psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
I agreed with your suggestion in my last post, that media claims should be checked for validity. It would be nice if you could apply your own suggestion, though judging by your attempt to defend Fox News in this case, response above and other comments, I’m not sure you really know how to.
My method of determining validity does not rely on running anything past Al Jazeera or believing one local government more accurate (I thought that would have been clear from my
post #847:
“I don’t believe, generally speaking, there is much difference between the way that Western and Middle Eastern media operate; neither are immune to the politics of their respective regions”).
What I have done, in the case discussed, is to compare the subtitles/transcript of the bin Laden videotape (the source material), against what each of Al Jazeera and Fox News actually reported...
Al Jazeera simply reports the facts and transcript in full: -
http://www.aljazeera...3336457223.html
Fox News provides only excerpts of the transcript, with addition of a propagandistic headline and editiorial,
“Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11” and
“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks” (neither of which are contained within or can be concluded from the actual transcript): -
http://www.foxnews.c...,137095,00.html
One is an example of factual reporting, the other an example of propagandistic ‘reporting’. I would urge everyone to click on the links above to compare and contrast the reporting styles. It is a fine example of what we are dealing with when it comes to the Western media witch hunt that followed 9/11. Please be aware of what you are reading – then at least it is an informed choice whether to be sucked in or not.
This is of course one specific case, and whilst a repeating pattern can be seen through further examples, each case should regardless be judged on its own merit.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
I did not say the last 10 pages are “not worthy” of me. It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points which could have been responded to. But the following turned me off digging through to find them and is what my comment was aimed at: -
Skyeagle:
bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:
Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:
bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:
Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:
bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:
Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:
bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:
Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:
bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:
Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
This type of spamming is not so interesting (say, after the first three times) and in my opinion disrupts the chain of constructive discussion/reduces informative value of the thread. I should add that I hold most responsible the member who refuses to directly address a question, which can be frustrating for the member attempting to hold an open and honest discussion.
Along with Stundie and Shrooma bickering about a “12 year old girl”, yeah screw it, I’m going to take the easy option and pretend like those 10 pages didn’t happen. Sorry if you think that’s rude. If there was anything raised that was vital to our discussion then please point me in the right direction and I’ll respond.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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?
From the perspective that my research suggests, it was obviously necessary for the agents to implicate themselves with bin Laden, ‘Al Qaeda’ and the Taliban – the purpose of the operation was to entrap the target and provide pretext for the ‘War on Terror’. I also believe that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague prior 9/11 for exactly the same reason, but that source of propaganda fell apart when Czech intelligence distanced themselves from the claim – anyway, that’s another story. Had the meeting with bin Laden not occurred, the Bush administration may have been left with a quite useless, though perhaps interesting, pretext for a ‘War on Hamburg’ (referring to the Hamburg cell of hijackers who formed the lead pilots).
From an official story perspective, the Hamburg cell left their comfortable Western lives, travelled to Afghanistan and met with bin Laden to become Jihadists. Bin Laden ‘ordered’ them, under his non-existent ‘command structure’, to carry out the 9/11 attack and these men became the suicide pilots of Flight 11, 175 and 93. Interesting that not one of them said, “Err, screw flying a plane into a building” as apparently was the case during planning of the 1995 Bojinka plot, and as the majority of sane people, capable of long term planning, would.
I think there is truth in both version of events above. Whilst bin Laden would welcome hearing from anyone willing to carry out such a suicide attack on U.S. interests, Western agents damn well knew that and took advantage of it.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
"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?
All very true... which is no basis to launch a war and assassination team.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
I specifically asked,
“What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?” When you come back stating that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’ after the attack, of course this does not provide an answer to the question in any way.
I do “get” that there are many people who think it justified to victimise any person who opposes U.S. policies in the Middle East, wars and all, and who express ‘glee’ when reciprocation occurs. How many from that region have been killed as a result of U.S. supplied and/or funded arms? Many times more than 3,000 that’s for sure. Again, bin Laden’s satisfaction at the attack, which many shared, is not evidence of his responsibility, nor alone in my opinion is it moral justification, when we look at the whole story, to put a bullet in his head.
Following the above, let me restate that it is not my aim here to absolve bin Laden of responsibility for any acts of violence that he did coerce. In the grand scale of things it makes no difference that bin Laden is now swimming with the fishes, though in an ideal world, it is my opinion that bin Laden should have been put on trial and faced punishment for his actions, along with a great many others.
My argument here is simply ‘who is directly responsible for/who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and for what reason’. If the conclusion is that a false flag operation/setup occurred to provide pretext for yet more war, then I think it quite right that the American government/Bush administration deserve to be kicked for that.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
Ah, so you have admitted there is no evidence that bin Laden
‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack and now you accept there is no evidence that bin Laden
‘funded’ the 9/11 attack. Neither are you able to answer the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?” (the answer, we all know, is “none”).
Therefore, we might ask, why did the Bush administration and Western media so quickly make bin Laden and regime change in Afghanistan the top priority target? Like that could ever solve the problem. The public initially swallowed it hook, line and sinker, including myself, though it’s sheer madness that any informed person could support this line of action as a way to prevent a future attack.
Why were not all resources put into shutting down that support network closest to the hijackers said to be responsible for direct perpetration of the attack? If 9/11 were the result of a genuine ‘terrorist’ attack then the administration might have been more interested in getting to that truth of the matter. Why are Omar al Bayoumi, Omar Sheikh, Israeli agents, the CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, who did more to facilitate 9/11 than bin Laden ever did, getting off scott free? Is it that those who held the strings of the investigation and response knew there was little threat without their approval of the false flag to begin?
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
Yes, read the 9/11 Commission report, chapter 5.4 “A Money Trail?”, to understand that neither funding of ‘Al Qaeda’ nor the 9/11 attack came from bin Laden’s pocket.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
This is important because ties were not severed with the end of Operation Cyclone.
Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention. Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’. We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing, we understand through Operation Gladio how the CIA were proficient in creating ‘stay-behind’ factions, we listen to former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds: -
“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.
I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11.
There is so much information that of course our Mainstream Media has not reported, but there have been some good books written on the topic, and that is: What we have been doing, what we were doing in those years, all the way, all the way until that day of September 11, in Central Asia, in what they call East Turkistan where we are talking about the Uighurs, and with Bin Laden, via Turkey.”
Incidentally, the “intimate relationship” described above is something that bin Laden suspected, and given Edmonds’ statement, he was correct: -
“The United States wants to incite conflict between China and the Muslims. The Muslims of Xinjiang are being blamed for the bomb blasts in Beijing. But I think these explosions were sponsored by the American CIA.”
~bin Laden, 18 Mar 97
What betting he was also correct when later stating of 9/11: -
“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.
…
Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”
~bin Laden, 28 Sep 01
Anyhow, I digress. The point is, there were certainly overlapping areas with the CIA/ISI and with Western intelligence all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ all the way to 9/11 – from there, the setup/entrapment of bin Laden was easy.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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
As I began this post, this is another example of your poor ability or unwillingness to validate media reports. I’ll give you a chance, and because I’m tired of spoon-feeding this stuff that’s available to anyone. Find the
actual transcript of the interview from the Daily Ummat newspaper which your linked article is reporting second-hand on. Check for yourself whether bin Laden states,
"Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...". Then please come back and confirm for us that bin Laden didn't say that at all. Perhaps even apologise for spreading the misinformation in bolded and red text?
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
We are discussing bin Laden’s views, it doesn’t matter what other people think. Bin Laden thought of himself as representative of Islam, it doesn’t matter that others of the faith did not conform to his views – it does not shake bin Laden’s belief that he is representative of Islam.
Your initial point does not stand, nor ever did, because you have not proven who bin Laden refers to by “we”.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
What? Who did I ignore where?
I provided a
link to information that bin Laden was detained after 9/11 and remained in imprisonment in Pakistan up to his assassination. You complained of the Telegraph reports and declined to comment on the rest of the information.
psyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:
Shout it enough and you will believe it unconditionally. The real question is, bin Laden is guilty of what, specifically? And as we are discussing 9/11 here, does his guilt outweigh that of others; the direct perpetrators and those within the the U.S. system itself? Judging by the answers to my questions you have provided, it seems not.
6
