U.S. reviews 9/11 documents for possible release

[WinterHold]

Look left and right: the CIA always recruit filths that backfire; for example we have Bin Laden, then we have Qasim Sulaimani who got snuffed early after killing masses of poor Syrian civilians; the CIA always knew the coordinates of its ex-agents !

It wasn't Trump who snuffed the bastard; but it was the same institution that kept them safe during their past missions !

---

Why I'm doing this?
well, so many were killed for nothing..so many poor civilians and families were destroyed because Trump the zionist or the MIB of the Deep State wanted to play a political game.

The trigger is not important. But the head is always the same:

[Fake Messiah]

Look left and right: the CIA always recruit filths that backfire; for example we have Bin Laden,

Bin Laden had no relationship with the CIA

Common among conspiracy theorists is the notion that bin Laden was a CIA creation and that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were blowback from an agency operation gone awry.

In fact, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA had no dealings with “Afghan Arabs” such as bin Laden and had few direct dealings with any of the Afghan mujaheddin. Instead, all U.S. aid to Afghanistan was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI. Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, the ISI officer who coordinated Pakistani efforts during the war, explained in “The Bear Trap,” his 1992 book: “No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujaheddin.”

Since 9/11, al-Qaeda insiders have responded in writing to assertions that they had some kind of relationship with the CIA. Bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in his autobiographical “Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet,” wrote, “The truth that everyone should learn is that the United States did not give one penny in aid to the [Arab] mujaheddin.” Similarly, Abu Musab al-Suri, long an associate of bin Laden’s, explained in his history of the jihadist movement, “The Call to Global Islamic Resistance”: “It is a big lie that the Afghan Arabs were formed with the backing of the CIA.”

There are very few things that al-Qaeda and the CIA agree upon — except that they have never had any relationship.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

[WinterHold]

Now that the OP has been redacted, I don't remember what this thread was supposed to be about.  Now it just appears to be about WinterHold complaining about US military actions.  Is that it?

There are a few posts that quoted the OP in full, you can find it there. I thought seriously about deleting those as well, but opted not to do so, for the very reason you mention - people may wish to refer back to Winter’s original statement when replying.

Essentially, he was extolling the virtues and actions of Al Qaeda.

Boru

Smart; editing your post after days so I never catch you doing it   
Essentially you deleted the post which as exposing what America is >< btw you're helping my cause more more by your actions; so grow up please.

Let's repeat it:

Why is 9/11 terrorism, while the nukes against Japan arent ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are a few posts that quoted the OP in full, you can find it there. I thought seriously about deleting those as well, but opted not to do so, for the very reason you mention - people may wish to refer back to Winter’s original statement when replying.

Essentially, he was extolling the virtues and actions of Al Qaeda.

Boru

Smart; editing your post after days so I never catch you doing it   
Essentially you deleted the post which as exposing what America is >< btw you're helping my cause more more by your actions; so grow up please.

Let's repeat it:

Why is 9/11 terrorism, while the nukes against Japan arent ?

That post was not edited. If it had been, there would be a little notice reading ‘This Post was last modified’, etc.

For purposes of this forum (and the deletion of your OP), the 9-11 attacks were carried out by a known terrorist group, while the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were carried out by a legitimate nation state. You could, I suppose, make the case that the nuclear attacks constitute a war crime. But terrorism? Nah.

Boru

[Spongebob]

There are a few posts that quoted the OP in full, you can find it there. I thought seriously about deleting those as well, but opted not to do so, for the very reason you mention - people may wish to refer back to Winter’s original statement when replying.

Essentially, he was extolling the virtues and actions of Al Qaeda.

Boru

Smart; editing your post after days so I never catch you doing it   
Essentially you deleted the post which as exposing what America is >< btw you're helping my cause more more by your actions; so grow up please.

Let's repeat it:

Why is 9/11 terrorism, while the nukes against Japan arent ?

I think you missed that your post was redacted because it glorified terrorist organizations.

Are you really looking for a history lesson or just being obtuse?  If I punched you in the face and you punched me back, are you the aggressor?

[Deesse23]

There are a few posts that quoted the OP in full, you can find it there. I thought seriously about deleting those as well, but opted not to do so, for the very reason you mention - people may wish to refer back to Winter’s original statement when replying.

Essentially, he was extolling the virtues and actions of Al Qaeda.

Boru

Smart; editing your post after days so I never catch you doing it   
Essentially you deleted the post which as exposing what America is >< btw you're helping my cause more more by your actions; so grow up please.

Let's repeat it:

Why is 9/11 terrorism, while the nukes against Japan arent ?

I am asking, and i am very, very serious: Are you really that ignorant? Do you want to learn something for a change? Then please continue to read. If not, please go just right to my last sentence.

Al Quaeda was an organisation. Japan was a state. States can be at war with each other, organisations can not (according to international law, customs and treaties). Thats the crucial difference. Thats why the US was never at war with Al Quaeda, but with Japan.*

Accordingly, when an organisation, like Al Quaeda, tries to "achieve political goals by causing terror", its terrorism, its a terrorist organisation, by definition. What the US did was part of a military strategy to win a war. While the nukes can be viewed as terrorism in a colloquial sense, they were a military action with a military goal, to make Japan surrender.

Of course, according to international "law" (The Hague convention) attacks on any non-military installations were condemned, so about anything everyone ever did since WWI could be considered terror(ism) and in violation to customs.

Now one may argue according to Clausewitz (and i am sure you will try to do, without having second thoughts about the ultimate consequence of this proposition) that "war is the continuation of politics with alternative means". In this case any military action in any war ever was terrorism and the nukes were .....while having had cost more lifes in a single action than ever before..." just another terrorist attack on someones civilian population. Still, the issue remains open, that Al Quaeda was an organisation, not a state, and we dont grant organisations the same rights (on the international stage) as states. Thats the point at which your equivocation will always fail.

*actually Japan declared war on the US and attacked first, but thats rather irrelevant for the core of the issue

...and now, without ever reading what i just wrote, without absorbing, processing and understanding new information, please go on with your rants about "the evil west", how suppressed poor muslims are and how you have the one and only correct version of Islam.  

[Spongebob]

Al Quaeda was an organisation. Japan was a state. States can be at war with each other, organisations can not (according to international law, customs and treaties). Thats the crucial difference. Thats why the US was never at war with Al Quaeda, but with Japan.*

Accordingly, when an organisation, like Al Quaeda, tries to "achieve political goals by causing terror", its terrorism, its a terrorist organisation, by definition. What the US did was part of a military strategy to win a war. While the nukes can be viewed as terrorism in a colloquial sense, they were a military action with a military goal, to make Japan surrender.

Of course, according to international "law" (The Hague convention) attacks on any non-military installations were condemned, so about anything everyone ever did since WWI could be considered terror(ism) and in violation to customs.

Now one may argue according to Clausewitz (and i am sure you will try to do, without having second thoughts about the ultimate consequence of this proposition) that "war is the continuation of politics with alternative means". In this case any military action in any war ever was terrorism and the nukes were .....while having had cost more lifes in a single action than ever before..." just another terrorist attack on someones civilian population. Still, the issue remains open, that Al Quaeda was an organisation, not a state, and we dont grant organisations the same rights (on the international stage) as states. Thats the point at which your equivocation will always fail.

*actually Japan declared war on the US and attacked first, but thats rather irrelevant for the core of the issue

...and now, without ever reading what i just wrote, without absorbing, processing and understanding new information, please go on with your rants about "the evil west", how suppressed poor muslims are and how you have the one and only correct version of Islam.  

I think this comparison of a state vs an organization is putting too fine a point to it.  That hardly matters.  The critical difference between Japan and Al Queda is that Japan declared war and destroyed the US navy in Hawaii.  Once you're engaged in all out war with another country, the point is to end the war.  The US did the natural thing, the thing any nation would do, and took the war to Japan, and the US was winning the war with conventional weapons.  At the point where a country is getting its clock cleaned, its leaders have to make the wise decision to surrender and spare the lives of its people.  Japan made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and it's people worshiped their emperor.  So there were three alternatives, 1) the US could have said that's enough and pulled out of the war, leaving Japan's government intact and with a grudge, making it likely they would do it again in the future, 2) continue the conventional war and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans, or 3) use the nukes and scare the shit out of Japan and end the war.  I believe Truman made the right choice.  Mind you, It took two nukes and a third was inconsideration before Japan wised up, so their noggin's were pretty hard.

The US wasn't engaged in any war with Al Queada.  The reason for 9/11 was the perception that the US supported attacks on various Muslim countries despite the fact that we had just helped them run the Soviets out of Afghanistan.  And despite the facts of each case they argue over.  But Muslims mostly don't reason.  They are brainwashed to hate anyone who's not a Muslim and foolish enough to believe that a few terrorist attacks will cause the downfall of western civilization.  They also are too brainwashed to realize that if the "West" wanted to rid the world of Islam, the military efforts around the world would look very different.  So far all they've seen is a scalpel; they haven't seen a sledgehammer.

So equating these two events is no more accurate than equating the Allied invasion of Germany to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

[Deesse23]

The critical difference between Japan and Al Queda is that Japan declared war and destroyed the US navy in Hawaii.  Once you're engaged in all out war with another country, the point is to end the war.  The US did the natural thing, the thing any nation would do, and took the war to Japan, and the US was winning the war with conventional weapons.  At the point where a country is getting its clock cleaned, its leaders have to make the wise decision to surrender and spare the lives of its people.  Japan made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and it's people worshiped their emperor.  So there were three alternatives, 1) the US could have said that's enough and pulled out of the war, leaving Japan's government intact and with a grudge, making it likely they would do it again in the future, 2) continue the conventional war and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans, or 3) use the nukes and scare the shit out of Japan and end the war.  I believe Truman made the right choice.  Mind you, It took two nukes and a third was inconsideration before Japan wised up, so their noggin's were pretty hard.

I dont see how any of this is relevant to the question if dropping two nukes during war is a terrorist act.

Mind you, the USA signed the Haague convention, asking to "spare civilians, other noncombatans as well as civilian innstallations as much as possible" during a war. So, no, it wasnt "natural" to raze all major cities with firebombing raids, or dropping nukes.

As much as i hate to say it, but Goebels was correct when he labeled them "terrorbombings", because thats all those massive attacks on (german and japanese cities) were. Of course he conveniently *forgot* to mention Coventry, Amsterdam, etc.. No, sir, everybody was wrong in doing so, everybody, and they knew it.

Back on topic, as i already explained, one may consider all of this to be of "terrorist" nature, but to me the state vs (private) organisation distinction is the small but crucial one making the necessary difference between the US dropping nukes and Al Quaeda flying planes into skyscrapers: Both actions are to be condemned and maybe considered to be "terrorist" in the colloquial sense, but one at least was part of a process called "war", where everyone intended to still follow some basic rules (but in the end didnt), the other one is just some random religious fanatic schmocks deciding they shoud have the power to decide about the life and death of thousands.

An action of war has at least some minimal semblance of civilisation (and maybe a military goal to justify, like avoiding even more casualties in case of an invasion of mainland Japan) to it, but what Al Quaeda did....they can suck my dick before they go to hell as well as any member of this forum defending them.

[Spongebob]

I dont see how any of this is relevant to the question if dropping two nukes during war is a terrorist act.

Mind you, the USA signed the Haague convention, asking to "spare civilians, other noncombatans as well as civilian innstallations as much as possible" during a war. So, no, it wasnt "natural" to raze all major cities with firebombing raids, or dropping nukes.

As much as i hate to say it, but Goebels was correct when he labeled them "terrorbombings", because thats all those massive attacks on (german and japanese cities) were. Of course he conveniently *forgot* to mention Coventry, Amsterdam, etc.. No, sir, everybody was wrong in doing so, everybody, and they knew it.

Back on topic, as i already explained, one may consider all of this to be of "terrorist" nature, but to me the state vs (private) organisation distinction is the small but crucial one making the necessary difference between the US dropping nukes and Al Quaeda flying planes into skyscrapers: Both actions are to be condemned and maybe considered to be "terrorist" in the colloquial sense, but one at least was part of a process called "war", where everyone intended to still follow some basic rules (but in the end didnt), the other one is just some random religious fanatic schmocks deciding they shoud have the power to decide about the life and death of thousands.

An action of war has at least some minimal semblance of civilisation (and maybe a military goal to justify, like avoiding even more casualties in case of an invasion of mainland Japan) to it, but what Al Quaeda did....they can suck my dick before they go to hell as well as any member of this forum defending them.

I didn't say the US did the natural thing by bombing cities.  I said the US did the natural thing by taking the fight to Japan, going on the offensive.  There's a difference.  Once it became clear that Japan was out of its league and had no hope of winning it could have done the sensible thing and surrendered.  What, you would prefer the US just blows up a few Japanese ships, then skulks back home?

It sounds like you are in the camp that believes the nukes were terrorist attacks.  That's ridiculous.  As I already explained, it was Japan, not the US, that was beaten but refused to surrender.  So I'll ask you the same question, do you think Truman should have just invaded Japan instead?  The death toll might have been even greater and would have included thousands more Americans.  As much as the US tried to limit attacks during WW2 to military targets, the refusal of an aggressive nation (Germany and Japan) that simply won't back down when it has no hope of winning, causes you to extend attacks on non-military targets.  The bombings of Japan and Germany, conventional and otherwise, took out most of their factories and transportation systems.  This was important to end the war; end the enemy's ability to sustain war.

Bin Laden never attacked a US military target and never intended to; they were too difficult to hit and he knew killing civilians would be more terrorizing.  That's the only difference here.  The nukes were intended to end a war.  Terrorism has a much different objective.  You can't equate the two.

There's actually a lot more interesting and accurate things to criticize about American military maneuvering and I'm right up there calling much of it out.  This one is just plain stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference is simple. A brutal attack is carried out by uniformed soldiers under official orders from a state in a declared war against military targets.

Terrorism is literally the opposite of all of that.

Not that it matters, if a person is objecting to killing - but, if so, it makes little sense to cheer for terrorists and condemn soldiers.