The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[MIKILLINI]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

Kage this is a good post and it would indicate, by using mjd's logic, the Neocons pulled off an inside job that worked perfectly into Al-Queda's plan and the Neocons own project. Or it would be Al-Queda pulled off their plan so that the Neocons, who allowed it to happen, could take advantage of PNAC to make transformations sooner. In other words,using mjd's logic, this is propitious to both sides. :boggled:

[mjd1982]

Not hard ? When you don't have an actual clue of WHERE or WHEN the attack is coming, it's actually VERY hard to even try to stop something like that.


If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.


The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

A statement of intent, or somethin that could be construed as such, would be deemed evidence in most courts.

[Unsecured Coins]

We are not debating that yet

so the main reason you haven't went to the world court with all this smoking gun slam dunk evidence yet is because...

you haven't discussed it on the internet just yet.

I stopped taking you seriously a few weeks ago.

[mjd1982]

So then you are just making conjecture as I have pointed out. No, of course Alex Jones could not have caused such a thing, because he's not a "bad guy". He doesn't fit the stereo type of evil people who control everything. PNAC fits your stereo type so we can make all the wild assumptions and conjecture and speculation we want.

How well do you think your argument would hold up in a court of law?

"Well your honor, it sounds like what we want to hear, so therefore the party is guilty. Evidence? Well no sir, but just look at how they fit our stereo type."
Errr...

He couldnt do it because he's a radio host Jonny. Please now.

[mjd1982]

I must really be stupid. 31 pages and I still don't see a connection made between 9/11 and PNAC. Yet I am just told to read through the thread. Is there a certain number of times of reading through before it becomes clear? Is this like one of those pictures you have to stair at to see the sailboat?

I just don't think I am cut out for this mental exercise...
Maybe not, but we can try again.
1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious
2. They get unprecedented warnings of such and do absolutely nothing.
3. They are thus rightly suspected of complicity, and an investigation is launched to deal with this.

Kapish?

[Unsecured Coins]

it's capiche, and you're still making stuff up.

[Hokulele]

Maybe not, but we can try again.


OK

1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious


Stop right there. Where do they state this? Everything you have written so far indicates that you assume this, but nowhere has it been stated that they believe this.

Kapish?


No. Especially since it should be spelled "capisce".

[Unsecured Coins]

He couldnt do it because he's a radio host Jonny. Please now.


On that note, it would also impossible for say, a man to, oh, say, talk his others into a suicide operation simply because he's a man of the cloth? That is just retarded to say AJ couldn't have done it because of his job

[mjd1982]

Read some Chomsky. Then you will learn that if you believe anything Western governments/the U.S./Israel say, you are brainwashed by propaganda. However, when you swallow unquestioningly every piece of drivel from the enemies of Western governments/the U.S./Israel, you are an intellectual. Hardly surprising the woo-woos love him. After all, bombing an empty pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was much much worse than whatever was done to us on 9/11 (which we deserved of course).

Is there a vomit smilie?
Again, more drivel. If you want to include substance in your posts, then go ahead. To state that something is wrong because you think it is is worthless. If you want to illustrate how/why the propaganda model is false, go ahead.

To give a case in point of evident ignorance, the bombing of the Al Shifa plant, which thus destroying 90% of all Sudanese medicines, was completely illegal, an act of terror, and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians. Thus it may not be legitimate to make a comparison betweem that and 911, but for the opposite of the reasons you state. Nowhere has Chomsky stated that the US deserved 911. Please tell me why you have lied.

[mjd1982]

Chomsky is very, very anti-911 conspiracy theories, though! He certainly doesn't believe in government conspiracy.

LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1
I have corresponded with him a number of times on this; all I can say is, nobody's perfect.

[mjd1982]

What gets me annoyed about this thread? I'm glad you asked:
MJD seems to have a certain amount of intelligence, as do most others posting here. He seems to be educated, as do most others, but MJD seems to be of the opinion that only he is really educated. Only he has any intelligence. Anyone who disagrees with MJD can't be intelligent or educated, apparently.


Nowhere do I state this.

People who post hundreds/thousands of times on a topic, and then when it gets challenged refuse to post/evade responses/refuse to answer points, and then still maintain their "opinion", yes, they are neither intelleigent nor effectively educated. Hence, in part, the c word.


Dear MJD,
where does one learn such conceit? Where do you get the arrogance to assume such superiority? There are many people here older, more experienced and at least as well educated as yourself, how do you reach the conclusion that you know more than anyone else?


I havent. Its a debate.


You have taken a few phrases from the PNAC document and spun a paranoid web around them. How is it that you cling to this paranoid web even after its nature has been pointed out to you?


A perfect example of an accusation with zero substance. I have taken a phrase, and taken it one step further to its logical conclusion. Pretty much everyone here has refused to debate this to conclusion. Were someone to do this, maybe I would stop my "clinging". I doubt this wil happen.


What investment do you have in the conspiracy theory that prevents you from seeing it for what it is?


Less than the fervour which almost inevitably gets created after thousands of posts in favour of something, or an identity created out of the same. This is a probelem for some.


Assume for a moment that there is no conspiracy. Assume that the world is not as dark and sinister as you pretend. Try just for a little while to imagine that not everything revolves around shadowy secret plans for world domination.


worthless


I'm not saying that there aren't bad people in the world doing bad things, just that the bad guys aren't organising themselves to take away your freedoms. If your (and my) freedoms are being lost, it isn't because of some faceless global elite, it's because people like you (and me) aren't doing enough to stop it.


Where have i talked about a "faceless global elite"? What the hell r u talking about?


What can we do Mr Brainache? I hear you ask, well we could stop posting pointless rubbish on the net and get involved in local politics. Or maybe create some meaningful art or something. The point is, even if this thread lasts for another 100,000 posts, nothing will have been solved.

End of semi-drunken rant.
Thank you.

Ok, that explains a lot.

[mjd1982]

Kage this is a good post and it would indicate, by using mjd's logic, the Neocons pulled off an inside job that worked perfectly into Al-Queda's plan and the Neocons own project. Or it would be Al-Queda pulled off their plan so that the Neocons, who allowed it to happen, could take advantage of PNAC to make transformations sooner. In other words,using mjd's logic, this is propitious to both sides. :boggled:
This is precisely my point. AQ want to attack US, and PNAC wanted an attack in the US. Very simple.

[mjd1982]

OK




Stop right there. Where do they state this? Everything you have written so far indicates that you assume this, but nowhere has it been stated that they believe this.




No. Especially since it should be spelled "capisce".
#493. If you want to debate my reasoning on this, you should address this. Anything else is of little value I'm afraid.

[Unsecured Coins]

you're basing this off your interpretation again. sad, really

[Hokulele]

#493. If you want to debate my reasoning on this, you should address this. Anything else is of little value I'm afraid.


OK

<snipped out the PH stuff>

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

But after that, the question is, did they want the transformation to happen over decades, or over mths/years. I think that ordinarily would be obvious, but we can argue it here on the basis that:
a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.


Assumption #1, no evidence.

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.


Same assumption repeated, no evidence.

c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors, stability, peace, security and democracy for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.


Same assumption, repeated for the third time, all of which I and other have addressed in (much) earlier posts. I know Myriad, gumboot, and I have all shown to you that technological implementation takes time. If the hand of the military is forced too soon, there is a good chance the changes may never be implemented (as pointed out by Gravy and Augustine).

In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.

Please don't be evasive. Address the points, and we will all make some progress.


Right back atcha. Show some proof, rather than simply your opinion, where, anywhere, this preference for swift action is desired. I predict that in your next post you will claim to have addressed all of these. And just for the record, no, addressing a point is not the same as disproving it.

[volatile]

No, it means that there are certain small details which I will not know. I do not know who suggested the idea from PNAC, I dont know who pulled what strings etc etc... these details are inconsequential, and have no bearing on anything of relevance here.

You said there was an insider. Who's the insider? You made the claim - back it up. How do you know there's an insider? Tell me how you know there's an insider, without recourse to circular reasoning.

No, I am speculating that they massaged elements of the plot so that it would fit in to their scheme. That I am speculating about this has again no relevance to the thrust of my argument.

Making it up as you go along, using circular reasoning. "I think it was done in manner X; the only way manner X could be done is by recourse to Y; therefore Y was involved, proving X happened in the way I say it did."

That's your whole argument right there.



Once again, this is of zero logical value. That no one has come out and volunteered themselves for the firing squad is meaningless, and should not be used in any serious debate on the matter.

It's only "of no value" because you know its just one of many gaping holes in your 'argument'. To address it is to realise how stupid this all sounds.

This is a serious matter. If there were warnings, as you claim, then the warnings were given by someone outside of the plot apparatus. Who collated the evidence for these warnings, and who gave them? Why haven't they stood up to be counted? They are NOT INVOLVED in the plot - they can't be, logically - so where are they? Again, it is only "meaningless" inasmuch as it undermines your entire position if you stop to think about it for more than a millisecond.



I'm not saying that there is a secret branch of the government that does these things. I think that the meat of the work is done by the principals (PNAC et al), and the rest is probably done by parts of the FBI/CIA, as any black ops (Ajax, PBSUCCESS etc) are.

You are saying that. If there were warnings, they were produced from intelligence and given by people who were not involved in the plot - otherwise, why warn? So, this necessarily requires a secret branch of the government who the branch giving the warnings don't know about!

If all the government were involved, there would have been no warnings. If there were warnings to be ignored, then someone not involved in the plot had to have given them. Your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP hinges on there being warnings, but in the scheme of your argument such warnings cannot be logically tessellated with the rest.

You're pissing in your chips, basically.



We are not debating that yet

Yes we are. I just asked you a question, and that counts for debate around here. Stop being evasive and answer the question.

[twinstead]

Yea, "I think it was an inside job because it was an inside job" gets old after a while.

[Billdave2]

Yes, except that to continue with your analogy, to do such with PNAC requires wrenching something out of its context. I don't think your analogy is at all correct- the fact that I have immediately followed the expression of desire to play football, with the comment about rain preventing me from playing gives a strong suggestion as to what I am desiring. In any case, re: PNAC, you would have to show that there was a similar cause for obfuscation - i.e. if I do actually want it to rain because I am a farmer, then why do PNAC want a slow rate of transformation? I have addrssed why they would in 3 parts, a few pages back, and again in post #493

PNAC wanted a slow rate of transformation so that it could be directed in specific ways. The whole push of PNAC program to push towards creating high tech, sophisticated growth in our military infrastructure. To create a situation where we would have to spend large percentages of the defense budget on a low tech ground war would have been unacceptable for this.

Even you admit in my interpretaion of your example of an undeniable assumption that it is really just a strong suggestion, hardly a fact.

[MIKILLINI]

Mjd, I suggest you read Myriads post #50.

[Billdave2]

Maybe not, but we can try again.
1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious
2. They get unprecedented warnings of such and do absolutely nothing.
3. They are thus rightly suspected of complicity, and an investigation is launched to deal with this.

Kapish?

Please provide evidence that "absolutely nothing" was done about warnings that Al Queda intendend an attack. Also please show that these warnings had sufficient information that even a genuis could correctly know what steps needed to be taken to prevent this attack without the benifit of hindsight (details please, not just "stop it")

[Billdave2]

[QUOTE=mjd1982;2716630]If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.

QUOTE]

OK, now I am really confused, are we talking about a new Pearl Harbor or a Hiroshima on US soil?:D

[MIKILLINI]

These conspirators are the dumbest, most bungling bunch that could ever be imagined. 9/11 is pretty much as evident an inside job as can be reasonably expected. The calling card of the Bush admin is all over it. The PNAC doc is a prime example of such stupidity. People's dismissal of it is a prime example of why such stupidity can persist.

As interpreted by...Mjd..and the Neocons pulled it off!

[Brainache]

Nowhere do I state this.

People who post hundreds/thousands of times on a topic, and then when it gets challenged refuse to post/evade responses/refuse to answer points, and then still maintain their "opinion", yes, they are neither intelleigent nor effectively educated. Hence, in part, the c word.

I'm confused now. You're describing yourself here.


I havent. Its a debate.

But you continually post your opinions and call them facts.



A perfect example of an accusation with zero substance. I have taken a phrase, and taken it one step further to its logical conclusion. Pretty much everyone here has refused to debate this to conclusion. Were someone to do this, maybe I would stop my "clinging". I doubt this wil happen.


Many people have debated this point and I believe they have shown convincingly that your conclusion is not logical. I also doubt you will stop clinging to your illogical conclusion.

Less than the fervour which almost inevitably gets created after thousands of posts in favour of something, or an identity created out of the same. This is a probelem for some.

I was drunk, what's your excuse for this incomprehensible nonsense?



worthless


OK. Don't then. Just carry on in your usual fashion.



Where have i talked about a "faceless global elite"? What the hell r u talking about?

Maybe I could have phrased it better, but isn't it your contention that secret "Black Ops" agents of the Neo-Cons covertly conspired to attack US civilians for their own evil purposes? ie: An increase in military R&D spending?



Ok, that explains a lot.

At least I have an excuse. What's yours?

[beachnut]

No facts yet? You have talk a lot, but no evidence to support anything. What was it you were trying to do? What point do you have? It has been over 5 years, and you have not made any progress, or points. So what do you do now? Disneyland?

[mjd1982]

OK

Assumption #1, no evidence.

Same assumption repeated, no evidence.

Same assumption, repeated for the third time, all of which I and other have addressed in (much) earlier posts. I know Myriad, gumboot, and I have all shown to you that technological implementation takes time. If the hand of the military is forced too soon, there is a good chance the changes may never be implemented (as pointed out by Gravy and Augustine).


An astonishingly bad post, and perfectly reflective of the evasion of elementary reasoning that would normally come naturally, were this position not so mired in denial and self deception.

There is a difference between and assumption and an interpretation. I am taking this comment, which is the only statement in the doc regarding "How, soon", and interpreted it, reaching a pretty robust conclusion as evinced by the 3 statements above. If you wish to differ with these conclusions, it is completely worthless to state "Its an interpretation/assumption" unless you are willing to proffer your own to challenge it.

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.

Of course, this is nonsense, and would be rejected by any sane person in a normal cntext. Here however, it is standard discourse, which illustrates perfectly the mentality and level of subterfuge required to maintain the OT stance.


In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.


What a disgusting and despicable lie. Show me an instance of such.


Right back atcha. Show some proof, rather than simply your opinion, where, anywhere, this preference for swift action is desired. I predict that in your next post you will claim to have addressed all of these. And just for the record, no, addressing a point is not the same as disproving it.

Priceless... as above

[mjd1982]

You said there was an insider. Who's the insider? You made the claim - back it up. How do you know there's an insider? Tell me how you know there's an insider, without recourse to circular reasoning.


No, I was asked how I believed it could have happened, down to specifics. You have got distracted.


Making it up as you go along, using circular reasoning. "I think it was done in manner X; the only way manner X could be done is by recourse to Y; therefore Y was involved, proving X happened in the way I say it did."

That's your whole argument right there.


No, I am not stating for certain that that particular element is what happened, or had to happen. It is speculation. As such, it is worth little; I was just asked about it.


It's only "of no value" because you know its just one of many gaping holes in your 'argument'. To address it is to realise how stupid this all sounds.


Hahaha... yeh right, as above.

Also, you could equally say that since I have not given "proof" as to who gave the green light for this project to happen, that this is a "gaping hole", but if you are serious, you will not use this point.


This is a serious matter. If there were warnings, as you claim, then the warnings were given by someone outside of the plot apparatus. Who collated the evidence for these warnings, and who gave them? Why haven't they stood up to be counted? They are NOT INVOLVED in the plot - they can't be, logically - so where are they? Again, it is only "meaningless" inasmuch as it undermines your entire position if you stop to think about it for more than a millisecond.


People such as Antony Schaffer and John O Neill have been silenced in one way or another. Others, such as George Tenet or Richard Clarke have come out and spoken about it. Others, such as the people who tried to access Moussaoui's computer, are anonymous.

It is worthless in any case, since just because they havent "stood up to be counted", this does not mean that this was not an inside job, not one iota.


You are saying that. If there were warnings, they were produced from intelligence and given by people who were not involved in the plot - otherwise, why warn? So, this necessarily requires a secret branch of the government who the branch giving the warnings don't know about!


as above


If all the government were involved, there would have been no warnings. If there were warnings to be ignored, then someone not involved in the plot had to have given them. Your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP hinges on there being warnings, but in the scheme of your argument such warnings cannot be logically tessellated with the rest.

You're pissing in your chips, basically.


Yes it can, since not all the government was involved. I have given you instances of people being silenced when sensitive info is at stake (Sibel edmonds is another), so this is quite simple.


Yes we are. I just asked you a question, and that counts for debate around here. Stop being evasive and answer the question.

We will get to that point in time. For now we are talking about foreknowledge. Read the slc post if u wanna learn about 7.

[MSgtWeiss]

Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation. CVN-75 was originally to be name the USS United States; however, a political row developed over the naming of CVN-76. Democrats wanted the ship named in honor of Harry Truman; Republicans wanted her named for Ronald Reagan. Eventually the Navy decided to rename CVN-75 the USS Harry Truman, allowing both parties to have their way. At the time an admiral remarked, "The United States didn't have much of a constituency." :(

The situation has not been helped by the fact that six consecutive US Presidents are/were World War II Navy veterans, starting with John F. Kennedy (though Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan were all Army veterans). To date, three of these (Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Ford) have had aircraft carriers named after them. A nuclear submarine has been named for Jimmy Carter, a former submariner. The naming of any new carriers for for Nixon or LBJ seems unlikely, due to their lack of combat or sea service, plus their associated political baggage. Naming of a new carrier for Bill Clinton (political baggage and alleged to have dodged the draft) or Bush the Younger (same problems, plus name is already taken) anytime soon is even more unlikely.


I tend to agree that LBJ had no actual combat service, but he was in fact awarded the Silver Star, for flying as (basically) a passenger on sort of a combat mission consisting of several aircraft. IIRC, that plane never got anywhere near combat, but since he was even by that time a significant political figure (like JFK), he got the SS. It became a bit of an embarrassment after a while, and I believe he stopped wearing the lapel ribbon, and virtually never referred to the incident after he became VP & Prez.

Since I assume LBJ got the associated "glad you're here" ribbons for spending some time in the Pacific theater, even as a TDY tour, a straightforward claim that he didn't serve in a combat area is very muddy, even though it was obviously a rather safe and short visit of a few weeks.

A minor nit-pick, admittedly.

[mjd1982]

PNAC wanted a slow rate of transformation so that it could be directed in specific ways. The whole push of PNAC program to push towards creating high tech, sophisticated growth in our military infrastructure. To create a situation where we would have to spend large percentages of the defense budget on a low tech ground war would have been unacceptable for this.

Even you admit in my interpretaion of your example of an undeniable assumption that it is really just a strong suggestion, hardly a fact.
Once again, I will ask you to respond to #493, otherwise you are just repeating your own point, instead of addressing mine.

I would also advise you to read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3), since you do not seem to be clear on what the WOT is actually entailing.

[mjd1982]

Mjd, I suggest you read Myriads post #50.
This has been replied to at huge length (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=4) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=5)

Please keep up.

[mjd1982]

Please provide evidence that "absolutely nothing" was done about warnings that Al Queda intendend an attack. Also please show that these warnings had sufficient information that even a genuis could correctly know what steps needed to be taken to prevent this attack without the benifit of hindsight (details please, not just "stop it")
The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres.

In terms of what to do, order that measures be taken to find the hijackers, step up airport security, accept OBL's hand over to Saudi. I have stated this many many many times here.

[stateofgrace]

My point was about the idea of an "Islamic world" hating the US.

I addressed your point about "coming clean" to someone else with a link here (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948)

In short, how do they know that its an inside job.

I never once said the Islamic world hated the US. I have stated repeatedly that radicalised fundamentalists dislike US foreign policy. Unlike yourself who as now tried to categorise the entire Muslim community as US haters I carry no such beliefs. In the same way I would never blame the entire catholic community for the actions of the IRA, I would never blame the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few. I take it you fail to understand that the only thing on this planet that is stopping the spread of the ideology of Al Qaeda is the Muslim community. The very people that you seem to think hates us are the thin line that by enlarge rejects Al Qaeda and actually stops it from spreading.

I read a poll recently, I cannot get my hands on it at the moment but it suggested that something like 16% of young Muslims in the UK, between the ages of 18 and 25 agreed with Al Qaeda and supported the notion of another 911 style attack on the US. Does that not bother you? Are you not concerned by this? I am, I would like to know why so many would support this and I would like to know what the polices makers in the UK are doing to stop it. But here is a thought, maybe just maybe they feel this way is because fools accuse the entire Islamic world of hating us, they dismiss people who promote and subscribe to this ideology as being stupid and dismiss the history behind it. Just maybe being ignored and not listening to is actually one of the biggest reasons the ideology of Al Qaeda is spreading. Makes you wonder does it not?

Equally so are you seriously suggesting that the very people who spread this ideology are blissfully unaware they are being framed for the attack on the US? I kind of get the impression your arrogance is getting the better of you and to state such a thing is to simply dismiss these people as fools and idiots who have no idea what is going on in the world. By making such a suggestion you are claiming to know better then them and you are far more knowledgeable then those who subscribe to the Al Qaeda ideology, in fact you have just dismissed a small portion of Muslims who subscribe to it and an ever larger potion that try their hardest to stop its' spread.

[Billdave2]

There is a difference between and assumption and an interpretation. I am taking this comment, which is the only statement in the doc regarding "How, soon", and interpreted it, reaching a pretty robust conclusion as evinced by the 3 statements above. If you wish to differ with these conclusions, it is completely worthless to state "Its an interpretation/assumption" unless you are willing to proffer your own to challenge it.

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.



Well I see you have tried to change your example of a situation where an assumption can be taken for fact. Unfortunantly I do not beleive this is applicable either unless you can show where in the PNAC it says "if we can cause or let a New Pearl Harbor happen we will get what we want". This example doesn't even call for speculation. The fact is anytime you have to speculate or try to determine what someone else is implying, you do not have fact. Evidence of fact and assumption/speculation are mutually exculsive ideas. You can debate assumptions if you like, you just have to aknowledge the hypothetical nature, and not leap to conclusions and call you assumptions facts.

[Billdave2]

Once again, I will ask you to respond to #493, otherwise you are just repeating your own point, instead of addressing mine.

I would also advise you to read, since you do not seem to be clear on what the WOT is actually entailing.

You asked me how a slow build up could be preferable to the quicker new PH version and I answered your question. Now that I have answered your question you send me back to post #493 which is where we started. Do you see the circular logic here?

As to the WOT, so far it has mostly involved ground troops invading and holding enemy territory, while trying to physically destroy any enemy we find. I would say that is about as radical and new as cavemen throwing rocks at each other, so how does this meet the goals of the PNAC calling for massive R&D to develop high tech weapons?

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Billdave2.

TAM:)

[Billdave2]

The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres.

In terms of what to do, order that measures be taken to find the hijackers, step up airport security, accept OBL's hand over to Saudi. I have stated this many many many times here.

And your evidence that no one was doing anything to prevent the attacks (You said "nothing was done")? Also how many other warnings did they recieve about attacks in other places/ways? 40 warnings out of 40 I would say how could they not do more to stop this, but 40 out of 4000 (which is much closer to the real world) and how do they separate the wheat from the chaff? The old saying that hindsight is 20/20 is an old saying for a reason.

[JonnyFive]

yes, it is a recording of that exchange.

Please tell me how this could be more

Well, it could actually involve some kind of direct statement that implies that the event in question actually happened.

Perhaps, for you, "no comment" = "that is true" but for me it means that this recording you present as proof is proof of absolutely nothing. At the most, all you can do is insinuate that by refusing to flatly deny the question (something routinely done to avoid talking about irrelevant issues) the representative has something to hide.

That's pretty damn weak, mjd. Do you have anything else to back that accusation up? You're using the "fact" that the government "turned down" OBL as a talking point, and you can't even back it with more than a paranoid insinuation?

[nicepants]

If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.

What, specifically, should have been done? You know there are AQ terror cells in the us...SOMEWHERE. How do you find them, and neutralize the threat, all while avoiding violating the constitutional rights of your other citizens, and abiding by US law?

[JonnyFive]

What, specifically, should have been done? You know there are AQ terror cells in the us...SOMEWHERE. How do you find them, and neutralize the threat, all while avoiding violating the constitutional rights of your other citizens, and abiding by US law?

If I were the President, I would've just called Jack Bauer around 8:00 am on September 10th, 2001.

Oh, wait, you said avoiding violating Constitutional rights. Never mind then, I've got nothing.

[mjd1982]

I never once said the Islamic world hated the US. I have stated repeatedly that radicalised fundamentalists dislike US foreign policy. Unlike yourself who as now tried to categorise the entire Muslim community as US haters I carry no such beliefs. In the same way I would never blame the entire catholic community for the actions of the IRA, I would never blame the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few. I take it you fail to understand that the only thing on this planet that is stopping the spread of the ideology of Al Qaeda is the Muslim community. The very people that you seem to think hates us are the thin line that by enlarge rejects Al Qaeda and actually stops it from spreading.


Please read the post to which you are referring before you post, it will save you and others a lot of time.

The original point was that the OBL offer was pointless since trying him in an Islamic country (if that was indeed the offer) is going to go his way, since muslims hate the US, according to Dave Rogers (?). I disputed this, ~#1200.

Oh, and I am a Muslim.


I read a poll recently, I cannot get my hands on it at the moment but it suggested that something like 16% of young Muslims in the UK, between the ages of 18 and 25 agreed with Al Qaeda and supported the notion of another 911 style attack on the US. Does that not bother you? Are you not concerned by this? I am, I would like to know why so many would support this and I would like to know what the polices makers in the UK are doing to stop it. But here is a thought, maybe just maybe they feel this way is because fools accuse the entire Islamic world of hating us, they dismiss people who promote and subscribe to this ideology as being stupid and dismiss the history behind it. Just maybe being ignored and not listening to is actually one of the biggest reasons the ideology of Al Qaeda is spreading. Makes you wonder does it not?


Do your research please:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece


Equally so are you seriously suggesting that the very people who spread this ideology are blissfully unaware they are being framed for the attack on the US? I kind of get the impression your arrogance is getting the better of you and to state such a thing is to simply dismiss these people as fools and idiots who have no idea what is going on in the world. By making such a suggestion you are claiming to know better then them and you are far more knowledgeable then those who subscribe to the Al Qaeda ideology, in fact you have just dismissed a small portion of Muslims who subscribe to it and an ever larger potion that try their hardest to stop its' spread.

They are not being framed, they did it. They were just assisted.

This should not be hard to understand.

[mjd1982]

Well I see you have tried to change your example of a situation where an assumption can be taken for fact. Unfortunantly I do not beleive this is applicable either unless you can show where in the PNAC it says "if we can cause or let a New Pearl Harbor happen we will get what we want". This example doesn't even call for speculation. The fact is anytime you have to speculate or try to determine what someone else is implying, you do not have fact. Evidence of fact and assumption/speculation are mutually exculsive ideas. You can debate assumptions if you like, you just have to aknowledge the hypothetical nature, and not leap to conclusions and call you assumptions facts.
Good. So you are stating that in the example I have listed, the comment is worthless as an indicator of intent? Yes or no please.

[mjd1982]

You asked me how a slow build up could be preferable to the quicker new PH version and I answered your question. Now that I have answered your question you send me back to post #493 which is where we started. Do you see the circular logic here?

As to the WOT, so far it has mostly involved ground troops invading and holding enemy territory, while trying to physically destroy any enemy we find. I would say that is about as radical and new as cavemen throwing rocks at each other, so how does this meet the goals of the PNAC calling for massive R&D to develop high tech weapons?
Again, just ridiculous, I'm sorry. I started at #493, but you clearly didnt, since you have not addressed that post. You have addressed its broad import, i.e. that the attacks were deemed propitious, but you have chosen not to address the points. Please go back and do this, bearing in mind what I have told you about differentiating between assumption and interpretation.

Finally, again to illustrate your intransigence in doing the most simple research, I gave you a link where I have shown what the WOT is actually entailing, but you have decided to ignore that, and regurgitate your opinion. If you want to know what the WOT is entailing, go and read that link please.

[mjd1982]

And your evidence that no one was doing anything to prevent the attacks (You said "nothing was done")? Also how many other warnings did they recieve about attacks in other places/ways? 40 warnings out of 40 I would say how could they not do more to stop this, but 40 out of 4000 (which is much closer to the real world) and how do they separate the wheat from the chaff? The old saying that hindsight is 20/20 is an old saying for a reason.
This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

[mjd1982]

Well, it could actually involve some kind of direct statement that implies that the event in question actually happened.

Perhaps, for you, "no comment" = "that is true" but for me it means that this recording you present as proof is proof of absolutely nothing. At the most, all you can do is insinuate that by refusing to flatly deny the question (something routinely done to avoid talking about irrelevant issues) the representative has something to hide.

That's pretty damn weak, mjd. Do you have anything else to back that accusation up? You're using the "fact" that the government "turned down" OBL as a talking point, and you can't even back it with more than a paranoid insinuation?
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Where does "no comment" come into this?

We have video of a journalist asking the WH what they are going to do about the Taleban's offer of OBL on a plate. The WH state, "We'll get back to you", and then they do absolutely nothing, never. This offer was reported on and endorsed by Olbermann and Cockburn amongst others.

What more do you want? How can anyone who questions this not be living in la-la land?

[JonnyFive]

Sorry, but what are you talking about? Where does "no comment" come into this?

We have video of a journalist asking the WH what they are going to do about the Taleban's offer of OBL on a plate. The WH state, "We'll get back to you", and then they do absolutely nothing, never. This offer was reported on and endorsed by Olbermann and Cockburn amongst others.

Mjd, when a public relations rep tells someone they will "get back to you" on something and never does, they're either "no commenting" the question and never intend to answer, or they genuinely checked, got laughed at for asking a dumb question, and do not intend to justify said dumb question with a response.

Any word on whether or not the reporter in question tried to follow-up on the story? Did they ever track down any evidence that such a claim was actually true or not? If so, did they find evidence that such an offer would be valid?

What more do you want? How can anyone who questions this not be living in la-la land?

Something concrete, mjd. Someone not returning a question from some random reporter isn't proof enough to elevate your claim to "fact" status.

Of course, maybe it does in this "la-la land" you speak of. I wouldn't know, I've never been.

[Dave Rogers]

The original point was that the OBL offer was pointless since trying him in an Islamic country (if that was indeed the offer) is going to go his way, since muslims hate the US, according to Dave Rogers (?). I disputed this, ~#1200.


Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave

[Unsecured Coins]

Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave


Said hate of Muslims towards Americans was implied in the PNAC doc, Dave! Didn't you read it? Because if you had, then you agree that Muslims hate Americans because it was in there. Yeah.

[gumboot]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.



And yet the Presidential Daily Briefing only five weeks prior to the attacks contained only a historic reference to Osama Bin Laden's three year old declaration that he wanted to strike within the USA.

Unless the US intelligence advisers are utterly inept, it stands to reason that as late as five weeks before the attacks the US Intelligence Community had no current intelligence indicating Al Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack.

-Gumboot

[nicepants]

They are not being framed, they did it. They were just assisted.
This should not be hard to understand.

Oh, I get it. Al-queda hates america and americans, yet decided to co-operate with the US-government on this attack.

And how were they "assisted"? Oh, right..they weren't stopped.

So if you don't or can't stop someone from committing a crime, you're assisting, or "massaging".

[Augustine]

The offer was not to have him tried by some Taliban clerics under Shariah law in Afghanistan. It was to have him tried in a US client/proxy state, Saudi Arabia. How this could realistically be a much more favourable offer, i would like to know.

What is your source for this? The India Globe. The question in the press conference is not corroborating evidence, it is still based on a report in the India Globe. Olbermann replays the press conference clip, it is still based on ONE SOURCE, the India Globe.

Let me ask you a question. Supposedly the Taliban’s motivation for all this is the effect the UN sanctions were having, yes? (Do you even know what the UN Resolutions were?) Now, according to you, based on your one source, the Taliban made an offer that would have complied with the Resolution and lifted the sanctions. Yet, YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT FROM THE TALIBAN that this offer existed!!! Why?? You would think they would be screaming this at the UN, because it would LIFT SANCTIONS! They are willing to comply, LIFT SANCTIONS! And yet….nothing. Silence. Why do you think this is? The most obvious explanation, and the simplest, and the one which most accurately explains why this offer disappears immediately, is that there never was an offer which complied with the resolution. It was to try UBL under Islamic Law, not to turn him over.

Well, you may be right. Though I would perhaps be interesting in reading non neo con military strategy docs at some point, since this has nothing to do with the point at hand, it is of little interest to me now. I will explain this to you again.

Just because such ideas had been conceived, or even if such ideas had started to be implemented, this does not mean that 911 would not have been propitious to policy. If, as I think you have acknowledged at another point, you realise that changes happen quicker in a time of "deadly war", than in peace, then you will understand both my point, and that of PNAC when they state that such changes need a new PH to happen in quicker time.

In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

Oh, and your "evasion will be noted by all". ;)

if you want to argue the points,go ahead. If not, your evasion wil be noted by all.

Your circular reasoning has already been noted by all.
It is ironic that there was exponentially greater evidence of WMDs in Iraq than your evidence of PNAC being a precursor for 9/11.

Since this point has zero value, there is no need to address it and my original point remains uncontested

Your original point had zero value. Word-search the 1997 QDR for “radical”. Better yet, read it.

Demotion by title is meaningless, effectively. Demotion by role is all that matters.

This should not be hard to understant.


So that is all your evidence for demotion. He kept the exact same job title, performed the exact same job, and was paid the exact same salary. Some demotion.

Good. So if it is such lousy evidence, you should have no problem debunking it. I will, and have been, waiting for such.

While your at it, you may want to get in touch with MSNBC and let them know about the gross mendacity of ther lead anchor. Until you do, your argument is yet the more worthless.

Read above. There is still only one source. Olbermann is not the MSNBC lead anchor, BTW. Why does my writing a letter to MSNBC have any bearing on my pointing out that the story is still based on one single source? Logic, my little friend, USE it.

[Augustine]

Of course, such reasoning implies that were you president and told that AQ had cells in the US and were plotting to attack the US, you would do nothing.
Please confirm this is the case

It would depend on what “actionable intelligence” I had. Very little can be done with vague indicators. Sounds like you would have enacted the Patriot Act right after being sworn in. I take it you support it? Please confirm this is the case.

Errr... excuse me, but this is unadulterated, steaming, stinking nonsense.

I have a 10 minute editorial piece from the lead anchor of one of the biggest news orgs in the world. You have posted an article yourself, and there is also one, according to Pomeroo, from Alex Cockburn, the editor of the Nation. So it was widely reported. Now, what you are arguing, is that if there were strings attached, then that means that the press had no need to report it; nothing, nowhere. This is of course, garbage, since the press reports trivialities day after day after day. The offer of the biggest single human threat to civilian life in the US being offered on trial in a US client state, or anywhere else for that matter, is news I'm afraid, and if you want to know a more likely explanation why everyone does not know about it, you may want to read the many books and vids I have linked you and others to re: mass media as propaganda.

In any case, you still have to explain why you, in your position of relative total ignorance are calling Cockburn and Olbermann liars.

Read previous post. (Cockburn is not editor of Nation, BTW. Research!) Still single source story. (Also, didn’t Chomsky tell you not to trust propaganda? Or is that just propaganda that you don’t like? Google Operation Tailwind and retraction. Or maybe just Dan Rather.) Single source. No peep from Taliban government. No complaints to UN, no evidence of readiness to comply with sanctions.

P.S. I have not called Cockburn or Olbermann liars. They are merely repeating a single source story that has never been corroborated. Liars? More like sloppy, partisan reporters. You don't see me quoting Drudge as a single source do you?

Even if Mullah Omar had "promised", the offer would still be possible, since the reneging of it would not be impossible. Brain is your friend, us it.

This is like Bugs Bunny. You are so eager to argue you will argue in a circle against yourself. Need I remind you that you were arguing against my use of the word "possible" to describe the offer? :boggled:

[stateofgrace]

Please read the post to which you are referring before you post, it will save you and others a lot of time.

The original point was that the OBL offer was pointless since trying him in an Islamic country (if that was indeed the offer) is going to go his way, since muslims hate the US, according to Dave Rogers (?). I disputed this, ~#1200.

Oh, and I am a Muslim.

So what? I am Christian, so what? I have friends who are Muslim; they reject totally the ideas of Al Qaeda. If you are inducing this statement in anyway to imply that I am racist or in anyway made a racist remark, I want an apology from you, I have not. If you believe I have then point it out. I have made all the effort I can you understand the concerns of the Muslim community in the UK, a country which makes every effort to integrate foreign nationals, differant faiths and cultures into society. I don't care whether you are Muslim or not, I care for the fact you are trying accuses innocent people of being involved in mass murder. I condemn outright atrocities and acts of violence irrespective of the faith of the individuals involved.


Do your research please:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece



I have done the research and by enlarge the vast majority of Muslims reject Al Qaeda.

They are not being framed, they did it. They were just assisted.

This should not be hard to understand.


Back to the nub of the topic. Assisted by whom? Are now seriously suggesting that America would willingly assist people who had declared war on then back in 1998 and that this assistance would go unnoticed by these people? That Al Qaeda who hate America would be totally oblivious to being assisted and would be for the last five years?

And keeep quiet about it ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is slightly tangential , but having just watched "La vita e bella", I feel I should state this-

Isnt it funny how in the 30's, German scientists, government scientists, all believed for real, that Aryans were the superior race. Examining quantitative data, they came to the same conclusions as their government. Ditto the roles of other leading, what one would have thought to have been , independent voices; much of clergy, academia etc. All sold to the Nazi ideals. I have touched on this before, and will do again, but it is something to think about perhaps.

The Hitler Card

Alias: Argumentum ad Nazium

Type: Guilt by Association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)
Example:

[T]he ideas of ecologists about invasive species—alien species as they are often called—sound…similar to anti-immigration rhetoric. Green themes like scarcity and purity and invasion and protection all have right-wing echoes. Hitler's ideas about environmentalism came out of purity, after all.
Source: Interview of Betsy Hartmann by Fred Pearce, "The Greening of Hate" (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25b/027.html), New Scientist, 2/20/2003 FormsAdolf Hitler accepted idea I.
Therefore, I must be wrong.The Nazis accepted idea I.
Therefore, I must be wrong.ExamplesHitler was in favor of euthanasia.
Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.The Nazis favored eugenics.
Therefore, eugenics is wrong.Counter-ExamplesHitler was a vegetarian.
Therefore, vegetarianism is wrong.The Nazis were conservationists.
Therefore, conservationism is wrong.Exposition:


In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument) ascribing guilt by association.
Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it.
The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious) analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
Other arguments ad Nazium combine guilt by association with a slippery slope. For instance, it is sometimes argued that the Nazis practised euthanasia, and therefore even voluntary forms of it are a first step onto a slippery slope leading to extermination camps. Like many slippery slope arguments, this is a way of avoiding arguing directly against voluntary euthanasia, instead claiming that it may indirectly lead to something admittedly bad.
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words". Exposure:


Germany today bans capital punishment, but the history of this ban is surprising: The government of the former West Germany adopted the ban in 1949 and it continues in effect today in the reunited Germany. The law which banned the death penalty was proposed by a politician sympathetic to the Nazi war criminals who were being executed after World War 2, and was intended to block such executions. Should the disreputable historical origins of the ban influence those Germans who today oppose capital punishment to reconsider their views? Should the ban be repealed simply because it was the brainchild of a Nazi sympathizer? Capital punishment is either right or wrong. If it is right, then the ban should be repealed, regardless of its origins; if it's wrong, then the ban should be continued, despite its origins. While the history of the origins of Germany's ban on capital punishment is interesting, it is irrelevant to the moral and legal question of whether the ban should continue. Those Germans who support capital punishment should resist the temptation to play the Hitler card. Source:


Charles Lane, "The Paradoxes of a Death Penalty Stance" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301450.html), Washington Post, 6/4/2005 Resources:


Josie Appleton, "I'm right because…you're a Nazi" (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D3C6.htm), Spiked, 1/24/2002
Nigel Warburton, Thinking from A to Z (Second Edition) (Routledge, 2001), "Bad Company Fallacy".
Related Fallacy Files weblog entries:
Was Hitler an Environmentalist? (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive032003.html#03092003A), 3/9/2003
Playing the Hitler Card (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive032003.html#03222003A), 3/22/2003
Springtime for Hitler Analogies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive012004.html#01072004A), 1/7/2004
Was Hitler a Vegetarian? (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive022004.html#02292004A), 2/29/2004
Reader Response (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive052005.html#05022005A), 5/2/2005Acknowledgments:

Thanks to Michael Koplow for the example. The poster for Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" is available from AllPosters (http://affiliates.allposters.com/link/redirect.asp?item=936522&AID=907101&PSTID=1&LTID=2). http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

[HeyLeroy]

whoever is meant to.

If u cant afford to, you do what you can.

Your evasion has been noted by all.

To state that something is wrong because you think it is is worthless.

Conversely, to state that something is right because you think it is is worthless. And that's all you've been doing here with your assessment of the 'Pearl Harbor' statement.

http://liveu-73.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227173L.jpg


People who post hundreds/thousands of times on a topic, and then when it gets challenged refuse to post/evade responses/refuse to answer points, and then still maintain their "opinion", yes, they are neither intelleigent nor effectively educated. Hence, in part, the c word.

mjd1982, do you not realize that this is the exact approach that you are taking?

I havent. Its a debate.

A debate over your opinions, speculations and conjecture. Certainly not a debate over facts.

http://liveu-79.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1225979L.gif

A perfect example of an accusation with zero substance. I have taken a phrase, and taken it one step further to its logical conclusion. Pretty much everyone here has refused to debate this to conclusion. Were someone to do this, maybe I would stop my "clinging". I doubt this wil happen.

You see right there, mjd1982, you even admit that you are basing your argument solely upon your interpretation of it. Several others here have pointed out to you that, based upon their own interpretation of your so-called 'smoking-gun Pearl Harbor' snippet the document actually states the diametric opposite of your interpretation.

Somehow I also doubt you'll stop your clinging.

[Billdave2]

Good. So you are stating that in the example I have listed, the comment is worthless as an indicator of intent? Yes or no please.

The example you uses does not call for speculation. You state "if we can kill" not "if he was killed" therefore it is not an valid example. To ask me to say if it is a worthless indicator, yes or no, is a strawman. It is the same as if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife, yes or no please?

[Billdave2]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

So let me get this straight they should have been able to determine exactly how to foil the 9/11 plotters based on being told that "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" with no other information? Well, being able to carry that statement to the next logical conclusion that therefore 19 arab men were planning on highjacking planes on 9/11 would have certainly been propitous, wouldn't it? The fact is "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" is a next to meaningless piece of information. To use the bank robbing analogy from earlier it isn't even as detailed as someone is planning on robbing a bank in Chicago. It is more like if I told you someone is going to do something to a bank that has some connection to US interests. How should they have reacted, put extra security on every US interest in the world? Even if you say that highjacking a plane was included in the threat, do they put extra security at every airport in the world? Maybe we should have shut down airtravel world wide until the end of time. Just tell me what COULD they have done without knowing more than "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" that doesn't require hindsight? I can confidently say that even now AQ is still planning an attack on US interests, what should we be doing to stop this next attack?

[Hokulele]

In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.
What a disgusting and despicable lie. Show me an instance of such.


:rolleyes:

QED

[jab712]

An astonishingly bad post, and perfectly reflective of the evasion of elementary reasoning that would normally come naturally, were this position not so mired in denial and self deception.

There is a difference between and assumption and an interpretation. I am taking this comment, which is the only statement in the doc regarding "How, soon", and interpreted it, reaching a pretty robust conclusion as evinced by the 3 statements above. If you wish to differ with these conclusions, it is completely worthless to state "Its an interpretation/assumption" unless you are willing to proffer your own to challenge it.

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.

Of course, this is nonsense, and would be rejected by any sane person in a normal cntext. Here however, it is standard discourse, which illustrates perfectly the mentality and level of subterfuge required to maintain the OT stance.


Originally Posted by Hokulele
In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.


What a disgusting and despicable lie. Show me an instance of such.


Well, hmmm, kind of seems like you did it within this very post.

But with regard to a direct attack on a poster, as you wish....

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2694007&postcount=668

This post had a direct personal attack. Unfortunately it was removed by moderators so we cannot see what was said. But obviously it did exist at some point for the mods to remove it.

Disgusting and despicable lie? Doesn't seem like a lie at all now does it?

[twinstead]

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.Are you saying that the PNAC is worded just as unambiguously as your little example??

Also, let's say a lot of people hate that scumbag Jimmy and would profit from his death. If Jimmy is killed, but no corroborating evidence existed that your gangland boss was responsible, should a court of law convict him because of his statement alone? Should he even be brought to trial at all?

[Unsecured Coins]

Disgusting and despicable lie? Doesn't seem like a lie at all now does it?

I can explain!

um... uh... err...

see?

[JonnyFive]

Disgusting and despicable lie? Doesn't seem like a lie at all now does it?

The mods planted that evidence, obviously!

[jab712]

I can explain!

um... uh... err...

see?

ahhh yes, it is quite clear now. :confused:

But maybe you should repeat it 200 more times for good measure.;)

[Unsecured Coins]

it's irrelevant anyway.

[HyJinX]

Had to do it...

[jab712]

it's irrelevant anyway.

Dang, I really need that relevance cheat sheet to know when I can deem something irrelevant. Or maybe a magic 8 ball?

ME "is this relevant?"
ME: shaking the magic 8 ball with great anticipation
8-ball: outlook not good
ME: "pfff....IRRELEVANT!"

Oh yeah, that works. I am heading to Walmart...brb

[Unsecured Coins]

Had to do it...

good show, fine sir.

[HyJinX]

good show, fine sir.

Much obliged, good fellow.

Now...do you wanna see "the Selma" without the kitty??????

[Unsecured Coins]

like you gotta ask...

[HyJinX]

like you gotta ask...

Hold on to your knickers....

[Unsecured Coins]

Hold on to your knickers....


I suddenly have a craving for melons

[David Wong]

I thought I'd check in. Can somebody point me to the discussion of WTC7 and of the evidence linking PNAC to 9/11?

I'm pretty eager to get into those topics but I still don't see it.

[lapman]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

In your OP, you talk about the 33 threats of "imminent attacks." Since when does imminent mean sometime in the next 2 to 4 months? Since when does "US interests" mean specifically the WTC? If they had round up everyone on the watch list, what do you think people like the ACLU and CT'ers like yourself would have said? It certainly would not have been, "Great job guys!"

[mjd1982]

Mjd, when a public relations rep tells someone they will "get back to you" on something and never does, they're either "no commenting" the question and never intend to answer, or they genuinely checked, got laughed at for asking a dumb question, and do not intend to justify said dumb question with a response.

Any word on whether or not the reporter in question tried to follow-up on the story? Did they ever track down any evidence that such a claim was actually true or not? If so, did they find evidence that such an offer would be valid?


This is answered in the video. There was no further recorded effort as to ascertain that answer made by the gov. They did nothing, as has been said many times already.


Something concrete, mjd. Someone not returning a question from some random reporter isn't proof enough to elevate your claim to "fact" status.

Of course, maybe it does in this "la-la land" you speak of. I wouldn't know, I've never been.

It is not not returning a question. It is a request from the Taleban, relayed by an, apparently, Afghan journalist, regarding the handover of the biggest terror threat to the US to a US client state. Is it a fact? It has been reported as fact by MSNBC, Counterpunch and others. All of these are more reputable news sources than you. You will have to show me how these reports are untrue, by other means than asking me to "prove" MSM press reports.

[mjd1982]

Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave
You stated:


Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising


I.e. the Islamic world is antipathetic to US interests. Hence my comment.

[Unsecured Coins]

I don't see "Muslims hate Americans" anywhere in that post. You're projecting yet again...

[mjd1982]

And yet the Presidential Daily Briefing only five weeks prior to the attacks contained only a historic reference to Osama Bin Laden's three year old declaration that he wanted to strike within the USA.

Unless the US intelligence advisers are utterly inept, it stands to reason that as late as five weeks before the attacks the US Intelligence Community had no current intelligence indicating Al Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack.

-Gumboot
What are you talking about? I suggest you read the PDB:


FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks


To give but 1 quote. So what is your point?

[mjd1982]

Oh, I get it. Al-queda hates america and americans, yet decided to co-operate with the US-government on this attack.

And how were they "assisted"? Oh, right..they weren't stopped.

So if you don't or can't stop someone from committing a crime, you're assisting, or "massaging".
Oh boy... please read the links I send you

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

[DGM]

It has been reported as fact by MSNBC, Counterpunch and others

I just had to watch it again. Olbermann refers to it as a "report of" not an actual fact.

[mjd1982]

What is your source for this? The India Globe. The question in the press conference is not corroborating evidence, it is still based on a report in the India Globe. Olbermann replays the press conference clip, it is still based on ONE SOURCE, the India Globe.


Too precious. Ok, let's start by asking where the hell have I ever mentioned the "India Globe"?


Let me ask you a question. Supposedly the Taliban’s motivation for all this is the effect the UN sanctions were having, yes? (Do you even know what the UN Resolutions were?) Now, according to you, based on your one source, the Taliban made an offer that would have complied with the Resolution and lifted the sanctions. Yet, YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT FROM THE TALIBAN that this offer existed!!! Why?? You would think they would be screaming this at the UN, because it would LIFT SANCTIONS! They are willing to comply, LIFT SANCTIONS! And yet….nothing. Silence. Why do you think this is? The most obvious explanation, and the simplest, and the one which most accurately explains why this offer disappears immediately, is that there never was an offer which complied with the resolution. It was to try UBL under Islamic Law, not to turn him over.


What a silly post. So we have something that is reported by multiple mainstream sources, but you are refusing to believe it because you cannot find a corroborative public statement on it from the Taleban from 6 years ago? How utterly deluded you must be. This has been reported by multiple sources. I will tell you again- MSNBC, Counterpunch, and yes, the India Globe, are far more reputable news collection sources than you. Or me. If you want to dispute what they have collected and reported as news, which has been also captured on tape by an (apparently) Afghan journalist, who presumably will have ties with the Taleban, you have a hell of a lot of work to do. Go and do it, I will wait.


Oh, and your "evasion will be noted by all". ;)


My friend, I answer almost every point of every post here. The ones I dont, are because they have no relevance, or I think the poster is not being serious. I can guarantee that your question here has no relevance. Tell me how it does, and if I am wrong, I will answer it for you.


Your circular reasoning has already been noted by all.
It is ironic that there was exponentially greater evidence of WMDs in Iraq than your evidence of PNAC being a precursor for 9/11.


Well a) How is that ironic? and b), this is what we are debating. Feel free to engage at any point.


Your original point had zero value. Word-search the 1997 QDR for “radical”. Better yet, read it.

This is a tad pathetic.

It matters not an iota whether the people in 97 thought that the changes they were envisaging were radical, which is what such a search would illustrate, nothing more.

Please think before you post.

[QUOTE=Augustine;2718456]
So that is all your evidence for demotion. He kept the exact same job title, performed the exact same job, and was paid the exact same salary. Some demotion.


No, he didnt perform the exact same duties, he no longer dealt with the principals. This is because he was demoted to dealiing with deputies. Accept it and move on.


Read above. There is still only one source.


No


Olbermann is not the MSNBC lead anchor, BTW.


my bad


Why does my writing a letter to MSNBC have any bearing on my pointing out that the story is still based on one single source? Logic, my little friend, USE it.

Haha... nice gag.

Please tell us why you are basing this argument on your "one source" argument, when you have zero evidence for it? You are just making this up, I am well aware, so maybe you can tell us all why?

[mjd1982]

It would depend on what “actionable intelligence” I had. Very little can be done with vague indicators. Sounds like you would have enacted the Patriot Act right after being sworn in. I take it you support it? Please confirm this is the case.


Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action. Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells, get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security. Very easy


Read previous post. (Cockburn is not editor of Nation, BTW. Research!) Still single source story.


My bad for Cockburn. Single source story? Evidence please? (This will help your cause not very much btw, but its fun to see you squirm)


(Also, didn’t Chomsky tell you not to trust propaganda? Or is that just propaganda that you don’t like? Google Operation Tailwind and retraction. Or maybe just Dan Rather.)


Errr... excuse me? Propaganda on whose part? What the hell does Rather or Tailwind have to do with this? (ps- I'm betting you have misunderstood the propaganda model)


Single source.


Ur source?


No peep from Taliban government.


??? Other than one of their journalists, not that this is relevant anyway


No complaints to UN,


complaining about what?


no evidence of readiness to comply with sanctions.


other than the OBL offer?


P.S. I have not called Cockburn or Olbermann liars. They are merely repeating a single source story that has never been corroborated. Liars? More like sloppy, partisan reporters. You don't see me quoting Drudge as a single source do you?


Hilarious! Go and a) illustrate how they have got their info from this mysterous "single source", and then show how you are more reliable than this source in this matter.


This is like Bugs Bunny. You are so eager to argue you will argue in a circle against yourself. Need I remind you that you were arguing against my use of the word "possible" to describe the offer? :boggled:


Oh God. Read carefully. You denigrated the seriousness of the offer through describing it as "possible". I stated that by that use of the word "possible", even a written contract would have still rendered the handover "possible".

Think before you post

[mjd1982]

So what? I am Christian, so what? I have friends who are Muslim; they reject totally the ideas of Al Qaeda. If you are inducing this statement in anyway to imply that I am racist or in anyway made a racist remark, I want an apology from you, I have not. If you believe I have then point it out. I have made all the effort I can you understand the concerns of the Muslim community in the UK, a country which makes every effort to integrate foreign nationals, differant faiths and cultures into society. I don't care whether you are Muslim or not, I care for the fact you are trying accuses innocent people of being involved in mass murder. I condemn outright atrocities and acts of violence irrespective of the faith of the individuals involved.



I have done the research and by enlarge the vast majority of Muslims reject Al Qaeda.


Back to the nub of the topic. Assisted by whom? Are now seriously suggesting that America would willingly assist people who had declared war on then back in 1998 and that this assistance would go unnoticed by these people? That Al Qaeda who hate America would be totally oblivious to being assisted and would be for the last five years?

And keeep quiet about it ?
Ok, the first 2 segs, I have no idea what you are on about.

The latter, I will ask you again, to read this (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948) to discover how infiltration can take place.

Please dont make me ask you again.

[mjd1982]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
???

[mjd1982]

The example you uses does not call for speculation. You state "if we can kill" not "if he was killed" therefore it is not an valid example. To ask me to say if it is a worthless indicator, yes or no, is a strawman. It is the same as if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife, yes or no please?
No, it is a perfect example, because it is inferring a conclusion from a statement where that conclusion is not stated explicitly. It is exactly the same as what is being done here. I have no idea why you would say this is a straw man, please explain why/ address my yes/no question.

[mjd1982]

So let me get this straight they should have been able to determine exactly how to foil the 9/11 plotters based on being told that "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" with no other information?


I have never said that anywhere.

I have to say that I do not think that we would be having such an elementary discussion were this not a matter in which so much fervour has been invested. I do find it quite astonishing.

I have said that there are countless, unprecedented warnings of a mass terror attack by AQ people who are in your country. If you cannot understand that from that, a President should do something, then you are in another world, I would say.


Well, being able to carry that statement to the next logical conclusion that therefore 19 arab men were planning on highjacking planes on 9/11 would have certainly been propitous, wouldn't it? The fact is "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" is a next to meaningless piece of information. To use the bank robbing analogy from earlier it isn't even as detailed as someone is planning on robbing a bank in Chicago. It is more like if I told you someone is going to do something to a bank that has some connection to US interests. How should they have reacted, put extra security on every US interest in the world? Even if you say that highjacking a plane was included in the threat, do they put extra security at every airport in the world? Maybe we should have shut down airtravel world wide until the end of time. Just tell me what COULD they have done without knowing more than "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" that doesn't require hindsight? I can confidently say that even now AQ is still planning an attack on US interests, what should we be doing to stop this next attack?

As above

[mjd1982]

Well, hmmm, kind of seems like you did it within this very post.


No, that is an attack on the post, not the poster.

But with regard to a direct attack on a poster, as you wish....

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2694007&postcount=668

This post had a direct personal attack. Unfortunately it was removed by moderators so we cannot see what was said. But obviously it did exist at some point for the mods to remove it.

Disgusting and despicable lie? Doesn't seem like a lie at all now does it?

Yes, it does, because the original post was as follows:


In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.


I.e. when a "flaw" in my theory has been pointed out, I have either responded via non sequitur, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster. Pointing out one instance where I may have attacked a poster, to my discredit, is of zero value to this point.

This is astonishingly elementary. Please think before you write.

[mjd1982]

Are you saying that the PNAC is worded just as unambiguously as your little example??

Also, let's say a lot of people hate that scumbag Jimmy and would profit from his death. If Jimmy is killed, but no corroborating evidence existed that your gangland boss was responsible, should a court of law convict him because of his statement alone? Should he even be brought to trial at all?
Guys, please.

Firstly, this is an instance of an inference being made. All the points here that are accusing me of dealing with "interpretation", and thus my points have no value, since they don't deal with "facts" are stating that making an argument based on elementary inference is inadmissible to debate. My example instances the stupidity of such a point, which is little more than dolled up evasion.

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict. 1 word- propitious.

[mjd1982]

In your OP, you talk about the 33 threats of "imminent attacks."


no i dont, but anyway...


Since when does imminent mean sometime in the next 2 to 4 months? Since when does "US interests" mean specifically the WTC?


How is either of this relevant? Please follow my argument. I am not saying that they should have known tht 19 hijackers would crash planes into wherever on 9/11. I am saying that there was an unprecedented terror threat, this was communicated over and over again to the gov, and they did zero in response. R u american? Does this not irritate you?


If they had round up everyone on the watch list, what do you think people like the ACLU

?


and CT'ers like yourself would have said?


??


It certainly would not have been, "Great job guys!"

why not?

[mjd1982]

I just had to watch it again. Olbermann refers to it as a "report of" not an actual fact.
Right! Now show how you know more than them. If not, accept the report please.

Oh, and the reporter states it as fact. "The Taleban in Afghanistan they have offered that they are ready to hand over OBL..."

[DGM]

I have said that there are countless, unprecedented warnings of a mass terror attack by AQ people who are in your country. If you cannot understand that from that, a President should do something, then you are in another world, I would say.

Wow! It's up to countless now.

[twinstead]

Guys, please.

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict. 1 word- propitious.

The problem is that in our opinion the sum total of ALL your evidence isn't enough to even prompt a new investigation, much less convict.

You may think otherwise, and that's your right. You seem to think that you pretty much have it all figured out, so if your evidence is so strong the next step is to convince somebody who has the power to subpoena witnesses and punish people who lie on the stand that you have enough evidence to power a new investigation.

You also need to prepare yourself for the very real possibility that nobody who has any power to actually conduct a real investigation will think your evidence is very compelling.

[DGM]

Right! Now show how you know more than them. If not, accept the report please.

Oh, and the reporter states it as fact. "The Taleban in Afghanistan they have offered that they are ready to hand over OBL..."
I'd like to check this out. Who is this reporter?

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/Banghead.gif

sing with me...

[WildCat]

Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action.
Just so you know - prior to 9/11 it was not illegal to belong to al Qaeda in the US. It was only after the Congress passed the Authorization For Use Of Military Force (which is a de facto declaration of war) post-9/11 that the US could arrest someone merely for being a member of al Qaeda. But it is not against the law in the US for someone to merely be a member of a criminal gang, nor are there outlawed groups or political parties such as you have in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells,
Your own sources say this was already underway, hence the warnings.

get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security.
It was already as tight as it was going to get in the pre-9/11 world. No way the public would have accepted post-9/11 airport style security pre-9/11. Many campaign against it even now.

[WildCat]

This has been reported by multiple sources. I will tell you again- MSNBC, Counterpunch, and yes, the India Globe, are far more reputable news collection sources than you.
No, it is still only one source - the India Globe. No matter how many other papers report it, they were merely repeating the India Globe story, as was the journalist at the White House press conference apparently.

[stateofgrace]

Ok, the first 2 segs, I have no idea what you are on about.

The latter, I will ask you again, to read this (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948) to discover how infiltration can take place.

Please dont make me ask you again.

NO you read.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team-including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell-whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about (al-Qaeda) and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy." But doing so meant delay.


It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.


Intelligence services were picking up enough chatter about a terrorist attack to scare the pants off top officials. On June 22, the Defense Department put its troops on full alert and ordered six ships from the Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, to steam out to sea, for fear that they might be attacked in port. U.S. officials thought an attack might be mounted on American forces at the nato base at Incirlik, Turkey, or maybe in Rome or Belgium, Germany or Southeast Asia, perhaps the Philippines-anywhere, it seems, but in the U.S. When Independence Day passed without incident, Clarke called a meeting and asked Ben Bonk, deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, to brief on bin Laden's plans. Bonk's evidence that al-Qaeda was planning "something spectacular," says an official who was in the room, "was very gripping." But nobody knew what or when or where the spectacular would be. As if to crystallize how much and how little anyone in the know actually knew, the counterterrorism center released a report titled "Threat of Impending al- Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely."



In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.



Throughout the winter and spring of 2001, European law-enforcement agencies scored a series of dramatic hits against al-Qaeda and associated radical Islamic cells, with some help from the cia. The day after Christmas 2000, German authorities in Frankfurt arrested four Algerians on suspicion of plotting to bomb targets in Strasbourg. Two months later, the British arrested six Algerians on terrorism charges. In April, Italian police busted a cell whose members were suspected of plotting to bomb the American embassy in Rome. Two months later, the Spanish arrested Mohammed Bensakhria, an Algerian who had been in Afghanistan and had links to top al-Qaeda officials, including bin Laden. Bensakhria, the French alleged, had directed the Frankfurt cell involved in the Strasbourg plot. And in the most stunning coup of all, on July 28, Djamel Beghal, a Frenchman of Algerian descent who had been on France's terrorist watch list since 1997, was arrested in Dubai on his way back from Afghanistan. After being persuaded of terrorism's evil by Islamic scholars, Beghal told of a plot to attack the American embassy in Paris and gave investigators new details on al-Qaeda's top leadership, including the international-operations role of Abu Zubaydah. (Now back in France, he has tried to recant his confession.) French sources tell Time they believe U.S. authorities knew about Beghal's testimony.


It goes on pal, try getting off your conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings, many more than just 40 .Try looking at what they actually tried to do about them. Maybe you could save your arrogance for somebody gives a monkeys what you think.

You plot, speculation and almost laughable delusions are worthy a Hollywood movie, good luck with your script, maybe you can get your youtube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites, comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest, you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you. The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will. You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

I will not ask you again and I could not care less whether you read the article

[beachnut]

Has the thread starter found any facts yet?

[stateofgrace]

double post

[WildCat]

Has the thread starter found a facts yet?
Nope. He's still speculating on an interpretation that supports his conjecture about what may have happened according to some sources.

[T.A.M.]

State of Grace said...


It goes on pal, try getting off you conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings and actions that the US and the world faced and what they actually did about the. Maybe you could save you arrogance for somebody who a gives monkeys what you think.

You plot, speculation and appealing lack of undersaytnding is worthy a Hollywood movie, god luck with script, maybe you can get your you tube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites, comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest, you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you. The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will. You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

I will not ask you again and I could not care less whether you read the article


Though the emotion you made this post with, is clear from your plethora of spelling errors in the first paragraph, your remarks are well said, and ring true.

TAM:)

Edit: A well done, you corrected most of the errors...now well said and well spelled.;)

[stateofgrace]

State of Grace said...



Though the emotion you made this post with, is clear from your plethora of spelling errors in the first paragraph, your remarks are well said, and ring true.

TAM:)

Edit: A well done, you corrected most of the errors...now well said and well spelled.;)

I hade to, don't you knoww thate cters dismisses any pists that ave spealling misetakes in ? :)

[T.A.M.]

Well my expectations from you are high SOG. I mean, you are one of only two JREFers to currently make it into the esteemed T.A.M. signature quotes.

TAM;)

[beachnut]

Nope. He's still speculating on an interpretation that supports his conjecture about what may have happened according to some sources.
Thanks for the update. Reading his stuff is like proofing my stuff; what was he/me trying to say?

thanks

[MIKILLINI]

This has been replied to at huge length (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=4) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=5)

Please keep up. :confused:

mjd, I can see what you are attempting to do here for making a case, but the evidence needed to connect PNAC to 9/11 needs to be more than an adjective. An event that takes place (such as writing a document called PNAC) before an election is not a conspiracy to make 9/11 propitious to a noted exception..i.e. an exception to the spirit of the document. You are smart enough to understand what PNAC intended; The long term is specified, UNLESS...something disastrous occurs or the USA is attacked. There is no evidence to connect PNAC to 9/11... UNLESS, as you reiterate, adjectives referring to conditions as favorable is what is construed as evidence.
The reason I referred you to read Myriads post is because of the obstacles facing you regarding a new investigation. I will quote some for you;

1. Under what jurisdiction should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation? A Federal special prosecutor? A Federal Grand Jury? The Office of the U.S. Attorney General? U.S. Military police? An international war crimes tribunal?

2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation? The FBI? The CIA? Universities? Local police forces? Private investigators? Investigative news reporters?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

[BillyRayValentine]

Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action. Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells, get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security. Very easy.

You completely mischaracterize the August 6, 2001 PDB. It was an update on Al Qaeda put together specifically because Bush asked that it be put together. So they compiled an intelligence summary and a list of the various threats that had been registered - all of which arrived long before he was president. Get it? This was not new information. There was absolutely no indication of anything suddenly being imminent as of August 6, or any time preceding it.

If the intelligence was so actionable on August 6, 2001, why wasn't it actionable back in 1997 - 1999 when it first came in?

Please clarify.

[MIKILLINI]

Well my expectations from you are high SOG. I mean, you are one of only two JREFers to currently make it into the esteemed T.A.M. signature quotes.

TAM;)

TAM, You know what that will get You from Me? (doing My best Dana Carvey church lady impression) Well, isn't that special? :p

ETA: Great post State Of Grace

[jab712]

No, that is an attack on the post, not the poster.


Yes, it does, because the original post was as follows:



I.e. when a "flaw" in my theory has been pointed out, I have either responded via non sequitur, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster. Pointing out one instance where I may have attacked a poster, to my discredit, is of zero value to this point.

REALLY???????? Isn't it what you asked for? Provide an instance. I did and you didn't like it. Would you like me to quote you again where you asked for this exact thing? I can if you would like.

EVERYONE here has been telling you OVER AND OVER again how your argument is flawed. 34 pages. ALL of your responses are to these people who are saying YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED. 900+ posts of people telling you that you are wrong, your argument is flawed. So, the instance I provided IS OF VALUE. You just don't want it to be. Why is it of zero value now, you asked for an instance? Oh I know...because you are WRONG.

Wrong...look it up in the dictionary, it is "astonishingly elementary."

[Billdave2]

I have never said that anywhere.



in your post #1280 your answer to me was

"The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres. "

so please tell me how you never said that the warning that they received was about "an AQ attack on US interests"

[Billdave2]

No, it is a perfect example, because it is inferring a conclusion from a statement where that conclusion is not stated explicitly. It is exactly the same as what is being done here. I have no idea why you would say this is a straw man, please explain why/ address my yes/no question.

Lets go through this slowly step by step...
1. First you tried to show an example of how in some cases you can assume something so clearly that it can be acceoted as fact.
2. You use an exaple using a staement that you really want to play football tomorrow but you can't if it rains, and say that this is clearly your desire that it not rain tomorrow.
3. I point out at least one circumstance where you could want it to rain more than your desire to play football, showing once again what happens when you assume.
4. Then you switch to the statement "if we can kill Jimmy blah blah blah propitous to my plan" and say that this is an example of the undeniable assumption.
5. I point out that your statement does not call for an assumption since it is plainly stated "if we" as opposed to "if someone were". The PNAC does not say "if we can cause a new PH", it says lacking a new PH (no specific on who causes it)
6. Then you ask if your "if we kill jimmy" statement is a worthwhile indicator, yes or no, but this is not what we are debating on this point. We are debating if the statement requires an assumption, not whether or not it states your desire to kill Jimmy.
7. So yes it would be a worthwile indicator that you want to kill Jimmy, but it is not an assumption so it is meaningless to our discussion.
8. proving that you still can't assume anything as being certain.

Extra credit question
Jimmy has received multiple warnings that MJD1982 want to kill him, but has done absolutly nothing to stop him. Does that mean it is propitous to Jimmy to be killed?

[PhantomWolf]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

[David Wong]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

That's perfect.

The founder of this fine thread keeps acting as if no investigation into the cause of 9/11 has ever been done, and that we're starting from a blank slate. If that were true, maybe the PNAC statement would actually be a lead.

But once the mountain of evidence is built in the other direction, you dismiss it.

I don't see what's so hard about that.

[MIKILLINI]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

Cters would also claim air traffic control was in on it too; For making the plane wait so long, therefore causing the ice to build up on the wings, forcing it to fly low enough so that it could be shot down.

[Dave Rogers]

You stated:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising


I.e. the Islamic world is antipathetic to US interests. Hence my comment.

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave

[Belz...]

If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.

Actually, you think that AQ cells may be in the US and plotting a terrorist attack somewhere, at some time.

A statement of intent, or somethin that could be construed as such, would be deemed evidence in most courts.

If only you could produce that statement, eh ? So far you've argued it was "propitious", but not that they claimed they would do it.

[Belz...]

Hold on to your knickers....

Er... what were we talking about, just now ? I forgot.

[Belz...]

Firstly, this is an instance of an inference being made. All the points here that are accusing me of dealing with "interpretation", and thus my points have no value, since they don't deal with "facts" are stating that making an argument based on elementary inference is inadmissible to debate. My example instances the stupidity of such a point, which is little more than dolled up evasion.

But your point IS based on interpretation and interpolation, entirely. Whenever you see something you ADD more stuff to it. The document, the interview, etc. You keep thinking that there's more to it than you can see. Stick to what's actually there, please.

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict.

Yeah, you did. I answered that just a few posts ago.

1 word- propitious.

1 word- irrelevant.

[Belz...]

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave

A fine post, sir.

[JonnyFive]

This is answered in the video. There was no further recorded effort as to ascertain that answer made by the gov. They did nothing, as has been said many times already.

So if they don't answer that proves that it's true? That's an odd way of looking at it.

It is not not returning a question. It is a request from the Taleban, relayed by an, apparently, Afghan journalist, regarding the handover of the biggest terror threat to the US to a US client state. Is it a fact? It has been reported as fact by MSNBC, Counterpunch and others. All of these are more reputable news sources than you. You will have to show me how these reports are untrue, by other means than asking me to "prove" MSM press reports.

I have to show that third-party reports about something unverifiable are not true or you will automatically assume they are facts?

That is utterly bizarre. By the way, I never claimed to be a "news source," I simply asked you to provide substantiation for this story. Saying that the story was reported on MSNBC doesn't make it more true.

Look, some other people reported on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html

Kind of lean on details though. Not very impressive.

But wait a minute, then there are statements like this:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

In Afghanistan, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, said that "bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions." Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group that controls most of the country.

And what abou this:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CI13Ag03.html

In the wake of the bombings in Africa, the Taliban gave the Americans three options. The first was that the US government present concrete evidence showing bin Laden's involvement in terrorist activities, in which case he would be handed over. Secondly, if no evidence was forthcoming, the Taliban would try him in their own courts under Islamic law. If found guilty, he would be punished accordingly. The third option was to gather Islamic scholars from around the world to decide on the case.

The United States rejected all of these, and countered that bin Laden be handed to a country other than the US, where he would stand trial. The Taliban government found this unacceptable.

So the Taliban may have, and I should stress may here, been willing to hand over Bin Laden if and only if their standards of "concrete evidence" were met. This is the theocratic, repressive, internationally combative Taliban we're talking about, so how likely do you think it is they're working with a "reasonable doubt" standard of evidence? The other two options are similar BS - ways for the Taliban to save face without having to actually do anything. Unless, you know, you actually think the Islamic courts in Afghanistan would have found Bin Laden guilty. Somehow, I find that unlikely. Bin Laden enjoyed the hospitality of the Taliban government until it was displaced by the US invasion, so I somehow doubt they would suddenly try and convict him because the US wanted it.

And, of course, they utterly rejected the idea of the neutral-third-party option.

But you, on the unanswered question of some guy, have decided that this whole offer was totally legit. Never mind that it is inconsistent with Taliban behavior or past policy. Never mind that, even if the offer was made, the chances of it having been legitimate are basically nil. So the Taliban, which had been harboring Bin Laden and his group for years, is going to suddenly switch sides and hand him over? Maybe they'll clean up their brutal theocracy while they're at it. Oh wait, that makes no good goddamn sense.

If you're going to argue from your predefined point of view without considering alternatives, mjd, you could at least be subtle about it. I asked you for more definite proof that this story was true, and you responded by parroting the claims you already made and saying basically that if it weren't proven to be false, it is essentially true.

Well, I look at it a bit differently (and I suspect that most of the people here share my view on this). I see that you haven't shown much in the way of evidence for your claim. Moreover, the behavior you ascribe to the Taliban is inconsistent with their past policies or actions, especially with regards to Bin Laden. Thus, your claim (that the US being offered a handover was both factually correct and legitimate) is extraordinary, and requires concrete evidence. Government memos, direct statements, historical accounts from first-person sources.

[mjd1982]

The problem is that in our opinion the sum total of ALL your evidence isn't enough to even prompt a new investigation, much less convict.

You may think otherwise, and that's your right. You seem to think that you pretty much have it all figured out, so if your evidence is so strong the next step is to convince somebody who has the power to subpoena witnesses and punish people who lie on the stand that you have enough evidence to power a new investigation.

You also need to prepare yourself for the very real possibility that nobody who has any power to actually conduct a real investigation will think your evidence is very compelling.
That's a fantastic argument, well done.

In short, it is reflective of about 90% of the posts here~ "You think your right, but your wrong".

If you have a germane point to make, make it. A post like that is worthless.

[mjd1982]

I'd like to check this out. Who is this reporter?
I dont know his name

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

[mjd1982]

Just so you know - prior to 9/11 it was not illegal to belong to al Qaeda in the US. It was only after the Congress passed the Authorization For Use Of Military Force (which is a de facto declaration of war) post-9/11 that the US could arrest someone merely for being a member of al Qaeda. But it is not against the law in the US for someone to merely be a member of a criminal gang, nor are there outlawed groups or political parties such as you have in Europe and elsewhere in the world.


They dont have to be arrested. Just an attempt to locate them, track them etc. This is not hard to understand.


Your own sources say this was already underway, hence the warnings.


No, they knew there were cells, different.


It was already as tight as it was going to get in the pre-9/11 world. No way the public would have accepted post-9/11 airport style security pre-9/11. Many campaign against it even now.

And it still happens, so it doesnt matter.

[mjd1982]

No, it is still only one source - the India Globe. No matter how many other papers report it, they were merely repeating the India Globe story, as was the journalist at the White House press conference apparently.
Hahaha... accordng to who is it one source?

[mjd1982]

NO you read.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html


Ok, so you are not going to read the link I posted you, a translation done by myself which answers your question.

Such makes it pretty clear why you believe the tripe you do.


It goes on pal, try getting off your conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings, many more than just 40.


I didnt say 40 warnngs, I said 40 PDBs. Read more carefully.

Now your article. It proves precisely what I was saying. Tell me where in that mass is there a detail of what the Bush admin did to combat the unprecedented terror warnings. They moved some ships once, okay. Apart from that? Nothing. The other quotes just show what I was saying- there were loads of warnings, but they didnt care to listen to them.


Try looking at what they actually tried to do about them. Maybe you could save your arrogance for somebody gives a monkeys what you think.

That's not really english; in any case, as above

[QUOTE=stateofgrace;2719505]
You plot, speculation and almost laughable delusions are worthy a Hollywood movie, good luck with your script, maybe you can get your youtube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you


dismissal is arrogance. I present the facts, the odd simple interpolation, and ask people to debate them. They dont. Very simple.


and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites,


911blogger, that's it, infowars occasionally


comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US
aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the [/COLOR]US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest,


Hahaha.. yeh, doing nothing is very diligent!


you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

I havent accused the intel of anything, i dont think

[QUOTE=stateofgrace;2719505]
Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you.


such as?


The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will.


errr... substance please

[QUOTE=stateofgrace;2719505]
You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

Then debate it. My points are clearly listed, try and argue them.

[mjd1982]

:confused:
mjd, I can see what you are attempting to do here for making a case, but the evidence needed to connect PNAC to 9/11 needs to be more than an adjective.


Oh boy... All the PNAC doc does is give a basis. A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple. This then allows us to view the 9 mths of ignored warnings of such with clarity.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?


An event that takes place (such as writing a document called PNAC) before an election is not a conspiracy to make 9/11 propitious to a noted exception..


A conspiracy to make something propitious? Doesnt make sense my friend, think before you write please.


i.e. an exception to the spirit of the document. You are smart enough to understand what PNAC intended; The long term is specified, UNLESS...something disastrous occurs or the USA is attacked.
[QUOTE=MIKILLINI;2719555]

Wrong. The changes would not necessarily not be long term, they would just happen quicker. Big difference.

[QUOTE=MIKILLINI;2719555]
There is no evidence to connect PNAC to 9/11... UNLESS, as you reiterate, adjectives referring to conditions as favorable is what is construed as evidence.
[QUOTE=MIKILLINI;2719555]

As above. They deemed it propitious; they ignored a LITANY of warnings for 9mths leadig up to it.

If you want to debate the former point, its #493. The latter, is at the top of this section. Obviously, very few want to touch either.


The reason I referred you to read Myriads post is because of the obstacles facing you regarding a new investigation. I will quote some for you;

Why are you posting Myriads quote again asking for answers, when I have already given you such answers? Please read what I send you,

[mjd1982]

You completely mischaracterize the August 6, 2001 PDB. It was an update on Al Qaeda put together specifically because Bush asked that it be put together. So they compiled an intelligence summary and a list of the various threats that had been registered - all of which arrived long before he was president. Get it? This was not new information. There was absolutely no indication of anything suddenly being imminent as of August 6, or any time preceding it.

If the intelligence was so actionable on August 6, 2001, why wasn't it actionable back in 1997 - 1999 when it first came in?

Please clarify.
Right. Not new information.


FBI information since that time indicates patterns of FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks


What is your point? Why is this so hard for you to research?

And this is one PDB of 40

[Augustine]

Too precious. Ok, let's start by asking where the hell have I ever mentioned the "India Globe"?

What a silly post. So we have something that is reported by multiple mainstream sources, but you are refusing to believe it because you cannot find a corroborative public statement on it from the Taleban from 6 years ago? How utterly deluded you must be. This has been reported by multiple sources. I will tell you again- MSNBC, Counterpunch, and yes, the India Globe, are far more reputable news collection sources than you. Or me. If you want to dispute what they have collected and reported as news, which has been also captured on tape by an (apparently) Afghan journalist, who presumably will have ties with the Taleban, you have a hell of a lot of work to do. Go and do it, I will wait.
....
Haha... nice gag.

Please tell us why you are basing this argument on your "one source" argument, when you have zero evidence for it? You are just making this up, I am well aware, so maybe you can tell us all why?

Frankly, I am not surprised that you do not understand the source of your own claims. You must have been absent the day critical thinking and evaluation of sources was taught at Oxford. (Or you are as intellectually dishonest as Chomsky.) The original story was in the India Globe. The question at the press conference was not from an Afghani journalist, which is sheer fantasy on your part, but was based on the India Globe story. In fact, the part Olbermann omits (in an act of intellectual dishonesty) is the beginning where the reporter starts, "Ari, according to the India Globe...". (This is why Olbermann is a partisan hack.) What do you know about the India Globe, or Raghubir Goyal? What is his circulation? Is he a suddenly reputable news source because you like that report? How delusional.

The simple fact is that it would defy logic that the Taliban would make this offer, in opposition to all previous indicators, ostensibly for the purpose of lifting UN sanctions, and then NEVER COMPLAIN to the UN that they were willing to comply!! You STILL have no rational explanation for this. Why? You have NO corroborating source. You have NOTHING but a fantasy that the press conference was an imaginary Afghani journalist relaying a Taliban offer....this would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

My friend, I answer almost every point of every post here. The ones I dont, are because they have no relevance, or I think the poster is not being serious. I can guarantee that your question here has no relevance. Tell me how it does, and if I am wrong, I will answer it for you.

Why don't you include the full quote so others can judge its relevance, Junior Olbermann?

In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

The point here is that if you examine historical defense transformations that occurred due to a catastrophic, catalyzing event, in almost no case would people choose the catastrophic, catalyzing event IF they could have identified the necessary transformation without it. Your underlying premise is flawed, and consequently you evade this question.

No, he didnt perform the exact same duties, he no longer dealt with the principals. This is because he was demoted to dealiing with deputies. Accept it and move on.

He performed the exact same duties. Dealing with principals was never in the job description. His position was not a Cabinet-level position. It also was not a position where confirmation was required, it was an appointed position. The fact that Bush followed protocol more than Clinton does not represent a demotion.

[mjd1982]

REALLY???????? Isn't it what you asked for? Provide an instance. I did and you didn't like it. Would you like me to quote you again where you asked for this exact thing? I can if you would like.

EVERYONE here has been telling you OVER AND OVER again how your argument is flawed. 34 pages. ALL of your responses are to these people who are saying YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED. 900+ posts of people telling you that you are wrong, your argument is flawed. So, the instance I provided IS OF VALUE. You just don't want it to be. Why is it of zero value now, you asked for an instance? Oh I know...because you are WRONG.

Wrong...look it up in the dictionary, it is "astonishingly elementary."
No, I said to instance how what the poster said was true, i.e. that all my rebuttals are whatever. Showing one example of one thing is neither here nor there, since it is not germane to the accusation. This is pretty simple.

The rest of your post is typical of what is posted here, as I have just said ~ "You think you're right, but you're not".

If you have something of value to write, i.e. a direct refutation to an argument (a la debate), then go ahead. If not, what you write will continue to be,yes, worthless.

[Augustine]

Oh, and the reporter states it as fact. "The Taleban in Afghanistan they have offered that they are ready to hand over OBL..."

The reporter does not state it as fact. He qualifies it. In the full press conference clip, the reporter starts with "Ari, according to the India Globe, ..."

THINK AND RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST.

[mjd1982]

I lost the thread of your last post, if u can be more clear maybe Ill have more of a chance. Now...

Lets go through this slowly step by step...
1. First you tried to show an example of how in some cases you can assume something so clearly that it can be acceoted as fact.


Hmmm.... more or less. Maybe not quite fact, but something that is overwhelmingly likely.


2. You use an exaple using a staement that you really want to play football tomorrow but you can't if it rains, and say that this is clearly your desire that it not rain tomorrow.
3. I point out at least one circumstance where you could want it to rain more than your desire to play football, showing once again what happens when you assume.


Pfff... this is pointless to the totality of the notion, but go on


4. Then you switch to the statement "if we can kill Jimmy blah blah blah propitous to my plan" and say that this is an example of the undeniable assumption.
5. I point out that your statement does not call for an assumption since it is plainly stated "if we" as opposed to "if someone were". The PNAC does not say "if we can cause a new PH", it says lacking a new PH (no specific on who causes it)


Wrong. Nowhere in the statement does it say "We want to kill Jimmy." (i.e. the "assumption" being made). I.e. the assumption is not stated, it is inferred, very simply.

Similarly, PNAC states something, we make an inference, and come to a conclusion. This is the notion at stake here, not anything else. The most common argument made here is that inference is not something that can be used in debate- clearly stupid, and clearly evasive. This exchange is intended to illustrate that stupidity, so we can proceed sensibly.


6. Then you ask if your "if we kill jimmy" statement is a worthwhile indicator, yes or no, but this is not what we are debating on this point. We are debating if the statement requires an assumption, not whether or not it states your desire to kill Jimmy.


Right, which desire can only be ascertained by making said "assumption".

So yes or no.


7. So yes it would be a worthwile indicator that you want to kill Jimmy, but it is not an assumption so it is meaningless to our discussion.


1st part good, 2nd part, yes it is, since nowhere does the person state "I want to kill Jimmy". We interpret this due to our assumption that he wants money, power etc, that he is still murderously inclned, and that scumbag is not an affectionate term for a mate, rather a perjorative term for someone he mght want killed. Simple.


8. proving that you still can't assume anything as being certain.


as above


Extra credit question
Jimmy has received multiple warnings that MJD1982 want to kill him, but has done absolutly nothing to stop him. Does that mean it is propitous to Jimmy to be killed?

This is neither here nor there, but the answer cannot be transmuted to 911, since Jimmy has no legal duty to protect himself from death, a duty that cannot be vitiated by any other factors, moreover.

[mjd1982]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.
No, since all we are illustrating here is the validity or not of using inference in debate.

[mjd1982]

That's perfect.

The founder of this fine thread keeps acting as if no investigation into the cause of 9/11 has ever been done, and that we're starting from a blank slate. If that were true, maybe the PNAC statement would actually be a lead.

But once the mountain of evidence is built in the other direction, you dismiss it.

I don't see what's so hard about that.
This has been illustrated almost at the start of the thread, how the 911 commission was inept, and insufficient as an investigation. Please keep up.

[mjd1982]

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave
I accept this was perhaps a bit of a hasty interpolation, and I apologise for it.

This of course has no bearing on any of the rest of the argument.

[mjd1982]

Actually, you think that AQ cells may be in the US and plotting a terrorist attack somewhere, at some time.



If only you could produce that statement, eh ? So far you've argued it was "propitious", but not that they claimed they would do it.
1st part, read the Bob Kerrey quote I have posted here about 10 times.

2nd,intent or soemthing that could be construed as such. Propitious would be such an instance.

[mjd1982]

But your point IS based on interpretation and interpolation, entirely. Whenever you see something you ADD more stuff to it. The document, the interview, etc. You keep thinking that there's more to it than you can see. Stick to what's actually there, please.



Yeah, you did. I answered that just a few posts ago.



1 word- irrelevant.
Please read before replying. Since inference is not inadmissible to debatem i am perfectly okay to use it.

2nd pt, I have not stated the line is enough to convict. Full stop.

[lapman]

In your OP, you talk about the 33 threats of "imminent attacks."
no i dont, but anyway...
In your OP, you state:
- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”



How is either of this relevant? Please follow my argument. I am not saying that they should have known tht 19 hijackers would crash planes into wherever on 9/11. I am saying that there was an unprecedented terror threat, this was communicated over and over again to the gov, and they did zero in response. R u american? Does this not irritate you?
Yes, I am American and considering how many times we've heard "the streets will flow with rivers of American blood," I'm not surprised that they didn't take it more seriously. Besides, where is your documentation that they did absolutely nothing. Most of the response would most likely be classified, so it would not have been given to the commission or even acknowledged.


It certainly would not have been, "Great job guys!"
why not?
It would have been classified as racist. You would have been right there with the accusation that we were rounding up people of Arab decent and treating them all as if they are terrorists.

[mjd1982]

The reporter does not state it as fact. He qualifies it. In the full press conference clip, the reporter starts with "Ari, according to the India Globe, ..."

THINK AND RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST.
Ok, well then let's start. Show the clip.

[DGM]

This has been illustrated almost at the start of the thread, how the 911 commission was inept, and insufficient as an investigation. Please keep up.
1st part, read the Bob Kerrey quote I have posted here about 10 times.

Wasn't Bob Kerrey one of the chairman of this "inept and insufficient" investigation?

[HyJinX]

I think it's EXTREMELY PROPITIOUS to post this picture of the lovely and talented Vanessa Marcil.

[Augustine]

Ok, well then let's start. Show the clip.

Call 800-CNN-NEWS. Enjoy! It will be $40 well spent.

[Billdave2]

This has been illustrated almost at the start of the thread, how the 911 commission was inept, and insufficient as an investigation. Please keep up.

So when you use findings from them to support your theories (like the number of warnings,etc) they are true but when you disagree, they are inept and insufficient? Wow that is certainly propitious!

[nicepants]

They dont have to be arrested. Just an attempt to locate them, track them etc. This is not hard to understand.


Is your claim that that nothing was done to locate the suspected terrorists?

Let's say they locate all their suspects, and begin tracking thousands of possible AQ members, then what? Arrest them all on 9/10?

[JonnyFive]

Ok, well then let's start. Show the clip.

Why should he? It's your claim. Even given your version of events, it's still nothing more than unsupported conjecture, unless you can dig up any actual evidence.

[BillyRayValentine]

Right. Not new information.


"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks".

Yes, information since 1998. Nothing new or, more importantly, actionable here.

What is your point? Why is this so hard for you to research?

And this is one PDB of 40

Wrong. It was the only PDB specifically about AQ and Bin Laden. There were 40 other "articles" concerning AQ, where it was just one of several topics covered in a particular PDB. Which is completely different. But I think you knew that.

And it's not surprising they were a frequent topic. It's not like they'd been flying below the radar. And chatter had apparently been building throughout 2000 and 2001. Your problem is that you conflate chatter with actionable intelligence.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge the difference. You seem to have taken a right turn out of reality somewhere along the way.

You point to the 70 AQ related FBI investigations as a sign that they weren't taking things seriously; that they were ignoring actionable intelligence and sitting on their hands.

Think about that for a second.

[stateofgrace]

Such makes it pretty clear why you believe the tripe you do.

Really? Tripe like this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123/ref=pd_bowtega_2/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123/ref=pd_bowtega_2/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-2)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X/ref=sr_1_7/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-7 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X/ref=sr_1_7/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-7)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870924&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870924&sr=1-1)

All independent researchers, none of whom agree with you.

Welcome to ignore, you are first person to ever go on it, I have neither the time nor patience to bother responding to the rest of your drivel. You are accusing the President of the United States of being party to mass murder of 3000 US citizens.

The burden of proof for this lies with you and not with me to disprove it. You have failed to do but instead you rely on pure speculation that the intelligence services were somehow and mysteriously controlled and were totally unaware of it and that Al Qaeda are totally unaware they have been played.It is abundantly clear you did not read the article and are not reading the perfectly reasonable and civil responses from anybody else. You have made your mind up, period, I see no point in anybody trying to change it but I am sure others will continue to try, I wish them well. Equally so I am sure you will continue to be dismissive.

Your arrogance and sence of self importance is more than I can stomach. I see no point in fuelling your ego and giving you the attention you clearly wish to have. I equally see no point in wasting precious moment of my life reading or responding to paranoid delusions nor delusions of grandeur you clearly have. Mercifully fringe and extreme views such as yours are a minority in the UK as is the arrogance you use to express them.

Good day.

[Dave Rogers]

I accept this was perhaps a bit of a hasty interpolation, and I apologise for it.

This of course has no bearing on any of the rest of the argument.

I would argue that it does. Your entire argument is based on your personal interpretations of certain statements, and the originators of those statements are not here to correct you.

Dave

[Unsecured Coins]

I think it's EXTREMELY PROPITIOUS to post this picture of the lovely and talented Vanessa Marcil.

mercy

[HyJinX]

mercy

Another.

She brings joy to my world.

[Unsecured Coins]

I'll see your hotness and raise you Lacey Chebert
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/12_26_06.jpg


and lest we forget,
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/9O2lxWHdfnCbfpEWN3Xvo0.jpg

[mjd1982]

Call 800-CNN-NEWS. Enjoy! It will be $40 well spent.
So you dont have the clip, its something we should just believe since you say it.

As such, it is worthless, and for the purposes of this argument, since you cannot present it, it doesnt exist. India Globe out of the window, you may start again.

[mjd1982]

So when you use findings from them to support your theories (like the number of warnings,etc) they are true but when you disagree, they are inept and insufficient? Wow that is certainly propitious!
I think this is a matter of pretty basic common sense. The Commission was set up not to incriminate the government, according to its deputy chair, and so when evidence is found that does, it is all the more telling.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

[mjd1982]

Is your claim that that nothing was done to locate the suspected terrorists?

Let's say they locate all their suspects, and begin tracking thousands of possible AQ members, then what? Arrest them all on 9/10?
Where does thousands come from?

Plus, monitor them, track suspicious activity, phonecalls, meetings etc. Not hard!

[mjd1982]

Why should he? It's your claim. Even given your version of events, it's still nothing more than unsupported conjecture, unless you can dig up any actual evidence.
:jaw-dropp

Hahaha, no, it's his claim! He is claiming that before the interview started, te journalist said something. None of us can see this, he is just claiming it. As such, it is his claim, backed by zero, and as such, worthless. End of.

[mjd1982]

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks".

Yes, information since 1998. Nothing new or, more importantly, actionable here.



Wrong. It was the only PDB specifically about AQ and Bin Laden. There were 40 other "articles" concerning AQ, where it was just one of several topics covered in a particular PDB. Which is completely different. But I think you knew that.

And it's not surprising they were a frequent topic. It's not like they'd been flying below the radar. And chatter had apparently been building throughout 2000 and 2001. Your problem is that you conflate chatter with actionable intelligence.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge the difference. You seem to have taken a right turn out of reality somewhere along the way.

You point to the 70 AQ related FBI investigations as a sign that they weren't taking things seriously; that they were ignoring actionable intelligence and sitting on their hands.

Think about that for a second.
Since 98, i.e. still ongoing, indicates patterns of activity consistent with hijackings, ie. activity which is happening now; hijackings to happen soon. Pretty basic reading comp.

2ndly, this is, unless I am very much mistaken, 1 document from 6th August PDB, which are the summation of all the previous days intel. Hence the point that at 40 such PDB's, there were intel reports of similar import, i.e. that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests. Bush did nothing, but you, nor your colleagues, seem to have a problem with this. What a responsible alert citizen you seem to be. Well done!

Oh, and also, yes there had been chatter in 2000, and a hell of a lot had been done back then. This was then turned off on Jan 20 2001. U read Clarke's book? Read it, it will be instructive to you. Also watch this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A) for more.

And your penultimate para, I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain it if u like.

[mjd1982]

Really? Tripe like this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123/ref=pd_bowtega_2/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123/ref=pd_bowtega_2/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-2)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X/ref=sr_1_7/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-7 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X/ref=sr_1_7/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-7)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870924&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870924&sr=1-1)

All independent researchers, none of whom agree with you.

Welcome to ignore, you are first person to ever go on it, I have neither the time nor patience to bother responding to the rest of your drivel. You are accusing the President of the United States of being party to mass murder of 3000 US citizens.


Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

[HyJinX]

I'll see your hotness and raise you Lacey Chebert
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/12_26_06.jpg


and lest we forget,
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/9O2lxWHdfnCbfpEWN3Xvo0.jpg

ALL IN!

This will put a chink in the Armor...

[Augustine]

So you dont have the clip, its something we should just believe since you say it.

As such, it is worthless, and for the purposes of this argument, since you cannot present it, it doesnt exist. India Globe out of the window, you may start again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Facts are facts. Obviously $40 is too expensive for the truth. Or you cannot let go of your fantasies.

P.S. There is more to research than YouTube.

[Corsair 115]

Where does thousands come from?

Plus, monitor them, track suspicious activity, phonecalls, meetings etc. Not hard!Sure, it's not hard at all... if you're watching CSI or Law & Order. The real world, on the other hand, tends to be more complicated and operates nowhere as smoothly or as easily as the world depicted on television dramas.

[mjd1982]

I would argue that it does. Your entire argument is based on your personal interpretations of certain statements, and the originators of those statements are not here to correct you.

Dave
They are based on interpretations in part, this is true. As I have stated many times now, to state that inference is inadmissible to debate is not a comment that can be taken seriously. THerefore said inference should be debated, if you are on here to debate. If you are here to post hackneyed opinions, elaborated versions of "You're wrong", then go ahead. If you are here to debate, you, and the rest of your ilk, must realise that inference is a critical part of such, and you should go ahead and debate.

[Augustine]

:jaw-dropp

Hahaha, no, it's his claim! He is claiming that before the interview started, te journalist said something. None of us can see this, he is just claiming it. As such, it is his claim, backed by zero, and as such, worthless. End of.

Ignorance. Misrepresentation. Not an interview, Junior, a press briefing by Ari Fleischer prior to President Bush's Address to Joint Session of Congress. 30 minute press briefing, question comes around halfway through. Follow-up was a question on human rights and China.

[mjd1982]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Facts are facts. Obviously $40 is too expensive for the truth. Or you cannot let go of your fantasies.

P.S. There is more to research than YouTube.
Good, thank you. Now, you have 2 further tasks to perform if you want your view to be taken seriously. 1, Debunk Cockburn's article on the same, or show it came from the same source, 2. Show that the India Globe, a much more reputable news gathering source than you, is wrong here.

[mjd1982]

Sure, it's not hard at all... if you're watching CSI or Law & Order. The real world, on the other hand, tends to be more complicated and operates nowhere as smoothly or as easily as the world depicted on television dramas.
Of course. But in the real world, when a president is getting unprecedented terror threats communicated to him once every 4 PDBs, he should do something. In the real world. In the world you live in, its perfectly ok if he does nothing. As I have told one of your colleagues, you are a responsible bunch of citizens here.

[Augustine]

Good, thank you. Now, you have 2 further tasks to perform if you want your view to be taken seriously. 1, Debunk Cockburn's article on the same, or show it came from the same source, 2. Show that the India Globe, a much more reputable news gathering source than you, is wrong here.

:dl:

Do you think I give two cents whether you "take my view seriously"?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"

:dl:

You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!

[mjd1982]

:dl:

Do you think I give two cents whether you take my view seriously?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"

:dl:

You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!
No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

[JonnyFive]

Hahaha, no, it's his claim! He is claiming that before the interview started, te journalist said something. None of us can see this, he is just claiming it. As such, it is his claim, backed by zero, and as such, worthless. End of.

I was clearly referring to your original claim that this snippet of questioning and the subsequent follow-up is somehow evidence that:

1) The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to the US.
2) Such an offer was both genuine and legitimate, without serious politcal ramnifications that would render any gains null and void.

And thus somehow suspicious in some way. So far the only support you've given for this is some conjecture in the news media backed up by nothing more than speculation.

And wait, there's more, Augustine apparently just linked you to the transcript of the conversation. So it looks like all this garbage leads back to a single source, and it's not a primary source, or a source with a position to have significant insider knowledge and be highly credible.

Why does everyone have to do your work for you, mjd?

But wait, I'm sure you have lots of concrete evidence of this supposed handover deal that the US stupidly or maliciously turned down. I don't know why you're not posting some of it. It's so hard to find credible sources for the claim... almost like they don't exist.

[Augustine]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

For India, the 2006 National Readership Survey findings showed the largest read local language newspapers to be Dainik Jagran (with 21.2 million readers) and Dainik Bhaskar (with 21.0 million readers), both published in Hindi. The Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper (7.9 million), followed by The Hindu (4.05 million), and Hindustan Times (3.85 million).

Pop Quiz, Junior Researcher: What is the circulation for the India Globe? Answer in 5 minutes...

[Corsair 115]

Of course. But in the real world, when a president is getting unprecedented terror threats communicated to him once every 4 PDBs, he should do something.That was not the point you were making in the post of yours which I replied to. You specifically said certain tracking and monitoring actions would be easy. How do you determine it would be easy to do?

[mjd1982]

I was clearly referring to your original claim


not clearly, but never mind


that this snippet of questioning and the subsequent follow-up is somehow evidence that:

1) The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to the US.


Right. This is sourced, so far as we can tell, from the India Globe, and Counterpunch (unless the latter can be proved otherwise). Now, you will have to show that both or either of these organisations are disreputable in this instance/ you are more reliable than they are as new gathering bodies. If something is reported in the NY Times, it will be accepted unless there is proof that it is false. The same applies here. I will await your proof.


2) Such an offer was both genuine and legitimate, without serious politcal ramnifications that would render any gains null and void.


No, since the issue here is not that the offer was not accepted, so much as there was no evidence of anything having even been done to follow up on it.


And thus somehow suspicious in some way. So far the only support you've given for this is some conjecture in the news media backed up by nothing more than speculation.


as above. Your contempt for msm news with zero basis for being falsehood, save for the fact it goes against your belief, should alarm you.


And wait, there's more, Augustine apparently just linked you to the transcript of the conversation. So it looks like all this garbage leads back to a single source, and it's not a primary source, or a source with a position to have significant insider knowledge and be highly credible.


Hahaha, garbage, nice gag. So this is garbage, why? Because you dont agree with it.

For the rest, as above.


Why does everyone have to do your work for you, mjd?


?


But wait, I'm sure you have lots of concrete evidence of this supposed handover deal that the US stupidly or maliciously turned down. I don't know why you're not posting some of it. It's so hard to find credible sources for the claim... almost like they don't exist.

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

[JonnyFive]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

A news story is only as good as its sources, regardless of how good a news gathering organization prints it. Or perhaps you think all that stuff Jason Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_blair) wrote should be considered true because the New York Times is a really good news gathering organization.

Since there don't seem to be any, why should anyone treat this story as true for any purposes without independent verification?

You really are being very silly. You've managed to pack an appeal to authority ("accept it because the India Globe is a good news-gathering organization") with asking everyone to prove a negative ("Prove the handover deal was never offered and/or wasn't legitimate").

How about, instead, you actually provide evidence of this claim? Until then, I think everyone here except you is going to assume that claim is a load of garbage.

[mjd1982]

That was not the point you were making in the post of yours which I replied to. You specifically said certain tracking and monitoring actions would be easy. How do you determine it would be easy to do?
I'm sorry if I wasnt clear. My point is, and always has been, that it is the effort that is the telling point. If sufficient is made, and nothing is achieved, you can pin incompetence. If nothing is made, then, given the mass of "unprecedented" warnings, you have to ask other questions.

[Augustine]

For India, the 2006 National Readership Survey findings showed the largest read local language newspapers to be Dainik Jagran (with 21.2 million readers) and Dainik Bhaskar (with 21.0 million readers), both published in Hindi. The Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper (7.9 million), followed by The Hindu (4.05 million), and Hindustan Times (3.85 million).

Pop Quiz, Junior Researcher: What is the circulation for the India Globe? Answer in 5 minutes...

Too late, Junior!! Actually, it's around 10,000. :o It's actually been referred to as an "obscure" Indian newspaper (really newsletter). :(

You can redeem yourself, however! How large is the India Globe editorial staff?

[stateofgrace]

Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

Wait!!! Some guy claims that President of the United States is responsible for mass murder of 3000 of his own, with zero evidence, zero facts and absolutely nothing to back his claims and then accuses me of being drunk.

Sun beam I don't know what drugs you are on but maybe you should give them up.

Cheerio, you are not worth the effort.

[Unsecured Coins]

ALL IN!


Call

http://gallery.upshizzle.com/albums/04.07/keeley3.gif

[JonnyFive]

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant in logical, scientific discourse. Using your own logic, defendants in murder trials should have to prove their innocence. I mean, someone is accusing them of murder. There's even sometimes evidence that makes them a likely suspect for the murder. Surely that's enough to convict them, right? No need for any of that "evidence" crap, right?

I've simply asked you to provide verifiable primary evidence, and all you can give me are unsourced third-party news stories and childish insults.

[mjd1982]

Too late, Junior!! Actually, it's around 10,000. :o It's actually been referred to as an "obscure" Indian newspaper (really newsletter). :(

You can redeem yourself, however! How large is the India Globe editorial staff?
Good. I will ask you again. Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference.

Plus, I'm still waiting for your response on Cockburn's article, as reported by pomeroo.

[JonnyFive]

Mjd, if you can't provide any evidence other than the India Globe story and sources that repeat the India Globe story, does that tell you anything?

[HyJinX]

:dl:

Do you think I give two cents whether you "take my view seriously"?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"

:dl:

You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!

Had to be done!...

[Augustine]

Good. I will ask you again. Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference.

Plus, I'm still waiting for your response on Cockburn's article, as reported by pomeroo.

:( Don't know how large their editorial staff is? Don't worry, I do...it is one.

Not regurgitated by MSNBC, not regurgitated by a WH press conference. Let's try to speak precisely, shall we, Junior?

A question was asked at a WH Press Briefing about the report in the India Globe. The WH Press Sec, Ari Fleischer, clearly had never heard of any such report. Keith Olbermann replayed the clip (and omitted the beginning) as part of his partisan show that was largely a reaction to the Bill Clinton meltdown to a simple Chris Wallace question. MSNBC has NEVER corroborated the reports of an offer. NO major news organization has. The Taliban government issued ZERO public statements of this offer.

P.S. Provide a link to Cockburn's article. Although he is equally a partisan hack, possibly worse than Olbermann.

[Augustine]

Had to be done!...

:D Excellent!!

[mjd1982]

A news story is only as good as its sources, regardless of how good a news gathering organization prints it. Or perhaps you think all that stuff Jason Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_blair) wrote should be considered true because the New York Times is a really good news gathering organization.


His articles can and have been contradicted by many people, and shown to be mendacious. Until you can do the same for a mass market indian paper, then the report remains as valid.


Since there don't seem to be any, why should anyone treat this story as true for any purposes without independent verification?


The same way one would for any article in any newspaper.


You really are being very silly. You've managed to pack an appeal to authority ("accept it because the India Globe is a good news-gathering organization") with asking everyone to prove a negative ("Prove the handover deal was never offered and/or wasn't legitimate").


No, no, no!

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.


How about, instead, you actually provide evidence of this claim? Until then, I think everyone here except you is going to assume that claim is a load of garbage.

:jaw-dropp

Such evidence being what... a newspaper report?!

[mjd1982]

Mjd, if you can't provide any evidence other than the India Globe story and sources that repeat the India Globe story, does that tell you anything?
as above!

[Augustine]

His articles can and have been contradicted by many people, and shown to be mendacious. Until you can do the same for a mass market indian paper, then the report remains as valid.

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.


Do try to keep up. Haven't you read the circulation numbers I posted? The "Penny Saver" in my area has wider circulation.

[Billdave2]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.


So if a mass distributed newspaper prints something false about me I can't demand they prove it? You are saying the burden is on me to prove something is false? Do you understand that I can't prove a negative but if it was true the newspaper is the one that has to present proof?

[mjd1982]

:( Don't know how large their editorial staff is? Don't worry, I do...it is one.


I'll repeat my question- Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference, are inferior to yours. Until they can be, we will retain the validity of the report.


Not regurgitated by MSNBC, not regurgitated by a WH press conference. Let's try to speak precisely, shall we, Junior?


You know the point, and you have decided to evade it. Not a surprise. But do tell me why?


A question was asked at a WH Press Briefing about the report in the India Globe. The WH Press Sec, Ari Fleischer, clearly had never heard of any such report.


Because he said no comment? How is that basis for such?


Keith Olbermann replayed the clip (and omitted the beginning) as part of his partisan show that was largely a reaction to the Bill Clinton meltdown to a simple Chris Wallace question. MSNBC has NEVER corroborated the reports of an offer.


In repeating the offer, they are lending it credence. They would not do the same for a report put out by, say, you. This is because IG is a more reputable news gathering org than you, a very simple notion that you have problems understanding apparently.


NO major news organization has. The Taliban government issued ZERO public statements of this offer.


As above. It has been endorsed at least by MSNBC, and Counterpunch potentially too. You cannot find any public statements on such by the Taliban, unsurprising for a medieval style islamic theocratic regime in a 3rd world country from 6 1/2 years ago. However, the IG clearly did locate such a statement, since they have based their report on it. You have to prove that the IG is a disreputable news source in this respect, as I have told you before. I will wait.


P.S. Provide a link to Cockburn's article. Although he is equally a partisan hack, possibly worse than Olbermann.

You stating someone is partisan is worthless; if they are such then their content should be easy to debunk. You should focus on doing this.

Re the article, this was repeated by pomeroo. I have not been able to find it; if he is on this thread, he can maybe post the article.

[JonnyFive]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.

Actually, I have not said it was false. This is what I have consistently said to you since you brought this up (I'll put it in bold, since you seem to not like reading what I actually write):

One story in one paper is not sufficient for me to accept as fact such an extraordinary claim that does not fit in with the Taliban's history or general attitude towards the US. I would kindly appreciate if you would please provide additional sources for your claim!

Whew... sorry about that. Now, evidence please?

Such evidence being what... a newspaper report?!

Actually, an unsourced newspaper report is really, really crappy evidence. Any writer can submit a report, and any paper can print it. If the Guardian ran a piece without sources claiming something similar, I would be asking you to provide me with additional evidence.

The evidence could be pretty broad, but for something like this, we're talking:
1)Official or verified US government statements or documents supporting the claim.
2)Official or verified Taliban statements or documents supporting the claim.
3)Testimony of some sort from people who would be in a position to have direct access to that information.

In history, these things are called "primary sources." They are orders of magnitude better than an unsourced and apparently uncorroborated article in any paper.

And let's be clear about something, this is not a minor claim. What you're talking about is something that, if true, would seriously implicate that the US had grossly mishandled foreign policy. That is why I posed the issue as two-pronged: That the offer existed, and that it was legitimate.

The other issue is the inconsistency with Taliban policy and other Taliban statements. If the Taliban was so keen to help us out, why did they shelter and aide Bin Laden?

Finally, we seem to be missing the critical level of corroboration for news sources. Generally, major stories run in several competing papers, who all, hopefully, dig up their own information. This allows some level of verification, hopefully backed up by primary sources. In this case, such a check is completely or totally absent.

Now, you could actually read what I write when I bring up my issues with your sources, and you could try to address those issues in a mature, adult way. Alternatively, you can continue to be petulant and pretend you've addressed my concerns, which you haven't, and I'm simply too ignorant to understand how you've addressed my concerns, which I'm not.

Whatever.

[mjd1982]

Do try to keep up. Haven't you read the circulation numbers I posted? The "Penny Saver" in my area has wider circulation.
Ok good. Now answer my question.

[Unsecured Coins]

your question is irrelevant.

[Augustine]

You cannot find any public statements on such by the Taliban, unsurprising for a medieval style islamic theocratic regime in a 3rd world country from 6 1/2 years ago.

Oh, please. NOTHING in the Afghan Islamic Press, NOTHING from Abdul Hakim Mujahid, Taliban envoy to the United Nations; NOTHING from Qudratullah Jamal, the Taliban's information minister; NOTHING from Mullah Abdur Rahman Zahid, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister. NOTHING....


RESEARCH (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/index.htm)

From 2001:

[mjd1982]

So if a mass distributed newspaper prints something false about me I can't demand they prove it? You are saying the burden is on me to prove something is false? Do you understand that I can't prove a negative but if it was true the newspaper is the one that has to present proof?
Your post presupposes falsehood in the article.

If a paper of sufficient credence to have its content regurgitated at a WH press conference, an MSNBC editorial, and the editor of Counterpunch (possibly a regurgitation), has its content disputed by people on a debate forum, then such people must provide a coherent basis for such dispute, This is pretty elementary.

If the NY Times prints a story saying Tony Blair is shaggin Gordon Brown, I may not believe it, but if I am to have such disbelief given credence by sensible people, I will have to support it sufficiently for it to be a counterweight to the credence given by a NY Times article.

So I will wait for you to do similar

[Augustine]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/eastham.html

Sigh, I get tired of doing Junior's research for him....

[Augustine]

Document 24 - State 028054 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/Doc%2016.pdf)

More for Junior....

[mjd1982]

Actually, I have not said it was false. This is what I have consistently said to you since you brought this up (I'll put it in bold, since you seem to not like reading what I actually write):

One story in one paper is not sufficient for me to accept as fact such an extraordinary claim that does not fit in with the Taliban's history or general attitude towards the US.


Why not? They were presumably getting into great difficulties due to the sanctions, so why would they not want to turn over 1 man in return for the dropping of these sanctions?


I would kindly appreciate if you would please provide additional sources for your claim!

Whew... sorry about that. Now, evidence please?


I have given you one source. This source was of sufficient credence to be regurgitated by many major outlets. This should be sufficient. If you, or anyone else can illustrate how it wasnt, I will wait.


Actually, an unsourced newspaper report is really, really crappy evidence. Any writer can submit a report, and any paper can print it. If the Guardian ran a piece without sources claiming something similar, I would be asking you to provide me with additional evidence.


Why do you assume it was unsourced? You are claiming that they just made it up? Given what I have said about credence, you have to do some work if yo want to show that this just came off someone's head.


The evidence could be pretty broad, but for something like this, we're talking:
1)Official or verified US government statements or documents supporting the claim.
2)Official or verified Taliban statements or documents supporting the claim.
3)Testimony of some sort from people who would be in a position to have direct access to that information.

In history, these things are called "primary sources." They are orders of magnitude better than an unsourced and apparently uncorroborated article in any paper.


Ok. But nonetheless, given that this is from a long time ago, and a medieval style government in a 3rd world country, the absence of such should not be surprising. In which case, you will have to go about discrediting the report. Go on!


And let's be clear about something, this is not a minor claim. What you're talking about is something that, if true, would seriously implicate that the US had grossly mishandled foreign policy. That is why I posed the issue as two-pronged: That the offer existed, and that it was legitimate.


Excellent. Its good to see you can view this with a degree of sense. But as I have stated, your latter point is irrelevant in light of the zero action taken subsequently. Moreover, let's not forget that there was no comeback from Fleischer on this; he did not state "The offer was bs", which should be born in mind.


The other issue is the inconsistency with Taliban policy and other Taliban statements. If the Taliban was so keen to help us out, why did they shelter and aide Bin Laden?


as above


Finally, we seem to be missing the critical level of corroboration for news sources. Generally, major stories run in several competing papers, who all, hopefully, dig up their own information. This allows some level of verification, hopefully backed up by primary sources. In this case, such a check is completely or totally absent.


Not true. This was reported 2/3 weeks prior, at an apparently earlier level of discussion:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252


Now, you could actually read what I write when I bring up my issues with your sources, and you could try to address those issues in a mature, adult way. Alternatively, you can continue to be petulant and pretend you've addressed my concerns, which you haven't, and I'm simply too ignorant to understand how you've addressed my concerns, which I'm not.


???

I reply to all of your posts, and all of your points, as best as I can. If not, please show me where so.
Whatever.[/QUOTE]

[WildCat]

So you dont have the clip, its something we should just believe since you say it.

As such, it is worthless, and for the purposes of this argument, since you cannot present it, it doesnt exist. India Globe out of the window, you may start again.
The transcript of the press briefing is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Q Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

The sole source of your statement is the India Globe. Deal with it.

[mjd1982]

Oh, please. NOTHING in the Afghan Islamic Press, NOTHING from Abdul Hakim Mujahid, Taliban envoy to the United Nations; NOTHING from Qudratullah Jamal, the Taliban's information minister; NOTHING from Mullah Abdur Rahman Zahid, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister. NOTHING....


RESEARCH (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/index.htm)

From 2001:
If you had posted my quote in full context, this deliberate misrepresentation wouldnt have happened. Why do u feel the need to do this, old man?

[Unsecured Coins]

are you attacking the poster, and not the post, mjd?

[Augustine]

This must be true, too!! It's a question in a press briefing!

Q Ari, the Reverend Jesse Jackson told the AFL-CIO Convention in Las Vegas that the Bush administration "is using the FBI, the IRS and the right-wing media like The Washington Times and Fox News as weapons against union leaders to destroy the leadership of organized labor before the 2010 elections."

And my question: Am I wrong in recalling, Ari, that when the Reverend Mr. Jackson impregnated his mistress and used tax-exempt contributions to get her out of Chicago, you told us that the President telephoned Jesse to say, you are in my prayers, rather than you are being investigated, like the head of United Way? (Laughter.) He went to prison --

MR. FLEISCHER: What was the question?

Q Could you tell us this -- and you know, the head of United Way was sent to prison, Ari.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm still not sure what the question is, Les.

Q You did tell us that the President phoned Jesse and said you're in my prayers, right?

MR. FLEISCHER: Leave it there. Yes. Next question. (Laughter.)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011211-5.html

I'll bet CNN aired the press conference! They endorse it too!

[DGM]

Show me how their news gathering capabilities in this instance, good enough to have been regurgitated by MSNBC, and a WH press conference.

Does anyone else find it strange that at a WH news conference (full of reporters) A bombshell like this is released and no one else reacts. Reporters the biggest busy body's on earth and they let it slide.

[mjd1982]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/eastham.html

Sigh, I get tired of doing Junior's research for him....
Hahaha, ok, let's read this:


RAY SUAREZ: Your phrase 'to a country where he can be brought to justice' would seem to be a point of contention between the United States’ view and the Taliban’s view. The Taliban says that the United States has had very high and intractable demands, sort of New York or nothing, under these terms that make it very difficult for them for internal reasons to surrender Osama Bin Laden. The other day it was mentioned that if he could be sent to a mutually agreed upon Islamic country to be tried, they could probably go for that.Does that represent a vastly different version of the story from the one they’re giving through official channels?

ALAN EASTHAM: I haven’t heard that proposal. They’ve put forward several ideas, but the notion of a mutually agreeable Islamic country is one that they’ve not made directly to us.


So good. We have another source of corroboration. Eastham claims he has "never heard that proposal"- well, surprising, seeing as it was brought up at a WH press conference a few weeks back.

[mjd1982]

This must be true, too!! It's a question in a press briefing!



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011211-5.html

I'll bet CNN aired the press conference! They endorse it too!
i dont see what this has to do with anything.

Still waiting for an answer...

[nicepants]

Where does thousands come from?

Did any of these warnings suggest how many people were involved? If so, how do you pick out 19 hijackers from a population of 281,421,906? That's 1 hijacker for every 14 MILLION people.

Plus, monitor them, track suspicious activity, phonecalls, meetings etc. Not hard!

Your plan sounds an awful lot like the Patriot Act

1 - How do you determine who to monitor?...The US population in 2001 was over 280 MILLION people. (It's now over 300 Million)

2 - How do you monitor these people's activities, phone calls, and meetings without violating the constitutional rights of US citizens?

[mjd1982]

Does anyone else find it strange that at a WH news conference (full of reporters) A bombshell like this is released and no one else reacts. Reporters the biggest busy body's on earth and they let it slide.
Yes, how strange.

Now the point?

[WildCat]

If it's printed in a newspaper, it must be true! http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/25-06-2007/93964-monster-0

Go ahead mjd1982, prove there's not a monster at the bottom of a Ukraine lake! :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

Oh, and a little treat for you all:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Just to give some snippets:


George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office,



In a lengthy interview and in a memorandum Kabir Mohabbat has given us a detailed account and documentation to buttress his charge that the Bush administration could have had Osama bin Laden and his senior staff either delivered to the US or to allies as prisoners, or killed at their Afghan base. As a search of the data base shows, portions of Mohabbat's role have been the subject of a number of news reports, including a CBS news story by Alan Pizzey aired September 25, 2001. This is the first he has made public the full story.



The Bush administration sent Mohabbat back, carrying kindred tidings of delay and regret to the Taliban three more times in 2001, the last in September after the 9/11 attack. Each time he was asked to communicate similar regrets about the failure to act on the plan agreed to in Frankfurt (i.e. to have OBL handed over or killed- MJD). This procrastination became a standing joke with the Taliban, Mohabbat tells CounterPunch "They made an offer to me that if the US didn't have fuel for the Cruise missiles to attack Osama in Daronta, where he was under house arrest, they would pay for it."



In December Mohabbat was in Pakistan following with wry amusement the assault on Osama bin Laden's supposed mountain redoubt in Tora Bora, in the mountains bordering Pakistan. At the time he said, he informed US embassy officials the attack was a waste of time. Taliban leaders had told him that Bin Laden was nowhere near Tora Bora but in Waziristan. Knowing that the US was monitoring his cell phone traffic, Osama had sent a decoy to Tora Bora.



From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden. As a consequence of this failure more than 3,000 Americans and thousands of Afghans died.



He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families who were pursuing a lawsuit based on the assumption of US intelligence blunders by the FBI and CIA. He says his statements were not much use to the families since his judgment was, and still remains, that it was not intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks, but criminal negligence by the Bush administration.

[Unsecured Coins]

If it's printed in a newspaper, it must be true! http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/25-06-2007/93964-monster-0

Go ahead mjd1982, prove there's not a monster at the bottom of a Ukraine lake! :rolleyes:

I'll do it!!

F*** You.

that's how there's no monster in the lake.

[WildCat]

Oh, and a little treat for you all:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Just to give some snippets:
More crappy research by mjd1982. The CBS story says no such thing, other than US and Taliban representatives met in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/28/attack/main312836.shtml

[nicepants]

i dont see what this has to do with anything.

Still waiting for an answer...

The point being made is...just because a reporter quotes another person or another article doesn't mean that they concur, agree, lend creedance-to, or credibility-to the quoted statement.

[Augustine]

So good. We have another source of corroboration. Eastham claims he has "never heard that proposal"- well, surprising, seeing as it was brought up at a WH press conference a few weeks back.

What are you smoking, Kool Aid man? You must have learned cherrypicking from Chomsky.

ALAN EASTHAM: I haven’t heard that proposal. They’ve put forward several ideas, but the notion of a mutually agreeable Islamic country is one that they’ve not made directly to us.

The clear inference is that the Taliban MAY HAVE discussed this proposal with others, but NOTHING with the US directly. How this corroborates your claim of a specific offer to turn him over to Saudi Arabia is beyond me. Guess you see what you want to - kind of like the PNAC document, eh Junior?

[HeyLeroy]

Document 24 - State 028054 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/Doc%2016.pdf)

More for Junior....

Hahaha, ok, let's read this:

RAY SUAREZ: Your phrase 'to a country where he can be brought to justice' would seem to be a point of contention between the United States’ view and the Taliban’s view. The Taliban says that the United States has had very high and intractable demands, sort of New York or nothing, under these terms that make it very difficult for them for internal reasons to surrender Osama Bin Laden. The other day it was mentioned that if he could be sent to a mutually agreed upon Islamic country to be tried, they could probably go for that.Does that represent a vastly different version of the story from the one they’re giving through official channels?

ALAN EASTHAM: I haven’t heard that proposal. They’ve put forward several ideas, but the notion of a mutually agreeable Islamic country is one that they’ve not made directly to us.

So good. We have another source of corroboration. Eastham claims he has "never heard that proposal"- well, surprising, seeing as it was brought up at a WH press conference a few weeks back.

Just in case you skipped over the .pdf Augustine posted:
http://liveu-63.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227963L.jpg
http://liveu-64.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227964L.jpg
http://liveu-66.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227966L.jpg
http://liveu-67.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227967L.jpg
http://liveu-68.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227968L.jpg
http://liveu-70.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1227970L.jpg

The India Globe report was erroneous, mjd1982; try and keep up.

ETA: Can we get to 7WTC?

[WildCat]

I'll do it!!

F*** You.

that's how there's no monster in the lake.
You're wrong. "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian. And we all know that anything with "truth" in the title has to be true!

It's true! :)

[Augustine]

Oh, and a little treat for you all:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Just to give some snippets:

WOW! One man, possibly disgruntled, telling a story with no corroboration! I can see that your standards of proof for what you want to believe are somewhat akin to Britney Spears' standards for her male companions!

[Augustine]

The point being made is...just because a reporter quotes another person or another article doesn't mean that they concur, agree, lend creedance-to, or credibility-to the quoted statement.

Thank you. Sometimes I feel bad having to explain the obvious for our Oxford-educated friend.

[Unsecured Coins]

You're wrong. "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian. And we all know that anything with "truth" in the title has to be true!

It's true! :)


re-read my post, please. It clearly states F*** You. What part of that can you not understand? F*** you. F*** you 1,000 times!! F*** you until your [rule 8]hole is a perfect donkey [rule 8]hole!!

[WildCat]

re-read my post, please. It clearly states F*** You. What part of that can you not understand? F*** you. F*** you 1,000 times!! F*** you until your [rule 8]hole is a perfect donkey [rule 8]hole!!
Well don't come crying to me when you go swimming in the Ukraine and a monster comes up and starts chewing on your [rule 8].

[Unsecured Coins]

Well don't come crying to me when you go swimming in the Ukraine and a monster comes up and starts chewing on your [rule 8].

in that case, I assure you I will be saying alot more than "[rule 8]"

[MIKILLINI]

Oh boy... All the PNAC doc does is give a basis. A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple. This then allows us to view the 9 mths of ignored warnings of such with clarity.

Yes, PNAC gives a basis and it is explained in detail for the long term. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new PH, would cause the plans to be altered.
I keep going back to this point for the reason you believe this exception of a new PH is the key for the Bush Administration. In that belief you have predetermined that these Neocons planned this document with the exception (I.e. a new PH) as favorable so they could get their wish (a conspiracy..that is what you are playing here) and use something to cause disaster (like Al-Queda?) to make the changes happen sooner. By your reasoning that makes the PNAC document a written conspiracy. Why? Because over half of those who signed their name to it were chosen by Bush to work in his Administration. Your case is built on the catastrophic and catalyzing event segment mentioned in the document, which was written before 9/11.
9/11 became the event that lead to the changes taking place sooner.
You are arguing 9/11 was favorable for the Neocons in the context that this is what they wanted instead of the long term transformation. Subsequently, they put their intentions into effect, as you say, by not doing anything about the warnings and consequently hoping that America will be attacked, therefore allowing 9/11 to happen without taking any measures to prevent it. This is the case you are trying, but everyone here is showing you the fallacy of your arguments. What you have is circumstantial, and in case you haven't noticed, You are holding on so tightly to this belief and have convinced yourself beyond logical doubt what you have is smoking gun evidence, that you can't believe your evidence can be debunked. But it is being debunked right in front of you. Can't you see this?

ETA: Hey Leroy I agree, I would like to see the views of mjd about WTC 7

[MIKILLINI]

You're wrong. "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian. And we all know that anything with "truth" in the title has to be true!

It's true! :)

What truth does it mean? Russian truth? or is it Jooooo's truth? Since the Jooooo's were the ones who made the Russian revolution a joooo's revolution (according to Magz). They made a movie about it, the title is "The Devil Wears Pravda". :D

[Billdave2]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.
Your post presupposes falsehood in the article.
(skip ahead)
If a paper of sufficient credence to have its content regurgitated at a WH press conference, an MSNBC editorial, and the editor of Counterpunch (possibly a regurgitation), has its content disputed by people on a debate forum, then such people must provide a coherent basis for such dispute, This is pretty elementary.

If the NY Times prints a story saying Tony Blair is shaggin Gordon Brown, I may not believe it, but if I am to have such disbelief given credence by sensible people, I will have to support it sufficiently for it to be a counterweight to the credence given by a NY Times article.

So I will wait for you to do similar
MJD 1982
The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.

Is this true or false?

If you say it is false you must provide proof. As you state above I don't have to prove it is true.

[jab712]

Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

not attacking the poster again I presume.

[MSgtWeiss]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

Well, it's certainly clear that YOU don't know what a PDB is, mjd1982.

It's not a briefing. The "B" doesn't even stand for "briefing." It's a "brief" -- a document compiled by the intelligence community that is hand-carried to either the President or his Chief of Staff every day. The DCI neither briefs nor even meets with the Pres every day, and never has. It'd blow three hours of his day for no useful purpose.

As far as specific, imminent warnings before 9-11, I have yet to hear of one that was credible and specific enough to be actionable -- though if Janet Reno's directive about not passing info to the intel community from the FBI had never occurred, it might have at least delayed 9-11. Maybe. Jihadist fools are in no shortage, and they can be trained to fly anywhere in the world if you have money.

Every day the intel community gets tens of thousands of pieces of intelligence, and a lot of them are warnings of one type or another. Most of the ones that aren't pure crap are so vague you can't do squat with them except wait for better data. Even if the CIA had reasonable intel that AQ was going to try suicide missions with planes, what's the next step? Ground civil air? Tighten up security, which with the usual airline non-cooperation would take years? Once this happened, even the usual moronic jihadists would modify their plans to use rented planes, incoming Swedish airliners, or several other obvious alternatives.


The unfortunate fact is that it was, and still is, easy to pull off a mass murder in an open society, especially if suicide is an element. It is now more difficult to use regular commercial flights as kamikazes, but any idiot could still pull off a similar spectacular media event. And they will.

As before 9-11, anyone with half a brain knows that we are going to be hit again. Big time. Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently. It might be a couple of Scuds from a perfectly legitimate cargo ship offshore -- or, if we're unlucky, a couple of Silkworms, or a crude thermonuclear weapon. If we're lucky the nuke will be sent to some city and do some ferocious local damage. If we're not lucky it'll be configured for an air burst aimed at maximum EMP damage and reduce a significant portion of the Eastern seaboard to pre-industrial conditions very rapidly.

This isn't just good intel -- it's a simple prediction obvious to everyone paying attention. That's the easy part. Now go figure out what to do about it.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I have some questions for MJD. Firstly, I must apologise, because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I only read up to page 20 of this thread.

1. If you're saying that 9/11 was an 'inside job', does this mean that you're saying it was totally organised by the US Government, and no terrorists were involved whatsoever?

2. If the answer to point 1 is 'Yes', then were the British Government in on it too? I ask because our troops were the next ones into Afghanistan with US troops, and British troops were right along side US Troops in Iraq.

3. If the answer to point 2 is 'Yes'; what has Britain gained from it's involvement in the War on Terror?

4. Taking points 1, 2 & 3 into consideration; who was it then that perpetrated the July 2005 London bombings?

[Belz...]

They dont have to be arrested. Just an attempt to locate them, track them etc. This is not hard to understand.

And how would you know if they did ?

In short, it is reflective of about 90% of the posts here~ "You think your right, but your wrong".

Well it's better than your "well, it doesn't say it but it's what it meant."

Hahaha... accordng to who is it one source?

Mjd, if ONE media outlet reports something, and fifty other media outlets quote FROM that original source, it's still ONE source. Perhaps you should look up the word "source".

I present the facts, the odd simple interpolation, and ask people to debate them. They dont. Very simple.

You should look up "interpolation", too.

A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple.

You keep saying that after it's been proven wrong again and again. Why do you do this ?

[Belz...]

2nd,intent or soemthing that could be construed as such. Propitious would be such an instance.

Okay, was that a statement from the document stating that they were planning something ? Didn't think so.

Since inference is not inadmissible to debatem i am perfectly okay to use it.

I have no idea what this lump of words is supposed to mean.

[Belz...]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

Guilty until proven innocent. The Twoofer credo.

I'm sorry if I wasnt clear. My point is, and always has been, that it is the effort that is the telling point. If sufficient is made, and nothing is achieved, you can pin incompetence. If nothing is made, then, given the mass of "unprecedented" warnings, you have to ask other questions.

Which is a far cry from saying they let it happen on purpose.

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so.

There are PINK ELEPHANTS in my CLOSET!

Prove me wrong.

please provide additional sources for your claim!

I have given you one source. [...] This should be sufficient.

No, Mjd. It's not. Why is it so difficult for you to understand ?

[mjd1982]

Did any of these warnings suggest how many people were involved? If so, how do you pick out 19 hijackers from a population of 281,421,906? That's 1 hijacker for every 14 MILLION people.


You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.


Your plan sounds an awful lot like the Patriot Act

1 - How do you determine who to monitor?...The US population in 2001 was over 280 MILLION people. (It's now over 300 Million)


The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US (http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=2305)


2 - How do you monitor these people's activities, phone calls, and meetings [B]without violating the constitutional rights of US citizens?


theyre not US citizens

[mjd1982]

The point being made is...just because a reporter quotes another person or another article doesn't mean that they concur, agree, lend creedance-to, or credibility-to the quoted statement.
It depends how it is being used. If the reporter is borrowing its import for his report, then of course he is lending it credence, since the credence of his report depends on that of the others. This is pretty simple.

[gumboot]

Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently.


Although I mainly agree with your post, just a minor point, the above isn't true. NORAD was specifically set up to deal with threats coming from outside the USA, and intercepted rogue flights routinely prior to 9/11. All that was missing was authority to shoot.

If such an attack came now, with an even better air defense system, lethal force authorisation, increased scramble sites, AWACS, and random CAPs, there's very little chance of a hijacked airliner getting anywhere near another US landmark. (And that's before you take into account how passengers react to terrorists on their flights post 9/11).

I think the only real chance terrorist have of topping 9/11 is a nuclear attack.

-Gumboot

[Billdave2]

You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.



The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US (http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=2305)



theyre not US citizens

Non US citizens still have rights. That is why there is so much argument about Gitmo, critics say there rights are being violated.

[mjd1982]

WOW! One man, possibly disgruntled, telling a story with no corroboration! I can see that your standards of proof for what you want to believe are somewhat akin to Britney Spears' standards for her male companions!
Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

[gumboot]

You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.

The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US (http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=2305)

theyre not US citizens



According to the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief there were at least fifty FBI teams across the USA investigating Radical Islamic Terrorists and chasing leads.

-Gumboot

[Billdave2]

Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

Once again could you please explain how you prove a negative? It is impposible to prove that no offer was made. You have to prove that it was with more than a question quoting and unproven source. Do you even have proof that the India Globe made this claim they are reported to have made?

[mjd1982]

Yes, PNAC gives a basis and it is explained in detail for the long term. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new PH, would cause the plans to be altered.


It would cause the revolutionary, world changing, world/peace/secutiry/democracy/love and happiness saving plan to happen in years, rather than decades, yes.


I keep going back to this point for the reason you believe this exception of a new PH is the key for the Bush Administration.


not necessarily key, certainly propitious


In that belief you have predetermined that these Neocons planned this document with the exception (I.e. a new PH) as favorable so they could get their wish (a conspiracy..that is what you are playing here) and use something to cause disaster (like Al-Queda?) to make the changes happen sooner.


not necessailry "planned the doc", but the sentiment was present in the doc, this we can say


By your reasoning that makes the PNAC document a written conspiracy.


so no


Why? Because over half of those who signed their name to it were chosen by Bush to work in his Administration. Your case is built on the catastrophic and catalyzing event segment mentioned in the document, which was written before 9/11.


It gives my case a useful framework, this is true


9/11 became the event that lead to the changes taking place sooner.


yes


You are arguing 9/11 was favorable for the Neocons in the context that this is what they wanted instead of the long term transformation.


yes


Subsequently, they put their intentions into effect, as you say, by not doing anything about the warnings and consequently hoping that America will be attacked, therefore allowing 9/11 to happen without taking any measures to prevent it.


pretty much


This is the case you are trying, but everyone here is showing you the fallacy of your arguments.


Haha.. nice gag! I hope you dont actually believe that.

If you do, you may want to start by learning the difference between addressing someone's points (i.e. as I have done here) and restating ones own (i.e. if I had just said, "No, PNAC did say what i say it said")


What you have is circumstantial, and in case you haven't noticed, You are holding on so tightly to this belief and have convinced yourself beyond logical doubt what you have is smoking gun evidence, that you can't believe your evidence can be debunked. But it is being debunked right in front of you. Can't you see this?


Ah, okay, well I was expecting a direct refutation (#493 or subsequent ripostes if you want to), but what I got was what I referred to in the 2nd half of the previouc comment- a regurgitation of your point. "I'm right, your wrong".

If you are interested in debate, then go ahead. I have invited you and your friends, many times, including the ones who have decided not to contest here. If you are honest enough to continue, then learn to debate points. Not many here know how to do this, apparently.


ETA: Hey Leroy I agree, I would like to see the views of mjd about WTC 7

If you are bursting, you can read them at SLC.

By the time I am finished with this section, the honest people on the thread will no longer need convincing.

[mjd1982]

MJD 1982
The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.

Is this true or false?

If you say it is false you must provide proof. As you state above I don't have to prove it is true.
Completely erroneous example. If the JREF Globe was sufficiently reputable a source to be quoted at WH press conferences and MSNBC editorials, then the analogy would be more correct.

Oh, and please read the Counterpunch article posted above that no one wants to reply to.

[mjd1982]

Well, it's certainly clear that YOU don't know what a PDB is, mjd1982.

It's not a briefing. The "B" doesn't even stand for "briefing." It's a "brief" -- a document compiled by the intelligence community that is hand-carried to either the President or his Chief of Staff every day. The DCI neither briefs nor even meets with the Pres every day, and never has. It'd blow three hours of his day for no useful purpose.

As far as specific, imminent warnings before 9-11, I have yet to hear of one that was credible and specific enough to be actionable -- though if Janet Reno's directive about not passing info to the intel community from the FBI had never occurred, it might have at least delayed 9-11. Maybe. Jihadist fools are in no shortage, and they can be trained to fly anywhere in the world if you have money.


The point is still very clear. The Pres knew there were AQ cells in the couuntry plotting a mass terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", and did zero, didnt even care. He was offered OBL, and didnt evem care. Its not about having names dates and places, its about making some sort of an effort where such is possible. It was clearly possible, and yet none was done.

Every day the intel community gets tens of thousands of pieces of intelligence, and a lot of them are warnings of one type or another. Most of the ones that aren't pure crap are so vague you can't do squat with them except wait for better data. Even if the CIA had reasonable intel that AQ was going to try suicide missions with planes, what's the next step? Ground civil air? Tighten up security, which with the usual airline non-cooperation would take years? Once this happened, even the usual moronic jihadists would modify their plans to use rented planes, incoming Swedish airliners, or several other obvious alternatives.


As I said, take efforts to find the cells. which were reported by many sources. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=200) Accept OBL's handover or killing. Simple steps, I could go on, but I think the point is very clear.


The unfortunate fact is that it was, and still is, easy to pull off a mass murder in an open society, especially if suicide is an element. It is now more difficult to use regular commercial flights as kamikazes, but any idiot could still pull off a similar spectacular media event. And they will.


Well, I'm not too sure about that, since if it were so easy, it would be happening every day in the west.


As before 9-11, anyone with half a brain knows that we are going to be hit again. Big time. Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently. It might be a couple of Scuds from a perfectly legitimate cargo ship offshore -- or, if we're unlucky, a couple of Silkworms, or a crude thermonuclear weapon. If we're lucky the nuke will be sent to some city and do some ferocious local damage. If we're not lucky it'll be configured for an air burst aimed at maximum EMP damage and reduce a significant portion of the Eastern seaboard to pre-industrial conditions very rapidly.

This isn't just good intel -- it's a simple prediction obvious to everyone paying attention. That's the easy part. Now go figure out what to do about it.

Something. Which wasnt done before.

[mjd1982]

I have some questions for MJD. Firstly, I must apologise, because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I only read up to page 20 of this thread.

1. If you're saying that 9/11 was an 'inside job', does this mean that you're saying it was totally organised by the US Government, and no terrorists were involved whatsoever?

2. If the answer to point 1 is 'Yes', then were the British Government in on it too? I ask because our troops were the next ones into Afghanistan with US troops, and British troops were right along side US Troops in Iraq.

3. If the answer to point 2 is 'Yes'; what has Britain gained from it's involvement in the War on Terror?

4. Taking points 1, 2 & 3 into consideration; who was it then that perpetrated the July 2005 London bombings?
1. No.

I guess this invalidates all the rest?

[Billdave2]

Completely erroneous example. If the JREF Globe was sufficiently reputable a source to be quoted at WH press conferences and MSNBC editorials, then the analogy would be more correct.

Oh, and please read the Counterpunch article posted above that no one wants to reply to.

The 9/11 commision report meets all these requirements, so in the future you have to accept it as reputable and any thing it says that you dispute, YOU must provide the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[mjd1982]

And how would you know if they did ?



Well it's better than your "well, it doesn't say it but it's what it meant."



Mjd, if ONE media outlet reports something, and fifty other media outlets quote FROM that original source, it's still ONE source. Perhaps you should look up the word "source".



You should look up "interpolation", too.



You keep saying that after it's been proven wrong again and again. Why do you do this ?
Right, well the only response worth giving there is to tell you to read the counterpunch article posted above, and to be honest in your conclusions.

The rest was pretty worthless I'm afraid.

[mjd1982]

Non US citizens still have rights. That is why there is so much argument about Gitmo, critics say there rights are being violated.
And this is an admin that has no concern for civil rights. So where's the problem?

[Dave Rogers]

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

I tried actually googling "India Globe" - it took a few seconds but it was worth it. A few seconds that maybe, mjd1982, you would have been advised to spend yourself.

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/10386/8063

Asia Today & India Globe
Mr Raghubir Goyal
2020 National Press Bldg.
Washington DC 20547
USA
Phone : 202 271 1100 / 7039781906 (H)

Is Washington DC "pretty much next to Afghanistan"?

The article suggests that the India Globe is a magazine for Indian expatriates in the Washington DC area, and its proprietor and sole employee is a bit of a running joke at WH press briefings for his insistence on asking when India is going to nuke Pakistan (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15642-2002Jan21.html, http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001838.html, http://www.goldtoe.net/2005_07_01_archive.html).

Overall, an excellent truther source - possibly even more unreliable than the American Free Press.

Dave

[mjd1982]

According to the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief there were at least fifty FBI teams across the USA investigating Radical Islamic Terrorists and chasing leads.

-Gumboot
I'm asking what did Bush do.

It is perfectly obvious that since the conspiracy couldnt have involved everyone, that such searches would have been happening. Read here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=200) for details of how their work was, essentially sabotaged by those above them

[mjd1982]

The 9/11 commision report meets all these requirements, so in the future you have to accept it as reputable and any thing it says that you dispute, YOU must provide the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up!
This has been done at the top of the thread.

Please keep up

[mjd1982]

I tried actually googling "India Globe" - it took a few seconds but it was worth it. A few seconds that maybe, mjd1982, you would have been advised to spend yourself.

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/10386/8063

Asia Today & India Globe
Mr Raghubir Goyal
2020 National Press Bldg.
Washington DC 20547
USA
Phone : 202 271 1100 / 7039781906 (H)

Is Washington DC "pretty much next to Afghanistan"?

The article suggests that the India Globe is a magazine for Indian expatriates in the Washington DC area, and its proprietor and sole employee is a bit of a running joke at WH press briefings for his insistence on asking when India is going to nuke Pakistan (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15642-2002Jan21.html, http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001838.html, http://www.goldtoe.net/2005_07_01_archive.html).

Overall, an excellent truther source - possibly even more unreliable than the American Free Press.

Dave
Good. Then deal with the Counterpunch article linked above.

[Billdave2]

I read the Cockburn article. It presents no evidence that its source is in any way relaiable. It says that he "has a letter from the bush administration" but does not provide it as his only link to Bush. If anything it points to the Clinton administration as being the ones you screwed up. They had everything in place before November 2000 and supposedly put it off to wait to let the next administration handle things. Of course the whole article is dubious at best and seems to have no base in reality.

[Dave Rogers]

Good. Then deal with the Counterpunch article linked above.

Please repost the link - there's 35 pages back there to look through for it.

Oh, and the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html is about secret talks between the Taliban and Saudi Arabian intelligence to hand over OBL to Saudi Arabia, and says the Taliban changed their stance after US cruise missile attacks. No suggestion there of any US involvement in, or even awareness of, these talks. If you're going to say that Saudi Arabia is a US client state and therefore the US is aware of all Saudi intelligence's secret negotions, please provide sources to back this up (ideally not the India Globe).

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Here is a nice analysis of the OBL handover offers with numerous sources:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm

Does the Washington Post meet the criteria of another source?
Washington Post on Bin laden handover (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm)

[JonnyFive]

Wait a minute, mjd. The source you linked me to here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252) doesn't at all support your claims about OBL being "handed" to the US. The only offer mentioned, which I did see mentioned elsewhere, was the pathetic offer to try OBL in an Islamic court, which would of course be of no satisfaction to the US, who would want him tried in either a US court for crimes against the US, or against a secular international court of some kind, as is generally done with war criminals.

The concept of trying a man who represents a religious organization (Islamic, incidentally) engaged in a religious crusade and stays in a country with a religious (Islamic, incidentally) theocracy at their behest in from of a religious (Islamic, incidentally) court is, well, kind of unsatisfactory. Oh, and one of the Islamic court's three judges would be from Afghanistan, and therefore directly connected to the Taliban government of that country. Fan-freaking-tastic.

But, of course, this would involve lifting sanctions against Afghanistan and, as the article you linked me to puts it "appease the United Nations." The article then goes on to say this:


Washington has been pressing Pakistan, considered the Taliban government's staunchest ally, to use its influence to secure bin Laden's surrender.

The Taliban, who rule more than 95% of Afghanistan, have rejected the pressure to release bin Laden, saying he can stay in Afghanistan until any terrorist activity is proved.

So, no, they didn't appear to have a particular interest in handing him to the US for trial. Note we're talking about a trial here, not handing him over for execution. Generally, the standard for bringing someone to trial is not absolutely proving they have done something.

You still haven't shown me a source for OBL being "handed" to the US and that being an offer that didn't carry major negative consequences, such as giving the Taliban government of Afghanistan free reign to do what they want without sanction.

Every source you've shown me, and every source I've dug up to corroborate your claims relating to the "India Globe" has come up with, at best, a one-sided offer from the Taliban to allow OBL to stand trial in Islamic court or, perhaps, allow him to stand trial in a secular court... but only if his involvement to terrorism can be proven. Isn't that the point of a trial? To allow a non-partisan group to decide whether or not the evidence proves the guilt of one party? The Taliban was, assuming this was all real, effectively making themselves the sole arbiter of his guilt or innocence.

I say again, this is not the slam-dunk proof you seem to believe it is. You've introduced a situation with considerable political complexity and nuance, and appear to be distilling it down to "Taliban offered to hand over OBL to US but they said no."

Well, not really. The sources you keep linking to (and those I posted in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2720835#post2720835), in case you didn't read it) support a very different conclusion from the one you appear to be drawing.

I'm glad you were at least willing to cite some additional sources, ones that can at least be verified online for our convenience, to back up your claims, I really am. However, that is only half the problem I have with your claim, as you would well know if you'd followed my comments on this matter. The other half is whether or not you're correctly interpretting and evaluating what is said in those sources. It does not appear, given these sources, that there was ever a serious offer to hand Bin Laden over the US on the table, unless serious and possibly politically crippling conditions were imposed in exchange for it.

This would be a lot smoother if you could address the issues people have with your various claims without turning it into an excercise in pulling teeth. The polite, civil thing to do when someone asks you for clarification or additional proof is not to insult them, or claim they aren't reading, or claim they just don't understand. The civil thing to do is either provide that proof or simply say that is the extent of your research. If you come to debate something online, you must realize that your evidence may not be enough to convince everyone of everything you say.

[DGM]

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system. It also remained murky whether the Taliban envoys, representing at least one division of the fractious Islamic movement, could actually deliver on their promises

Swing please read the links before you post them. There is no PRIMARY sources listed. Lots of maybes though.

[lapman]

I have a question for you mjd1982.

The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.


Is this true?

Please comment.

There, now I give credence to said story. So it must be true since it's quoted by multiple sources.

[Unsecured Coins]

Welcome to my world of frustration when it comes to mjd's posts. I told you he had a habit of posting links that don't have anything to do with his argument.

But y'all didn't want to believe me. A Pox on you ALL.

[JonnyFive]

There's another issue I have with this whole OBL thing - I'm concerned we might just be chasing a straw man anyway with it.

Every source on this seems to indicate that the Taliban wanted "proof" that OBL was involvedi n terrorism. The sources also agree that the hand-over would most likely be to an Islamic court. I, of course, have concerns that the proposal may have been less-than-sincere, or that the Taliban couldn't or didn't want to actually deliver.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Taliban is sincere. They want to become a legitimate political entity, and are willing to work with the international community to try OBL. Perhaps they really believe he is innocent of anything, perhaps they don't know... it doesn't matter. For our hypothetical, everything is on the up-and-up.

But even if the US accepted the conditions and Bin Laden was, say, turned over to an international court in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions against Afghanistan, what would this accomplish?

I suppose, presumably, that OBL could tell the US about the impending attacks, along with the indentity of the cell members. But why would he? OBL was being sought for his involvement in the Cole attack, and all he would need to do is not mention the impending attacks. By early 2001, the hijackers appear to have largely been in the US and plans were largely set for the attacks. If OBL, assuming he was brought to trial, said nothing about future plans of Al Qaeda, then what reason is there to expect security to be any tighter than it actually was on 9/11/2001?

Certainly the acquisition of OBL would not automatically deter his organization. Beyond that, speculation is too divergant from what actually happened to be of much use, but I'm not sure why OBL's potential hand-over for trial in any venue would somehow deter the 9/11 attacks.

[mjd1982]

There's another issue I have with this whole OBL thing - I'm concerned we might just be chasing a straw man anyway with it.

Every source on this seems to indicate that the Taliban wanted "proof" that OBL was involvedi n terrorism. The sources also agree that the hand-over would most likely be to an Islamic court. I, of course, have concerns that the proposal may have been less-than-sincere, or that the Taliban couldn't or didn't want to actually deliver.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Taliban is sincere. They want to become a legitimate political entity, and are willing to work with the international community to try OBL. Perhaps they really believe he is innocent of anything, perhaps they don't know... it doesn't matter. For our hypothetical, everything is on the up-and-up.

But even if the US accepted the conditions and Bin Laden was, say, turned over to an international court in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions against Afghanistan, what would this accomplish?

I suppose, presumably, that OBL could tell the US about the impending attacks, along with the indentity of the cell members. But why would he? OBL was being sought for his involvement in the Cole attack, and all he would need to do is not mention the impending attacks. By early 2001, the hijackers appear to have largely been in the US and plans were largely set for the attacks. If OBL, assuming he was brought to trial, said nothing about future plans of Al Qaeda, then what reason is there to expect security to be any tighter than it actually was on 9/11/2001?

Certainly the acquisition of OBL would not automatically deter his organization. Beyond that, speculation is too divergant from what actually happened to be of much use, but I'm not sure why OBL's potential hand-over for trial in any venue would somehow deter the 9/11 attacks.
As im about to head out, read this article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

This should help you.

[Dave Rogers]

Here is a nice analysis of the OBL handover offers with numerous sources:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm (http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm)


This details negotiations between, as far as I can tell, private individuals in Pakistan and the Taliban for the extradition of OBL, which ended with a veto from President Musharraf. The article speculates on whether this was prompted by the USA but gives no evidence.

Does the Washington Post meet the criteria of another source?
Washington Post on Bin laden handover (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm)

Mixed messages from this one, but it suggests that there were considerable diplomatic efforts made by the US to get OBL extradited, which fell down either on misunderstandings, US unwillingness to proceed or bad faith by the Taliban, depending on who you believe. Note also that this second story contradicts the assertion in the first story that the US made no diplomatic efforts to obtain a peaceful extradition.

The impression I get from these two sources is that nobody really knows what offers were made or what course the negotiations took, only that there were various negotiations going on and none were particularly effective.

Dave

[mjd1982]

Please repost the link - there's 35 pages back there to look through for it.

Oh, and the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html is about secret talks between the Taliban and Saudi Arabian intelligence to hand over OBL to Saudi Arabia, and says the Taliban changed their stance after US cruise missile attacks. No suggestion there of any US involvement in, or even awareness of, these talks. If you're going to say that Saudi Arabia is a US client state and therefore the US is aware of all Saudi intelligence's secret negotions, please provide sources to back this up (ideally not the India Globe).

Dave
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

[Augustine]

Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

Squirm?? My boy, you are delusional!

Kabir Mohabbat's version of Frankfurt is clearly at odds with Secretary Eastham's (Eastham career Foreign Service officer, not a political appointee, although this is 2000 so that question is moot). So who might have an agenda? Who is claiming something that is unusual (given the Taliban's dodging of 30 efforts during the Clinton administration, their willingness post-9/11 to be bombed into the Stone Age rather than turn over bin Laden, the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance which exists to this day)? Mohabbat's credibility is suspect.

(Interestingly, I would suggest more appropriate reading for you might be Cockburn's "The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left". It's not just Chomsky who thinks you're a nutcase.)