Osama to Truthers: I Did It

[kageki]

LOL what a red herring. This is the proof of this statement?



I'm going to go through this.

1: The article isn't even by an Israeli. It's by a guy who went there for a bit and brought back his perception...wait...he didn't even go there.

2: The article is about Israelis inside Israel. Not the larger Jewish community.

3: The article is talking about disapproval with the Olmert government. Nowhere does it mention that the disapproval is due to the war in Iraq.

4: The article mentions that a likely candidate to replace Olmert, should such a scenario even exist, would be the conservative party. This part is important: the CONSERVATIVE party. They're not the ones who want the whole "pull out of Gaza" strategy.

5: I seem to recall the major reason Israelis were disappointed with the Olmert government from reading Time's coverage. It was because he didn't kick Hezbollah's bum good enough in the Lebanon summer war. Not Iran.

6: The article's from March. Olmert is still in power. You might want more current information.

-Sporanox


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0510-04.htm

In fact, U.S. Jews were, if anything, somewhat less supportive of going to war in Iraq than the general population, according to public opinion polls, which have since found Jews to have been quicker than just about any other group to conclude that the invasion was a major mistake.


Honestly this is a stupid point to be arguing. If you don't want to believe me fine. My statements are based on the information I have perused. I'm not going to talk about this anymore.

[kageki]

If I may interject for a moment, kageki, have you abandoned the Pearl Harbor thread?

Yeah the moderation is annoying.

[kageki]

Actually it's the same old, long debunked and hate-fueled evidence you guys have spouted for years.

And before Israel no one had a problem with the Jews? Are you out of your [rule10]ing mind?

Can you show me this debunking article?

The creation of Israel is certainly at the core of Arab "anti-semitism" currently if you want to call it that. The anti-semitic feelings were generally in other areas like Europe. I am not sure how it was in the Mideast before Israel. The creation of Israel certainly exacerbated the sentiments if there were any prior to it.

Well you do realize Jews were and still continue to live amongst the various mideast countries? The Jewish community in Iran rejected Israel's offer for emigration.

[Drudgewire]

Can you show me this debunking article?
Not one that isn't "propaganda" I'm betting. :rolleyes:

[TheRedWorm]

So let me get this straight, K-man is calling Darth Rotor a racist, yet blames Jews for 9/11 and for faking the Holocaust? Does anyone but me find this odd?

[Hyperviolet]

So let me get this straight, K-man is calling Darth Rotor a racist, yet blames Jews for 9/11 and for faking the Holocaust? Does anyone but me find this odd?
I do, too.

[kageki]

Not one that isn't "propaganda" I'm betting. :rolleyes:

Basically you are not providing evidence hence your claim is discounted.

[kageki]

So let me get this straight, K-man is calling Darth Rotor a racist, yet blames Jews for 9/11 and for faking the Holocaust? Does anyone but me find this odd?

That still makes him a racist.

Do you think all Muslim Arabs are crazy, honor-killing terrorists?

[funk de fino]

Honestly this is a stupid point to be arguing. If you don't want to believe me fine. My statements are based on the information I have perused. I'm not going to talk about this anymore.

Translated this actually reads

I have no answer to the fact I posted rubbish. I have looked at crap on neo nazi or anti semite sites and that is all that really matters. Lets avoid this subject as, if it continues, I will look even more foolish.

Poor retort to a real smackdown Kag

[Drudgewire]

Basically you are not providing evidence hence your claim is discounted.
Frankly I doubt not having your respect is going to lose me any sleep. :p

[funk de fino]

http://video.nbc4.com/player/?id=179503

Is it wrong for me to criticize this girl who happens to be Jewish?

No, it was wrong to post it in this thread. It is a blatant derail.

[TheRedWorm]

That still makes him a racist.

Do you think all Muslim Arabs are crazy, honor-killing terrorists?


No, I think that terrorists are "honor-killing [the Hell?] terrorists." My point was that you don't see the irony of calling someone a racist, when you are, in fact, a racist. By the way, Darth insulted you, not Japanese people in general.

[kageki]

Translated this actually reads

I have no answer to the fact I posted rubbish. I have looked at crap on neo nazi or anti semite sites and that is all that really matters. Lets avoid this subject as, if it continues, I will look even more foolish.

Poor retort to a real smackdown Kag

Well that shows your intellectual capacity. Maybe you missed the other article I quoted.

Besides how does it make me anti-semitic for pointing out the Israeli government is unpopular?

[kageki]

Frankly I doubt not having your respect is going to lose me any sleep. :p

Nothing to do with respect. You claimed it was debunked and yet have provided no evidence for it. Hence that claim is discounted.

[kageki]

No, I think that terrorists are "honor-killing [the Hell?] terrorists." My point was that you don't see the irony of calling someone a racist, when you are, in fact, a racist. By the way, Darth insulted you, not Japanese people in general.

I'm not a racist implying that I hate people based on race.

[TheRedWorm]

I'm not a racist implying that I hate people based on race.


No, you are a racist because you think that the Jews were behind 9/11, and they faked the Holocaust, as well as (I am sure) a myriad of other crimes.

[funk de fino]

This is the latest on the Lockerbie bombing which is as it stands blamed on 2 Libyans:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=380695&rel_no=1

New evidence shows that the evidence used to indict these people were false meaning these people are most likely innocent.

Starting to catch the drift?

You should maybe catch a drift and read stuff before you post it. There was only one Libyan convicted and this appeal is his. It is about witholding of evidence (2 papers) not falsefication of evidence.

it does not mean they are innocent, it may mean this evidence changes nothing, we do not know because at the moment it is secret

You fail again even when trying to hump another derail in, you get it very badly wrong

[funk de fino]

Well that shows your intellectual capacity. Maybe you missed the other article I quoted.

Besides how does it make me anti-semitic for pointing out the Israeli government is unpopular?

Either way, it is a derail and you blew it. The other article does not support the point you were making.

You failed again

[Dr Adequate]

I did that already. Iraq and now Iran. The construction of the Haifa-Mosul pipeline. That is not a quantification of "benefit".

Basically just imagine that Israel also has control over Iraq now. Now imagine that they don't.

Actually, you don't have to imagine.

[~enigma~]

That is not a quantification of "benefit".

Now imagine that they don't.

Actually, you don't have to imagine.
Tread respectfully when you mention the lyrics of John Lennon...

[Dr Adequate]

Is there solid evidence to indict Osama for the WTC bombing or any other of the crimes he's wanted for? Yes, this is why he has in fact been indicted.

Was there ever a wanted poster for Capone? No. Does this prove:

(a) that the FBI think that he was innocent?
(b) that there's some other reason for this of which you are abyssmally ignorant?

Hint: the answer is (b).

[T.A.M.]

actually that was my point...there was no wanted poster. He was guilty, he knew it, the FBI knew it, but they COULD NOT PROVE IT. He was the ring leader, the master commander, but they could not get proof to convict him of murder...could they?

TAM:)

[Foolmewunz]

Ah, good morning from Asia. We're still at it, I see.

So, just to sum this up (in relation to the OP).....

Osama says he didn't do it in an interview - Check! He didn't do it.
Osama says Moussaoui wasn't AQ - Check! Not AQ
Osama says he did it - XXX! Wrong! Disinformationist propaganda.

I get it, now Kageki. Anything Osama says that supports your whackjob positions is proof. Anything Osama says that refutes the very essentials of 911 Truth is a lie.

Conveniently tinted glasses you have there.

[CTM]

It seems to me that one thing that is at issue here is whether we can believe OBL when he (or someone in his organization that sounds just like him) sends us a message claiming the resposibility for the attack of 9/11. I just came across a very interesting article by Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Towers. It's called The Master Plan:For the New Theorists of Jihad, Al Qaeda is just the Beginning. It's all about who is leading the jihad into the future and providing the ideology and what they have planned to do, although events in Iraq the last few months may have done some damage to what they intended to happen. It's a long article--a 12 page PDF file--also includes 2 full page pictures of WTC debris which some of you may find interesting. The most pertinent aspect of the article to the discussion going on on this thread is that none of the jihadists being quoted have any doubt at all that Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. They would probably find the argument that Al Qaeda did not do it under OBL's leadership and blessing extremely silly and childish and a sure sign of American stupidity. I'm not sure if this link will connect but the article can be found here:

www.lawrencewright.com/wrightNewJihadis.pdf

Be forewarned though that the reading comprehension skills of some may be considerably challenged by this article, so take your time and read some of the paragraphs twice in case it didn't quite penetrate the mind the first time.

[Dr Adequate]

The most pertinent aspect of the article to the discussion going on on this thread is that none of the jihadists being quoted have any doubt at all that Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. Well what would they know about such abstruse subjects as terrorism and blowing things up?

No, all that that proves is that Arabs are to dumb to know that Arabs are too dumb to hijack planes.

They should have asked a Twoofer, he'd have set 'em right.

[Sporanox]

Well that shows your intellectual capacity. Maybe you missed the other article I quoted.

Besides how does it make me anti-semitic for pointing out the Israeli government is unpopular?

Well, looks like you want to take up the issue again. I'll be happy to do so, because I actually read the article.

Basically, leaders of the U.S. Jewish community want to detach themselves of any charge that Jews are leading the buildup to war with Iran. This is to avoid a situation similar to the drum beating prior to Iraq where certain officials of the Likud party and prominent Jewish neoconservatives were figured in encouraging the Bush Administration to invade.

NOWHERE in the article does it mention that the Israeli government is unpopular because of the previous actions of a "small" band of neoconservatives and a few given officials. This is the conclusion that you are leaping to.

In your opinion, the Israeli government is unpopular because of pushes to increase U.S. aggression against Iraq and Iran.

In the greater consensus, the Israeli government is unpopular because of their failed war in Lebanon.

See? You were jumping to a conclusion.

-Sporanox

[kageki]

No, you are a racist because you think that the Jews were behind 9/11, and they faked the Holocaust, as well as (I am sure) a myriad of other crimes.

I thought Jews weren't a race?

And no I don't think all Jews were behind it. You don't think all Germans are bad because of Nazis right?

As for 9/11 I think it was a collaboration between the British, US and Israel and when I say those countries I mean the few influential elites. Never the general people.

[kageki]

Well, looks like you want to take up the issue again. I'll be happy to do so, because I actually read the article.

Basically, leaders of the U.S. Jewish community want to detach themselves of any charge that Jews are leading the buildup to war with Iran. This is to avoid a situation similar to the drum beating prior to Iraq where certain officials of the Likud party and prominent Jewish neoconservatives were figured in encouraging the Bush Administration to invade.

NOWHERE in the article does it mention that the Israeli government is unpopular because of the previous actions of a "small" band of neoconservatives and a few given officials. This is the conclusion that you are leaping to.

In your opinion, the Israeli government is unpopular because of pushes to increase U.S. aggression against Iraq and Iran.

In the greater consensus, the Israeli government is unpopular because of their failed war in Lebanon.

See? You were jumping to a conclusion.

-Sporanox

I've never made that conclusion. All I said was that the government was unpopular. I also posted another article where it showed the community in the US was against the war as well.

[kageki]

Ah, good morning from Asia. We're still at it, I see.

So, just to sum this up (in relation to the OP).....

Osama says he didn't do it in an interview - Check! He didn't do it.
Osama says Moussaoui wasn't AQ - Check! Not AQ
Osama says he did it - XXX! Wrong! Disinformationist propaganda.

I get it, now Kageki. Anything Osama says that supports your whackjob positions is proof. Anything Osama says that refutes the very essentials of 911 Truth is a lie.

Conveniently tinted glasses you have there.

Even going by the official theory there is inconsistency.

[Sporanox]

I've never made that conclusion. All I said was that the government was unpopular. I also posted another article where it showed the community in the US was against the war as well.

Well, you've got my vote on that. Olmert is not a very well supported man right now. But I'm pretty sure that wasn't your insinuation in its entirety.

Ah well. We agree on something.

As for 9/11 I think it was a collaboration between the British, US and Israel and when I say those countries I mean the few influential elites. Never the general people.

Bully for you. We have the freedom to think that stuff up even though it's totally untrue. Why invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Where's the profit? Don't just throw out the oil pipe canard you were giving another board member earlier.

-Sporanox

[Sporanox]

Even going by the official theory there is inconsistency.

Let's put it this way, kageki. Osama said he did it after he said he didn't. Also, he repeated that he did it quite a few times.

[Foolmewunz]

I thought Jews weren't a race?
<snip>



You're right. So that makes you an anti-semite, not a racist.

And since Japanese is also not a race, but a nationality, that means your entire rant on Darth being a racist, is... well, like so many other of your rants, a total crock.

Ohhhhh, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts. Tell 'em about it, Don Pardo!



Do you always hoist yourself on your own petard? (Foolish question - the answer is too obvious.)


So, do you intend to ever address the OP to this thread? Is Osama to be believed only when your personal credulity/incredulity meter says so? Could you give us the clues we're to look for when he's lying vs. telling the truth? And what do you think this will do to your moribund Truth Movement? (Or do you care about the moribund Truth Movement, or merely see it as a convenient outlet for your revisionist history?)

[LibraryLady]

Please tone this down and keep the thread civil and on track. I'm seeing multiple violations, including derailment and name-calling. If this continues, there is a possibility of a moderated thread or banishment to the dreaded AAH forum.

[LashL]

I'm not sure if this link will connect but the article can be found here:

www.lawrencewright.com/wrightNewJihadis.pdf (http://www.lawrencewright.com/wrightNewJihadis.pdf)





That link doesn't work (probably because of the lower case "w" after the forward slash) but here's the article:

http://www.lawrencewright.com/WrightNewJihadis.pdf

[CTM]

Thanks for fixing that. I hope lots of you read the article.

[kageki]

Well, you've got my vote on that. Olmert is not a very well supported man right now. But I'm pretty sure that wasn't your insinuation in its entirety.

Ah well. We agree on something.



Bully for you. We have the freedom to think that stuff up even though it's totally untrue. Why invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Where's the profit? Don't just throw out the oil pipe canard you were giving another board member earlier.

-Sporanox

Well you must be kidding yourself if you don't think oil plays a big role. It's for many reasons, but for Iraq it was about security of Israel amongst other reasons. It never made sense for the US to invade Iraq.

[kageki]

Let's put it this way, kageki. Osama said he did it after he said he didn't. Also, he repeated that he did it quite a few times.

Why would he deny it even? Don't you find it strange? There's no consistency.

[kageki]

You're right. So that makes you an anti-semite, not a racist.

And since Japanese is also not a race, but a nationality, that means your entire rant on Darth being a racist, is... well, like so many other of your rants, a total crock.

Ohhhhh, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts. Tell 'em about it, Don Pardo!



Do you always hoist yourself on your own petard? (Foolish question - the answer is too obvious.)


So, do you intend to ever address the OP to this thread? Is Osama to be believed only when your personal credulity/incredulity meter says so? Could you give us the clues we're to look for when he's lying vs. telling the truth? And what do you think this will do to your moribund Truth Movement? (Or do you care about the moribund Truth Movement, or merely see it as a convenient outlet for your revisionist history?)

Well I would debate about Japan, but whatever.

What's a petard. I can't keep up with the idiot dictionary.

I was just merely pointing out that he denied it at first and ever since then there hasn't been a mix up. Yes you should always be questioning everything. You know being skeptical?

Who cares about this "truth movement". People have always researched conspiracies.

[T.A.M.]

I believe Osama addressed this, off the record, with some journalist/author (the name escapes me....anyone), where he stated that he had initially denied being responsible purposefully, because this is what Israel always does (so he claims) when accused of something, and he wanted to do the same to one of Israel's allies.

Anyone have a link to this??


TAM:)

[Sporanox]

Well you must be kidding yourself if you don't think oil plays a big role.

But why? Where is your evidence that oil plays a big role? Iraqis are free to make deals with whoever they choose in today's world. In fact, that was the cause of a lot of political squabbling a few months ago when the Kurds broke off and started making private deals on their own.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that the amount of treasure that we've invested in Iraq up till now is considerably more than any oil profit we might get from it for some time. I could go further, but that's enough to chew on so far.

Why would he deny it even? Don't you find it strange? There's no consistency.

Except for his announcement in the days following September 11th that he didn't initiate the attacks but was "happy" they occurred, he's been pretty consistent.

-Sporanox

[T.A.M.]

pe·tard /pɪˈtɑrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pi-tahrd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.
2. a kind of firecracker.
3. (initial capital letter) Also called Flying Dustbin. a British spigot mortar of World War II that fired a 40-pound (18 kg) finned bomb, designed to destroy pillboxes and other concrete obstacles.
—Idiom
4. hoist by or with one's own petard, hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/petard

TAM:)

[Tbone]

What's a petard. I can't keep up with the idiot dictionary.

Don't you think it would be smart to look up a new word to you in a dictionary before saying someone is an idiot for using it?

[Sporanox]

Ah, thanks for covering that one TAM. :)

Anyway...

Yes you should always be questioning everything. You know being skeptical?

Who cares about this "truth movement". People have always researched conspiracies.

You questioned the story, for no reason. We questioned you. You failed at answering.

Yes, people have always researched conspiracies. In fact, we do that all the time. And guess what we find from the research?

-Sporanox

[kageki]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/petard

TAM:)

Damn thanks. With all the made up words in here it just sounded like another one like "woo".

[pomeroo]

Why would he deny it even? Don't you find it strange? There's no consistency.


He would deny it to prevent the U.S. from overthrowing the Taliban.

Duh!

[kageki]

Ah, thanks for covering that one TAM. :)

Anyway...



You questioned the story, for no reason. We questioned you. You failed at answering.

Yes, people have always researched conspiracies. In fact, we do that all the time. And guess what we find from the research?

-Sporanox

I questioned why he was not charged for 9/11 to which I have not received an adequate response.

[pomeroo]

They can make up evidence though.

I mean you still believe Oswald shot JFK right? :rolleyes:


The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and acted alone is overwhelming. Over the past forty-four years, absolutely nothing has emerged to challenge that conclusion.

[twinstead]

So. OBL has freedom to move as he wishes in Afghanistan, hold training camps, whatever. His hosts? The Taliban.

Can any rational person figure out why he may at first be hesitant to do anything that may imperil the Taliban? As we all know, Arabs don't value the concept of hosts at all, do they? LOL

Frankly, I think one would have to be an idiot to find something suspicious about OBL's comments immediately following 911. Exactly what else should he have said?

[kageki]

He would deny it to prevent the U.S. from overthrowing the Taliban.

Duh!

The thing is I don't think OBL is stupid enough to actually even do something like 9/11 in the first place that would guarantee the wraith of the US military. Embassy bombings and 9/11 just doesn't compare.

[kageki]

The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and acted alone is overwhelming. Over the past forty-four years, absolutely nothing has emerged to challenge that conclusion.

Ok :D

[twinstead]

The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and acted alone is overwhelming. Over the past forty-four years, absolutely nothing has emerged to challenge that conclusion.

Oh crap, what a can of worms that opens. I can see the response now:

"Evidence? Show me that evidence!"

as if the last 44 years didn't happen...

[T.A.M.]

He has not been charged for 9/11, in all likelihood because:

1. He was not the one who ran the planes into the buildings.
2. He is the ringleader of the organization that was responsible. An organization made up of loosely linked "cells" of jihadists.
3. KSM was the alleged "mastermind" behind 9/11.
4. It requires significant proof to prove that the ringleader is guilty of a crime committed by one (or more) of his followers.
4. They only have one chance to try and convict him (double jeopardy) so they have to make sure they have all they need to do so.
5. They want him for other crimes, as seen on his wanted poster, and these crimes would be enough to capture him, get him to the USA, and prosecute.

Do you not get the Al Capone comparison now? How is he any different than Al Capone, in this regard?

TAM:)

[twinstead]

The thing is I don't think OBL is stupid enough to actually even do something like 9/11 in the first place that would guarantee the wraith of the US military. Embassy bombings and 9/11 just doesn't compare.

And exactly what makes you think OBL gives a crap about that 'wraith' of the US military? :eye-poppi

[twinstead]

Do you not get the Al Capone comparison now? How is he any different than Al Capone, in this regard?


OBL is Saudi, Capone was American, silly. ;)

[pomeroo]

The thing is I don't think OBL is stupid enough to actually even do something like 9/11 in the first place that would guarantee the wraith of the US military. Embassy bombings and 9/11 just doesn't compare.


His assessment of America was that we simply lacked the will to fight back. He watched us retreat from Lebanon, turn tail and run from the Sudan, and offer no response to the attack on the USS Cole. Although my Democratic friends will argue with me on this point, I believe that if Al Gore had occupied the White House on 9/11/01, we would have been treated to weeks of empty bluster, a volley of cruise missiles directed at nebulous Taliban "targets," and endless wrangling in the U.N--followed by nothing. The immediate rise of the Orwellian-titled "peace" movement on campuses across the nation, combined with warnings about an Afghan "quagmire" from official Eastern liberal establishment voices such as R.W. Apple's and the incessant prattle about the Patriot Act, leads me to believe that a Democratic-led War on Jihadist Terror would have been indistinguishable from no war at all. But, I'll concede that my opinion belongs in the politics forum.

[Sporanox]

His assessment of America was that we simply lacked the will to fight back. He watched us retreat from Lebanon, turn tail and run from the Sudan, and offer no response to the attack on the USS Cole. Although my Democratic friends will argue with me on this point, I believe that if Al Gore had occupied the White House on 9/11/01, we would have been treated to weeks of empty bluster, a volley of cruise missiles directed at nebulous Taliban "targets," and endless wrangling in the U.N--followed by nothing. The immediate rise of the Orwellian-titled "peace" movement on campuses across the nation, combined with warnings about an Afghan "quagmire" from official Eastern liberal establishment voices such as R.W. Apple's and the incessant prattle about the Patriot Act, leads me to believe that a Democratic-led War on Jihadist Terror would have been indistinguishable from no war at all. But, I'll concede that my opinion belongs in the politics forum.

As an aside, in my government studies class we examined an academic opinion that proposed bin Laden actually wanted to draw the U.S. into a protracted war not unlike the one we're in now. That's not to say I thought that military action was wrong - it's just that bin Laden might have figured that he was getting into a win-win option, with a lethargic response from the U.S. being the better one.

[HereticHulk]

I would venture to guess the OBL is dead.

But since he is the boogey man for the WOT, these tapes will keep surfacing methinks.

[T.A.M.]

I am glad you stated you "venture to guess".

TAM:)

[Foolmewunz]

I would venture to guess the OBL is dead.

But since he is the boogey man for the WOT, these tapes will keep surfacing methinks.

Oh, good. I was hoping we'd get away from that pesky evidence stuff and get around to some good guessing.

[T.A.M.]

I think its a crying shame what the CIA does to its assets...killing them and all...poor Tim Osman.

TAM:)

[kageki]

And exactly what makes you think OBL gives a crap about that 'wraith' of the US military? :eye-poppi

No one likes to be invaded.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
And exactly what makes you think OBL gives a crap about that 'wraith' of the US military?
No one likes to be invaded.


Referencing my note about the government course earlier, being invaded was perhaps a part of Osama's alternative calculations.

-Sporanox

[kageki]

Referencing my note about the government course earlier, being invaded was perhaps a part of Osama's alternative calculations.

-Sporanox

Right I think Osama made a speech to that degree where he says he's happy the Americans are over there so he can kill more or something like that. I have also heard that since US response was weak concerning the embassy bombings that OBL viewed the US as "paper tigers", but I doubt anyone would be deluded into thinking a military response wouldn't be coming from 9/11.

OBL's main goal was to get rid of US military presence. Prior terrorists attacks are all supposed to be in response to this. He has committed terrorists attacks before, but not anything to the degree of 9/11 which was sure to bring a swift response. It doesn't seem to make sense why he would go this far. Muslims are also forbidden to kill women and children even in battle.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm
http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm
http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html

[yodaluver28]

No one likes to be invaded.

I'm sure the people of Afghanistan didn't want to be invaded. Bin Laden wasn't one of them and is quite a different story. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade because he believed that the Mujahadeen(which he was a part of and partially funded in the '80's) had not only defeated the Soviets and forced their retreat from Afghanistan but almost single-handedly brought the Soviet Union to it's downfall. He believed that he could do the same with the US. Please note that it took nearly a decade to defeat the Soviets. Bin Laden was willing to be patient in order to bring down the US. He still is. He didn't expect to win right away. He expected to gain control of the country back after the US left, either by defeat or simply lack of will to keep fighting. It's only been six and a half years and the Taliban is already resurgent in many areas of Afghanistan. The Taliban could come out on top if the US doesn't have the will or means to stay and beat them back down. The winner of the war for Afghanistan has not been declared yet. That alone is a victory for Bin Laden, that they haven't been completely crushed into oblivion by the US yet. They are willing to take heavy losses in the pursuit of victory, as long as they recruit enough to replace the dead and they are willing to wait decades if necessary. We are far more impatient, that's a weakness in this situation.

As for the Muslims being forbidden from killing women and children, Bin Laden considers himself an Imam and thus capable of interpreting religious texts himself. In an interview with Al Jazeera in 2000, Bin Laden made it clear that, to him, civilians of all stripes, including women and children, were fair game since his organization was acting out of vengeance for acts supposedly perpetrated against Islam. In Jihad, revenge killing of women and children is permitted.

[kageki]

I'm sure the people of Afghanistan didn't want to be invaded. Bin Laden wasn't one of them and is quite a different story. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade because he believed that the Mujahadeen(which he was a part of and partially funded in the '80's) had not only defeated the Soviets and forced their retreat from Afghanistan but almost single-handedly brought the Soviet Union to it's downfall. He believed that he could do the same with the US. Please note that it took nearly a decade to defeat the Soviets. Bin Laden was willing to be patient in order to bring down the US. He still is. He didn't expect to win right away. He expected to gain control of the country back after the US left, either by defeat or simply lack of will to keep fighting. It's only been six and a half years and the Taliban is already resurgent in many areas of Afghanistan. The Taliban could come out on top if the US doesn't have the will or means to stay and beat them back down. The winner of the war for Afghanistan has not been declared yet. That alone is a victory for Bin Laden, that they haven't been completely crushed into oblivion by the US yet. They are willing to take heavy losses in the pursuit of victory, as long as they recruit enough to replace the dead and they are willing to wait decades if necessary. We are far more impatient, that's a weakness in this situation.

As for the Muslims being forbidden from killing women and children, Bin Laden considers himself an Imam and thus capable of interpreting religious texts himself. In an interview with Al Jazeera in 2000, Bin Laden made it clear that, to him, civilians of all stripes, including women and children, were fair game since his organization was acting out of vengeance for acts supposedly perpetrated against Islam. In Jihad, revenge killing of women and children is permitted.

The problem is you never defeat an enemy by inviting them to your country. It is the other way around. In the case of the Afghan war they were defending themselves from the Soviets who were invading their country. That is to say it was unprovoked. There is nothing to indicate that OBL wanted to do the "same" with the US if that is to mean to take down the country. It is not the same comparison at all. As mentioned earlier, the primary goal has been to remove US military presence from the mideast such as the military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Are you basing this all on OBL's various interviews?

I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code. Even if this jihad thing is really true you can be sure such belief would be considered "extreme".
I'm really wondering how much of it is even true. How do we know what OBL is really saying? People still say "wipe off the map" when Ahmajenad never even uttered those exacts word.

[chillzero]

I have split off a lot of bickering to AAH. The next step for this thread will be moderation. Please keep to topic, be civil, and do not personalise arguments.

[jhunter1163]

C'mon you guys. Chill's got her mod hat on. We better be good.

According to Truthers, if Osama is the head of al-Qaeda, and he says al-Qaeda did it, he's still not responsible. But Bush is the head of the US government, and he says the US didn't do it, but IT'S STILL AN INSIED JORB!!!!1111!!111!!eleventy!

[twinstead]

No one likes to be invaded.

Unless being invaded is exactly what you DO want.

[twinstead]

I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code

I don't think we need a lesson in Islam. We're not idiots. As a group, we probably know more about Islam than you do. We don't fall for the kind of misinformation you are talking about any more than the misinformation conspiracy theorists spew.

So, are you saying that Islamic extremists who have twisted the peaceful message Islam into hate and intolerance don't exist?

[defaultdotxbe]

I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code.
christianity is also a peaceful religion with a strict moral code, so i suppose the crusades were all false flags too?

[Gravy]

I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all.Here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo). Google still not working for you? You should get that fixed.

I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code. Even if this jihad thing is really true you can be sure such belief would be considered "extreme".I guess you won't be contributing to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust (http://www.samharris.org/site/security_trust/) (the subject of a James Randi SWIFT entry yesterday), that a teacher should be imprisoned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm) for allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammed, that the supreme religious leader of Iran declaring fatwa on a man who wrote a book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_rushdie) is okay, that Ibn Warraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq) is a secularist shill, and that Ahmadinejad (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD174807) is your hero.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code. Even if this jihad thing is really true you can be sure such belief would be considered "extreme".

That would explain thousands of Muslims marching in protest for a teach who let a little boy name a bear Mohammed to be sentenced to death. Clearly it's only a few extremists eh? And as usual you don't see any of the leaders in those areas speaking up. No denouncing of such brutal behavior from a religion. How very peaceful. Kinda reminds you of how the KKK justified their actions through another peaceful religion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

christianity is also a peaceful religion with a strict moral code, so i suppose the crusades were all false flags too?
Totally, it was the Jooooos again. :rolleyes:

[Mince]

You can torture a confession out of someone. Like this Al Qaeda guy:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=378293&rel_no=1

It's really not hard evidence when you think about it. What if these tapes are fake? Isn't that a US military jacket that he is wearing?


Stop with the fantastic scenarios. I'm an empiricist. Prove the video was fake or that the admission was coerced. They can't even find Osama, yet they somehow tortured him into confession!? That is a camouflaged jacket, easily available to almost anyone in the world.



ETA: Wow, these threads do get on, don't they? Take a day off and a reply to the first page ends up on the seventh.

[T.A.M.]

trust me, you didn't miss a thing. I skipped right from page 2 to 7, and I have NO DOUBT that nothing revolutionary was said...the arguments, etc...are all the same...no headway.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

We almost had this thread back on topic. Please let's not get sidetracked again into a debate on islam and the current issues - take that to one of the other threads and/or sections.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No one likes to be invaded.


Once again, why would OBL care? Al-Qaeda is an organization, not a nation; it can't be invaded...

[yodaluver28]

I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code. Even if this jihad thing is really true you can be sure such belief would be considered "extreme".

This has little to do with Islam itself, it has to do with an organization of fundamental extremists self-serving and violent interpretation of it. Sadly, that violent interpretation has been gaining ground in the Muslim world for decades. It's still seems to be a minority but a significant and growing minority.


Are you basing this all on OBL's various interviews?

Alot of it, yes. Bin Laden is not shy about his beliefs or intentions. Before 9/11, he gladly spoke with numerous journalists from various new agencies around the world, including ABC News here in the states, on many occasions. Some interviews were written, others full blown video interviews that lasted over an hour. His beliefs seem only to be a secret to those who seek to blame his crimes on someone else, something even he has no desire to do. He is proud of what he is and what he's done. Do you know or even understand that? He thinks he's a hero for what he's done. He believes that he has a special place in seventh heaven waiting for him as a result of the attacks that he's planned and funded against the west. This is not, I repeat, not a secret.


I'm really wondering how much of it is even true. How do we know what OBL is really saying?

How about because he wants us to know? He wants us to know what he thinks, what he wants, and wants to intimidate us into meeting his demands of suffer the consequences? The man openly declared war on us twice in the '90's. We didn't take him as seriously as we should have but he did it. He even called a press conference to announce it and explain why.


People still say "wipe off the map" when Ahmajenad never even uttered those exacts word.

You're right, he never uttered those exact words. But that's just the semantics of language translation, a translation released by the Iranian government itself. The correct translation of his comment is:

"The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time."

And the phrase "wiped off the map" was said by him in a speech he gave discussing the issue:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini)) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

There is really no room for doubt as to where Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden stand in their beliefs. That's the bottom line.

[Dr Adequate]

I questioned why he was not charged for 9/11 to which I have not received an adequate response. * sigh *

Yes you have.

As has been explained to you patiently, at length, and in detail, he has not been charged because there is not enough evidence to charge him.

How difficult can this be to grasp?

[twinstead]

All right. I did it.

Are you happy?