I do not hink you read my first post in full. I think you skimmed it and took what you wanted from it. However, as you seem to be partial to 2 part questions and answers, I'll accomodate in greater detail, below.
When claims cannot be checked through supporting/contradictory evidence, i.e. when media reports state that something happened and I cannot validate the claim, then I generally give benefit of the doubt. For the third time, whether we are dealing with Western or Middle Eastern media doesn’t come into it.
It is simply reality that in this particular case of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, Al Jazeera provided a more factual report, with less opinion (and certainly no false and sensationalist headline), than any Western media I have seen.
That's what your doing with Al Jazeera is it? Usama's own personal release network. In his control, under his watch. What the heck would happen to Al Jazeera if they posted something against Bin Ladens wishes hrrmm? Wouldn't be here now would they.
You are doing what you accuse Fox of doing, but they are just offering opinion based on the ambiguous messages by Bin Laden. Being Al Jazeera, and in Arabic makes it so much easier for you, so it is little wonder you hold that source in high regard.
Rather than media, what about existing facts? Like ONeils investigation wich shows all roads lead to Bin Laden? That is personal investigation, not tainted by popularity nor threat. I find it more accurate.
Then you need to read the context, Headlines often take a leap, and when you read closely the actual story is more mundane. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but a few weeks ago, there was an announcement that Curiosity on Mars was about to re-write the books. Massive information, but when push cam to shove, it was an indicator, nothing so grandiose as the headline made out. I do not know where you are at, but you seem to not have a complete understanding of how Western media works. Its not a science manual, its a field report.
Taken on board? You mean I did not race out and link you to what I thought was relevant? Well I wont be doing that, if you are too lazy to click the last few pages over, but yet dismiss them, that is your problem. Stundie and I have discussed that which you are regurgitating, and to say the pages are a waste and not worth considering contradicts your own position about being thorough. I am not your personal link provider. As with my posts, you have skimmed a section and come to a personal conclusion. It seems to be how you roll to be frank.
- there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack.
- there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.
- you have no answer to the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the 9/11 attack?”
- there is “no direct evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
The above all comes down to the last line doesn't it? Direct evidence, without it, a clever lawyer can use justice against one as opposed for one. Like OJ Simpson. He walks today, there is no direct evidence, not one person thinks he really is an innocent man. The evidence lies in the tral if FBI bungles that only happened because of personal choice, which is not a US plot, but some cow with her panties in a bunch and some scumbag who supported her. That link ought to be investigated IMHO, Bodine-Pickard.
Sure, as long as we try to stay on topic. I suggested the same myself more than once to date I believe.
He is proven guilty, of 1993 and 1998, I siad already, this was a war on terror. Bin Laden was, and continues to be a main suspect in the 911 event. As such, he was a high profile target. That is not a witch hunt. That is bringing a murderer to justice. Have you seen pictures of the victims from these bombings? The Cole? Tanzania? In Tanzania he killed 240 innocents to kill 12 Americans. And you are trying to tell me that human scum is not lying through his teeth about 911? That is not emotion, which you keep trying to sway the debate upon, that is fact. People are dead by Bin Ladens hand and he said all American women and children are targets in Jihad. That shows he has no regard for life, truth, or pretty much anything other than his twisted religious ideals and that he has not place in any society on earth.
So what if Bin Ladens statement was corroborated by Edmonds, you keep saying do not run with half measures it remains still to be seen if Edmonds testimony is beneficial to any investigation, because as you have ignored, her claim is full of holes, and if not for the fact that some basic procedures had been overlooked by the FBI, it would likely have been dismissed by now! It was claimed that Edmonds performed poorly in her job, there is no reason to dismiss that claim, are you giving that information the benefit of the doubt?
I responded to the digression because I had already adressed the Edmonds claim as I have above, and which I expect you to ignore again with some snarky retort claiming I did not adress your post, when in reality I have, but not provided the answer you seek.
No, I do not agree, the Edmonds claim has a long way to go as far as verification goes, and plenty of holes she needs to fill in her story, and quoting Bin Laden? Surely you jest. Do you expect me to actually take him at his word on this subject? Like I say, that would be like getting Manson or Bundy to decide their own punishments.
It is also you who has provided the further false media claim below...
OK, back to the first line again. Strange how you like to stretch these thing out, but I have my suspicions as to why. I asked you if you felt the headline was a valid statement I did not insist the headline was true, I asked about the relationship between Lebanon and Palestine. You took a leap and decided I was speaking of the headline, when in fact, I asked your opinion fo the situation it states. Regardless, it is you who did not read the post initially, instead of just a link, lets have a look at what I said shall we?
Now I do not trust the media either, they c*** up what they hear, and they twist it, why? Because they have to sell headlines, I understand that, so should you, so lets have a look at that articles (did you follow the links? Same one isn't it) they reckon:
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States
Now that seems a good place to start. Do you feel this is not at all the case, and that Bin Laden did not feel the US had interfered? Because it seems to be a pretty common theme from what I hear. I do not care what the article says, but I would like to break it down to little pieces for accuracy. Is that an accurate stament? Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article, and see if it is deserving of your mockery. As a news article I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?
You also never seemed to have read this post, in where I say outright that I did not come to this thread to discuss news-headlines, but technical aspects. LINK
Ohh get real. Are you being serious? The prose indicates the "my organisation" was taken out, removed, look at the bloody thing!!!
Neither I had???????
Yeah, real impartial aren't you!!!!!! You go with the best sources when the information is ambiguous? Pardon me, but BS.
However, thank you for the link, I did look, but did not find it. Bookmarked for future references. Make fun of me for not being a professional Googler if you feel the need, I do not think that is what is relevant to this discussion to be frank.
Note that the false quote you linked to is simply not present in the text attributed to bin Laden.
Anyhow, if you feel our discussion on media has run its course, I’m content that my point has been made.
Your point was made all along, you refuse to discuss anything other than that which you insist in discussing, see the above quoted post. You do not even see if others have another point, you just barrel along with what you want.
BBC is better, if this was the BBC maybe it is not, it ia another paper who is copying the BBC release. IN this version, the word Neither is completely omitted, unlike the source you claim is more accurate, even if the grammar indicates it has been doctored.
I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. -
So your source that you deem the most accurate strongly indicates alterations to the transcript in line with that which I had posted. Well done.
The further problem with your attempted logic above is the assumption that those responsible for the house-arrest actually wanted bin Laden shot or that those responsible equate to, “the U.S.” It’s a common failing of OCTs to overlook the individual factions involved. Of course, bin Laden was far more valuable as a propaganda tool to drive the Neocon ‘War on Terror’ whilst his spectre was alive.
You did not provide multiple sources that prove Bin Laden was in custody, you have presented some rumours that made it into headlines. That is all. The only denial I see is you refusing to consider the points I made about your links, which were:
Your link leads to this
Today a spokesman for the Taliban embassy in Pakistan confirmed the reports, initially made in Pakistani newspapers, and told United Press International: "We have placed him under control after the attacks."
Which then goes on to say:
The extremist Taliban regime, which is not recognised by any Western countries and has only three embassies worldwide, had earlier said it had "severed" communications between bin Laden and the outside world.
So the Taliban, a bunch of extremists who say what they want to get what they want, made a claim that Bin Laden was under arrest but they wont show us. I remember hearing that one at primary school, went something like "where's the cheese"
Of course, you provided more than one link though, so to be fair:
Under the proposal, Jamaat-i-Islami would have guarded bin Laden at a house in Peshawar that would have been equipped with a dialysis machine to treat his kidney condition.
Gee, how did the US manage to miss out on that Golden opportunity.
And yet this kidney condition? What does Bin Laden say about that?
In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Mir asked bin Laden about his kidneys: “A French newspaper has claimed that you have a kidney problem and have secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year . Is that correct?”
Bin Laden responded: “My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with an Islamabad dateline with one of my sons in Saudi Arabia. All this is false.”
Well, so much for accuracy I suppose.
You presented rumour that was written in a newspaper, you are guilty exactly of what you are accusing Skyeagle, and myself of. Being loose with the facts.
Damn this quote limit
I addressed that in my post #1062. In response to that, you posted the false bin Laden quote allegedly sourced from the Daily Ummat, which is discussed above. There is nothing else to be said about bin Laden’s involvement in the formation of ‘the base’ – we all know that occurred during Operation Cyclone – whether ‘the base’ remained as any structured/coherent organisation with bin Laden at the helm is unproven.
I’ll stop here because there’s really nothing to say to the rest of your post – it’s just a lot of rhetoric, appeal to emotion, and regurgitation of the official story adorned with your own imagination: “some influential b******* managed to talk some lost souls into killing themselves”? Such is sheer speculation and in all probability, fantasy. There is no evidence base to anything much you are saying when it comes to 9/11. There is no indication that the hijackers were mindless, rather than in possession of their own motivations.
Well I guess there is not much more to say, because the above is not true, you did not respond to my post, you "addressed" the subject in the post, to which I offered a reply that rebuts your claims and proves there is indeed an organisation and that Bin Laden founded it. Just as Australian traitor David Hicks let out of the bag when he came back here.
And that reply can be found right here - LINK
In that post, you will find the following:
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).
with this LINK
That part you most certainly have not adressed.
You have refused to answer pertinient points, and keep going back to Fox News headlines, and even tried to say I was the one starting that discussion, but as we can see above, I never did, I asked you what aspects of the claim could be verified and what could not be, paper source notwithstanding. None of that is emotion, nor rhetoric but I find your very god at concealing your own rhetoric with bold claims. But that does not work on me. You have presented rumour that Bin Laden was under house arrest as fact, when those rumours also indicate he had kidney disease which Bin Laden also denies. You gave me a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command, and which seems to prove my original claim was correct whereby Bin Laden calls Al Qaeda "his". From where I am standing, your perspective looks pretty skewed.
So tell me, what do you think of the fact that Ziad Jarrah had a comfortable Western life, wealthy upbringing, attend Christian schools, went on to be university educated, liked to drink (as in, beer), had a girlfriend, spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep, and... was related to an Israeli intelligence informant?
Then one day, all of a sudden, inspiration strikes, “I’m going to be a suicide pilot for bin Laden’s Jihad!”
You think that’s your standard profile of a suicide terrorist?
Yep, seen it first hand here in Oz. That is the motivation I mentioned that brought me to this thread, and why I want to learn more about the sickos that think 911 was justified so I can spot them early and report them to federal police ASAP. Obviously nobody flew a plane into a building, but the inclination, and approval of that disgraceful act is there, and these people sit around talking like you do. That I'd like to see justified or punished. 911 cost too many lives to be bandied around so lightly. I do not want to see my children grow up with people like Bin Laden in the world, I cannot stop that, but I will do my level best to see every single one of them in my vicinity arrested and removed.
However, I see even more motivation with Jarrah, being Sunni by religion, living that lifestyle and when he was seven years old, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, a fact he referred to later in life. He also decided to travel to Chechnya to fight Russian soldiers.
Oh give me a break.
As Peter Bergen states at 6:44 below, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”: -
May I reiterate that I ask all who debate to refrain from Youtube if at all possible. I prefer to read thanks where that can be done.
My signature might be something of a hint there. I'll try to view it on my phone later.
Did I mention that Jarrah was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier?
A further fact is that Atta (the real ringleader of the hijackers, unlike bin Laden) wanted Jarrah out of the operation, and it seems that someone within the CIA had Jarrah interviewed in 2001 in all appearance to determine his reliability for the operation.
This whole profile is intriguing and not at all to be expected of your random suicidal terrorist – the indication, by and large, is that Jarrah was a pawn who didn’t know what he was getting into.
No, I take it you mean the instructor, Bert Rodriguez, but he did pay $500.00 for that privilege too. What does paying for fighting training have to do with anything? Bert told him:
"Find ways to blend in with your opponent and control him,"
when he walked into US-1 Fitness, a gymnasium.
Now, settling into a seat in first class, Jarrah had blended in. You can bet that no one on board would have guessed that back in the Florida apartment he'd left four days earlier, Jarrah had set up a full-size, cardboard replica -- three panels in all -- of the cockpit of the airplane they had just boarded.
What do you reckon, psyche? These circumstances surrounding Jarrah are all just a big oddity/coincidence, don't you think?
Nope. Seems to fit together to me.
Edited by psyche101, 28 February 2013 - 05:51 AM.