9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job

[SR1419]

Fascinating...you just bob and weave and do anything to avoid the facts.

So what is the problem... does this make them terrorists?

Nope. Whats makes them "terrorists" is the use of violence to instill and promote terror.

What about all the other Islamic States like Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Libya, Iran... should they be invaded like Afghanistan/Iraq was because they dared to create an Islamic State?

really. Now you are just being obtuse. Were those 2 nations invaded because they were "Islamic States" ? No.

I think we are in danger of moving off topic here.

Ya Think? ...and whose fault would that be

The reason I challenged you was because it appeared you were putting forward the classic Neocon rationale that 'the global war on terror' is primarily a war against Islamic Terrorists who 'are terrorists because they are Islamic and therefore a threat to the U.S, U.N. in that they want an Islamic World. Maybe they do want it, (like the Pope wants a Catholic world), but they are not attacking the west to get that. I believe they are only reacting to western interference in the running of their Country/s.

No- they are terrorists because they use violence and terror to promote their beliefs and goals. They perverse Islam to their benefit to justify their means. Their very justification comes from their interpretation of Islam. This is fundamental to their actions. They are not only reacting, they are using this conflict to promote a proactive agenda. You are entitled to your belief, however, according to OBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri, you are wrong:

Content from external source:

Osama Bin Laden: The 9/11 Attacks Were “A Great Step Towards The Unity Of Muslims And Establishing The Righteous [Caliphate].” BIN LADEN: “These attacks took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah.” (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “The Whole World Is An Open Field For Us.” ZAWAHIRI: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders. It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq. The whole world is an open field for us.” (Al-Zawahiri’s ‘Full’ Message On War In Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Posted On Jihadist Website, 7/28/06)

Zawahiri: “The Reinstatement Of Islamic Rule … Is The Individual Duty Of Every Muslim … With Every Land Occupied By Infidels.” ZAWAHIRI: “Supporting the jihad in Palestine with one’s life, money, and opinion is the individual duty of every Muslim because Palestine was a land of Islam that was occupied by the infidels. This means that its liberation and the reinstatement of Islamic rule there is the individual duty of every Muslim as unanimously decided by the nation’s scholars. And such is the case with every land occupied by infidels.” (Al-Zawahiri’s June Video Message Supporting Palestinians, Posted On Jihadist Site, 6/11/06)

Al-Qaeda Charter: “There Will Be Continuing Enmity Until Everyone Believes In Allah. We Will Not Meet [The Enemy] Halfway And There Will Be No Room For Dialogue With Them.”

They are only a threat to the West because we are interfering in their Country/s. In short... we are the aggressors, the colonialists/imperialists.

But wait...I thought the US "abandoned" Afghanistan? So, why did the attacks originate there? The US didn't invade until it was attacked first.

Are they also a threat to others? Why is that? You still haven't addressed the issue of Islamic militants killing other muslims. Why is that? It is their religious dogma that that forms the basis of their actions. That is the point of this side-bar to the thread topic and you continually ignore it.

Educate them politically... work with them to show them to change and evolve the same as we have. That is the only way to get peace.

Such contradictory hubris. The "only" way to get to peace is "evolve the same as we have" ? I thought we were imperialist aggressors? Has it occurred to you that perhaps "they" do not want to be like "us"?

No you are misdirecting. This is the core of the topic. PNAC is very much about setting up U.S lead 'Global Police Force' and that is what the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was all about. It is what state destroying sanctions followed by invasions are all about and it looks like there is much more to come but 'the people' do not want it... the people are sick of it.

Sorry Oxy- the invasion of Afghanistan was about retaliating against those who attacked the US. It really pretty straightforward. Iraq is a whole other case.


Look- the point of this side-bar was your marginalization of the role that religion plays in the ideology and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

[Oxymoron]

Fascinating...you just bob and weave and do anything to avoid the facts.

Ditto

Nope. Whats makes them "terrorists" is the use of violence to instill and promote terror.

Oh, so you can define a terrorist now... amazing. So that applies to the U.S as well only more so does it?

really. Now you are just being obtuse. Were those 2 nations invaded because they were "Islamic States" ? No.

Perhaps you would like to explain in detail exactly why they were invaded?

Ya Think? ...and whose fault would that be

I think you are the one with the fixation on all terrorists being Islamic and all Islamics being terrorists.

No- they are terrorists because they use violence and terror to promote their beliefs and goals. They perverse Islam to their benefit to justify their means. Their very justification comes from their interpretation of Islam. This is fundamental to their actions. They are not only reacting, they are using this conflict to promote a proactive agenda. You are entitled to your belief, however, according to OBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri, you are wrong:

Content from external source:

Osama Bin Laden: The 9/11 Attacks Were “A Great Step Towards The Unity Of Muslims And Establishing The Righteous [Caliphate].” BIN LADEN: “These attacks took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah.” (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “The Whole World Is An Open Field For Us.” ZAWAHIRI: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders. It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq. The whole world is an open field for us.” (Al-Zawahiri’s ‘Full’ Message On War In Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Posted On Jihadist Website, 7/28/06)

Zawahiri: “The Reinstatement Of Islamic Rule … Is The Individual Duty Of Every Muslim … With Every Land Occupied By Infidels.” ZAWAHIRI: “Supporting the jihad in Palestine with one’s life, money, and opinion is the individual duty of every Muslim because Palestine was a land of Islam that was occupied by the infidels. This means that its liberation and the reinstatement of Islamic rule there is the individual duty of every Muslim as unanimously decided by the nation’s scholars. And such is the case with every land occupied by infidels.” (Al-Zawahiri’s June Video Message Supporting Palestinians, Posted On Jihadist Site, 6/11/06)

Al-Qaeda Charter: “There Will Be Continuing Enmity Until Everyone Believes In Allah. We Will Not Meet [The Enemy] Halfway And There Will Be No Room For Dialogue With Them.”

That is rubbish... they did not believe that, clearly it is propaganda to rally fighters... like I said each side using religion or whatever, (mom's apple pie if you like) to rally the troops.

But wait...I thought the US "abandoned" Afghanistan? So, why did the attacks originate there? The US didn't invade until it was attacked first.

The attacks did not originate from Afghanistan, No Afghans involved, No Taliban involved. Taliban minding their own business in their own Country until U.S invaded for NO GOOD REASON. Taliban offered to hand over OBL if U.S made a case against him... THEY NEVER HAVE EVEN TO DATE.

Such contradictory hubris. The "only" way to get to peace is "evolve the same as we have" ? I thought we were imperialist aggressors? Has it occurred to you that perhaps "they" do not want to be like "us"?

Obtuse?... Obviously I do not mean evolve into imperialistic aggressors who want everyone RFID'd and to rule the whole goddam world and rape it's resources... I mean evolve away from religion as a form of government.

Sorry Oxy- the invasion of Afghanistan was about retaliating against those who attacked the US. It really pretty straightforward. Iraq is a whole other case.

Like I said, Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.

Look- the point of this side-bar was your marginalization of the role that religion plays in the ideology and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

Lol... No... this side bar is about you marginalising the role of politics and in particular the role of U.S foreign policy as a cause for hatred and any resulting terrorism

[SR1419]

The attacks did not originate from Afghanistan

Really? where were OBL and KSM when they devised the plan? Why did several of the Saudi participants go to Afghanistan to train? Where did they originate from then if not Afghanistan?

Content from external source:

Osama Bin Laden: The 9/11 Attacks Were “A Great Step Towards The Unity Of Muslims And Establishing The Righteous [Caliphate].” BIN LADEN: “These attacks took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah.” (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “The Whole World Is An Open Field For Us.” ZAWAHIRI: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders. It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq. The whole world is an open field for us.” (Al-Zawahiri’s ‘Full’ Message On War In Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Posted On Jihadist Website, 7/28/06)

Zawahiri: “The Reinstatement Of Islamic Rule … Is The Individual Duty Of Every Muslim … With Every Land Occupied By Infidels.” ZAWAHIRI: “Supporting the jihad in Palestine with one’s life, money, and opinion is the individual duty of every Muslim because Palestine was a land of Islam that was occupied by the infidels. This means that its liberation and the reinstatement of Islamic rule there is the individual duty of every Muslim as unanimously decided by the nation’s scholars. And such is the case with every land occupied by infidels.” (Al-Zawahiri’s June Video Message Supporting Palestinians, Posted On Jihadist Site, 6/11/06)

Al-Qaeda Charter: “There Will Be Continuing Enmity Until Everyone Believes In Allah. We Will Not Meet [The Enemy] Halfway And There Will Be No Room For Dialogue With Them.”

That is rubbish... they did not believe that, clearly it is propaganda to rally fighters...

Classic!- now you are claiming to know the minds of OBL and al-Zawahiri - thats good stuff. hard to beat that. why didn't you say you were privy to their thoughts??

Face it- you got nothing the point of this side-bar was your marginalization of the role that religion plays in the ideology and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

[Oxymoron]

Really? where were OBL and KSM when they devised the plan? Why did several of the Saudi participants go to Afghanistan to train? Where did they originate from then if not Afghanistan?

Oh my word... what several of them... as many as that.... quick quick get out the nukes there were several of them training in Afghanistan!!!

Classic!- now you are claiming to know the minds of OBL and al-Zawahiri - thats good stuff. hard to beat that. why didn't you say you were privy to their thoughts??

Not as well as you obviously

Face it- you got nothing the point of this side-bar was your marginalization of the role that religion plays in the ideology and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

It was your sidebar... trying to pooh pooh any valid reason for people to hate what the U.S is guilty of. Politics is everything from going to war to if you can get water and medicine or not. There is no justification for the wanton attacks on simple villagers who have hardly the basics of life.

Very strange how all these so called fanatical Jihadists suddenly materialise out of nowhere. Had anyone even heard of Al Qaeda 20 years ago? Why wait til now to want to rule the world?

The U.S created an enemy for political reasons and you are obviously a supporter of that agenda... never mind the cost.

No Country attacked America... OBL was not even wanted for 9/11. And anyway, if someone holds up a liquor store and shoots the owner... you do not blow up 100 residents in the area in reprisal.

[SR1419]

Oh my word... what several of them... as many as that.... quick quick get out the nukes there were several of them training in Afghanistan!!!

Now who is being glib? You stated the attacks did not originate in Afghanistan. They did. They were devised there. Key figures trained for the attacks there. They were implemented from there.

Can you explain why you think they did did not originate in Afghanistan?

It was your sidebar... trying to pooh pooh any valid reason for people to hate what the U.S is guilty of. Politics is everything from going to war to if you can get water and medicine or not. There is no justification for the wanton attacks on simple villagers who have hardly the basics of life.

Very strange how all these so called fanatical Jihadists suddenly materialise out of nowhere. Had anyone even heard of Al Qaeda 20 years ago? Why wait til now to want to rule the world?

The U.S created an enemy for political reasons and you are obviously a supporter of that agenda... never mind the cost.

No Country attacked America... OBL was not even wanted for 9/11. And anyway, if someone holds up a liquor store and shoots the owner... you do not blow up 100 residents in the area in reprisal.

NO! I do did not "poohpooh" anything- I merely pointed out you were wrong to assert religion had no role in the ideology, beliefs and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

The political motivation of the leaders of Islamist jihadist-type movements is not in doubt but the moral justification and levers of power for these movements are not couched in political terms, but based on Islamic religious sources of authority and religious principles. You cannot seem to understand this.


"fanatical Jihadists suddenly materialise out of nowhere" really? You want to try learning some history. Fanatical jihadist have a long and bloody history dating back centuries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks

[Oxymoron]

Now who is being glib? You stated the attacks did not originate in Afghanistan. They did. They were devised there. Key figures trained for the attacks there. They were implemented from there.

You are just being perverse. They trained in the U.S as well... perhaps you better invade the U.S and instigate drone attacks there as well.... Just so long as it is on the poor areas that will be fine.

Can you explain why you think they did did not originate in Afghanistan?

Like I stated above, they trained all over... they come from all over.. inc Europe... Obviously Europe needs a good Droning as well... I hear Spain and Greece are nice this time of year and will offer little resistance as many are starving but it is near illegal now to show the poverty there.

Name me an Afghan who was involved in 9/11 or a Taliban member. We don't even know who carried it out as half the alleged terrorists are still alive. Allah must indeed be great if they survived that and wound up back home the next day in time for tea!!!

Deny the Taliban offered to allow OBL's arrest if the U.S could provide any evidence he was involved... No you cannot.

NO! I do did not "poohpooh" anything- I merely pointed out you were wrong to assert religion had no role in the ideology, beliefs and actions of Islamic militants. Nothing you have presented has come remotely close to supporting your belief that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in this conflict. Just saying its all the West's fault and they only reason they are violent is because they feel oppressed is not accurate or factual summation.

All you have tried to do is divert away from U.S terrorism and hegemony by citing the how terribly dangerous and fanatical Islamists are when the U.S created funded and supported Al Quaeda in the first place and used them to fight a proxy war against the Russians, (not that the Russians are any better). Now they are using other proxies inc Israel AND Islamists to war on Syria, Libya and Iran.

The political motivation of the leaders of Islamist jihadist-type movements is not in doubt but the moral justification and levers of power for these movements are not couched in political terms, but based on Islamic religious sources of authority and religious principles. You cannot seem to understand this.

Rubbish, you are simply attempting to dehumanise them as per usual.

"fanatical Jihadists suddenly materialise out of nowhere" really? You want to try learning some history. Fanatical jihadist have a long and bloody history dating back centuries.

Yes and so has the Pope... What has that to do with anything.
Terrorists were a minor nuisance in the World. People had more chance of getting struck twice by lightning than getting hurt by a terrorist... whatever one of those are anyway. Admittedly if you or yours were unlucky enough to be caught in it that was of little consolation but it is not justification for an all out war on sovereign states/ Countries. And again why did these terrorists exist? For political reasons such as being ousted from their homelands, herded into open prison camps and treated like animals perhaps?

As I recall the American Indian 'terrorists' didn't really like it much either... What fanatical heathens...but that's ok... it's all ancient history now... who really cares?

Here are some of these fanatical Islamists... Not... But Bradley Manning is paying the price for letting the cat out of the bag because this should all be covered up shouldn't it?



As per usual, anyone brave enough to show some human compassion and try to help the wounded gets blasted to kingdom come for their trouble.

And of course torture is fine... incarceration for years on no evidence is fine...

But this is all ok because no doubt it won't happen over your 'nice bit of America', just the gangland rough criminal areas eh?

This clarify it for you? What the brave wonderful American troops are up to out there acting on orders from above.

[Oxymoron]

Sorry Oxy- the invasion of Afghanistan was about retaliating against those who attacked the US. It really pretty straightforward. Iraq is a whole other case.

So Afghanistan was about retaliation on those who attacked the U.S, even though no Afghans were involved... you just thought, (I mean the U.S here), you just thought, 'oh we'll have a regime change here because we don't like Islamic governments, (unless they are run by corrupt leaders who will be our puppets), and well it doesn't matter how many die because well they live in mud huts and are sub human anyway. Afghan Talibanis are no threat to us but we don't like them and they don't do our bidding quick enough and dare to ask us questions... they need a good invading!'

'And well, Iraq, well we didn't like Saddam much, he was a bad man so they are a legitimate Country to invade... mmm all that lovely oil, no threat to U.S but legitimate target.'

Now what about Pakistan, 'well they like our money and don't really care too much about collateral damage, we will get their permission and then just add covert drone strikes where we like anyway.

We can always dispute figures if needed and make up our own to keep numbers lowish, of course we have mockingbird press so shouldn't get too much adverse publicity and well most people are working, looking for work or playing Farmville so they won't notice.

Damn, forgot about the U.N... but they are pussy cats really... they can't do anything... it's just they feel they have to do something because of those pesky human rights activists.

Well SR1419 agrees with us so we can't be totally wrong...

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...-drone-deaths/

Content from external source:

The UN Human Rights Council last year asked its special rapporteurs to begin an investigation after a group of nations including Russia, China and Pakistan requested action on covert drone strikes. Emmerson told the Bureau: ‘It’s a response to the fact that there’s international concern rising exponentially, surrounding the issue of remote targeted killings through the use of unmanned vehicles.’
Related story - Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

[SR1419]

You are just being perverse. They trained in the U.S as well... perhaps you better invade the U.S and instigate drone attacks there as well.... Just so long as it is on the poor areas that will be fine.

Like I stated above, they trained all over... they come from all over.. inc Europe... Obviously Europe needs a good Droning as well... I hear Spain and Greece are nice this time of year and will offer little resistance as many are starving but it is near illegal now to show the poverty there.

Name me an Afghan who was involved in 9/11 or a Taliban member. We don't even know who carried it out as half the alleged terrorists are still alive. Allah must indeed be great if they survived that and wound up back home the next day in time for tea!!!

Deny the Taliban offered to allow OBL's arrest if the U.S could provide any evidence he was involved... No you cannot.

Try again Oxy. The attacks were devised in Afghanistan. Key figures trained for the attacks there. They were implemented from there. The people who devised the attacks and who funded the attacks and who commanded and instructed those who carried out the attacks were all in Afghanistan. That they were not Afgani is not the point- simply bob and weave misdirection from you...as usual.


The Taliban did offer to turn OBL over to a neutral third party country. ...but how does this provide evidence to your claim that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in the actions of Islamic militants? Oh thats right, it doesn't. Instead of admitting you might have been wrong you simply ignore that and try to turn the conversation into an indictment of US foreign policy.

All you have tried to do is divert away from U.S terrorism and hegemony by citing the how terribly dangerous and fanatical Islamists are when the U.S created funded and supported Al Quaeda in the first place and used them to fight a proxy war against the Russians, (not that the Russians are any better). Now they are using other proxies inc Israel AND Islamists to war on Syria, Libya and Iran.

Wrong yet again, Oxy. You simply resort to exaggeration when you get flustered. bad move. The US didn't "create" Al Qaeda- it was created by OBL and Zawhiri. The US funded the mujaheddin in Afgan of which OBL was a part of. OBL left Afghanistan after the Soviets left and went to Sudan. he created AQ upon his return in 1988. War on Libya? Iran?? your emotions lead you astray.

Rubbish, you are simply attempting to dehumanise them as per usual.

really..per usual? I have a hard time humanizing people who are quick to behead someone else or stone a girl to death because of a perceived slight...and yet I never "dehumanized" anyone. Merely pointed out the role religion play in their actions. That is not "rubbish", its fact. Denying, ignoring it doesn't change it- "the moral justification and levers of power for these movements are not couched in political terms, but based on Islamic religious sources of authority and religious principles"- You have not provide even the slightest bit of evidence that counters that.

Look- I simply pointed out that your belief that religion plays no role in this is false. You keep avoiding the topic and try to vent your anger at US policy- so be it.

[SR1419]

So Afghanistan was about retaliation on those who attacked the U.S, even though no Afghans were involved...

yes. Because the people who attacked the US were IN Afghanistan.

[SR1419]

Oh my word... what several of them... as many as that.... quick quick get out the nukes there were several of them training in Afghanistan!!!

Actually...all of the were trained in Afghanistan.

Content from external source:

All of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. These same camps were used to train Taliban fighters, as well as al Qaeda operatives who fought alongside the Taliban. Similarly, terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, al Qaeda's millennium bomb plots, the failed Dec. 2001 shoe bomb attack and numerous other plots were all trained in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...iban_claim.php


Here is a fascinating interview with OBL

Content from external source:

we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
(...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas
in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the
plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

http://web.archive.org/web/200606230...0011213ubl.pdf

[Oxymoron]

yes. Because the people who attacked the US were IN Afghanistan.

Well they must have had long arms to fly a U.S plane whilst being in Afghanistan... Oh hang on ... They must have been Afghan drones! That would account for half of them being back home for tea the next day. Brilliant debunking! Unless you have made another error somewhere?

[Cairenn]

I really doubt if Satan serves tea.

[Oxymoron]

I really doubt if Satan serves tea.

Satan?

You believe in Satan?

Who is Satan?

Where is Satan?

Have you tried asking him for tea?

Anyway... you got it all wrong.... they weren't IN America according to SR.

Those named by the U.S as 9/11 terrorists, lived in many places but they didn't live in America; Generally the Saudi area etc etc

But they ALL went on holiday together to Afghanistan on 9/11. Yep really SR knows all about it... "the people who attacked the US were IN Afghanistan"

Can't wait for the next thrilling installment.

[Cairenn]

TBH, I don't believe in Satan. I am Wiccan.

I don't understand your statements. Those terrorists DIED on the planes they hijacked.

While they were from other countries, the PLAN came from Afghanistan. It was the Taliban that hid and allowed bin Laden to develop it and to fund it.

One cannot look at the Muslim world as a unified unit. They have factions. In many ways, today's Muslim world is closer to situation among Christians, in the late middle ages. Have we used them against each other, Yep we have. Did we start the divisions? Heck no, most of them are older than the US.

The house of Saud are of the Wahhabi or Salafi sect. That group of extremely fundamentalist Muslims supported the Saud family, so they could take power in what we now call Saudi Arabia. Imagine if the folks of WestBoro 'Baptist' church were numerous enough to control a political party. Even within the Salafis there are divisions. bin Laden and the other militant Muslims are followers of the ideology of Sayyid Qutb. He was an Eygptian that came to the US in the late 40s and decided that our way of life was decadent and that democracy was unsuitable for any Muslim country. He objected to way women dressed, to the mixing of sexes, to our love of sports, to our materialism and he didn't like the art that was being created here. He plotted the assignation of Pres. Nassar of Egypt and he was executed for that.

The US was attacked after the first Gulf war, because we had troops stationed in Saudi. To that group, that was considered an occupation and the fact that the Saud government had asked, meant that they needed to be eliminated as well. The US bases and presence in that area, meant that they could not do that. They want to remake a Muslim world based on their own beliefs.

Most Muslims, even the Wahhabis do not agree with them.

[Oxymoron]

TBH, I don't believe in Satan. I am Wiccan.

Sorry, when someone says:

I really doubt if Satan serves tea

when no one has previously mentioned Satan, merely the tea... I deduce they believe in Satan and are inferring that the previously mentioned tea takers are in cahoots with him or maybe being punished, perhaps by not getting their tea.

I don't understand your statements. Those terrorists DIED on the planes they hijacked.

That is an understandable and popular misconception which is apparently not true... Shock horror. Many are alive and well as documented here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

There is much more on this if you want to research it.

Content from external source:

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco

While they were from other countries, the PLAN came from Afghanistan. It was the Taliban that hid and allowed bin Laden to develop it and to fund it.
One cannot look at the Muslim world as a unified unit. They have factions. In many ways, today's Muslim world is closer to situation among Christians, in the late middle ages. Have we used them against each other, Yep we have. Did we start the divisions? Heck no, most of them are older than the US.

Ah, So it is ok to use them and call them brave and heroic freedom fighters but as soon as we don't like them they are wild eyed fanatical extremists who must be wiped out at all costs including the widespread killing of innocent civilians inc women and children. Also because someone who may have planned 9/11, (OBL), but was never indicted for it or had an arrest warrant issued for it or never had any substantive evidence provided linking him to it and who denied it; the fact that his last known whereabouts puts him in Afghanistan, (where he is a hero for ousting the Russians...) that gives the U.S the right to make war on them, overthrow their government, impose a puppet government, tell them how to live and kill thousands of civilians, even though the Taliban offer to hand him over if the U.S will make a case.

Strange that a very short time after invading, when they had him surrounded in his 'Hi Tec Nuclear Bunker' aka a cave in Bora Bora, they deliberately let him go and escape into Pakistan. Was that so they had 'justification' lol to stay in Afghanistan for the next ten years? Please help me understand where you are coming from here.

The house of Saud are of the Wahhabi or Salafi sect. That group of extremely fundamentalist Muslims supported the Saud family, so they could take power in what we now call Saudi Arabia. Imagine if the folks of WestBoro 'Baptist' church were numerous enough to control a political party. Even within the Salafis there are divisions. bin Laden and the other militant Muslims are followers of

Followers of who...? Yes Saudi Arabia is an Islamic State... so why are there no Drone strikes in Saudi Arabia, (not that I am promoting it), merely asking for an explanation. Given that OBL was Saudi Royalty, why were the only flights which were not grounded after 9/11, the ones taking OBL's relatives back to Saudi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia

Content from external source:

While what is now Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Islam, it was also home to various sects and strands of the religion until the rise of Salafism, also known as Wahabbism, a fiercely puritanical strain of Islam that gained patronage of the primary rulers of the Arabian peninsula. When the modern kingdom was established, Salafism became the only brand of Islam espoused by the government. The Saudi government hosts multiple international Islamic organisations and uses its government arms to propagate the Salafi brand of Islam worldwide. The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the guardian of the two mosques, considered the holiest in Islam, of Mecca and Medina.

[Mick]

Hijackers still alive posts move to:
http://metabunk.org/threads/1154-9-1...rs-still-alive

[Cairenn]

We USED them against the Soviets, just like we allied with the Soviets in WW II. Have you ever heard the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? That is what happened in Afghanistan, and we supported Sadam for the same reason. He was an enemy of Iran.

This is NOT something new, it has been happening as long as man has gone to war. If you can use someone else as a proxy to weaken your enemy, you do it. It saves the lives of YOUR people, and as a LEADER your responsibility is to them.

I have mentioned that I play one of the MMP on line games, it is a war/strategy game. I have been a leader, a diplomat and a liaison to an enemy alliance. The alliances that win, are the ones that make best use of their players, their friends and their ENEMIES. Sometimes it is advantageous to allow one of your enemies to die on the villages of another one your enemies. Your 'help' (their defense troops from your alliance) get a boost from the ones of your enemy. YOU end up stronger because of it.
I will also tell you this, a leader can NOT always share all they know with their alliance ( we are talking about maybe 200-250 folks at the most). Most of your alliance may not know that you are helping an enemy.

[Oxymoron]

We USED them against the Soviets, just like we allied with the Soviets in WW II. Have you ever heard the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? That is what happened in Afghanistan, and we supported Sadam for the same reason. He was an enemy of Iran.

Interesting... I think the Soviets may have viewed things a bit differently. No doubt you have pondered what caused Hitler to attack Russia, when the Germans already appeared overstretched?

I have mentioned that I play one of the MMP on line games, it is a war/strategy game. I have been a leader, a diplomat and a liaison to an enemy alliance.

Seems very realistic... What were you trying to achieve in your diplomatic role? Was part of your role to avert war? Wider aims?

The alliances that win, are the ones that make best use of their players, their friends and their ENEMIES. Sometimes it is advantageous to allow one of your enemies to die on the villages of another one your enemies.

Like a false flag scenario?

Your 'help' (their defense troops from your alliance) get a boost from the ones of your enemy. YOU end up stronger because of it. I will also tell you this, a leader can NOT always share all they know with their alliance ( we are talking about maybe 200-250 folks at the most). Most of your alliance may not know that you are helping an enemy.

Sounds like a conspiracy of a few elite?

[Cairenn]

I guess that you feel that having any secrets is wrong. There are times that those secrets keep your OWN people alive.

I think a refresher course on the meaning of conspiracy, might be in order here


con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


A plan than saves the lives of the folks that you are leading or that elected you is not a conspiracy. There are grey areas, like Iran-Contra and I some did go to jail for that. It was revealed by someone that KNEW what was going on

[Oxymoron]

I guess that you feel that having any secrets is wrong. There are times that those secrets keep your OWN people alive.

I think a refresher course on the meaning of conspiracy, might be in order here


con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


A plan than saves the lives of the folks that you are leading or that elected you is not a conspiracy. There are grey areas, like Iran-Contra and I some did go to jail for that. It was revealed by someone that KNEW what was going on

LOL... May not be able to define a 'terrorist' but we can define a 'conspiracy'.

Appears you didn't want to answer any of the questions then...

Maybe you will feel able to answer this one... If the 'object' of invading Afghanistan, was to get "several" terrorists...(disregarding the FACT that the Taliban agreed to hand over OBL if any evidence was provided by the U.S and disregarding the FACT that OBL has never been formally indicted for 9/11 and was never sought for 9/11).. why did the U.S and U.K forces stay there for 10 years?

Oh... let me put my 'conspiracy hat on'... was it because OBL was an excuse to affect a regime change?

[MikeC]

The Taliban did not agree to "hand over" OBL - they agreed to "discuss" the matter and hand him over to a 3rd country - not to the USA.

and whether OBL was indicted or not is immaterial to whether he was responsible or not. It up is a fairly common smokescreen for CT's on this matter.

all that said, the US's behaviour about this time sucked and was certainly driven by ideology and possibly hubris - the infamous "we do not talk to evil" comment in response to Iran's offer to help in Afghanistan in return for being taken off the "Axis of Evil" list is a perfect example.

[Oxymoron]

Try again Oxy. The attacks were devised in Afghanistan. Key figures trained for the attacks there. They were implemented from there. The people who devised the attacks and who funded the attacks and who commanded and instructed those who carried out the attacks were all in Afghanistan. That they were not Afgani is not the point- simply bob and weave misdirection from you...as usual.

Content from external source:

Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions.

Why not invade Saudi?... sorry dumb question.

The Taliban did offer to turn OBL over to a neutral third party country. ...but how does this provide evidence to your claim that there is "nothing to substantiate" the role religion plays in the actions of Islamic militants?

Who implied it does... no one except you just now. The Taliban offering to turn OBL over to a neutral third party country has everything to do with there being absolutely no legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan. Had the Taliban refused to hand him over, that still would not amount to legitimate reason to invade as it is their Country and if they wanted to they could have given him diplomatic immunity... or simply refused to hand him over... as the U.S has done on many an occasion.

e.g Kissinger has outstanding summons but will the U.S hand him over... will they hell.

Content from external source:

Kissinger has evaded legal summons by investigators in France, Spain, Chile and Argentina seeking to question him regarding his role in the disappearances of numerous citizens of the US and other nations, in regard to his involvement to Operation Condor.^[52] These included requests in 2001 by Chilean High Court judge Juan Guzmán, and Argentine judge Rodolfo Canicoba, which were both ignored by Kissinger.^[53][54] On May 28, 2001, police visited Kissinger at the Ritz Hotel, Paris and handed him a warrant, issued by Judge Roger LeLoire, requesting his testimony in the matter of 5 French citizens who had disappeared in Pinochet's Chile. Kissinger refused, referred the matter to the State Department, and left for Italy the next day, however the summons still stands.^[55]

There are many more who are guilty of war crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

Content from external source:

Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on the prisoners,^[61] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.^[62] Alberto Gonzales and others argued that detainees should be considered "unlawful combatants" and as such not be protected by the Geneva Conventions in multiple memoranda regarding these perceived legal gray areas.^[63]
Gonzales' statement that denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" suggests, to some authors, an awareness by those involved in crafting policies in this area that US officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes.^[64] The US Supreme Court challenged the premise on which this argument is based in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which it ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.^[65]

I have made my point about the role of religion in war consistently, despite your repeated attempts to twist what I say in every possible manner. The fact is... this thread is about PNAC- motive and opportunity as evidence of an INSIDE JOB

Now why would you keep dragging it off topic with this ridiculous religion nonsense...

Wrong yet again, Oxy. You simply resort to exaggeration when you get flustered. bad move. The US didn't "create" Al Qaeda- it was created by OBL and Zawhiri. The US funded the mujaheddin in Afgan of which OBL was a part of. OBL left Afghanistan after the Soviets left and went to Sudan. he created AQ upon his return in 1988. War on Libya? Iran?? your emotions lead you astray.

Al Qaeda was created by OBL at the request of the CIA if you really must be that pedantic.

Oh so there has been no regime change in Libya... is that what you are saying? It wasn't aided, funded, and fomented by the CIA? Annie Machon has it all wrong does she?

“Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers” — the Gaddafi Plot

Content from external source:

MI6 gave money to indi*vidu*als who posed a greater threat to our lives and secur*ity — Al Qaeda — to assas*sin*ate an indi*vidual who posed a lesser threat, Col*onel Gad*dafi. It just doesn’t make any logical sense. In fact, it demon*strates that MI6 was motiv*ated by revenge on Gad*dafi, rather than any desire to pro*tect Brit*ish lives and national secur*ity, because he nation*al*ised the Libyan oil industry in 1976 at the expense of BP

really..per usual? I have a hard time humanizing people who are quick to behead someone else or stone a girl to death because of a perceived slight...and yet I never "dehumanized" anyone

.
You just did it again... that statement is designed to dehumanise them. So they don't have electric chairs or keep people in solitary confinement for decades or sentence people to 300 years imprisonment...

Merely pointed out the role religion play in their actions. That is not "rubbish", its fact. Denying, ignoring it doesn't change it- "the moral justification and levers of power for these movements are not couched in political terms, but based on Islamic religious sources of authority and religious principles"- You have not provide even the slightest bit of evidence that counters that.

Obviously being deliberately obtuse.

[Cairenn]

Iran would have loved to have seen the Taliban in Afghanistan gone. The Taliban considers the Shia muslims to be even worse than infidels.

It could have been handled a LOT better. Pres Bush was not up to the job, I live in Texas, I KNEW. Al Gore would have responded differently. I really think that he would have had a better grasp of the situation. Not because he is Democrat, but because he would have had better access and been more willing to consult with those from the Clinton years.

Any time, the party in the White House changes, it will take some time to get up to speed.

And by the way, I did answer you

[Oxymoron]

And by the way, I did answer you

Sorry I must have missed it.. I was interested in what you were trying to achieve in your diplomatic role? Was part of your role to avert war? Wider aims? etc

I was also interested if false flag ops occur in the game?

[Oxymoron]

The Taliban did not agree to "hand over" OBL - they agreed to "discuss" the matter and hand him over to a 3rd country - not to the USA.

and whether OBL was indicted or not is immaterial to whether he was responsible or not. It up is a fairly common smokescreen for CT's on this matter.

all that said, the US's behaviour about this time sucked and was certainly driven by ideology and possibly hubris - the infamous "we do not talk to evil" comment in response to Iran's offer to help in Afghanistan in return for being taken off the "Axis of Evil" list is a perfect example.

Indictment is not a smokescreen... Why was he not indicted?

There are many lawyers who say the invasions were illegal and that is my position. Even Blair was told it was illegal but went ahead anyway. It is pure bully tactics... who is going to stop them... no one... but it doesn't make it right!

[Cairenn]

The goal of the game is the building of a 'wonder of the world'. When one side gets it to level 100, the server is over and the game resets. While you are trying to do this, your enemies are trying to demolish it. You have defend it and feed the defenders. It will take 100-200 players working together to do that. Your enemies are trying to do the same thing.

The goal as a diplomat is to get your alliance into the best position for endgame. That can be, getting allies, it can also mean supporting another alliance so they will ally with you, instead of with an enemy. False flag ops, yep I have seen them. I have seen folks join an alliance just so they can better attack it. Spies, we have them, turncoats, yep they are there. Folks that don't have enough sense to not brag and reveal information, yep them too.

In many ways it is very realistic, even if the number of troops and weapons aren't. I once had almost 20,000 catapults in my personal army

[MikeC]

Indictment is not a smokescreen... Why was he not indicted?

I dont' know - but the fact that you are trying to make it part of an argument that he didn't do it IS exactly a smoke screen.

Why is it important?

There are many lawyers who say the invasions were illegal and that is my position. Even Blair was told it was illegal but went ahead anyway. It is pure bully tactics... who is going to stop them... no one... but it doesn't make it right!

AFAIK everyone in the world pretty much thought that going after AQ in Afghanistan was perfectly legfal - IMO it was Iraq that was a lump of canine excrement and a crime.

But again that is not actually evidence that OBL, AQ, et al were hired/set up/did not do the 9/11 attacks (or any other CT of your choice)

[Oxymoron]

The goal of the game is the building of a 'wonder of the world'. When one side gets it to level 100, the server is over and the game resets. While you are trying to do this, your enemies are trying to demolish it. You have defend it and feed the defenders. It will take 100-200 players working together to do that. Your enemies are trying to do the same thing.

Intriguing, what name does the game go by?

So it is about building a wonderful world... is that right? But different people have different ideas on 'the shape' of the world and the factors that make it wonderful... or is it it simply that they are in power?

The goal as a diplomat is to get your alliance into the best position for endgame. That can be, getting allies, it can also mean supporting another alliance so they will ally with you, instead of with an enemy.

As it is a 'wargame', I take it there is no diplomatic solution or division of lands or power sharing... no compromise... just win or lose?

I suppose each side would have an equivalence of a PNAC?

False flag ops, yep I have seen them. I have seen folks join an alliance just so they can better attack it. Spies, we have them, turncoats, yep they are there. Folks that don't have enough sense to not brag and reveal information, yep them too.

Does the game start from a position of peace and then need some justification to go to war?

In many ways it is very realistic, even if the number of troops and weapons aren't. I once had almost 20,000 catapults in my personal army

Would you say the diplomacy aspect was a precursor to arms accumulation?

[Oxymoron]

I dont' know - but the fact that you are trying to make it part of an argument that he didn't do it IS exactly a smoke screen.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, clearly he didn't 'do it' otherwise he would have died on 9/11. But I am arguing that possibly he may not have had a hand in it or that even if he did have a hand in it, the attack was allowed to go ahead.

NB It is a well documented fact that Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry by the Germans and I do not think anyone criticises that action and it is well known that he was greatly disturbed by having to allow it. I do not think anyone would assert it as a false flag event either because it was allowed as part of a defensive strategy in the middle of a war which Britain did not start.

What I and many others are suggesting is, the Bush admin may well have allowed or even been involved in 9/11 as a means to the end of starting wars and effecting regime changes in the M.E which they felt was in the best interests of America, which would fit in and facilitate their stated goals in the PNAC.

Why is it important?

I think it important because if there were sufficient evidence to invade a Country, there should have been sufficient legal evidence to justify who the culprit was and further, normal legal and diplomatic procedures should have ensued to bring the culprits to justice without killing and maiming innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

AFAIK everyone in the world pretty much thought that going after AQ in Afghanistan was perfectly legfal - IMO it was Iraq that was a lump of canine excrement and a crime.

I am pleased we can agree on Iraq Mike but I fail to see why you do not feel the same about Afghanistan?

But again that is not actually evidence that OBL, AQ, et al were hired/set up/did not do the 9/11 attacks (or any other CT of your choice)

This is true but then they would not be CT's if we had accepted proofs. History is the story that we tell ourselves and in the main is written by the victors. If Germany had won the war our history books would look very different... do you agree?

[SR1419]

I have made my point about the role of religion in war consistently, despite your repeated attempts to twist what I say in every possible manner. The fact is... this thread is about PNAC- motive and opportunity as evidence of an INSIDE JOB

Now why would you keep dragging it off topic with this ridiculous religion nonsense...

I simply highlighted out a point of bunk that you promoted. It was just a simple but important point that your simplistic and naive analysis did not adequately cover. That is not "nonsense". Its fundamental to the understanding of the nature of the conflict.

Al Qaeda was created by OBL at the request of the CIA if you really must be that pedantic.

Really? Are you sure that isn't just more exaggeration? The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afganistan- They were a myriad of groups and OBL was but a part of the larger MJD. OBL set up "al Qaeda" initially as an office to record the names of MJD killed in action to inform their families. It was after the Saudis invited US troops into SA that OBL became galvanized against the US. His time in Sudan was where is was able to coalesce his beliefs and ideology. He left Sudan and returned to Afghanistan in 1996.


Any adequate analysis of Al Qaeda, OBL and Islamic extremism in general cannot be limited to purely political terms. You cannot ignore the Islamic background and history from which they have emerged. A very specific interpretation of faith, refined and politicized over centuries, informs their identity and directs their actions. Without Islam there would be no Al Qaeda.

[SR1419]

Also because someone who may have planned 9/11, (OBL), but was never indicted for it or had an arrest warrant issued for it or never had any substantive evidence provided linking him to it and who denied it;

I am curious if you think this is substantive evidence...or a denial?






full transcript here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200606230...0011213ubl.pdf

[Oxymoron]

I am curious if you think this is substantive evidence...or a denial?






full transcript here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200606230...0011213ubl.pdf

And you think this is OBL? Released in 2003 and when was it alleged to be filmed?

Why no indictment if they had such rock solid proof?

Is this really OBL?



Or is this him?



or this one lol



Not to worry... it's only Alex questioning it's authenticity... or is it?

Sheeple eat it up tho

[SR1419]

And you think this is OBL? Released in 2003 and when was it alleged to be filmed?

Why no indictment if they had such rock solid proof?

Curious. You neglected to answer the question.

Do you think this is substantive evidence...or a denial?

Moreover, the interview was recorded in Nov 2001 and released in Dec 2001.

I guess you did not bother to watch or read the transcript.

The picture of "dead" OBL is a known fake.


I do not know exactly why he wasn't indicted- it could be the only thing the FBI has is a bunch of tapes with Osama Bin Laden talking about his part in 9/11. Confessions cannot be used in the court of law effectively, hence the term hard evidence. What the FBI has is admissible evidence, which doesn’t show a chain of custody from the Bin Laden tapes.

But it begs the question- if it was all a giant conspiracy, would it be logical and prudent that the conspirators would have created plenty of "hard evidence" such that an indictment would not be in question? Why leave it open for internet conspiracy fodder?

Here is what he FBI has to say about it:

Content from external source:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
ad_icon

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html

[Oxymoron]

Curious. You neglected to answer the question.

Do you think this is substantive evidence...or a denial?

Moreover, the interview was recorded in Nov 2001 and released in Dec 2001.

I guess you did not bother to watch or read the transcript.

It looks very fake, particularly 'the confession'.

Content from external source:

In mid-November, Usama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, possibly in
Qandahar, Afghanistan. These comments were video taped with the knowledge of Bin
Laden and all present.
Note: The tape is approximately one hour long and contains three different
segments

I do not wish to appear too skeptical but is that really the best quality video they could come up with after going to all that trouble and there he is making this great big announcement... REALLY! How could this be 'evidence', (other than evidence of fakery)

The picture of "dead" OBL is a known fake.

Yes there have been many fake bin Laden pictures and tapes... as noted by Alex and many others... I wonder why?

I do not know exactly why he wasn't indicted- it could be the only thing the FBI has is a bunch of tapes with Osama Bin Laden talking about his part in 9/11. Confessions cannot be used in the court of law effectively, hence the term hard evidence. What the FBI has is admissible evidence, which doesn’t show a chain of custody from the Bin Laden tapes.

No I do not think such highly dubious (99% probability of being fake), taped confessions should stand up in even a kangaroo court... but you apparently do.

But it begs the question- if it was all a giant conspiracy, would it be logical and prudent that the conspirators would have created plenty of "hard evidence" such that an indictment would not be in question? Why leave it open for internet conspiracy fodder?

I do not know. I cannot explain a lot of things that do not add up, inc why they let him get away from Bora Bora by holding the troops back or how he was visited in a hospital by CIA whilst he was having kidney dialysis, not long before 9/11. This is why CT's abound because it does not add up.

Here is what he FBI has to say about it:

Content from external source:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
ad_icon

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

That makes no sense to me. It is fine to indict for one thing (and that does not prejudice the case), but not for 9/11

It should be noted that the media post-9/11 were reporting numerous stories about the impending “9/11 Trials” of the many accomplices to the “19 hijackers.” In fact, John Ashcroft reported that his Department of Justice has detained “nearly 1000 individuals” for aiding and abetting the hijackers. Yet almost all were quietly and individually released.

Again very strange... where are these accomplices... what happened to the trials? Why are the Guantanamo detainees either being quietly released after years and years of torture and captivity or in a very few cases going to court only to be found not guilty... I think with one exception... who is appealing.

No there is only one entity responsible for all the CT's and that is the U.S Government.

[SR1419]

It looks very fake, particularly 'the confession'.

(99% probability of being fake),

Thats it?? Just your proclamation that its 99% probably fake...based on lack of quality video and your keen insight.

Thats funny.

good luck with that.

[Oxymoron]

Thats it?? Just your proclamation that its 99% probably fake...based on lack of quality video and your keen insight.

Thats funny.

good luck with that.

I said a lot more than that but what is wrong with such a conclusion anyway.

There have been lots of fake videos and tapes out there.

CIA are on record as planning to make an OBL video with him saying he likes young boys.

The 'killing' of OBL... one minute he is armed the next hiding behind his wife screaming for mercy... They think they are in bloody Hollywood... its insulting to thinking people.

Show me where I am wrong and I will agree but please do not insult me further.

[Mick]

There have been lots of fake videos and tapes out there.

Could you give some examples of the government or media faking that kind of thing? I see a lot of people point at a particular CNN tape as fake, but it's not. What are you referring to?

http://metabunk.org/threads/1140-Deb...lf-War-Reports

[Oxymoron]

Could you give some examples of the government or media faking that kind of thing? I see a lot of people point at a particular CNN tape as fake, but it's not. What are you referring to?

http://metabunk.org/threads/1140-Deb...lf-War-Reports

That link has nothing to do with Bin Laden fake tapes... It is debunked and rightly so... You will have noticed I have not defended it.

Bin Laden tapes, pictures, video's and quotes are often faked... universally so since Dec 2001. The tape SR put forward is obviously fake... Why on earth would anyone go to the trouble of making such a shite quality tape is beyond me. The only possible reason which vaguely makes sense is to feed the sheeple with crap. It is insulting.

I have posted a few of the obviously indeed laughable if it wre not so serious fake tapes trotted out as and when it suits.

If you want to see more I suggest you google fake bin laden tapes and amuse yourself for an hour, although I would suggest either you or SR would be far more gainfully employed dealing with the serious issues I raised in my earlier posts.

For anyon who is interested, here is what Bush says about bin Laden

http://my.firedoglake.com/davidson/2...en-kill-story/

Content from external source:

Usama bin Laden is a red herring
On November 13, 2002, just fourteen months after 9-11, a blogger contributed this to Buzzflash (www.buzzflash.com):

For your amusement and future reference, here’s what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
“The most important thing is for us to find Usama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’”
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
“…Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he’s maybe in control of a cave. He’s on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that’s what’s happening. He’s on the run, if he’s running at all. So we don’t know whether he’s in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open — we just don’t know….” – GW Bush, remarks in an open meeting with the Press Travel Pool at Bush’s “ranch” in Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on the official White House site.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) [v]
This last quote was the statement – made just two and a half months after Bush swore to find bin Laden and bring him to justice – showing that even GW Bush didn’t consider Usama bin Laden an essential part of the story for which our soldiers – and perhaps millions of citizens in Arab countries – have shed so much blood and so many life-altering injuries.
Usama bin Laden cannot be connected to 9-11
What did Usama himself say about 9-11? In a Sept. 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, bin Laden is reported to have said:
“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”[vi]
FBI admits they have no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9-11
According to the FBI “Wanted” page[vii]: “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.”[viii]
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI’s web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, is reported to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”[ix]

[SR1419]

I said a lot more than that but what is wrong with such a conclusion anyway.

There have been lots of fake videos and tapes out there.

CIA are on record as planning to make an OBL video with him saying he likes young boys.

The 'killing' of OBL... one minute he is armed the next hiding behind his wife screaming for mercy... They think they are in bloody Hollywood... its insulting to thinking people.

Show me where I am wrong and I will agree but please do not insult me further.

I didn't insult you. I apologize if you think I did.

I suppose if there was a video of him proclaiming he didn't do it- you would think that is real unequivocally.

You DIDN'T say anymore as to why you think it was fake other than commenting on the quality of the video.

No offense but just your proclamation that its fake is not worth very much. Wouldn't hold up in a kangaroo court.

OBL:

Content from external source:

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

OBL:

Content from external source:

as I mentioned previously - the events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon. And it was I who was responsible for 9/11, and I stress that all Afghans - both government and people - had no knowledge of those events, and America knows that, because some of the Taliban's ministers fell into its hands as captives, and they were interrogated and that became known.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:E20.rmvb

I hadn't heard the one about the "CIA are on record as planning to make an OBL video with him saying he likes young boys." - can you provide source material?

[Oxymoron]

I didn't insult you. I apologize if you think I did.

I suppose if there was a video of him proclaiming he didn't do it- you would think that is real unequivocally.

You DIDN'T say anymore as to why you think it was fake other than commenting on the quality of the video.

No offense but just your proclamation that its fake is not worth very much. Wouldn't hold up in a kangaroo court.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:E20.rmvb

Content from external source:

On 29th November 2007, al Jazeera aired a portion of a bin Laden tape containing the following statement:

Let us be clear here... I, fully accept OBL was a terrorist/freedom fighter and that he was responsible for planning, funding and organising attacks, possibly inc 9/11 but there are so many anomalies around 9/11, I feel it could easily be an inside job with OBL as a patsy. You must admit it is odd that he denied it. There are no reliable OBL tapes after Dec 2001... They are all disputed as fake after that. Any tape that was supposed to be 'official' and was as indistinct and suspect as the confession tape... I would regard as fake, whatever it said. People do not go to such trouble to produce a tape of that quality to make an anouncement.


This is bin Laden in 1997 (OBL at 5.30)... four years earlier than the alleged 'confession tape'.... Take note of the quality... they do have cameras and they can use them.

Yes it is defined as Jihad but honestly ... if you cannot see the politics involved...'U.S responsible for deaths in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq and the occupation of Saudi Arabia

U.S forces entered S.A in 1990 and remained.... and remained... and remained

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...uous-dangerous

Content from external source:

April 25, 2003. Air Force General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently admitted that U.S. forces might no longer be needed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....That is good news: for the troops, for the taxpayers, and for the people of the region. The troops are unnecessary. They are costly. And their presence in the region makes us less, not more, secure... Our military forces exist to serve one essential purpose: defend vital U.S. interests.... The troop withdrawal is further justified by the recognition that the Saudi bases were completely superfluous in the Iraq War. Saudi Arabia first agreed to the deployment of U.S. forces in the kingdom in late 1990, following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, on the understanding that the troops would be removed.

But the troops remained. The risk, and the evidence of widespread resentment towards the American presence, was revealed when the Khobar Towers barracks in Dahran were bombed in 1996, an attack that left 19 Americans dead, and another 372 wounded. American forces were then redeployed to more secure locations elsewhere in the country, but they have become virtual prisoners in closely guarded enclaves.

The Saudis, sensitive to domestic opinion, officially barred U.S. aircraft based in the kingdom from conducting strikes on Iraq.

This link claims to debunk that the 'confession' video is fake... but I don't buy it and neither do a lot of other people.

It is not just me that says it is fake... there are many many people ridiculing it.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video

Content from external source:

In December 2001 the US released a video claimed to be of bin Laden, talking about the 9/11 attacks. The same article said "[t]he Bush administration hopes the tape will convince skeptics, particularly in the Muslim and Arab worlds, of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks", and offered some evidence of its initial success:

So there is the motive...

They apparently made the fake 'gay bin Laden' tape...AND proposed to make a fake 'gay Saddam Hussein' tape.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-t...deas_to_d.html

Content from external source:

One was to create a video purporting to show the Iraqi dictator having sex with a teenage boy, according to two former CIA officials familiar with the project.

“It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”

The idea was to then “flood Iraq with the videos,” the former official said.
Another idea was to interrupt Iraqi television programming with a fake special news bulletin. An actor playing Hussein would announce that he was stepping down in favor of his (much-reviled) son Uday.
“I’m sure you will throw your support behind His Excellency Uday,” the fake Hussein would intone.

The spy agency’s Office of Technical Services collaborated on the ideas, which also included inserting fake “crawls” -- messages at the bottom of the screen -- into Iraqi newscasts.
The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.

Eventually, “things ground to a halt,” the other former officer said, because no one could come to agreement on the projects.
They also faced strong opposition from James Pavitt, then head of the agency’s Operations Division, and his deputy, Hugh Turner, who “kept throwing darts at it.”
The ideas were patently ridiculous, said the other former agency officer.

Taliban deny either they or OBL involved in 9/11... and denounce 9/11 attack.