Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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, 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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”.

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…

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…

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…

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it.It is not unusual for people to confess to crimes they did not admit and Bin Landen was never a normal person to begin with. This speech did not prove he was responsible for 911. Indeed, the grand jury and FBI did not accuse him of being responsible for 911.

The final proof that he was not responsible for 911 was that there was no evidence in his personal videos and records taken by the SEAL team linking him at all to 911.

I give you the facts, but people have to believe he was reponsible even if the facts do not prove it. Maybe they can't face the fact that the two presidents lied about his connection to the attacks.

Edited by Mike 215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It seems there are those who tend to forget what I have said. After all, look what they posted as a response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The truth is not determined by personal “position” or “opinion” or “mind”; all terms you are using.

The truth is determined by hard evidence and yes, “exact words”.

I’m still not sure you understand the argument - I am not saying bin Laden is not tied to 9/11.

Here is what we can nail him on using the evidence, not opinion: -

  • Moral support of attacks on America
  • Meeting with the 9/11 hijackers
  • Foreknowledge of a hijacking plot and attack
  • Moral support of the 9/11 attack

bin Laden has effectively confessed to the above without doubt.

That is it.

Legally, that is all he could be charged with - an accessory to the crime.

What there is no evidence of, is that bin Laden masterminded, ordered, directed or funded 9/11.

The media headlines and talking heads are not evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence.

What bin Laden did not say, is not evidence.

There is reason the Bush administration failed to provide a case against bin Laden as promised.

There is reason the British government said their dossier was not intended to provide a legal case.

There is reason the FBI said they have no evidence bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.

There is reason the Commission report said the source of funding for the attack was of little significance.

They do not have any evidence bin Laden held ownership of the 9/11 attack.

There is no evidence it was -his- operation.

And this is where such a confession by bin Laden is also conspicuous by its absence.

Show that bin Laden gave a direct order.

Show that bin Laden had input into the operational planning.

Show that bin Laden put his own money into the attack.

I understand your interpretation and opinion, booNyzarC, I completely see where you are coming from.

Can you also see the view I have set out, based on the exact words of bin Laden and lack of hard evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is not determined by personal “position” or “opinion” or “mind”; all terms you are using.

The truth is determined by hard evidence and yes, “exact words”.

I have referred only to his exact words. His exact words convey the story behind his inspiration for the September 11th attacks and how he chose the primary targets for those attacks.

I’m still not sure you understand the argument - I am not saying bin Laden is not tied to 9/11.

You may be right that I didn't fully understand your position. I did have the impression that your position involved minimal ties to bin Laden, almost to the point that he was hardly involved. The transcript of his speech does not suggest this at all, and I'm glad that you've clarified the point.

Here is what we can nail him on using the evidence, not opinion: -

  • Moral support of attacks on America
  • Meeting with the 9/11 hijackers
  • Foreknowledge of a hijacking plot and attack
  • Moral support of the 9/11 attack

bin Laden has effectively confessed to the above without doubt.

On this I agree. He does indeed confess to these things as I've been trying to convey. It is good to have some common ground defined.

That is it.

Legally, that is all he could be charged with - an accessory to the crime.

What there is no evidence of, is that bin Laden masterminded, ordered, directed or funded 9/11.

The media headlines and talking heads are not evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence.

What bin Laden did not say, is not evidence.

There is reason the Bush administration failed to provide a case against bin Laden as promised.

There is reason the British government said their dossier was not intended to provide a legal case.

There is reason the FBI said they have no evidence bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.

There is reason the Commission report said the source of funding for the attack was of little significance.

They do not have any evidence bin Laden held ownership of the 9/11 attack.

There is no evidence it was -his- operation.

And this is where such a confession by bin Laden is also conspicuous by its absence.

Show that bin Laden gave a direct order.

Show that bin Laden had input into the operational planning.

Show that bin Laden put his own money into the attack.

It is around this area that we begin to diverge, but not fully. As you are aware, I am of the opinion that the speech does indeed convey a confession that the attack was his inspiration alone. It does not convey that he planned the attack alone, but it does show that he participated in the planning with Atta.

I am not speaking of legalities. I am not speaking of additional evidence or lack thereof. I am not speaking of specific funding, though bin Laden does refer to this ambiguously. I am not saying that he ordered the attacks.

I am only talking about what he does convey in the speech; and he does convey that the inspiration for the attacks and the targets came to him. He tells us this fact quite clearly. He doesn't say that Atta came to him with the plan, as you suggested in a prior post. He tells us in no uncertain terms that it was his inspiration.

I have little doubt that there were others involved with the fully detailed planning of the attacks, Atta included, but in this speech he takes credit for the idea. And I don't understand how you do not see this.

I will try one more time to explain why I hold this position regarding the speech.

He is very specific. Read the first sentence of this excerpt from the speech a couple of times. He is defining what he is about to tell us; "the story behind" the attacks and "the moments in which the decision was taken." And then read what follows and note that he doesn't mention Atta or anyone else when describing the source of inspiration. He refers only to himself in this regard.

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.

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
.

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.

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
.

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.

He doesn't say that Atta came to him with the idea. He claims ownership of the idea by describing specifically what inspired him and how he chose to target towers in America. Just as he promised to "truthfully" tell us in the first sentence of this excerpt.

The speech doesn't describe the details of how this inspiration of his evolved to the point of execution, but it does describe that it was his inspiration to begin with.

Both you and psychoticmike have made issue with the opening sentence of this excerpt, specifically about the words "the decision was taken" and suggested that it doesn't necessarily indicate that bin Laden took the decision. Yet everything he talks about immediately following this sentence involves him and nobody else. He doesn't refer to how those precursor events inspired Atta or anyone else, he refers to how he himself was inspired by those events. It was his idea.

As for involvement with Atta, this is what he does say later in the speech:

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

This does not indicate that Atta planned the whole thing, nor does it indicate that Atta came to him with the idea. This is a single point regarding the overall timing of the attacks and bin Laden credits Atta with that timing; which he (and apparently others) "agreed with." Atta may have fleshed out many of the other details, but this speech doesn't indicate it one way or the other. And it doesn't indicate that bin Laden planned the bulk of the other details either. However, to me this is an indication that bin Laden was indeed directly involved with the planning stages of the attacks along side Atta and probably others.

I understand your interpretation and opinion, booNyzarC, I completely see where you are coming from.

Can you also see the view I have set out, based on the exact words of bin Laden and lack of hard evidence?

I can see the view you've set out, and as I've detailed above I do think we've found some common ground.

Do you likewise see how bin Laden conveys that the idea for the attacks and the primary targets for the attacks came directly from his mind and were inspired by what he described as the tyranny of the oppressors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you likewise see how bin Laden conveys that the idea for the attacks and the primary targets for the attacks came directly from his mind and were inspired by what he described as the tyranny of the oppressors?

Of course.

Now please watch this very closely: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZdYoGUkqn0

Consider yourself Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.

Now please watch this very closely: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZdYoGUkqn0

Consider yourself Nick.

Cute.

Way to avoid the content of my argument. Again.

So tell me then. When bin Laden said this:

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.

Did he follow through with his promise to "talk about the story behind" the events and tell us "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken?"

Show me where in the speech he fulfilled this promise. Where exactly in the speech does he describe the story behind those events and exactly where in the speech does he indicate that the decision was taken. Precisely which section(s) of the speech cover these two promises and what do they indicate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cute.

Way to avoid the content of my argument. Again.

The video example is entirely equivalent to your argument - please watch it again until you understand - you are a perfect parallel to the prosecutor, Nick Rice, who makes the mistake of thinking he has a confession when he does not.

I didn’t think it was necessary for guidance notes, but here we go: -

Nick:
Did you murder Clarence Darby?

Clyde:
I wanted him dead, he killed my wife and child.

Nick:
Rupert Ames, did you murder him as well?

Clyde:
Rupert Ames deserved to die, they both deserved to die.

Nick:
So, you arranged both of those murders?

Clyde:
Yes, I planned it in my head over and over again, it took me a long time.

….

Nick:
We’re done here, we have your confession.

Clyde:
Oh you do?

Nick:
On tape. See, in our profession we consider that a ‘slam dunk’.

Clyde:
Oh really? I don’t think so. Let’s think back, what did I say? That I
wanted
to kill Clarence Darby. Yeah sure, what father wouldn’t? That both Darby and Ames
deserved
to die. I think most people would agree with that. That I
planned
it over and over again in my head. Yeah, who wouldn’t fantasise about that? None of these are an admission of guilt, Nick. You might want to check the tape.

Do you actually understand why, even though Clyde admitted to having those thoughts in his head, it is not a confession to the crime?

The bin Laden statement is the same - he might have wanted an attack on America, believed in the cause and even planned it in his head…

But it is not a confession he was the eventual mastermind or perpetrator.

So tell me then. When bin Laden said this:

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.

Did he follow through with his promise to "talk about the story behind" the events and tell us "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken?"

Show me where in the speech he fulfilled this promise. Where exactly in the speech does he describe the story behind those events and exactly where in the speech does he indicate that the decision was taken. Precisely which section(s) of the speech cover these two promises and what do they indicate?

You have already quoted it twice. We know which section we are dealing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video example is entirely equivalent to your argument - please watch it again until you understand - you are a perfect parallel to the prosecutor, Nick Rice, who makes the mistake of thinking he has a confession when he does not.

--

Do you actually understand why, even though Clyde admitted to having those thoughts in his head, it is not a confession to the crime?

Yes I understand the point you are attempting to make. I've understood this part of your argument from the beginning, and I understood your intended association with this clip simply by watching it. Do you think I'm an idiot or something?

The bin Laden statement is the same - he might have wanted an attack on America, believed in the cause and even planned it in his head…

But it is not a confession he was the eventual mastermind or perpetrator.

The bin Laden statement is not the same. He doesn't say that he simply wanted an attack on America. He says that he is going to tell us, truthfully, about the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken.

He isn't coyly responding to questions in an interrogation. He is delivering a deliberate and carefully worded speech intended to tell the American people how and why he was inspired to attack the United States.

This isn't even remotely close to being the same.

You have already quoted it twice. We know which section we are dealing with.

So you agree that he is referring to himself, his inspiration, and his strong resolve when he describes the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bin Laden statement is not the same. He doesn't say that he simply wanted an attack on America. He says that he is going to tell us, truthfully, about the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken.

He isn't coyly responding to questions in an interrogation. He is delivering a deliberate and carefully worded speech intended to tell the American people how and why he was inspired to attack the United States.

This isn't even remotely close to being the same.

So you agree that he is referring to himself, his inspiration, and his strong resolve when he describes the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken?

It is exactly the same - wanting or being inspired is not doing.

The only apparent decision bin Laden made in his mind is that “we should” punish America by destroying towers, not that “I would” punish America by destroying towers. He does not say the decision that was made to enact 9/11 was his personally at all. He is using his experience to give an example of the causes and events that he believes led to the decision for 9/11. It is a rebuttal to the Bush lie that it was because terrorists, “hate our freedoms”. He did not actually make a decision in 1982 that 19 years later he would order planes to be flown into the twin towers. He is saying there are reasons for what “we” did, with “we” being the Muslim people bin Laden saw himself as representative of; he clearly had sympathy with the alleged hijackers.

As you think this was a confession to being the mastermind, director, funder, etc… can you explain why bin Laden twice denied responsibility for the attack and then, you think, did a sudden switcheroo in 2004? Can you explain why bin Laden twice credited Atta as commander of the attack? Can you explain why in the 2001 videotape, where bin Laden is having a discussion never intended to be viewed by the public, does he say he didn’t know that the attack had taken place? How can the mastermind, director and funder not know when his own attack has taken place? I’d say, it’s almost like he wasn’t in control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is exactly the same - wanting or being inspired is not doing.

To accept this comparison you must ignore that inconvenient leading sentence:

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.

He tells us right here that what he is about to describe is the background which led to the decision to attack America. Plain and simple.

Show me where in the speech he described the decision to attack America in terms not related to himself.

The only apparent decision bin Laden made in his mind is that “we should” punish America by destroying towers, not that “I would” punish America by destroying towers. He does not say the decision that was made to enact 9/11 was his personally at all. He is using his experience to give an example of the causes and events that he believes led to the decision for 9/11. It is a rebuttal to the Bush lie that it was because terrorists, “hate our freedoms”. He did not actually make a decision in 1982 that 19 years later he would order planes to be flown into the twin towers. He is saying there are reasons for what “we” did, with “we” being the Muslim people bin Laden saw himself as representative of; he clearly had sympathy with the alleged hijackers.

We may not be so far off in interpretation here Q24. All I'm essentially saying is that he tells us it was his idea to attack America and destroy towers.

I'm not saying that he had the specific plan to use planes 19 years before the event. Clearly he had many ideas when the decision was taken. And he is describing the reasons that he had such a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

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
.

As you think this was a confession to being the mastermind, director, funder, etc… can you explain why bin Laden twice denied responsibility for the attack and then, you think, did a sudden switcheroo in 2004? Can you explain why bin Laden twice credited Atta as commander of the attack? Can you explain why in the 2001 videotape, where bin Laden is having a discussion never intended to be viewed by the public, does he say he didn’t know that the attack had taken place? How can the mastermind, director and funder not know when his own attack has taken place? I’d say, it’s almost like he wasn’t in control.

As to why he might have denied it initially, I can only guess that it may have been to avoid extradition perhaps? He was in one of the last places on earth that would apparently take him after all. He didn't exactly have many other places to hide, and as I understand it Pakistan was threatening to demand he be turned over. Faced with such options, what do you think he would do? Clearly he wasn't interested in martyrdom.

Can you show me the 2001 video and/or transcript where he says "he didn't know that the attack had taken place?"

Is this the one you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why President Obama ordered those SEALs to put a bullet in this head?

To avoid the ebmarrassment of a Jury trial. The president had no choice because he already said he was responsible for 911. To bring him back alive and put him on public trial would be bad news for both Bush and Obama. There is no real evidence he was responsible and even all his records and videos seized by the SEALs did not find such evidence.

What is even worse about a jury trial is that all those conspiracy theories about the govenment role in the attacks will be allowed. With a large number of Americans already believing they were lied to by the government, it would take only one juror to have a mistrial. Imagine if the defense lawyers called both Obama and Bush to be questioned? It would be the trial of the century.

But one bullet in his head solved all of these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enemy combatants are subject to military tribunals. He wouldn't have had a jury trial anyway. The slightest bit of research would have told you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show me the 2001 video and/or transcript where he says "he didn't know that the attack had taken place?"

Is this the one you are talking about?

Yes, that’s the one.

But I’ve not seen this particular translation.

I’ll explain where the section is in the video above, and then show what I’ve seen before.

Ok, so we know the men in the video are discussing premonitions they claim to have had (talking crap basically). Sulayman Abu Guaith is describing one of these visions about witnessing news footage of the 9/11 attack on TV.

He says to bin Laden: -

I saw that I was sitting with the Sheikh in the room, then I left from one room to another, where there was a TV set. All of a sudden, the TV broadcast a huge event. The scene was of an Egyptian family. Do you know where there is a game and the team wins and people’s emotions are broadcast on TV screens…

An Egyptian family is sitting - the father, the mother and the children - the older son he is overjoyed… overjoyed. A caption was shown on the TV, stating, “In revenge for the children of al-Aqsa. Usama Bin Laden executes strikes against the Americans.”

I said to the Sheikh [bin Laden] - there were, I think, about fifty or sixty people. He said to me, “That’s okay. As long as I…

Sulayman Abu Guaith is implying that bin Laden was responsible for the strike.

bin Laden immediately replies: -

I swear that he did not know about the -

he knew there were operations…

Muhammad ‘Ata, may God have mercy on him, was responsible for the Egyptian family…

bin Laden is saying he did not know about the strike, only that there was some ongoing operation (the rest of the video makes this further apparent), and then credits Mohammed Atta with the attack, again.

It is perhaps not quite clear from the above translation.

Here is the original translation of the section: -

Sulayman ((Abu Guaith)): I was sitting with the Shaykh in a room, then I left to go to another room where there was a TV set. The TV broadcasted the big event. The scene was showing an Egyptian family sitting in their living room, they exploded with joy. Do you know when there is a soccer game and your team wins, it was the same expression of joy. There was a subtitle that read: “In revenge for the children of Al Aqsa’, Usama Bin Ladin executes an operation against America.” So I went back to the Shaykh (
meaning UBL
) who was sitting in a room with 50 to 60 people. I tried to tell him about what I saw, but he made gesture with his hands, meaning: “I know, I know…”

UBL: He did not know about the operation. Not everybody knew (...inaudible...).

Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qa’ida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group.

Here it is even more clear that Sulayman Abu Guaith is implying bin Laden knew of the attack beforehand, and bin Laden then responds that he, “did not know about the operation.”

It is interesting that later bin Laden also says, “The brothers” did not know of the specific attack to take place either. The brothers bin Laden is referring to are the alleged hijackers Salem and Nawaf Al Hazmi (the latter who CIA Alec Station were all over prior 9/11 but took deliberate action to prevent the FBI going after him). Of all the hijackers, these brothers are two of the four we could call Al Qaeda veterans. These are the men who, if any, bin Laden would have ‘donated’ to a martyrdom operation. And bin Laden is saying they didn’t know about the attack; they didn’t even know half of the other hijackers. The claim is, that some of the hijackers only met at the airport on 9/11. Well that’s bizarre - that’s not how to run a successful operation.

It is clear to me that bin Laden and his men knew relatively little but got taken for a ride by Atta’s group, the Hamburg Cell, who had approached them in 1999.

Have you looked into the background of that group?

They were the brains, they were the pilots, they were the organisers, the leaders, they spoke fluent English, they were educated in and accustomed to the West, one was related to an Israeli informant, they liked girls and alcohol, they weren’t real Jihadists!

They were an intelligence cell that exploited the situation - 9/11 was their operation and they presented it to bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can possibly reach that interpretation from the transcript.

I take it that you consider this video to be genuine though? And the translation you linked to, is that something you also consider to be genuine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can possibly reach that interpretation from the transcript.

It’s very straightforward…

Abu Guaith says bin Laden knew about the attack.

Bin Laden responds that no he did not.

I take it that you consider this video to be genuine though? And the translation you linked to, is that something you also consider to be genuine?

Yes, it’s real footage of bin Laden, though circumstances of the filming and sourcing of the videotape are… unusual, to say the least. The indication is that an insider filmed the discussion and passed it directly to U.S. sources. I did say the intelligence services were all over bin Laden prior 9/11.

The translation is apparently genuine in areas and not in others…

Independent Arabic translators found certain White House subtitles to be misleading: -

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states, "I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy.", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."

At another point, the White House translation reads: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami: "'Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up: "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

The story is a fabrication of the Bush administration with unwitting support from the media machine - they don’t have any hard evidence bin Laden was the mastermind and director of 9/11, because none actually exists. They knew if it was repeated enough, with sufficient conviction, and a claim to have evidence, people would believe it - perception is everything. It is no different to the lie they would go on to tell about (non-existent) WMDs in Iraq. They are master propagandists, that’s it, and it works.

Bush knew it: “See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

Hitler knew it: “All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

As The Jewish Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, once attended lecture courses of a man whose roots went back to the Nazi education system and had an interest in the political philosophies of a Nazi jurist... perhaps the above correlation is not so surprising. And the Bush administration was full of those with a similar mindset.

booNyzarC, just diverging for a moment, what is your take on the Iraq WMD intelligence? Do you believe it was a genuine error of judgement; innocent but faulty intelligence? Or do you see that episode as a deliberate deception to meet the ends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.