New 9/11 hijacker video

[Kryptos]

Al Qaeda missed the 9/11 anniversary by more than a week, thus not much attention to their new video. Their latest video was released yesterday, with most of it rather boring. The video includes substantial footage of Ayman al-Zawahiri (Osama's deputy), as well as a few clips of Osama bin Laden speaking about Palestine, and various other footage.

As has been the case before, Al Qaeda also included footage showing one of the 9/11 hijackers reading his last will. This video includes approximately ten minutes of Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Flight 175) speaking. This is one more thing for the "hijackers still alive" truthers.

The video was released several days late, after technical problems with online forums and sites that Al Qaeda uses. This may mean that the organization Al Qaeda had previously used for creating and disseminating videos and other material has been disrupted in some way. (or it could be NWO conspiracy :eye-poppi)

Anyway, here is a clip of Ahmed al-Ghamdi:

0Fr3rA_KKyk

[Caustic Logic]

God, I hate religion.

[T.A.M.]

Not all religion is bad. Religious Extremism, yes, but not all.

Then again, ones like or hatred of such is subjective and individual.

TAM:)

[JihadJane]

Authenticated?

[T.A.M.]

of note, for the nutbars who say that there is no proof of OBL involvement, I believe on a number of occasions, this man, one of the hijackers, mentions OBL.

TAM:)

[Homeland Insurgency]

of note, for the nutbars who say that there is no proof of OBL involvement, I believe on a number of occasions, this man, one of the hijackers, mentions OBL.

TAM:)

Well that does it. Lock up Jodie Foster already and put her in the cell next to Hinckley.

[JihadJane]

of note, for the nutbars who say that there is no proof of OBL involvement, I believe on a number of occasions, this man, one of the hijackers, mentions OBL.

TAM:)

"Proof"? :confused:

Unless it is authenticated, with a known chain of possession, this video, like all the rest of the treasured Osama-dunnit "evidence", might as well be a cartoon of Freddy the Fundamentalist Rabbit.

[240-185]

Al-Qaeda always spreads its videos via Al-Jazeera, so it's certainly authentic.
Unless you prefer doubts about everything that supports the "official" version of 9/11 attacks. Sometimes, it's better to not to be skeptical about everything ; that prevents a rational thinking.

[johnny karate]

"Proof"? :confused:

Unless it is authenticated, with a known chain of possession, this video, like all the rest of the treasured Osama-dunnit "evidence", might as well be a cartoon of Freddy the Fundamentalist Rabbit.

This video has been authenticated by many people.

[PhantomWolf]

Well you never know, someone else might be producing videos in AQ's name and spreading them via the same network as AQ usually does.... of course there is the little issue of the fact that would really PO AQ and we'd be seeing them come out and say it wasn't their work.

[CptColumbo]

There is a difference between being skeptical and cynical.

[PhantomWolf]

There is a difference between being skeptical and cynical.

I have noticed that some "Skeptics" only need absolute proof for the things that are in opposition to their world view. Anything that agrees with their believes they accept instantly.

[JihadJane]

This video has been authenticated by many people.

Who?

[MikeW]

"Proof"? :confused:

Unless it is authenticated, with a known chain of possession, this video, like all the rest of the treasured Osama-dunnit "evidence", might as well be a cartoon of Freddy the Fundamentalist Rabbit.
Can you provide examples from anywhere in the world showing communications from any terrorist group undergoing the type of authentication you're talking about?

Or are you simply trying to find excuses to ignore inconvenient evidence?

[PhantomWolf]

Can you provide examples from anywhere in the world showing communications from any terrorist group undergoing the type of authentication you're talking about?

Or are you simply trying to find excuses to ignore inconvenient evidence?

I'll vote for option b Bob.

[MikeW]

I'll vote for option b Bob.
C'mon now, let's be fair. Perhaps JihadJane can tell us of a terrorist group whose videos only ever pass through a known and publicly verifiable "chain of possession".

[johnny karate]

Who?

Since you are arguing against my claim you must think its opposite is true. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that the video has not been authenticated.

[JihadJane]

Since you are arguing against my claim you must think its opposite is true. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that the video has not been authenticated.

Without a published chain of custody this video cannot be said to have been authenticated by anyone. No-one has published one. This makes it, at best, hearsay.

It's remarkable how supporters of the pending, official account employ completely different standards (much lower, in case anyone was wondering!) for their own "evidence" than for that which contradicts their beliefs.

This video could not be presented in a Court of Law as evidence of anything. At the moment this video is only suitable for propaganda purposes where it works well for its target group.

[Undesired Walrus]

"Proof"? :confused:

Unless it is authenticated, with a known chain of possession, this video, like all the rest of the treasured Osama-dunnit "evidence", might as well be a cartoon of Freddy the Fundamentalist Rabbit.

My FSM you are naive.

Watch a documentary called 'Media Jihad' and you can obverse a Japanese journalist team follow the chain of custody all the way from a Birmingham (UK) Islamic shop to the hills of Pakistan. They get an interview with the producer of As-Sahab (The Al-Qaeda propaganda network, translated as 'The Clouds') Mohammed Hadi Armarti.

And no surprise, as this video is As-Sahab again.

[JihadJane]

Can you provide examples from anywhere in the world showing communications from any terrorist group undergoing the type of authentication you're talking about?

Or are you simply trying to find excuses to ignore inconvenient evidence?


This tape isn't "evidence". It's junk science!

Sometimes there have been agreements between security services and terrorist groups, enabling known code words to be used to authenticate warnings. Otherwise, the examples you ask for probably do not exist. By their nature no such communications can be proved, beyond doubt, to be genuine or unmanipulated. They cannot be used as conclusive evidence but can easily be used, outside of the courtroom, regardless of their authenticity, to manipulate public opinion into fearing the alleged terrorists.

[T.A.M.]

Isn't it funny how there is the instant doubt of "Chain of custody", as if such should be, and always is made available to the google-investigators.

TAM:)

[MikeW]

the examples you ask for probably do not exist.
Which, of course, is why you proposed this test anyway: you're well aware it cannot be passed by anyone.

Still, this certainly isn't "junk science". It's a video from a previously known source (As Sahab), containing a known individual who's accused of being one of the hijackers. We can discuss whether this might be a fake As Sahab video, or is the real thing. People can look at the individual, compare him with the FBI photos and see if it looks like the same person. They can look at the content of what he says and see if it's a plausible "video will". They can scour the Arab press looking for comments or protests from the al-Ghamdi family, saying this isn't their son (or draw conclusions if no such protests are found).

Of course there are limitations. These tapes can't themselves prove the individuals were involved in the attacks, for instance. But they are still evidence that these individuals existed, and were those named by the FBI, and were connected to al Qaeda. They do have some value, and no amount of handwaving is going to change that.

[PhantomWolf]

JJ in your twisted little world, do you really think that the members and leadership of AQ would allow another group to create and post videos pretending to be them without challenging them?

[SallyBoy]

I wonder if Al Qadea have videos of ALL 19 hijackers? I would like to see a video of Marwan Al Shehhi for curiosity stake.

[MikeW]

I wonder if Al Qadea have videos of ALL 19 hijackers? I would like to see a video of Marwan Al Shehhi for curiosity stake.
All but one, according to Ramzi Binalshibh (as reported by Yosri Fouda). My guess is we won't see any of the pilot's videos until the tenth anniversary, at the earliest.

[Jonnyclueless]

This tape isn't "evidence". It's junk science!

Sometimes there have been agreements between security services and terrorist groups, enabling known code words to be used to authenticate warnings. Otherwise, the examples you ask for probably do not exist. By their nature no such communications can be proved, beyond doubt, to be genuine or unmanipulated. They cannot be used as conclusive evidence but can easily be used, outside of the courtroom, regardless of their authenticity, to manipulate public opinion into fearing the alleged terrorists.

So then you feel that the video of Bin Laden saying he wasn't involved is bogus too right? And that's not reliable either right?

[Drudgewire]

JJ in your twisted little world, do you really think that the members and leadership of AQ would allow another group to create and post videos pretending to be them without challenging them?


That's my question. They tried for days to get it released. The government (or NWO if you prefer), last I heard, had tried to block it. It followed the same chain of command as the previous messages. And at no point has AQ come forward and said "hey, that's not our video."

And yet:

This tape isn't "evidence". It's junk science!


Good grief. :boggled:

[JamesB]

Troofers will unquestionably accept an anonymous source in an Indian newspaper, or a 7 year old third party reference to a misidentified hijacker, but actual video of a hijacker making his will, that is something not to be believed. :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

There is a difference between being skeptical and cynical.


There is a difference between being skeptical and being driven completly by political ideology which is what are seeing with Jane.

[dudalb]

Isn't it funny how there is the instant doubt of "Chain of custody", as if such should be, and always is made available to the google-investigators.

TAM:)


You still don't get it; if you have "political insight" you don't need actual evidence and all that junk.
To state the Obvious: Jihad Jane thinks that 9/11 was a Bush Adminsitration/NWO plot, and she will reject any evidence, no matter how good, that refutes this theory and will accept any evidence, no matter how bad, that supports it.

[Undesired Walrus]

All but one, according to Ramzi Binalshibh (as reported by Yosri Fouda). My guess is we won't see any of the pilot's videos until the tenth anniversary, at the earliest.

I would have guessed the January 2000 video of Jarrah and Atta was their martyrdom video (The sheets of paper they held had 'Will' written on in Arabic)? Shame about the (lack of) audio. Maybe one day we will be able to get a lip-reading of what they are saying (And what Bin Laden says to the group in the same video).

On the issue of anniversaries, its been two years without a July 7th suicide video. Do you reckon Hussain or Lindsay did one? If not, it seems to suggest 7/7 was almost entirely the work of Khan and Tanweer.

[MikeW]

I would have guessed the January 2000 video of Jarrah and Atta was their martyrdom video (The sheets of paper they held had 'Will' written on in Arabic)?
I know people have said that, but I don't believe it. They wouldn't have done one together; they don't look like they're delivering a final speech to the world; they're wearing what looks like western clothes, as opposed to the more traditional clothing worn in the video wills we've seen to date. I think it was some other footage that was never supposed to be released.

On the issue of anniversaries, its been two years without a July 7th suicide video. Do you reckon Hussain or Lindsay did one? If not, it seems to suggest 7/7 was almost entirely the work of Khan and Tanweer.
If they were going to follow the 9/11 pattern of regular releases then they'd have put out Hussain & Lindsay's first, I think, saved Khan for later. They didn't do that & we've heard nothing more, so my guess would be there's nothing else available.

[SallyBoy]

I would have guessed the January 2000 video of Jarrah and Atta was their martyrdom video (The sheets of paper they held had 'Will' written on in Arabic)? Shame about the (lack of) audio. Maybe one day we will be able to get a lip-reading of what they are saying (And what Bin Laden says to the group in the same video).

On the issue of anniversaries, its been two years without a July 7th suicide video. Do you reckon Hussain or Lindsay did one? If not, it seems to suggest 7/7 was almost entirely the work of Khan and Tanweer.


I don't think it will ever be possible to be able to lip read arabic. I've taken two classes of basic Arabic language and I can tell you that there are letters that appears to be similar by lips, but by sound are completely different. Most Arabic letters are emphasized by the throat and the tongue, both which are difficult to spot visually.

[LashL]

Maybe one day we will be able to get a lip-reading of what they are saying (And what Bin Laden says to the group in the same video).

I don't think it will ever be possible to be able to lip read arabic. I've taken two classes of basic Arabic language and I can tell you that there are letters that appears to be similar by lips, but by sound are completely different. Most Arabic letters are emphasized by the throat and the tongue, both which are difficult to spot visually.

Lip-reading evidence - even in English - is not accepted as reliable by Canadian courts at present, due to the high margin of error on the part of lip-readers. It has been accepted in the past by courts in England, I understand, but I am not aware of it being accepted in other jurisdictions.

(That said, to get back to the OP, interpretation of the spoken word from one language to another is certainly capable of translation, and translations by qualified translators are certainly admissible as evidence.)

[CptColumbo]

Lip-reading evidence - even in English - is not accepted as reliable by Canadian courts at present, due to the high margin of error on the part of lip-readers. It has been accepted in the past by courts in England, I understand, but I am not aware of it being accepted in other jurisdictions.
History Channel had a documentary about a software program that is being used to lip-read, even when the subject is partially turned away. It was being used on old silent home movies of Adolph Hitler (shot by Eva). They showed some simple tests, done mainly with German speakers, speaking directly to the camera and at different angles. More scientific studies will most likely have to be done before it is deemed reliable enough to be used in court cases, but it was interesting.

[SezMe]

LashL, are you aware of any studies of lip-reading that establish the (in)accuracy of the technique? Is there a scientific basis for the courts of England to accept it that Canada has rejected?

[JihadJane]

You still don't get it; if you have "political insight" you don't need actual evidence and all that junk.
To state the Obvious: Jihad Jane thinks that 9/11 was a Bush Adminsitration/NWO plot, and she will reject any evidence, no matter how good, that refutes this theory and will accept any evidence, no matter how bad, that supports it.

If I were to judge The-government-so-needs-us-to-defend-their-story Movement's ability to accurately assess the reliability of evidence by dudalb's ability to quote me correctly I'd say go back to the drawing board.

Even so, I am really surprised that any "skeptic" can label this evidence as "good" with a straight face. Funny!

Why is it that your skepicism suddenly evaporates when considering "evidence" supporting your own beliefs? Do you need to believe that badly?

[PhantomWolf]

If I were to judge The-government-so-needs-us-to-defend-their-story Movement's ability to accurately assess the reliability of evidence by dudalb's ability to quote me correctly I'd say go back to the drawing board.

Even so, I am really surprised that any "skeptic" can label this evidence as "good" with a straight face. Funny!

Why is it that your skepicism suddenly evaporates when considering "evidence" supporting your own beliefs? Do you need to believe that badly?

There is a difference between scepticism and living in denial. If I turn on the TV to the BBC should I be sceptical that I am indeed watching the BBC? How do I know that some nefarious fiends haven't altered the feed coming to my TV so that they can broadcast their own version of the BBC? Or should I accpt that the odds are that I am indeed watching the BBC unless there is some evidence otherwise?

In the same way, this video was sent through the standard AQ methods. Those it was delivered to have accepted that it is genuine and AQ hasn't come out and claimed that someone has been pretending to be them. The evidence is that it is therefore genuine. If you have evidence that it isn't, other that personal incredulity, feel free to post it.

[JihadJane]

There is a difference between scepticism and living in denial. If I turn on the TV to the BBC should I be sceptical that I am indeed watching the BBC?

No, but you should be skeptical about who is influencing the content, especially since the BBC was comprehensively knobbled over the sexed-up dossier incident.



How do I know that some nefarious fiends haven't altered the feed coming to my TV so that they can broadcast their own version of the BBC? Or should I accpt that the odds are that I am indeed watching the BBC unless there is some evidence otherwise?

In the same way, this video was sent through the standard AQ methods. Those it was delivered to have accepted that it is genuine and AQ hasn't come out and claimed that someone has been pretending to be them. The evidence is that it is therefore genuine. If you have evidence that it isn't, other that personal incredulity, feel free to post it.

I'm not sure that your BBC analogy really fits. For a start we don't have a clear idea about what "al Qaeda" really is, who is manufacturing these videos or where or when they were made. All we have is hearsay whereas the BBC maintains scrupulous records of its sources and productions. The "standard AQ methods" are to release impossible-to-authenticate statements. That "they" use these methods repeatedly doesn't make the latest statement any less impossible to authenticate than any of the preceding ones.

What is the purpose of releasing these videos? How does it actually benefit "al Qaeda"?

[WildCat]

I'm not sure that your BBC analogy really fits. For a start we don't have a clear idea about what "al Qaeda" really is, who is manufacturing these videos or where or when they were made. All we have is hearsay whereas the BBC maintains scrupulous records of its sources and productions. The "standard AQ methods" are to release impossible-to-authenticate statements. That "they" use these methods repeatedly doesn't make the latest statement any less impossible to authenticate than any of the preceding ones.

What is the purpose of releasing these videos? How does it actually benefit "al Qaeda"?
Living in denial.

QED

[JihadJane]

Living in denial.

QED

Living in denial.

QED

[funk de fino]

What is the purpose of releasing these videos? How does it actually benefit "al Qaeda"?

Exactly the same as it benefits every terrorist organisation that has carried out attacks. They admit the attacks because if they did not there would be no point for the attack.

This is why ETA and the IRA and any other organisation you care to mention admit responsibility. They want people to know it is them.

Even if there was a chain of custody for the videos it would still be brushed off as a fake or a plant by the CT morons. Look at the ridiculous use of the fat osama video by the ignoramus CT goons.

[funk de fino]

No, but you should be skeptical about who is influencing the content, especially since the BBC was comprehensively knobbled over the sexed-up dossier incident.

Incorrect. The BBC were found to have lied.

I'm not sure that your BBC analogy really fits. For a start we don't have a clear idea about what "al Qaeda" really is, who is manufacturing these videos or where or when they were made. All we have is hearsay whereas the BBC maintains scrupulous records of its sources and productions. The "standard AQ methods" are to release impossible-to-authenticate statements. That "they" use these methods repeatedly doesn't make the latest statement any less impossible to authenticate than any of the preceding ones.


You may not but the experts certainly do.

[JihadJane]

Incorrect. The BBC were found to have lied.

They were found to have lied (?), or something slightly similar, by a safe, Government-friendly judge. It is now generally accepted that the BBC were telling the truth. The dossier was sexed up. The government was lying. :eek:



You may not but the experts certainly do.


Different experts say different things.

(Oh, the joy of experts!)


Exactly the same as it benefits every terrorist organisation that has carried out attacks. They admit the attacks because if they did not there would be no point for the attack.

This is why ETA and the IRA and any other organisation you care to mention admit responsibility. They want people to know it is them.

Supposedly we all know it was al Qaeda already. Who needs persuading, again and again?

The IRA don't release bizarrely cobbled together videos every year. Nor do any other similar organisations.

Even if there was a chain of custody for the videos it would still be brushed off as a fake or a plant by the CT morons.

Red herring.

[jhunter1163]

Why on earth would a terrorist allow there to be a chain of custody that could be tracked back to him, exposing his safe houses, associates, and so on?

[JihadJane]

Why on earth would a terrorist allow there to be a chain of custody that could be tracked back to him, exposing his safe houses, associates, and so on?

They wouldn't. That's why "terrorist" videos are such a gift to fiction writers.

[Kryptos]

Do realize that that As-Sahab (Al Qaeda's media organization) has also put out many videos of IED attacks in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. If you think that the hijacker video is faked by the U.S. government, do you think that U.S. soldiers are setting up these explosives to kill their fellow U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan?

You can't deny some of the As Sahab videos and not others. If you believe the hijacker video is fake, then it also goes to deny the war in Afghanistan has been going on, and deny that Al Qaeda exists. The 9/11 conspiracy only gets larger.

[funk de fino]

They were found to have lied (?), or something slightly similar, by a safe, Government-friendly judge. It is now generally accepted that the BBC were telling the truth. The dossier was sexed up. The government was lying. :eek:

No, it is not accepted. The reporter lied. The BBC top dog lost his job because of it. If it is generally accepted then where is the court case about it? Always has to be someone in on it eh? That should tell you something about yourself but I fear it does not.

Different experts say different things.

(Oh, the joy of experts!)

Source? Pretty much the whole world knows what AQ really is. Except CT morons of course which is pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme of things cause 99% of them are thick as two short planks. And gullible too of course.

Supposedly we all know it was al Qaeda already. Who needs persuading, again and again?

The IRA don't release bizarrely cobbled together videos every year. Nor do any other similar organisations.

Their followers around the world. We knew the IRA did it yet they still had to take responsibility. They held parades celebrating acts of terrorism years after the event. I'm sure if the internet had been as big during the worst of the troubles we would have seen similar tactics from the IRA. That is the whole point of terrorism. They have to tell people they did it. They need to. Your lack of logic with this is lamentable from someone I believe to be from the UK?

Are the beheading videos in Iraq also fake? What purpose do they serve AQ?

What is the purpose of releasing these videos? How does it actually benefit "al Qaeda"?

Your own question which has been answered. they do it to keep the memory of the attacks and the martyrs alive. To say to muslims that they have people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and that it is a duty to try to follow them.

Red herring.

Perhaps, but sadly very true.

[Slayhamlet]

Do realize that that As-Sahab (Al Qaeda's media organization) has also put out many videos of IED attacks in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. If you think that the hijacker video is faked by the U.S. government, do you think that U.S. soldiers are setting up these explosives to kill their fellow U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan?

You can't deny some of the As Sahab videos and not others. If you believe the hijacker video is fake, then it also goes to deny the war in Afghanistan has been going on, and deny that Al Qaeda exists. The 9/11 conspiracy only gets larger.

There actually is no insurgency in Iraq. All those IED attacks are just false flags justifying an eternal presence of the U.S. military in Iraq, so that the sneaky Jews running America and her corporations can steal all their oil and pillage for Israel... or something.

See? Denial is easy and fun! Just make **** up!

[8den]

Firstly comparing Al Qaeda to the IRA and the communications methods used by both groups is a joke. The IRA used code words only when issuing warning about a bomb that they set. This was to allow time for the area to be cleared. And they didn't do that in every case.

Every communication from the IRA ruling council was signed "P O'Neil" and our knowledge as to the leadership of this organisation (because it still exists) is sketchy at best. Yes we are aware of the roles played by former members who retired or moved from a commitment to armed struggle (Mc Guinness I'm looking at you.)

Furthermore our ability to fact check claims made by the IRA was strengthen by the existence of Sinn Fein, a legitimate political organisation, which had ties to the IRA (and if you want to go into a chicken and egg over who called the shots to who, I'm not going there).


Al-Qaeda always spreads its videos via Al-Jazeera, so it's certainly authentic.
Unless you prefer doubts about everything that supports the "official" version of 9/11 attacks. Sometimes, it's better to not to be skeptical about everything ; that prevents a rational thinking.

I've worked for Al Jazeera, just as video editor, and in their London bureau only as freelancer, but frankly their contacts in the Arab world are as you expect, phenomenal, for this video to be faked you'd have to be able to pull the wool over the eyes of some of the best Islamic experts working today, and some of the best journalists working in the world. When they set up Al J English, they plundered the best journalists from around the world.

[PhantomWolf]

The IRA don't release bizarrely cobbled together videos every year. Nor do any other similar organisations.

No they used to just ring up the guards and have someone anonymously claim responsibility for them, Osama came up with the idea of having their own PR dept well before 9/11. Unlike the IRA who had a Political Wing (Shinn Fein) Al Qaeda started out with a media PR group (As-Sahab) and has used it to spread the word amongst Muslims ever since. The West has only been taking notice of these things for a decade or so because it's only in that decade that AQ'a actions has affected them, but in reality they have been doing it far longer. And as others have pointed out, this isn't the only video released this way, do you question the entire collection of AQ videos including AQ in Iraq attacks on US and UK troops and the beheadings of people like Daniel Pearl?

[Caustic Logic]

Not all religion is bad. Religious Extremism, yes, but not all.

Then again, ones like or hatred of such is subjective and individual.

TAM:)

"God I hate religion" is not 100% accurate reflection of my PoV, for the record, but an ironic statement that was how i felt at the moment. I have serious problems with irrational belief. It can lead to weak blandness and obedience, or at least enable it, and to horrific violence based in religion-induced dehumanization of the enemy and of oneself (God's cause is not human). But it also enables the best instincts of man in the right hands, of course.

In this case, these guys were seriously warped by religion, their own rage, justified as it may have been at one point, and their action were not good for resistance, for love, wisdom, anything. Religion at its worst.

Not too far behind and hoping to take the lead... Christian Zionists and such who hunger for Crusade to wipe out Islam or usher in Armageddon, or any other group as delusional and empowered.

Is this a clash of civilizations a NWO conspiracy to demonize and eliminate religion? It makes a certian strange sense...

Way too many thoughts for a single post on a faintly-related subject, apologies.

[8den]

No they used to just ring up the guards and have someone anonymously claim responsibility for them,

Firstly it's "an Gardí" not "the Guards" (sorry minor bug bear working in British news media, I've lost count of the number of Irate memos Irish staff have written to british colleagues explaining it's pronounced "An Taoiseach" not "the tea shop"). An Gardi Siochana, means roughly "protectors of the peace" calling them the Guards, is just like suggesting we called our police force the security lads. We didn't.

While the police on both sides of the border received anonymous bomb threats all the time, only the ones that came with a recognised code word got handled seriously. Northern Ireland back in the day is probably the only place in the world where a dubious bomb threat would get blaise treatment. Considering the IRA were able to thump a bunch of mortar rounds into 10 downing street's back garden and walk away scout free, they deserve a grudging amount of respect.

To go a little further even comparing goals and ambitions and tactics there's literally no comparison ideologically or tactically between the IRA and Al Qaeda. But JI Jane etc could happily educate an Irish news man who grew up in the troubles and explain how they are similar.

[JihadJane]

But JI Jane etc could happily educate an Irish news man who grew up in the troubles and explain how they are similar.

Hello 8eden,

I'm not sure what this comment's referring to. It wasn't me who set about comparing the IRA with al Qaeda. I would just say "Careful Now!" and "Down with this sort of thing".

Did I claim this video was faked? Not as far as I remember. We simply don't know who made it, why it was made, when or where it was made or why the alleged hijacker was reading his will in front of a camera at some unspecified time.

There is no reason to believe that "al Qaeda" hasn't been as deeply penetrated by hostile Intelligence agents/assets as the IRA was. Videos such as the one above can be easily manipulated at any stage of their production, even before they are made. Who decides, for instance, that it is a good idea to make them in the first place?

[JihadJane]

And as others have pointed out, this isn't the only video released this way, do you question the entire collection of AQ videos including AQ in Iraq attacks on US and UK troops and the beheadings of people like Daniel Pearl?


There is no way to authenticate any of them so, yes, we'd be wise to question all of them.

On a side note, what is the source of your belief that an organisation called "AQ in Iraq" ever existed?

[PhantomWolf]

There is no way to authenticate any of them so, yes, we'd be wise to question all of them.

On a side note, what is the source of your belief that an organisation called "AQ in Iraq" ever existed?

Well if we're going to go down that road, what is your source for proving that Iraq exists?

[8den]

HWe simply don't know who made it, why it was made, when or where it was made or why the alleged hijacker was reading his will in front of a camera at some unspecified time.


Because Al Qaeda/Islamic terrorists have a history of doing exactly this. So we know why it was made. We know it was made before 11th Sept 2001



There is no reason to believe that "al Qaeda" hasn't been as deeply penetrated by hostile Intelligence agents/assets as the IRA was.


Theres no reason to believe that they are penetrated by intelligence assets.

However if Al Qaeda was infiltrated like the IRA was surely we'd be seeing concrete specific examples of effective stopping Al Qaeda operations or major arrests of Al Qaeda senior staff.


Videos such as the one above can be easily manipulated at any stage of their production, even before they are made.


So you're saying it's faked? How? Based on what?


Who decides, for instance, that it is a good idea to make them in the first place?


As mentioned they've been used by terrorist organisations across the world for decades.

[JihadJane]

Well if we're going to go down that road, what is your source for proving that Iraq exists?


An absurd analogy.

As it happen, though, I do have some good, first-hand sources confirming Iraq's existence!

[funk de fino]

Hello 8eden,

I'm not sure what this comment's referring to. It wasn't me who set about comparing the IRA with al Qaeda. I would just say "Careful Now!" and "Down with this sort of thing".

This is why ETA and the IRA and any other organisation you care to mention admit responsibility. They want people to know it is them.
Supposedly we all know it was al Qaeda already. Who needs persuading, again and again?

Not comparing just stating the need for terrorist organisations to take responsibility by using a couple of examples. All terrorist organisations have to do this.

The IRA don't release bizarrely cobbled together videos every year. Nor do any other similar organisations.


Comparing the IRA methods to AQ methods.

Did I claim this video was faked? Not as far as I remember. We simply don't know who made it, why it was made, when or where it was made or why the alleged hijacker was reading his will in front of a camera at some unspecified time.

There is no reason to believe that "al Qaeda" hasn't been as deeply penetrated by hostile Intelligence agents/assets as the IRA was. Videos such as the one above can be easily manipulated at any stage of their production, even before they are made. Who decides, for instance, that it is a good idea to make them in the first place?

If the video has been manipulated then why are AQ not saying it is incorrect and they did not carry out the attacks and they are fake videos. All I have seen recently is AQ very pissed off with Iran for trying to push CT theories about 911. If intelligence agencies were indeed undercover and on the inside themn why have they not pulled UBL out of a hat to help senor Bush in the last few years?

[twinstead]

The fact remains that the worst blow anybody could ever inflict on the US would be to expose 911 as an inside job. This would make 911 itself seem like child's play, and the very people officially fingered as the culprits would of course be in the best position to claim they had nothing to do with it.

Imagine the field day truthers would have in the light of 7 years of AQ's insistence they had nothing to do with 911.

Why is it that little real or perceived anomalies in the official story of 911 are pounced upon so ferociously, but major holes and questions surrounding just about any conspiracy theory about that day are hand waved away so cavalierly?

[CptColumbo]

Living in denial.

QEDThe pinacle of opulence negates your derth.

[JihadJane]

Theres no reason to believe that they are penetrated by intelligence assets.

The long relationship that Islamic Fundamentalist groups have had with the Intelligence agencies of various countries (including those of France, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the US and Israel) suggest that this is the less likely possibility.

However if Al Qaeda was infiltrated like the IRA was surely we'd be seeing concrete specific examples of effective stopping Al Qaeda operations or major arrests of Al Qaeda senior staff.

The US has pitifully little justification for its lethal military rampages. Why would it want to destroy its favorite and most useful "enemy"? Terrorist outrages are very good for mobilising public support for State violence.



So you're saying it's faked?

No, just that the whole production and delivery process is wide open to manipulation. It is illogical for JREF representatives of the America's Under Attack Movement to take it, uncritically, at face value.

These representatives are very keen on the scientific method when discussing, for example, bits of steel or aircraft trajectories but when it comes to "al Qaeda" movies the method goes straight out of the window. We are asked simply to believe.

[stateofgrace]

The long relationship that Islamic Fundamentalist groups have had with the Intelligence agencies of various countries (including those of France, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the US and Israel) suggest that this is the less likely possibility.



The US has pitifully little justification for its lethal military rampages. Why would it want to destroy its favorite and most useful "enemy"? Terrorist outrages are very good for mobilising public support for State violence.





No, just that the whole production and delivery process is wide open to manipulation. It is illogical for JREF representatives of the America's Under Attack Movement to take it, uncritically, at face value.

These representatives are very keen on the scientific method when discussing, for example, bits of steel or aircraft trajectories but when it comes to "al Qaeda" movies the method goes straight out of the window. We are asked simply to believe.

Why would they need public support ?

[8den]

The long relationship that Islamic Fundamentalist groups have had with the Intelligence agencies of various countries (including those of France, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the US and Israel) suggest that this is the less likely possibility.


And of course you have evidence for all of this.

What benefit would there be for Muslim Fundamentalists to attack their allies?


The US has pitifully little justification for its lethal military rampages. Why would it want to destroy its favorite and most useful "enemy"? Terrorist outrages are very good for mobilising public support for State violence.


So the US infiltrates Al Qaeda why?



No, just that the whole production and delivery process is wide open to manipulation. It is illogical for JREF representatives of the America's Under Attack Movement to take it, uncritically, at face value.


Manipulation you've not proven happens.


These representatives are very keen on the scientific method when discussing, for example, bits of steel or aircraft trajectories but when it comes to "al Qaeda" movies the method goes straight out of the window. We are asked simply to believe.

As someone who's had to testify in court as part of the chain of evidence I understand your point. As someone who works in film postproduction, and worked as a news video editor I find your attitude petulant and ignorant.

True the chain of custody cannot be proven in this instance. However if were are to take your claim that they could be faked, the list of people involved in this fraud would include, well frankly, people I work with. The Journalists who received the tapes for example.

Plus there's the idiocy of the argument. Why on earth would they go to the trouble of faking this video now? In case you haven't noticed the truth movement is diminished shadow of it's not so great once self, the video didn't have any real media impact.

Why release a fake video now?

[Caustic Logic]

Theres no reason to believe that they are penetrated by intelligence assets.

However if Al Qaeda was infiltrated like the IRA was surely we'd be seeing concrete specific examples of effective stopping Al Qaeda operations or major arrests of Al Qaeda senior staff.

One would hope,

anyway.