Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 5 votes

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop


  • Please log in to reply
763 replies to this topic

#346    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 October 2011 - 08:19 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 14 October 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

a confession would be someone admitting that they DID a certain thing, not that they should do a certain thing. Did he mention which towers in that quote? no he didn't, thats not bin laden confessing that he orchestrated the attacks on 911.
Yes it is a confession.  Read the transcript in full from Q24's link.  It is quite obvious that he is confessing specifically about the attacks, and warning of more.

If you still don't agree after reading the whole thing, I'll be happy to explain in more depth point by point about why and how this is a confession.


#347    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:14 PM

View PostQ24, on 14 October 2011 - 02:26 AM, said:

That is interesting - I didn’t realise how brazenly deceptive The New York Times could be.

That quote, “we decided to destroy towers in America”……

It does not exist in any transcript of the 2004 bin Laden tape.

From your link.

Quote


And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#348    Mike 215

Mike 215

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:27 PM

I hate to repeat myself, but there are people on this site who will accept the facts when they are right in front of their faces. THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS SO CALLED CONFESSION DID NOT IMPRESS THE GRAND JURY WHO REFUSED TO INDICT HIM FOR 911 AND THE FBI WHO REFUSED TO LIST HIM FOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR 911.
  When the SEALS cleaned out his house after they murdered him, there was no evidence in the hundreds of videos and documents that he had anything to do with 911.


#349    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:41 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 October 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

You have got to be kidding me.
Afraid not.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 October 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Changing the transcript?  Haven't you ever heard of differing interpretations?  One person interprets one way, another interprets differently.  Interpreting between languages is very difficult and often ends up in slight variations.  Why do you think there are so many different versions of the Bible and Quaran out there?
Of course certain phrases in Arabic can be translated various ways in English.

However, those who made the 2004 videotape (‘Al Qaeda’ right?) had already inserted the subtitles before it was passed to the media - therefore, the English meaning that was intended to be conveyed was not left open to question.

Al Jazeera managed to quote it correctly, so did most U.S. outlets to be fair (even if the talking-heads put a spin on it).

What right did The New York Times have to flagrantly change the wording to suit?

I guess this is the type of propaganda we get fed all the time.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 October 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Once again:
There is no point repeating the text whilst failing to address the issues I have raised.

Have you been hanging around skyeagle a lot lately?   :P

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#350    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:47 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 14 October 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

a confession would be someone admitting that they DID a certain thing, not that they should do a certain thing. Did he mention which towers in that quote? no he didn't, thats not bin laden confessing that he orchestrated the attacks on 911.
Exactly, “should” is not “did” or “going to” and it is certainly not “decided”.

It is bin Laden explaining the causes which he believes led to 9/11, through the injustices Muslims felt.

It is not a claim of responsibility or ownership to the attack.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#351    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2011 - 01:00 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 October 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

Yes it is a confession.  Read the transcript in full from Q24's link.  It is quite obvious that he is confessing specifically about the attacks, and warning of more.

If you still don't agree after reading the whole thing, I'll be happy to explain in more depth point by point about why and how this is a confession.

well feel free to explain then because i read the whole thing before i responded to you in the first place, and it is not him confessing responsibility for the 911 attacks. Maybe you need to reread it.


#352    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2011 - 01:03 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 October 2011 - 11:47 PM, said:

Exactly, “should” is not “did” or “going to” and it is certainly not “decided”.

It is bin Laden explaining the causes which he believes led to 9/11, through the injustices Muslims felt.

It is not a claim of responsibility or ownership to the attack.

yep, thats how i see it too.


#353    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 October 2011 - 01:52 AM

View PostMike 215, on 14 October 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

I hate to repeat myself, but there are people on this site who will accept the facts when they are right in front of their faces. THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS SO CALLED CONFESSION DID NOT IMPRESS THE GRAND JURY WHO REFUSED TO INDICT HIM FOR 911 AND THE FBI WHO REFUSED TO LIST HIM FOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR 911.
  When the SEALS cleaned out his house after they murdered him, there was no evidence in the hundreds of videos and documents that he had anything to do with 911.


Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

My link


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#354    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 15 October 2011 - 01:00 AM, said:

well feel free to explain then because i read the whole thing before i responded to you in the first place, and it is not him confessing responsibility for the 911 attacks. Maybe you need to reread it.
If you've read it and still don't agree, this might be a waste of time.  But I'll explain anyway.

Let's look at what he says.  The confession is in the first part of the transcript.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

He opens with this.  The important part in understanding that a confession is forthcoming is the last sentence.  He indicates that this message is for the people of America and that he plans to suggest how to prevent "another Manhattan" and he plans to describe the "causes and results" of "the war."

Would you agree that "another Manhattan" is a reference to the attack on the Twin Towers?

Would you also agree that the "causes and results" he is referring to are regarding the September 11 attacks?



Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

Next he talks about security and denies that "we hate freedom."  As an example he mentions how they (al-Qaida) are not attacking Sweden, a free country.  Then he refers to the 19 hijackers of 911, emphasizing that they are also not "freedom-haters."

Would you agree with this so far?

And he finishes this part by mentioning "just as you lay waste to our nation.  So shall we lay waste to yours."

To me, this is a reference to al-Qaida and he is associating himself with the hijackers.



No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

The final sentence of this part is really the important piece, because he indicates that "the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred."  This is a threat of additional terrorist attacks.  Some might be tempted to take his statements about Bush as an indication that he thought that the Bush administration instigated the 911 attacks, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Read on to see why.



So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

Now he mentions that he will tell us "the story behind those events" and even share "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken."

Would you agree that "those events" are a direct reference to the September 11 attacks?

Would you also agree that "the moments in which the decision was taken" is a direct reference to when the September 11 attacks were decided upon?  Surely this decision included the targets as well, right?



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

And then he begins to tell us of the conditions which precipitated the decision to attack (oppression and tyranny), what to attack (the towers), and who envisioned it all from the start (he did; Osama Bin Laden).

First, "it had never occurred to us to strike the towers" and then "it came to my mind."  How else can you interpret this?  He is clarifying that after witnessing what he describes as "the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against" "Palestine and Lebanon" the idea "to strike the towers" came to his mind.  He is very specific here.

Do you disagree with that?



The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

Here he goes into more detail about the why behind his decision to attack America.



In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

Look at his use of "my" here.  He says "ideas bubbled in my soul" and those ideas produced "an intense feeling" which "gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors."

His feelings.  His ideas.  His resolve to punish the oppressors.

If you don't read it that way, how do you read it?



And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

More about him.  "And as I looked" "it entered my mind."  And also reference to "destroy towers in America" in response to "those demolished towers in Lebanon."  This is a specific reference to how he personally decided upon the primary target of 911; the Twin Towers.

Do you disagree with this?



If that isn't a confession, what is it?  He describes in great intimacy how and why he came to the decision to attack America.  He even describes his primary targets as the towers.  He doesn't describe this in a general "we", "us", or "our" he describes it personally as "I" and "my".


Does he come out and say "I am responsible for 911" in this transcript?  In my opinion, he essentially does.  He doesn't use those exact words, but an honest evaluation of what he does actually say leads to no other conclusion in my mind.

There is more in the speech that points to how he and others further fleshed out the details of the plan, but this post is long enough as it is.  There should be enough in the above analysis to conclude that this is a confession.

Do you still disagree?

Edited by booNyzarC, 15 October 2011 - 02:42 AM.


#355    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2011 - 07:20 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Quote

If you've read it and still don't agree, this might be a waste of time.  But I'll explain anyway.

I just had to retype this whole thing since internet explorer crashed again. I don't think this is a waste of time but i still disagree on your conclusions, I'll explain why below.


Quote

Let's look at what he says.  The confession is in the first part of the transcript.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

He opens with this.  The important part in understanding that a confession is forthcoming is the last sentence.  He indicates that this message is for the people of America and that he plans to suggest how to prevent "another Manhattan" and he plans to describe the "causes and results" of "the war."


Quote

Would you agree that "another Manhattan" is a reference to the attack on the Twin Towers?

Would you also agree that the "causes and results" he is referring to are regarding the September 11 attacks?

Yes, and yes. It does appear to be a reference to the attack on the twin towers, however you stated that a confession is forthcoming in the last sentence. No its not. Hes simply suggesting how to avoid another "manhattan" hes not admitting he was responsible for the attacks on the twin towers.



Quote

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

Next he talks about security and denies that "we hate freedom."  As an example he mentions how they (al-Qaida) are not attacking Sweden, a free country.  Then he refers to the 19 hijackers of 911, emphasizing that they are also not "freedom-haters."

Would you agree with this so far?

And he finishes this part by mentioning "just as you lay waste to our nation.  So shall we lay waste to yours."

To me, this is a reference to al-Qaida and he is associating himself with the hijackers.


yes i mostly agree with this, but its a threat not a confession that he was responsible for 911.


Quote

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

The final sentence of this part is really the important piece, because he indicates that "the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred."  This is a threat of additional terrorist attacks.  Some might be tempted to take his statements about Bush as an indication that he thought that the Bush administration instigated the 911 attacks, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Read on to see why.

How is that the important piece? As i said above this is a threat "just as you lay waste to our nation.  So shall we lay waste to yours." but this "the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred." is not a threat of additional terrorist attacks, hes just saying that the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. Are you saying that he didn't think bush instigated the 911 attacks? It sure sounds like he thought that.


So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

Now he mentions that he will tell us "the story behind those events" and even share "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken."

Would you agree that "those events" are a direct reference to the September 11 attacks?

Would you also agree that "the moments in which the decision was taken" is a direct reference to when the September 11 attacks were decided upon?  Surely this decision included the targets as well, right?

yes, but he does not say the decision was taken by him



Quote

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

And then he begins to tell us of the conditions which precipitated the decision to attack (oppression and tyranny), what to attack (the towers), and who envisioned it all from the start (he did; Osama Bin Laden).

First, "it had never occurred to us to strike the towers" and then "it came to my mind."  How else can you interpret this?  He is clarifying that after witnessing what he describes as "the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against" "Palestine and Lebanon" the idea "to strike the towers" came to his mind.  He is very specific here.

Do you disagree with that?


yes I do. So what if the thought came to his mind, does that mean that he acted on that thought? I've thought of killing people on several occasions does that mean i acted on those thoughts? no. This is not a confession or an admission of guilt.


Quote

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

Here he goes into more detail about the why behind his decision to attack America.

And heres where your wrong, maybe he wanted to attack america but does that mean he did? does that mean he admitted he did? No it doesn't, that is an assumption on your part. Look at this analogy you quoted above "The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams." Is he admitting here that he was powerless in this situation?


In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

Look at his use of "my" here.  He says "ideas bubbled in my soul" and those ideas produced "an intense feeling" which "gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors."

His feelings.  His ideas.  His resolve to punish the oppressors.

If you don't read it that way, how do you read it?


No, i read it that way, but you are jumping to conclusions.


And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

More about him.  "And as I looked" "it entered my mind."  And also reference to "destroy towers in America" in response to "those demolished towers in Lebanon."  This is a specific reference to how he personally decided upon the primary target of 911; the Twin Towers.

Do you disagree with this?



If that isn't a confession, what is it?  He describes in great intimacy how and why he came to the decision to attack America.  He even describes his primary targets as the towers.  He doesn't describe this in a general "we", "us", or "our" he describes it personally as "I" and "my".


Does he come out and say "I am responsible for 911" in this transcript?  In my opinion, he essentially does.  He doesn't use those exact words, but an honest evaluation of what he does actually say leads to no other conclusion in my mind.

There is more in the speech that points to how he and others further fleshed out the details of the plan, but this post is long enough as it is.  There should be enough in the above analysis to conclude that this is a confession.

Do you still disagree?


Its still not a confession that he was responsible for the events on 911. Yes i disagree, because thinking of something, and planning something does not equal doing something.


#356    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2011 - 08:56 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 October 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:



There is no point repeating the text whilst failing to address the issues I have raised.




View Postskyeagle409, on 15 October 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

My link


View Postskyeagle409, on 10 October 2011 - 02:40 AM, said:

Bin Laden has already claimed responsibility. It's old news.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

My link


Not according to skyeagle. If you repeat the same thing enough times It becomes true! :rofl:

Edited by Wandering, 15 October 2011 - 08:57 AM.


#357    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 15 October 2011 - 09:45 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Let's look at what he says.  The confession is in the first part of the transcript.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

He opens with this.  The important part in understanding that a confession is forthcoming is the last sentence.  He indicates that this message is for the people of America and that he plans to suggest how to prevent "another Manhattan" and he plans to describe the "causes and results" of "the war."

Would you agree that "another Manhattan" is a reference to the attack on the Twin Towers?

Would you also agree that the "causes and results" he is referring to are regarding the September 11 attacks?
Yes of course bin Laden is talking about 9/11, it doesn’t take a detective to work that out - how is he to describe what he perceives as the causes of 9/11 without referring to 9/11?  At least you see this is not a confession as you say that remains “forthcoming”.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

Next he talks about security and denies that "we hate freedom."  As an example he mentions how they (al-Qaida) are not attacking Sweden, a free country.  Then he refers to the 19 hijackers of 911, emphasizing that they are also not "freedom-haters."

Would you agree with this so far?

And he finishes this part by mentioning "just as you lay waste to our nation.  So shall we lay waste to yours."

To me, this is a reference to al-Qaida and he is associating himself with the hijackers.
Can’t you accept what bin Laden actually said instead of inserting your own “al-Qaida” in brackets?

This could bring all sorts of interesting accusations.  For instance, someone says, “we like to go on vacation”.  Now, they are actually talking about their family.  But just think of the fun to be had by dropping “the mafia” or “aliens” or anything else one fancied in brackets after the “we”.

Really nooByzarC, I would expect this of The New York Times.

Anyhow, any confessions here?  No.  Moving on…


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:




No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

The final sentence of this part is really the important piece, because he indicates that "the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred."  This is a threat of additional terrorist attacks.  Some might be tempted to take his statements about Bush as an indication that he thought that the Bush administration instigated the 911 attacks, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Read on to see why.
Ah an “important piece”… wait for it… “the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred”.  Wowzers, you reckon bin Laden? Reeeally??  This is completely pointless - it is a conclusion anyone with the slightest attention span could deduce.  I say the reasons Muslims might want to repeat a 9/11 style attack are still there too.  Am I confessing to a crime?  Erm, no.  Neither is bin Laden.

About the statement, “Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes”.  I have never taken that specific statement as bin Laden saying the administration were behind 9/11... because once again, that is not what the words actually say.

If bin Laden wanted to make the point that elements within the U.S. were involved in the attack, then he would have said that, as he had done in a previous speech:  “There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.”

And still we await the confession…


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

Now he mentions that he will tell us "the story behind those events" and even share "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken."

Would you agree that "those events" are a direct reference to the September 11 attacks?

Would you also agree that "the moments in which the decision was taken" is a direct reference to when the September 11 attacks were decided upon?  Surely this decision included the targets as well, right?
The word “those” indicates more than one event - bin Laden is referring to 9/11, distortions of the Bush administration and causes for the attack.  He then goes on to describe the background events and moment in 1982 when he and the people he represents decided they should turn against America.

It is not a confession that he personally masterminded 9/11.

I do wonder why it would take 19 years for bin Laden to enact a thought he had in 1982.  The plot was quite basic - recruit deranged Jihadists, obtain pilots licence, hijack airplanes, crash them into buildings - it doesn’t take that much planning.  It would appear there was no urgency from bin Laden to make any ideas a reality.

I’m going to start cutting bits of your post now because it’s getting repetitive whilst failing to deliver that elusive confession…


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

If that isn't a confession, what is it?
“… so I ordered the freedom-fighters to hijack airplanes.”

“… so I set about enacting the plot on American soil.”

“… so I said, ‘Yo Jarrah, you gonna be my suicide pilot’ and Jarrah was like, ‘no way man, I gotta wedding to attend’ and so I said, ‘Allah demands it!’ and Jarrah said, ‘don’t mess wit’ me b****, you know I got relatives workin for the Israelis’ and I said, ‘that’s nothin’ I worked with the CIA’ and Jarrah accepted my supremacy and did as he was told.”

Now that’s a confession.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Does he come out and say "I am responsible for 911" in this transcript?  In my opinion, he essentially does.  He doesn't use those exact words, but an honest evaluation of what he does actually say leads to no other conclusion in my mind.
Finally you nailed it - bin Laden does not use “exact words” that say he was personally responsible for 9/11 but in your “opinion” this is what he meant anyway… yes, that’s the crux of it.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

There is more in the speech that points to how he and others further fleshed out the details of the plan, but this post is long enough as it is.  There should be enough in the above analysis to conclude that this is a confession.
Yes, get to the later parts of the speech - the agreement with Atta and mention of funding - we can at least then debate whether bin Laden was an accessory to the crime.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#358    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2011 - 01:14 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

If you've read it and still don't agree, this might be a waste of time.
And so it was a waste of time.  Why am I not surprised?


#359    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2011 - 08:41 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

And so it was a waste of time.  Why am I not surprised?

how was it a waste of time? because you were proven wrong? you didn't even refute what me or q24 said. I agree with most of your posts boony, but your clearly misinterpreting what bin laden said.


#360    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2011 - 09:29 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 15 October 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

how was it a waste of time? because you were proven wrong? you didn't even refute what me or q24 said. I agree with most of your posts boony, but your clearly misinterpreting what bin laden said.
I wasn't proven wrong.  All that was proven was that we have different opinions about the implications of Bin Laden's speech.  I see it meaning one thing, you see it meaning something else.  I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine.  I see little point discussing it further as I'm doubtful that either side will budge.

Or should I attempt to reword my position better?  Should I rebut your statements?  Would that not also be a waste of time?  In my opinion it would.

Right now, based on the responses both you and Q24 gave, I don't expect a truthful assessment from either of you on the core issues that I pointed out.

As an example of what fueled this decision I will address a concern you raised which you apparently believe has "proven me wrong."

psychoticmike said:

booNyzarC said:

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


And then he begins to tell us of the conditions which precipitated the decision to attack (oppression and tyranny), what to attack (the towers), and who envisioned it all from the start (he did; Osama Bin Laden).

First, "it had never occurred to us to strike the towers" and then "it came to my mind." How else can you interpret this? He is clarifying that after witnessing what he describes as "the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against" "Palestine and Lebanon" the idea "to strike the towers" came to his mind. He is very specific here.

Do you disagree with that?



yes I do. So what if the thought came to his mind, does that mean that he acted on that thought? I've thought of killing people on several occasions does that mean i acted on those thoughts? no. This is not a confession or an admission of guilt.
You are comparing random thoughts that have come to your mind with a deliberately written and carefully worded speech by Bin Laden specifically about the September 11th attacks.  And you think this has proven me wrong?  If you can't inherently see the difference between these two things and how they are completely dissimilar, I doubt that anything I can say will ever convince you of my point of view.

Hence, it is a waste of time.


From my position the speech is a blatant confession of Bin Laden's involvement in the whole thing, from your position I'm misinterpreting what he said.

For the time being, I simply agree to disagree.

Cheers.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users