Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book says China involved in 9-11 attacks -- Beijing used bin Laden to assault U.S., claims author
WorldNetDaily ^ | 12/15/01 | Gordon Thomas

Posted on 12/14/2001 10:34:47 PM PST by spycatcher

Last spring, President George W. Bush faced his first major foreign-policy challenge when an American EP-3E surveillance plane was hit by a Chinese fighter and forced to land on Hainan Island. Tensions flared even further as China detained the 24 American crewmen for 10 days, the standoff eventually resolving after both plane and crew were finally released. Still, U.S.-Sino relations remained ominously chilly throughout the year, until they were overshadowed by the events of Sept. 11.

Post 9-11, the Bush administration's focus has, of course, been riveted on the terror war, and China has gone off the main radar. But despite Beijing's public support for the coalition's war on terror, regular rumblings of Chinese complicity with the terrorists have surfaced. Among them was a WND report of some Chinese fighters assisting the Taliban.

Now, author Gordon Thomas has written a book claiming that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on America. In "Seeds of Fire," Thomas purports to show how Beijing is positioning itself to become America's "new major enemy."

An investigative journalist from Ireland and author of 38 books, Thomas points out that on Sept. 11, a transport plane from Beijing landed in Kabul. A Chinese delegation had gone to Afghanistan to sign a deal with the Taliban – reportedly brokered by Osama bin Laden – to provide the Afghans with missile-tracking technology, state-of-the-art communications and air-defense systems. In return, says Thomas, the Taliban would order Muslim separatists in northwest China to stop their activities.

In a Sept. 13 report, the Washington Post confirmed that Beijing had just signed a deal with the Taliban to provide Afghanistan "with much needed infrastructure and economic development assistance."

Due to the fall of the Taliban at the hands of opposition forces and the United States, however, "the goods were never delivered," Thomas told WorldNetDaily.

The delegation, says Thomas, included senior officers of the People's Liberation Army and the Bureau of State Security, as well as managers from two of China's leading defense contractors.

In his book, Thomas contends that hours after the plane landed in Kabul, CIA Director George Tenet received a coded "red alert" message from Israeli Mossad agents that presented a "worst case scenario" – that China would use a surrogate, bin Laden, to attack the United States.

Thomas also claims that the head of Pakistan's intelligence service was in Washington to meet with Tenet on Sept. 11, and that he briefed Tenet that day on the links between bin Laden and China.

The intelligence agent "told [Tenet] that China had made a decisive decision," wrote Thomas. "It was prepared to infuriate America and its allies in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban because Afghanistan fitted into China's own long-term strategic plans."

Saying that bin Laden has traveled to China numerous times to meet with officials there, Thomas contends that "almost certainly he talked to them about obtaining" material to build weapons of mass destruction.

China's President Jiang Zemin, adds Thomas, waited three days to contact Bush about the Sept. 11 attack and told the U.S. president that, vis-à-vis the war on terrorism, China would find itself in a "difficult situation, given our well-known position of opposing any interference in the internal affairs of any country."

Washington sources say that Bush "gritted his teeth and said he would push on without China," Thomas wrote.

The author also cites what he calls the "happy parties in the streets of Beijing" following the 9-11 attacks. "They're selling videos there with commentary saying, 'America had it coming,'" said Thomas. "Their message is: 'America can be defeated.'"

On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States. "It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-311 next last
Sun Tzu would be proud. This is exactly the kind of stuff I expect from the Chinese. COSCO shipping containers with W-88 design nukes are likely in the future. They'll work around our ABM technology and avoid any blame.
1 posted on 12/14/2001 10:34:47 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Didn't Clancy predict this about 14 mos ago?
2 posted on 12/14/2001 10:44:51 PM PST by techdawg2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States. "It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added.

Does Putin really want a Darwin Award?

3 posted on 12/14/2001 10:46:53 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
If China was behind this in some way, they probably find the quick destruction of Alqaida highly entertaining.
4 posted on 12/14/2001 10:48:29 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
If China is in this or not I think they now know Mr. Bush ain't gonna take any sh*t from them at this time either way!
5 posted on 12/14/2001 10:51:24 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
This makes a lot of sense now... Beijing Wants Muslim Fighters Returned (from Afghanistan)
6 posted on 12/14/2001 10:55:44 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
China isn't liking things right about now. The shipping container with the W-88's is a red herring, it wouldn't take long to figure out who did it, and neither China nor Russia could withstand a US first strike, in all probability, so that would be a very, very bad move on their part.
7 posted on 12/14/2001 10:56:29 PM PST by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Beelzebubba has his legacy.
8 posted on 12/14/2001 10:57:06 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
The Chicoms would destroy us if they could but I can't see bin Laden taking orders from Chicom atheists. What did they tell him? "Attack America for us and by the way you and Omar will be totally destroyed. Thanks for the favor suckers." This is pure nebulous hypothesis but I am open to real evidence.
9 posted on 12/14/2001 11:10:21 PM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
I'm dubious on the idea that China deliberately wanted to instigate a fight between the US and radical Islam with the result potentially being a long-term US military presence on their weakest border.
10 posted on 12/14/2001 11:15:14 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Citizen of the Savage Nation
You may be right about not using a W88 since we would know who did it. But there's no substitute for small pre-positioned nukes for an anonymous attack on D.C. The USSR did it during the cold war when we didn't have ABM technology and it would have still been obvious it was them.

In this case our first reaction would be that Russian backpack or Pakistani nukes got into the hands of Al Quada. We're using geiger counters in all our ports, and all around DC but we don't have enough to cover everywhere.

As far as striking China, I think they assume correctly we would never wipe them out with nukes unless they lauched all their missiles. I think official policy is even that we would just absorb a single ICBM without retaliating. China learned a lot about Bush's resolve to confront them when they forced our surveillance plane down -- that may have been a psychological probe more than anything. And we may in fact know they supported bin Laden's attack, but we'll never hear that anytime soon because we don't want to fight that big a war. At least not right now with Clinton's depleted military.

11 posted on 12/14/2001 11:21:54 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
heads up yall my instincts are proving true..ive noticed that bin laden's runs have always been to the east..call me crazy i say he's heading to china for cover cuz i think maybe bin laden is hoping we dont walk into china to avoid any conflict...
12 posted on 12/14/2001 11:25:49 PM PST by MetalHeadConservative35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear; The KG9 Kid
When China decided to throw their support behind the Taliban (this is documented fact) who was controlled by bin Laden it looks like they just linked up with an enemy of their enemy in order to take the focus of both off of China.

I don't think they expected the attack would be so devastating and lead to us in Afghanistan at all, let alone this fast or long-term. They figured we would never get involved in Afghanistan if they were technologically well-armed.

13 posted on 12/14/2001 11:36:41 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deathscythex
I think China told bin Laden he was on his own and "they didn't know him." China is laying low and their silence is deafening. They're being *very* quiet -- trying to hide from us by closing their eyes.
14 posted on 12/14/2001 11:40:03 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
You're all missing the obvious conclusion here: We will now reciprocally use Russia to hit China. Why do you think Bush and Putin are such good buddies now? Russia doesn't want to be China. They want to be the USA. Why do you think Bush pushed so hard on the SDI? Because when Russia kicks China down, we'll be safe.

It's Gog and Magog time, folks.

15 posted on 12/14/2001 11:42:37 PM PST by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
You're exactly right that ditching the ABM treaty and cozying up to Putin is *all* about China. But I don't know how much Putin will try to play both sides. They recently (pre 9-11) signed a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty with China. Notice how the Chinese quickly ratified it in October.
16 posted on 12/14/2001 11:50:19 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Let's go to war with China. After we're done kicking the butts of the poorest, least well-trained "army" in the world, our President can pound his chest and tell us all how great the mighty U.S. war machine is. Then we'll turn it on a few more impoverished countries like Somolia and the Philipines to keep our confidence up. And then we'll go attack China. Won't we?
17 posted on 12/14/2001 11:53:40 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Russia knows China did this (9/11) and Putin knows his people don't want to be a communist country anymore. Putin isn't playing both sides. He's ours. Otherwise, Bush's reaction would have been much different when he was here. China is going to burn.

I think it's going to come off just like in Revelations.

18 posted on 12/14/2001 11:55:58 PM PST by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I think it's going to come off just like in Revelations

Best get to praying, n'est-ce pas?

19 posted on 12/15/2001 12:00:28 AM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Doing battle with China will be a little more difficult than we have encountered against the great Taliban armed forces.

Besides, we really don't want to have war with China. Much better if we can coexist..so long as they stay in China and don't get too adventurous. However...if evidence comes out that China had a hand in 9/11, I think economic sanctions should be in order. We are the principal buyer of Chinese products.

20 posted on 12/15/2001 12:03:54 AM PST by Tom Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
"You may be right about not using a W88 since we would know who did it."

How would we know it was a specific make/model bomb that exploded? I doubt there'd be a "W88 Copy" label thrown clear and found in the rubble. As to identifying the radiation fingerprint, if anything that would point the finger at China, presuming we know the particulars about their particular flavor of plutonium. They stole the design for the weapon, but they didn't steal fissionable material from us.

21 posted on 12/15/2001 12:06:01 AM PST by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson
Doing battle with China will be a little more difficult than we have encountered against the great Taliban armed forces.

How can you say that...besides, we have been making most everyone else do the fighting in Afghanistan haven't we? Mostly we've been pushing buttons and dropping bombs. The majority of the real fighting has been done by Northern Alliance boys who want their country back. Of course we;ll screw them over once it's all over and tell them they're not ruling their own country unless we get some say-so.

But we'll fare well in China. Maybe we can conscript Indian's. Pakistan won't like it too much, but we don't really care what other countries think. We're America and if you don't like it we'll send a daisy cutter to your town too.

22 posted on 12/15/2001 12:08:47 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
No way. We're too weak right to challenge them as you imply. We need time to build up forces and training from the Clinton "dark years."

Don't underestimate though the immense amount of knowledge we gain from "practice wars" beating up on the little guys. Nobody talks about this much but it's a huge tactical advantage when moving on to bigger fish. Iraq will be the next step up to show how we're back in (pre-season) game shape. Wiping out North Korea will be the first real war against terrorism. And it will go much easier in 2005 than it would have just 5 years ago.

23 posted on 12/15/2001 12:10:44 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
I can hardly wait. It will look so cool on T.V.
24 posted on 12/15/2001 12:12:38 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I would not be surprised if Russia initiates a first strike against China before China becomes strong enough to knock over Russia. If that happens, I think they may spin it as a "tragic accident", maybe an accidental launch precipitated by bad data indicating a Chinese attack, or something along those lines. Then, the two countries (US & Russia) would "help rebuild" China, in other words, occupy it to make sure it stayed "peaceful", and then rebuild it as a Western type nation. Sort of a replay of what the US did in Japan after WWII ended.

As to the ABM/SDI debacle, I see it as grandstanding for home consumption (in Russia), to shut up the remaining commies. I will be shocked if the SDI system isn't a joint US-Russia enterprise, with both countries covered by the same umbrella.

25 posted on 12/15/2001 12:13:11 AM PST by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
I am trying to see through your sarcasm. What is your point here.
26 posted on 12/15/2001 12:17:17 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
How would we know it was a specific make/model bomb that exploded? I doubt there'd be a "W88 Copy" label thrown clear and found in the rubble.

We would know from the massive yield that a W88 produces (500kt) compared to a backpack nuke (under 1 kt) or a Pakistani nuke (40 kt)

27 posted on 12/15/2001 12:17:36 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
We're bullies.
28 posted on 12/15/2001 12:18:54 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
BTTT
29 posted on 12/15/2001 12:21:57 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
You mean *high-tech* bullies right Senator Biden? Tell us how sorry you feel for the poor terrorists.
30 posted on 12/15/2001 12:24:42 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
good one! who can doubt the chicoms are bin laden's biggest fans?
31 posted on 12/15/2001 12:25:41 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
I see. I don't buy that premise, but I do agree that we have sometimes acted that way. (i:e cruise missles at camels) I think our actions to date are totally justified. There are some who worry about mission creep. There is yet no evidence of that. If we were to attack Iraq tommorro I might agree with you but so far it's all been bluster.
32 posted on 12/15/2001 12:25:48 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
"On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States. "It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added".

This does not look good at all!

33 posted on 12/15/2001 12:27:51 AM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher; OKCSubmariner
CHINA
China has developed increasingly close ties with the Taliban and, according to news reports, recently signed a memorandum of understanding for more economic and technical cooperation.

The memorandum is the most substantial part of a series of Chinese contacts with Afghanistan over the last two years. China now has the closest relationship with the isolated Kabul regime of any non-Muslim country, a senior Western diplomat said.

China has helped form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which joins it with Russia and four Central Asian countries in a loose grouping. One of its main purposes is to combat cross-border terrorism, specifically from Afghanistan. But at the same time, China has dealt with the Taliban as part of an effort to persuade its officials to close Afghan-based camps that are used to train Muslim separatists from China's restive Xinjiang region. Those separatists on occasion re-enter China and launch attacks on China's security services or civilian targets.

As part of a sweetener to secure cooperation from the Taliban leadership, Asian diplomats say, China has dangled the prospect of providing Afghanistan with much needed infrastructure and economic development assistance. The new agreement was reported on Tuesday. A Chinese delegation signed the deal in Kabul with the Taliban's mining minister, Mulla Muhammad Ishaq, news reports said.

34 posted on 12/15/2001 12:29:55 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Book says China involved in 9-11 attacks -- Beijing used bin Laden to assault U.S., claims author

Obviously a brilliant Chicom plan to boost US arms spending and ensure funding for Ballistic Missile Defense. Very clever, these orientals.

What a load of old bollocks.

35 posted on 12/15/2001 12:30:45 AM PST by Clinton's a rapist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horsewhispersc
China and the U.S. are linked together by the umbilical cord of trade. I would venture to say they are feeling a drop in exports right now. It is not in their best interest for the U.S. to destabilize. They just want us to stay out of their way.(which we won't)Time will tell.
36 posted on 12/15/2001 12:34:34 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Don't forget that in Iraq and North Korea we're still technically at war.

Unfortuantely Clinton's idiotic military endeavors seemed designed to make us look bad, weaken our military and kill our resolve. Kosovo was like Columbine, where civilians died needlessly because it appeared the guys in uniform were afraid of getting hurt.

37 posted on 12/15/2001 12:36:00 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
"time will tell"

I hope it's a long time as I don't think we are near ready for this!

38 posted on 12/15/2001 12:44:18 AM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
ChiComBoycott.com
39 posted on 12/15/2001 12:44:26 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
I have not forgotten but we have yet to put our full diplomatic and financial weight on these jerks. All we've been doing is pussy footing around since the gulf war. I think Sadaam can be beat without a shooting war of any large size. Possibly without a single bomb. Screw the U.N.! Everytime we let them get involved we end up with egg on our face and then have to buy the whole damn chicken coop.
40 posted on 12/15/2001 12:44:35 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Let's see if this stuff can be verified first...
41 posted on 12/15/2001 12:45:51 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
BTW .....MEGA BUMP
42 posted on 12/15/2001 12:48:07 AM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horsewhispersc
China would be a nightmare from the standpoint of numbers and size but militarily they would not stand a chance. We could knock them back to pre-ming dynasty in a conventional war and they know it.
43 posted on 12/15/2001 12:49:09 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
That's why they keep threatening us with nukes trying to scare us off from a conventional fight while they build up a massive arsenal. We would crush them if we had too, but they know we don't want to lose a city or two doing it. They're willing to risk total annihilation because they don't think we would want to look like a "high-tech nuclear bully"

The Chinese are more insane and crafty than Soviet Communists were. Bush is trying to bring them down exactly like Reagan brought down the USSR, with SDI.

44 posted on 12/15/2001 12:58:37 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
bump for later reading.

"The enemy of my enemy (raghead bin laden) is my (china) friend"

45 posted on 12/15/2001 1:00:12 AM PST by Captainpaintball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
SDI might help but the chinks are all about time. Be patient grasshopper for in the end we will win..........We can't for obvious reasons,play that game so SDI would upset their balance and would require new plans. Just about the time the ink on the plans is dry we need to juke-em with something else.

I figure in 50 years they will have a democracy!

46 posted on 12/15/2001 1:05:49 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
More than not I want to believe you, I just pray it doesn't come to that. Keep this thread going as best you can, I can barely keep my eyes open, pleasant dreams as they say!
47 posted on 12/15/2001 1:08:34 AM PST by horsewhispersc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: horsewhispersc
I'm not far behind, must have got a second wind on that abortion thread. Does anyone have any thoughts on Taiwon?
48 posted on 12/15/2001 1:12:34 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Bump for the heck of it!
49 posted on 12/15/2001 1:30:09 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
China and the U.S. are linked together by the umbilical cord of trade.

And eight years of Clinton giving China a lewinsky for campaign dollars. I'm partial to tin foil and must say that Clinton's ingoring Bin Laden and granting full access to China could be similarly linked.

50 posted on 12/15/2001 1:50:33 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-311 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson