Alright, I'm will concede that the FBI might have had prior knowledge of the WTC bombing, and had an informant in on the whole thing. Except the transcripts are far from decisive on the matter of them orchestrating the bombing. Given that there was hours of transcripts, and this one little bit alone is the only part that suggests this, this is a vague suggestion at best. The only thing that it DOES show is that the FBI knew there was a plot to bomb the WTC. Given that they're the guys who deal with this sort of thing anyways, somehow their knowledge of it does not surprise me. What WOULD surprise me, however, is if the CIA were his handlers instead, because such a situation as you describe would go through them, NOT the FBI; CIA has closer inner ties to the government and tends to handle affairs of international proportion. This would be a situation wherein if the US was trying to support this idea of yours-
You know, let me just pump the brakes right there and just ask, at this point, what would this hope to achieve? Were we going to go and invade Iraq? Funny thing, the US government came to the conclusion that Iraq was NOT involved. This group was active for over a decade and attacked us repeatedly, without any ties being established anywhere until the Taliban openly began sponsoring and sheltering al-Qaeda, and even then we only invaded Afghanistan once we had a particularly vehement reason to do so. They'd been attacking US targets for a DECADE, OK? In no way were they things that would prompt an invasion of Afghanistan. And how did we go from "invade Afghanistan" to "invade Iraq" if Iraq was the real goal to piss off the arabic world? Why not elsewhere, huh? Why not Iraq itself? Bush had a daddy's-grudge against Saddam, and his rich oil buddies wanted to profit from war, that's all there was to it, al-Qaeda has only served to hinder that, not make it easier. They've continued to attack US interests in the mean-time as well.
You have "the FBI had some knowledge about a plot to bomb the WTC, we invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, therefore al-Qaeda is working for the US and the US is supporting al-Qaeda" as an argument. Well.
Looks like Raayan wasn't the only one who bought Tom's invention. And the last eight seconds really describes your whole claim.
You know, let me just pump the brakes right there and just ask, at this point, what would this hope to achieve? Were we going to go and invade Iraq? Funny thing, the US government came to the conclusion that Iraq was NOT involved. This group was active for over a decade and attacked us repeatedly, without any ties being established anywhere until the Taliban openly began sponsoring and sheltering al-Qaeda, and even then we only invaded Afghanistan once we had a particularly vehement reason to do so. They'd been attacking US targets for a DECADE, OK? In no way were they things that would prompt an invasion of Afghanistan. And how did we go from "invade Afghanistan" to "invade Iraq" if Iraq was the real goal to piss off the arabic world? Why not elsewhere, huh? Why not Iraq itself? Bush had a daddy's-grudge against Saddam, and his rich oil buddies wanted to profit from war, that's all there was to it, al-Qaeda has only served to hinder that, not make it easier. They've continued to attack US interests in the mean-time as well.
You have "the FBI had some knowledge about a plot to bomb the WTC, we invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, therefore al-Qaeda is working for the US and the US is supporting al-Qaeda" as an argument. Well.
Looks like Raayan wasn't the only one who bought Tom's invention. And the last eight seconds really describes your whole claim.
