important !! .. bin laden NOT claiming responsibilty !!!!! (1 Viewer)

[mustafa]

I haven't been here in a long time


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm



I saw this website .. which proves that Bin Laden did NOT
claim responsibilty for 11 sep attacks ..

I would love to hear your thoughts on what you will read

thank you

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

:rofl :rofl

I have read your link human... You have succeed in tickling Your Masters funny bone. Well done good and faithful servant!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Wow Ivan, im flattered that I made your sig

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mustafa:
I haven't been here in a long time

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm

I saw this website .. which proves that Bin Laden did NOT
claim responsibilty for 11 sep attacks ..

I would love to hear your thoughts on what you will read

thank you

This is a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. I can't say for sure if UBL was involved or not, because I just don't know. But I do know that the terrorists main calling card is to take responsibility for specific atrocities they commit. Almost always, whenever a terrorist event happens anywhere in the world, there is a group that claims responsibility right after it happens. That's the main way they get their sick message out.

No one has claimed responsibility for 9/11. Which is very unusual if a terrorist group was, in fact, responsible. It is also hard to believe that within the week, we knew all the terrorists names and where they came from. It is also unusual to think they were muslims when many people who were interviewed by the FBI that came into contact with these people in one way or another, said they spoke German.

And who is Williams?

In New Jersey, the FBI...searched the Marriott hotel at Newark Airport, where some or all of the four hijackers of United Airlines flight 93 were believed to have stayed on Monday night. The plane is the one that crashed in western Pennsylvania. It was that flight where either passengers or crew members downed the plane rather than become a cruise missile. But here was an interesting aside, reported once then never looked at again.

Curiously, given that all the suspected hijackers had Arab names, one guest at the hotel, who asked not to be named, said in an interview that during the search, the FBI agents asked each man they encountered, “Are you Williams?”
(By Christopher Drew: nytimes.com/2001/09/16/nyregion/16ARRE.html)

"On War: September 11, 2001" By Craig B Hulet, www.kcandassociates.com

 

[Kelzie]

This is a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. I can't say for sure if UBL was involved or not, because I just don't know. But I do know that the terrorists main calling card is to take responsibility for specific atrocities they commit. Almost always, whenever a terrorist event happens anywhere in the world, there is a group that claims responsibility right after it happens. That's the main way they get their sick message out.

No one has claimed responsibility for 9/11. Which is very unusual if a terrorist group was, in fact, responsible. It is also hard to believe that within the week, we knew all the terrorists names and where they came from. It is also unusual to think they were muslims when many people who were interviewed by the FBI that came into contact with these people in one way or another, said they spoke German.

And who is Williams?

It is not in the least unusual. Terrorists not claiming responsibility is hardly an isolated event. In fact, the list of "unclaimed attacks" is rather large: there's the American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, bombing of the Air India jetliner, a truck bomb that hit a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Bali nightclub attacks, an attack on a Jewish resort in Kenya, and technically speaking the Pan Am 103 bombing (although it was later attributed to the Libyan government).

There are many reasons why these "silent terror" attacks occur. The people who appreciate the act for what it was and the power that the perpetrator displayed are all members of a small group that were already aware of the terrorist acts being carried out. So there's no reason to broadcast it on their account. Secondly, in these instances, when a group is sure their message was successfully sent they would not necessarily feel the need to claim it.

Obviously not all terrorists feel this way. But it is hardly proof of some government cover up.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
It is not in the least unusual. Terrorists not claiming responsibility is hardly an isolated event. In fact, the list of "unclaimed attacks" is rather large: there's the American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, bombing of the Air India jetliner, a truck bomb that hit a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Bali nightclub attacks, an attack on a Jewish resort in Kenya, and technically speaking the Pan Am 103 bombing (although it was later attributed to the Libyan government).

There are many reasons why these "silent terror" attacks occur. The people who appreciate the act for what it was and the power that the perpetrator displayed are all members of a small group that were already aware of the terrorist acts being carried out. So there's no reason to broadcast it on their account. Secondly, in these instances, when a group is sure their message was successfully sent they would not necessarily feel the need to claim it.

Obviously not all terrorists feel this way. But it is hardly proof of some government cover up.

Good post. It still doesn't change the fact that no one has claimed responsibility for 9/11. All we have is the governments interpretation of a UBL video tape. I don't trust the government and I don't like UBL. I also don't think the government was complicit in the hijackings. But they sure did take advantage of it after it happened. They used it more as an opportunity, than a tragedy.

 

[Kelzie]

Good post. It still doesn't change the fact that no one has claimed responsibility for 9/11. All we have is the governments interpretation of a UBL video tape. I don't trust the government and I don't like UBL. I also don't think the government was complicit in the hijackings. But they sure did take advantage of it after it happened. They used it more as an opportunity, than a tragedy.

You are correct, it certainly doesn't change the fact that 9/11 wasn't claimed. However, 9/11 more than any other terrorist attacks did not need to be claimed for the message to be received. And really, sending messages is what terrorism is mostly about.

You can't say you're surprised that the government used it as an opportunity.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
You are correct, it certainly doesn't change the fact that 9/11 wasn't claimed. However, 9/11 more than any other terrorist attacks did not need to be claimed for the message to be received. And really, sending messages is what terrorism is mostly about.

There are a ton of people that are getting the wrong message. Or at the very least, not the whole message. What happened that day was very wrong. It was a crime that demands that, everyone who played a role, should have to answer for. But we shouldn't be giving up what makes our country great just to bring these guys to justice. That's too much of a price to pay. Their not worth compromising everything we stand for. Or used to stand for.

The message many are choosing not to deal with is our role in fostering the hatred that finally manifested on that day. I've never been one to blame others for all my problems. I always try to see what I did to cause (or contribute) to a situation that I needed to fix. In this case, our covert meddling in other country's affairs by our CIA, our troops still in Saudi Arabia a decade after the war ended and the genocide we funded in Central and South America. Were not the great satan, but were no angels either.

Originally posted by Kelzie:
You can't say you're surprised that the government used it as an opportunity.

No I can't. But I was a little surprized to see a 9/11 TV commercial not more than 30 days after it happened. The one that showed the events of that day, then a deep voice over comes on and says, "September 11th, the day that changed..........everything!" When I saw that, my first impression was that I was being set up for something. Now I can see what that something is.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You are correct, it certainly doesn't change the fact that 9/11 wasn't claimed. However, 9/11 more than any other terrorist attacks did not need to be claimed for the message to be received. And really, sending messages is what terrorism is mostly about.

You can't say you're surprised that the government used it as an opportunity.

Not at all, it says on the PNAC site that they were hoping for something like 9/11 to function as a catalyst for drawing public support for pre-emption and expanding executive authority.

 

[Kelzie]

There are a ton of people that are getting the wrong message. Or at the very least, not the whole message. What happened that day was very wrong. It was a crime that demands that, everyone who played a role, should have to answer for. But we shouldn't be giving up what make our country great just to bring these guys to justice. That's too much of a price to pay. Their not worth compromising everything we stand for. Or used to stand for.

The message many are choosing not to deal with is our role in fostering the hatred that finally manifested on that day. I've never been one to blame others for all my problems. I always try to see what I did to cause (or contribute) to a situation that I needed to fix. In this case, our covert meddling in other country's affairs by our CIA, our troops still in Saudi Arabia a decade after the war ended and the genocide we funded in Central and South America. Were not the great satan, but were no angels either.

I'm just going out on a limb here, but I don't think 9/11 had much to do with Central/South America. And it wasn't genocide billo. State sponsered terrorism maybe. But there was no attempt to wipe out an ethnicity.

Now as for the rest of your post. This might just be my opinion, but I think our envolvement in the Middle East is not the cause for terrorism. It is certainly the reason the OBL and others have latched on to but that doesn't mean their reason is what is actually going on.

From what I can see, there has to be a number of factors that come together to make the rise of a terrorist group possible. The first is economic problems. In the Middle Eastern countries with higher unemployment (and some of them are unthinkably high among the youths, 50-70%) this joblessness it turn leads to a lack of placement in the society. Young men with no jobs can't get married and can't start a family. They're too old to be included in their natural family and too poor to form a new one. Not to be too Freudian, but in many of these conservative societies, if they aren't married, they can't have sex, which I'm sure only exacerbates any tensions they are already having. These extremist movements they join are their way of venting their anxieties over their career, social position, and sexual relations. Of course, much of this economic stress can be relative deprivation, which would be seen in some of the American extremist groups.

Fear of coming marginality is another common feature in these terrorist groups. In this, I do believe that America has some influence, although we can hardly be blamed for it. It is the popularity of our soft power, our McDonalds and Levis and CDs that threaten these groups' world views. The social order that they live by is in danger of being marginalized and terrorism gives them a way of empowering themselves. They are deligitmizing and religitimizing at the same time. Deligitimizing the supremacy of secular Western society and religitimizing the alternative of Islam or Christianity or what have you.

I don't think it was a specific action by the US that created terrorism. If our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia or whatever other reason they give, they would still hate us. A very conservative society is caught in the middle of social and economic upheaval, and they are looking for an outlet.

No I can't. But I was a little surprized to see a 9/11 TV commercial not more than 30 days after it happened. The one that showed the events of that day, then a deep voice over comes on and says, "September 11th, the day that changed..........everything!" When I saw that, my first impression was that I was being set up for something. Now I can see what that something is.

What the hell was the commercial for?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
I'm just going out on a limb here, but I don't think 9/11 had much to do with Central/South America. And it wasn't genocide billo. State sponsered terrorism maybe. But there was no attempt to wipe out an ethnicity.

Now as for the rest of your post. This might just be my opinion, but I think our envolvement in the Middle East is not the cause for terrorism. It is certainly the reason the OBL and others have latched on to but that doesn't mean their reason is what is actually going on.

From what I can see, there has to be a number of factors that come together to make the rise of a terrorist group possible. The first is economic problems. In the Middle Eastern countries with higher unemployment (and some of them are unthinkably high among the youths, 50-70%) this joblessness it turn leads to a lack of placement in the society. Young men with no jobs can't get married and can't start a family. They're too old to be included in their natural family and too poor to form a new one. Not to be too Freudian, but in many of these conservative societies, if they aren't married, they can't have sex, which I'm sure only exacerbates any tensions they are already having. These extremist movements they join are their way of venting their anxieties over their career, social position, and sexual relations. Of course, much of this economic stress can be relative deprivation, which would be seen in some of the American extremist groups.

Fear of coming marginality is another common feature in these terrorist groups. In this, I do believe that America has some influence, although we can hardly be blamed for it. It is the popularity of our soft power, our McDonalds and Levis and CDs that threaten these groups' world views. The social order that they live by is in danger of being marginalized and terrorism gives them a way of empowering themselves. They are deligitmizing and religitimizing at the same time. Deligitimizing the supremacy of secular Western society and religitimizing the alternative of Islam or Christianity or what have you.

I don't think it was a specific action by the US that created terrorism. If our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia or whatever other reason they give, they would still hate us. A very conservative society is caught in the middle of social and economic upheaval, and they are looking for an outlet.

I mentioned Central and South America as examples of the US destabilizing democratic regimes, funding terrorists and overthrowing governments to put up puppet governments. All the bad things people accused Hussein of doing we do as well. And if you don't think we committed genocide in South America, ask the question to someone from Chilli. What we did there resulted in the deaths of almost 100,000 people. We funded terrorists in El Salvador. And we are harboring Cuban terrorists in this country. We definately do not come from any moral high ground. In fact, our high ground is hypocrisy.

I agree we shouldn't be blamed for enabling 9/11. But our involvement in ME affairs is a big reason for that level of hatred. You have to have a lot of hate to do what they did. That level of hate cannot be acheived internally.

One thing I am not going to do is blame an entire culture for the problem. And I am not going to scapegoat Iraq over something someone else did. Invading Iraq was the most cowardly thing this country has ever done!

 

[Kelzie]

I mentioned Central and South America as examples of the US destabilizing democratic regimes, funding terrorists and overthrowing governments to put up puppet governments. All the bad things people accused Hussein of doing we do as well. And if you don't think we committed genocide in South America, ask the question to someone from Chilli. What we did there resulted in the deaths of almost 100,000 people. We funded terrorists in El Salvador. And we are harboring Cuban terrorists in this country. We definately do not come from any moral high ground. In fact, our high ground is hypocrisy.

I'm not defending what we did in Central/South America. But it still wasn't genocide.

I agree we shouldn't be blamed for enabling 9/11. But our involvement in ME affairs is a big reason for that level of hatred. You have to have a lot of hate to do what they did. That level of hate cannot be acheived with internally.

Actually, I'd say that level of hate can only be achieved internally.

One thing I am not going to do is blame an entire culture for the problem. And I am not going to scapegoat Iraq over something someone else did. Invading Iraq was the most cowardly thing this country has ever done!

You might not feel comfortable blaming a culture, but I do. I'll say it proudly, I think their culture sucks. At the very least their treatment of women is grotesque, but those people should be demanding their rich rulers share the oil wealth instead of following them. At least then they might have some jobs to donate their energy to instead of blowing themselves up.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
You might not feel comfortable blaming a culture, but I do. I'll say it proudly, I think their culture sucks. At the very least their treatment of women is grotesque, but those people should be demanding their rich rulers share the oil wealth instead of following them. At least then they might have some jobs to donate their energy to instead of blowing themselves up.

If they treat their women so bad, then why were those abused women seen fighting the Americans right along side of those oppressive males in Afganistan?

 

[Kelzie]

If they treat their women so bad, then why were those abused women seen fighting the Americans right along side of those oppressive males in Afganistan?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of Afghanistan was relieved to be free of the Taliban.

 

[MSgt]

I agree we shouldn't be blamed for enabling 9/11. But our involvement in ME affairs is a big reason for that level of hatred. You have to have a lot of hate to do what they did. That level of hate cannot be acheived internally.

Dammit, Billo. Wrong. Dead wrong. That kind of hatred can easily come internally. It's called ultra conservatism mixed with a fundamental adherence to a single dogmatic religion. We have an entire history of religious persecutions and hatreds based on what men say "God wants." Each major religion has known its share of threats to its philosophical and practical integrity. Intolerance breeds injustice. Injustice invariably leads to rebellion and retaliation. In 16th century Europe, Christianity tore itself apart and the "faithful" all slaughtered each because of a need to maintain order.

Islam, along with slaughtering internally, has a scapegoat. If the mobile printing press brought the truth and brought the lies to the people in the 16th Century and it encouraged the violence in Europe, imagine what today's Internet is doing all over the world. Our culture is very much a threat to all those Radicals of whose core beliefs are being threatened. Their entire being is not making sense and their reaction is to lash out and defend those beliefs. The terrorist leaders, know this all too well, because this is where they recruit their "martyrs." These leaders are merely looking to destroy their way to power and to install hell on earth, at least in the Middle East. It is their vision of Islamic rule that is at the heart of their movements. We and Israel prevent this. Using our foreign policy as some sort of all-emcompassing issue is very erronious. It is merely a part of it, but not a big reason. Our foreign policy is necessary and as long as the world needs that oil, it will not change. People like Saddam, Khomeini, and Bin Ladden will not be permitted to wreck their neighbors. If you think it is bad now, imagine what the violence will be after the oil has dried up and the Arab elite take all their oil money and depart for the West.

Fundamentalists insist upon an historical stasis, but evolution in the architecture of faith has always been essential to, and reflective of, human progress.

If they treat their women so bad, then why were those abused women seen fighting the Americans right along side of those oppressive males in Afganistan?

Huh?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Intolerance breeds injustice. Injustice invariably leads to rebellion and retaliation.

This is absolutely true. We are intolerant of muslims. Which led to attacking Iraq un-justly. Now they are rebelling and retalliating.

I don't give a s.h.i.t about their culture. I only care about mine. And I don't want mine sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. If they stick their nose in our business, we kick their f.u.c.k.i.n.g a.s.s! But that's as far as it goes. Letting them know that everytime they get into our business, they get their a.s.s.e.s kicked. Sooner or later, they've got to get tired of all the beatings.

I don't like how we are perceived around the world. We are looked at as the big bully on the block. That's not what we are about. That's not what we stand for.

 

[MSgt]

We are intolerant of muslims.

More wrong. We are intolerant of Radical Islamists who employ violence to make their statements. Discover the difference.

I don't give a s.h.i.t about their culture.

Which is why you don't understand today's and tomorrows problem.

I don't like how we are perceived around the world. We are looked at as the big bully on the block. That's not what we are about. That's not what we stand for.

Senseless ideology that has no place here. Their snobbish and ignorant looks is their weakness and failures...not ours.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
I have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of Afghanistan was relieved to be free of the Taliban.

I'm no fan of the Taliban. And I have no idea what the majority of Afganistan people want. And I certainly don't know how you would know either.

Mr. Bush had...already recognized the Taliban as the legitimate governing body in Afghanistan from February through August of 2001 immediately after taking office. He considered them a "stabilizing force in the region." But as you will see further below, that was only to apply in secret and only if the Taliban took the economic deal (euphemistically called a 'carpet of gold' at the time) offered to them in exchange for recognition. The deal was of course the 1996 proposed pipeline running through Afghanistan from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Moreover, since 1996 the entire Caspian region, had been negotiating with Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, James A. Baker III, Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski, former Senator Lloyd Bentson and a host of others all at the time representing major oil firms as consultants or directors of the firms themselves. This, since early 1996 until 2000, when the first four entered the White House along with Mr. Bush Jr. and the others remain consultants to the US Defense and State Departments, and oil companies of course.

Mr. Bush does not seem to want to follow the rules of International Relations (IR) let alone international law; he has, in many legal scholar's view, not been following the United States Constitution exactly to the letter either. If we can make the argument that Mr. Bush and his administration did in fact recognize the Taliban during the negotiations noted above (and the evidence is now becoming overwhelming that they did) even if later Mr. Bush, once the Taliban did not take the economic deal, suddenly decided they were then persona non-grata and therefore not any longer recognized, is a moot point. They were recognized by the administration, were negotiated with in good faith, and the Afghan regime did not change, the United States administration changed their mind. Moreover, it cannot be argued that the people of Afghanistan did not in anything like a majority, recognize the ruling Taliban and in fact obeyed them. The argument to the contrary can not be supported any more than the argument that Saddam Hussein does not have the support of most of his people.

The majority of people in Afghanistan did support the Taliban regime and were glad they stopped the carnage perpetrated against the Afghan people by the Northern Alliance up until 1996. In fact, the so-called oppressed women of these supposedly Taliban tyrants were seen in the hills fighting along side their husbands against both the Northern Alliance and US Special Forces. Not that oppressed one might suppose. Mr. Bush Jr. rewrites history in denying all this.

Therefore we are talking about a sovereign nation-state and its sovereign leaders. Mr. Bush never had any legal standing to declare the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, "wanted dead or alive." Nor can anyone suggest Donald Rumsfeld wringing his hands over a missed opportunity to "kill Omar" outright was anything but diabolical. If we are at war, then we must obey the rules of war; if we are not at war we must obey the rules of civilized human nature. The Taliban had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 air attacks and this bears repeating often; even if it were proven Osama bin Laden had something to do with it (and nothing anyone publicly has seen, to date January 18th, 2002, proves otherwise) this has no bearing on bombing the country itself, killing civilians and removing the Taliban from power.

[What] has motivated Mr. Bush to dissemble reality to the world in declaring his right to defend America (which was clearly attacked) against the wrong enemy. Yes, the president has a right to defend America; every nation has a right to defend itself. But the laws regarding this defense have been worked out in great detail since World War Two and Mr. Bush violates these as well.


"The Hydra of Carnege" by Craig B. Hulet, www.kcandassociates.com

 

[Kelzie]

I'm no fan of the Taliban. And I have no idea what the majority of Afganistan people want. And I certainly don't know how you would know either.

I'll try to refrain from saying "neiner, neiner"

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of the Afghan public finds an overwhelming majority opposes al-Qaeda and the Taliban, endorses the overthrow of the Taliban and approves of the US military presence in Afghanistan.

Eighty-one percent of Afghans said they think that al-Qaeda is having a negative influence in the world with just 6% saying that it is having a positive influence. An even higher percentage—90%—said they have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 75% saying they have a very unfavorable view. Just 5% said they have a favorable view (2% very favorable). These levels were slightly lower in the country’s war zone, the eastern and south-central part of the country: three in five (60%) in those areas had a very unfavorable view of bin Laden.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_page/155.php?nid=&id=&pnt=155&lb=hmpg1

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
More wrong. We are intolerant of Radical Islamists who employ violence to make their statements. Discover the difference.

I'll admit that Radical Islamists are a group people should be intolerant of. I also think that intolerance spills over in regards to average Iraqis when we discuss the alleged atrocities in Falluja, Haditha and Ishagi, to name a few. Many people can't even discuss these issues rationally, if at all, without getting very emotional and angry. I'm trying to do my part by refering to these as "alleged atrocities", instead of simply stating them as "atrocities" like I have done in the past. We might very well be guilty. But I do believe everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Other than that, it's no secret to this forum what my personal position is on these issues.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Which is why you don't understand today's and tomorrows problem.

I'm sure there is some truth to that.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Senseless ideology that has no place here. Their snobbish and ignorant looks is their weakness and failures...not ours.

It makes sense to me. Whether they are "snobbish" or "ignorant" is their deal. I do know our TV generation ain't the most well informed republic in the world.

 

[Joby]

As for the original topic, Osama may not have claimed responsibility and may not be responsible. (well put i know)

Anyway, I read that we have a telephone conversation between Muhammed Atta and Osama in which Atta asked for 72 virgins to be at his going away party get together thing.

Anybody know anything?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Joby:
As for the original topic, Osama may not have claimed responsibility and may not be responsible. (well put i know)

Anyway, I read that we have a telephone conversation between Muhammed Atta and Osama in which Atta asked for 72 virgins to be at his going away party get together thing.

Anybody know anything?

They better not be using my virgins!

That is if I was a muslim...

...instead of a cracker from Long Beach.

 

[oldreliable67]

Note that the date of the interview in the cite was September 28, 2001. On numerous occasions following that, beginning with a video tape in November 2001, IIRC, OBL admitted to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, including the following comment made just before the last presidential election:

Bin Laden also says he first thought of attacking the US after seeing destroyed tower blocks in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion in 1982, which he says the US permitted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Has anyone here even heard of the 9-11 Commission Report or KSM? There is tons of evidence that puts the "planes operation" squarely on the plate of Al-Qaeda and who is the head of Al-Qaeda? Ya one U.B.L. that's who. Follow the money people.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Note that the date of the interview in the cite was September 28, 2001. On numerous occasions following that, beginning with a video tape in November 2001, IIRC, OBL admitted to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, including the following comment made just before the last presidential election:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm

I wouldn't say he "...admitted to being the mastermind...", but he did allude to the attacks. I personnally think he was involved. And I sure would like to see him behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, sitting on a concrete bench, eating an apple, during "count time".