Should the CIA Be Considered Complicit in 9/11?

[spooked911]

Poll question: Should the CIA Be Considered Complicit in 9/11?

I'm mostly interested in people who say "no".

If you say, could you give a reason?

Thanks!

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. Not directly

In the manner you are most likley refering to.

Indrectly yes, in the form of unintended blowback. But then that doesn't fit the definition of complicit.

[spooked911]

3. so you trust that they did nothing to facilitate the attacks?

and have absolutely no reason to suspect they did anything wrong (besides being 'negligent")?

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Yes

and yes.

They are a bureaucratic agency made up of human beings. All dedicated to public SERVICE to a group of individuals known as the United States of America. Do they occasionally fuck up in the line of duty? Absolutely. Show me a group of people who don't. They just happen to have a rather unique sent of circumstances, roles and mission.

The latest line of interrogation scandals is certainly looking to be one of those gaffs. Does that make them a sinister body? I don't think so. It makes them flawed as in going overboard in perceived requirements to defend US citizens from terrorists.

I will argue that the VAST MAJORITY of their acts are unknown and within the bounds of the law and international treaties.

[Realityhack]

2. In what way to what degree.

I have a nagging feeling you are asking a dishonest question.

[LARED]

4. If voted no because there is no evidence the CIA

was complicit.

What exactly do you mean by CIA? It's an important distinction because if I steal from a client contracted with the company I work for, did I steal or did my company steal?

[Raster]

5. Good point. In your example, you stole. The only thing your company did wrong was hire you.

[spooked911]

6. are you saying individual agents could be considered complicit?

but by "CIA", I meant institutional guilt.

[LARED]

8. It is clearly possible an individual in the CIA could have known

about the Al Qaeda attacks and done nothing. That would meet the definition of complicit.

I do not believe the US government was involved in any way.

[Raster]

9. It is clearly possible that individuals in the CIA could have even aided the Al Qa-eda attacks.

What most of us perceive as "the United States Government" is a complex, multi-faceted, multi-institutional dynastic institution; definitely more than just the sum of its individual parts. One house of Congress is theoretically replaced every two years, the other every six. The Presidency is up for grabs every four. But the underlying infrastructures that serve these transient players continues decade-after-decade, and now, century-after-century. The government of the people for the people and by the people in truth only comes to the people when it needs money and validation. The rest of the time the government--including the people's elected representatives--would prefer the people stand back and not interfere with the BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT.

September 11 was ultimately a business decision. Bold, brash and rife with the potential of failure. September 11 was a Roger Staubach "Hail Mary" pass deemed necessary to allow a certain faction the power and ability to control the destiny and resources of the worlds biggest superpower--at the most opportune time--in one of history's biggest gambles, and unfortunately now we see, one of history's biggest fuckups.

There is ample evidence demonstrating that more than just "Al Qa-eda" knew something horrendous and Earth-shattering would happen on September 11, 2002. The "terrorist" attack in no way was an out-of-the-blue, completely-by-surprise endeavor.

"We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/20/911pdb/

[Bolo Boffin]

10. It is clearly possible that the space aliens did so as well. n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

14. why?

is there evidence that space aliens had contact with al Qaeda prior to 9/11?

[eomer]

21. That is nonsensical.

Your first statement:

It is clearly possible an individual in the CIA could have known about the Al Qaeda attacks and done nothing. That would meet the definition of complicit.

is in obvious contradiction with your second:

I do not believe the US government was involved in any way.

Obviously if the US government were involved in any way it would be the doing of one or more individuals who are members of the government. There is no other possible way it could be done. The government has no volition of its own, independent from the actions of individuals.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that you don't believe that the highest levels of the government, namely the President, Vice President, or their immediate subordinates, were involved. To which I would say, you may be right or you may be wrong. It would not be surprising that if they were involved we would not have seen the evidence of it since, obviously, they would try very hard to avoid creating any hard evidence or letting it become public.

[LARED]

22. There is no contradiction

between believing something is possible but believing it did not happen.

[eomer]

23. Oh, thanks for the clarification -- that is not the meaning I took.

What do you base that belief on? Do you think there is not a single person anywhere in our government who would stoop to it?

[BuddyBoy]

7. CIA surely is complicit for assisting in the "intelligence" finding ...

that has been used as a hangout. I'm talking about the one in which there were "warnings" and "chatter" about a possible attack.
Wasn't that used to help frame Osama and change his name to "The Patsy Who Shall Be Named But Not Touched". Yes?

[rschop]

12. Yes, There is now iron clad proof of this!

There is now iron clad proof that the CIA, working witn agents at FBI HQ, was complicit in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

[spooked911]

13. link?

I agree that there is evidence-- but iron-clad?

[rschop]

17. Link to the iron clad proof that the CIA was culpable in the attacks on 9/11

Yes iron clad:

See my blogs on this forum in my Journal and the web site at www.eventson911.com

I can repost a summary if necessary.

[SDuderstadt]

18. I've read your blogs and I don 't agree with your conclusions at all...

It's like 1 + 2 = 4. Sorry.

[spooked911]

19. thanks

looks good

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. forgive me

but I am dubious.

[defendandprotect]

20. I voted "yes" but I don't mean that to suggest that no other intelligence

was involved -- NSA . . . some say that the power has moved upward from the CIA?

Of course, they would be very involved in moving us into the ME -- in all of the
dirty tricks and other crap they've been pulling --

But, looks like strong military involvement in 9/11 -- ???

[rj5690]

24. Definitely