Zawahiri praises 19 hijackers for Al Qaeda victory

[Kryptos]

In April 2002, a video surfaced that showed Ahmed al-Haznawi giving his last will and testament. The video, entitled "The Wills of the New York and Washington Battle Martyrs," was delivered to Al Jazeera's main office in Qatar. In the video, Haznawi is seen reciting a his last will and testament. The video footage of Haznawi was filmed in Kandahar in March 2001, which is evident from a date and place name written on the will that he was reading.

As well, the video included footage of Ayman al-Zawahiri (Bin Laden’s deputy), seated next to Bin Laden, while he spoke about the 9/11 attacks and praised the "19 martyrs." In speaking about 9/11, Zawahiri uses the words "our" ("It [the victory] is not a result of our skills or expertise, rather it is purely through Allah’s Grace") and "we" ("the victory that we enjoy today"). In doing so, Zawahiri essentially admits that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

1kqpZGBOKZQ

[beachnut]

... Zawahiri essentially admits that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The only people who can't figure out 9/11, the truth movement.

[Quad4_72]

In April 2002, a video surfaced that showed Ahmed al-Haznawi giving his last will and testament. The video, entitled "The Wills of the New York and Washington Battle Martyrs," was delivered to Al Jazeera's main office in Qatar. In the video, Haznawi is seen reciting a his last will and testament. The video footage of Haznawi was filmed in Kandahar in March 2001, which is evident from a date and place name written on the will that he was reading.

As well, the video included footage of Ayman al-Zawahiri (Bin Laden’s deputy), seated next to Bin Laden, while he spoke about the 9/11 attacks and praised the "19 martyrs." In speaking about 9/11, Zawahiri uses the words "our" ("It [the victory] is not a result of our skills or expertise, rather it is purely through Allah’s Grace") and "we" ("the victory that we enjoy today"). In doing so, Zawahiri essentially admits that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

1kqpZGBOKZQ

The CIA was paying him to say that. DUH.

[T.A.M.]

NWO money made them do it.

TAM;)

[dudalb]

I am waiting for Jihad Jane to show up with her "All these videos are Junk Science becuase there is no chain of custody " crap. Nice way to throw out all evidence that Al quida,and not the US government , was reponsible.

[John Blonn]

We simply need a new investigation to find out whether or not this video is authentic.



ps 9/11 was an inside job.

[Drudgewire]

For that matter, we should get a new investigation to find out if there really is such a place as the "Middle East." Sounds like something out of a Tolkien novel to me. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[1337m4n]

Hardcore Truthers will respond by saying it's fake, of course.

But, I wonder what the "agnostics" like RedIbis and deep44 and metamars think of all these videos of al Queada admitting it? They never seem to comment on them, ever.

I think the fake "agnostics" avoid this sort of thing because it renders almost all other 9/11 questions moot (i.e. once it's conclusively proven that al-Queada did it, for what do the hole in the C-ring, the Flight 93 debris field, or the condition of WTC7 even matter anymore?). The fake "agnostics" use those questions as cover. With something as conclusive as al-Queada actually admitting to the crime, their only option is to admit that they believe the government is actively fabricating evidence--and that would blow their cover of "agnosticism" and force them to reveal themselves for what they are, crazy nutcase Twoofers.

[Sizzler]

They could have been patsies. In their minds, they are successful, but they are unaware of the "extra help" they recieved while doing so.

Of course one would have to prove that they recieved any extra help for this to be worth anything.

[PhantomWolf]

They could have been patsies. In their minds, they are successful, but they are unaware of the "extra help" they recieved while doing so.

Of course one would have to prove that they recieved any extra help for this to be worth anything.

Well I'd have to suggest that it'll be a long time coming from the Truth Movement, they have yet to prove anything except that they are a total waste of space.

[DC]

Well I'd have to suggest that it'll be a long time coming from the Truth Movement, they have yet to prove anything except that they are a total waste of space.

dont waste our oxygen pls....

[PhantomWolf]

dont waste our oxygen pls....

Sorry I'm not going to hold my breath while you attempt to figure out one provable fact that most of the Truth Movement can actually agree on, but you are quite welcome too if you want to try.

[DC]

Sorry I'm not going to hold my breath while you attempt to figure out one provable fact that most of the Truth Movement can actually agree on, but you are quite welcome too if you want to try.

:rolleyes:

what a waste of oxygen and bits you are

[metamars]

Hardcore Truthers will respond by saying it's fake, of course.

But, I wonder what the "agnostics" like RedIbis and deep44 and metamars think of all these videos of al Queada admitting it? They never seem to comment on them, ever.

I think the fake "agnostics" avoid this sort of thing because it renders almost all other 9/11 questions moot (i.e. once it's conclusively proven that al-Queada did it, for what do the hole in the C-ring, the Flight 93 debris field, or the condition of WTC7 even matter anymore?). The fake "agnostics" use those questions as cover. With something as conclusive as al-Queada actually admitting to the crime, their only option is to admit that they believe the government is actively fabricating evidence--and that would blow their cover of "agnosticism" and force them to reveal themselves for what they are, crazy nutcase Twoofers.

Not necessarily. Although I myself speak about LIHOP/MIHOP as mutually exclusive possibilities, in fact you could have had a situation where, say, some of the hijackers were "turned", while some were not. (Such a statement almost certainly implies remote control of at least one of the planes, so LIHOP is almost certainly excluded.) And this situation of some turned, some not, could prevail in whatever parts of a hierarchy may exist, all the way up to bin Laden.

Even this is simplistic. You wouldn't need to turn anybody who was a Western intelligence asset, from the get-go.

Here's another scenario, more palatable to those who can't accept the possibility of remote control: Neither the 19 hijackers were turned/assets, nor was bin Laden/Zawahir turned/assets, but intermediates were. E.g., if the story of $100,000 being wired to the hijackers, courtesy of the Pakistani ISI, are true, you could now have a LIHOP/MIHOP, which is heavy on the LIHOP, light on the MIHOP. :) (BTW, I used to have a non-Muslim Pakistani boss, who told me that he didn't believe this story, as it was reported in an Indian newpaper, and Indian newspapers report false and defamatory stories involving Pakistan, all the time.)

In point of fact, there were warnings of 911 from many foreign intelligence services, including the Moroccan intelligence service. How did the Moroccan intelligence service come to learn of 911? Was it all wiretaps and hidden microphones? If you were running an intelligence service, would you rely on just such means, or would you also try and get people into the organizations you were seeking to spy on, and/or control?

Your inferences about the Zawahiri film are cartoonish in their simplicity, and almost certainly wrong, for that reason alone. 911 could have been both LIHOP and MIHOP. And Zawahiri could be just a useful idiot. Or even a dangerous useful idiot. I.e., capable of mounting operations that are not interdicted or controlled by Western intelligence agencies, even if 911 was not an example of one such.

Another reason I don't comment much on many aspects of 911 is because I don't know that much about them. If I was to comment a lot on the hijackers and videos of Al Qeuada dudes, I should first study up on them, both pro and con.

Finally, I'm not really agnostic on 911. I believe it was either MIHOP and/or LIHOP, not mega-OOPS. Nowadays, I'm agnostic on the collapse of wtc 1& 2. (I still think the idea of a non-CD of WTC 7 is laughable.) But not on 911, as a whole.

Regarding the mysterious Mohammed Atta, I sincerely doubt he was anything other than a Western intelligence asset. Not turned, and not just playing a convincing role as a hard-partying non-Muslim. Atta was not invisible, and was seen in circumstances that you don't read about in the NY Times. If the government had made a public call for citizens to come forth with any knowledge they had about the hijackers, you might have heard stories beyond even what you already find on the internet and non-mainstream books, such as those of Daniel Hopsicker.

However, I suppose I should play devil's advocate, and criticize my own assumptions, as possibly too simplistic. The US government could have had lots of intelligence on Mohammed Atta, who really was a clever Muslim fanatic with an excellent cover, failed to "connect the dots" in time, and not called for public assistance after 911 to make CYA operations easier. Encouraging citizens to help investigate the hijackers could also have encouraged them to blab on national TV, say, about other suspects that the intelligence agencies preferred to just keep an eye on. This would be particularly desirable if the US intelligence agencies felt that they already had excellent intelligence on any and all associates of Mohammed Atta and company. Especially if said intelligence came about partly because of assets placed within organizations - assets that may have literally taken decades to put in place.

Now it's your turn. The Aaron Russo interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=Aaron+Russo+Nick+Rockefeller&hl=en) wherein he related that Nicholas Rockefeller knew of 911 months in advance, and that there would be American soldiers looking in the caves of Afghanistan for Bin Laden, and a "global war on terror", certainly suggests MIHOP or LIHOP, to me. What does it suggest to you?

[funk de fino]

Regarding the mysterious Mohammed Atta, I sincerely doubt he was anything other than a Western intelligence asset. Not turned, and not just playing a convincing role as a hard-partying non-Muslim. Atta was not invisible, and was seen in circumstances that you don't read about in the NY Times. If the government had made a public call for citizens to come forth with any knowledge they had about the hijackers, you might have heard stories beyond even what you already find on the internet and non-mainstream books, such as those of Daniel Hopsicker.

Of course, it does not help that most of the stuff posted about Atta and his cohorts hard partying was false.

[Thunder]

We simply need a new investigation to find out whether or not this video is authentic.



ps 9/11 was an inside job.

this is a joke right?

[Thunder]

:rolleyes:

what a waste of oxygen and bits you are

reported

[DC]

reported

its ok aslong you also reportet the other post that made me use such words :)

[doobiedoright]

Not necessarily. Although I myself speak about LIHOP/MIHOP as mutually exclusive possibilities, in fact you could have had a situation where, say, some of the hijackers were "turned", while some were not. (Such a statement almost certainly implies remote control of at least one of the planes, so LIHOP is almost certainly excluded.) And this situation of some turned, some not, could prevail in whatever parts of a hierarchy may exist, all the way up to bin Laden.

Even this is simplistic. You wouldn't need to turn anybody who was a Western intelligence asset, from the get-go.

Here's another scenario, more palatable to those who can't accept the possibility of remote control: Neither the 19 hijackers were turned/assets, nor was bin Laden/Zawahir turned/assets, but intermediates were. E.g., if the story of $100,000 being wired to the hijackers, courtesy of the Pakistani ISI, are true, you could now have a LIHOP/MIHOP, which is heavy on the LIHOP, light on the MIHOP. :) (BTW, I used to have a non-Muslim Pakistani boss, who told me that he didn't believe this story, as it was reported in an Indian newpaper, and Indian newspapers report false and defamatory stories involving Pakistan, all the time.)

In point of fact, there were warnings of 911 from many foreign intelligence services, including the Moroccan intelligence service. How did the Moroccan intelligence service come to learn of 911? Was it all wiretaps and hidden microphones? If you were running an intelligence service, would you rely on just such means, or would you also try and get people into the organizations you were seeking to spy on, and/or control?

Your inferences about the Zawahiri film are cartoonish in their simplicity, and almost certainly wrong, for that reason alone. 911 could have been both LIHOP and MIHOP. And Zawahiri could be just a useful idiot. Or even a dangerous useful idiot. I.e., capable of mounting operations that are not interdicted or controlled by Western intelligence agencies, even if 911 was not an example of one such.

Another reason I don't comment much on many aspects of 911 is because I don't know that much about them. If I was to comment a lot on the hijackers and videos of Al Qeuada dudes, I should first study up on them, both pro and con.

Finally, I'm not really agnostic on 911. I believe it was either MIHOP and/or LIHOP, not mega-OOPS. Nowadays, I'm agnostic on the collapse of wtc 1& 2. (I still think the idea of a non-CD of WTC 7 is laughable.) But not on 911, as a whole.

Regarding the mysterious Mohammed Atta, I sincerely doubt he was anything other than a Western intelligence asset. Not turned, and not just playing a convincing role as a hard-partying non-Muslim. Atta was not invisible, and was seen in circumstances that you don't read about in the NY Times. If the government had made a public call for citizens to come forth with any knowledge they had about the hijackers, you might have heard stories beyond even what you already find on the internet and non-mainstream books, such as those of Daniel Hopsicker.

However, I suppose I should play devil's advocate, and criticize my own assumptions, as possibly too simplistic. The US government could have had lots of intelligence on Mohammed Atta, who really was a clever Muslim fanatic with an excellent cover, failed to "connect the dots" in time, and not called for public assistance after 911 to make CYA operations easier. Encouraging citizens to help investigate the hijackers could also have encouraged them to blab on national TV, say, about other suspects that the intelligence agencies preferred to just keep an eye on. This would be particularly desirable if the US intelligence agencies felt that they already had excellent intelligence on any and all associates of Mohammed Atta and company. Especially if said intelligence came about partly because of assets placed within organizations - assets that may have literally taken decades to put in place.

Now it's your turn. The Aaron Russo interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=Aaron+Russo+Nick+Rockefeller&hl=en) wherein he related that Nicholas Rockefeller knew of 911 months in advance, and that there would be American soldiers looking in the caves of Afghanistan for Bin Laden, and a "global war on terror", certainly suggests MIHOP or LIHOP, to me. What does it suggest to you?



Hey thats a neat story and might make a good book but there is just one problem.
Clinton gutted the intelligence agency's to the bone and got rid of any agents we might have had!

[John Blonn]

this is a joke right?

Yup.