763 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

It is worth reaffirming that Abu Guaith does initially refer to bin Laden in third person - this is without question.  However commonplace it may or may not be does not come into it, because in this videotape, it happened.

Abu Guaith was telling the story to the unidentified Shaykh, so of course he will refer to bin Laden in the third person.  And again, bin Laden was likewise talking to the unidentified Shaykh which makes his third person reference to Abu Guaith completely natural as well.

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

I also recall bin Laden referring to himself in third person more than once.

For example: -

“We also warn, as we said, against the confusion created by the United States.  It wants to strike at the state of Islam in Afghanistan by raising the flag of striking at Usama Bin Ladin.  But, this will not do.”
~bin Laden, 1998

Then also worth repeating, I don’t ever recall a record of bin Laden sitting having a chit-chat not intended for public consumption - it has always been one of his scripted speeches or occasionally an interview for the purpose of sending a political message.  The 2001 videotape is very unusual; a unique circumstance.

The example you provide isn't a match for two reasons.

• He isn't having a conversation in this example.  As you've stated, this was from a statement intended for public consumption.
  
• He makes reference to his full name here, not the ambiguous pronoun "he."

I agree that the 2001 video is a unique circumstance.

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

The question is: foreknowledge of what, exactly?  I have said before that bin Laden knew an operation was coming.

You acknowledge that bin Laden had foreknowledge, but at the same time interpret his statement of "He did not know about the operation," as a denial of foreknowledge.

You don't see a problem with this?

Beyond the obvious use of conversational language and visual cues that I've pointed out previously, which more than suggests that bin Laden is referring to "He (Abu Guaith)", you don't see this direct contradiction in your interpretation?  Either he had foreknowledge or he didn't.

I have to wonder if you are ignoring the logical conclusion here just because it doesn't support your apparent beliefs.  You are clearly a very intelligent person, but I think most unbiased observers would agree with the interpretation I've offered; that bin Laden is referring to "He (Abu Guaith)."

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

Whilst we rely on personal interpretation… that is, until some hard evidence bin Laden was the mastermind and director is presented… I don’t see how anyone can commit to your view in coming to a “guilty” verdict.

Did I ever say that this would produce a "guilty" verdict?  I don't recall saying that.

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

And a point I have noticed is that you are consistently ignoring any and all evidence I have presented which suggests influence outside of bin Laden’s scope - the background of the alleged hijackers, the CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, the on record deception of Neocon politicians.

I'm not ignoring anything here.  We have been discussing the 2001 and 2004 videos, specifically bin Laden's statements in those videos.  I'm merely staying on topic with the current discussion.

Q24, on 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

I will just ask straight-up:  why is it not possible that some intelligence cell presented the operation to bin Laden for their own purposes?  Fifteen of the nineteen alleged hijackers were not Al Qaeda veterans; they were effectively Westerners who turned up on bin Laden’s doorstep in 1999/2000.

Did I ever say that it is not possible?  I don't recall saying that.  We've been discussing the words of bin Laden.  Does bin Laden ever claim that the idea came from some intelligence cell?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

Abu Guaith was telling the story to the unidentified Shaykh, so of course he will refer to bin Laden in the third person.  And again, bin Laden was likewise talking to the unidentified Shaykh which makes his third person reference to Abu Guaith completely natural as well.


The example you provide isn't a match for two reasons.

• He isn't having a conversation in this example.  As you've stated, this was from a statement intended for public consumption.
  
• He makes reference to his full name here, not the ambiguous pronoun "he."

I agree that the 2001 video is a unique circumstance.

The example was taken from an interview for an Arabic TV station, which could be considered a conversation with the reporter.  In the 2001 videotape, Abu Guaith had already given the full name of bin Laden in third person reference - it was not necessary for bin Laden to repeat in that instance.

You requested a previous example of bin Laden referring to himself in third person.  I provided that.  I think the reasons you give above for rejecting the example are perhaps a little picky, setting a new and unreasonable standard to match precisely.  

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

You acknowledge that bin Laden had foreknowledge, but at the same time interpret his statement of "He did not know about the operation," as a denial of foreknowledge.

You don't see a problem with this?

Beyond the obvious use of conversational language and visual cues that I've pointed out previously, which more than suggests that bin Laden is referring to "He (Abu Guaith)", you don't see this direct contradiction in your interpretation?  Either he had foreknowledge or he didn't.

It is apparent bin Laden knew there was an operation.  It is not apparent that bin Laden knew all of the specifics, such as the precise time it would take place, i.e. until he was told in Abu Guaith’s premonition, or heard it on radio in real life, he did not know the attack had occurred.  I don’t see a problem or contradiction in this

Anyhow, I think time to let this one go.  I agree the interpretation you gave is possible and this particular denial of bin Laden is not so clear as I first thought.  It is not greatly important considering the previous two denials I quoted in post #384.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

Did I ever say that this would produce a "guilty" verdict?  I don't recall saying that.

Are you saying bin Laden might receive a “not guilty” verdict on the charge of mastermind and director?

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

I'm not ignoring anything here.  We have been discussing the 2001 and 2004 videos, specifically bin Laden's statements in those videos.  I'm merely staying on topic with the current discussion.

I think it is on-topic to discuss those who are promoting, misinterpreting and using those videotapes in support of their ideologies.  It is known Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied about the Soviet threat level in the 1970s, lied about the WMD threat existence in 2003, lied about the Iranian nuclear threat potential more recently (I hadn’t even got to that one yet)… the logical conclusion is that they might have lied about the bin Laden/Al Qaeda threat also, if it suited, which it did.

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

Did I ever say that it is not possible?  I don't recall saying that.  We've been discussing the words of bin Laden.  Does bin Laden ever claim that the idea came from some intelligence cell?

Are you saying it is possible that some intelligence cell presented the operation to bin Laden for their own purposes?

Bin Laden did suggest the 9/11 operation was that of an external/intelligence cell: -

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.  This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy.  So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.
~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28 Sep 2001

To be honest, I don’t think bin Laden knew what had happened.

He knew people had come to him willing to perform this operation, but was he expecting the Pentagon to be hit?  Did he really expect the towers would collapse (I know he claimed this with hindsight, but did he really expect it)?  Did he expect the further hijacking of Flight 93?  Or did the whole event end up bigger and more widespread than he knew was coming?  Would he have agreed to support it?  He had supported only sporadic and relatively small-scale action on Middle Eastern soil before.  Is this initial shock of his why he is suggesting that some other group must be involved?

P.S. there is another third-person reference in the above quote (couldn’t help pointing it out)  

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

The example was taken from an interview for an Arabic TV station, which could be considered a conversation with the reporter.  In the 2001 videotape, Abu Guaith had already given the full name of bin Laden in third person reference - it was not necessary for bin Laden to repeat in that instance.

You requested a previous example of bin Laden referring to himself in third person.  I provided that.  I think the reasons you give above for rejecting the example are perhaps a little picky, setting a new and unreasonable standard to match precisely.  

I didn't set a new and unreasonable standard.  It is the very same standard that I originally set:

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2011 - 05:36 AM, said:

Is there anywhere else, in anything at all that you've ever seen from bin Laden, where he refers to himself in the third person in a way like this?

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

It is apparent bin Laden knew there was an operation.  It is not apparent that bin Laden knew all of the specifics, such as the precise time it would take place, i.e. until he was told in Abu Guaith’s premonition, or heard it on radio in real life, he did not know the attack had occurred.  I don’t see a problem or contradiction in this

Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one too.

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

Anyhow, I think time to let this one go.  I agree the interpretation you gave is possible and this particular denial of bin Laden is not so clear as I first thought.  It is not greatly important considering the previous two denials I quoted in post #384.

Fair enough.

[skookum]

I always find conspiracies have very weak motives, the world trade centre has a very weak one.  Surely if the motive was to go to war they could have found something far simpler that knocking down some sky scrapers.  One of the first rules in any offensive is keep it simple.

Look at how much could have gone wrong or been discovered if this was the work of the CIA.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Are you saying bin Laden might receive a “not guilty” verdict on the charge of mastermind and director?

No, I didn't say that either.  I didn't mention anything about "guilty" or "not guilty."

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

I think it is on-topic to discuss those who are promoting, misinterpreting and using those videotapes in support of their ideologies.  It is known Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied about the Soviet threat level in the 1970s, lied about the WMD threat existence in 2003, lied about the Iranian nuclear threat potential more recently (I hadn’t even got to that one yet)… the logical conclusion is that they might have lied about the bin Laden/Al Qaeda threat also, if it suited, which it did.

These additional topics are worthy of discussion, but they aren't what we were talking about.

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Are you saying it is possible that some intelligence cell presented the operation to bin Laden for their own purposes?

Many things are possible.

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Bin Laden did suggest the 9/11 operation was that of an external/intelligence cell: -

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.  This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy.  So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened.
~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28 Sep 2001

What more effective way to truly impact your enemy than to cause not only terror and anguish but also fuel dissent within the populace by raising doubt against the established leadership in government?  bin Laden's denials and finger pointing come as no surprise to me.

Q24, on 21 October 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

To be honest, I don’t think bin Laden knew what had happened.

He knew people had come to him willing to perform this operation, but was he expecting the Pentagon to be hit?  Did he really expect the towers would collapse (I know he claimed this with hindsight, but did he really expect it)?  Did he expect the further hijacking of Flight 93?  Or did the whole event end up bigger and more widespread than he knew was coming?  Would he have agreed to support it?  He had supported only sporadic and relatively small-scale action on Middle Eastern soil before.  Is this initial shock of his why he is suggesting that some other group must be involved?

P.S. there is another third-person reference in the above quote (couldn’t help pointing it out)  

To be honest, I think that bin Laden not only knew about the operations but also helped plan and implement them.  There is no question that he hated the United States and wanted to inspire any kind of terrorist acts possible.

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." (Source 1998 Fatwa)

I don't understand why people even try to defend him.

[Wandering]

Quote

There is no question that he hated the United States and wanted to inspire any kind of terrorist acts possible.

He couldn't have hated them that much if he hung out with the Bush family could he?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

No, I didn't say that either.  I didn't mention anything about "guilty" or "not guilty."

So would you say the jury is out?

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

These additional topics are worthy of discussion, but they aren't what we were talking about.

How can the evidence we are talking about be evaluated without understanding those presenting and using the evidence to their benefit?

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

What more effective way to truly impact your enemy than to cause not only terror and anguish but also fuel dissent within the populace by raising doubt against the established leadership in government?  bin Laden's denials and finger pointing come as no surprise to me.

All you are showing is that you have already made your mind up…

If bin Laden says he knew about the operation, he did it.
If bin Laden says he didn’t do it, he is a liar.
If bin Laden says someone else did it, he is a liar.

With this approach it really makes no difference what he did or didn’t say.

And then it continues…

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

To be honest, I think that bin Laden not only knew about the operations but also helped plan and implement them.

When you know there is not the evidence of his direct involvement to support it.

To summarise:  the indication is that the words and evidence don’t matter to you.

There is not much anyone can say faced with faith based beliefs.

booNyzarC, on 21 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

There is no question that he hated the United States and wanted to inspire any kind of terrorist acts possible.

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." (Source 1998 Fatwa)

I don't understand why people even try to defend him.

That is a loaded section.
I might ask if bin Laden hated the “United States” or rather America’s policies in the Middle East.
I might ask however you got to the conclusion that bin Laden advocated, “any kind of terrorist acts possible”.
I might explain how the fatwa reference to “civilians and military” is an acceptance of collateral damage in response to America’s own killing of civilians (it was not an order to target civilians just for the sake of it - if you view the later statement bin Laden made on the matter, this is understood).
I might point out that the direct orders of President Bush killed hundreds or thousands of times more people than bin Laden did.

But I’m more interested in your last sentence.  No one is trying to defend bin Laden.  What is defended is real justice.  Why do you defend liars, murderers and war?  And prefer to single out those who react to it?

If you understand the history of American and Israeli actions in the Middle East, then turn around and say, “oh why does everyone pick on poor old us.. It’s big bad bin Laden who is the root cause of the problem” that is a very one-sided view to hold.

So have you looked at the sequence of events; decades of American intervention in the Middle East?

Edited by Q24, 22 October 2011 - 12:35 PM.

[Q24]

skookum, on 21 October 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

I always find conspiracies have very weak motives, the world trade centre has a very weak one.  Surely if the motive was to go to war they could have found something far simpler that knocking down some sky scrapers.  One of the first rules in any offensive is keep it simple.

Look at how much could have gone wrong or been discovered if this was the work of the CIA.

Was it only a war that was required?
Or a new great enemy; a replacement for the Cold War threat to drive American policy?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

So would you say the jury is out?

No, I didn't say anything about a jury either.

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

How can the evidence we are talking about be evaluated without understanding those presenting and using the evidence to their benefit?

Simple.  Understand that bin Laden's words speak for themselves and they speak for bin Laden.

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

All you are showing is that you have already made your mind up…

If bin Laden says he knew about the operation, he did it.
If bin Laden says he didn’t do it, he is a liar.
If bin Laden says someone else did it, he is a liar.

With this approach it really makes no difference what he did or didn’t say.

And then it continues…

If by "you have already made your mind up" you mean that based on the evidence I've looked at I've arrived at a conclusion, then yes.  Are you claiming that you have not also come to a conclusion based on the evidence you've reviewed?  Or are you just saying that my conclusion is wrong because it doesn't agree with yours?

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

When you know there is not the evidence of his direct involvement to support it.

To summarise:  the indication is that the words and evidence don’t matter to you.

There is not much anyone can say faced with faith based beliefs.

Accusing me of confirmation bias, ignorance, and blind devotion to faith does nothing for your position.  All it shows is that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you.

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

That is a loaded section.
I might ask if bin Laden hated the “United States” or rather America’s policies in the Middle East.
I might ask however you got to the conclusion that bin Laden advocated, “any kind of terrorist acts possible”.
I might explain how the fatwa reference to “civilians and military” is an acceptance of collateral damage in response to America’s own killing of civilians (it was not an order to target civilians just for the sake of it - if you view the later statement bin Laden made on the matter, this is understood).
I might point out that the direct orders of President Bush killed hundreds or thousands of times more people than bin Laden did.

I just love the way that you add to or subtract from bin Laden's statements in an effort to bolster your arguments.  He says nothing about collateral damage here.  He is very clear.

kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it

And later...

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Specifically which "later statement" are you referring to where he backpedals away from this declaration of intent?

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

But I’m more interested in your last sentence.  No one is trying to defend bin Laden.  What is defended is real justice.  Why do you defend liars, murderers and war?  And prefer to single out those who react to it?

If you understand the history of American and Israeli actions in the Middle East, then turn around and say, “oh why does everyone pick on poor old us.. It’s big bad bin Laden who is the root cause of the problem” that is a very one-sided view to hold.

Defending real justice?  Is that what you think you are doing here?  Interesting.

Exactly what liars, murderers and war do you think I am defending?  Exactly how am I singling out those who react to it?  Where exactly have I said “oh why does everyone pick on poor old us.. It’s big bad bin Laden who is the root cause of the problem”?

Q24, on 22 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

So have you looked at the sequence of events; decades of American intervention in the Middle East?

In a broad sense, yes I have.  Am I familiar with every tiny little detail?  No, I'm sure that I'm not, just as I'm confident that nor are you.

I've never said that bin Laden didn't have his justifications for what he has done.  I have no doubt that from his point of view he was completely justified in waging Jihad on the American infidels.  That doesn't mean I agree with him or his chosen methods of response, but I can sympathize with the fact that he comes from a region of the world that is rife with the kind of conflicts and ideologies that not only inspire terrorism but also breeds and trains such combatants.

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 22 October 2011 - 06:21 AM, said:

He couldn't have hated them that much if he hung out with the Bush family could he?

So the Bush family and the bin Laden family had long standing business ties.  From this you conclude that Osama bin Laden didn't hate Americans?  Perhaps he loved Americans and his declaration of Jihad calling all Muslims to kill Americans and their allies wherever they could was just a poorly worded love note?

[bee]

skookum, on 21 October 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

I always find conspiracies have very weak motives, the world trade centre has a very weak one.  Surely if the motive was to go to war they could have found something far simpler that knocking down some sky scrapers.  One of the first rules in any offensive is keep it simple.

Look at how much could have gone wrong or been discovered if this was the work of the CIA.

In regards to the Inside Job Conspiracy....I agree with you.


It would have been an insanely complicated plan.....pure madness.

And people didn't buy 9/11 being a reason for going to war with Iraq anyway!!!


(for the record I don't believe it was an Inside Job...but I do think there was a cover-up
regarding some of it...but that the cover-up was to do with damage limitation that happened on the day and for
public relations and political reasons)


I only dip into 9/11 now and again because it's very bad for one's mental health....

Dealing with the dedicated Inside Job 'theorists' is like trying to hold a slippery handful of worms.

No sooner is one point contained....another one comes sliding out....then another...and another...


Sorry if that sounds disrespectful to Inside Jobbers...but I believe that the I J conspiracy is itself a

conspiracy....coming from two main directions.



One - home-grown to distract from the cover-up.

Two - from armchair islamic jihadists to psychologically weaken 'the enemy'


and both of the above groups are catching genuine 'truthseekers' in the net of deception.


that's what I think anyway

[booNyzarC]

Why bee, I must say it is good to be on the same side of an argument with you.  Cheers.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

Why bee, I must say it is good to be on the same side of an argument with you.  Cheers.

Yes it does feel good... .... and you're welcome......