Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Yes of course. I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report. In the case we have discussed I do not accept the Fox News headline and editorial because it is clearly propaganda, i.e. not an accurate reflection of the source video/transcript broadcast by Al Jazeera.
So you are the judge of what has been what you call politically steered are you? Or rather you run it past Al Jazeera for approval? , Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, now you are telling me that one Government is better than another, or that the local Government is more accurate? Might that be because they happen to be in the very region that these killers come from and are trained and bred in? Damn you sound like a hypocrite right now.
I think my earlier suggestion of just qualifying any media claim that either party wishes to challenge might still be the best path.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Now this is interesting...
All peoples views are interesting, it is downright rude of you to say the last 10 pages of discussion are not worthy of you. You certainly have a high opinion of yourself.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
I asked some questions in my last post: So what did bin Laden do? Did he select the flights, choose the day, pick the time? No, none of that, we know from other of his statements. Did he seek out and recruit the hijackers? No, the hijackers went to bin Laden. Did he provide the funding? There is no evidence of that - the funding is a question that the 9/11 Commission bizarrely claimed to be of no practical significance. So what direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack? You won’t ever prove one, because there is none. Was bin Laden necessary at all? Along with bin Laden, a great many people were involved with 9/11. Perhaps we should look at some of those. But is bin Laden a main player? I’ll wait for you to answer my question above: What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?
So why on earth would Hijackers go to someone that has nothing to do with a certain action, does not provide any money for it, and essentially just heard about it after it happened, if one follows your path. Is that not just another person in the mix who could jeopardise such a delicate operation, you just said they went to Bin Laden. Why would that bother seeing him at all if he is not a main player? "I did not plan" is not the same as "I was not involved".
Direct action is not openly apparent, why would it be? Bin Laden was cold blooded not stupid. If the evidence was clear enough to place in a public forum, we would not have this conversation would we?
OJ Simpson was proven innocent in court too. Nothing to do with it. Legalities are a minefield, we both know that, I do not know what you get out of playing dumb about something that cost so many lives that is plainly obvious to the larger part of the world, just because you need irt spelt out in black and white does not negarte that fact that his actions, which you refuse to discuss for obvious reasons clearly show he is a leader who is proud of the fact he murdered innocents. Don't bother with the speech where he tried to play dumb and pretend to be innocent, I'lll just pull out the recording that proves the opposite.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
I’ll ignore your repetitive claims that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’, neither are necessary to facilitate the attack. The best/only potential viable answer you provided is this...
Of course you would, because they are plain actions taunting the rest of the world outside of Sunni Islam about his glee at the success of his "group of people". As you prefer the term. This is the where the larger part of the world "gets" that which you seem to purposefully remain ignorant about. From what I gather, so you can try to kick the American Government.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Ok, can you show me? Can you back up this claim which you think makes bin Laden responsible for the attack? I’d be most impressed if you could. Heck, I’ll not post here again if you can prove that one cent of bin Laden’s money went to the 9/11 hijackers to facilitate the attack. My understanding of facts is altogether different. Here is what I know about the funding: -
From my previous post above – Omar al Bayoumi, on the payroll of the Saudi government, assisted two of the hijackers in opening a bank account and personally paid their rent deposit. Well, no bin Laden there.
Omar Sheikh, known to be connected to Pakistan’s ISI and said to be a British MI6 asset, is reported to have wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. Hmm, no bin Laden here either.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a separate entity of the Al Qaeda “bunch of people” (that’s how you defined them isn’t it), said that he sent the hijackers funding. Though I’m not sure that such a confession obtained under waterboarding torture can be trusted. Anyhow, no bin Laden still.
Let’s ask the 9/11 Commission: -
"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Damn. Bin Laden, where are you?
It’s very interesting that bin Laden cited a British source who calculated that the operation cost $500,000 and only after the 9/11 Commission report had also affirmed this figure three months earlier. Why ever is bin Laden quoting the British and 9/11 Commission rather than his ‘Al Qaeda’ accountants? Hahaha. No bin Laden here.
How about FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, talking of 9/11: -
But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.
The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.
You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.
I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.
http://baltimorechro...elEdmonds.shtml
Still nothing on bin Laden.
So help me out psyche, where are you getting your info?
You are good at playing obtuse aren't you. Yes I said that, in the context with the scenario of my work and my boss, I did not mean he directly funded the measly $500,000.00 for the plane strike, he funded Al Qaeda. Without Bin Laden, there may be no Al Qaeda.
From that post:
Yes, until we have Bin Laden in tape saying "I Order You" it's unsupported right? I said he did not fly the plane, however, I do not believe for one second that such absolves him from the action at all. He was part of a group that planned, and managed to slaughter thousands.
I have listened. It does not change that Bin Laden was a leader. It's a different structure. That much you have illustrated That we use different models does not negate that Bin Laden was considered of a higher order than the average religious fundie murderer. You know he funded Al Qaeda, would it exist without Bin Laden?
He funded the act. My boss does not know what I do 3 out of 5 days a week. He just wants me to bring him the profit margins and tell him we are making money, not going broke, and all our staff are gainfully employed a coule times a week. Pretty loose too, but he can trust my skill and industry knowledge. Does that mean he has nothing to do wityh the business? - Any person on earth can see that no matter how it is painted. He was happy his organisation had achieved an important goal, and any major plan takes more than one person. And they all have a key figure, and even David Hicks indicates he was a key figure.
So you took one of the last references and played on that. If you had decided to read the last ten pages, this is pretty much what Stundie and I were discussing. That the FBI could not indict him because they had no
hard evidence.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
I think you’ve allowed yourself to be consumed with propaganda.
No I do not think so. I have not had much to do with the news sources on this. You seem to know them better than I do. My involvement up to this point has only been from a technical aspect. You have some agenda which I feel is yet to be revealed. Merely a modicum of common sense indicates that those who claim responsibility for an action are responsible for it.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Even that is a misconception – ‘Al Qaeda’ were not funded by bin Laden, not by the mid 90s anyhow. You need to read the 9/11 Commission report.
And don’t forget that the U.S. taxpayer bankrolled the Mujahideen, which included ‘Al Qaeda’, by $630 million per year come 1987. That’s a significant investment, far more than bin Laden could ever dream of providing, and not one that would be dropped with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
What,
this report?
Yes the CIA funded the Mujahideen. So what? You know as well as I why, Operation Cyclone. It was a joint effort against the Soviets, I doubt you are too young to remember the Cold war, which had not ended with withdrawals from Afghanistan.
If I could give you a paper trail whereby Bin Laden used KSM as Hawala then we would not be having this conversation would we?
Abdullah Azzam solicited bin Laden to raise money and recruit Arabs, even his own people in his "grou of people" do not agree with you.
Quote
"He spent all his money on jihad," said Zawahiri, adding bin Laden had given $50,000 to help finance bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people in 1998. At the time, he had no more than $55,000 to his name.
Mohammed Atef Al Qaeda's alleged military chief met with 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in 1999 to help plot the 9/11 attacks. He also met with several of the men who would later hijack the jets, including Mohamed Atta, to explain their mission. By then he was already wanted in the U.S. for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. He was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001.
Quote
According to the newspaper, bin Laden says Al-Qaida has three alternate financial systems, which are being run separately and independently by those "who love jihad," he said.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
The documents refer to “the base” or “the military base”. It’s a generic term so much as Western politics and media would like it to be a name chosen and attached to bin Laden. We already know “the base” was the database of Mujahideen created and funded with help of the U.S. to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan (a U.S. Muslim recruited through the Brooklyn cell attended the initial meeting and would later be the prosecution star witness in their case against bin Laden in regard to the U.S. embassy bombings). There is no indication there was to be a unit that would go by the formal name “the base”. Again, that idea is a Western creation which bin Laden disavowed and only used long after 9/11 for benefit of a Western audience who had picked up on the term.
The paper quoted bin Laden as saying:
"Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.
LINK
But you seem to like repeating yourself, so I too will drag out the answer. More below when you decide to pick up on this angle again.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Well that is your view, not that of bin Laden: -
Interviewer: The question posed to you is: How attached is Al-Qa’ida to the person of Usama Bin Ladin?
Bin Ladin: Praise be to God, I say in response to your question and repeat what I said before that the matter does not concern this humble subject or Al-Qa'ida. We are the sons of an Islamic nation, whose leader is Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him. Our God is one and He is the Almighty Allah. Our prophet is one, who is Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him. Our qibla is also one. We are one nation, with one book. This Holy Book and the prophet's traditions oblige us under the shari'a to become brothers in faith. All the faithful are brothers -- the faithful are brethren.
The question is not as portrayed in the West that there is an organization known by such and such a name. This name is very old. It emerged without our intention. Brother Abu- Ubaydah al-Banshiri, may his soul rest in peace, set up a military training camp for youths to fight the tyrannical, oppressive, and atheist Soviet Union, which really terrorized peaceful civilians. We used to call that training camp the base. The name then stuck. As to ourselves, we are not separate from the nation. We are the sons of the nation and an indivisible part of it. These massive demonstrations from the Philippines in the Far East to Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Mauritania only express the conscience of the nation. These youths that sacrificed their lives in New York and Washington -- and we pray to God to accept them as martyrs -- were the spokesmen of the true conscience of the nation.
I must accept that bin Laden knows his own views better than you do.
Of course not all Muslims agree with bin Laden, but we are discussing bin Laden’s views, not other peoples’.
All Muslims are Islam.
I am sure he does know his views better than I do, but he made no secret about them. Why you try to absolve a know killer is rather bewildering. But when he speaks of the Islam Nation and Muslim brothers, he is indeed not speaking for Islam, but his merry band of insane killers who follow the fundamentals of Shari'ah. So my point stands despite your protest.
Dr. Yahia Abdur-Rahman, from the Islamic Shurah Council of Southern California (ISCSC), offers Supplication For The Victims 
Dr. Maher Hathout, from the the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and The Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC), condemns the attack and issues a statement. Clickhere to listen
Dr. Ahmad Sakr, from the Islamic Education Center (IEC), offers his condolences to the families of the victims and condemns the attack. Click here to listen
Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), condemns the attack. Click here to listen
These people do not call what he does an act of Islam do they. They do not say he is part of what they stand for. These are different groups of people.
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
I’ll reiterate that is a good description for those responsible for the 9/11 attack.
Well reiterate is right, this is pretty much reposting what you said a couple paragraphs up. Could I urge you to consolidate in future for the sake of clarity.
I am sure if fits your view better. You can call it what you want. It is a group of people who like to slaughter people for no good reason.
In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that bin Laden has not been especially significant to the global jihadist movement, or that al Qaeda has always, in reality, been only a loose knit collection of like-minded Islamist militant groups, or even that al Qaeda is an organization that was fabricated by US law enforcement. The fullest exposition of this point of view was made in 2004 in the three-hour BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares," directed by Adam Curtis, which argued that "Beyond his small group, bin Laden had no formal organization, until the Americans invented one for him."
Curtis claims that al Qaeda was first "invented" in 2001 when US prosecutors put four men involved in the 1998 plot to blow up two US embassies in east Africa on trial in New York. During the trial they drew heavily on the testimony of former bin Laden aide Jamal al-Fadl, who Curtis explains spun a story about the Saudi militant that would make it easier for US prosecutors to target bin Laden using conspiracy laws that had previously put Mafia bosses behind bars. Curtis says: "The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organized network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name, al Qaeda. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 11th September, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it."
All of these assertions are nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would eventually mushroom into the secretive, disciplined, global organization dominated by bin Laden that implemented the 9/11 attacks. That evidence can be found in the documents in this chapter, which were recovered in Bosnia in 2002, and can also be found in the interviews throughout this book.
What follows are excerpts of a key document: The minutes of the first meeting about the establishment of al Qaeda on August 11, 1988. This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as the "the Sheikh," and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a "new military group," which would include "al Qaeda (the base)." Abu Rida refers to a disagreement with Abdullah Azzam, with whom bin Laden had founded the Mektab al Khidmat (Services Office).
Too much to post, you will have to follow the
LINK
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
I didn’t say that Fox News is inadmissible at all. It’s only that in the case discussed above (and others I’ve witnessed) the Fox News report demonstrably does not reflect facts of the source material. In such cases the report is inadmissible, or rather just demonstrably false/worthless. If you have an equally sound case against the Telegraph reports I linked then let us know. At least the Telegraph reports cite and, unlike Fox News, quote their sources. Further, the reports are corroborated by the U.S. Senate report, facts on the ground and numerous security analysts, all of which I referred but you ignore. I really don’t know what you are complaining about.
Again you said this in the first paragraph pretty much.
I am only complaining that you are confusing. Perhaps you forget I have just joined the discussion and do not really now what your stance on media is. Again, I feel if any information is challenged sources should be further supported with additional information. Hopefully a few more times and we wont have to repeat this again.
What? Who did I ignore where?
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Ah, so you meant that bin Laden evaded death, not evaded capture - a ploy facilitated by and which suited those with an agenda for a ‘War on Terror’. Anyhow, the whereabouts of bin Laden and detention by the ISI was just a point of interest in opposition to the idea that he was sneaking undetected around the desert, or his non-existent cave network, or whatever lair such villains reside.
One and that same are they not? Did anyone ever think he would be taken alive?
Detention of the ISI is rumour, I thought you frowned upon that?
Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:
Don’t you understand? In a civilised and just society, where rule of law, not rule of the jungle are to prevail, it isn’t up to anyone to prove bin Laden innocent. It is required to prove bin Laden guilty. And you are doing a terrible job of that so far. I’ll say again that I do find bin Laden guilty on certain charges, just not to anything like the degree that Western politics and media have made out – bin Laden is an accessory to the crime, not the principle. It’s all of those direct perpetrators, from Atta to Bayoumi to the CIA who need to be investigated to reveal the true hand behind 9/11.
What is civilised about terrorism?
Bin Laden
is guilty! Just because he hid his 911 tracks well to get people like you to try to defend him does not absolve:
- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people;
•The 1995 and 1996 bombings in Saudi Arabia in which 22 American soldiers were killed;
- The 1998 US Embassy bombings in East Africa, in which 224 people were killed, including 12 Americans.
The 2000 attack on the USS Cole at a port in Yemen, in which 17 US sailors were killed.
War on terror remember?
It's not up to me to prove anything. I am one person responsible for myself, no matter what I say the description of Bin Ladens status is not my call. I know he is guilty of many killings, and I feel he is thumbing his nose at the world letting us know he was a mastermind of 911, and he covered up well.
The real true hand? Some small minded killers that misinterpreted the US's real symbol of power, and slaughtered innocent people for no good reason, and put millions in terror. The low life scum who killed people, hijacked planes all the while shouting out to their mythical being Allah are responsible, and those who inspired, trained and funded them are responsible.
"It was a grand entry, like you see in the movies," says Yusufzai, whose subsequent Dec. 23, 1998, interview in the deserts near Kandahar was the last time that bin Laden met the press. In the interview, bin Laden denied responsibility for the US Embassy bombings, but praised the work of his "brothers." "He told me, 'My job is to inspire, to organize people. My job is to provoke people. I'm not doing it myself, but I'm preaching so that others will do it.' "
LINK
6
...[/sarcasm]
.....no holograms on 9/11 as far as I'm concerned...
