What if KSM did do it?

Here's a simple question that's being going round my head: what if KSM did do it?

Caveat: obviously, everything he says is not true (like he can't have been planning to attack the bank that was founded after he was allegedly captured), but I mean the main jist of it like being involved in planning the attacks.

What difference does it make to us?

Go on, this is a serious question intended to provoke a discussion.

I don't have a problem to think he may have been involved, except to say... how deep are his ISI connections? How did he get NORAD to ignore protocols that morning? Why was he reported shot and killed on site during his capture? If he is alive, how do we know that everything he says isn't based on torture, and coerced? If he was involved, what was the source for the money that he used?

Good question. I don't think it changes much for me. I think 9/11 was a product of the same CIA/Saudi/Mossad/ISI network that created Al Qaeda and fought the Soviets, and part of which was involved in Iran Contra. I think it's a mistake to think about national boundaries, in the case of 9/11 and in general. As we saw with Iran Contra (and with Sibel Edmonds' info regarding ATC and AIPAC?) among many historical antecedents, sometimes the deep political networks involve strange bedfellows (Israelis selling arms to Iran courtesy of America?).

The fact that Pakistan seems to be at the center of this does not, for me, eliminate Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the CIA, all of whom show up in some form connected to 9/11.

You ask "What if...", and I say, show me the evidence he was involved. From beginning to end, and none of it can come from him. Unless he is in a protected environment, and not coerced in any way, shape, or form.

For example, a CIA/ISI asset may have orchestrated the Mumbai massacre:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/1...umbai-attacks/

How many times in the last 8 years have we seen people identified as CIA/ISI assets? Too many.

This is a thought experiment we're assuming that KSM was more-or-less speaking the truth in his confession to the US and his interview with Fouda. Obviously, this claim could be disputed and it is highly unlikely everything he said is accurate, but we'll assume it's broadly accurate for now so that we can explore the implications.

So far we got his ISI connections and money trail, both of which could mean something, but might not. It's not hard for a Pakistani terrorist to have ISI connections, but that in itself (although be worthy of further investigation) does not show that he was controlled by the ISI in this matter.

The air defense problems are certainly interesting and there is no way KSM could have engineered or been responsible for them. However, do they mean that what he said was not true? If so, how?

I'm trying to think this through but still can't quite hit on the right formulation.

Another thought experiment: Suppose KSM is not at all involved with 9/11. Why fabricate his confession?

Whoever pinned it on him would have to know he would attract a great deal of attention. Let's say the ISI and Bin Laden were somehow involved with 9/11. Why name KSM and draw attention to the ISI/CIA nexus, other than to establish a useful patsy?

That is, if KSM is not involved with 9/11, why bring the world's attention to such a troublesome figure? Why not blame some anonymous Arab, and achieve the same goal for the Military-Industrial Complex?

I'm certain some of what KSM is saying is false, but I'm not sure what his connection to 9/11 is.

I think that if 9/11 was a complete "inside job," they WOULD have picked better patsies than those connected to organizations connected to our Government by proxy.

I think they played with the hand they were dealt, and made the most of it.

KSM may have been a "terrorist," but again, what were his connections to the ISI? What were Osama's connections to the ISI, and the CIA? Why is everyone in our Government like John Kerry acting as if the ISI's connection to terrorism is something new? Surely they jest.

The thing is... we really don't have a fucking clue WHAT KSM's connection to 9/11 is. He could be some random ISI provided terrorist with a history of misdeeds, including a 9/11 like plan (BoJinka). I still don't even know if he's alive. The people at the miltary tribunals wouldn't know KSM if he was 2 ft in front of them.