Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There are plenty of facts and lots of evidence for all those. But apparently, not enough. Either that, or there is enough, but the teevee and paper didn't bother to tell us.
You don't know if there's more evidence, because it doesn't show up on television or in the newspapers? Are those really your only two sources of information? Geez, most nuts stick to the Internet exclusively.

[Pardalis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_Nearly_third_of_Americans_still_0922.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/11/16/70_224_230_40_47971.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq327.xml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts

Do you have anything to offer except insults and "really, show us"?
You must have that hotkeyed.

I stand corrected.

[busherie]

Iran/Contra
Overthrowing Allende in Chile
Castro assassination attemptsNot saying that they are all true - just that they could well be. This is because

They are inherently plausible.
They have evidence to support them.I have no definitive lists of conspiracies which are credible, and which are nonsense. There's a spectrum there. In the case of 911 theories, it's not inherently absurd that the US government has information which it isn't sharing. It's not credible that the WTC was deliberately demolished. It's completely ludicrous that the WTC was dissolved by satellite laser weapons.

Therefore the LIHOP theory is credible, right?

Thanks for the logic, at last!

Busherie

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Wow, this thread died fast. (Bump)

[MaGZ]

Timeline on Khalid Shaik Mohammed

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&other_al-qaeda_operatives=khalidShaikMohammed

[MaGZ]

The Confession Backfired by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10688

[T.A.M.]

Do you ever reference a source that isn't agenda driven?

TAM

[WildCat]

Therefore the LIHOP theory is credible, right?

Thanks for the logic, at last!

Busherie
Are you LIHOP now? So that means no CD of WTC 1, 2, and 7, no faked crash at Shanksville, no flyover of the pentagon, no missiles at GZ or the Pentagon, no remote controlled planes, no pods, etc etc, right?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you ever reference a source that isn't agenda driven?
At least they weren't white supremacy websites this time...

[gumboot]

I find one thing really funny about this whole thing...

It's the way people are reacting. People like truthers, and the columnist MaGZ linked to.

I've known his name for years. I've known that he has had his sticky fingers in dozens of terrorist attacks for years. It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that he is responsible for lots of actual and attempted attacks.

I find it funny that many people seem to think this guy was just suddenly presented, randomly claiming responsibility, out of the blue.

One might almost be inclined to think these people had never heard of KSM before.

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

I find one thing really funny about this whole thing...

It's the way people are reacting. People like truthers, and the columnist MaGZ linked to.

I've known his name for years. I've known that he has had his sticky fingers in dozens of terrorist attacks for years. It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that he is responsible for lots of actual and attempted attacks.

I find it funny that many people seem to think this guy was just suddenly presented, randomly claiming responsibility, out of the blue.

One might almost be inclined to think these people had never heard of KSM before.

-Gumboot
Exactly, it's the same w/ OBL. Very early on 9/11, before I even heard any speculation on the news, I figured OBL and al Qaeda were behind it. Troofers act like it's a leap of faith to suspect OBL so soon after the attacks, but anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention back then suspected him.

Of course, many troofers were probably only 9 or 10 years old at the time.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I find one thing really funny about this whole thing...

It's the way people are reacting. People like truthers, and the columnist MaGZ linked to.

I've known his name for years. I've known that he has had his sticky fingers in dozens of terrorist attacks for years. It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that he is responsible for lots of actual and attempted attacks.

I find it funny that many people seem to think this guy was just suddenly presented, randomly claiming responsibility, out of the blue.

One might almost be inclined to think these people had never heard of KSM before.
Same here. I first noticed this story on Digg.com. I'll be honest; I had to look the guy up, but a surprisingly large number of the comments seemed like they were made based on this idea that he was just some random Arab guy they had in their custody.

[gumboot]

Exactly, it's the same w/ OBL. Very early on 9/11, before I even heard any speculation on the news, I figured OBL and al Qaeda were behind it. Troofers act like it's a leap of faith to suspect OBL so soon after the attacks, but anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention back then suspected him.

Of course, many troofers were probably only 9 or 10 years old at the time.



I think that's a lot of it. They honestly have never heard of these people and organisations before. They're so utterly oblivious and ignorant of the backstory and surrounding events behind these sort of attacks that they think things just pop up at random.

Sometimes their arrogance mixed with their ignorance makes me want to punch my monitor. But then I just have to remind myself they're only children.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

Exactly, it's the same w/ OBL. Very early on 9/11, before I even heard any speculation on the news, I figured OBL and al Qaeda were behind it. Troofers act like it's a leap of faith to suspect OBL so soon after the attacks, but anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention back then suspected him.

Of course, many troofers were probably only 9 or 10 years old at the time.

The CIA knew the hijackers were AQ operatives before the Twin Towers collapsed. They ran the names of the hijackers provider by the surviving attendants in their computers and within minutes determined who was behind the attacks. I think it can be argued that the CIA knew these individuals were in the US before they attacked on 9/11.

[gumboot]

The CIA knew the hijackers were AQ operatives before the Twin Towers collapsed. They ran the names of the hijackers provider by the surviving attendants in their computers and within minutes determined who was behind the attacks. I think it can be argued that the CIA knew these individuals were in the US before they attacked on 9/11.



I think that's probably quite likely.

Unfortunately the CIA aren't legally allowed to operate inside the USA, so there really isn't much they could have done. Legally speaking.

And the USA is a big country. 300 million people. Knowing someone is in the country and knowing where they are... not the same thing.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

The CIA knew the hijackers were AQ operatives before the Twin Towers collapsed. They ran the names of the hijackers provider by the surviving attendants in their computers and within minutes determined who was behind the attacks. I think it can be argued that the CIA knew these individuals were in the US before they attacked on 9/11.

Yes, they did know two of them were part of Al-Qaeda, and with 2 weeks before the attacks, they finally found out they were in the USA (The two in question). The vast majority of the hijackers were not known to the CIA or FBI, and I would ask you to provide one shred of evidence to substantiate any different, beyond the two that the 9/11 commission reports identifies as being known. There may be one or two others with some AQ connection known, but The majority were not known.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think it can be argued that the CIA knew these individuals were in the US before they attacked on 9/11.
I'm pretty sure, although I may be wrong, that there's actually no argument here. They did know that at least some of the would-be hijackers were in the country prior to 9/11.

[stateofgrace]

The CIA knew the hijackers were AQ operatives before the Twin Towers collapsed. They ran the names of the hijackers provider by the surviving attendants in their computers and within minutes determined who was behind the attacks. I think it can be argued that the CIA knew these individuals were in the US before they attacked on 9/11.

Yes Magz, they did know, they were forewarned, and it has all been documented. Had you even read the 911 commissions report you would have seen this.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html

[T.A.M.]

Al-Mindhar and Al-Hamzi I believe, but dont quote me, were the two they knew for sure 2 weeks prior to 9/11.

[MaGZ]

I think that's probably quite likely.

Unfortunately the CIA aren't legally allowed to operate inside the USA, so there really isn't much they could have done. Legally speaking.

And the USA is a big country. 300 million people. Knowing someone is in the country and knowing where they are... not the same thing.

-Gumboot

The official story says the CIA knew of only two AQ operatives in the US. I maintain they knew they were all here and asked Mossad agents to enter the US to keep track of them. This would explain why the CIA ignored warnings from other intelligence agencies that AQ would attack soon within the US. The CIA never should have trusted the Mossad.

[MaGZ]

Yes, they did know two of them were part of Al-Qaeda, and with 2 weeks before the attacks, they finally found out they were in the USA (The two in question). The vast majority of the hijackers were not known to the CIA or FBI, and I would ask you to provide one shred of evidence to substantiate any different, beyond the two that the 9/11 commission reports identifies as being known. There may be one or two others with some AQ connection known, but The majority were not known.

TAM:)

Page 13, from "Against All Enemies" by Richard A. Clarke

Frank Miller (FBI ?) go the passenger manifests from the airlines and told Clarke they were all al Qaeda. The FBI apparently checked with the CIA during the attacks and got confirmation.

[Babbylonian]

The official story says the CIA knew of only two AQ operatives in the US. I maintain they knew they were all here and asked Mossad agents to enter the US to keep track of them. This would explain why the CIA ignored warnings from other intelligence agencies that AQ would attack soon within the US. The CIA never should have trusted the Mossad.
Conspiracy 102: Jews are always involved

There is zero reason, apart from antisemitism-based conspiracy theorism, to think that the CIA would ask the Mossad to do anything in the United States. If the CIA wanted someone tracked in the US they'd go to the FBI which holds responsibility for counterintelligence and counterterrorist activities in this country, and which would have far more manpower to do the job.

If anyone within the CIA asked Mossad to run any kind of operation within the US, they'd not only be immediately fired but they'd probably end up in jail. But, I guess implausible speculation is pretty standard fare among CTers...

[MaGZ]

Conspiracy 102: Jews are always involved

There is zero reason, apart from antisemitism-based conspiracy theorism, to think that the CIA would ask the Mossad to do anything in the United States. If the CIA wanted someone tracked in the US they'd go to the FBI which holds responsibility for counterintelligence and counterterrorist activities in this country, and which would have far more manpower to do the job.

If anyone within the CIA asked Mossad to run any kind of operation within the US, they'd not only be immediately fired but they'd probably end up in jail. But, I guess implausible speculation is pretty standard fare among CTers...

The Mossad are experts in monitoring Arab/Islamic extremists. They have been conducting these type of surveillance operations in Europe and elsewhere since the Munich Olympic attacks in 1972. They have the expertise to conduct such operations. It is not unreasonable to think the CIA would have known the Mossad had the Hamburg group under surveillance before they came to America. When the AQ operatives began entering the US, the CIA could have asked the Mossad to continue the surveillance.

[T.A.M.]

I suspect (speculation) the CIA got the info from Saudi Intelligence shortly after the event, rather than having forehand knowledge of all these these individuals. If the CIA knew all of these people were Al-Qaeda before hand, than it would have been 19 goofs instead of the goof of letting 2 of them slip into the country, and we would have heard more.

You have any proof that the CIA had FOREknowledge of all 19 hijackers being Al-Qaeda members?

TAM:)

[Babbylonian]

The Mossad are experts in monitoring Arab/Islamic extremists. They have been conducting these type of surveillance operations in Europe and elsewhere since the Munich Olympic attacks in 1972. They have the expertise to conduct such operations.
Why would anyone deny any of that? Nations run illegal intelligence operations in other nations all the time. That doesn't mean they're approved by the nation in which the operations are conducted.
It is not unreasonable to think the CIA would have known the Mossad had the Hamburg group under surveillance before they came to America.
If they had evidence (I know how y'all hate that word), then, no, it wouldn't be unreasonable. Was there said evidence?
When the AQ operatives began entering the US, the CIA could have asked the Mossad to continue the surveillance.
"Could," "would" and "did" are all very different things. If you have evidence that the CIA made such a request, then provide it. Keep in mind, though, that nations don't typically (ever?) grant permission for foreign intelligence agencies to run operations on their soil. They (in the US "they" would be FBI, not CIA) might allow an operation to continue (unbeknownst to the operatives) in order to smoke out more operatives (particularly involved US citizens), and some nations with very close intelligence relationships (e.g., the UK and the US) might allow foreign agents to work with their own agents, but there is, again, zero reason to think that the CIA would grant Mossad agents permission to operate in the United States - they have neither the power nor a good reason to do so.

Again, all of the above presupposes that the CIA was somehow duped into trusting the Mossad in this matter, as you implied in your previous post. If you're making CIA part of the conspiracy, then you'll still need evidence to prove it to me, but at least your theory would have some internal consistency.

[gumboot]

The Mossad are experts in monitoring Arab/Islamic extremists. They have been conducting these type of surveillance operations in Europe and elsewhere since the Munich Olympic attacks in 1972. They have the expertise to conduct such operations. It is not unreasonable to think the CIA would have known the Mossad had the Hamburg group under surveillance before they came to America. When the AQ operatives began entering the US, the CIA could have asked the Mossad to continue the surveillance.



You just can't let go of your rabid anti-semitism for even a moment, can you MaGZ?

Disgusting. How can such illogical sickening bigotry exist in a civilisation that is so enlightened?

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

Why would anyone deny any of that? Nations run illegal intelligence operations in other nations all the time. That doesn't mean they're approved by the nation in which the operations are conducted.

If they had evidence (I know how y'all hate that word), then, no, it wouldn't be unreasonable. Was there said evidence?

"Could," "would" and "did" are all very different things. If you have evidence that the CIA made such a request, then provide it. Keep in mind, though, that nations don't typically (ever?) grant permission for foreign intelligence agencies to run operations on their soil. They (in the US "they" would be FBI, not CIA) might allow an operation to continue (unbeknownst to the operatives) in order to smoke out more operatives (particularly involved US citizens), and some nations with very close intelligence relationships (e.g., the UK and the US) might allow foreign agents to work with their own agents, but there is, again, zero reason to think that the CIA would grant Mossad agents permission to operate in the United States - they have neither the power nor a good reason to do so.

Again, all of the above presupposes that the CIA was somehow duped into trusting the Mossad in this matter, as you implied in your previous post. If you're making CIA part of the conspiracy, then you'll still need evidence to prove it to me, but at least your theory would have some internal consistency.

The evidence is the Israeli Art Students.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index_np.html

[MaGZ]

You just can't let go of your rabid anti-semitism for even a moment, can you MaGZ?

Disgusting. How can such illogical sickening bigotry exist in a civilisation that is so enlightened?

-Gumboot

In time you will see that the Mossad had the hijackers under surveillance.
Mark my words and remember them.

[Mr.D]

"Could," "would" and "did" are all very different things.


MAgZ has shown time and time again that he cannot comprehend the difference between "possible" and "must have" or even between "small likelyhood," "large likelyhood" and "impossible to be anything but" or even "sorta looks a little bit like a" with "must be a"

So he just substitutes whichever one makes the strongest sounding argument in favor of his preconceived conclusion.

[T.A.M.]

In time you will see that the Mossad had the hijackers under surveillance.
Mark my words and remember them.

marked...

TAM:)

[Babbylonian]

The evidence is the Israeli Art Students.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index_np.html
If you've actually read that story, you'd know that no conclusion is reached, and that no conclusion is even possible based on what's written there. A full page (page 4) is dedicated simply to describing what Israel has either done or been acused of in the past, seemingly in an effort to indict these "art students" based on history. Even more bizarre is that, apparently, despite the author's contention that Israel is extremely skilled in conducting intelligence operations, the "art students" described demonstrate zero skill in covering their tracks, apparently being "caught" frequently in places they weren't supposed to be and approaching government agents directly with no apparent purpose. If they are indeed Mossad, then they must be the most incompetent agents ever fielded by their home country...

Further, there is nothing in that story that indicates a direct relationship between the "art students" and the CIA, which is the latest nonsense you've been foisting on us in this thread, of which I've asked you for evidence.

[busherie]

Good morning,

I strongly recommend that you read this article about how KSM became the official mastermind of the 9/11 attacks:

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070317133619214

I'm still going through the sources because some are not presented.

(For source of Fouda's lie about the timing of his alleged june 2002 interview with KSM, source is here: http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html)

What do you honestly think? (answer only if you have actually read the article please)

Busherie

[Oliver]

http://911truth.org (http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070317133619214)


Nope, wrong URL. What's next? You post links to Alex Jones?
Serious sources please, we don't get our information in places
like here (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/intergalactic/).

[Gravy]

I think you should read the 9/11 Commission report and point out what it gets wrong, as should have the author of the article. Here's chapter 5. I'll be glad to read your critique. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

[busherie]

Non 911truth:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KUP20070315&articleId=5087

[Gravy]

Non 911truth:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KUP20070315&articleId=5087

WTF, dude? Did you miss that the article is from 2003 and posits that Khalid may be dead?

[busherie]

I think you should read the 9/11 Commission report and point out what it gets wrong, as should have the author of the article. Here's chapter 5. I'll be glad to read your critique. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Gravy, I have a bit of a problem with the Commission report about KSM.

Because we are told to believe that these information obtained under torture are the truth. How do I know if all of this hasn't been written by propaganda specialists? The answer is: We do'nt know.

When you read this...

"Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.2"




And then you check the notes that support the chapter 5 about KSM's life and actions:




1.Though KSM and Bin Ladin knew each other from the anti-Soviet campaign of the 1980s, KSM apparently did not begin working with al Qaeda until after the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, Nov. 21, 2003; Jan. 9, 2004; Feb. 19, 2004.
2.Those detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Riduan Isamuddin (also known as Ham-bali), Abd al Rahim al Nashiri,Tawfiq bin Attash (also known as Khallad), Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al Kah-tani,Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani,Ali Abd al Rahman al Faqasi al Ghamdi (also known as Abu Bakr al Azdi), and Hassan Ghul.
3. On KSM's relationship to Yousef and his ethnicity, see CIA analytic report, Khalid Sheik Muhammad's Nephews, CTC 2003-300013, Jan. 31, 2003. On KSM's biography, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003; FBI electronic communication, requests for information on KSM colleges/universities, June 10, 2002.
4. In an uncorroborated post-capture claim that may be mere bravado, KSM has stated that he considered assassinating Rabbi Meir Kahane when Kahane lectured in Greensboro at some point between 1984 and 1986. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003. On KSM's connection to Sayyaf, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, July 3, 2003; July 12, 2003; FBI electronic communication,"Summary of Information . . . with regard to . . . KSM," July 8, 1999. On KSM's battle experience and his electronics work, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, July 3, 2003; July 12, 2003. On KSM's anti-Soviet activities, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Feb. 17, 2004 (in which KSM says he apparently met Bin Ladin for the first time when the Sayyaf group and Bin Ladin's Arab mujahideen group were next to each other along the front line).
5. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003 (in which KSM also notes that his group continued fighting in the Jalalabad area, and his brother Abid was killed there). KSM claims that Ramzi Yousef visited the NGO's establishment in Jalalabad while Yousef was undergoing training. KSM adds that between 1993 and 1996, he traveled to China, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bosnia (a second time), Brazil, Sudan, and Malaysia. Most, if not all, of this travel appears to have been related to his abiding interest in carrying out terrorist operations.Although KSM claims that Sheikh Abdallah was not a member, financier, or supporter of al Qaeda, he admits that Abdallah underwrote a 1995 trip KSM took to join the Bosnia jihad. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 23, 2003.
6. On KSM's learning of Yousef 's plans, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Jan. 9, 2004 (in which KSM also contends that Yousef never divulged to him the intended target of the attack). On KSM/Yousef phone conversations, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Feb. 17, 2004 (in which KSM also says that most of his phone conversations with Yousef were social in nature, but that Yousef did discuss mixing explosives ingredients once or twice and that on one occasion,Yousef asked him to send the passport Yousef had in his true name,Abdul Basit). On KSM's money transfer, see FBI report,Tradebom investigation, Mar. 20, 1993.
7. Evidence gathered at the time of Yousef 's February 1995 arrest included dolls wearing clothes containing nitrocellulose. FBI evidence, Manila air investigation. On KSM's rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM's statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing). On the Manila air plot, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM,Apr. 17, 2003; July 12, 2003 (in which KSM also says bojinka is not Serbo-Croatian for "big bang," as has been widely reported, but rather a nonsense word he adopted after hearing it on the front lines in Afghanistan).According to KSM, the plot was to receive financing from a variety of sources, including associates of co-conspirator Wali Khan and KSM's own funds. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, Nov. 26, 2003; Jan. 9, 2004; Feb. 19, 2004. On activities during the summer of 1994, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, May 3, 2003; July 12, 2003; Nov. 10, 2003; Feb. 21, 2004; Feb. 24, 2004.




And it goes on, which leads me to the conclusion that he whole 9/11 CR KSM story is very likely to be based on torture and/or false documents.


I'm sorry Gravy, but I can't take this report for granted. I'm sure you will agree.




I'd love to see your analysis of the article I linked.

Thx very mych

Busherie

[busherie]

WTF, dude? Did you miss that the article is from 2003 and posits that Khalid may be dead?
Obviously, since in 2003 nobody knew what happened to him. The article is relevant though. I'm preparing a shorter version because it's a very dense article.

[Gravy]

Evidence that torture was involved in eliciting KSM or Binalshibh's statements?

Evidence that statements KSM made prior to his capture were coerced?

[Gravy]

Obviously, since in 2003 nobody knew what happened to him. The article is relevant though. I'm preparing a shorter version because it's a very dense article.My point is that much has been learned since that entirely speculative article was written.

If KSM's statements are supported by other evidence and by other detainee statements, will you dismiss them anyway?

If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?

[busherie]

Evidence that torture was involved in eliciting KSM or Binalshibh's statements?

Evidence that statements KSM made prior to his capture were coerced?

First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer? multiple reports show KSM was subjected to waterboarding... (it was posted in this thread if i remmeber, an ABC article if i'm correct. We can assum the same for binalshibh.

Second question: well that's one of the questions by the fouda interview: the article shows clearly that fouda's account places in the interview not in june, but in may or april... What more can we learn about Fouda's interview? i'm analyzing the article right now.

[busherie]

My point is that much has been learned since that entirely speculative article was written.

If KSM's statements are supported by other evidence and by other detainee statements, will you dismiss them anyway?

If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?

Entirely speculative article?: multiple sources are quoted.

detainee's statements? if they come from gitmo, this is no proof at all.
Imagine I put you in jail, then publish your statements saying "I believe 9/11 was an inside job"after 5 years of dentention and waterboarding without seeing a lawyer, a NGO, or anything that looks like a decent judicial system, will other people believe these statements?

Obvisouly, they won't. And they wil be right.

Fouda's article should be taken with caution, since we do no know the exact date. The exact date, before or after the US administration came out saying KSM was the mastermind, is very important.

i'll get back to you as soon i finish analyzing the article.

Busherie

[busherie]

If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?

If he pleas guilty for 9/11, I'll pay attention to the HARD evidence.

Obvisouly KSM is a terrorist! Obviously he is part of AQ.

The question is: is he the mastermind of 9/11?

B

[Gravy]

First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer? multiple reports show KSM was subjected to waterboarding... (it was posted in this thread if i remmeber, an ABC article if i'm correct. We can assum the same for binalshibh.Ah, but you miss my point. I asked you for evidence, not speculation. Now, suppose no evidence is forthcoming that his confession was coerced, but KSM retracts his confession on thost grounds anyway? Whose word would you take: his, or the U.S. governments?

Second question: well that's one of the questions by the fouda interview: the article shows clearly that fouda's account places in the interview not in june, but in may or april... What more can we learn about Fouda's interview? i'm analyzing the article right now.The author presents a false choice dilemma there. He posits that KSM was suspiciously elevated to the status of a major player by investigators in June, without giving us any evidence that this is so. Then he asks us to chose between these scenarios:

Scenario One: Khalid and Binalshibh's respective roles in the plot were first discovered solely due to Fouda's contact with them; or Scenario Two: The decision to send Fouda on his interview errand was made at the same time that a decision was made to market Khalid as the new 9/11 mastermindThat's bad logic and bad reporting, with loads of leading verbiage.

[Gravy]

I'm gad we agree at least that KSM is a terrorist! He's been wanted by the U.S. since 1996.

I'm not in favor of the use of torture, but if it comes down to KSM's word about that versus the US's, I'm siding with the US.

[busherie]

Ah, but you miss my point. I asked you for evidence, not speculation. Now, suppose no evidence is forthcoming that his confession was coerced, but KSM retracts his confession on thost grounds anyway? Whose word would you take: his, or the U.S. governments?

The author presents a false choice dilemma there. He posits that KSM was suspiciously elevated to the status of a major player by investigators in June, without giving us any evidence that this is so. Then he asks us to chose between these scenarios:

That's bad logic and bad reporting, with loads of leading verbiage.

Evidence (i'm sad I have to show evidence, everybody show know this by now)

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866


Concerning Fouda's article, I think after a thorough analysis we can assume that he lied about the date of the interview to protect himself. Remember Ramzi (who was with KSM at the time of interview) was arrested soon after, in September.

Fouda was accused of being responsible for this by extremists. So he tried to protect himself. Read this:

But to get back to Ramzi. Shortly after your documentary appeared around the anniversary of 9/11, Ramzi was caught by the Pakistanis and turned over to American intelligence officers. This capture was described by President Bush as a major boost in the war of terrorism but you found yourself initially denounced as "a pig and a traitor" on various Islamist websites and you told the Washington Post (which reported as did other media that the interview had taken place in Karachi last June) that you "couldn't blame people for thinking what they do" and that you yourself wondered at first if there could have been some unforeseeable link.


YF: Yeah. Well there were rumors going around at the time that American intelligence agents were secretly planting tracking devices on Al Jazeera correspondents likely to be in contact with Al-Qa'ida. But when you think about it, that doesn't make sense. If that were the case why would the intelligence apparatus wait for all that time to act? According to the official version, the interviews took place in June but they didn't get hold of Ramzi until early mid-September. Actually this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That's what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary-that I met them in June.

SAS: So?
YF: I lied.
SAS: Really?
YF: Yeah.
SAS: But you're going to come clean with TBS, right?

YF (laughter): Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.
So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.


However, I have a little problem with this asummption, because he changed his version later on: (source is the article I posted a the begining)

"Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid's eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian: "It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye." That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates."

But the article goes on:

"Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh..."

I'm not sure we can go that far, but why change his version many times?

There is another problem: remember the jehad.net communiqué i put in blue above?

I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.

Wow, problem here... then the communiqué lies as well? Is it just a mistake in the communiqué?

Honestly, is there any room for doubts here?

The "i lied to protect myself" theory is weakened by this double mistake.

What do you think?

[gumboot]

If he pleas guilty for 9/11, I'll pay attention to the HARD evidence.

Obvisouly KSM is a terrorist! Obviously he is part of AQ.

The question is: is he the mastermind of 9/11?

B



Operation Bojinka, 1995.

-Gumboot

[sleahead]

Yes, he is inconsistent with the date of the meeting with KSM and Ramzi. I dont even understand why he needs to tell the TBS interviewer about this lie. All he needs to say is that Islamic websites accused me of complicity in Ramzi's arrest, Al Quaeda cleared me with a statement on jehad.net. The relevance of the May date is known only to him, not to people reading Al Quaeda's statement.

What about the rest of his interview, busherie? It strikes me that he is either a masterful liar or he is telling the truth. Of course, if he is lying then Al Jazeera join the cast of thousands involved in this alledged 9/11 conspiracy.

[busherie]

Yes, he is inconsistent with the date of the meeting with KSM and Ramzi. I dont even understand why he needs to tell the TBS interviewer about this lie. All he needs to say is that Islamic websites accused me of complicity in Ramzi's arrest, Al Quaeda cleared me with a statement on jehad.net. The relevance of the May date is known only to him, not to people reading Al Quaeda's statement.

What about the rest of his interview, busherie? It strikes me that he is either a masterful liar or he is telling the truth. Of course, if he is lying then Al Jazeera join the cast of thousands involved in this alledged 9/11 conspiracy.
I think you ask some good questions.

There are questions raised by his changing timelines as shown in my previous post.

I don't think that the eventuality of him lying about the date or the content interview implicates Al J as a whole.

You know journalists are always looking for scoops. The descrepancies about the date of the interview are troublesome, that's for sure.

It raises questions, that's what I wanted to underline.

It even raises the question: was he the mastermind? Or whas it convenient for the US government to present him as the big mastermind?

Remember, they were kept in the dark for a long time, pressured by 9/11 families to come up with answers and clear culprits.

Did they have word of the Fouda interview and therefore said they had found the mastermind?

If I sum it up: the US administration ironically "found out" KSM was the mastermind thanks to Fouda's interview. If Fouda's made it up (as the changing dates seem to raise the possibility), is it possible KSM just became the convenient culprit?

Then why did he confirm it in Gitmo? Well remember this guy:
- was tortured
- likes to put himsled as the super mastermind of all the attacks that have occured in the last 10 years...


PS: note that I believe the attacks were carried out by AQ. My question here is: was KSM presented as the mastermind of 9/11 just because it looks "nice" for the 9/11 familes, the american public, and the world in general?

[WildCat]

IIf I sum it up: the US administration ironically "found out" KSM was the mastermind thanks to Fouda's interview.
Absolutely, 100% wrong busherie. KSM was the primary suspect to being the mastermind behind 9/11 and in Daniel Pearl's murder long before the al Jazeera interview. Once again, you're changing facts to fit your story, because you simply can't handle the truth.

[gumboot]

First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer?



KSM himself stated he has not been abused since arriving at Guantanamo Bay. He claims he was mistreated prior to this, while in CIA custody.

Asserting that no one had access to the detainees is a lie. Both the Red Cross and Amnesty International have issued reports on conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

As for lawyers... they are POWs, at least until a status review hearing determines otherwise. Why would a POW need a lawyer? Is having a lawyer a right a POW has? No, it's not.

What do I think takes place in Guantanamo Bay? I think it's a Navy Base, and I think it is being used as a POW camp.

Are you aware that "interrogation" and "torture" are not the same thing?

On treatment of POWs, I'd like to quote an extract from a book I am reading at the moment:

John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, had been captured the week before at Qala-i-Jangi prison in northern Afghanistan. Now he was imprisoned in a metal container a few hundred yards from Espera's hole.
'And what do you think?' I asked Espera.
'Traitor. And the most vicious kind. He turned his back on the society that raised him, that gave him the freedom and idealism to follow his beliefs.'
'But what was his crime?' I goaded Espera, happy to play devil's advocate. 'Other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?'
'Joining the Taliban. Claiming to be a member of al Qaeda. ****, sir, if that ain't enough for you, his buddies killed a Marine!' Mike Spann, a CIA officer and former Marine captain, had been killed shortly after interrogating Lindh. 'If my grandma killed a Marine, she'd be on my ****list.'
Espera turned serious again. 'We're young Americans out here doing what our nation's democratically elected leaders told us to do. And he's fighting against us. Why's that so hard to figure out? And already the press is bitching about how he's being treated. He's warm. He's protected. He eats three meals each day and sleeps all night. Do I have that? Do my men have that?'
'Their freedom to voice stupid opinions is part of what we're fighting for,' I said. It was well after midnight, and I still had more positions to check on, so I climbed out of the hole as Espera and the other guys resumed their debate.

Fick, Nathaniel. One Bullet Away, pg 118

-Gumboot

[sleahead]

I don't think that the eventuality of him lying about the date or the content interview implicates Al J as a whole.

Did not Al Jazeera broadcast Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi? That would implicate Al Jazeera.

It even raises the question: was he the mastermind? Or whas it convenient for the US government to present him as the big mastermind?

Remember, they were kept in the dark for a long time, pressured by 9/11 families to come up with answers and clear culprits.

I thought everybody was happy that Bin Laden was the culprit. From a conspiratorial point of view, adding KSM is an unnecessary complication.

[busherie]

Absolutely, 100% wrong busherie. KSM was the primary suspect to being the mastermind behind 9/11 and in Daniel Pearl's murder long before the al Jazeera interview. Once again, you're changing facts to fit your story, because you simply can't handle the truth.
Ok. I sumed it up for you:

News process: how KSM emerged in the media as the 9/11 mastermind.

June 4-5 2002: Lumpkin key AP article, courtesy of the revelations of an anonymous "top U.S. counterterrorism official” i. Linked to Ramzi Youssef
ii. Linked to 93 and Bojinka


At about the same time that Lumpkin's article was making the rounds, Robert Mueller was making a statement before the Senate-House Committee, narrating the full details of the money trail story (as set out in the Moussaoui indictment), but this time adding the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Details then start to come out: i. According to CBS News, U.S. officials now had "evidence" that Khalid had met with "some of the 9/11 hijackers at their Hamburg, Germany apartment in 1999."
ii. June 6, 2002 - further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta



The reality? i'm in the middle of it. I'm not saying i fully have it right now. rather i'm trying to find out by myself, instead of believng what officials say, or AP articles



You want another source?


June 4, 2002: 9/11 Mastermind KSM Publicly Identified (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a060402khalidshaikh#a060402khalid shaikh)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/128b_ksm_reversed_2050081722-9008.jpgThe photo of Mohammed on the right has been flipped to better compare it [Source: FBI]Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) is publicly identified as the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks. He is believed to have arranged the logistics while on the run in Germany, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In 1996, he had been secretly indicted in the US for his role in Operation Bojinka (see January 6, 1995 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a0195bojinka)), and the US began offering a $2 million reward for his capture in 1998, which increased to $25 million in December 2001. [Associated Press, 6/4/2002 (http://www.kfwb.com/news_national.asp?displayOption=&contentGUID=%7BD841140B-9DDF-4D3C-832C-BDB0FAC29539%7D&groupName=KFWB%20Front%20Page%20National%20Headlin es&siteGUID=%7B3B62BF55-4A93-48E6-A45D-6A495DC423AD%7D); New York Times, 6/5/2002 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/05/national/05TERR.html)] There are conflicting accounts on how much US investigators knew about Mohammed before 9/11. Mohammed is Pakistani (though born in Kuwait [CBS News, 6/5/2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/04/attack/main511089.shtml)] ) and a relative of Ramzi Yousef, the bomber of the WTC in 1993. [New York Times, 6/5/2002 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/05/national/05TERR.html)]
Entity Tags: Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=pakistan_directorate_for_inter-services_intelligence), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=khalid_shaikh_mohammed)
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline)



All of his happens in any case after the interview, and it gets even more plausible if you you think the interview took place in april, as Fouda later claimed

Therefore how did the US "found out" KSM was the mastermind...

I'll let you think about it.

[busherie]

Did not Al Jazeera broadcast Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi? That would implicate Al Jazeera.

.

I thought everybody was happy that Bin Laden was the culprit. From a conspiratorial point of view, adding KSM is an unnecessary complication.
I don't agree.

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)

So KSM was convenient. A real bad guy, controlling everything.

[Big Les]

The trouble is Busherie, you've already made up your mind and are looking for discrepancies as confirmation of this (rather than hard evidence). That's not the way to investigate anything.

[sleahead]

I don't agree.

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)

So KSM was convenient. A real bad guy, controlling everything.

I think if you asked the public, twoofers excepted, who masterminded 9/11 the reply would be "Bin Laden". Most would have not heard of KSM. I see no need for alledged conspirators transferring the blame from OBL to KSM. Why would they do this? Just because they captured KSM?

[stateofgrace]

Busherie have you actually read anything from here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php

Just curious.

Try this..

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf

[gumboot]

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)


The US called off their intended operation against Tora Bora out of fear of casualties, because it wouldn't look good at home. They let the Afghani allies and Special Ops do it alone, and it was a miserable failure.

Afghanistan was the first war in which military objectives were put second to PR. Iraq is the second. It appears to be an effective strategy for ensuring failure. Let's hope they're the last. (I doubt it).

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Busherie have you actually read anything from here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php

Just curious.

Try this..

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf
I have skimmed through the "substitution for the testimony of KSM". It is quite dense.

However, as the world substitution shows clearly, what element proves that what is written was actually confessed by KSM?

What if this was simply written by other people than KSm just to fit in the story?

"none of the attorneys for either the prosecution or defense have allowed access to KSM, who is not allowed to testify in person or in video for national security reasons".

Could you tell me please why national security would be endangered by KSM appearing in person or in video, if what he's supposed to have said is true? What terrible things could he have said to the attorneys?

Give me one good reason.I would be forced to recognize that what he says is true.

Instead, question were passed on to Gitmo: I could have written the answers myself.

[busherie]

The US called off their intended operation against Tora Bora out of fear of casualties, because it wouldn't look good at home. They let the Afghani allies and Special Ops do it alone, and it was a miserable failure.

Afghanistan was the first war in which military objectives were put second to PR. Iraq is the second. It appears to be an effective strategy for ensuring failure. Let's hope they're the last. (I doubt it).

-Gumboot
The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.

Moreover, you remind me the generals during the Vietnam war, always saying "the politicians don't give us enough means, if only.. bla bla bla". The multiple surges (with a max 500 000 troops in 1972) ended up total failure anyway.

Same applies to IQ and AF: the problem is not the number of troops. Remember that the lack of troops in AF and the ongoing failure was first dur to the fact that the US wanted to attack IQ! Whereas I'm pretty sure that is these means had been concentrated in Af it would be an entirely different stituation.



What do you think about Fouda's repeated lies about his article? (shown in my previous post 296)

Busherie

[stateofgrace]

I have skimmed through the "substitution for the testimony of KSM". It is quite dense.

However, as the world substitution shows clearly, what element proves that what is written was actually confessed by KSM?

What if this was simply written by other people than KSm just to fit in the story?

"none of the attorneys for either the prosecution or defense have allowed access to KSM, who is not allowed to testify in person or in video for national security reasons".

Could you tell me please why national security would be endangered by KSM appearing in person or in video, if what he's supposed to have said is true? What terrible things could he have said to the attorneys?

Give me one good reason.I would be forced to recognize that what he says is true.

Instead, question were passed on to Gitmo: I could have written the answers myself.

Give me one reason why the jury who were given this advise “It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit", got it wrong.

Did the jury in this trial get it wrong?

Is an innocent man in jail?

Was this a miscarriage of justice?

[busherie]

Give me one reason why the jury who were given this advise “It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit", got it wrong.

Did the jury in this trial get it wrong?

Is an innocent man in jail?

Was this a miscarriage of justice?
You know, as I do, that you cannot answer a question with another question.

However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will have the intellectual honesty tn answer mine.

“It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit". This is a good rule.

But you can't deny that people tend to trust what they are given. I personnaly think Moussaoui played a part in the 9/11 attacks. I do not know to which extent he's crazy and/or overestimates his role to look glorious.

The trial was relatively fair. The so-called testimonies of people who are not there and who could have been fabricated to a certain extent diminish the fairness of this trial, even though the jury is free to give credit or not.

Busherie

[stateofgrace]

You know, as I do, that you cannot answer a question with another question.

However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will have the intellectual honesty tn answer mine.

“It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit". This is a good rule.

But you can't deny that people tend to trust what they are given. I personnaly think Moussaoui played a part in the 9/11 attacks. I do not know to which extent he's crazy and/or overestimates his role to look glorious.

The trial was relatively fair. The so-called testimonies of people who are not there and who could have been fabricated to a certain extent diminish the fairness of this trial, even though the jury is free to give credit or not.

Busherie


Busherie I can answer how I see fit. For your information had you even read some of the testimony your misconception about Moussaoui's role would have been cleared up. He had no role in 911; he was not part of the primary wave of attacks. He was due to take part in a second wave of attacks. Hence he was not charged with being part of the 911 conspiracy but actually charged with conspiracy to murder US citizens.

Busherie, you seem only to want to dismiss anything that does not fit into your version of events. There are clear and precise details given in the testimony. It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact. You are now challenging fact with the only thing you have. “It may have been fabricated".

No Busherie, it is testimony entered and accepted in a US court of law. It is accepted as fact.

You may want to read fully what is on this site before commenting further. May I suggest you start here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf)

This is what Al Qaeda thinks of you Busherie.

[busherie]

Concerning Fouda's article, I think after a thorough analysis we can assume that he lied about the date of the interview to protect himself. Remember Ramzi (who was with KSM at the time of interview) was arrested soon after, in September.

Fouda was accused of being responsible for this by extremists. So he tried to protect himself. Read this:

But to get back to Ramzi. Shortly after your documentary appeared around the anniversary of 9/11, Ramzi was caught by the Pakistanis and turned over to American intelligence officers. This capture was described by President Bush as a major boost in the war of terrorism but you found yourself initially denounced as "a pig and a traitor" on various Islamist websites and you told the Washington Post (which reported as did other media that the interview had taken place in Karachi last June) that you "couldn't blame people for thinking what they do" and that you yourself wondered at first if there could have been some unforeseeable link.


YF: Yeah. Well there were rumors going around at the time that American intelligence agents were secretly planting tracking devices on Al Jazeera correspondents likely to be in contact with Al-Qa'ida. But when you think about it, that doesn't make sense. If that were the case why would the intelligence apparatus wait for all that time to act? According to the official version, the interviews took place in June but they didn't get hold of Ramzi until early mid-September. Actually this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That's what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary-that I met them in June.

SAS: So?
YF: I lied.
SAS: Really?
YF: Yeah.
SAS: But you're going to come clean with TBS, right?

YF (laughter): Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.
So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.


However, I have a little problem with this asummption, because he changed his version later on: (source is the article I posted a the begining)

"Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid's eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian: "It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye." That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates."

But the article goes on:

"Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh..."

I'm not sure we can go that far, but why change his version many times?

There is another problem: remember the jehad.net communiqué i put in blue above?

I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.

Wow, problem here... then the communiqué lies as well? Is it just a mistake in the communiqué?

Honestly, is there any room for doubts here?

The "i lied to protect myself" theory is weakened by this double mistake.

What do you think?




Does anybody have more theories for the repeated lied about the date of article? Confusion? Attempt to protect himself? More?

B

[busherie]

Busherie I can answer how I see fit. For your information had you even read some of the testimony your misconception about Moussaoui's role would have been cleared up. He had no role in 911; he was not part of the primary wave of attacks. He was due to take part in a second wave of attacks. Hence he was not charged with being part of the 911 conspiracy but actually charged with conspiracy to murder US citizens.

Busherie, you seem only to want to dismiss anything that does not fit into your version of events. There are clear and precise details given in the testimony. It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact. You are now challenging fact with the only thing you have. “It may have been fabricated".

No Busherie, it is testimony entered and accepted in a US court of law. It is accepted as fact.

You may want to read fully what is on this site before commenting further. May I suggest you start here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf)

This is what Al Qaeda thinks of you Busherie.
My mistake about Moussouai.

The man looks even more crazy than I though. Scary.

However, that does not answer the previous question, ie how getting KSM in the court, or on video, or anything that would look less "soviet-style" testimony, was against national security.

The only thing you have: the testimony may have been true.

I deeply respect the judicial system of the USA. However " It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact." Well I'm afraid, like human justice, there can be mistakes. Especially when it concerns trials that are politically important.

So: can you gimme the famous reason why national security was threaten?

And what about Fouda's changing versions about his article?

[busherie]

I'm disapointed. You did not answer.

I haven't lost my time, I skimmed throught both defender and prosecution exhibits. Moussaoui is definitly guilty. But he's crazy.

I'm still convinced that these substitution for testimonies cannot be taken for granted. In its legitimate fight against radical muslim terrorists, the US are a shame, they despised many basic rules of liberal democracies.

That's why I'm so skeptic about these "testimonies".

Anyway, since nobody wants to debate why Fouda changes his version twice concerning his interview (which is as I think the only real evidence that could prove KSM was the mastermind "from A to Z"), well the debate ends here.

You may think "what's the problem? why does he care wether he was the mastermind? the attacks occur, that's it."

You're right. I'm doing all this because the US is losing its soul in the process. And that's why they will loose everybody's confidence and sympathy in the end.

And that's sad.

Anyway, got some work to do.

Good day

Busherie

[stateofgrace]

My mistake about Moussouai.

The man looks even more crazy than I though. Scary.

However, that does not answer the previous question, ie how getting KSM in the court, or on video, or anything that would look less "soviet-style" testimony, was against national security.

The only thing you have: the testimony may have been true.

I deeply respect the judicial system of the USA. However " It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact." Well I'm afraid, like human justice, there can be mistakes. Especially when it concerns trials that are politically important.

So: can you gimme the famous reason why national security was threaten?

And what about Fouda's changing versions about his article?


I cannot and will not comment on why he is deemed a national security, simply because I do not know why. I could imagine that there are certain things this man knows including names and places of quiet sensitive intelligence gathering sources which could compromise those involved if voiced in an open court but again this is pure speculation. Equally so I can also imagine actually getting this guy to a public court would pose quite a security risk in itself. Also the fact that he a high ranking Al Qaeda terrorist may have something to do with it. he may actually be in danger himself , if expossed to the public, after all he did plan mass murder of US citizens.Again this is just pure speculation.

Having said that though, I have more than "maybe it is true" I have a US court of law saying it is true. I have a jury accepting it is true.

What do you have?

ETA Busherie , I was busy doing other things , hence the reason I did not reply.

[gumboot]

The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.


Yeah no problem. Easy.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you even know what sort of terrain they were working in?




Moreover, you remind me the generals during the Vietnam war, always saying "the politicians don't give us enough means, if only.. bla bla bla". The multiple surges (with a max 500 000 troops in 1972) ended up total failure anyway.


WTF are you talking about? They had the resources. It was all in place. And the politicians pulled it, for PR reasons. The politicians let them get away.




Same applies to IQ and AF: the problem is not the number of troops. Remember that the lack of troops in AF and the ongoing failure was first dur to the fact that the US wanted to attack IQ!


Garbage. Tora Bora was captured in December 2001, almost 2 years before Iraq. There wasn't a lack of troops in Afghanistan. They had Marines ready to go into Tora Bora. They were equipped, and ready. The mission was scrubbed.

-Gumboot

[Childlike Empress]

Know what's funny, busherie? In the transcript of KSM's hearing, when they present the evidence for him being an "enemy combatant", they state:

Paragraph c: In an interview with an al Jazeera reporter in June 2002, the Detainee stated he was the head of the al Quaida military committee.


Apparently these über investigators didn't notice or care that Fouda changed the date of his interview first to may and then to april. :p

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.
Whhhooooaaaa... What dark recess of your brain pooted out the notion that this was even remotely possible?

[Babbylonian]

Whhhooooaaaa... What dark recess of your brain pooted out the notion that this was even remotely possible?
If it was possible, you'd certainly think that the Soviet Union, with a larger population than the US and compulsory military service, would have beaten the Afghan mujahideen rebels in short order...

[PhantomWolf]

that the Soviet Union, with a larger population than the US

You might be surprised that it's not that different (well when you get numbers that big)

In 1990 ( a year after the Soviet withdrawal) the Soviet Union's Population was 290 million. In 2000, the US Population was 281 million

[Babbylonian]

You might be surprised that it's not that different (well when you get numbers that big)

In 1990 ( a year after the Soviet withdrawal) the Soviet Union's Population was 290 million. In 2000, the US Population was 281 million
You're right, the word "much" in terms of total population was incorrect. Still, considering compulsory military service, even a 10- to 30-million difference in total population equals a huge boost in terms of the military population.

[busherie]

Yeah no problem. Easy.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you even know what sort of terrain they were working in?






WTF are you talking about? They had the resources. It was all in place. And the politicians pulled it, for PR reasons. The politicians let them get away.






Garbage. Tora Bora was captured in December 2001, almost 2 years before Iraq. There wasn't a lack of troops in Afghanistan. They had Marines ready to go into Tora Bora. They were equipped, and ready. The mission was scrubbed.

-Gumboot
Gumboot, whith that kind of strategic thinking, it confirms that the US are gonna loose pretty much all the wars they started.

They pulled it for PR reasons: letting 3000+ troops die doesn't seem to be such a PR problem... Having 50 troops die vs. getting UBL, hum.. let me think...

Go ask field ommanders in AF in they think the lack of troops in 2001-2002 explains why they failed to secure the country and was the source for Taliban revival. You'll see what they say.

You're not very open minded on 9/11, but on military strategy you're eben worse.

Busherie

[Gravy]

Evidence (i'm sad I have to show evidence, everybody show know this by now)And I'm sad to have to tell you that an anonymous source cited by a reporter isn't evidence.

Concerning Fouda's article, I think after a thorough analysis we can assume that he lied about the date of the interview to protect himself.Sounds like a good idea.

[Gravy]

A minor note here, busherie: I know you didn't make the flip of KSM's comparison portrait, but in general doing so is a bad idea. Human faces are often not nearly as bilaterally symmetrical as we suppose.

[busherie]

And I'm sad to have to tell you that an anonymous source cited by a reporter isn't evidence.

Sounds like a good idea.
Hey, I have a good idea! Why not let international human rights NGOs go to Guantanamo and see if the guys in there are tortured or not? (i mean let them enter and see what they want, because they tried the "guided tour" option for the UN who refused)

Oh no, I forgot: it threatens national security. Too bad for the truth!

_______________

Concerning Fouda's article, the "i lied twice to protect myself" would be convincing if he hadn't showed up with the jehad.net communiqué mentionning the interview in May... when he said afterwards it was april 22nd.".

Showdown, I'll tell you what I think happened:

- the attacks were carried out by the 19 guys.

- willing to find a perfect "mastermind" that could be the big operationnal bad guy. The US govt starts looking for one (UBL could have been fine but except that video there was no evidence he had planned the attacks "from A to Z", plus that guy is useful to us man!)

- then they hear about this interview by Fouda (in june, may, april?) where big shot KSM says "i dit it"

- they capture him in march 2003

- they torture him at will, so much that he confesses pretty much all the attacks since the mid-1990's (that explains the super substitution for testimony at Moussaoui's trial that fits all the holes)

Result: big success for the propaganda --> we found the "big shot" and we got him (and they add: forget about UBL!, we need him to justify the war on terror, geez!)

[uk_dave]

- the attacks were carried out by the 19 guys.

- willing to find a perfect "mastermind" that could be the big operationnal bad guy. The US govt starts looking for one (UBL could have been fine but except that video there was no evidence he had planned the attacks "from A to Z", plus that guy is useful to us man!)

- then they hear about this interview by Fouda (in june, may, april?) where big shot KSM says "i dit it"

- they capture him in march 2003

- they torture him at will, so much that he confesses pretty much all the attacks since the mid-1990's (that explains the super substitution for testimony at Moussaoui's trial that fits all the holes)

Result: big success for the propaganda --> we found the "big shot" and we got him (and they add: forget about UBL!, we need him to justify the war on terror, geez!)


So there was 19 guys out there willing to sacrifice themselves in order to attack the US?

So there could be another 19 out there willing to do the same?

So, just run by me again your thoughts on the 'need' to justify the 'war on terra'?

Regardless of whether you believe the US Govt encouraged or helped those terrorists to attack the US, the fact remains that it did happen and 19 fanatical people were prepared to do it. So there IS a threat out there, we can at least agree on that?

You are then faced with establishing just how much the US govt helped (or failed to hinder) those terrorists.

If you're steeped in woo you might believe that they were just pawns... a shopfront display while the real evil doers secretly took control of the aircraft (including/not including flight 93, depending on your level of paranoia) and crashed them into the targets.

If you've managed to keep your nostrils slightly above the woo, you might believe that the US govt gave the nod to ....someone (who? would the terrorists have still gone ahead with their suicide mission if the 'great satan' (no, not proctor&gamble) had sanctioned it?) and allowed the US air defence system to fail on that day, trusting, of course, that the terrorists wouldn't lose nerve during the mission and cock it up leading to the govt evil doers practically shouting over the radio "C'mon my son!" in order to encourage them in their task.

If you've stepped out of the woo, but it's still dripping from your nether regions, you might believe that the US govt sat back and decided to allow the suicide mission to go ahead with a minimum of interference and just let the chips fall wherever they did. They might have been a bit slow picking up the phone (or moving out of the classroom) on the day, but of course they'd be all puckered up wondering if maybe the intel about the attacks was as accurate as they hoped and that the attack was as they had been told it would be and not some other dastardly plan which might have resulted in even more massive loss of life and, in all probability themselves being kicked out of office.

But if you're free of woo and have a fairly balanced worldview, one in which confusion leads to mistakes and sometimes hard things are easy and simple things are hard, you probably feel the US govt did as much as they could, but it wasn't enough. You may feel that 9/11 was a wake up call for a country which had grown complacent about it's own safety.

And you may just conclude that 19 hijackers did manage to carry out in the US an act of terror which had never been carried out before and that those hijackers were part of a terrorist network based in afghanistan and headed by OBL (whom the US govt had been attempting to apprehend for years and had imposed sanctions on afghanistan through the UN in order to have them hand him over peacefully prior to 9/11).

[firecoins]

KSM admitted to being behind the 9/11 attacks before being captured so whether or not he was tortured while at Gitmo is irrelevant.

OBL admitted being behind 9/11. He has never been at Gitmo or any other US facility. Its always been alledged OBL would be captured at a politically convienant time for Bush. Hasn't happaned yet.

There is plenty of evidence that Ramsi Youseff was behind the 1993 WTC bombing including his admission. His admission was not forced by torture. His uncle is KSM.

Here is an interview of a participant in the 1993 WTC bombing. Notice he was not tortured to get the interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

[Jennie C.]

You're right, the word "much" in terms of total population was incorrect. Still, considering compulsory military service, even a 10- to 30-million difference in total population equals a huge boost in terms of the military population.

I'm no expert on the Soviet military, but that which I have heard is that, yes of course service was compulsory. It was also for 2 years, with very little reason for remaining longer. Hence, their army (sorry, I mean military, my dad was in the Army, so I always think of that) was very VERY short on experienced non-commissioned officers.

It's pretty universally agreed that the NCO's really run the army. The Soviet military just wasn't that well-run.

Please, let me reiterate my ignorance of specifics.

[Babbylonian]

I'm no expert on the Soviet military, but that which I have heard is that, yes of course service was compulsory. It was also for 2 years, with very little reason for remaining longer. Hence, their army (sorry, I mean military, my dad was in the Army, so I always think of that) was very VERY short on experienced non-commissioned officers.

It's pretty universally agreed that the NCO's really run the army. The Soviet military just wasn't that well-run.

Please, let me reiterate my ignorance of specifics.
No, you're right on all counts. Again, my point was simply that the Soviet Union always had a higher military population than that of the US after the US ended the draft. Thus, as it relates to this issue, the Soviets would have been able - in theory - to deploy larger numbers of troops in an effort to accomplish the earlier proposed [untenable] mission of cutting off all the escape routes of Afghan mountain terrorists/militia/freedom fighters (depending on whose side you're on, of course ;)).

The fact that they didn't manage to do so, and in fact ended up "defeated" (definitions of such vary, depending on whom you talk to), speaks to the difficulty of fighting against guerillas in mountainous terrain with which said guerillas are intimately familiar, difficulties which would similarly cause problems for the US military when trying to capture Osama and his merry band.

Bottom line: There seems to be a belief among some that capturing OBL should have been "easy" and that there are sinister reasons for why we haven't done so. I reject that notion as unrealistic.

[Jennie C.]

No, you're right on all counts. Again, my point was simply that the Soviet Union always had a higher military population than that of the US after the US ended the draft. Thus, as it relates to this issue, the Soviets would have been able - in theory - to deploy larger numbers of troops in an effort to accomplish the earlier proposed [untenable] mission of cutting off all the escape routes of Afghan mountain terrorists/militia/freedom fighters (depending on whose side you're on, of course ;)).

The fact that they didn't manage to do so, and in fact ended up "defeated" (definitions of such vary, depending on whom you talk to), speaks to the difficulty of fighting against guerillas in mountainous terrain with which said guerillas are intimately familiar, difficulties which would similarly cause problems for the US military when trying to capture Osama and his merry band.

Bottom line: There seems to be a belief among some that capturing OBL should have been "easy" and that there are sinister reasons for why we haven't done so. I reject that notion as unrealistic.

Ah, now I see. And I agree about the difficulty. Who was that jerk who was hiding in the woods in North Carolina, for crying out loud, that it took them forever to find. One guy (or a few guys) can hide almost anywhere, being determined enough and staying off the cell-phone

[busherie]

If you've stepped out of the woo, but it's still dripping from your nether regions, you might believe that the US govt sat back and decided to allow the suicide mission to go ahead with a minimum of interference and just let the chips fall wherever they did. They might have been a bit slow picking up the phone (or moving out of the classroom) on the day, but of course they'd be all puckered up wondering if maybe the intel about the attacks was as accurate as they hoped and that the attack was as they had been told it would be and not some other dastardly plan which might have resulted in even more massive loss of life and, in all probability themselves being kicked out of office.

But if you're free of woo and have a fairly balanced worldview, one in which confusion leads to mistakes and sometimes hard things are easy and simple things are hard, you probably feel the US govt did as much as they could, but it wasn't enough. You may feel that 9/11 was a wake up call for a country which had grown complacent about it's own safety.

And you may just conclude that 19 hijackers did manage to carry out in the US an act of terror which had never been carried out before and that those hijackers were part of a terrorist network based in afghanistan and headed by OBL (whom the US govt had been attempting to apprehend for years and had imposed sanctions on afghanistan through the UN in order to have them hand him over peacefully prior to 9/11).

Thanks for taking the time to write this post. It's interesting.

Question for you: were the attacks a pretext for going a lot further than just trying to UBL? In other words, were they a "chance" for the administration? Didn't they come at a very convenient time?

That is why, by nature, one has to ask: is it possible that they knew the attacks were coming, and they did nothing to stop them in order to take advantage of it?

Now, you say that the US had become complacent about its security. But didn't Clarke try to warn Rice, Cheney, and Bush? Why wouldn't they listen? In my view, the US are complacent because they let the roots of terrorism grow bigger and deeper:

- by supporting dictatorships: Egypt, Saudi Arabai, Jordan. These contries produced the terrorists. Why? Read the story of Sayed Al-Qutb, of Zawahiri. These mad men became what they are because they hate their governments, supported by the US. What happened in Iran in the last 70s will happen in these countries where radical political Islam is spreading. The same causes that led to the revolution in iran in 79 will produce the same effects in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Pakistan.

- by ignoring that force alone cannot defeat radical islam. For its roots are misery, ignorance. The US (but also Europe) trade policies contribute to prevent poor countries from developing. As a matter of consequence, mark my words, terrorism will spread in Muslim Africa. Recent US action in Somalia is just the seed of future terrorism.

- last but not least, by ignoring that the Is-Pal conflict is the deep cancer that kills any progress in the Muslim world.


The US is of course not the only cause of terrorism. Actually, they are only seconday. It is a Hegelian rule of History that people, when they progress toward modernity, go through a deep crisis. As fertility rates go down, and litteracy rates go up, there is always in every country a deep crisis. This is due to the fact that people whowere earlier poor farmers, whose world was limited to their neighbour's fiel, is now opened for a new and dangerous thing: ideologies. The list is long:

- Europe: nationalism and eventually fascism
- US: civil war
- Russia: communism
- China: communism
- Japan: militarism

etc... If you check the figures (fertility, literacy) these crisis roughly happened at the same time: transition toward modenity.

So, that is precisely what the the majority of the muslim world is going throught right now. And, ironclly, the muslim transition so far proves a lot less violent, in terms of casualties, than let's say WWII!

What's my point?

Well my point is: we, developped and civilized nations, must understand that they are going through their crisis. It might take a few decades, but eventually it will be a lot smoother. Take Iran: paradoxically, even though Ahmadinejad is a mad bastard, the Iranians are almost through. (2,1 children per women, 95% literacy rate). On the other hand, you have Pakistan: our next bomb. When Musharaf blows up, we gonna have a lot of trouble (Pak has the nuke!)

So, what should we do? Well, simple thing: Do not throw fuel on the fire!!

But that's what the US are doing right now. It is understandable that they were pissed off about 9/11, and they attacked AF. Fine! But Iraq, for christ sake!!?!! What better way to throw fuel on the fire!

I will stop here, but I'm so sad that the US, this great nation, land of freedom and opportunity, sells its soul in a stupid and unwinnable "war".

And 9/11 was the beginning of this. When this is all over, we'll the immense waste that all was.



Busherie

[skepticalcriticalguy]

And I'm sad to have to tell you that an anonymous source cited by a reporter isn't evidence.


This is true, but Deep Throat caused some major **** to go down. Keep that in mind.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They pulled it for PR reasons: letting 3000+ troops die doesn't seem to be such a PR problem... Having 50 troops die vs. getting UBL, hum.. let me think...
PR?! You wouldn't happen to be from the Bizarro World, would you?

[gumboot]

Gumboot, whith that kind of strategic thinking, it confirms that the US are gonna loose pretty much all the wars they started.


I agree.




They pulled it for PR reasons: letting 3000+ troops die doesn't seem to be such a PR problem... Having 50 troops die vs. getting UBL, hum.. let me think...


They were anticipating exceedingly high casualties. In one day. As compared to 3000 over a number of years (and yes, the 3000 dead in Iraq is a MAJOR PR problem, as you bringing it up so conveniently demonstrates).




Go ask field ommanders in AF in they think the lack of troops in 2001-2002 explains why they failed to secure the country and was the source for Taliban revival. You'll see what they say.


I'm reading the autobiography RIGHT NOW of a Marine officer who was slated to be in the mission to Tora Bora. From his book:

The next morning, I was called to the COC for a brief. Our mission to Tora Bora was cancelled. No American forces would take part in the operation. Instead, our Afghan allies would do the job. There were already rumblings about most of the assembled fighters slipping away across the border into the wilds of Pakistan's North-West Fronteir Province. Colonel Waldhauser said that fear of casualties had prompted the cancellation at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Back in the tower, Jim kicked the wall when I told him the news. 'Goddamn chicken**** decision. Casualties? What the **** do they think happened on 9/11? This is our chance to get those bastards.'
I agreed with him, and so did Staff Sergeant Marine. He heard us yelling on the tower and came up to see what was happening. 'Afghan allies? We don't have any Afghan allies. We got Afghans who'll do what we say if it helps them and if we pay them to do it. Bin Laden will trade 'em a goat and escape.'
With that mission went our dream of laying hands on America's most wanted man. But we felt relief, too. A winter fight in the high mountains against hardened mujahideen would have been ugly. They'd fought the Soviets on that ground for ten years. It was a measure of the mission's significance that the Marines knew all the dangers and still wished we'd gone.

Fick, Nathaniel. One Bullet Away, pg 138.

Want to try again?




You're not very open minded on 9/11, but on military strategy you're eben worse.


I think it's safe to say I know more about military strategy than you will ever learn in your entire lifetime. (By the way, the decision to scrub Tora Bora was a tactical one, not a strategic one).

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Hey, I have a good idea! Why not let international human rights NGOs go to Guantanamo and see if the guys in there are tortured or not? (i mean let them enter and see what they want, because they tried the "guided tour" option for the UN who refused)



The ICRC has visited Guantanamo Bay, and at the invitation of the US Government.

Want to dish up any more lies, Busherie?

-Gumboot

[busherie]

The ICRC has visited Guantanamo Bay, and at the invitation of the US Government.

Want to dish up any more lies, Busherie?

-Gumboot

ohh, Gumboot. Why denying the truth so hard?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4267297.stm

ICRC raises Guantanamo conditions

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40807000/jpg/_40807723_guantanamoget_203.jpg Some inmates have complained of physical abuse


The head of the International Committee for the Red Cross has met US President George W Bush to discuss concerns about detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Jakob Kellenberger and Mr Bush talked about "ICRC concerns regarding US detention", the organisation said.


ICRC officials regularly visit the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members are being held.


A leaked report by the ICRC was said to have found evidence of torture tactics.


The committee said Mr Kellenberger had met President Bush in Washington on Monday.


Their discussion "focused on ICRC concerns regarding US detention" as well as the main challenges facing the organisation in armed conflicts around the world.


He also met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and is due to meet Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday.

'Tantamount to torture'


The Geneva-based agency said it welcomed the opportunity to "raise these issues at the highest level and looks forward to strengthening its confidential dialogue with US authorities."


The Bush administration insists the 540 or so inmates of Guantanamo - many of whom have been held without charge since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan - have been treated humanely.


Human rights organisations say prisoners have been mistreated, and released detainees have spoken of beatings and coerced confessions.


Last November, media reports quoted a leaked ICRC report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
The ICRC, which normally refuses to comment publicly on its work to help victims of conflict, refused to "publicly confirm or deny" the reports.






And what about his guy? Oh no, he must be lying to. of course, he's a terrorist.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/19/news/hicks3.php


So, if the ICRC, detainees say what happens in Gitmo is torture, you still prefer to believe M. Bush & co?

[gumboot]

ohh, Gumboot. Why denying the truth so hard?



You do realise that you've just proved yourself a liar, right?

You claimed NGO's were not given access to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This is false. The ICRC has had unhindered access since day one, and inspects the site regularly.

As for the contents of their reports, the ICRC does not disclose their fundings publicly, and I have no intention of trusting the unverifiable claims of the American media, who have a track record of lying and twisting the truth.

The ICRC has been working with the US Government on the issue, and continues to do so. This is the appropriate way of handling the situation.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

You do realise that you've just proved yourself a liar, right?

You claimed NGO's were not given access to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This is false. The ICRC has had unhindered access since day one, and inspects the site regularly.

As for the contents of their reports, the ICRC does not disclose their fundings publicly, and I have no intention of trusting the unverifiable claims of the American media, who have a track record of lying and twisting the truth.

The ICRC has been working with the US Government on the issue, and continues to do so. This is the appropriate way of handling the situation.

-Gumboot
Wow, you seem a little bit tense here. The ICRC did say there is torture. Simple as that. Otherwise, if indeed the American media, who have a track record of lying and twisting the truth I'm sure the truthers will love to hear that.

As for me, I didn't lie, I made a mistake. Okay, I was wrong, some NGOs visited the site.

What about you: were you wrong? Is there torture in Gitmo?

[gumboot]

Wow, you seem a little bit tense here. The ICRC did say there is torture. Simple as that.


Care to cite the ICRC saying there is torture at Guantanamo Bay?

I'm completely relaxed, I assure you.

The only thing the ICRC has disclosed regarding Guantanamo Bay is that they have had concerns regarding the prisoners, and that some of these are as yet unresolved.

This is, of course, unacceptable, and I hope the US Government will sort things out quickly.

However, the ICRC has not at any point publicly stated that the US Government is employing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Personally, given that Guantanamo Bay is run by the DoD, which now strictly and explicitly forbids any torture of any description, and given that the ICRC has completely access to the site, and considering there is clear evidence the people held there are currently being processed according to International Law, I am not especially worried about it.

What concerns me more is allegations of covert CIA cites. The CIA is not strictly forbidden from employing torture, the ICRC does not have access to these alleged sites, and we (obviously) know next to nothing about them or who is held there.

Were I an American I would be calling for such sites to immediately be closed and all detainees either released or transported to POW camps such as Guantanamo Bay where the process is more transparent.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Care to cite the ICRC saying there is torture at Guantanamo Bay?

I'm completely relaxed, I assure you.

The only thing the ICRC has disclosed regarding Guantanamo Bay is that they have had concerns regarding the prisoners, and that some of these are as yet unresolved.

This is, of course, unacceptable, and I hope the US Government will sort things out quickly.

However, the ICRC has not at any point publicly stated that the US Government is employing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Personally, given that Guantanamo Bay is run by the DoD, which now strictly and explicitly forbids any torture of any description, and given that the ICRC has completely access to the site, and considering there is clear evidence the people held there are currently being processed according to International Law, I am not especially worried about it.

What concerns me more is allegations of covert CIA cites. The CIA is not strictly forbidden from employing torture, the ICRC does not have access to these alleged sites, and we (obviously) know next to nothing about them or who is held there.

Were I an American I would be calling for such sites to immediately be closed and all detainees either released or transported to POW camps such as Guantanamo Bay where the process is more transparent.

-Gumboot
I agree with you that Guantanamo is more transparent than the CIA sites abroad.

However, here you have it all:
Last November, media reports quoted a leaked ICRC report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
The ICRC, which normally refuses to comment publicly on its work to help victims of conflict, refused to "publicly confirm or deny" the reports.

They denounced it using leaked reports, but they can't say it publicly otherwise they loose their neutrality and their access to the site.

And in the end, what about the motive? Why keeping these guys away from any real judicial system? They aren't a threat to national security, you know that. That can just lead crazy people like me to believe they are tortured, and forced to confess anything that their "interrogators" want.

What about the other guy, david Hicks? Is he lying for propaganda?

Busherie

[uk_dave]

ummmmm what purpose does the ICRC serve if, when they find evidence of torture, they have to remain quiet about it?

[busherie]

ummmmm what purpose does the ICRC serve if, when they find evidence of torture, they have to remain quiet about it?
http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_332_3806,00.html

Because their first concern is to take care of the detainees, not make the news headlines. Their strategy is to discuss confidentialy with the detaining authorities, for public reports can be damaging and their access to the site might be forbidden.

Moreover, I found something interesting for my friend gumboot:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1745843.htm

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) will visit the US prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and see 14 detainees recently switched from secret CIA jails.
The ICRC says it would visit Guantanamo next week, but the US General who oversees the prison says visits would not likely happen until October 1.
The 14 include the suspected mastermind of the September 11 suicide plane attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and two other Al Qaeda leaders, Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah.



So it seems that most of the KSM interrogations were made NOT in gitmo but in CIA jails abroad. Since he got to gitmo around september 2006.


Would you then consider plausible that he was tortured there?



Busherie

[gumboot]

I agree with you that Guantanamo is more transparent than the CIA sites abroad.


I think any decent human being would. :)




However, here you have it all:
Last November, media reports quoted a leaked ICRC report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
[SIZE=2]The ICRC, which normally refuses to comment publicly on its work to help victims of conflict, refused to "publicly confirm or deny" the reports.


As I said, without verification from the ICRC these reports are meaningless.




They denounced it using leaked reports, but they can't say it publicly otherwise they loose their neutrality and their access to the site.


Now I think you're into fantasy land. I believe if the ICRC genuinely believed what was happening at Guantanamo Bay was bad enough as to constitute torture, we would know about it.

The primary reason the ICRC is given ample support by the US Government is because otherwise the ICRC may be disinclined to provide its services to US personnel held around the world.




And in the end, what about the motive? Why keeping these guys away from any real judicial system?


Before they can be processed for any alleged crimes, it is essential to determine what their status is. POWs must be tried by Courts Martial. Illegal Combatants can be tried by civil court. What they can be tried for is also dependent on their status.

If they are POWs which are not intended to be tried for crimes, it is illegal for the US to put them through any sort of judicial system whatsoever. The US is required to repatriate them, but only at such time as they nolonger possess a threat.

German POWs from WW2 were only repatriated after they had been "de-Nazified". Many of them remained POWs for decades. As such one would expect any POWs in Guantanamo Bay who are not being charged will only be released at such time as they abandon their adherence to Radical Islamic Ideology. I can't see that happening any time soon.



They aren't a threat to national security, you know that.


I disagree. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Al Qaeda is still operative. Thus, regardless of whether they are Taliban POWs or Al Qaeda "illegal combatants", they pose a threat to US forces if released. (Al Qaeda fighter will not be released in any regard as they are in violation of international law that prohibits engagement in terrorism or relations with designated terrorist organisations).




That can just lead crazy people like me to believe they are tortured, and forced to confess anything that their "interrogators" want


What random citizens of various countries think about Guantanamo Bay should be of no relevance. All that is relevant is International Law, the opinions of the ICRC, and US Security concerns.




What about the other guy, david Hicks? Is he lying for propaganda?

We shall find out soon enough. His trial is expected to commence in the near future.

I am always cautious when detainees (former or current) claim torture. The Al Qaeda training manual (which I have a copy of) has quite detailed guidelines on the sort of treatment they should claim they are receiving if they are captured.

I have no doubt that unacceptable prisoner abuse has occured, and this is of very serious concern - specifically some members of the US Military Police clearly have very very poor training. I would say that prisoner abuse in the early stages of the Iraq conflict (let's say 2002 and 2003, in Iraq and Afghanistan) was not isolated, but widespread. I would also allow that the situation has been improved since then - the number of convictions and recently passed laws suggest the government is willing to address these issues.

However allegations of systematic torture are an entirely different kettle of fish. This would be a very serious allegation. Given that the claims made closely match the guidelines of Al Qaeda manuals, I would require very compelling evidence before accepting that systematic torture was occuring in US military POW camps.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Moreover, I found something interesting for my friend gumboot:

So it seems that most of the KSM interrogations were made NOT in gitmo but in CIA jails abroad. Since he got to gitmo around september 2006.

Would you then consider plausible that he was tortured there?

Busherie



If you look back through this thread you will see that I have numerous times pointed out these very facts. KSM himself, in his review, claims his mistreatment occured while in CIA custody, not while at Guantanamo Bay.

As I have said, I find it plausible, and even likely that people in CIA custody (including KSM) were tortured. I have also stated, numerous times, that I consider this unacceptable and illegal.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Before they can be processed for any alleged crimes, it is essential to determine what their status is. POWs must be tried by Courts Martial. Illegal Combatants can be tried by civil court. What they can be tried for is also dependent on their status.

I disagree. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Al Qaeda is still operative. Thus, regardless of whether they are Taliban POWs or Al Qaeda "illegal combatants", they pose a threat to US forces if released. (Al Qaeda fighter will not be released in any regard as they are in violation of international law that prohibits engagement in terrorism or relations with designated terrorist organisations).


You should not release them, they'd go back to the battlefied right away. i think they are not too happy with their de alqaidasation process...

So the simple thing would: consider they are murderers, given them a real status, give them a lawyer and put them on trial.

5 years to find that out, wow, that's very long.

PS: what about the article i postes saying KSM was under CIA since his arrest in 2003 until september 2006?

B

[gumboot]

You should not release them, they'd go back to the battlefied right away. i think they are not too happy with their de alqaidasation process...

So the simple thing would: consider they are murderers, given them a real status, give them a lawyer and put them on trial.

5 years to find that out, wow, that's very long.



It's not that simple.

If they're a POW who committed warcrimes, they have to be tried by military tribunal, not civil court. (Just like post WW2).

The reason it has taken so long is because the US Government (for whatever reason) decided to circumvent the law by throwing about the term "enemy combatant". This is truely odd, considering an "enemy combatant" merely designates anyone who is fighting against your forces. An enemy combatant that is captured can be either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant. In either even, the process for dealing with both prisoners of war and illegal combatants is clearly laid out in the Laws of International Armed Conflict.

Despite the delay, the main thing is they are now following correct proceedure, and classifying the detainees for further processing. The Supreme Court has, I believe, determined that all Al Qaeda members are illegal combatants (i.e they're simply criminals) and all Taliban fighters are POWs (who may or may not have committed warcrimes).

It's worth pointing out that as many as half of all detainees who have been held at Guantanamo Bay have been released, thus far.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

I agree with you. Not that simple, but not that complicated either. And you don't need to create a new non-international law status "enemy combatant".

What about KSM spending 3 years in CIA jails and 6 months at gitmo? (see above!)

B.

[gumboot]

If you look back through this thread you will see that I have numerous times pointed out these very facts. KSM himself, in his review, claims his mistreatment occured while in CIA custody, not while at Guantanamo Bay.

As I have said, I find it plausible, and even likely that people in CIA custody (including KSM) were tortured. I have also stated, numerous times, that I consider this unacceptable and illegal.

-Gumboot


What about KSM spending 3 years in CIA jails and 6 months at gitmo? (see above!)

See above... ;)

-Gumboot

[sleahead]

A thought occurs to me, Busherie. Suppose an ex-Guantanamo detainee subsequently takes part in a major terrorist attack. His release would constitute big time LIHOP, would it not?

[busherie]

See above... ;)

-Gumboot

Fair enough... ;)

[busherie]

Gumboot, what do you think about the fact the US had already used a "testimony" of a Al Qaida jailed member for propaganda purposes:

"Until last week, the most successful from-jail operation was run by captured senior al-Qaeda leader Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who described non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a claim Washington used to support its case for war with Iraq. Libi later recanted his claims, and he may still be smiling at the effects of his statement."

Also:

September 2002 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_1213#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_i nvasion_of_iraq_1213) The CIA completes a highly classified report on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism,” summarizing claims that Iraq has provided “training in poisons and gases” to members of al-Qaeda. The report warns that evidence for the claim comes from “sources of varying reliability” and has not yet been substanitated. The main source behind this allegation, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who once operated bin Laden’s Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who is being held in custody by the CIA, will later recant the claim (see February 14, 2004 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasi on_of_iraq_1214)). [New York Times, 7/31/2004 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6587.htm); Newsweek, 7/5/2005 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek/)]

_________________

Yeah, of course. When Libi served the purpose of war, he was telling the truth. Now that the WMD thing was blown up, the new official theory was that he had lied on purpose to engage in a war that was turning into a disaster.

[busherie]

Any thoughts on this, gumboot?

B

[gumboot]

Any thoughts on this, gumboot?

B



Not much.

Either explanation seems highly plausible. Neither explanation has much evidence behind it.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Not much.

Either explanation seems highly plausible. Neither explanation has much evidence behind it.

-Gumboot
Yeah, I agree. It was meant so show either ways are plausible. The problem is we can only assume things, not demonstrate them. We're left in the dark, with our opinions. :mad:

[gumboot]

Yeah, I agree. It was meant so show either ways are plausible. The problem is we can only assume things, not demonstrate them. We're left in the dark, with our opinions. :mad:


Thus is the nature of representative democracy. We must trust our governments to do right by our nation.

It is neither practical, nor safe for all citizens to know everything about what is happening regarding their country, and I suspect most people prefer not having to process all that information, as it would leave no time to do anything else with our day!

I, for one, am quite happy to extend conditional trust to my government. Thus far they have done nothing to indicate my trust is misplaced (not that I agree with all of their policies, not at all).

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Thus is the nature of representative democracy. We must trust our governments to do right by our nation.

It is neither practical, nor safe for all citizens to know everything about what is happening regarding their country, and I suspect most people prefer not having to process all that information, as it would leave no time to do anything else with our day!

I, for one, am quite happy to extend conditional trust to my government. Thus far they have done nothing to indicate my trust is misplaced (not that I agree with all of their policies, not at all).

-Gumboot
Have you seen "the power of nightmares" 3X59 minutes documentary by Adam Curtis for the BBC?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

B

[gumboot]

Have you seen "the power of nightmares" 3X59 minutes documentary by Adam Curtis for the BBC?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

B



Bear in mind I'm not an American. I live in a very small peaceful country far removed from the rest of the world.

I haven't seen that documentary, however I get the general gist of it.

I disagree with its premise. I believe Radical Islam is very real, and a serious threat to western civilisation. I believe in the next century there will be a major civilisation-ending conflict between the west and either Islam or China (dependant on whether Radical Islam continues to spread or whether China is westernised before it reaches Super Power status).

History tells us that civilisations are only crushed from without after they have collapsed from within. It can take centuries. They don't fail overnight.

I believe Western Civilisation in in grave danger of such an internal collapse, and I think the danger is far greater than we realise or would like to consider.

Our actions or inactions now will have a significant influence on whether we survive any upcoming clash of civilisations or not.

I also believe it is normal for citizens of a powerful civilisation to think that their civilisation cannot possibly fail, tending to rubbish anyone that might suggest it as either being silly or a fear-mongerer.

I disagree. If history is to be believed (and I can't see how the last few centuries have made us any different than the humans of the 10,000 years previous) all civilisations ultimately face ruin.

Having said that, Radical Islam is certainly useful to people with their own agenda such as the current US Administration. I once tohught maybe they too saw the threat, but their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq made me reassess this. I believe they are exploiting fear of Radical Islam for their own goals, however I don't think they realise the actual threat that Radical Islam potentially poses.

In contrast, everything I have seen of Tony Blair indicates to me he is aware of the threat.

After the 7/7 Bombings he said something that I think is considerably profound. I cannot quote precisely, but the gist was "9/11 woke the world up. The problem is, we all just went back to sleep."

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

This is true, but Deep Throat caused some major **** to go down. Keep that in mind.I do think about that, quite a bit.

First, it was the conspirators being caught in the act that caused some major rule 8 to go down.

Then, it was members of the mainstream media who recognized the story's larger significance.

Then, a patriotic and disgruntled member of the Executive Branch, who had access to information about the crime, aided the investigation.

Then, when the story bogged down, it was the mainstream media that took some big chances and pushed it, perhaps because of their adversarial relationship with the President, who hated the press.

Then, a Senate committee was convened, witnesses were subpoenaed, several testified about incriminating evidence, tapes were subpoenaed, and a clumsy cover-up was attempted by the White House, which included firing prosecutors.

Then, indictments were handed down, lots of people pleaded guilty, and the House recommended impeachment proceedings against the President.

Then, when the President realized he didn't have enough support in Congress to survive impeachment, he resigned.

Then, lots of trials happened, and most of those who pleaded innocent were found guilty and went to jail.

A Democrat won the next election.

Isn't all of that interesting?


ETA: I'm still waiting for you to name any correct, significant 9/11 revelation from your men Hopsicker, Tarpley, Rense, Jones, et al.

[Gravy]

After the 7/7 bombings the director of "The Power of Nightmares" issued a statement to the effect of "Okay, terrorism is a threat. But let's not exaggerate it."

[busherie]

After the 7/7 bombings the director of "The Power of Nightmares" issued a statement to the effect of "Okay, terrorism is a threat. But let's not exaggerate it."
He said in his documentary, that obviously terrorism can occur in our countries. it happened in the past, it will certainly occur in the future.

The real question is: how do we deal with this threat? How can we make sure the risk is limited?

So far, most of the actions taken, like the "war on terror" are a huge failure, and actually contribute to create and fuel new forms and origins of terrorism.

How can anybody not see this? That in the poor neighbourhoods of Bagdadn Mugadiscio, Cairo, the terrorists of tomorow are being nurtured by our failure to understand the real roots of terrorism?

B

[Gravy]

I suggest swinging this topic over to the politics subforum.

[gumboot]

How can anybody not see this? That in the poor neighbourhoods of Bagdadn Mugadiscio, Cairo, the terrorists of tomorow are being nurtured by our failure to understand the real roots of terrorism?


This particular brand of terrorism is unique. The root of this particular breed of terrorism is Radical Islam. Terrorism is not the threat. Radical Islam is. As long as people teach a religion of hatred that encourages people to blow themselves up in the name of their God, this particular form of terrorism will never go away.

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

But radical islam only holds sway over people because they have nothing else.

As gravy says, this is more a political forum debate, but it's interesting that 'truthers' have a tendency to hold up 'the power of nightmares' as some kind of proof that aq and islamic terrorism doesn't exist, simply because in the last episode the programme spent a lot of time trying to play down the organisation (AQ) which it had spent the first two episodes playing up.

The threat exists, for various reasons, and we saw it in action on 9/11 and 7/7.

There's no need for a govt conspiracy. All the bad guys are already out there.

[tonicblue]

This particular brand of terrorism is unique. The root of this particular breed of terrorism is Radical Islam. Terrorism is not the threat. Radical Islam is. As long as people teach a religion of hatred that encourages people to blow themselves up in the name of their God, this particular form of terrorism will never go away.

-Gumboot

These terrorists don't want to attack other countries in the main. They are attacking America and the US primarily, and it certainly isn't because of hating freedoms. It is because of foreign policy.

[busherie]

Bear in mind I'm not an American. I live in a very small peaceful country far removed from the rest of the world.

I haven't seen that documentary, however I get the general gist of it.

I disagree with its premise. I believe Radical Islam is very real, and a serious threat to western civilisation. I believe in the next century there will be a major civilisation-ending conflict between the west and either Islam or China (dependant on whether Radical Islam continues to spread or whether China is westernised before it reaches Super Power status).

History tells us that civilisations are only crushed from without after they have collapsed from within. It can take centuries. They don't fail overnight.

I believe Western Civilisation in in grave danger of such an internal collapse, and I think the danger is far greater than we realise or would like to consider.

Our actions or inactions now will have a significant influence on whether we survive any upcoming clash of civilisations or not.

I also believe it is normal for citizens of a powerful civilisation to think that their civilisation cannot possibly fail, tending to rubbish anyone that might suggest it as either being silly or a fear-mongerer.

I disagree. If history is to be believed (and I can't see how the last few centuries have made us any different than the humans of the 10,000 years previous) all civilisations ultimately face ruin.

Having said that, Radical Islam is certainly useful to people with their own agenda such as the current US Administration. I once tohught maybe they too saw the threat, but their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq made me reassess this. I believe they are exploiting fear of Radical Islam for their own goals, however I don't think they realise the actual threat that Radical Islam potentially poses.

In contrast, everything I have seen of Tony Blair indicates to me he is aware of the threat.

After the 7/7 Bombings he said something that I think is considerably profound. I cannot quote precisely, but the gist was "9/11 woke the world up. The problem is, we all just went back to sleep."

-Gumboot


Radical Islam will eventually fade away, and it will do so even faster if we are wise enough not to "throw fuel on the fire".

Hintington dark visions about "clash of civilization" were initially a theory, theory that we have done everything to transform it into a reality.

Radical Islam was at the beginning a small force, driving Islam's tortuous way to modernity. These countries are poor and weak. they can kill some innocent citizens, but provided we prevent them from using WMDs, there is no major threat for the West. 3000 people in NY is nothing compared to the Soviet threat (sic).

We try so hard to invent, create and nurture a new threat to justify military budgets.

Here is my view of what's happening in Islam: it is based on what serious Islam specialists will tell you:

Now, you say that the US had become complacent about its security. But didn't Clarke try to warn Rice, Cheney, and Bush? Why wouldn't they listen? In my view, the US are complacent because they let the roots of terrorism grow bigger and deeper:

- by supporting dictatorships: Egypt, Saudi Arabai, Jordan. These contries produced the terrorists. Why? Read the story of Sayed Al-Qutb, of Zawahiri. These mad men became what they are because they hate their governments, supported by the US. What happened in Iran in the last 70s will happen in these countries where radical political Islam is spreading. The same causes that led to the revolution in iran in 79 will produce the same effects in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Pakistan.

- by ignoring that force alone cannot defeat radical islam. For its roots are misery, ignorance. The US (but also Europe) trade policies contribute to prevent poor countries from developing. As a matter of consequence, mark my words, terrorism will spread in Muslim Africa. Recent US action in Somalia is just the seed of future terrorism.

- last but not least, by ignoring that the Is-Pal conflict is the deep cancer that kills any progress in the Muslim world.


The US is of course not the only cause of terrorism. Actually, they are only seconday. It is a Hegelian rule of History that people, when they progress toward modernity, go through a deep crisis. As fertility rates go down, and litteracy rates go up, there is always in every country a deep crisis. This is due to the fact that people whowere earlier poor farmers, whose world was limited to their neighbour's fiel, is now opened for a new and dangerous thing: ideologies. The list is long:

- Europe: nationalism and eventually fascism
- US: civil war
- Russia: communism
- China: communism
- Japan: militarism

etc... If you check the figures (fertility, literacy) these crisis roughly happened at the same time: transition toward modenity.

So, that is precisely what the the majority of the muslim world is going throught right now. And, ironclly, the muslim transition so far proves a lot less violent, in terms of casualties, than let's say WWII!

What's my point?

Well my point is: we, developped and civilized nations, must understand that they are going through their crisis. It might take a few decades, but eventually it will be a lot smoother. Take Iran: paradoxically, even though Ahmadinejad is a mad bastard, the Iranians are almost through. (2,1 children per women, 95% literacy rate). On the other hand, you have Pakistan: our next bomb. When Musharaf blows up, we gonna have a lot of trouble (Pak has the nuke!)

So, what should we do? Well, simple thing: Do not throw fuel on the fire!!

But that's what the US are doing right now. It is understandable that they were pissed off about 9/11, and they attacked AF. Fine! But Iraq, for christ sake!!?!! What better way to throw fuel on the fire!

I will stop here, but I'm so sad that the US, this great nation, land of freedom and opportunity, sells its soul in a stupid and unwinnable "war".

And 9/11 was the beginning of this. When this is all over, we'll the immense waste that all was.

CONCLUSION: if we are wise enough, then we will understand that the greatest issues we have to face are: peaceful rise of a multipolar world and global warming.

Focusing so hard on radical islam, which is a threat, but truly a minor one compared to Communism in the Past and global warming today, is just a way of hiding realities.

And until the US, and more generally the West doesn't understand, we will face constant failures and disillusions, just like since 9/11.

[uk_dave]

CONCLUSION: if we are wise enough, then we will understand that the greatest issues we have to face are: peaceful rise of a multipolar world and global warming.

Focusing so hard on radical islam, which is a threat, but truly a minor one compared to Communism in the Past and global warming today, is just a way of hiding realities.

And until the US, and more generally the West doesn't understand, we will face constant failures and disillusions, just like since 9/11.


Sounds like you now believe the official account?

[stateofgrace]

So far, most of the actions taken, like the "war on terror" are a huge failure, and actually contribute to create and fuel new forms and origins of terrorism.

How can anybody not see this? That in the poor neighbourhoods of Bagdadn Mugadiscio, Cairo, the terrorists of tomorow are being nurtured by our failure to understand the real roots of terrorism?

B

Busherie why do you say this? Are you saying that only you are aware of the problems that this war has brought and everybody else is blissfully unaware?

Of course people see it, everybody sees it. Why do you think Bush has plummeted in the opinion polls? The war inside Iraq and the war on terror in general in very unpopular.

Please stop assuming that because people do not agree that the USG planned 911, that everybody simply does not see anything beyond. In one thread recently many people voiced their objection to the invasion of Iraq, the same people that voice their objections to 911 conspiracies.

What does that tell you Busherie?

IMO, it tells you this, to voice your objections to this war, you must do so on reality, you must do so based on genuine believes. Not same make believe whereby it was all engineered this way.

Busherie, you are simply watering down your own objections to the worlds injustices by promoting and believing that this war was started by anything other that the US reaction to a terrorist attack. You are making it harder for people to form their ideals based on fact because you are trying to twist them.

People are aware Busherie, people do object, not because they believe the USG murdered 3000 of their own, but because right now the reaction to such a dreadful event is being seen as disastrous.The way this event has been used to push foriegn polices is a distaster. So people object.

[busherie]

People are aware Busherie, people do object, not because they believe the USG murdered 3000 of their own, but because right now the reaction to such a dreadful event is being seen as disastrous.The way this event has been used to push foriegn polices is a distaster. So people object.



I almost agree with you. Note that I don't believe in MIHOP theories. The difference between you and me on this topic is that the USG knew something big was coming, and let it happen wittout trying to do anything serious to stop it, in order to go on with their plans.

You don't believe governements can let their citizens die "because of the long term interest of the country"? I think you should think again.

[busherie]

These terrorists don't want to attack other countries in the main. They are attacking America and the US primarily, and it certainly isn't because of hating freedoms. It is because of foreign policy.
I roughly agree with you. but the US think "they hate our freedoms". so convenient...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I roughly agree with you. but the US think "they hate our freedoms". so convenient...
A bunch of Bush supporters and people who don't have enough time in their life to stop and think about this may believe that, but certainly not "the US" as a whole.

[tonicblue]

I roughly agree with you. but the US think "they hate our freedoms". so convenient...

Bush didn't use the phrase "attack our freedoms" accidentally. It was a subtle way to convince people that taking freedoms away was a good thing.

The most sickening thing about the post 9/11 action was when they announced the patriot act with the words "one of the greatest gifts we give to our people is civil liberties..."

No, sir, you don't give us anything. You serve us.

[Gravy]

busherie, when you say 'USG," who exactly do you mean?

[stateofgrace]

I almost agree with you. Note that I don't believe in MIHOP theories. The difference between you and me on this topic is that the USG knew something big was coming, and let it happen wittout trying to do anything serious to stop it, in order to go on with their plans.

You don't believe governements can let their citizens die "because of the long term interest of the country"? I think you should think again.

Come on man, you cannot honestly believe this. Yes I know throughout history Governments have committed acts of genocide upon their own citizens but look what 911 has brought the US, nothing but disaster after disaster.

The attacks themselves cost close to 90 billion, it grounded the entire air transportation system,almost sent the economy into nose dive and cost three thousand innocent lives. The attack was on the WORLD trade centres. They were destroyed.They attacked the status of American power.

Then take the follow on events, the war on terror has cost something like 450 billion, over three thousand US military causalities and thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, you said so youself and I read somewhere that acts of terrorism have actually increased four fold since the invasion. Anti American and western feeling is now higher than it ever was.

The USG is one of the most unpopular Governments in history if not the most unpopular and doubtless will be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

How? How on earth can 911 ever be described as "in the long term interests of a country"?

[gumboot]

These terrorists don't want to attack other countries in the main. They are attacking America and the US primarily, and it certainly isn't because of hating freedoms. It is because of foreign policy.



That's simply not true. Radical Islamic Terrorism in its modern form has been around for over 80 years, and has brought death and suffering to people all over the globe.

Were the moderate Muslims slaughtered in Algeria killed because of US foreign policy?

What about the massacres in Bosnia? US Foreign policy? The desecration of Buddhist holy sites? Must be the US again. The chaos in Somalia. Yup, must be the US! Who else?

The torture, beating, murder, and mutilation of Muslim women around the world... yup, I blame the US, don't you? The generations of Palestinian children raised to hate. Damn Americans have no shame. As for Islamic Extremism throughout Europe, yeah that has to be America's fault.

-Gumboot

[DavidJames]

I have no doubt some Islamic terrorists use U.S. foreign policy as the reason for their actions. So what?

[gumboot]

I suggest swinging this topic over to the politics subforum.

I agree.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

A bunch of Bush supporters and people who don't have enough time in their life to stop and think about this may believe that, but certainly not "the US" as a whole.

I agree. One should always separate the governement and the people. And in particular with he neocons.

busherie, when you say 'USG," who exactly do you mean?

Interesting question. Despite the obvious fact that Bush was elected twice (though the frauds' role was never fully explained), one cannot mix the American people and their goovernment. So I used the term USG.

What does that mean? There are two situations for which I use the expression:

- when it is related to LIHOP theories, i try not to sue the expression USG, because only few people could reallt get the "whole" but still partial picture of the mounting threat in the summer of 2001. i'm still not sure Bush was in the loop, because at the time he could not tell a chinese from a algerian.

- concerning foreign policy issues, the USG means the administration in Power, ie political steering of the actual administrative personnel and equipement, rather than the civil servants themselves.

Come on man, you cannot honestly believe this. Yes I know throughout history Governments have committed acts of genocide upon their own citizens but look what 911 has brought the US, nothing but disaster after disaster.

The attacks themselves cost close to 90 billion, it grounded the entire air transportation system,almost sent the economy into nose dive and cost three thousand innocent lives. The attack was on the WORLD trade centres. They were destroyed.They attacked the status of American power.

Then take the follow on events, the war on terror has cost something like 450 billion, over three thousand US military causalities and thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, you said so youself and I read somewhere that acts of terrorism have actually increased four fold since the invasion. Anti American and western feeling is now higher than it ever was.

The USG is one of the most unpopular Governments in history if not the most unpopular and doubtless will be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

How? How on earth can 911 ever be described as "in the long term interests of a country"?

I certainly agree with you that almost all of the neocons foreign policy actions are a terrible failure.

So "why LIHOP when you see how bad it's got since 9/11?". Actually, the neocons did not think ex ante that their policies would end in failure. When it became clear, they still believed that time would prove their decisions right. And remember some objectives have been achieved:
- a lot of money for a small group of companies,
- effective control of the Malacca strait, putting pressure on east asian countries oil supply, including China and Japan,
- effective disunity among the EU countries through the Iraki conflict and the anti-missile batteries they want to install in easter europe,
- strategic rounding up of the iranian regime through military presence in AF (east), IQ (West), Saudi Arabia (South): the trap is fully implemented, they are now just looking for a pretext. No wonder why the Iranian regime wants the bomb so hard!! (if you thought their only idea is to destroy Israel)

Remember also that in internal affairs, they have achieved some goals: better control of the american public through "the need for security", effective tax cuts for rich people, etc..

So the neocons have managed to use 9/11 effectively. If you combine the partial succeses and the fact they believed invading IQ would prove a success, you understanf why Rumsfelf called 9/11 "a blessing".

That's simply not true. Radical Islamic Terrorism in its modern form has been around for over 80 years, and has brought death and suffering to people all over the globe.

Were the moderate Muslims slaughtered in Algeria killed because of US foreign policy?

What about the massacres in Bosnia? US Foreign policy? The desecration of Buddhist holy sites? Must be the US again. The chaos in Somalia. Yup, must be the US! Who else?

The torture, beating, murder, and mutilation of Muslim women around the world... yup, I blame the US, don't you? The generations of Palestinian children raised to hate. Damn Americans have no shame. As for Islamic Extremism throughout Europe, yeah that has to be America's fault.

-Gumboot

No, I'm not saying the US foreign policy is THE source of radical Islam. Certainly Islam itself and Muslim countries have a lot of problems to deal with. There emergence toward modernity (low fertility rates, high leracy rates) is slow and full of hurdles.

I'm saying that the US are "throwing fuel on the fire". If you read books about Islam, you will see that just as hardcore political islamism was declining (for instance in Algeria) after all the failures and the blood spilled, the new form of radical islam embodied by UBL managed to become a gobal force. Why? Thx to 9/11 of course but most of all because all the US has done against it is just counter productive.

I have no doubt some Islamic terrorists use U.S. foreign policy as the reason for their actions. So what?

And what about the US using radical islamism for their actions?

I agree.

-Gumboot

It is somehow political but it is 9/11 related, becase I'm trying to show you why LIHOP is credible, and supported by evidence.


PS: sorry for the absence, i was in the countryside. :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

Interesting question. Despite the obvious fact that Bush was elected twice (though the frauds' role was never fully explained), one cannot mix the American people and their goovernment. So I used the term USG.

What does that mean? There are two situations for which I use the expression:

- when it is related to LIHOP theories, i try not to sue the expression USG, because only few people could reallt get the "whole" but still partial picture of the mounting threat in the summer of 2001. i'm still not sure Bush was in the loop, because at the time he could not tell a chinese from a algerian.

- concerning foreign policy issues, the USG means the administration in Power, ie political steering of the actual administrative personnel and equipement, rather than the civil servants themselves.

Thank you. The reason I asked who you are describing as the "USG" in your LIHOP scenario, is that normally, intelligence about terrorism goes through many channels and is handled by many people before it gets to the leaders of the USG.

I can envision other possibilities. For instance, if an al Qaeda operative in custody spilled the beans about 9/11 directly, and only, to CIA Director George Tenet or FBI Director Robert Mueller, that would eliminate all the middlemen. As far as I know, nothing like that happened.

It's my understanding that when a possible threat is discovered by intelligence agencies, many people and resources are devoted to determining if the threat is credible. The people who do this work are not the "USG," but are people from many walks of life (and pay grades), who have chosen to devote their professional lives to protecting the USA from threats.

Unless these people are somehow taken out of the intelligence loop, and foreknowledge of 9/11 is limited only to a few players at the top who – and this is not a small condition – agreed that allowing an attack was a good idea, I don't see how your LIHOP scenario is plausible.

[Gravy]

It is somehow political but it is 9/11 related, becase I'm trying to show you why LIHOP is credible, and supported by evidence.(bolding mine)


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya

[stateofgrace]

I
I certainly agree with you that almost all of the neocons foreign policy actions are a terrible failure.

So "why LIHOP when you see how bad it's got since 9/11?". Actually, the neocons did not think ex ante that their policies would end in failure. When it became clear, they still believed that time would prove their decisions right. And remember some objectives have been achieved:
- a lot of money for a small group of companies,
- effective control of the Malacca strait, putting pressure on east asian countries oil supply, including China and Japan,
- effective disunity among the EU countries through the Iraki conflict and the anti-missile batteries they want to install in easter europe,
- strategic rounding up of the iranian regime through military presence in AF (east), IQ (West), Saudi Arabia (South): the trap is fully implemented, they are now just looking for a pretext. No wonder why the Iranian regime wants the bomb so hard!! (if you thought their only idea is to destroy Israel)

Remember also that in internal affairs, they have achieved some goals: better control of the american public through "the need for security", effective tax cuts for rich people, etc..

So the neocons have managed to use 9/11 effectively. If you combine the partial succeses and the fact they believed invading IQ would prove a success, you understanf why Rumsfelf called 9/11 "a blessing".



Conservative neocon foreign policy is nothing of the sort. The neocons that came about in the cold war were directly opposed to supporting tyrants and oppressive regimes. Their ideas and ideals came about as a result of the cold war.
It was policy to fight the spread of communism by any means possible; basically the ends justify the means. These means ment supporting tyrants and oppressive regimes if it could stop the spread of communism. The neocons actually was opposed to this policy, they actually backed not supporting tyrants and oppressive regime. They backed then as they do now change through supporting opposition to such regimes. They were actually labelled as democratic revolutionaries.

Did their policies work? Well that is a matter for the history books and a matter for individual take on events.

Since the history lesson is now out off the way how does it relate to oppressing their own people? It does not Busherie.

When it was seen that the invasion of Iraq was going wrong and it was clear that this country had no WMD, the policy quickly changed back in line with neocon think tank policy. Regime change, the spread of democracy.

911 was a dreadful incident and as you said Rumford said it was a blessing, to the neocons that adopt and adhere to their base root polices it was, but in this sense only. It gave them the political muscle to spread democracy, it gave them the political muscle to ride rough shot over the UN and invade Iraq.

So how does this fit in with allowing 911 to happen? It simply does not; there is absolutely no political mileage for any democratic Revolutionary whose goal is to spread democracy in attacking a democracy and then start oppressing the very democracy it has just attacked. It simply does not make sense at all that a group of individuals who base their very ideals on polices that were adopted from the struggle with the Soviets would do this.

So in a broad and very loose sense yes they have managed the aftermath of 911 successfully , they have managed to carry on the spread of democracy but this is simply political opportunism rather than fore planning.

I’m sorry Busherie but what you say simply does not follow neocon political thinking at all, it is completely crazy to think that attacking oneself would in anyway promote and spread democracy.

I don’t really support this way of thinking but this is my understanding of neocon policy. I am not too keen on one country enforcing its laws upon another country but this comes all they way from the cold war when the US had to support tyrants and dictators to stop the spread of communism. If anything the neocons are at the other end of the spectrum whereby stopping communism was not the aim but actually spreading democracy is the true aim.

On this I will leave this thread because it is now far too political. I’m sorry Busherie but you have got a long way to go before you convince me that LIHOP is in anyway a viable option. And more so that 911 was in anyway beneficial to the US or anybody for that matter.

[twinstead]

I consider LIHOP to be a cop out. Nobody comes to this debate thinking LIHOP first. It simply means that one came to the table thinking it was an inside job and perpetrated by the US government, but after being shown the harsh light of reason the only way to save face is to close ones eyes and claim "LIHOP".

[Gravy]

I consider LIHOP to be a cop out. Nobody comes to this debate thinking LIHOP first. It simply means that one came to the table thinking it was an inside job and perpetrated by the US government, but after being shown the harsh light of reason the only way to save face is to close ones eyes and claim "LIHOP".Paging Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery to the white courtesy phone, please.

[PhantomWolf]

Gumboot, what do you think about the fact the US had already used a "testimony" of a Al Qaida jailed member for propaganda purposes:

"Until last week, the most successful from-jail operation was run by captured senior al-Qaeda leader Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who described non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a claim Washington used to support its case for war with Iraq. Libi later recanted his claims, and he may still be smiling at the effects of his statement."

Also:

September 2002 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_1213#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_i nvasion_of_iraq_1213) The CIA completes a highly classified report on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism,” summarizing claims that Iraq has provided “training in poisons and gases” to members of al-Qaeda. The report warns that evidence for the claim comes from “sources of varying reliability” and has not yet been substanitated. The main source behind this allegation, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who once operated bin Laden’s Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who is being held in custody by the CIA, will later recant the claim (see February 14, 2004 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasi on_of_iraq_1214)). [New York Times, 7/31/2004 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6587.htm); Newsweek, 7/5/2005 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek/)]

_________________

Yeah, of course. When Libi served the purpose of war, he was telling the truth. Now that the WMD thing was blown up, the new official theory was that he had lied on purpose to engage in a war that was turning into a disaster.

Here's my theory on it.

OBL has spent much of his life pursing the goal of reforming that Arabian Ottoman Empire that was destroyed by the west at the conclusion of WWI. He blames the west for the way the Arab world has been treated, especially in regards to oil, and more so with the "confiscation of land" that occurred in 1947 with the establishment of Israel.

In the late 1980's he learned how to defeat a super power and force it to retreat. He also saw the US defeated in Vietnam and learned from that. With the back down and retreat of the Soviets, he saw his chance to start to reform the Ottoman Empire in his own image. Thus he started to gather support for this about the Arab world.

Then in 1991 Iraq attacked Kuwait and he saw his opportunity. Here he could enlist the help of the Arab world and free Kuwait, standing among them as a leader of great power and under his leadership he could unit the countries back into one grand Muslim state. This dream died when Saudi Arabia snubbed him in his offer to help, and instead turned to the US and Britain, a total humiliation for the man who would unite and lead the Arab World.

So he started plotting. Through a series of attacks, each one designed to be bigger and more costly than the last, he hoped to draw the US into a war in the Middle East, and yet, no matter what he tried they would fail to respond. Even attacks on their embassies and warships failed to bring about the desired result. So they went big, 9/11.

Once the seeds of war were planted with the 9/11 attacks, and knowing that Bushy the Jr was mad bent on getting Saddam, OBL allowed a number of operative to be captured knowing that they would be "questioned." Un duress, to make it believable, They were spin a tale about Iraq and Al Qaeda working together, and Iraq having WMD and supplying them to Al Qaeda.

This would have several effects. Firstly it would make the US intelligence look silly went it was found that they believed false information. Secondly it would draw the US into a war with Iraq, the largest secular country in the Middle East and a major stumbling block to OBL's plans of a united Muslim Empire.

Here he was able to kill two birds with one stone. By removing Saddam he removed the secular Iraqi Government and by drawing the US into a war he had them concentrating on that rather then him, all while doing his work for him. With his studies of Vietnam and being part of the history in Afghanistan he also knew that by using sappers and targeting the supplies lines, he could weaken the US forces once they had destroyed Saddam's army. Inflicting enough causalities would create a call to withdraw, just as happened in the 60-70's over Vietnam.

With the US pulling out of Iraq there would be chaos, and in the middle of it he would be able to step forward and propose a solution, drawing the warring factions together and taking over Iraq. Now with not only the second largest supply of oil in the world, but with the arms of an entire country behind him, he would be able to once more move on his goals of drawing in the rest of the Arab world and re-forge the Ottoman Empire.

Once more the Middle East would be united from Turkey through to Afghanistan and down to Egypt. Israel would be destroyed in the merging as they were outnumbers and crushed and the entire area would under his glorious control.

And it would seem, that currently his plan is working pretty well.

[gumboot]

Once more the Middle East would be united from Turkey through to Afghanistan and down to Egypt. Israel would be destroyed in the merging as they were outnumbers and crushed and the entire area would under his glorious control.


Just a nitpick, most Radical Islamic Extremists have extended to desired Caliphate to be "from Spain to Indonesia".

I guess we're going to have some unpleasant neighbours soon, PhantomWolf.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

We have had a chance to discuss the political back ground of 9/11. I tried to show you that despite all the failures related to post 9/11 related actions, the neocons had a serious motive to close their eyes to the mounting threat of the summer of 2001.

Now that this is done, and despite the fact that we don't agree, I want to take the discussion back to 9/11, and more precisely to the "evidence" (I know we don't agree on that term) indicating that the administration deliberately ignored vital information and warnings.

Take for instance the little discussed revelation by Bob Woodward that Rice attended a meeting where she was told of the incoming threat. We don't know all the details about this meeting, but we certainly have some important material:

If we are to believe Mr Woodward story, the meeting took place on july 10th, at a time where multiple warnings were being sent (see the 300+ entries at the cooperative research).

Were present Mr Tenet and Mrs Rice:

The book says that Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting — calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House — because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings that summer about a terrorist strike. Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”

Obviously, mrs Rice never mentionned this meeting and said it never happened. Now, you might say that Tenet was trying to show off, that he is pissed off he was fired over the Iraqi issue.

“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01cnd-book.html?ex=1317355200&en=beb29e8f20ad8f76&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Well obvisously he can rightly be furious.

Another interesting account about this meeting was formulated by Peter Rundlet, a former adviser to the 9/11 commission.

He also quotes Woodward's books:

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden. Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff."

I'll leave Mr. Rundlet conclude himself:

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. If one could suspend disbelief to accept that all three officials forgot about the meeting when they were interviewed, then one possibility is that the memory of one of them was later jogged by notes or documents that describe the meeting. If such documents exist, the 9/11 Commission should have seen them.

According to Woodward’s book, Cofer Black exonerates them all this way: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”
The notion that both the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that investigated the intelligence prior to 9/11 did not want to know about such essential information is simply absurd. At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/


Of course, there are two solutions:

1. Rice just screwed up, she was tired, she just wasn't conscious of the threat. The famous PDB was given only 3 weeks later. But that of course wasn't the only information they had at the time. But let's imagine they screwed up.

2. Rice, like Cheney and a few others, were at that time getting the partial picture: not that planes would be used, not the targets themselves, but that a large attack by AlQaida was incoming. This would be the Pearl Harbour they needed. Rice refused to hear about this.


So one has to ask itself honestly: didn't some US officials let it happen on purpose.

Doesn't just seem plausible to me: it seems very likely.

Busherie

[busherie]

Anyone interested in answering? Gumboot, Gravy?

This surely is more important than the blueprints "smoking gun".

B.

[busherie]

I insist: anybody has any comments to make about the meeting where Rice was told AQ was on the verge of a major attack.

B

[stateofgrace]

We have had a chance to discuss the political back ground of 9/11. I tried to show you that despite all the failures related to post 9/11 related actions, the neocons had a serious motive to close their eyes to the mounting threat of the summer of 2001.

No they did not, you have failed repeatedly to show this and you have failed to even acknowledge what is the driving political ideology being neocon thinking.

There is no, zero motive for neocons who wish to spread democracy to attack the biggest democracy on the planet.

You have failed completely to show that the end game was engineered to start a disasterous war inside Iraq and you have failed completely to show that 911 was allowed to happen to engineer this war.

You have simply strung together a collection of facts with in the massive picture that led up to 911 and tried to stick them all together to paint a sinister plot involving the inner workings of the USG.

This is why I refuse to accept your spin on world events Busherie because you simply see the word Neocon and connect it with nasty horrible individuals without any moral fibre who would gladly allow the deaths of 3000 if their own to promote their own political agenda. An agenda that has failed incidentally.

Now that this is done, and despite the fact that we don't agree, I want to take the discussion back to 9/11, and more precisely to the "evidence" (I know we don't agree on that term) indicating that the administration deliberately ignored vital information and warnings.

Take for instance the little discussed revelation by Bob Woodward that Rice attended a meeting where she was told of the incoming threat. We don't know all the details about this meeting, but we certainly have some important material:

If we are to believe Mr Woodward story, the meeting took place on july 10th, at a time where multiple warnings were being sent (see the 300+ entries at the cooperative research).

Were present Mr Tenet and Mrs Rice:

The book says that Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting — calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House — because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings that summer about a terrorist strike. Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”

Obviously, mrs Rice never mentionned this meeting and said it never happened. Now, you might say that Tenet was trying to show off, that he is pissed off he was fired over the Iraqi issue.

“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01cnd-book.html?ex=1317355200&en=beb29e8f20ad8f76&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Well obvisously he can rightly be furious.

Another interesting account about this meeting was formulated by Peter Rundlet, a former adviser to the 9/11 commission.

He also quotes Woodward's books:

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden. Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff."

I'll leave Mr. Rundlet conclude himself:

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. If one could suspend disbelief to accept that all three officials forgot about the meeting when they were interviewed, then one possibility is that the memory of one of them was later jogged by notes or documents that describe the meeting. If such documents exist, the 9/11 Commission should have seen them.

According to Woodward’s book, Cofer Black exonerates them all this way: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”
The notion that both the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that investigated the intelligence prior to 9/11 did not want to know about such essential information is simply absurd. At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/


Of course, there are two solutions:

1. Rice just screwed up, she was tired, she just wasn't conscious of the threat. The famous PDB was given only 3 weeks later. But that of course wasn't the only information they had at the time. But let's imagine they screwed up.

2. Rice, like Cheney and a few others, were at that time getting the partial picture: not that planes would be used, not the targets themselves, but that a large attack by AlQaida was incoming. This would be the Pearl Harbour they needed. Rice refused to hear about this.


So one has to ask itself honestly: didn't some US officials let it happen on purpose.

Doesn't just seem plausible to me: it seems very likely.

Busherie


So what Busherie? , they knew it was coming, every man and his dog knew it was coming. Bush even had a memo dropped on his desk on the 6th of August telling him it was coming.

The system was blinking red Busherie, time ran out, you know in the real world people really do make mistakes and people really do go " Oh ****, how the hell did we miss that? “

They screwed up.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer

God I cannot beleive I am having to defend neocon political beliefs. Busherie, offer up something other than "the neocons did it, it is all their fault,they knew , they let it happen" Ok ?

[busherie]

No they did not, you have failed repeatedly to show this and you have failed to even acknowledge what is the driving political ideology being neocon thinking.

There is no, zero motive for neocons who wish to spread democracy to attack the biggest democracy on the planet.

You have failed completely to show that the end game was engineered to start a disasterous war inside Iraq and you have failed completely to show that 911 was allowed to happen to engineer this war.

You have simply strung together a collection of facts with in the massive picture that led up to 911 and tried to stick them all together to paint a sinister plot involving the inner workings of the USG.

This is why I refuse to accept your spin on world events Busherie because you simply see the word Neocon and connect it with nasty horrible individuals without any moral fibre who would gladly allow the deaths of 3000 if their own to promote their own political agenda. An agenda that has failed incidentally.

So what Busherie? , they knew it was coming, every man and his dog knew it was coming. Bush even had a memo dropped on his desk on the 6th of August telling him it was coming.

The system was blinking red Busherie, time ran out, you know in the real world people really do make mistakes and people really do go " Oh ****, how the hell did we miss that? “

They screwed up.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer

God I cannot beleive I am having to defend neocon political beliefs. Busherie, offer up something other than "the neocons did it, it is all their fault,they knew , they let it happen" Ok ?
But you always choose the sunny side of things. You choose to believe the "incompetence" theory.

Why refuse to see what they did was at best criminal negligence! They refused to act so they could go on with their agenda.

If you could ackowledge that, as long as we can't subpoena these people, it is incompetence 50% / LIHOP 50%, then i'd think you're being intellectually honest.

B

[stateofgrace]

But you always choose the sunny side of things. You choose to believe the "incompetence" theory.

Why refuse to see what they did was at best criminal negligence! They refused to act so they could go on with their agenda.

If you could ackowledge that, as long as we can't subpoena these people, it is incompetence 50% / LIHOP 50%, then i'd think you're being intellectually honest.

B

I resent your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest and ask you to retract it. I have been completely honest with you in all of my answers and I have replied in a civil and fair manner. I have looked at this issue in a totally subjective way and have balanced all the arguments that have been put forward regarding the forewarnings that was issued to the US before 911.

You have laboured the issue that these forewarning were not missed but were purposefully missed to promote and drive neocon political polices. Polices which it is abundantly clear you don't even understand.

To date you have nothing other that what everybody knows, all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report. If you think for one moment that this report is anyway protecting anybody and making light of the way the warnings were missed you have not read the report.

Busherie, you are accusing individuals of the most hideous crime imaginable. You do so on your own twisting of the information that is publicly available. If the evidence was so clear then it simply would not have been made public.

I see nothing sunny about neither 911 nor the consequences of it. Nor do I see anything sunny about somebody trying his damdest to accuse innocent people of mass murder.

[busherie]

I resent your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest and ask you to retract it. I have been completely honest with you in all of my answers and I have replied in a civil and fair manner. I have looked at this issue in a totally subjective way and have balanced all the arguments that have been put forward regarding the forewarnings that was issued to the US before 911.

You have laboured the issue that these forewarning were not missed but were purposefully missed to promote and drive neocon political polices. Polices which it is abundantly clear you don't even understand.

To date you have nothing other that what everybody knows, all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report. If you think for one moment that this report is anyway protecting anybody and making light of the way the warnings were missed you have not read the report.

Busherie, you are accusing individuals of the most hideous crime imaginable. You do so on your own twisting of the information that is publicly available. If the evidence was so clear then it simply would not have been made public.

I see nothing sunny about neither 911 nor the consequences of it. Nor do I see anything sunny about somebody trying his damdest to accuse innocent people of mass murder.
I agree the intellectual honesty thing was not appropriate. I take it back.

"all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report". No. For instance, this july 11th meeting was not mentionned in the report. Rice, under oath, did not mention it and then denied it ever took place. Even the Commission was pissed off when they learnt about it.

You see LIHOP as "the most hideous crime imaginable". I assure there has been much worse crimes in history. Even starting a war on false pretexts that has led to undreds of thousands of death is as bad or worse than LIHOP 9/11.

It's much simpler than that. When the leaders started to see that an attack was very likely, they thought that after all, they did not comit the crime themselves. the terrorists did it. and if it enables them to take decisive actions they'd long called for for the sake of America, so so be it.

I believe you refuse by essence that a "democratic government" cannot contemplate letting some of its citizens die for what they think is the long term interest of the country.

And althouh you're intellectualy honest :) you just don't accept they did just that. But having your citizens dying is a choice governements are faced with everyday:

- when you choose not to provide heathcare for the poorest: they die
- when you choose not to implement environmental policies: they die
- when you declare the air safe on 9/11 because you want the city to get back to work ASAP: they die.

So my point is, if your point is 1. not enough evidence (like transcript, testimony) prove LIHOP 2. the government could not be responsible for such a terrible crime, then i suggest you reconsider your position.

Because even if (1) is still true (as long as a serious investigation is not set up) 2. is just simply and purely wrong.

B

[stateofgrace]

I agree the intellectual honesty thing was not appropriate. I take it back.

"all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report". No. For instance, this july 11th meeting was not mentionned in the report. Rice, under oath, did not mention it and then denied it ever took place. Even the Commission was pissed off when they learnt about it.

You see LIHOP as "the most hideous crime imaginable". I assure there has been much worse crimes in history. Even starting a war on false pretexts that has led to undreds of thousands of death is as bad or worse than LIHOP 9/11.

It's much simpler than that. When the leaders started to see that an attack was very likely, they thought that after all, they did not comit the crime themselves. the terrorists did it. and if it enables them to take decisive actions they'd long called for for the sake of America, so so be it.

I believe you refuse by essence that a "democratic government" cannot contemplate letting some of its citizens die for what they think is the long term interest of the country.

And althouh you're intellectualy honest :) you just don't accept they did just that. But having your citizens dying is a choice governements are faced with everyday:

- when you choose not to provide heathcare for the poorest: they die
- when you choose not to implement environmental policies: they die
- when you declare the air safe on 9/11 because you want the city to get back to work ASAP: they die.

So my point is, if your point is 1. not enough evidence (like transcript, testimony) prove LIHOP 2. the government could not be responsible for such a terrible crime, then i suggest you reconsider your position.

Because even if (1) is still true (as long as a serious investigation is not set up) 2. is just simply and purely wrong.

B


The analogies you offer are terrible, destroying the environment and the health service is not in the long term interest of any country. This is an act of silly and ill thought out polices. The polices behind this are not malicious. As for declaring the air was safe to work unless you can offer proof that this was a deliberately malicious act intended to injure or kill again it is a terrible analogy.

I see you are using the Iraq war analogy also. This too is a terrible analogy. You may as well just say “Look Bush and co started a war in Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people and to destroy the countries infrastructure. This was all planned out before hand and was done with intent". This then follows that anybody capable of such a wicked ,dreadful act would also be capable of murdering 3000 of there own citizens to achieve such a thing.

The war inside an Iraq, IMO is a terrible thing it has killed countess thousand of people and cost an absolute fortune but and here is the but, this was not the plan. This was never indented. I doubt you will find much support from anybody, including those who disagree with this war, that it was deliberately started to achieve these precise things. So this again goes back to the point of intent. And this is where the LIHOP fails for this to be true there has to be intent. There is no way round it.

For anybody to allow 911 to have happened on purpose then these has to be an intention, a willingness to see destruction and death brought on your own country.

Despite all you may think of the war in Iraq, and I actually don't support it, it was never the intent on invading this country to kill thousands and bring it to the brink of civil war. Although this has happened, it has happened because there never was any correctly thought out exit strategy or what would happen once the fighting had stopped, which only lasted a very short time. And here in lies the massive difference between LIHOP and the Iraq war. The consequences of the invasion of Iraq could never have in visualised and were not intended. The consequences of LIHOP could be visualised and would have been indended.

No Busherie there is no worse crime than allowing terrorists to board four planes and slaughter thousands of your own citizens because if this really happened then it happened not because somebody got it all wrong but because somebody indented it to happen. Somebody, somewhere seriously sat down and thought it all out, knowing that by doing nothing thousands of their own citizens would die, intentionally.

It is not just simply and purely wrong, it is called genocide, and this is what LIHOP is.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I agree. One should always separate the governement and the people. And in particular with he neocons.
If you agree, then why did you claim that "the US" (suggesting the country as a whole) believes "they hate our freedoms"?

[cloudshipsrule]

Focusing so hard on radical islam, which is a threat, but truly a minor one compared to Communism in the Past and global warming today, is just a way of hiding realities.

I don't recall communism killing more than 3000 American civilians on American soil. So, maybe Communism was a greater global threat, but radical islam represents a more serious domestic threat for the US.

[busherie]

I don't recall communism killing more than 3000 American civilians on American soil. So, maybe Communism was a greater global threat, but radical islam represents a more serious domestic threat for the US.

American civilians on US soil? Maybe no: but remember the threat was actually to nuke the whole country, killing millions: that was clearly a significant threat. And overall, wars abroad against communism cost 60000 (Viet) + 40000 (Korea) = 100 000

How many victims did Radical Islam did in the last say... 10 years?

I'd say no more than 10 000 thousands, if you consider that the Iraqi civil war is not a direct result of radical islamism terrorism.

If you decide to count the iraqis then you might wanna add the civilians killed during the war against communism: then you wour easily reach millions.

Overall, although radical islamism is a threat, it is clearly a minor one, provided we deal with it in an intelligent way (ie exactly the opposit of what's been done in the last 10 years).

We are a hundred times stronger than they are. Let's not overestimate this thing. Without the war in IQ and if the Is-Pa conflict had been settled, just try to imagine how the world would be today...



If you agree, then why did you claim that "the US" (suggesting the country as a whole) believes "they hate our freedoms"?

I didn't take the time to be more precise: obviously not everybody thinks that. There are various opinions.

The analogies you offer are terrible, destroying the environment and the health service is not in the long term interest of any country. This is an act of silly and ill thought out polices. The polices behind this are not malicious. As for declaring the air was safe to work unless you can offer proof that this was a deliberately malicious act intended to injure or kill again it is a terrible analogy.

I see you are using the Iraq war analogy also. This too is a terrible analogy. You may as well just say “Look Bush and co started a war in Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people and to destroy the countries infrastructure. This was all planned out before hand and was done with intent". This then follows that anybody capable of such a wicked ,dreadful act would also be capable of murdering 3000 of there own citizens to achieve such a thing.

The war inside an Iraq, IMO is a terrible thing it has killed countess thousand of people and cost an absolute fortune but and here is the but, this was not the plan. This was never indented. I doubt you will find much support from anybody, including those who disagree with this war, that it was deliberately started to achieve these precise things. So this again goes back to the point of intent. And this is where the LIHOP fails for this to be true there has to be intent. There is no way round it.

For anybody to allow 911 to have happened on purpose then these has to be an intention, a willingness to see destruction and death brought on your own country.

Despite all you may think of the war in Iraq, and I actually don't support it, it was never the intent on invading this country to kill thousands and bring it to the brink of civil war. Although this has happened, it has happened because there never was any correctly thought out exit strategy or what would happen once the fighting had stopped, which only lasted a very short time. And here in lies the massive difference between LIHOP and the Iraq war. The consequences of the invasion of Iraq could never have in visualised and were not intended. The consequences of LIHOP could be visualised and would have been indended.

No Busherie there is no worse crime than allowing terrorists to board four planes and slaughter thousands of your own citizens because if this really happened then it happened not because somebody got it all wrong but because somebody indented it to happen. Somebody, somewhere seriously sat down and thought it all out, knowing that by doing nothing thousands of their own citizens would die, intentionally.

It is not just simply and purely wrong, it is called genocide, and this is what LIHOP is.

1. Stateoggrace, I think that you have been misled by Bush and Rusmfeld, about the "Zero K" wars: Wars kill people, that's it. There are "collateral damage", there are solders dying, people die. When you decide to start a war, you know people are gonna die. That's why international law forbid starting war, unless they are meant to counter a direct threat to your country. That was not the case, the neocons knew it, and still they started the war. Now people die.

When they started it, they already knew that people, including their soldiers, were going to die. So why can't you conceive that some of them let civilians die for what they thought was the greater interest of the country?

2. Another precision: genocide is something very particular, and though it's hard to define, it's cannot be used except in certain contexts. Wiki definition:

"Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the _Crime_of_Genocide) (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation), ethnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), racial or religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

3. EPA and the decision to declare the air safe. It's obvious they decided to lie about the risks in order to get the city (and Wall Street in particualr) back to work:

September 16, 2001 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=enviromental_impact_911_attacks_1 329#enviromental_impact_911_attacks_1329)

The EPA and OSHA release a joint statement asserting that the air in downtown New York City is safe to breathe. “[N]ew samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern,” the agencies claim. [Environmental Protection Agency, 9/16/2001 (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091601.htm)] But it is later learned that the press release had been heavily edited under pressure from the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Critical passages in the original draft were either deleted or modified to downplay public health risks posed by contaminants that were released into the air during the collapse of the World Trade Center. [Environmental Protection Agency, 8/21/2003 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png (http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf); Newsday, 8/26/2003 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/083003C.shtml)]


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=environmental_protection_agency



So overall, you need to ask yourself: can my government have decided to some of us should die, that our country should be damaged, to wake America up, after all these years of Clinton liberalism, so that America can prevail in the 21st century?

Look at all the warnings, the meetings with Clarke, the meeting with Tenet, and ask yourself: is it possible that Rice, Cheney and a few others decided to ignore the AQ threat, even though they knew that people were going to die?

B

[gumboot]

Overall, although radical islamism is a threat, it is clearly a minor one, provided we deal with it in an intelligent way (ie exactly the opposit of what's been done in the last 10 years).

We are a hundred times stronger than they are. Let's not overestimate this thing. Without the war in IQ and if the Is-Pa conflict had been settled, just try to imagine how the world would be today...


This is really more of a politics discussion, so I don't want to get too involved in it, but just for the record I don't agree with you at all. :)

I believe Radical Islam is a serious threat, I believe it is a threat that has been brewing for a long time, I believe currently they are stronger than us, though smaller in number, and I believe we only grow weaker while they continue to strengthen.

IMHO as always.

-Gumboot

[busherie]

This is really more of a politics discussion, so I don't want to get too involved in it, but just for the record I don't agree with you at all. :)

I believe Radical Islam is a serious threat, I believe it is a threat that has been brewing for a long time, I believe currently they are stronger than us, though smaller in number, and I believe we only grow weaker while they continue to strengthen.

IMHO as always.

-Gumboot
Ok, no more political discussion. About Islam, I don't see how they are stronger than us (compare GDPs), but I do see how WE are making them stronger... :)

More 9/11 related: What about the Rice-Tenet july 11th dicussion I discussed in a post above?

Sign of LIHOP?

[gumboot]

About Islam, I don't see how they are stronger than us (compare GDPs), but I do see how WE are making them stronger... :)


Their will to achieve their goals is greater than our will to resist them. As time progresses, and they make advances, their will only increases. As the west becomes more liberal and pacifist, and as our nations become more multicultural and politically-correct, our will to resist them fades.

Bear in mind I'm not talking about a military threat. I don't think the Holy Army of Islam is going to invade the US on a fleet of battleships, armed with AK-47s and grenades.

They have declared their intentions many times. They will destroy our society precisely the same way Roman Civilisation was destroyed. They will infiltrate our societies, and they will turn our laws and our culture and our media against us. They will destroy us from the inside out, through assimilation.




More 9/11 related: What about the Rice-Tenet july 11th dicussion I discussed in a post above?

Sign of LIHOP?


I don't see it that way. I honestly can't think of a single way the US Administration could have prevented 9/11 based on "Bin Laden is determined to attack the US this fall".

Attacking US civilians, and attacking on US soil, was not Osama Bin Laden's MO. His previous attacks had always been against American military or government assets in the Middle-east.

Is was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was obsessed with attacking US civilian targets, particularly the WTC and airlines. Did the US Government know what KSM was up to? Did they know he had got into bed with Al Qaeda?

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

Busherie you are missing the point that I am trying to get across to you. I know wars kill people, everybody knows that people die in wars; this is the very nature of war. I am not even defending this, I am not defending the decision to invade Iraq, this is a matter of another debate and not relevant to this issue.

The issue is was this war part of an on going deliberate act in a long line of acts that were fore planned and thought though. This is why I laboured the point of intent in my last post.

It is my contention and I stand by it that although the war inside Iraq is terrible and has had terrible consequences it was never planned this way. There, IMO was no deliberate and malicious intent on anybodies part for thousands of innocent people to die and the country to slide towards civil war. This war was not started to achieve this, it never was, although this has happened.

It is, from what I read, your contention that this was the case, that the war inside Iraq was deliberately started to further a political agenda and that the deaths of thousands of innocent people was actually part of this. This I disagree with, although I disagree with this war I do not believe it was started as part of an on going deliberate program simply designed to spread death and destruction and totally destabilise the Middle East... yes this has happened but it was not the intention, it was never the intention..

This is the difference with somebody deliberately allowing the terrorist actions of 911 to happen. It would have been intended.

This is why I will not be convinced that somebody deliberately allowed innocent citizens in their own country to be targeted. Because for this to happen it is not simply a case of miscalculating, or simply not seeing the consequences of ones own actions. It is the reverse it is very calculated and a deliberate act. It would have been an act of unparallel evil. To simply sit back and do nothing and knowingly put thousands of innocent lives at risk.

To summarise, the follow events of 911 have , yes have been disastrous not just for the Middle East but for World security in general, but although this has happened it was done though simply misreading and miscalculating the consequences of starting something with unforeseen consequences.
To state that these consequences were deliberately engineered and that somebody, the neocons, would in anyway see this as in their best interest is wrong. then to take it further and suggest that anybody would deliberately allow 3000 of their own to be murdered to start a chain of events which as had nothing short of catastrophic results, which were also engineered is simply wrong, plain and simple.

Is it possible that they did so? Yes of course it is possible but is it plausible? No it is not. Because allowing the targeting of your own citizens and then deliberately spreading death and destruction is in nobody’s interest.

We differ in our opinions but I will condemn any politician, including our own for getting it all wrong, for simply making matters worse. But I will not be party to condemning anybody for deliberately, maliciously and intentionally allowing it all to happen, without absolute proof. To date there is none.

On this I will end because I really have no desire to dragged further and further into a political debate. I have stated my opinion and stand by it

stateofgrace

[busherie]

Thx for taking the time to answer.

Before we end this debate, I would like to clarify my position.

I don't believe the neocons thought their wars would end up this way. They did not think it would led to civil war.

However, it's likely they let 9/11 happen (or did not try to stop it, if you prefet) to start the war, not to bring endless violence to the middle-east.

Busherie

[gumboot]

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his."

Gen. George S. Patton

-Gumboot

[busherie]

Thx for taking the time to answer.

Before we end this debate, I would like to clarify my position.

I don't believe the neocons thought their wars would end up this way. They did not think it would led to civil war.

However, it's likely they let 9/11 happen (or did not try to stop it, if you prefet) to start the war, not to bring endless violence to the middle-east.

Busherie
To complete this argument, here is an interesting document: a slide presented to Rumsfeld in 2002, saying that by december 2006 theyre would be only 5000 troops left in IRaq. So the neocons likely used 9/11 for their plans and no, they didn't know it would be such a mess. They even though (i'm speculating here) that Iran would be in their hands by now. Looks like it's gonna a tough task... :

Washington D.C., February 14, 2007- The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006 (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/Tab%20K%20-%20page%2010.pdf), according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm#docs), which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org).
The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/Tab%20L.pdf), but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

[MaGZ]

KSM may have been in Las Vegas in 2001 meeting with the hijackers. KSM was a party animal and the hijackers made flights to LV at different times as if they were called in to check with the "boss."

http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-28-Fri-2001/news/17104833.html

[stateofgrace]

To complete this argument, here is an interesting document: a slide presented to Rumsfeld in 2002, saying that by december 2006 theyre would be only 5000 troops left in IRaq. So the neocons likely used 9/11 for their plans and no, they didn't know it would be such a mess. They even though (i'm speculating here) that Iran would be in their hands by now. Looks like it's gonna a tough task... :

Washington D.C., February 14, 2007- The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006 (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/Tab%20K%20-%20page%2010.pdf), according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm#docs), which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) (http://www.nsarchive.org)).
The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/Tab%20L.pdf), but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

I have highlighted exactly what you have been doing. Pure speculation means nothing.

And no the fact that Rumsfeld said there would only be 5000 troops inside Iraq back in 2002 and he got it wrong does not prove anything other than the fact the got it wrong.

It certainly does not prove that 911 were allowed to happen and if anything it reinforces exactly what I have been saying to you all along. That being that although 911 was used as political muscle to start this war, the long term consequences were never planned.

[busherie]

I have highlighted exactly what you have been doing. Pure speculation means nothing.

And no the fact that Rumsfeld said there would only be 5000 troops inside Iraq back in 2002 and he got it wrong does not prove anything other than the fact the got it wrong.

It certainly does not prove that 911 were allowed to happen and if anything it reinforces exactly what I have been saying to you all along. That being that although 911 was used as political muscle to start this war, the long term consequences were never planned.

You've misunderstood me. I quoted this document because I've often been told:

"busherie, you accuse the neocons to have let 9/11 happen, to start wars that have been a disaster. How could they have done this".

Question to which I reply: they let it happen and usd to start wars they though would be easy to win.

In this context, the slide saying that by december 2006 there would be only 5000 troops left in Iraq shows you how optimistic and self-confident they were.

___________________________

Second thing I wanted to ad:

Gitmo Detainee Denies Role in 9/11 Plot NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, March 29, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A Saudi accused of arranging financing for the Sept. 11 terrorist plot participants told a hearing he got money transfers from two hijackers inside the United States just hours before the attacks, said a transcript the Pentagon released Thursday.
But Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who was based in the United Arab Emirates on Sept. 11, 2001, denied that he was a member of the al-Qaida terrorist network and he also denied that he sent money to the hijackers.
He is one of 14 "high value" detainees who were transferred to Guantanamo last September after being held in secret CIA prisons abroad. The transcript contained no reference to his detention; a portion in which he explained how he was captured in Pakistan was censored by the Defense Department.
The hearing, held to determine whether he is an "enemy combatant" eligible to be charged with war crimes, was conducted March 21.
Al-Hawsawi said he was told by al-Qaida operative Ramzi Binalshibh about the Sept. 11 plot one day in advance and was instructed to fly that same day from the UAE to Pakistan, where he met Binalshibh the following day.
Asked by a member of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal his reaction to realizing he was "part of that operation," al-Hawsawi replied, according to the transcript, "In the beginning I was surprised by the size of the operation. It was mostly a surprise to me."
The trancript does not fully explain the significance of the allegation that al-Hawsawi received thousands of dollars in money transfers from two of the hijackers shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks, other than establishing his association with them.


Al-Hawsawi told the hearing that he did not know why he was sent the money, totaling $17,860.

U.S. authorities said hijackers Mohammad Atta and Waleed al-Shehri sent the money by Western Union from locations in Massachusetts and Maryland to money exchange offices in Sharjah, UAE, where al-Hawsawi had opened a post office box in June 2001, according to UAE General Postal Authority records.
The transcript said that recovered Western Union receipts show that in separate transactions, Atta sent $2,860 and $5,000 from Laurel, Md., on Sept. 8, and that fellow hijacker al-Shehri sent $5,000 from Logan Airport in Boston on Sept. 9 and another $5,000 the same day from a Greyhound Bus terminal in Boston.
At his hearing, al-Hawsawi acknowledged receiving the money transfers from the two men. Asked what he did with it, he replied, "I put it in my bank account in the United Arab Emirates. Only, I did not do anything else with it."
He spoke through a translator.






Okay: there are interestng questions:



- if you're about to comit suicide, why send money back to this guy? Plus, you're taking the risk to get caught in the process.

- UBL is a millionaire: what does he care about 17000 dollars?

- If money was sent back to this guy because he need the money to come to the US or something else, why didn't AQ send money through it chain of command, rather than sending the money through the operatives already in the US?

- Lastly, since this guy spent years in CIA jail (you know what that means) how come he is the first one to deny any links with AQ and 9/11?



Interesting questions here... (note I'm not using these lines to prove anything, just askin' questions)



B

[Undesired Walrus]

This is the key point.

Testimony is evidence, but it is not proof, regardless of whether or not the man was tortured. (Personally, I find the very idea that anyone in this country even contemplates torture is disgusting, barbaric, and ultimately counterproductive, but that's a topic for the Politics forum.) The testimony is only significant if it can be verified against the larger body of evidence.

However, having read the 9/11 Commission Report, I'm sure it can. It may also corroborate many more sources of information that we don't have full access to.

It may also explain other evidence that previously wasn't understood or considered to be mere anomalies. That would make it valuable, even significant if that leads to new discoveries.

As far as convincing the Troothers, who cares? They've already demonstrated that they can't be reasoned with. This trial, in case nobody noticed, is not being held for their benefit.

I'm currently having a look through the report again, and trying to find a few links with KSM and German intelligence leading up to 9/11, which I believe can be supported.

Did you find any such examples (I know this is an old thread now)?

I agree with the poster you are replying to in some respects. KSM is hidden away behind closed doors, at the mercy of people who haven't really had a history of being honest and open gossips. The problem here is that a significant amount of chapters 5 and 7 relies on 'According to KSM', 'According to KSM', and I think that puts off a lot of truthers. It also contains the highly absurd notion that KSM was going to land the last plane (In his original plan) and deliver a speech to the women and children about Israel and those lot, so when you hear something like that it puts you off a bit.