ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/20/2014 11:43 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
BidenĀ“s Son Kicked Out of Navy for Cocaine
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you worried about getting Ebola?
  Latest Events
  2.240 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/23/2009 04:57 PM ID: 79298 Permalink   

Al Qaeda Leader: We Would Use Pakistan's Nukes on the US if We Gained Control of Them

 

Al Qaeda's third-in-command and leader in Afghanistan Mustafa Abul-Yazeed has told al-Jazeera television that if Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall under their control they would be used to attack the United States.

He confirmed that the Taliban was being aided by al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says that the two men above him in the organisation, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, are safe and monitoring the situation.

"By God's will, the Americans will not seize the Muslims' nuclear weapons and we pray that the Muslims will have these weapons and they will be used against the Americans," said Abul-Yazeed.

 
  Source: www.upi.com  
    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  59 Comments
  
  How can a group that is only a few dozen in size  
 
at most possibly take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? I guess you can think this if you fall for the greatest lie in modern history.

Red Herring anyone?
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 05:05 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
It could work if there were more than 'a few dozen' of them. They have been recruiting since 2001, and we have given PLENTY of reasons for others to join.
 
  by: Common_Tater   06/23/2009 06:19 PM     
  @slave  
 
Pakistan is having a tough time keeping these extremists in check, and it is a Nuclear armed state. Of course if they got their hands on the weapons they would use them without reservation. I know you choose basically not to believe that these guys exist, but unfortunately they do exist. And if it came to the point that the control of Pakistan was in danger, the U.S. would have no choice but to size control of the weapons, and has every intention to do so.
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 07:13 PM     
  Just propaganda  
 
Nothing more.
But with some of the powers that be, it might be now a reason to take out Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
And try to secure that gas line for good.

 
  by: thinking   06/23/2009 07:17 PM     
  @Dela  
 
No Pakistan is not really having problems with Al Qaeda. Contrary to popular belief, the Taliban is not the same thing as Al Qaeda.

The US is claiming AQ is some massive organization. What kind of fool do they take me for? This isnt GI Joe... AQ is NOT Cobra. They are a small group of a few dozen individuals at most and we are blowing it out of proportion to think that AQ could destroy the US.

Hitler could have destroyed the US given the opportunity. Bin Laden... Think about it. Can he seriously destroy the US or turn it into a Islamic state? There is no way in hell he or any of these people could do this.

People have been bilked into believing something that could never possibly happen. If you educate yourself on the real power these groups have you will understand that you are actually more likely to be killed in a car crash or for that matter by a bolt of lightning than by a member of AQ or any other terror group.

Terrorism has been used for thousands of years. You cannot fight terrorists with an army or a navy. Terrorism is the result of impoverished, uneducated and oppressed peoples.

You will never be able to defeat terrorism with any army, including the US Army. For some reason the US population has been tricked believing they somehow can win an unwinable war.

The only people to profit from this "War on Terror" are the terror groups and investors in the war. At the same time the rest of us poor saps get to suffer from the death, propaganda and terrible cost to our freedoms and economy.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 07:31 PM     
  @slave  
 
A few dozen? Please -- al Qaeda and its allies have gained hundreds, perhaps thousands of new members since Bush invaded Iraq. And just because AQ in its current form doesn't pose much of a threat to Americans doesn't mean that it couldn't if it had a nuclear arsenal.

And that isn't too far-fetched -- AQ has infiltrated the Pakistani government. This has been the case for a decade now -- when Bill Clinton ordered missiles to be fired at a compound in Afghanistan where bin Laden was hiding, protocol demanded that he inform Pakistan since part of the missile's trajectory would be in Pakistan. Bin Laden vacated the compound less than an hour before the missile struck, meaning he was either incredibly lucky or he was tipped off.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/23/2009 07:50 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
That doesnt conclusively put the blame on Pakistan. Since bin Laden was after all a CIA asset it is also possible that someone on our side still wanted him to stay alive for x number of reasons.

Plus a man as rich as Bin Laden is bound to have connections in both the US and Pakistan and not necessarily ones AQ is affiliated with.

I would say that AQ's recruitment is just a myth as well. I am sure they have gained many members but I would bet their numbers are less than 200 world wide.

Just because someone is a terrorist doesn't automatically classify them as being a member of AQ... This has been primarily the quasi-state-owned US media's fault in declaring this myth. Even if they had upwards of 500+ members would that really be considered a threat?

The recruitment of terror organizations is mostly from non AQ aligned groups. If I had to make an educated guess I would probably place their official members (NOT AFFILIATES) as less than 100.

I think the biggest hang up is that everyone that knows someone, that knows someone, that knows someone that is in AQ is for some reason now classified as literally being in AQ by the media.

The idea that this leads to is to think the terrorism is a single entity that can be dealt with as such which is clearly not the case. Terror groups in Afghanistan will probably have nothing whatsoever in common with a terror group in Chechnya except maybe they have the same religion.

Basically it is all a ploy to give us a mental threat similar to that of Communism or Nazism in how they were used to bend public will. Terrorism is not an "Ism" that can be classified as a world wide ideology.

I will leave you with this quote if you can name the person who said it:

"But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Lessons learned from History:

US Population: 0
Ruling Elite: 1
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 08:14 PM     
  @slave  
 
------------------------------------------
"No Pakistan is not really having problems with Al Qaeda. Contrary to popular belief, the Taliban is not the same thing as Al Qaeda.

The US is claiming AQ is some massive organization. What kind of fool do they take me for? This isnt GI Joe... AQ is NOT Cobra. They are a small group of a few dozen individuals at most and we are blowing it out of proportion to think that AQ could destroy the US."
------------------------------------------

But... who said al Queda could destroy the U.S. in this case? There have been concerns about unrest in Pakistan over the past couple of years which is now culminating in open street battles between Pakistani forces and extremists, and a major part of the concern is the Nuclear weapons that Pakistan possesses. Now, in reality, even if the extremists somehow managed to overthrow the Pakistani establishment, launching nuclear weapons is not exactly as simple as pushing a button, which makes the chances even LESS likely that they could use them in any case... and as I pointed out, the U.S. would destroy them before that could become even a remote possibility just to be on the safe side (on behalf of Israel more than its own self interests).

I am a little surprised by your reaction to a total nutcase saying he would be willing to use a nuclear weapon against America, there's nothing really new with the verbal threats, but of course it doesn't make it any more likely than in 2001, it's simply Islamic Extremist propaganda.

BTW, I never said the Taliban and al Queda were the same, but al Queda members did cross the border to Pakistan as early as 2001 and have been relatively safe up until now.

------------------------------------------
"Hitler could have destroyed the US given the opportunity. Bin Laden... Think about it. Can he seriously destroy the US or turn it into a Islamic state? There is no way in hell he or any of these people could do this."
------------------------------------------

No, they couldn't. But they do have the intention and in some ways, the ability, to cause absolute disasters in that region of the world, I don't think anybody is claiming that bin Laden could destroy the United States.

------------------------------------------
"People have been bilked into believing something that could never possibly happen. If you educate yourself on the real power these groups have you will understand that you are actually more likely to be killed in a car crash or for that matter by a bolt of lightning than by a member of AQ or any other terror group."
------------------------------------------

Well of course sitting in the West you aren't very likely to be killed by terrorism at all. However, it is relative. At certain points of time in certain places in Iraq, or Israel or Afghanistan, the odds were much higher that you would be killed by terrorism than they are in general. It's always relative.

------------------------------------------
"Terrorism has been used for thousands of years. You cannot fight terrorists with an army or a navy. Terrorism is the result of impoverished, uneducated and oppressed peoples.

You will never be able to defeat terrorism with any army, including the US Army. For some reason the US population has been tricked believing they somehow can win an unwinable war."
------------------------------------------

Well the War on Terror certainly couldn't eradicate the world of Terrorism, there's no doubting that. Really the key to fighting terrorism is for the people who live amongst it to rise up against it. That's what has happened in many places, such as Northern Ireland, where some small group of individuals are determined to keep up the conflict, the majority has turned away from it and vowed never to go back. You can't stop misguided people from doing misguided things, especially in a free society.

However, the real targets of the War on Terror turned out to be the Taliban n Afghanistan and the Hussein regime in Iraq. The Taliban might be different from al Queda, but they are just as oppressive to innocent people. The war in Iraq may not have been justified in the form that it took or the reasons given, but Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism, he made open speeches in front of international media offering money and rewards to the families of men who would blow themselves up killing Americans. He offered shelter to internationally wanted terrorists and contrary to popular belief, his government seems to have had some kind of association with al Queda when Zarkawi was in Iraq totally untouched by the Republican Guard as a wanted man, and fighting against Saddam's Kurdish enemies pre-invasion. He also asked bin Laden for permission to establish "al Queda in Mesopotamia" - these are verified details generally ignored by much of the media. It doesn't make the size of the Iraq conflict justified, but the idea that Hussein was an innocent man in any of this is o
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 08:27 PM     
  @slave 2  
 
Woops... went over the character limit because of quoting the text I was replying to...sorry about that... here was the rest.

It doesn't make the size of the Iraq conflict justified, but the idea that Hussein was an innocent man in any of this is obviously trash too.

But ye the main point is that you can't destroy terror with an army, but you can destroy governments and establishments that encourage it.

------------------------------------------
"The only people to profit from this "War on Terror" are the terror groups and investors in the war. At the same time the rest of us poor saps get to suffer from the death, propaganda and terrible cost to our freedoms and economy."
------------------------------------------

No Argument there. The poor and vulnerable are always the losers in war regardless of what side they are on. It also has been devastating to the U.S. economy to run these wars. Officially the bill for Iraq is around $1 trillion... realistically it will be much higher... the U.S. government did not, in any way, gain from this conflict, and yes, weapons dealers and other associated group got filthy, stinking rich.
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 08:29 PM     
  I figure  
 
If we don't already have cruise missile laden subs in the Med trained at Pakistan's nukes then we should. NOT as a defense against Pakistani aggression. Just as a precaution should they be threatened.

The Paki Prez needs to be able to tell the U.S. at the 1st sign of trouble at one of its nuke facilities and then we can hit that specific facility and turn it into a parking lot. After all, Stealing nukes isn't a smash and grab operation. It would require some time in the facility. Time enough for us to get our missiles there.

Actually, it would surprise me if an arrangement like that doesn't already exist.
 
  by: VermiciousG     06/23/2009 08:32 PM     
  Why'd I say the Med  
 
I guess I was thinking of Syria. The Arabian sea is a better choice.
 
  by: VermiciousG     06/23/2009 08:37 PM     
  @Dela  
 
I wasnt really saying you yourself said those things about AQ. I was just making a vague assessment towards the official word the elites and media put out regarding AQ.

In other words, the case by these people is being made that AQ can destroy the US and that is why we have to go after them. If we really wanted to kill off all the members of AQ I am sure Delta Force could easily do this in a matter of a few months.

As for the nuclear weapons issue, I am not worried in the least about this. The Russians and the US have lost numerous if not dozens of nuclear weapons all over the world. It would be highly more likely that one of these lost nukes were to be used against us. I personally think that if the possibility existed of a group obtaining nukes from Pakistan, they would probably be destroyed by the US or even the Pakistani's prior to the transaction being completed.

I think we are agreeing here on the Saddam issue. I am not saying Saddam was a bad guy. This is obvious. However to somehow tie him to AQ was yet another ploy to ensure the eventual goal of a US occupation.

Basically IMO over the last 9 years, we have been scammed into believing the greatest hoax in history.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 08:54 PM     
  @Slave  
 
I understand your government is using bin ladin and ahmadeen-jihadifvckyfvckfcvk as boogeymen to screw u over a bit and repress your rights just a tad more every year.

However your repulsion to the action of your government, should not be at the expense of the millions in the middle east, who are suffering under the tyranny of the ideology spearheaded by Al Qaeda and their Hundreds of Thousands of members, sympathisers and enablers.
 
  by: kmazzawi     06/23/2009 09:05 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
 
Neither am I. These same governments are generally on the same side as the US. These regimes are part of the problem and the US is in part responsible for groups like AQ existing simply because of their support for tyrannical regimes all over the world.

Basically we are stuck in a loop. When we fight terrorism we are actually helping fund it further. So we try to fight it more which creates even more terrorism... It is an endless cycle and the US thinks it can break it by throwing more death and destruction at it.

Perhaps if we stopped supporting oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Israel or Egypt or Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan or Iraq, etc etc... Basically our support for these nations is making the matters worse if not the reason why islamic terrosism as we know it exists in the first place.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 09:24 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Who did you quote?
 
  by: thinking   06/23/2009 09:34 PM     
  Damn  
 
With slave around, I don't even feel like debating...he is spot on. The tyrannical regimes around the world can only stand up with the support of other tyrannical regimes. Our media presents a false representation of real events rather than that of the truth. I'm sure a lot of guys at the top are foaming at the mouth for a nuclear attack, thinking what could be accomplished when people are afraid.
 
  by: DoubleTake   06/23/2009 09:39 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
who is hermann goering?

ah damn this isn't jeopardy

BTW, you forgot the first line "naturally people don't want war... that is understood."
 
  by: HAVOC666     06/23/2009 09:42 PM     
  Thought this might be of interest  
   
  by: DoubleTake   06/23/2009 09:43 PM     
  @thinking  
 
Im not quoting anyone but this is the overall general feeling the media has given the majority of people in the US. Its a constant drumbeat that terrorism is a global problem.

But if you want a quote:
http://www.un.org/...


For the most part it isnt something quotable but rather an idea. This is a pretty obvious.

Do a google search on these keywords:

terrorism global threat

You will get some 1.4 million results...
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 09:44 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
I purposely left off the first line since it made the quote to obvious of a nazi since he mentions Germany and the soviet union.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 09:45 PM     
  @slave  
 
Oh ye I know you aren't addressing me personally about it, but I still think we disagree on a lot. I wasn't in support of Iraq war in the form that it took or the reasons given for it, but I was definitely of the opinion that the removal of Saddam would create a better situation for a lot of people.

As for his links with AQ, intelligence from around the world, not just in America, will tell you that links certainly did exist, but the difference is proving an "operation link" is the problem. As I pointed out, one of al Queda's most senior members was identified in Iraq, conducting business without the republican guard or Saddam's elite militias doing anything about it.

Everyone knew Saddam would never allow anything that would challenge his own power to take ahold in Iraq, yet for some reason, this well known guy is operating in Iraq pre-invasion and nobody does anything about it - if international intelligence knew this, then there's no way Saddam's didn't. To make it even more bizarre, he's fighting against the Kurdish, Saddam's enemies. He also establishes his group as "al Queda in Mesopotamia". This is known to have been the case.. so again, there were "links" between the two.

I don't think, at least now, the message from Washington is that al Queda can destroy the United States, it may be that al Queda WANTS TO destroy the United States but that's a different thing. The main issue is that these extremists are doing some of the worst things imaginable in order to get an anti-American sentiment in the region. An example of this is how they have killed MANY more Muslim civilians than American soldiers by bombing marketplaces and public buildings in order to destabilize the country and put the blame on the "occupational forces". They have murdered tens of thousands in Iraq in this way and if you have been following the reports in the last couple of days, seem to have no plans to halt this genocide.

America wants to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, if it could it would leave in the morning, but not everybody is as heartless as Michael Moore or similar. With the violence in the country
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 09:45 PM     
  Thanks Havoc  
 
I was curious
 
  by: thinking   06/23/2009 09:48 PM     
  @slave 2  
 
I accidentally hit the damn comment submission button ;-) but ye, I was saying..

America wants to leave both countries, but it simply can't with such a strong insurgency there. It's not about losing, it's about ensuring that they leave with the insurgency weakened to the point that the Iraqi security forces can handle it themselves and keep the people safe. That's the only reason the Obama Administration would have any feeling of necessity to stay there. Many people throw around the amount of dead iraqis (which is an unknown figure for the most part) against America, but you have to take into account that the majority of civilian deaths came after the Saddam regime was toppled.

I believe, like you do, that the Pakistan Nuke situation isn't going to be a big threat to the U.S. but the news story here is from an al Queda op who simply said if they could, they would, and that's it, there's no fear mongering from America here, this is from the beast's own mouth. Intention is always a problem, even if the means don't exist. I know you don't believe it because we have gone head to head on this before, but that group now identified as al Queda was beyond the worst terrorist atrocity in history according to all the evidence, that's why every new tape or threat continues to make headlines and will I'd say for a good few years more until al Queda tuly becomes something to laugh at.
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 09:53 PM     
  LMAO  
 
Think I made a bad typo because of right-click spell check in Firefox but basically....

"but that group now identified as al Queda was beyond the worst terrorist atrocity in history according to all the evidence"

Obviously I meant it was behind it, not beyond it ;-)
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 09:56 PM     
  @DoubleTake  
 
Just curious, but do you know who owns PressTV?
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 09:58 PM     
  @  
 
Bear Leader: We do shit in the woods.
 
  by: silentrage   06/23/2009 10:05 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Doesn't matter. CNN and BBC are known for telling on themselves too.
 
  by: DoubleTake   06/23/2009 10:10 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Now I also agree taking Saddam out of power in Iraq was a good thing. However I think the way the US did it was the worst possible method...

Over a million dead, some 2-4 million refugees. The US basically created the recipe for the first massive genocides of the 21st century. I say Saddam was a bad guy but in this case there would be millions better off if he were still alive.

As for the AQ link. That is iffy at best. Saddam could see the writing on the wall. Everyone could. It would have been foolish of him to not allow these people into Iraq. They basically were offering a way of fighting his enemy. These people even though they were enemies of his regime were good allies of convenience against the invading US forces.

If I had been in Saddam's shoes, I would have done the same. It is only a logical tactical move on his behalf to allow them free entry into the country.

I have to stop you on the number of bodies under the US vs. Saddam. There was some 250,000+ killed under his regime in a 40 year period. A crime against humanity, yes. However under US occupation I have to say we have done far worse... I hat the idea of choosing a lesser of two evils but in this case it would spared the lives of hundreds of thousands.

We royally screwed up. If we had begun elections when Ayatollah Sistani had asked and Iraqi's were protesting for, we might have had a stable government even before the insurgency started.

If you dont remember, the Iraqi's were begging to create a government but the US kept holding them back. Afterwards the insurgency started up and now we are still stuck with a mess.

As for the statements from AQ, I am not afraid. I personally feel that AQ as we know it is a massive hoax anyhow so it kind of makes that argument moot IMO. I dont even think bin Laden is even alive for that matter but that is all a different conversation altogether.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 10:11 PM     
  Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Dubai - Nuclear Proliferat  
 
Slavefortheman has reduced the historical complexity and subsequent legacy of the Cold War to a couple of infantile anti-establishment catchphrases.

--
The Pakistani intelligence service is a notoriously unreliable and duplicitous organization. It has trained terrorist operatives for attacks in India (Mumbai), sponsored the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan itself.

It's playing all sides: the Americans, the Taliban, Afghanistan government, NGO's, multinational corporations (corruption scandals and assassination of businessmen), Pakistani military, the (weak & pathetic) elected Pakistani government.

It goes without saying that it has ties to Al Qaeda. Another regional player with substantial clout & financial means, which is integrally connected with the Taliban currently operating in Pakistan territory.

If those weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, it will be through the assistance of the ISI.
 
  by: Malefice   06/23/2009 10:13 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
The quote I was looking for was the Herman Goering one.
I read the link you provided thanks.
One section I found very interesting " States have not only the right but also the duty to do so. But States must also take the greatest care to ensure that counter-terrorism measures do not mutate into measures used to cloak, or justify, violations of human rights."
The sad part is that it sound all to familiar as in news reports of these wars.
The term terrorism changed under the Bush administration.
As you well know many of these groups were CIA trained and funded.
Freedom fighters etc when fighting someone the USA was not liking at the time.
Same soil same pool of fighters now they become terrorists.
If I was occupied I would be fighting too.
Terrorism is like you said not an ISM as such it's just groups of people some have just cause as in being persecuted, occupied others thinking they can take control by violence.
It's funny how wording and terms can change on what an administration wants to put across.
 
  by: thinking   06/23/2009 10:24 PM     
  @slave  
 
I think you might have misunderstood some of the things I said. For example, I said that most of the deaths came _after_ Saddam fell (I wasn't even comparing his crimes to anyone elses), although my point was that the massive strikes carried out by the U.S. military in the couple of weeks it took to take Baghdad (shock and awe etc.) killed an awful lot less than the insurgency's rise in Iraq did. They deliberately kill Iraqi citizens in order to push the numbers up and get an anti-American sentiment brewing in Iraq and keep the country unstable. It wasn't an illusion, when the U.S. first knocked the Saddam regime out of power, they had most of the people's delight, it was the years that were to come after that has changed all of that.

Your belief that al Queda is some kind of hoax is not my belief, their own self description is enough for me couple with their crime on Sept 11th which really did kick off this wide modern conflict. Obviously Clinton did try to kill bin Laden after the U.S.S. Cole bombings and embassy bombings during his Presidency, but Afghanistan and Iraq both happened after 9/11 and without 9/11 the Bush Admin could not have managed to convince the American public of the dangers in Iraq... Bush most definitely would have joined his father in losing a second bid for the White House, no doubt about that.

I will say though, in your reply you seem to have basically said along the lines of "Well al Queda was in Iraq pre-invasion because Saddam knew he would be invaded" - that's a whole world different from Saddam having no association with al Queda.. and why would al Queda care about the Kurdish and go to all the effort of going to Iraq for that battle when the Americans were in Afghanistan? Saddam himself was one of the only people to applaud 9/11 after it happened in an address he made, he literally applauded and praised them for it... and yet there is a claim that he despised them? Nonsense.
 
  by: Dela     06/23/2009 10:29 PM     
  @Malefice  
 
Oh I am not disagreeing with you but I am also saying what you claim I mean is is not true.

The ISI is a very corrupt organization. Look at the 100,000 wire of funds to supposed AQ operatives right before 9/11. Funny how this linking evidence of the ISI being involved somehow in 9/11 is "Classified" as according to now VP Biden:

http://www.youtube.com/...

^Joe Binden - Direct quote

I would agree with you that the ISI is playing everyone off against each other. However the issue i was referring to originally was the size and real power of AQ as an actual organization.

I am proposing that AQ itself is not really a threat as most would think (still a threat but not on the level most believe) and that the media has blown it way out of proportion.

Basically what I am saying is that the idea of "Terrorism" is being used to replace the idea of the cold war. The people in the US are given an imaginary enemy by the establishment and they are swallowing hook line and sinker.

I dont want to get into a debate regarding 9/11 because I know exactly where that will go. But the issues regarding terrorism at large are blatantly obvious to everyone that examines it.

It is really a non-issue and the regions that are afflicted with it could easily address the problem simply by curing the problems I have already stated. Poverty, hunger, liberty, etc.

To this day 9/11 has never been proven to be a crime of AQ. No court of law has ever prosecuted a single member of any group be it AQ or any other for their crimes that started this whole war on terror.

Essentially it looks more like a means of creating a distraction or better yet, a way to control the people by those in power rather than an actual fight against terrorism.

A return to cold-war mentalities if you will.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 10:37 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
FYI USA is not supporting Uzbekistan, made a big stink over the massacre in 2005, and lost an airbase over it. Now Uzbekistan gov't is pissy. The same goes for Krgystan, basically. It supports a connection to CHina and Russia, rather than links to USA.
 
  by: theironboard     06/23/2009 10:48 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Ahh on that first point I guess I didnt see that. Then we are in agreement here.

On the 2nd paragraph you say that AQ is responsible for 9/11. To date, not one person has been convicted so you cannot really say for certain that it was AQ that pulled off that crime. Personally I feel it more likely that members of a national intelligence service were involved. Most likely Pakistani's ISI or perhaps even other nations as well.

But until a court has ruled who is responsible and makes some convictions, all talk regarding that is basically hearsay.

As for your 3rd point, to call it nonsense is nonsense in itself. Every CIA agent familiar with Iraq, every person that has studied Saddam's regime all were in agreement that Saddam was not a person would would side with AQ.

AQ was a threat to his regime. They were wanting to bring about Islamism to Iraq. Saddam was clearly a secular leader. He may have been more inclined to hurt those outside of his religious group (sunni) but his government was definitely anti-islamist. Just watch any documentary to see this.

Even recent memos and admittances by our own government show that there was NO link between saddam and AQ.

http://www.cbsnews.com/...

^Pentagon Admitting NO LINK

He may have allowed some of these individuals into his country as a measure to work against a possible US occupation but that would literally be the extent of it.

To claim a AQ/Saddam link has been proven false. Beating an old horse isnt ever going to make that true.

Personally I would like to see where he said he liked what these people did on 9/11? I have never heard anything like this before. Not that I am denying it but just curious where your source on this is?
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 10:51 PM     
  @theironboard  
 
Ahh yes but at the beginning of the "War on Terror" we were supporters of these nations were we not?

Support for tyranny was my point not whether that support was current or not. I was only merely pointing out these links. Basically the US is a massive supporter of tyrannical regimes past and present. This in itself is a primary factor in the creation of terrorism around the world.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/23/2009 10:53 PM     
  @Dela  
 
As for "Saddam himself was one of the only people to applaud 9/11 after it happened in an address he made, he literally applauded and praised them for it... and yet there is a claim that he despised them? Nonsense"
Are you familiar with the gulf war?
Why would Saddam have any compassion for the USA?
 
  by: thinking   06/23/2009 10:58 PM     
  @slave  
 
We have went over this before but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted before his capture that he and al Queda were behind Sept 11th (before capture shows it had nothing to do with him being waterboarded later on). Osama bin Laden himself admitted his own responsibility but I guess we don't take people's confession at face value anymore? I went through all the tapes with you when we talked about this before, there was even a tape which featured one of the hijackers... I mean I don't think it gets any more clear cut than this. Of course charges will be made against those held in connection with 9/11. You know as well as I do when this happens those who are skeptical will try to find any reason to discredit it again.... heck, if Osama bin Laden himself arrested and admitted it in a U.S. court room, the same people still wouldn't believe it, I personally believe they are gone to a point where they simply want it to be true that he wasn't behind it, I think that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

As for the Pentagon admitting no link, once again I'll talk about the difference between a link and an operational link. I think his presence in Northern Iraq particularly before the invasion in 2003 already rules out the false soundbite "There was no al Queda in Iraq before the invasion". Beyond that, Saddams protection of his own power was well known, Iraq was not an easy place to get in to or out of without somebody high up permitting it.

Zarkawi and his elements were in Iraq before the invasion, where they joined with the Ansar al-Islam splinter group in Kurdistan, fighting Saddam Husseins main enemies. Why? Even reports on Iraq that doubt links mention Zarkawi's presence there preparing for a fight with the U.S., but why then was the highest order or duty to kill Saddam's enemies?

As for Saddam's post-9/11 comments, these were well documented in the days after it, he made no effort to cover them up, just hit up Google. Of course it was big news back then, I distinctly remember it on a newspaper here as the headline on probably around sept 14th. The problem with the Iraq - al Queda links is the evidence is circumstantial for the most part, therefore you can't definitively say they were connected officially. Heck, senior men in al Queda met with Saddams regime before they were associated with al Queda. One example is Ayman al-Zawahiri who is seen as one of bin Laden's closest associates. In 1998 he merged Islamic Jihad with al-Qaeda... about 6 years before in 1992 he is noted to have met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad itself, so al Qeuda as an organiation might not have an operation link with Saddam, but its members (such as the example just there, or Zarkawi fighting the Kurds) would appear to have had several links with Saddam Husseins regime.

One of the weirdest and stunning court cases was when families of 9/11 victims mentioned Saddam and Iraq in a lawsuit. The reason Saddam was included was due to state media in Iraq hinting at prior knowledge to 9/11.... for example a state controlled newspaper printed a story about bin Laden's plan to attack the U.S. in July 2001. The article stated that bin Laden would strike the U.S. on the arm that already hurts, allegedly referencing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (Saddam WAS linked to the terrorists behind that), and then went on saying that "he" would curse Frank Sinatra every time he hears that song, allegedly referring to New York, New York.

Some of the details are here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

and: http://www.cbsnews.com/...

Now, Ok, that's definitely all circumstantial evidence, but it does show that the "total absense" of evidence is not entirely true either.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 12:16 AM     
  @slave (the secular comment)  
 
I forgot to mention one thing I also don't agree with...

------------------------------------------
"As for your 3rd point, to call it nonsense is nonsense in itself. Every CIA agent familiar with Iraq, every person that has studied Saddam's regime all were in agreement that Saddam was not a person would would side with AQ.

AQ was a threat to his regime. They were wanting to bring about Islamism to Iraq. Saddam was clearly a secular leader. He may have been more inclined to hurt those outside of his religious group (sunni) but his government was definitely anti-islamist. Just watch any documentary to see this."
------------------------------------------

I really don't think you can refer to Saddam or Iraq as secular. Following the defeat of Iraq in the gulf war, the Iraqi flag had "Allahu Akbar" was placed on it, the massacre in Northern Iraq ordered by Saddam was called "Anfal" after a Koran verse that authorizes war. The Baath Party became the open patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and the rhetoric of the Saddamist leadership was exclusively jihadist for the last decade, with special mosques built all over the country in honor of the regime etc. There are tons of points to make to argue against the "Saddam was secular and anti-Islamist" claim.

Just had to add that in because I forgot you mentioned it.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 12:38 AM     
  Dela  
 
You raise some valid point so I cannot disagree with you on those. However I think the main difference is our definition of the use of the word "links". When I was using it I was thinking of more in terms of official policy.

It is quite clear that elements within Saddams regime (most likely the intelligence services) were in communication with members of AQ and other groups. But there is a big difference between communicating with someone and actually allying yourself with their cause.

If this was the basis of these links then by all accounts the CIA is even more guilty than Saddam was...

As for the issue of responsibility of 9/11, you cannot just take his word for it. After all he would probably like to be martyred... Not just that but because of the fact that he admitted to planning several other operations to proved to be total lies makes me think that nearly anything that man says cannot be trusted without verifying it in some way.

Plus to convict a person on what he claims rather than evidence is no way to run any sort of investigation. A court of law is still required to make that determination. People have been known in the past to make false confessions. Especially when threatened with possible torture.

One big wrench that got thrown into the gears is when the Fox news came out and claimed that evidence obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was used to thwart an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles in 2002...

http://mediamatters.org/...


Funny because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not even captured until 2003...
In other words this was either a piece of disinfo on the US's behalf or this guy was singing like bird about things he never even did.

Personally I wouldnt believe one word that came out of that mans mouth without some corroborating evidence to back it up.

But as for taking bin Laden's claim to responsibility you must also take into his account where he denied it as well. Why would he do that???

Basically you cannot judge it for yourself. It really needs to be the concern of a jury and these people need to be brought before a court and convicted if they are truly the masterminds and perpetrators of 9/11.

So far justice has been denied for the last 8 years. I wonder how many more will go by?
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 12:41 AM     
  @thinking  
 
------------------------------------------
"Are you familiar with the gulf war?
Why would Saddam have any compassion for the USA?"
------------------------------------------

He doesn't have to have compassion for the USA, but anyone who can look at the unwarranted murder of innocent civilians in a civilian building, using civilian aircraft and take Saddam's position is clearly evil in nature. You know what they did on the streets of Tehran after 9/11? They lit candles. Yasser Arafat donated blood. Iran denounced the attacks.... it was no military action, it was senseless murder in peace time, whether he liked the USA or not, innocent people were burned and crushed to death. It's not hard then to understand how this guy did in fact use WMDs against his own people.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 12:45 AM     
  @Dela  
 
"I really don't think you can refer to Saddam or Iraq as secular. Following the defeat of Iraq in the gulf war, the Iraqi flag had "Allahu Akbar" was placed on it, the massacre in Northern Iraq ordered by Saddam was called "Anfal" after a Koran verse that authorizes war. The Baath Party became the open patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and the rhetoric of the Saddamist leadership was exclusively jihadist for the last decade, with special mosques built all over the country in honor of the regime etc. There are tons of points to make to argue against the "Saddam was secular and anti-Islamist" claim."

You made that statement without even any regard to why he made this dramatic change. Basically it was shown that he was trying to drum up anti-US support for himself and trying to pander to the islamists and the muslim world in general. If you do not know, Saddam was not very well received by many of his neighbors.

Hell the history channel even had mentioned this many times in their documentaries on the gulf war. I am surprised you were unaware of this fact.

Basically he was just trying to create a larger conflict. In essence building a bigger support base by appearing more Islamist.

Even the wiki on this has a whole section on how his government was in fact secular LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


Hell, the man abolished Sharia law in favor of more western styled justice systems! Compared to the rest of the middle east I would say he was probably one of the MOST secular leaders of his time.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 12:47 AM     
  @slave  
 
------------------------------------------
"It is quite clear that elements within Saddams regime (most likely the intelligence services) were in communication with members of AQ and other groups. But there is a big difference between communicating with someone and actually allying yourself with their cause."
------------------------------------------

Well at least it can be pointed out that Zarkawi found it necessary to fight against Saddam's enemies, I mean if he had went to Iraq to start to build a force for the U.S. invasion, then why did he have to kill Kurds too? It reminds me of the Russian's blasting the Taliban in mid-2001 for attempting to appoint Osama bin Laden as a Defense Minister or something similar, who would lead the fight against the Northern Alliance.

------------------------------------------
"As for the issue of responsibility of 9/11, you cannot just take his word for it. After all he would probably like to be martyred... Not just that but because of the fact that he admitted to planning several other operations to proved to be total lies makes me think that nearly anything that man says cannot be trusted without verifying it in some way."
------------------------------------------

If you are talking about Khalid, then that's strange in a way because he admitted it to Al Jazeera when he was on the run, obviously trying to do the exact opposite of being martyred... survive!

------------------------------------------
"Plus to convict a person on what he claims rather than evidence is no way to run any sort of investigation. A court of law is still required to make that determination. People have been known in the past to make false confessions. Especially when threatened with possible torture."
------------------------------------------

Again, he wasn't even captured when he first admitted it, and absolutely you can convict somebody on their own confession. Additionally, you might be underestimating the amount of information the intelligence agencies had before 9/11, but their lack of communication proved fatal for almost 3,000 people. Watch the documtary on the NSA called "The Spy Factory" that shows just a small bit about what the NSA and CIA knew about the terrorists before 9/11... which includes bin Laden's own phone number, the house he was in, who was contacted from this house in the U.S... heck at one point I believe it emerged the FBI was actually instructed to locate two men who later turned out to be hijackers, i'd have to look up the info for which two it was if you needed the names. They have traced the hijackers movements before the hijackings, CCTV has shown them at the airports to board their flights in first class with only carry on luggage etc. The case against them in reality is slam dunk really. Obviously it is frustrating waiting for the government to move on this, but hey, they haven't even managed to start construction at ground zero yet, the U.S. government is not really known for efficiency, but it will happen, and I guarantee you the guys who put together rubbish like Loose Change, or Alex Jones or whoever else, will go through all the news reports and look through them for hours and hours to find anything they can spin to cast a doubt on it.

------------------------------------------
"One big wrench that got thrown into the gears is when the Fox news came out and claimed that evidence obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was used to thwart an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles in 2002...

http://mediamatters.org/...

Funny because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not even captured until 2003...
In other words this was either a piece of disinfo on the US's behalf or this guy was singing like bird about things he never even did."
------------------------------------------

Now I would never associated myself with Fox News lol This is an interesting poisition you are taking though, that instead now of Khalid admitting his involvement because of torture (which you said before when we went head to head on 9/11) now you have decided to take the position that he, instead, is taking credit for something he didn't do? Also you do the same with bin Laden, any confession he made you don't believe either? Here's my enigma for you and I am serious, I'm not poking fun or being a dick, but I assume from your politics you consider George Bush to be a total idiot too packed full of lies? However, if George Bush came out tomorrow and claimed he gave the order to destroy the World Trade Center... would you believe him?????

------------------------------------------
"But as for taking bin Laden's claim to responsibility you must also take into his account where he denied it as well. Why would he do that???"
------------------------------------------

There is a denial attributed to him in the days following 9/11. All you have to do is look at what was going on in the following days to understand this. There is even a good documentary called
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 01:17 AM     
  @slave 2  
 
damn, went over character limit again, he's the rest of the response...

There is a denial attributed to him in the days following 9/11. All you have to do is look at what was going on in the following days to understand this. There is even a good documentary called "Inside the Taliban" that explains that Mullah Mohammad Omar had told Osama bin Laden not to launch attacks on the U.S. or other countries from Afghanistan, and bin Laden agreed. Now, as a little history, the Bush Admin actually started pursuing Osama in mid-2001 before the attacks, continuing Clinton's hunt for him over the Cole attack and embassy attacks. After 9/11, the Bush admin got obviously very threatening with the Taliban and told them, hand him over. Mullah Omar reportedly contacted Osama very quickly after 9/11, and again Osama denied it. Omar believed him and challenged the U.S. to prove it. In the time between then and the invasion, bin Laden is believed to have moved possibly across the border to Pakistan before the U.S. would arrive. Of course he denied it right away, but it didn't take long to find a confession from his own mouth.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 01:20 AM     
  @slave 3 (secular debate)  
 
------------------------------------------
"You made that statement without even any regard to why he made this dramatic change. Basically it was shown that he was trying to drum up anti-US support for himself and trying to pander to the islamists and the muslim world in general. If you do not know, Saddam was not very well received by many of his neighbors.

Hell the history channel even had mentioned this many times in their documentaries on the gulf war. I am surprised you were unaware of this fact."
------------------------------------------

I know he was a very unliked man for many personal reasons, he was seen as a sort of filthy animal by some of the hardcore neighbours for his indulgences. I never said I was unaware of it.

However, I'm not sure why you disagreed with me earlier saying that he would never allow al Queda or another organization in Iraq because they were Islamists, and then go on to say that Saddam was trying to rally Islamists and that's why his government changed?

------------------------------------------
"Even the wiki on this has a whole section on how his government was in fact secular LOL"
------------------------------------------

Well if it's on wiki it must be true LOL. But in all seriousness, his own party was far from secular as I pointed out, the countries flag was a shoutout to God, Iraqi intelligence documents mentioned the great Allah in their lines etc. That is NOT secularism, but even if Iraq was almost like the West in ways, it doesn't matter, the original point that he wouldn't allow Islamists to operate in his country isn't correct so there's no point arguing over Iraqi law.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 01:31 AM     
  @Dela  
 
Im not going to debate 9/11 with you again because I know it is pointless.

But you seem to be arguing quite a bit with historic fact now... Sorry to say this but Saddam was know to be one of the most if not the most secular leaders in the middle east.

Not sure how I can debate that one considering it is common sense fact... Noam Chomsky makes reference to this in Hegemony and Failed States. The history channel makes reference to this in gulf war documentaries and even wikipedia has an entire section on it...

I mean its pretty widely accepted that he ran a secular regime and that's that... Again I am unsure why you keep arguing this point since historians as well as lay people have accepted this as fact.

But just to give you a tid bit on Bush coming out about 9/11. Needless to say I doubt that would ever happen. However you seem to think that I assume his guilt of it. Personally I dont think the man has a clue as to what happened that day. He is just a puppet to greater powers as much as Obama is.

If you want my personal opinion then here it is. I personally believe there were arabs involved and 9/11 and that pulled it off. Do I think AQ was involved? Perhaps elements of it were but I have a feeling bin Laden was in the dark as much as Bush was. I think that it was more or less an operation carried out by intelligence services as well. At the least some intel services had to be complicit in the act. I have no idea whether it was the ISI, the CIA or Mossad.

I would definitely point the finger in the general direction of the ISI. At least you have a starting point since they wired funds to the hijackers themselves. From there you could expand any sort of investigation and see where it led to.

But back to the top of Saddam. Just do me a favor and watch just about any documentary on Saddam's Iarq, any book on Saddam Husein, any sort of article regarding the legal and political systems of Iraq during Saddam. They all concur that Saddams Iraq was very secular compared with the rest of the middle east.

This doesnt excuse his actions but Saddam was a very progressive leader in terms of secularist middle eastern states and things like womens rights, like it or not. Like I said its pretty much widely accepted common knowledge...
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 02:44 AM     
  @Dela  
 
Here is something to chew on in regards to a few Islamic words on Iraqs flag or documents.

The US prints the word, "In God We Trust" on all of its coins and many other forms of currency and even posts this in public places such as monuments. Does this make the US a theocratic state?

But also I wanted to just reply once more on why he let islamists in. I said this was just a personal theory. I have nothing to back it up. But the idea does make sense. The US was in the stages for gearing up for war with Iraq at that time and was moving massive amounts of troops into the area as well as stepping up the rhetoric.

It might not be true but my theory does have merit. An alliance of convenience would be in Saddam's best interests at that point in time with Zarkowi. We wont know unless more documentation is released on the subject though.

Personally I am tired of this debate since its all revolving around theories... We will never prove each other false or true no matter how much we argue these points simply because there is no proof on any of the topics we have debated.

Except for the fact that Saddam was a secular leader.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 02:55 AM     
  @slave  
 
Wait, the thing about him being a secular leader or Iraq being a secular state was brought up by you as proof that Saddam Hussein wouldn't associate with Islamists. I mean that's pretty strange since he sheltered terrorists linked with the 1993 WTC bombing, he offered to pay suicide bomber's families after they blew themselves up, his intelligence met with MANY radicals including Ayman al-Zawahiri in 1992, associated with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and then al Queda from 1998 onwards at the right hand of Osama bin Laden. State-controlled media spoke of Osama bin Laden regularly etc. but even with all of that, I still pointed out in my last post its a moot point with all of the above I just described, there is no reason to debate Iraqi law or society, it doesn't change the fact that his regime definitely did meet with Islamists and were definitely on the same side at least against the Kurds in 2003. I mean some of his own words don't exactly seem like a progressive secular leader to me....

He declared that 9/11 was God's punishment of America in a state controller newspaper called Al-Iktisadi, for example. Now there was a blatant attempt to put Iraq and secularism in the same column by many on the right-wing in domestic American issues, there is a debate about whether the U.S. is a Christian Nation or a Secular Nation. Going by the constitution, it's the latter, but the U.S. Government especially under George Bush wouldn't give that impression either, therefore describing it as a secular dictatorship kind of killed two birds with one stone for the far-right. Again, I'm not arguing if Iraq was secular based on what its laws said on paper, I'm bringing up a lot of stuff that is entirely at odds with how a secular leader would conduct himself and lead his people because you used it as proof that he wouldn't associate or support Islamists. I mean relative to a theocracy it may be something of an improvement in areas, but it was still a dictatorship and his treatment of his own people, and his son's treatment of them, was utterly disgusting at times.

----------------------------------------
"I personally believe there were arabs involved and 9/11 and that pulled it off. Do I think AQ was involved? Perhaps elements of it were but I have a feeling bin Laden was in the dark as much as Bush was. I think that it was more or less an operation carried out by intelligence services as well. At the least some intel services had to be complicit in the act. I have no idea whether it was the ISI, the CIA or Mossad.

I would definitely point the finger in the general direction of the ISI. At least you have a starting point since they wired funds to the hijackers themselves. From there you could expand any sort of investigation and see where it led to."
----------------------------------------

Just a quick point to make on the allegation that the ISI sent money to the hijackers (or specifically, Mohammad Atta), most articles or books that have come out claiming this fact source their information from... the India Times. Now I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Kashmir, the disputed land with both India and Pakistan (two nuclear nations I might add) having a claim to it. The India Times article claims that Saeed Sheikh sent $100,000 to Atta, which is entirely possible though it was never proven (despite some claims the FBI confirmed it) but where the India Times pushes it is a claim that he was ordered by Mahmoud Ahmed to do so. The thing is, if you are looking for Islamist sympathizers in Pakistani establishments, well it's like looking for jellyfish on a beach, it's not that hard, but the India Times article is only met with skepticism because India is ALWAYS alleging ISI-terrorist links, especially whenever anything big happens.

One point here to emphasize just how much those in the "truth movement" know this is bullshit - David Ray Griffin in the truth movement-acclaimed "9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" actually attributes the source to Agence France Presse, a French publication, and claims it called it a "damning link". In reality... the French publication lists the India Times as its source AND even goes on to say that the information is no more than highly speculative... since it's an India-based claim about the Pakistani intelligence service.

Again, it's entirely possible money came from Pakistan to fund 9/11... but there's no proof at all to link it to ISI policy or any group beyond such as the CIA. Another reason it has little credibility is the movement can't even decide when the "ISI" made this transfer, depending on where you read it, it ranges from summer 2000 to september 10, 2001..... i mean where's the consistency here? Smells either shamelessly invented or shamelessly twisted and altered.

But my point here is that you will only accept an answer that fits with your feeling about the attacks. You don't accept bin Laden's confession, you don't accept Khalid's confession...
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 03:47 AM     
  @slave 2  
 
ran out of text again.......

continued...

But my point here is that you will only accept an answer that fits with your feeling about the attacks. You don't accept bin Laden's confession, you don't accept Khalid's confession... you push them aside and take the word of the India Times on the Pakistani ISI... I don't get it, I really don't.

----------------------------------------
"But back to the top of Saddam. Just do me a favor and watch just about any documentary on Saddam's Iarq, any book on Saddam Husein, any sort of article regarding the legal and political systems of Iraq during Saddam. They all concur that Saddams Iraq was very secular compared with the rest of the middle east."
----------------------------------------

Again, as I said, we don't need to debate the law or society of Iraq, we already know Saddam's regime met with Islamists and his own words, from his own mouth seeked to support Islamists. Even if the state was progressive in some areas compared to other middle east states (hardly a difficult task!), it still doesn't change his regime's own actions, it doesn't take the religious message from the flag etc. and all other points I made. On paper his state might appear Secular, but from their own actions, they fall short very quickly.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 03:48 AM     
  @Dela  
 
Just because Saddam sheltered Islamist terrorists does not make him an Islamist. By that sort of logic we can assume that the US is a radicalized latin-american state simply because we harbor terrorists from latin america as well.

You cannot say the entire form of governance changed just because of a few individuals that entered Iraqs borders...

"You don't accept bin Laden's confession"

Well I can play this game too and say that you dont accept his denials either LOL!

How many circles can we go around here...

"you push them aside and take the word of the India Times on the Pakistani ISI."

Well the VP of the US also commented on this as well and said it was classified and refused to elaborate further. So I would say that is pretty damning right there in itself.

Of course you can keep right on taking the word of people that have been tortured. Me, I will take in the physical evidence, scientific evidence, and documents and try to put the whole thing together in a scientific manner.

I will not draw a conclusion until there is something to conclude. You on the other hand have seemed to have started with a conclusion and worked your way backwards. It seems that everything was wrapped up nice and neat that way.

Again I am not wanting to debate 9/11 with you as it will only fill enough pointless words back and forth to fill an encyclopedia set. But you seemed to have jumped onto this topic for some reason or another.

All I can say about 9/11 is there is no conclusive evidence that bin laden or AQ was behind it. The FBI seems to agree with me in this regard. Perhaps more evidence will appear that will show their guilt but so far this has not happened. In fact quite the contrary.

Again I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who is responsible neither can you. I know you will reply to this with more text than I want to read and this will go on for quite some time...

Really I am just trying to convey how pointless your replies on this subject are since the subjects regarding 9/11 are merely your opinions and not facts. Unless you have some proof to offer that conclusively shows who pulled off 9/11 I suggest you take a break from your keyboard.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 04:52 AM     
  @slave  
 
OK, wow, I'm being accused of changing topic.. let's see..

1. You mentioned al Queda as a hoax

2. I mentioned several of the things al Queda was connected to, such as the USS Cole and embassy bombings, and also obviously 9/11, but I was talking mainly about Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden long before al Queda was even talked about by most people.

3. In a reply to Malefice you claimed the ISI wired $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers (first time any part of a conspiracy theory was mentioned), I IGNORED that in my reply to you to try to avoid getting into conspiracies.

4. Your reply to me next says nobody has been found guilty by a court and no evidence has been presented linking al Queda to 9/11.

5. I pointed out in my reply that two confessions exist _at least_, the reason I didn't start to go through more details was once again, because we were talking about Hussein and Iraq, not 9/11.

6. You dismissed the confessions, making a comment that you can't take their confessions seriously because they might like to be martyred and saying some of Khalid's reported confessions were inaccurate. As for bin Laden, gladly you didn't anymore cast any doubt on the reality of the tapes over gold rings, bad aspect ratios, bad contrast, writing with the wrong hand etc. but instead you said he denied it.

7. I gave a reason for his "initial" denial, because after 9/11 Mullah Omar asked him about his alleged involvement and he lied to Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban. He either escaped Afghanistan or found somewhere very safe to go, evidently. I also replied to your allegations of a lack of evidence by mentioning some of things the NSA and CIA knew even before Sept 11th that were pretty worrying, basically to show that a case against the people responsible for this will probably have mountains of evidence.

8. The next reply from you alleged the ISI-Hijacker link.

9. I posted info on the source of that information "India Times" and why it's badly flawed.

10. You said that VP remarks are evidence for it.

11. I reminded you that much of 9/11 investigation remains classified, but that doesn't prove that the story issued by the one country with the biggest grudge against Pakistan is actually true.

12. You accuse me of trying to make the conversation about 9/11...


No offense, but read over the posts, the only mention of 9/11 I made initially was because we were talking about al Queda... your first mention at the same time (a reply to someone else, not me) was immediately to assert that the ISI funded the hijackers... again... I ignored that in my reply to you until you asserted it again, to me that time... so come on now, I tried to talk about what we were talking about but you threw out stuff I have already seen and even believed before, and I like to reply to everything said to me if I can... so don't accuse me of trying to shift the conversation.

On the contrary, you ignored quite a lot of what I said about Saddam & Iraq and decided instead to spend most of your time proving he had a secular government, which btw on paper you are right, but as I said, in practice he was anything but a secular leader, especially in the years before 2003. My commentary on that as actually just supplemental in the first place, I never intended we even get into it, I just think the actions of him, his party, his own words etc. didn't really mirror true secularist qualities a lot of the time.

Of course a lot of what we are both saying is speculation, I don't doubt it, particularly the links between Saddam's regime and others associated with al Queda, it is speculative but it is sourced from Intelligence and the reason I brought it up is because the traditional view that Saddam was no way, ever, involved with anyone from al Queda, or that he hated al Queda etc. is not entirely true either.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 06:23 AM     
  @slave (correction)  
 
------------------------------------------
11. I reminded you that much of 9/11 investigation remains classified, but that doesn't prove that the story issued by the one country with the biggest grudge against Pakistan is actually true.
------------------------------------------

I wrote this above, and have obviously since realised that I never replied to that, which is weird because I remember typing it.... I really don't know what happened there but obviously that wasn't part of the sequence... but ye the point remains.... considering biden refering to it as being classified which a lot about the 9/11 investigation remains, isn't evidence for the conspiracy, especially when you track its source to India of all places.

But ye, sorry for adding that in there.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 06:29 AM     
  @slave 2  
 
But ye, we have a difference of opinion on Sept 11th, we showed that to each other months ago, but you are right in that we don't need to repeat the same things to each other that we have already done before, it simply won't change anything.

I know I tend to spend a LOT of time replying to points about it and I can see how it would be annoying to type one line, and get a 5 paragraph reply, but it kind of has to be done sometimes. I mean the ISI link you mentioned could be true, I don't know if it is or not, but I don't put weight behind it because of its source and the huge conflict of interest there and other reasons. So in that case even a single line from you, needs a multiple line reply from me spanning from the source, to how the truth movement has handled it etc.

It isn't meant to be disrespectful and I'm not trying to prove anything. The problem is I used to believe it all until I examined the claims closer, one by one. Then I looked at the people making them and I felt... betrayed to be quite honest. I felt lied to, like they were trying to fill me full of suggestive but wrong information, and then realised the danger I can see in such a meme getting entwined within society.

It's not even the claim about the ISI you made, that at least could be true that funding came from Pakistan, but in that movement there are some absolutely GIGANTIC lies. I have gotten into this with some guys on this site in the past and I get mis-quotes, quote-mining, invented stories, false evidence etc. thrown at me, and I know its false, and I know it's wrong because I've already looked into it... because I used to believe it. I literally have no respect for most of the leaders of the movement.

But toward you it's not personal, I mostly type my replies for anyone else who might be reading and hen I reply, sometimes I seem pissed off, but its not even with you the person who typed something, it's with how it gets spun by the movement etc. So ye, no offense intended.

I will say though, and I know you might not agree with me on it, but being where I was, and being where I am now, I simply cannot be convinced of any truth in conspiracy to do with it anymore. Most things said to me, I've heard and believed it before and since looked at the opposing side's response. I am utterly convinced, absolutely, that there was no major cover-up, and the official story is very very accurate.

Again, you won't agree, but that's your right as it's mine, and we don't need to bring it up again.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 06:49 AM     
  Reagan did it...  
 
If a two-bit, unstable, violent and an Islamic country like Pakistan was allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is apparent that the CIA was sleeping on the job. It was under Reagan's watch that Pakistan was acquiring the technology and he looked the other way. I think it is only a matter of time before the Islamic fanatics use the weapons.
 
  by: Jayman2000BC   06/24/2009 12:53 PM     
  @dela  
 
I changed the topic??? I think it was you that Changed the topic!

I even said I didnt want to get into a 9/11 debate because I knew you would go right back down the road of assuming guilt on a party without any sort of criminal investigation. The topic was originally AQ itself and not 9/11. We somehow changed it into Saddam's secularism and among other things 9/11...

I did say AQ is a hoax. But you totally distorted my words. You seem to be good at that. I am saying they are not as they appear. A group consisting of some 50-100 men is not the same as what the US media shows them as.

If we go with the word of the media they appear to be Cobra from JI Joe... It seems like almost a cartoon I am living in instead of reality and the worst part is, people like you seem to believe this fantasy.

You went on a diatribe about 9/11 yet again. I am going to sum this up with as few words as possible.

Prove your point in a court of law.

This seems to be less about a debate and more about you trying to prove everything I say is a lie somehow. I can proclaim 2 + 2 = 4 and somehow you will take issue with that. A perfect example is the Saddam debate. A historical fact somehow becomes my personal opinion!

Look nearly all points that both of us put forward as based on opinion regarding 9/11. I dont want to continue to debate with you since it is obviously pointless. You do seem to have a good amount of information on the subject which is good. However you seem to want to prove 9/11 within these forums without a trial or an investigation for that matter.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 01:10 PM     
  @Slave  
 
"Basically we are stuck in a loop."
1. you are right.
2. shiit.
3. fvck.
4. perhaps we should stop obsessing with stability?
 
  by: kmazzawi     06/24/2009 04:38 PM     
  I know exactly how this will end up.  
 
Pakistan's president will just say: We have an army of 400,000, how can less then 500 men take control of pakistan when we have that many?

People in america will keep buying there popies and fund a nuclear war against them.

Taliban will get as close as 5 miles away from Pakistan capital and president will say, We can not be defeted! In fact, to prove it, i'll attack india right now and not lift a finger to help us against the taliban.

America gets even higher off of the flowers that will kill us all.

Pakistan capital is taken, the president will flee, and now its a matter of who launches there missiles first. America(Which is to high off of flowers to actuly click anything) or taliban, who have meningless hate against all americans.

Within the next 5 years, I bet there will be Mutualy assured distruction in ether pakistan or america. Lets hope it's not the ladder.
 
  by: Dolphin Commando   06/24/2009 06:48 PM     
  @slave  
 
1. You first mentioned a 9/11 conspiracy to me and to somebody else before me, I never got into that until you brought it up, and even at that the only info I posted on it was replying to your assertions about it.

2. "I did say AQ is a hoax. But you totally distorted my words. You seem to be good at that."

Quote...

"Basically IMO over the last 9 years, we have been scammed into believing the greatest hoax in history."

"As for the statements from AQ, I am not afraid. I personally feel that AQ as we know it is a massive hoax anyhow so it kind of makes that argument moot IMO. I dont even think bin Laden is even alive for that matter but that is all a different conversation altogether."

????? That doesn't need any distortion....

3. "If we go with the word of the media they appear to be Cobra from JI Joe... It seems like almost a cartoon I am living in instead of reality and the worst part is, people like you seem to believe this fantasy."

If you actually took the time to read what I said you'd see that I totally agreed that al Queda was incapable of causing much problems (particularly using Pakistan's nukes), at least in the West.... I never claimed al Queda was anything like it was painted to be, I'm not sure if you actually read anything I wrote at all.

4. "You went on a diatribe about 9/11 yet again. I am going to sum this up with as few words as possible.

Prove your point in a court of law."

Ditto. Again, on the 9/11 thing, everything I said was in reply to your _assertions_ about the Pakistani ISI "link". And all I did was show the source of the link... I'm not actually sure what I did wrong. It seems you are allowed to cast doubt on whatever aspect you want, but when I do, you say I believe fantasies.. same old same old I guess.

5. "This seems to be less about a debate and more about you trying to prove everything I say is a lie somehow. I can proclaim 2 + 2 = 4 and somehow you will take issue with that. A perfect example is the Saddam debate. A historical fact somehow becomes my personal opinion!"

You said Saddam was a secular leader _thus_ he wouldn't associate with Islamists... that was where I disagreed, the use of it as evidence against al Queda or similar being in Iraq pre-invasion and/or linked to the regime. I gave you a few examples of when Saddam is known to have associated with Islamists, and the Islamists he had fighting for him against the Kurds. Again, not sure what I did wrong there either... As for the secular claim, I said time and time again _on paper_, in Iraqi law, the state is considered a Secular state, but the practice of the leader, the controlling party, the national flag, Saddam's own words etc. those details cannot be considered Secular (and since you mentioned it, In God We Trust can't either, which is why it still remains a debated point to this day, as does "One Nation, Under God", and "So Help Me God", ten commandments at judicial buildings etc. in the U.S., because it is in contrast to the U.S. constitution allegedly). But again, I didn't agree with you on paper, and my point was that you ignored most of what I said about Saddam to focus only on the Secular debate, which again, "_on paper_", I wasn't even contesting.

6. I'm not trying to prove anything about 9/11... for the third or fourth time in this message alone, I replied to your 9/11 assertions. I'll point out once again that even though you said it in a post to another user, I completely ignored it simply to avoid even talking about it because we already did before... but then you went on to tell me you don't believe AQ was involved with 9/11 or at least to the degree that is claimed, which is fine obviously I already knew that, but THEN you claimed it was either Mossad, ISI, CIA... and singled out the ISI for the transfer you presented as fact. The only thing I did, my BIG CRIME in this thread, was to point out its source and mention Kashmir. We also disagreed about the weight of a criminals personal confession to a crime. Again, not sure what I did wrong there either.

So basically put, stop trying to say I twisted the thread when you brought it up, I only replied to you. You are getting confrontational, not me.
 
  by: Dela     06/24/2009 06:49 PM     
  @Dela  
 
How about this, we simply put the 9/11 conversation behind us because we will get nowhere with it. I was wanting to discuss the idea of terrorism in general originally but we got onto the topic of 9/11 again.

Just to let you know I am having to skim through a lot of what you are writing because it is way to much to go through and I am at work so I dont have time to read all the details nor time to respond to every aspect of your questions or statements. I wish you could summarize your statements better. Just loading all this content takes my browser a good 10-30 seconds to display it all...

How about this. I am sure we can both agree to this:

We can agree that a true formal criminal investigation be put forward in regards to 9/11 is needed as well as criminal charges against individuals that were complicit in the event itself. I myself have sent letters to my congressman and senators as well as signed petitions, etc to the affect.

I did originally state before all this that didn't want to debate 9/11 because I said it would go no where. Hate to say I told you so but here we are... I wont bring up 9/11 if you wont. For the sake of my eyeballs? Or else we will keep going round and round and end up in the same place we started...

On the part of AQ hoax, you did take my words in the wrong context big time. I never once said AQ didnt physically exist. I said it didnt exist as we know it. Thats a difference between night and day. In affect a major distortion.

Onto the topic of Saddam, I hate to keep beating a dead horse but historians disagree with your opinion.
 
  by: slavefortheman     06/24/2009 09:32 PM     
  @slave  
 
------------------------------------------
"We can agree that a true formal criminal investigation be put forward in regards to 9/11 is needed as well as criminal charges against individuals that were complicit in the event itself. I myself have sent letters to my congressman and senators as well as signed petitions, etc to the affect."
------------------------------------------

The trial of Khalid and four others held over 9/11 is approaching, although I haven't checked in a while to see the Obama Admin's suggestion to move the trial to a civilian court in the United States. All five already plead guilty and obviously don't care about the death penalty. I personally think it should be attempted in any way possible to avoid the death penalty, and just lock them up for the rest of their lives instead but too many will scream for death. In any case, when the case moves to trial it will be extremely interesting the level of details that will emerge. I also think the criminal conviction of the 5 men will lead to formal charges being pressed against Osama bin Laden, with the 5 convictions and looong confessions as automatic precedence.

The big problem with this case is it involved individuals who weren't in the United States when the attacks happened, and who didn't carry them out themselves obviously. So they have no testimony from anybody who carried out the attack, because they all killed themselves, which makes it a very difficult situation to be in from a legal point of view.


Now about AQ, I don't think I said you claimed al Queda didn't exist? I know what you are saying about the media hysteria over al Queda, but describing it as a hoax I think it's reasonable to assume that you are referring to an intentional misleading at least by people in power etc.? Like the powers that be are carrying out a hoax on us?


------------------------------------------
"Onto the topic of Saddam, I hate to keep beating a dead horse but historians disagree with your opinion."
------------------------------------------

I mean, I'll have to fall back here to the very definition of the word Secular. Let's take the position that he is a Secular leader. His government is definitely far from theocratic, his laws did break from many of his neighbors and of course, his own self indulgence was at serious odds with the heads of Islamic states.

But considering secular, by definition, implies "not pertaining to or connected with religion", or "concerned with nonreligious subjects" etc. I stop short of putting him nearly on the same platter as the world's truly secular leaders and governments. This is by his own actions and the actions of his government in the years leading up to his overthrowing, and I'm not the sole person making this claim. Christopher Hitchens is a contributing editor to Slate and Vanity Fair and he, having visited Iraq many times between the late 80s and modern Iraq, also argues against his title as a "Secular Leader", because going by the simple definition of it, what its understood to mean, Saddam fails particularly after the Gulf War, as does the controlling party in Iraq. It's popular in the U.S. among the religious to keep saying "secular regime" because they deny that America itself is secular in nature, so what better way to slander the opponent than to equate it with Saddam Hussein's regime? It's the same as the "Hitler was an Atheist" soundbite, in fact, just listen to Bill O Reilly talk about Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler and you'll hear Godless, Secular, Atheist so much your head will spin ;-)

Again though, relative to its neighbors, was Iraq more secular? Sure. Was Saddam more secular? Sure, but not always, and particularly not in the early 21st Century and the years following the gulf war.


BTW, I'm also working (or supposed to be ;-) ) so that's why my reply is pretty late.
 
  by: Dela     06/25/2009 12:42 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com