Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Response to 9/11? Bomb South America

Other Talk "Otterville"

Response to 9/11? Bomb South America

Old 08-01-04, 09:18 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Response to 9/11? Bomb South America

Secret Proposals: Fighting Terror by Attacking ... South America?

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

Days after 9/11, a senior Pentagon official lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan and proposed instead U.S. military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as "a surprise to the terrorists," according to a footnote in the recent 9/11 Commission Report. The unsigned top-secret memo, which the panel's report said appears to have been written by Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, is one of several Pentagon documents uncovered by the commission which advance unorthodox ideas for the war on terror. The memo suggested "hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive" or a "non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq," the panel's report states. U.S. attacks in Latin America and Southeast Asia were portrayed as a way to catch the terrorists off guard when they were expecting an assault on Afghanistan.

The memo's content, NEWSWEEK has learned, was in part the product of ideas from a two-man secret Pentagon intelligence unit appointed by Feith after 9/11: veteran defense analyst Michael Maloof and Mideast expert David Wurmser, now a top foreign-policy aide to Dick Cheney. Maloof and Wurmser saw links between international terror groups that the CIA and other intelligence agencies dismissed. They argued that an attack on terrorists in South America—for example, a remote region on the border of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil where intelligence reports said Iranian-backed Hizbullah had a presence—would have ripple effects on other terrorist operations. The proposals were floated to top foreign-policy advisers. But White House officials stress they were regarded warily and never adopted.

Other proposals got greater traction. The 9/11 Commission says the idea of attacking Iraq also was pushed in a Sept. 17 memo by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz argued that the odds were "far more" than one in 10 that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, citing in part theories by controversial academic Laurie Mylroie that Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. (The commission's report found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was behind the 1993 attack—and no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. A Wolfowitz aide said the memo "did not talk about theories, but facts.") Still, critics say, the ideas put forward by Wolfowitz, Feith and others in the Pentagon set the stage for the war in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission plans to put more aspects of the government's secret war on terror into the public domain this month, including a report on the role of Saudi-backed charities in financing Al Qaeda.
I think they missed the boat -- if you really want to surprise the terrorists... why not bomb Canada? If we'd bombed Toronto, that certainly would have sent a message to the terrorists. "Man, those Americans are crazy! We'd better no mess with those lunatics again!"

On a more serious note... this also shows how Iraq was identified as a "non-al Aeda target" in the days after 9/11, just as Wolfowitz and other members of the Administration scrambled around to find any connection they could.

Last edited by NCMojo; 08-01-04 at 09:23 PM.
Old 08-01-04, 09:31 PM
  #2  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Identified as such by the same individuals who wanted to hit South America. Either give them credibility on both, or neither. You pick.

BTW, I am certain that there are Islamic terrorists, including al queda, operating in South America. More still have significant ties.
Old 08-01-04, 09:32 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Remind me of this post...


How far would we have gotten if after the surprise attacks on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor, we would have asked, "Why do the Japanese hate us so much?" or "How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?"
Originally posted by Duran
Probably not very far, but I'm pretty sure our response to Pearl Harbor wasn't the invasion of Peru.
Old 08-01-04, 09:50 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
El Scorcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 39,626
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BAN HIM
Old 08-01-04, 09:55 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,766
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 6 Posts
Secret Proposals: Fighting Terror by Attacking ... South America?
Communist Columbian narco-Terrorists come to mind.
Old 08-01-04, 10:11 PM
  #6  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am sorry but I do have to agree with Pharoh on this one. I will choose that both are true. Some will say this makes the guys look like a nut job.

Hmmm......to make the second more credible, I guess we will have to look at the first one closer.

lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan and proposed instead U.S. military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as "a surprise to the terrorists

We have already been involved with the attempted overthrow of the legally elected government of Venezuela, a 1960 Founder Member of OPEC.

Bush has so many friends over in Saudi Arabia and wouldn't it just be easier if we were to go somewhere else where we could get the oil without having to fight Arabs for it. Yes, I see where they were going with that one. I can't help but wonder how close to oil fields the South America strikes would have been.

Gee, doesn't look quite as crazy looking at it that way. Kind of makes sense to me.

Now onto the second point.

"non-al Qaeda target"

So a person that Cheney trusts so much - that even went on to become one of CHENEY'S top personal aides said that huh? I think I know where you are going with all of this, Mojo.

BTW, not sure if you knew it, but I dug up some information on one of the guys that was mentioned in the article - Feith. Here it is:

It was his office, for example, that created shortly after 9/11 the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP) which re-assessed 12 years of raw intelligence and the Arab press, to find evidence of ties between the regime of former Iraq President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group.

The OSP then ''stove piped'' that information, unvetted by professional intelligence analysts, straight to Vice President Dick Cheney's office for use by the White House.


So, he went over a ton of intelligence for Cheney and then he just gave it straight to him circumventing any inconvenience of the CIA denying it. Which, of course, could show where Bush got some of his information that he gave to the public. The information of which I speak is the things Bush said and yet was NOT told by the CIA thus refuting the 'bad intel' of the CIA. It can not be bad info from the CIA if the CIA never gave it to him to start with.
Old 08-01-04, 10:18 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally posted by CQ2
I am sorry but I do have to agree with Pharoh on this one. I will choose that both are true. Some will say this makes the guys look like a nut job.

Hmmm......to make the second more credible, I guess we will have to look at the first one closer.

lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan and proposed instead U.S. military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as "a surprise to the terrorists

We have already been involved with the attempted overthrow of the legally elected government of Venezuela, a 1960 Founder Member of OPEC.

Bush has so many friends over in Saudi Arabia and wouldn't it just be easier if we were to go somewhere else where we could get the oil without having to fight Arabs for it. Yes, I see where they were going with that one. I can't help but wonder how close to oil fields the South America strikes would have been.

Gee, doesn't look quite as crazy looking at it that way. Kind of makes sense to me.

Now onto the second point.

"non-al Qaeda target"

So a person that Cheney trusts so much - that even went on to become one of CHENEY'S top personal aides said that huh? I think I know where you are going with all of this, Mojo.

BTW, not sure if you knew it, but I dug up some information on one of the guys that was mentioned in the article - Feith. Here it is:

It was his office, for example, that created shortly after 9/11 the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP) which re-assessed 12 years of raw intelligence and the Arab press, to find evidence of ties between the regime of former Iraq President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group.

The OSP then ''stove piped'' that information, unvetted by professional intelligence analysts, straight to Vice President Dick Cheney's office for use by the White House.


So, he went over a ton of intelligence for Cheney and then he just gave it straight to him circumventing any inconvenience of the CIA denying it. Which, of course, could show where Bush got some of his information that he gave to the public. The information of which I speak is the things Bush said and yet was NOT told by the CIA thus refuting the 'bad intel' of the CIA. It can not be bad info from the CIA if the CIA never gave it to him to start with.

Is any of that information about Mr. Feith supposed to be startling? He is a very well know figure, even around these parts. Just curious as to what the motivation was in making him out to be some type of spook. Really, no "googling" necessary. And do you have any credible information that speaks to the fact that the White House used the information and intel from the OSP exclusively, or even primarily?

Similarly, though off topic, have any credible, non-blogged, information on the United States' direct and complicit involvment in the attempt to oust the reknown human rights violator, Chavez?

Also, if we got more oil from South America, wouldn't that hurt "our friends" in Saudi Arabia? (Disregarding the fact that we already do get more from South America). And aren't there much easier places, places that are much more willing to cooperate, to get excess oil from, if oil is indeed the whole impetus for these evil actions? I know I can think of quite a few.
Old 08-01-04, 10:29 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 12,178
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Pharoh
Is any of that information about Mr. Feith supposed to be startling? He is a very well know figure, even around these parts. Just curious as to what the motivation was in making him out to be some type of spook.
Spook? More like mook.
Old 08-01-04, 10:35 PM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally posted by dork
Spook? More like mook.

Regardless, this is not anything new, nor anything that most didn't already know. That is what I was taking exception to, the notion that we weren't bright enough to already be aware of all of these revelations.
Old 08-01-04, 11:47 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm very much in favor of this plan if we really want to stick to the "global" war on terror. There are major terrorists in SE Asia such as in the Philippines and people have been worried about South America, not just for Columbian terrorists, but as a stopping point for Al Qaeda to enter America, like traveling up into Mexico and into the US. This is something the government should seriously consider before the problem is too big.
Old 08-01-04, 11:51 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,733
Received 143 Likes on 106 Posts
Pharoh is pretty much correct. Nothing terribly new and there are cells in South America.

IMRICKJAMES also brings up a point as well. Mexico. It's the easiest way into country.
Old 08-01-04, 11:54 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,881
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Pharoh
Regardless, this is not anything new, nor anything that most didn't already know. That is what I was taking exception to, the notion that we weren't bright enough to already be aware of all of these revelations.
Have you ever once stopped to consider that not everyone on the planet possesses the same amazing intellect as you?

FYI, this is the first I've heard the name Douglas Feith, and I dare say I'm a bit more educated in these matters than the average man on the street.
Old 08-02-04, 12:08 AM
  #13  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,196
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
IMHO this is the main reason why it's usually not a good idea to dig around in some closets. These types of plans are cooked up all the time as part of standard brainstorming/wargamming exercises. The bottom line is though these specific ones weren't acted upon so that should be the end of story, again IMHO. I guess though of course if you are against the action in Iraq and are looking for something to add to the Bush is a meglomaniac/VRWC POV this is as good as anything else. Personally I don't think it sounds like that big of a deal, esp considering they (rightly) didn't act upon it.
Old 08-02-04, 12:10 AM
  #14  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally posted by Numanoid
Have you ever once stopped to consider that not everyone on the planet possesses the same amazing intellect as you?

FYI, this is the first I've heard the name Douglas Feith, and I dare say I'm a bit more educated in these matters than the average man on the street.

Ah, if only that were true. Me having some amazing intellect that is. Thanks for the compliment thought, just wish it were true.


For what it's worth, I wasn't speaking about the average man on the street, I was speaking about the rather informed participants of our political threads here. We really don't need to be schooled or educated about some of the principal actors of the geopolitical stage. We even less need someone attempting to educate us in a condescending manner. Maybe it's just me though?


A final note on a funny thing, the name of Mr. Feith appear over 12 times in thread on this forum in the last year. Interestingly enough, you have participated in about 4 or 5 of them. Strange.
Old 08-02-04, 01:45 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,881
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Pharoh
A final note on a funny thing, the name of Mr. Feith appear over 12 times in thread on this forum in the last year. Interestingly enough, you have participated in about 4 or 5 of them. Strange.
Yes, strange. Apparently not only is my intellect not as amazing as yours, but my reading comprehension/retention skills are also equally inferior. Get over yourself.

I for one welcome threads line this because it indeed does "school" some of us.

It's funny, but it seems like it's always the cons on this forum who crap in a thread saying things like, "Do we really need another thread about this?" or "What's your point other than to bash Bush?", yet there were a dozen or so threads on ridiculous topics like what Kerry is eating for lunch, or how the balloons didn't fall properly, yet I do not recall any of the lefties crying that there shouldn't be threads on the topics.
Old 08-02-04, 04:44 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you will eventually see US action in South America and SE Asia on a heightened level (we are already in Columbia and training Phillipine troops) but I doubt this will ever happen under Bush, even if a 2nd term happens. More so than any other country we can't fight without the will of the people behind the action and after the war in Iraq I dont think the support for a larger scale global war on terror can be drummed up. Remember, Clinton never took more action on Iraq or Afghanistan because he believed the people wouldn't be behind him...and I think the same would be true with Bush and fighting in South America or SE Asia
Old 08-02-04, 08:58 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,158
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OK, so a memo was circulated saying that attacking terrorists in South America might make an impact and be less politically and strategically dangerous than a full scale attack in the middle east. Judging by the huge power of narco terrorist groups like Shining Path in Peru and FARC in Columbia, it really doesn't seem all that crazy if you're truly involved in an interantional "War on Terror"

The administration disagrees and doesn't act. Why is that news? I'll tell you why: Newsweek is and has always been a very partisan anti-Republican publication.

Also, since when does "non-Al Queda target" mean "a target that has nothing to do with al Queda"?

Spin.

Last edited by Hiro11; 08-02-04 at 09:01 AM.
Old 08-02-04, 11:49 AM
  #18  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally posted by Hiro11
OK, so a memo was circulated saying that attacking terrorists in South America might make an impact and be less politically and strategically dangerous than a full scale attack in the middle east. Judging by the huge power of narco terrorist groups like Shining Path in Peru and FARC in Columbia, it really doesn't seem all that crazy if you're truly involved in an interantional "War on Terror"

The administration disagrees and doesn't act. Why is that news? I'll tell you why: Newsweek is and has always been a very partisan anti-Republican publication.

Also, since when does "non-Al Queda target" mean "a target that has nothing to do with al Queda"?

Spin.



Exactly.
Old 08-02-04, 12:40 PM
  #19  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,320
Received 147 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally posted by Numanoid
Yes, strange. Apparently not only is my intellect not as amazing as yours, but my reading comprehension/retention skills are also equally inferior. Get over yourself.

I for one welcome threads line this because it indeed does "school" some of us.

It's funny, but it seems like it's always the cons on this forum who crap in a thread saying things like, "Do we really need another thread about this?" or "What's your point other than to bash Bush?", yet there were a dozen or so threads on ridiculous topics like what Kerry is eating for lunch, or how the balloons didn't fall properly, yet I do not recall any of the lefties crying that there shouldn't be threads on the topics.

I won't belabor the point much further, especially since I won't be around this week. I honestly thought that since Feith is such a known figure in the administration, everybody was aware of his exploits, particularly given the fact that he has been discussed here previously, sometimes centrally.

On the bigger picture, I believe you missed my point. I was not attempting to stifle the conversation, nor criticising the instance of his name and story being brought up. I do not normally do that, despite your claims of "cons" always doing this. What I was speaking to was the manner in which it was originally presented. Perhaps I am the only one to feel that way, but it truly wasn't presented in manner conducive to discussion, but rather as some startling new irrefutable revelation. It is none of those.

Further, I am well aware of from where the information in the post in question comes from, which is why I asked for any substantiation. If you notice, I addressed those points, the one about the OSP and the one about the coup in Venezuela. Just because statements are dressed up in nice rhetoric does not make them true, nor are they true because they exist as such in the blogosphere, which is why I asked for some real proof as to their veracity. Neither claim, that the Bush administration used information from the OSP exclusively and that the US was behind the coup attempt in Venezuela, are verifiable, or true. That was my main point. Care to comment on those?
Old 08-02-04, 09:36 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by Hiro11
OK, so a memo was circulated saying that attacking terrorists in South America might make an impact and be less politically and strategically dangerous than a full scale attack in the middle east. Judging by the huge power of narco terrorist groups like Shining Path in Peru and FARC in Columbia, it really doesn't seem all that crazy if you're truly involved in an interantional "War on Terror"

The administration disagrees and doesn't act. Why is that news? I'll tell you why: Newsweek is and has always been a very partisan anti-Republican publication.
Wasn't Newsweek the magazine that most vehemently slammed Michael Moore and F911? And as for why this is news: as I stated earlier, this demonstrates how quickly and how blatantly the Bush camp used the tragedy of 9/11 to push forward an invasion of Iraq, even though by their own admission it was a "non- Al Qaeda target". This also illustrates the influence of the neo-conservatives -- pursuing "better targets" took higher priority than actually rooting out al Qaeda terrorists. Lastly, it casts light on the Administration's "brain trust" -- Maloof, Wurmser, and Douglas Feith, whom Gen. Tommy Franks referred to as "''the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth''.
Originally posted by Hiro11
Also, since when does "non-Al Qued a target" mean "a target that has nothing to do with al Queda"?

Spin.
Uh... is there some defintion of "non-al Qaeda" that I am missing here?

As the 9/11 commision pretty thoroughly documented, there is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Members of the Administration clearly came to this conclusion on their own right after 9/11. And yet we invaded anyway, under the pretense that it was all part of the "War on Terrorism".

It is a scary idea that we may have chosen to bomb a country that posed no threat to us whatsoever simply because it would make for better television.
Old 08-02-04, 09:52 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
i dont get the big deal. there was a "bad" memo and it wasn't followed.

wolfowitz backed attacking iraq because he thought the data supported it.
Old 08-02-04, 09:57 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by Coupon_Queen

Bush has so many friends over in Saudi Arabia and wouldn't it just be easier if we were to go somewhere else where we could get the oil without having to fight Arabs for it. Yes, I see where they were going with that one. I can't help but wonder how close to oil fields the South America strikes would have been.

Gee, doesn't look quite as crazy looking at it that way. Kind of makes sense to me.
does look a little crazy to me. why would we go somewhere else for oil if the people in SA were Bush's friends?

why would we fight arabs, they are bush's friends right?


the memo says where in south america they woudl strike:
a remote region on the border of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil

doesn't sound like its near an oil field to me.
Old 08-02-04, 10:10 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: not CT
Posts: 9,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by NCMojo
And as for why this is news: as I stated earlier, this demonstrates how quickly and how blatantly the Bush camp used the tragedy of 9/11 to push forward an invasion of Iraq, even though by their own admission it was a "non- Al Qaeda target" ... As the 9/11 commision pretty thoroughly documented, there is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Members of the Administration clearly came to this conclusion on their own right after 9/11. And yet we invaded anyway, under the pretense that it was all part of the "War on Terrorism".
I was listening to Imus on Friday (I think?) and he had on someone conservative. Hell, it could have been Pat Buchanan for what my memory is worth. Anyway, the conversation was about the DNC and eventually came into the whole, "misled into Iraq" thing. The guest mentioned the fact that he was a bit shocked and puzzled that the administration hadn't shared the fact that a fairly large squad of CIA covert ops type soldiers deployed in Afghanistan had the specific mission of tracking a few hundred Al Queda operatives as they fled into Iraq as we invaded Afg.

Has anyone ever seen an article to this effect?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.