work of the UN to their ends. Please, less spin concerning the words of Zinni, etc., let’s see if we can establish from the horse’s mouth if there was a dire problem.
Credible sources of intelligence indicating that there were low probabilities of nuclear weapon programmes in Iraq, and only slightly more likely probabilities of other unconventional weapon development. That is, sources NOT consisting of (or taking into account) such dubious items as the amateurish claims by the anonymous “Joe” alleging that orders of anodized aluminium tubes clearly intended for conventional weaponry were in reality for centrifuges, and similar deeply flawed – frequently trasparent, in fact – “intelligence”. The orders for aluminium tubes were the most important fulcrum in obtaining US domestic authorization for war because they suggested (to those ingorant --through little fault of their own-- of the real facts) that Iraq was attempting to engage in an illicit nuclear programme. Unfortunately the aluminium tubes as components of a centrifuge was evidence that experts already knew was false at the time it was presented in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (put together hastily in time for an October Senate vote on Iraq), and later, such as in Powell’s embarrasing speech to the UN Security Council where he said, “my colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources. These are not assertions.” Famous last words (damn, I feel sorry for that fellow).
Not the first time the White House has ended up with heavily manipulated evidence as concerns Iraq – just look at the pre-war State Department’s “assesment” of terrorist links, which casts about desperately and latches on to anything at all to prove the predetermined point.
We have seen this White House do the same thing over and over: repeat something untrue or inaccurate enough times until it is accepted as fact.
The evidence suggested very little about the existence of these precious WMD programmes. It would seem that Saddam Hussein realized post-1991 that the risks and costs of researcing and producing WMDs were simply too high. There are relevant cites to that effect but I would have to remember where they may be found.
Skipping ahead past stuff that has already been addressed…
First, there is little to suggest that the end of US occupation of Iraq will actually repair the damage already done – that old saw about Humpty-Dumpty. Secondly, I mist repeat: the inspection regime was a trifling offence compared to the invasion of Iraq and associated negative PR value. Sanctions are one thing (and are in fact regularly leveraged in a variety of situations as tools to obtain compliance); invasion and slaughter are quite another. Inspections and sanctions take place all the time all over the world for crying out loud, but it’s not every day that a major war takes place and a sovereign government is overthrown on the basis of obviously manipulated intelligence that was known even at the time to be false.
You had stated “The inspection regime itself was a pretty good recruiting tool, no?” in response to the reasonable claim that the recklessness of the past two years has made things less safe overall. I am not bickering or nitpicking, I am simply rejecting this attempt to slide the subject over to another, more favourable, angle.
This is a long reach; while the sanctions against Iraq were routinely leveraged in militants’ PR campaigns, it now is up to you to demonstrate (as you have implied but not supported) that irresponsible war followed by half-assed occupation and reconstruction carry more or less the same import for the populations involved as do sanctions and inspections. They don’t. Not for any nation I’ve ever been to, and I was in MENA just a couple months ago (where I assure you animosity against the US runs higher than I have previously seen).
In other words, I have provided arguments from common sense as well as more formal citation to establish that the import of the war was far greater than that of pre-war inspections and sanctions for Muslim radicals. For you to claim otherwise seemed another attempt to spin the situation the Bushites’ way, hence my response.
(In all fairness those that are already radicalized will latch on to any perceived affront they can find, the issue here is the radicalization – and ensuing problems – brought about by the Iraq war)
The future possibilities you mention involve sets of assumptions that fuddle this already obscure equivalence that you allege. Besides, the point is moot because we cannot assume an indefinite period of immutable inspections and sanctions, particularly when the sanctions had been heavily criticized in recent years before the war and there was much talk of reform. A reasonable, publicly and UN supported war against Iraq may have been in the cards at some point based on real evidence unearthed by IAEA inspections, deteriorating foreign relations, or whatnot. But certainly not in 2002/2003 as it happened, or, rather, as it was forced. This was presented as a war of necessity, but it was obvious from the start it was actually a war of choice, as The Economist put it.
It would be of limited use to address these points unless you wanted to start dealing with hypotheticals or focus only on possible positive outcomes of the war, which I don’t think is the issue here; I just note that the above hinge on a rather optimistic point of view (i.e., general and rapid success preceded by blunders) and ignore the damage that may be wreaked in the process of attaining the goals you mention. The reasoning as far as human sufferring and oppression are concerned is also rather shaky; people in Iraq didn’t have it quite as bad as other oppressed populations (North Koreans, various Sudanese, Uyghurs, indigenous Tibetans, etc.) and it is thus difficult to single them out. At least Iraq was a secular state with modern infrastructure, hospitals, comparatively little oppression of women, etc. It wasn’t all hell and damnation, even with the harsh sanctions in place I don’t think I would describe Iraqis as the people globally most in need of rescue under the circumstances which the rescue was carried out.
Skipping to what I think is the core issue.
This is the crux of the issue. You have not provided any citation which proves this assertion. You have simply said that more people are upset. Proving this requires 2 things. You need the amount of people upset before and the amount upset after. Obviously you need other things to be sure we are not talking about coincidences. But I’ll take any information indicating that more people are upset now than before.
To be accurate, though, we were talking about AQ recruitment. Your cite only claims that AQ now has 18,000 “members”. It does not indicate how many existed before the war in Iraq. Unfortunately the full report does not seem to include this information either. Can you understand why I need some sort of comparison to previous AQ recruitment in order to see the change? I’m not trying to be snotty, I need to know if I am being clear in this objection.
I appreciate your arguments from “common sense”, but I’m afraid they do not constitute proof. In the end, they amount to “more people hate us so the terrorists will be able to find more recruits”. Even if this were true, it does not come close to showing that the effectiveness of the recruiting methods amount ot orders of magnitude of change.
And, as apoint of order, it was you who claimed that the war was a much greater recruitment tool, so I think, it is up to you to provide proof.
Exactly my point. In order to determine first that the war itself represents a change, you need some ide as to the effectiveness of the sanctions. I presented some evidence that AQ was using the sanctions prominently in its rhetoric. You presented evidence that AQ membership now stands around 18,000. Can you see that we don’t have enough data to determine what effect the war has had?
Agreed. That’s why I suggested we stay on topic and just concentrate on one aspect of this debate. I think I suggested we stick to the question of AQ recruitment.
(Just to poke my nose in again very quickly)
There is another factor to consider that hasn’t been mentioned yet. This factor (or evidence, call it what you will) is the fact that in the years preceeding the war hundreds, if not thousands, of muslims visited the al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.
The number of people visiting these camps appeared to be increasing as the years went by. This could be seen as further evidence that the sanctions were playing an increasingly large role in causing resentment in the muslim world. Now many of the people visiting the camps were what is termed “jihad vacationers” ie they went there, fired a few guns, had a good time chatting about how how great Allah is and then came home. But even so the fact that these camps were getting more and more popular would still seem to signify that the level of anger was increasing. And all this was long before the idea of a war was ever even mooted.
If 9/11 and the war had never happened, the sanctions would still be there and the camps would still be there attracting ever larger numbers of visitors. I think this factor has to at least be considered as an indication that trouble was brewing with or without a war on Iraq.
The war may have caused resentment and hostility but the resentment and hostility was already there and growing. Festering like an open wound. The war was a bold stroke but, if nothing else, it has at least removed one of the reasons why all these people were going to training camps learning how to kill Americans.
If it removed one of the reasons as you say, it gave ‘these people’ thousands of new reasons to be pissed off with the USA.
They already had half a million reasons, which is the number of children who are estimated to have died as a direct result of ten years of sanctions (according to UNICEF). That’s bordering on genocide.
Sorry, you are going to have to give some evidence that this was primarily driven by the sanctions, not the Israeli situation, or even the American presence in Saudi Arabia, which was or more interest to bin Laden. One piece of evidence would be how many Iraqis attended these camps. I’ve never heard of any. Of course, the camps were gone by the time we invaded Iraq.
Another thing to consider - would an ongoing effective inspections regime have cleared the way for the lifting of some or all sanctions? (Except against the purchase of weapons, of course.) I can’t imagine an inspection regime stirring up any anti-US or UN sentiment.
Finally, though Saddam killed lots of people, does someone have some data on who it was he killed? How many of them were radical Islamists, the same guys we’re shooting at now?
I don’t think anyone has said that any of these activities were primarily driven by sanctions.
This clearly played a large part too.
You mean the troops there to enforce the sanctions and inspection regime right?
I’m not sure this would be the sort of evidence you claim. Saddam kept his people pretty local. Besides, has there been any evidence that the 18,000 current members of AQ have a large percentage of Iraqis?
But it did exactly that, and this was precisely the danger that we’ve been talking about. Saddam still in place, the sanctions removed, and the inspections without teeth.
You provide yet more equivocation in response to my arguments and evidence that included a cite from a highly trusted authoritative source and several others. Your only alternative is to keep raising the bar on the evidence you require, without providing anything other than heavily-spun arguments virtually never supported by citations or even the facts. This is becoming laughable, pervert, I would suggest shaping up before you end up cementing a permanent image of desperate and equivocating apologista. if it’s not too late already.
I refer you again to the terrorist recruitment excerpt quoted in my previous post (and supported by a variety of its own cites). Then I refer you to the summary of the IISS “The Military Balance” report 2003/2004, with my added emphasis since it appears necessary to provide such for your selective approach to these matters:
I’m sure you will latch on to the “probably” for dear life, but I don’t have the original report to provide its systematic evidence and reasoning. Here is The Economist’s take, a highly respected and balanced medium that you nonetheless ignored consistently when I cited it in past discussions:
I’m quite satisfied with these assesments and analyses. They fit in almost perfectly with my own readings and fairly extensive experience in MENA, all of which I will take any day over your constant and unsupported attempts to spin an argument away from a conclusion you do not find favourable.
By the way, note the various references to Iraq and the Palestinian situation being major incitements to radicalism and even terrorism, and let’s move away from this idiotic notion that the sanctions were the leading (or even a major) factor in anti-western or anti-American sentiments. I know you have since, true to form, equivocated on what exactly you meant about the sanctions, but either retract your claim or provide substance to demonstrate any sort of equivalence to the Iraq war as a recruiting factor for terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular.
These arguments revolving on the sanctions as the source of evil are sloppy attempts to salvage something positive out of the Iraq mess for the current White House. Once again, pervert, it was you who implied dishonestly that the sanctions and the Iraq war were at the least equivalent in terms of affront and recruitment. Prove this nonsense or quit waving your hands evasively about it.
I see. Did you by miss phrases in the cite such as “the war in Iraq has accelerated recruitment to al Qaeda and made the world less safe”, or are you deliberately ignoring them in strict accordance with your previous record of avoiding arguments and evidence that does not fit into your thesis?
How I would like to believe that, but having had this same experience with you before here and in other threads, I will need you to demonstrate rather more good faith and honesty than you have to date.
Actually, it was you who implied that sanctions and the war were equivalent, an assertion so far out there and so clearly an attempt to evade the real problems that I decided to join this discssion. I already provided reams of authoritative assesments and commentary regarding the impact of the Iraq war, whereas I have seen nothing of the sort from you to suggest that the sanctions were anywhere near as useful for the terrorists’ philosophy as the Iraq war.
Now, I don’t know if in pervert spin-land an increase in animosity towards you translates to people sending you congratulation cards and presents; in the real world, animosity is an unfavourable currency that translates to a host of negative items, including tensions and disagreements, domestic problems (c.f. Egypt and Saudi Arabia frequently paralyzed by tug-of-wars between friendship to the West and large, inflamed radical populations), as well as a retreat to methods that are perceived as “taking action”, rather than just “talking”. Add to this the calls to potential jihadis from radicalists and the (as already discussed and established) considerable leverage of developments such as the Iraq war and the Palestinian situation, and you’d have to be a pathological denier to miss where the real relevance to terrorism is, and where it has been the past few years.
Iraqi civilians casualties and problems have often been brushed under the carpet by the administration --we do hear a lot of this “precision bombing” so reminiscent of the 1991 “smart bombs” bullshit-- to the point that there is considerable ignorance as to the level of suffering Iraqis are undergoing. Not so in MENA, not so in the Islamic world in general, where people are more aware of the degree of suffering involved than most Americans are likely to ever be. This site gives you an idea of the leverage that radicalists can now employ thanks to a poorly planned, unjustified, and badly executed situation. That’s just the civilian casualties mind you, it does not address any of the other arguments re: Iraq that are routinely pressed into service by flamebrands (such as Western or Christian oppression, Jewish influence, etc.). You still argue the sanctions were comparable?
The sanctions were indeed leveraged, and they were indeed no small deal; but they had a clear purpose and also served to protect countries like Saudi Arabia (motherland of extremism) from the danger that Saddam – a secular leader disliked by fundamentalists – could have posed. But it’s funny how the Palestinian situation has topped the list of grievances of the Muslim world for years, at least until the Iraq war happened, whereas the Iraqi sanctions have enjoyed much more limited popular “success”. The loudest noise about the Iraqi sanctions, you will remember, tended to come from international aid organizations, not radicals or terrorists.
As I mentioned several times, there are considerable difficulties in obtaining the levels of evidence you disingenously clamour for, but that doesn’t mean we can’t obtain a fairly reliable picture of what is happening.
Now, just some general points to bolster the items I have already argued and supported.
[quote]
Washington Times Analysis: Bin Laden more popular than Bush
Cairo, Egypt, Sep. 11 (UPI) – On the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a new poll shows that mastermind terrorist Osama bin Laden is more popular that President George W. Bush in Egypt, a staunch U.S. ally and recipient of billions of U.S. dollars in financial aid.
<snip>
Three years after 19 Islamist terrorists slammed passenger jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, shocking America and the world, the war to eradicate terrorism is far from being won.
After the initial shock passed, the Bush administration reacted to i9/11 by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq. Both wars are far from being contained and bin Laden remains at large, while President George W. Bush says the world is now a safer place.
It’s true that there has not been a terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, although intelligence sources say we came close to it. Thanks to the vigilance of British intelligence, a group of terrorists planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” and other explosives in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., were apprehended before their deeds could be put into motion.
A good number of Americans agree with the president, but the rest of the world differs greatly with his belief that the world is now safer. While the Taliban was removed and a bloodthirsty tyrant in Iraq deposed, there is hardly ever a mention of the 11,000 to 13,800 Iraqi civilians who according to IraqBodyCount.org were killed since the U.S. invasion [note: those numbers are considerably higher now].
In fact, since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been a slew of horrendous attacks against a number of countries, including those supporting the U.S. war on terrorism. In a slip of the tongue the president admitted in a television interview that the war on terrorism could not be won. However, he later retracted his statement.
Despite setbacks and a number of key operatives killed and jailed in the three years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its affiliates are still operational, carrying out attacks across large swaths of the globe.
[quote]
The article then cites recent terrorist attacks: the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah bomb attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, the Russian Beslan school tragedy, the downing of two Russian passeger jets, the Moscow subway station bomb, the Madrid bombs, the Istanbul bombs, “and the list goes on”.
So, do you insist we should attribute this to sanctions rather than the rather more substantial, media-saturating, and sensibility-offending Iraqi war that roughly coincided with the end of sanctions?
Setbacks such as the idiocy involved in the Iraq war and thorougly discussed elsewhere. Are there really further questions on the severity and impact of the Iraq war as compared to the sanctions? At least I see that we don’t have to cover more basic ground such as the IAEA inspections and the fabricated and manipulated evidence used to go to war.
Terrific post Abe.
Yes and this can count for all his posts in this thread. And the cites he gives give in general a fair view on the situation and its development.
But I doubt if someone like pervert will ever be convinced that to understand a situation he needs to try to gain insight in the real world outside his own.
I would add that although the sanctions certainly had some influence on the way people perceived the US and the West in general, the Iraq invasion is largely perceived as the agression of the USA in particular against a nation and its population that was
In addition this invasion is easily perceived as
I could add a few more reasons to demonstrate why this criminal action of the US causes so much anger that there is no need for many more to get things running completely out of hand.
In comparision:
The invasion of Kuwait by Lunatic Hussein really caused some panic and destabilisation.
This led to the Gulf War and the sanctions on Iraq and these caused some anger among the average people in the region (I don’t speak of the governments but of “the man in the street”).
Yet this anger was not that deep seeded that it could not be contained by logical reasoning :
In the Gulf War, it was Hussein who was the agressor first and although the West only mixed itself in this because of their own interest, this was not perceived as a clear out invasion of the region and an attack on lslam.
The invasion of Afghanistan already set the scene for a staggering anger among populations, yet this could also be reasoned:
When the US went to Iraq, many effort were made in the media to let people see how much protest there was worldwide against the US invasion of Iraq. That included reports on the massibve demonstrations in the USA itself (reports I did not even see on the US media).
This attempt to show the average Muslim that this was
now largely fires back.
Instead of calming down the populations as was the aim and which was working fairly well in the beginning, the populations now are very much aware of
Nothing can “reason” this by bringing it into perspective of the situation that for one reason or the other “provoked” the USA.
And that is what makes all the difference.
Iraq is the greatest idiocy caused by arrogance, complete lack of insight (and criminal lack of any interest to even gain insight) in a situation that I can think of. It is not comparable with the US idiocy in Vietnam and so many other US agressions, openly comitted or covered up.
“Shock and Awe”
Indeed still coming, yet still not reaching the arrogant blindfolded brains of the US presidency and his criminals in the administration.
“You ain’t seen nothing yet”
Indeed.
Words fail to express how much I wish all these arrogant criminal lunatics to be cursed for eternity. Insh’allah.
Salaam. A
Well, let’s not get carried away now - no need to invoke damnation on someone when you can simply call him a drooling aberration to your satisfaction. While I don’t agree with all your characterizations, Aldebaran, I think you did express quite well several of the popular and worrying sentiments I was referring to. Some of them are overblown IMO but then again that’s something the Bushites were being warned about throughout the whole process: recklessly bash forward on a foolhardy unsubstantiated war after bungling its diplomatic and analytical approach, and it’s not likely to do wonders for the way people perceive the situation.
Although, 9/11 happened before either Afghanistan or Iraq. And prior to 9/11, there was a decade of al Qaida related terrorist attacks on the US. So clearly something was annoying these people 13 years before America invaded Iraq.
And during all this time people were flocking in increasing numbers to Afghanistan to train in camps.
The Israel situation has been going on since 1947 without provoking islamist attacks on the US. What happened during the 90s to really piss them off?
Whilst I don’t doubt that the Iraq war will certainly have caused hostility, it cannot be said to be the original cause of this hostility. Since the terrorists had reached the point where they were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people, I think we can deduce that their hatred of America was already fully-formed two years before the Iraq war.
This hostility was caused by a number of factors. One of these factors was the sanctions regime and none of these factors was the Iraq war (since that hadn’t happened yet). The Iraq war might have made them angry but they were already as angry as it is possible to be (obviously since they want to kill as many innocent people as they can).
What were the other causes of this hostility? There’s Israel but that only indirectly involves America. There’s the US troops in Saudi but this cannot be said to have been a major gripe. So what’s left?
Personally I would throw in islam’s dubious moral teachings which make hatred of the infidel come very easily to those with a mind to hold such beliefs. Combine this with notions of jihad. Mix in a couple of genuine causus belli. Leave to bake for a few years et voila - we get the Twin Towers.
What is it you do not agree with? I don’t give my “characterisations” as you call it. I give you an idea of people’s sentiments and the reasoning behind them.
Whis is “overblown” (but obviously knowingly and obviously with very specific and calculated reasons) is the idiotic blaming on “Al Qaeda” - especially in the US media reflecting like good slaves the declarations of US administration - of no matter what happens or no matter what goes wrong these days, whenever someone (or a group)with Muslim background is involved.
There was no need to read or see or hear much about the Bush criminals to know that they were and still are much too full of their paternalistic arrogant perception of our region to be even able to imagine that we are not waiting to become US clones or US slaves and that we are not waiting to be told by Bush and his criminals about how to live and how to be governed.
I think you also give these criminals far too much credit; as if they would ever be ready to actually lend their ear to people who do have knowledge and insight in the region and who did predict everything that is happening right now (and that includes me and by God I still hope that time shall prove all of us to be completely wrong, although I am coming close to desesperation).
Don’t let me laugh… Whomever undertook the adventure to try to reason these criminal idiots out of their lunaticism received at best a cold shower, but mostly not even that because they were not even heard at all.
The Bush administration follow an agenda for which the plan was drawn years ago and to wich the atttacks of 9/11 provided them with the ideal key to sell it to the US public. You could see it coming with your eyes closed.
Salaam. A