Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I have to say that I never believed that bin Laden was involved in the planning of the attacks on the WTC, either first or second. He may have been involved in the financing of the operation, but that's all. That's all al Qaeda ever was... an underground financial operation that also trained wannabe jihadists how to fight guerrilla war.
Anyone here but me familiar with Peter Bergen's books and interviews with OSB?
(May 10, 2011 at 5:05 am)Skipper Wrote: Without being to crass about it, Rayaan, does your religion have any reason why you are so vigorously defending Osama bin laden? In the same way you always seem to be the first here to defend or excuse violent acts such as stonings, that are acted out in the name of Islam.
The former is a political issue while the latter is a religious one. I'm not defending Osama bin Laden for the sake of Islam. If I truly thought that he was behind 9/11, then I would readily admit this, and secondly, I don't have any respect for terrorist groups like Taliban and Al-Qaeda (and their violent leaders). According to a survey in 2006, it shows that Americans are surprisingly more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians as compared to any Muslim dominated country except for Nigeria. Is the survey rigged? I don't know, but that's what it shows.
Quote:The Myth of Muslim Support for Terror
Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
(May 11, 2011 at 12:00 pm)technophobe Wrote: Anyone here but me familiar with Peter Bergen's books and interviews with OSB?
I never looked into that before. I just googled the guy right now, but I didn't find any sources which say that he was the one who pegged OBL. I'll do more research on it, though.
I am not making any excuses for terrorists. It would be an excuse only if I was trying to justify or say that I approve what they do. But did I ever say that, Rev? No.
I think it's very much possible that the US government had calculated that making a plot like 9/11, on their own soil, would yield them greater benefits in the future by blaming it on Afghanistan so that they can invade the country. And so far, there is still no hard evidence that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11, and I find it unlikely that he would be able orchestrate such a successful plan by himself, although there is no hard evidence that the US government did it either. But if you look at history, there are many events which prove that the CIA and the government of a country has caused harm to their own people and then they falsely blamed it on another country, so that the can justify invasion of that country. Here's an example:
Washingtons Blog Wrote:As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.
(May 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I think it's very much possible that the US government had calculated that making a plot like 9/11, on their own soil, would yield them greater benefits in the future by blaming it on Afghanistan so that they can invade the country.
Are you fucking insane? Do you realize how much money invading and rebuilding has cost us? Do you realize that the American people actually paid the Iraqi military after coming into Baghdad? I realize Baghdad is not in Afghanistan, but obviously you are missing the point that Iraq was blamed, initially. Anyway, I would like to see these greater benefits. It has been roughly ten years and all we have is massive fucking debt for helping protect people from terrorists. Sure, we made some mistakes along the way, but most of them had to do with dumping money into a country that was not making any money. To be honest, I want my fucking money back.
(May 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm)Shell B Wrote: Anyway, I would like to see these greater benefits. It has been roughly ten years and all we have is massive fucking debt for helping protect people from terrorists.
Of course there's going to be a massive debt in undertaking such a mission, but there was a reason for going to Afghanistan other than to fight against terrorism because Bush had planned to do this even before the September attacks, which I also mentioned earlier in this post. Therefore, this means that he was definitely thinking that going to Afghanistan would be worth it even though it is a costly operation.
"This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989." - Source
(May 11, 2011 at 10:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No, no, no. He's just tying his turban too tightly!
I know you didn't mean it literally, but there are even many non-Muslims who will agree with me on this topic, so you can't make that phrase applicable to me. This is based on my own knowledge of the events surrounding 9/11. Plus, I don't wear a turban anyways. It's a cultural thing and you know that most Muslims don't wear it haha.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Quote:It appears, therefore, that 9/11 was the most elaborate example yet of a false-flag attack, which occurs when countries, wanting to attack other countries, orchestrate attacks on their own people while planting evidence to implicate those other countries. Hitler did this when he was ready to attack Poland, which started the European part of World War II; Japan did it when it was ready to attack Manchuria, which started the Asian part of that war. In 1962, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false-flag attacks killing American citizens to provide a pretext for invading Cuba. This proposal was not put into effect because it was vetoed by President Kennedy. But in 2001, the White House was occupied by an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other predominantly Muslim countries, and so, it appears, evidence was planted to implicate Muslims.
