9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[booNyzarC]

Its very straightforward…

Abu Guaith says bin Laden knew about the attack.

Bin Laden responds that no he did not.

I found it very straightforward as well, but with a different interpretation. Abu Guaith is recounting the story. Throughout, bin Laden is looking at him until near the end. When he said "He did not know about the operation." he wasn't talking about himself, nor was he even talking to Abu Guaith. He seemed to be talking to the person sitting to his left (identified in the transcript as "Shaykh"), clarifying that Abu Guaith didn't know about the operation.

[edit]bin Laden even gestures toward Guaith with his right hand as he is speaking the words, pointing his thumb at him. And Guaith confirms with "That's true."[/edit]

Later in the transcript it is quite obvious that bin Laden knew about the operation. Your interpretation of this brief part of the whole does not coincide with the rest of the tape at all. Besides, he makes the reference in the third person. I mean really, why do you think he would make the reference in the third person if he was talking about himself?

Edited October 17, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Mike 215]

Obama could not allow him to be brought back to the US for a trial, even if it is a military one. He would be allowed a defense attorney who has the right to call witnesses. Imagine if his attorney call President Bush or the head of the FBI or the CIA? It is true that in a military trial the defendant has less rights then a civilian trial, but Obama could not risk that it would turn into a circus.

[frenat]

Obama could not allow him to be brought back to the US for a trial, even if it is a military one. He would be allowed a defense attorney who has the right to call witnesses. Imagine if his attorney call President Bush or the head of the FBI or the CIA? It is true that in a military trial the defendant has less rights then a civilian trial, but Obama could not risk that it would turn into a circus.

You have no idea how a military tribunal is run do you? Or WHERE it would have happened?

[booNyzarC]

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?

I don't know what it was exactly. It could have been a mixture of the above choices and others.

Whatever it was, I agreed with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There are some others I think the world would be better off without too.

[Q24]

I found it very straightforward as well, but with a different interpretation. Abu Guaith is recounting the story. Throughout, bin Laden is looking at him until near the end. When he said "He did not know about the operation." he wasn't talking about himself, nor was he even talking to Abu Guaith. He seemed to be talking to the person sitting to his left (identified in the transcript as "Shaykh"), clarifying that Abu Guaith didn't know about the operation.

[edit]bin Laden even gestures toward Guaith with his right hand as he is speaking the words, pointing his thumb at him. And Guaith confirms with "That's true."[/edit]

Later in the transcript it is quite obvious that bin Laden knew about the operation. Your interpretation of this brief part of the whole does not coincide with the rest of the tape at all. Besides, he makes the reference in the third person. I mean really, why do you think he would make the reference in the third person if he was talking about himself?

Abu Guaith had referred to bin Laden in the third person immediately before. It is natural to respond in kind. If talking in a group, and I said directly to you, “booNyzarC lives at the South Pole”, you might respond, “he does not live at the South Pole”. I wouldn’t think you were referring to anyone else in the group but yourself.

Whilst the above is quite reasonable, I accept the videotape we are discussing is slightly different because they are all discussing the same issue. Or in the example, our group would all be talking about living in the South Pole. This gives the possibility that your interpretation could be correct.

Perhaps the deciding factor is the reference bin Laden makes to Atta. The fact bin Laden is placing responsibility with Atta for the attack and bringing joy to the Egytian family, in doing so distancing his personal contribution to the operation, this sits better with his initial comment being a denial of complete and precise foreknowledge.

I’m sure this interpretation coincides just fine with the rest of the videotape. I’d be interested to hear where you think it does not.

I don't know what it was exactly. It could have been a mixture of the above choices and others.

I guess that’s what I expected. I had a hope you might have acknowledged the WMD intelligence was a deception. I thought the source of that intelligence - a long-term Neocon associate and CIA asset - made it obvious. It would be great to get into the whole Iraq issue but it’d be getting too far off topic…

Ok, let’s go back further for a moment. What do you think of the Team B assessment of the Soviet threat in the Cold War era? Do you think Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, were telling the truth even back in the 70s?

I’m just trying to show you these neoconservative politicians are serial liars; they have a history of it - they are completely prepared to hype a threat and make outright fabrications to support an aggressive American military and foreign policy. It’s the only way they believe (rightly or wrongly) that America can stay at the top.

[booNyzarC]

Abu Guaith had referred to bin Laden in the third person immediately before. It is natural to respond in kind. If talking in a group, and I said directly to you, “booNyzarC lives at the South Pole”, you might respond, “he does not live at the South Pole”. I wouldn’t think you were referring to anyone else in the group but yourself.

Whilst the above is quite reasonable, I accept the videotape we are discussing is slightly different because they are all discussing the same issue. Or in the example, our group would all be talking about living in the South Pole. This gives the possibility that your interpretation could be correct.

Perhaps the deciding factor is the reference bin Laden makes to Atta. The fact bin Laden is placing responsibility with Atta for the attack and bringing joy to the Egytian family, in doing so distancing his personal contribution to the operation, this sits better with his initial comment being a denial of complete and precise foreknowledge.

I’m sure this interpretation coincides just fine with the rest of the videotape. I’d be interested to hear where you think it does not.

Although I'm somewhat heartened by your concession that it is possible that my interpretation could be correct, I honestly don't think there is much of any other way to interpret it at all.

The core reasons that I view my interpretation as correct are summarized with the following.

• bin Laden looks at the unidentified Shaykh sitting to his left when he makes the statement.
  
• bin Laden gestures toward Abu Guaith with his right hand when he makes the statement.
  
• Abu Guaith immediately confirms bin Laden's statement by saying "That's true."
  
• bin Laden's statement is made in the third person.
  
• bin Laden makes other statements in the tape which confirm without any doubt that he did know about the operation.
  

Most of those bullet points speak for themselves, so I'll focus a little on clarifying the last bullet point.

Consider these excerpts from the transcript. I've modified the portions of these excerpts so that they comply with the protests you mentioned in post 376 and hi-light those changes with blue colored text. I don't know if Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini's version is any more or less accurate than the one provided by George Michael and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, but I don't want to quibble over those details.

UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated

in advance

the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

One could attempt to argue that this excerpt is an illustration of the thought process that bin Laden and the people he was with at the time of the attacks went through, but that argument isn't sound from my point of view. Consider that he makes these statements in apparent response to the praise from the unidentified Shaykh.

Shaykh: Hundreds of people used to doubt you and few only would follow you until this huge event happened. Now hundreds of people are coming out to join you.

Consider also that he refers to making calculations about how many casualties there would be, and how many floors would be hit. And he finishes by indicating "all that we had hoped for" would be a "collapse [of] the area where the plane hit and the floors above."

To me this is an indication of foreknowledge. It appears that he knew it was coming and that he and others had calculated expectations for what would happen as a result of the attacks.

Admittedly, this is not the strongest indication of foreknowledge, so I'm not overly concerned if you disagree with this interpretation, but hopefully the points are at least worthy of consideration. When combined with the rest I believe that we have an overwhelming case that at the very least this video proves beyond a reasonable doubt that bin Laden most definitely knew of the impending attacks before they took place.

UBL: We were at (...inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the

previous

Thursday that

the event would take place that day

(...Inaudible...)

. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Even with the blue portions edited out, we see bin Laden mentioning that "We had notification since Thursday" as he is describing the conditions under which he was listening to the radio for news of the attacks. What other reason would he mention anything about "notification" here other than related to the attacks?

Again, not the strongest of evidence of foreknowledge after being denuded, but still worthy of consideration.

UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and

we asked each of them to go to America

they were required to go

but they didn’t know anything about the operation, not even one letter

(...Inaudible...).

But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

How do you interpret his usage of "we" in the last sentence? Is this a reference to Muslims as a whole as you've suggested in other points? To me, this is a reference to the organizers of the attacks and by using the word "we" he is including himself as one of those organizers.

Not the most damning of points, but also worthy of consideration.

UBL: We were at a camp of one of the brother’s guards in Qandahar. This brother belonged to the majority of the group. He came close and told me that he saw, in a dream, a tall building in America, and in the same dream he saw Mukhtar teaching them how to play karate. At that point, I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject. I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell anybody, because people will be upset with him.

Here we have, in my opinion, a huge confirmation of foreknowledge. He is relating a story about yet another dream which was supposedly some kind of precognition of the attacks. If he didn't know about the upcoming attacks, why on earth would he respond to the recounting of the dream with this? I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject.

I don't see any other explanation for this. Clearly he knew and didn't want to risk letting the cat out of the bag. Or do you have a plausible alternate interpretation?

UBL: They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient.

And then finally, as he was gaging the reactions of people around him who were "overjoyed" by the first plane impact he tells them to "be patient." Is this not an indication that he anticipates more to come? To me it is as though he is saying "You liked that? Well just wait until you see what happens next." What else could it possibly indicate?

Now to address the arguments you've made in an effort to support your interpretation.

First, the use of the third person. Even though it is extremely rare to find people who do this, some people do actually refer to themselves in the third person. In my experience, people who do this do it rather consistently. So I have a couple of questions for you regarding this.

1. 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? He certainly didn't employ this usage of language in the 2004 speech we were discussing prior to this video and transcript.
   
2. How do you reconcile the other points which seem to clearly indicate that he was referring to Abu Guaith with the statement? Namely, that he was looking at the unidentified Shaykh, gesturing to Guaith, Guaith confirms the statement immediately with "That's true," and other statements in the video seem to conclusively show that bin Laden did indeed know about the attacks before they took place?
   

Second, the reference bin Laden makes to Atta. Could this just be bin Laden's way of honoring Atta's martyrdom in the attack? The reference made by Guaith to the Egyptian family was about how they were full of joy. This could easily be bin Laden attempting to humbly defer the honor of that bestowed joy to the actions and sacrifice of Atta. That portion of the transcript is broken with an (...Inaudible...) section, so it is hard to say one way or the other what the full context was, but the unidentified Shaykh seems to carry forward with this same line of thinking, speaking of Atta's martyr status in response to bin Laden.

Considering it all in full context, I really don't see how the interpretation I've provided can be incorrect. That being said, I know we've failed to reach agreement about other things before, so I'm curious to see if this will just be another one of those points.

[Q24]

First, the use of the third person. Even though it is extremely rare to find people who do this, some people do actually refer to themselves in the third person. In my experience, people who do this do it rather consistently. So I have a couple of questions for you regarding this.

1. 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? He certainly didn't employ this usage of language in the 2004 speech we were discussing prior to this video and transcript.
   
2. How do you reconcile the other points which seem to clearly indicate that he was referring to Abu Guaith with the statement? Namely, that he was looking at the unidentified Shaykh, gesturing to Guaith, Guaith confirms the statement immediately with "That's true," and other statements in the video seem to conclusively show that bin Laden did indeed know about the attacks before they took place?
   

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.

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.

Of the other points you raise…

The direction bin Laden is looking and the pointing gesture he makes are not deal-breakers either way. It is clear that bin Laden is responding specifically to what Abu Guaith has said. The pointing gesture could be intended to mean, ‘about what he just said’ rather than to mean, ‘he, Abu Guaith’.

The Abu Guaith comment - “That’s true” - it is not possible to know what he is referring to. In the video you provided, it would appear a response to the immediate prior bin Laden statement, “everybody knew [there were operations]”. In the U.S. transcript, it is a response to, “Not everybody knew [there were operations]”. Either way, it does not settle what bin Laden initially meant by, “I swear that he did not know about the…” or “He did not know about the operation.” Again, there is a distinction between specific foreknowledge of the strike and the more general foreknowledge that an operation was to imminently take place.

The other points you believe indicate foreknowledge of bin Laden I will address further below.

Second, the reference bin Laden makes to Atta. Could this just be bin Laden's way of honoring Atta's martyrdom in the attack? The reference made by Guaith to the Egyptian family was about how they were full of joy. This could easily be bin Laden attempting to humbly defer the honor of that bestowed joy to the actions and sacrifice of Atta. That portion of the transcript is broken with an (...Inaudible...) section, so it is hard to say one way or the other what the full context was, but the unidentified Shaykh seems to carry forward with this same line of thinking, speaking of Atta's martyr status in response to bin Laden.

Yes I agree - as mentioned, bin Laden clearly had sympathy with the cause of the alleged hijackers that had come to him. This does not refute the fact that by repeatedly giving praise to Atta for the operation, it serves to distance the personal contribution of bin Laden to the attack.

So onto those other points…

In your own words: -

One could attempt to argue that this excerpt is an illustration of the thought process that bin Laden and the people he was with at the time of the attacks went through…

Admittedly, this is not the strongest indication of foreknowledge…

Again, not the strongest of evidence of foreknowledge after being denuded…

Not the most damning of points, but also worthy of consideration.

Yes, I think you concluded those points well enough.

UBL: We were at a camp of one of the brother’s guards in Qandahar. This brother belonged to the majority of the group. He came close and told me that he saw, in a dream, a tall building in America, and in the same dream he saw Mukhtar teaching them how to play karate. At that point, I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject. I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell anybody, because people will be upset with him.

Here we have, in my opinion, a huge confirmation of foreknowledge. He is relating a story about yet another dream which was supposedly some kind of precognition of the attacks. If he didn't know about the upcoming attacks, why on earth would he respond to the recounting of the dream with this? I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject.

I don't see any other explanation for this. Clearly he knew and didn't want to risk letting the cat out of the bag. Or do you have a plausible alternate interpretation?

The question is: foreknowledge of what, exactly? I have said before that bin Laden knew an operation was coming. But what was his participation in the operational planning? Did bin Laden know the specific time of the attack? Did he know which flights were to be hijacked? Did he even know all of the targets, i.e. that the Pentagon was included and that of Flight 93? Did he give any direct order that was followed?

These are the questions that need to be answered if bin Laden is to be charged as anything more than an accessory to the crime.

I mean let’s face it, bin Laden tuned into his radio pretty late didn’t he. After waiting to finish whatever more important work he had to do, bin Laden tuned in his radio at 9 a.m. New York time. Well heck, he’s been supposedly planning this thing for near two decades, it’s his biggest operation ever… and he wasn’t even tuned-in for any news of the hijackings or the first impact… he isn’t on the edge of his seat to hear if his personally selected team of Jihadists has screwed up or been intercepted by the USAF?

This is suggestion bin Laden did not know the specifics.

And this is what I interpret bin Laden meant in response to the third person reference of Abu Guaith - until he heard it on the radio, i.e. until he was told of the attack, he did not know it had taken place.

UBL: They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient.

And then finally, as he was gaging the reactions of people around him who were "overjoyed" by the first plane impact he tells them to "be patient." Is this not an indication that he anticipates more to come? To me it is as though he is saying "You liked that? Well just wait until you see what happens next." What else could it possibly indicate?

See above - bin Laden was aware of certain aspects of the operation that had been presented to him.

So were a lot of people.

Considering it all in full context, I really don't see how the interpretation I've provided can be incorrect. That being said, I know we've failed to reach agreement about other things before, so I'm curious to see if this will just be another one of those points.

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.

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 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.

[Q24]

I noticed I have not yet reproduced the denials of bin Laden: -

• “Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest.”
  ~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01
  
• I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle.
  ~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01
  

These statements obviously fit well with all that I am saying (with the acceptance bin Laden is referring to “comprehensive” knowledge above).

It is notable, that although the U.S. obtained the 2001 videotape in early November, it was not released to the public until mid-December, three days before bin Laden was transferred to Pakistan. It appears authorities were waiting to be sure bin Laden was under control and out of the way, i.e. not in a position to dispute the allegations.

[Mike 215]

For those of you who believe Obama's lie that he was responsible for 911, I would like you to answer the following question:

1. Why did the grand jury refuse to indict him for 911?

2. Why did the FBI refuse to list the 911 attacks on his wanted poster?

3. Why wasn't there any evidence found in his personal records and videos showing he was responsible?

[Czero 101]

Mike, you DO know the difference between OBama and OSama, don't you...?

Btw, this is a serious question because, based on almost all of your other posts, I have reason to believe that you don't know the difference.

Cz

Edited to add...

The fact that "BS" is emphasized in reply to one of Mike's posts is purely coincidental..... honest....

Edited October 20, 2011 by Czero 101

[Wandering]

Mike, you DO know the difference between OBama and OSama, don't you...?

Btw, this is a serious question because, based on almost all of your other posts, I have reason to believe that you don't know the difference.

I think he meant ' Obamas lie that he(Osama) was responsible...

[Toadie]

Bush blew up 9/11

[Czero 101]

I think he meant ' Obamas lie that he(Osama) was responsible...

Ah...

Yeah, you're probably right...

Oh well...

Cz

[Scott G]

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. 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.

I agree. And from what I remember, there are many who don't believe that it was Usama at all. They comment on the issue of his nose being too fat for Usama, for one. This is also leant credibility by the fact that even the guy alleged to be Usama refers to him in the third person.

[Q24]

I agree. And from what I remember, there are many who don't believe that it was Usama at all. They comment on the issue of his nose being too fat for Usama, for one. This is also leant credibility by the fact that even the guy alleged to be Usama refers to him in the third person.

Though bin Laden is known to have referred to himself in third person previously.

It is true that many believe the videotape is a fake.

But…

It looks like bin Laden to me.

Is his nose irreconcilably fat compared to known images?

And if it were faked, why not include a confession to being the mastermind and director? And why do it in a group of known individuals who would also have to either be actors, complicit or duped by the fake? Actually I’m taking that one back, I do believe some in that room may have been out to implicate bin Laden. And why film it on some wobbly handheld video recorder? And why the circumstance of sitting having a chit-chat, rather than giving it some credibility as a scripted bin Laden speech passed through Al Jazeera?

I’d say the 2001 video appears to have all the hallmarks of a genuine covert recording… I don’t think bin Laden knows he’s on film.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Q24

[booNyzarC]

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.

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.

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

I agree that the 2001 video is a unique circumstance.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

1. He isn't having a conversation in this example. As you've stated, this was from a statement intended for public consumption.
   
2. 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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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:

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

?

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.

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]

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."

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.

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

Many things are possible.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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?

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…

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.

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 October 22, 2011 by Q24

[Q24]

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?