or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should the 9/11 museum drop all mention of "Islamic" terrorism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should the 9/11 museum drop all mention of "Islamic" terrorism? - Page 2

Poll Results: Is the 9/11 museum right to remove any mention of "Islamic" terror in relation to the 9/11 attack?

Poll expired: Sep 10, 2014  
  • 64% (11)
    No
  • 29% (5)
    Yes
  • 5% (1)
    Maybe
  • 0% (0)
    Other (please explain in comments)
17 Total Votes  
post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
 

 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"

~ Sir Winston Churchill.


Catholicism is just as dangerous, and the Pope just as evil. Maybe even more so if you consider reality vs. perception.

post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 


Catholicism is just as dangerous, and the Pope just as evil. Maybe even more so if you consider reality vs. perception.

 

That is utter stupidity.  You can certainly criticize Catholicism, as it has many faults.  But to compare modern Catholicism with radical Islam is an absolute joke. There is no global Catholic terrorism.  The Pope doesn't call for innocents to be slaughtered, nor does he propose a Catholic version of a Caliphate.  Catholicism does not condemn Muslims, require their conversion, or target them because of their faith.  In fact, Catholicism does not do this with any religion.  Better still, no religion I know of does so--other than radical Islam.   Stating that the Catholic Church is "as dangerous" as radical Islam is literally the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

And how long ago was that said or written? A century ago or more?

 

Churchill was definitely a wise man, far ahead of his time.

 

Well... since he was PM during WW2, and that's around the time most of his famous "quotes" originated... It'd be less than a century.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Well... since he was PM during WW2, and that's around the time most of his famous "quotes" originated... It'd be less than a century.

 

I do know the answer now and it was way before WWII. It was even before WW I.

 

Churchill wrote a book in 1899 called The River War. That quote (rabies) seems like a simplification of what he wrote in his book.

 

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. 

post #45 of 80

So it would seem Churchill was comparing fanaticism of ANY sort to a rabid dog ... that would apply to ANY religion, not just Islam.  

In this case he was expounding on Islam, but he was careful to word the phrase such that it clearly indicated Islam was not the ONLY idea worthy of this comparison.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post
 

So it would seem Churchill was comparing fanaticism of ANY sort to a rabid dog ... that would apply to ANY religion, not just Islam.  

In this case he was expounding on Islam, but he was careful to word the phrase such that it clearly indicated Islam was not the ONLY idea worthy of this comparison.

Nope. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War

 

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man ashydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.[5]:248–250

post #47 of 80

Well that doesn't really refute my statement, does it?

 

As i said... in the case of that book, where the wrote was mined, he was certainly writing about Islam (accurately).  But he was careful to write that it was islam's FANATICISM that was comparable to a rabid dog... not merely the religion itself.  And fanaticism (the trait comparable to a rabid dog) can certainly be found elsewhere, among followers of other ideas besides islam.)

 

That same fanatical frenzy can be found within Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church), in Buddhism (Aum Shinrikyo), and others.  You wouldn't even have to limit it to religious ideas, as politics outside of religion has certainly bred enough frenzied fanatics to fill a page.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

That is utter stupidity.  You can certainly criticize Catholicism, as it has many faults.  But to compare modern Catholicism with radical Islam is an absolute joke. There is no global Catholic terrorism.  The Pope doesn't call for innocents to be slaughtered, nor does he propose a Catholic version of a Caliphate.  Catholicism does not condemn Muslims, require their conversion, or target them because of their faith.  In fact, Catholicism does not do this with any religion.  Better still, no religion I know of does so--other than radical Islam.   Stating that the Catholic Church is "as dangerous" as radical Islam is literally the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. 

 

Yes, I think this is basically correct. Catholicism went through its "dangerous" period some time ago. In many western countries, the various Christian churches have slowly receded as the balance has adjusted and societies have come to value secular pluralism in government.

 

This is not the case with Islam, which is still very much in the heat of a reformation period I think (Christopher Hitchens has talked about this, and I tend to agree with him - the current schisms between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam are a significant indication of this).

 

As a side note, fanaticism can certainly be found in many religions - but as crazy as they are, the Westboro Baptist Church is not committing suicide bombings, or trying to conquer most of Iraq. Nor are they the head of a national government, responsible for implementing religious law on millions of citizens. So not all fanaticism - at least in practical terms - is created equal.

post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

... So not all fanaticism - at least in practical terms - is created equal.

 

True, but it (fanaticism) does all fit the quote as being dangerous... it has the same potential to become power-hungry or deadly or whatever. (not all danger is equal either)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #50 of 80

The original question: "Should the 9/11 museum drop all mention of Islamic terrorism"?

 

Americans have been taught/indoctrinated since the late 1940s that "all terrorists are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists". To include the term "Islamic" is therefore redundant.

 

Regarding the attacks of 9/11, quite the most amazing thing happened, and nobody has ever commented on it publicly. If we are to believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 - this is what is claimed:

 

At 8-40 am on 9/11/2001, not a single solitary person in any department, agency or authority within the US power structure -military, security intelligence, law enforcement, etc.  had any idea or notion what was about to happen. Life was totally normal, a fine sunny morning on the East coast. Then, all hell breaks loose. Two hours later, we had the entire story delivered by the media, uniformly and neatly packaged, regarding virtually every aspect of the attacks from who was responsible, right down to the exact mechanism that was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center. We were even told this the attack "bears all the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network". It didn't actually, but since most people, either in the US or the Mid East had never heard of "al Qaeda", it didn't matter a jot. 

 

Within 24 hours, the FBI had positively identified all the alleged hijackers, via documents left conspicuously in rental cars, al-Suqami's passport, to DNA matching and more. From a state of complete unawareness and knowing absolutely squat, to knowing everything - including photos, names and addresses - what an incredible turn around...... Bingo! The greatest crime on American soil had been solved, wrapped up, in toto, within 24 hours, with seemingly no investigation or forensic work required. Now all we had to do, was go to war - which had - so conveniently - already been planned - with 95% of the public clamoring for bloody revenge.

 

Just as amazing - nothing essentially changed from this original version of the story, (barring a few minor details) from the perspective of the viewing public. In our individual and collective state of shock and awe, nobody wanted to know any differently.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #51 of 80
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
Americans have been taught/indoctrinated since the late 1940s that "all terrorists are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists". To include the term "Islamic" is therefore redundant.


That sounds wrong. Fundamentally so.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #52 of 80

So drop "Islamic" and just call it "Religious Terrorism".  Either one works.

The fact is, the terrorists use religion (in this case Islam) as the justification for their actions.

 

Just saying "religious terrorism" would be accurate ... but specifying "Islamic terrorism" is MORE accurate.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is utter stupidity.  You can certainly criticize Catholicism, as it has many faults.  But to compare modern Catholicism with radical Islam is an absolute joke. There is no global Catholic terrorism.  The Pope doesn't call for innocents to be slaughtered, nor does he propose a Catholic version of a Caliphate.  Catholicism does not condemn Muslims, require their conversion, or target them because of their faith.  In fact, Catholicism does not do this with any religion.  Better still, no religion I know of does so--other than radical Islam.   Stating that the Catholic Church is "as dangerous" as radical Islam is literally the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. 

Not now they're not, but have been in the past or did you forget a little thing called the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 


That sounds wrong. Fundamentally so.

As in "factually wrong" or "correct but morally wrong"?

 

Discrimination against Muslims in the United States has a long history dating back to the early 1900s. Although successive Washington administrations flirted with Islamists overseas from the 1950s to the 1970s as a counterweight to communists and nationalists, Muslims within the US continued to be viewed with suspicion, which ramped up in 1972 when US President Richard Nixon inaugurated “Operation Boulder,” giving law enforcement agencies a free hand to investigate immigrants from Muslim-majority countries for possible involvement in “terrorist” activities.   

 

Watch this documentary, and read the book of the same name.

 

Interesting interview here

 

More evidence re. study here

 

And in the UK....

 

A really good read here, re. the burgeoning Islamophobia Industry

 

Hatred of Arabs - admitted by "any good Jew".

 

Plenty of hate crimes in the US (Handsandon etc. will love this) 

 

"Why we hate them" - article re. documentary in "The American Conservative".

 

****

 

OK I'll stop there, this list could go into next week.... but lets also add that all of the news we Americans receive from the Mid East has been translated (from Farsi, Arabic, Urdu etc) for US consumption by the Mid East Media Research Institute, aka MEMRI. Its founders, Meyrav Wurmser and Ygdal Carmon - hardline rightwing Israeli expansionism proponents linked intimately to the US military establishment - have ensured that this organization, via its translation  services, provides biased, anti-Arab/Muslim or pro-Israeli content, and that is what the American public have been been routinely fed since its founding in 1995.... not exactly "fair and balanced". Meyrav Wurmser's is married to Swiss-American David Wurmser, former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney. In turn, a huge proportion of senior officials in the Cheney/Bush administration of 2001 (are) Israeli citizens, with dual US citizenship. In 2008, an incomplete list was as follows:

 

Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director – Ken Melman
National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
White House Speechwriter – David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis.....

 

To which nation are/were these senior dual Israeli/US citizens most loyal? America or Israel? Imagine if the US government suddenly became populated with a long line of dual German, or Bolivian, or Chinese, for example, citizens? People would be, at the very least, scratching their heads wondering WTF...but in the case of Israel - cant say anything - or be branded anti-semitic or a holocaust denier.

 

On a recent history note:  Which nation is so privileged within the US powers-that-be that they could even attack a US Navy ship, without reason or provocation, and get away with it, 100%? Imagine if the USS Liberty stunt had been pulled by Egypt, Syria or Lebanon?

 

*

 

The anti-Arab bias extends right to the very top of the US power structure, if it hasn't already for decades, and is currently firmly entrenched in the US media establishment, and has been for a very long time - at least the late 1940s. As a result, selling "Muslim terrorism" or "9/11" and other related stuff is as welcomed and accepted by the people in general as readily as a glass of ice cool water is received by a sweating marathoner in 95 degree heat....

 

I bought it too.... for a while.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #55 of 80

So how do we reconcile the tenant of ‘preach peace when weak; preach war when strong’ inherent in Islam, particularly when considering the called-for extermination of all those who reject the faith?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post
 

So drop "Islamic" and just call it "Religious Terrorism".  Either one works.

The fact is, the terrorists use religion (in this case Islam) as the justification for their actions.

 

Just saying "religious terrorism" would be accurate ... but specifying "Islamic terrorism" is MORE accurate.

 

There is no HARD evidence with a verifiable chain of custody or certified time stamp, that *any* religious extremists successfully boarded those 4 airliners. No ticket purchase records, no cash or credit card transactions, no seat assignments with Arab names, no *verifiable* photographic or film/video evidence of any of the alleged 19 going through security on that morning at the two airports in question. Everything we were told about that was single sourced or hearsay. Secondly, even if those 19 alleged hijackers somehow managed to board those planes (by osmosis perhaps?) - there is very little credible evidence that any of them were in the least bit religious; the alleged ringleader (Atta) was a hard drinking, coke snorting, gold-jewelry wearing, gambling man who frequented strip clubs and casinos... and preferred to hang out in former GOP super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's casino yacht rather than the local mosque. Not exactly "Allahu Akbar material".....

The sole "evidence" regarding the hijackers' background and circumstances - that we have been informed via our weasel corporate media, has been extracted via torture in "extraordinary rendition" centers, some in nations with a horrific human rights record as bad as it gets (but they are OUR allies, of course). As we all know, evidence obtained by torturing people is disallowed by a real US court of law. To get around this snarly problem, kangaroo courts aka "military tribunals" were set up, to avoid the numerous problems and cans of worms which will be opened in a proper, public trial - using full subpoena power.... something the powers-that-be have gone to great lengths to avoid when it came down to 9/11 and any subsequent "investigation"  (lol)

People can quote all the officially sanctioned stuff, using FBI links and 10s of thousands of pages about the alleged hijackers and their pre-9/11 travels, contacts and activities - but its all baseless - single sourced, embellished and extracted using torture. Unreliable would be an apt descriptor - or "fiction"... or BULLSHIT.

*

And to preempt the standard infantile "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem, please do try not to go there. I know the temptation to name-call, invoke the "tinfoil hat" etc. accusations must be overwhelming in these unquestioning, Orwellian "follow our leaders or else" days, but I am not theorizing about who did it, because I do not know. Let me also point out that there is a yawning gulf between "free inquiry", and "pointing the finger at a specific party" - but today, the two concepts have become synonymous in the area of "possible wrongdoing in high places" - raise a question that presents difficulties, or has implications, and you're rounded on as being a traitor or a nutcase..... just like in Germany in the 1930s.

 

I am just pointing out that we were clearly lied to, about *every aspect* of those attacks, on multiple occasions. The majority of the senior 9/11 Commission members and panelists - including the two co-chairs - have said much the same thing. But for what reason(s) we were lied to so completely and comprehensively, I have no idea - and this is not the appropriate thread to speculate on such.


Edited by sammi jo - 7/23/14 at 2:58pm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #57 of 80
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And to preempt the standard infantile  conspiracy theorist ad hominem...

 

In what way is it an ad hominem? It’s a descriptive term for someone who supposes a coverup has occurred.

 

Godwin’s Law, however…

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

So how do we reconcile the tenant of ‘preach peace when weak; preach war when strong’ inherent in Islam, particularly when considering the called-for extermination of all those who reject the faith?

 

Looking up that phrase "preach peace when weak; preach war when strong" - only three references come up in a search engine:

 

1. ME Forum - Daniel Pipes. Pipes is a known Islamophobe who amongst a number of his cohorts in the pro-Israeli neoconservative movement, praised and sympathized with Norway terrorist Anders Breivik for his Oslo bombing outrage and the shooting rampage of 69 kids a few years back. 

 

2. PJ Tatler - On its list of contributors is Michael Ledeen - another raging hate-monger of the Daniel Pipes school - who also thinks that Iran was behind 9/11 (!)

 

3. Islam Exposed - blatant hatred, vilifying all 2 billion muslims as subhuman jihadists hellbent on murdering anyone not of their persuasion.

 

Can you find something from Islam itself, rather than its enemies, that promotes this philosophy?

 

Actually... the phrase "preach peace when weak; preach war when strong" appears more reminiscent of the position taken by successive US administrations in modern history - the way we have used our military to go on the rampage against numerous countries which have been of zero threat to US national security - the playground bully tactic of crushing those who are weak and talking with nations which have a military capability.... ie cowardice .

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

In what way is it an ad hominem? It’s a descriptive term for someone who supposes a coverup has occurred.

 

Godwin’s Law, however…

 

So, in your definition, the greater majority of the 9/11 Commissioners, including its two co-chairs, are worthy of being name called as "tin foil hatters" and "wacko conspiracy nuts"?

 

Here is a sampling of what these Commissioners and panelists have said about their own "inquiry":

 

*******

(1) "The greater part of the Commission's findings "are untrue"...

“The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA the White House "obstructed our investigation". Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements".

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

"It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at FAA's New York Center on the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened".

all the above from John Farmer, Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission.

(2) " I don't believe for a minute we got everything right - that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue". 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton

(3) "Lee and I write in our book that, uh, we think that the Commission was set up to fail. Because we had, um, not enough money, we didn't have enough time. We had been appointed by the most partisan people in Washington, the leaders in the House and the Senate" 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Kean

(4) Former Sen. Tom Daschle said:

"Vice President Cheney requested (him) that there be no investigation into the 9/11 attacks".

(5) "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey

(6) "There's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people".

and “I am appalled that the DoD IG would expect the American people to actually consider this a full and thorough investigation”.

Rep. Curt Weldon

(7) "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence". Sen. Mark Dayton, Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security.

(8) "...the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation". Rep. Ron Paul, Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee.

(9) "We purposely put together a staff that had, in a way, conflicts of interests". 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman

(10) "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting". 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer

(11) "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

and... “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened".

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland, who subsequently resigned from the 9/11 Commission in disgust.

(12) "...the "9/11 Commission findings.... raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the Commission historically insignificant itself". Former Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh:

(13) A document discovered in the National Archives shows that, in a memo to the 9/11 Commission’s chairman and vice-chairman on false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials about the failure of US air defenses, the commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow failed to mention the possibility of a criminal referral. This supports allegations that Zelikow “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation.

 

****

So much for the "9/11 Commission". In the words of those who ran it, it was a coverup and fraud of the worst order, not worth the paper it was printed on - a deliberate hijack of a federal investigation. A national disgrace, a 571 page lie.

Still want to go there? It's not MY position - its theirs. I am just relaying information which has been out there for quite awhile, but hardly anyone has heard, because of our wonderful, free, transparent media.... ROTFL (?/!!)

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #60 of 80
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Can you find something from Islam itself, rather than its enemies, that promotes this philosophy?

 

Actually... the phrase "preach peace when weak; preach war when strong" appears more reminiscent of the position taken by successive US administrations in modern history - the way we have used our military to go on the rampage against numerous countries which have been of zero threat to US national security - the playground bully tactic of crushing those who are weak and talking with nations which have a military capability.... ie cowardice .

 

The Koran, maybe? I could very well be misreading it.

 

[ 4: 77 ] Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! a party of them fear men as they ought to have feared Allah, or ( even ) with a greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? Wherefore didst Thou not grant us a delay to a near end? Say: The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for him who guards ( against evil ); and you shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone. 
[ 9: 29 ] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

So, in your definition, the greater majority of the 9/11 Commissioners, including its two co-chairs, are worthy of being name called as "tin foil hatters" and "wacko conspiracy nuts"?

 

See, you’re used to arguing with the PO regulars. I don’t fall for this garbage.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

The Koran, maybe? I could very well be misreading it.

 

 

 

See, you’re used to arguing with the PO regulars. I don’t fall for this garbage.

 

A little more specific please?  What "garbage" are you referring to? 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #62 of 80
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

A little more specific please?  What "garbage" are you referring to? 


“conspiracy theorist” ≠ imply “tin foil hatter” or “wacko”. The latter are exclusively negative.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 


“conspiracy theorist” ≠ imply “tin foil hatter” or “wacko”. The latter are exclusively negative.

 

Earlier, you said: "It’s a descriptive term for someone who supposes a coverup has occurred" - ie conspiracy theorist.

 

However, since the 1963 assassination of JFK, the term "conspiracy theorist" has been broadly cultivated to imply, in mainstream understanding, that anyone who postulates an alternative to what is promoted officially, to be crazy, wacko or tinfoil hatter. In other words "conspiracy theorist” ≣ imply “tin foil hatter” or “wacko”.  And, as I said in a subsequent post, one doesn't even have to even point the finger of blame - all that's required to get "ad-hominemed" is to ask a question which implies a problem, inaccuracy or untruth, regarding an official position regarding a (controversial) event... and people automatically jerk the knees and blindly equate the two positions. Its a very effective catch all for those who don't have the time to think, or read beyond the headlines and sports pages.

 

If the above quotes from the co-chairs and senior 9/11 Commissioners were read to most people - out of context - they would automatically assume they came from 9/11 skeptics.

 

Go figure. We've been royally "Goebbelsized".

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post
 

So drop "Islamic" and just call it "Religious Terrorism".  Either one works.

The fact is, the terrorists use religion (in this case Islam) as the justification for their actions.

 

Just saying "religious terrorism" would be accurate ... but specifying "Islamic terrorism" is MORE accurate.

 

I think both points are correct - one as specific and one as general.

 

In general terms, you might say that "terrorism" is conducted on the basis of religious belief and (perhaps with a combination of) political belief. For those with a strong religious point of view, these two concepts are inherently intertwined (and are perhaps the same, especially if your political view is a theocratic one).

 

But then, you can look at specific instances of terrorism and be more particular about them. For example, you could talk about a terrorist act motivated by Islamic ideology versus an act motivated by Catholic ideology.

 

Is there a value in saying "terrorism" versus "Islamic terrorism" in regard to 9/11?

I don't think so, unless your only motivation is to be more vague or to cause less offense. 

post #65 of 80

It's terrorism under the guise of religion. Let's not conflate the two.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
 

It's terrorism under the guise of religion. Let's not conflate the two.

 

I agree with you in part, but we should associate the two where it is relevant (i.e. where a religious belief provides the justification and/or denotes the underlying reasoning behind said terrorism).

 

I think in any analysis of terrorism, it's important to consider the underlying motives (whether they are religious, political, ethnic, etc...)

post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

I agree with you in part, but we should associate the two where it is relevant (i.e. where a religious belief provides the justification and/or denotes the underlying reasoning behind said terrorism).

 

I think in any analysis of terrorism, it's important to consider the underlying motives (whether they are religious, political, ethnic, etc...)

 

Have you read Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America"?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

 

It seems to me like his motives were not purely religious in nature. So why call him an "Islamic Terrorist"? It's not entirely accurate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
 

 

Have you read Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America"?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

 

It seems to me like his motives were not purely religious in nature. So why call him an "Islamic Terrorist"? It's not entirely accurate.

Yes, I have read this letter. There are a couple of points to make about it though, which I'd consider to be the low hanging fruit in terms of critique.

 

Firstly, the letter is prefixed with clear religious justification for violence.

Secondly, the political aspects of the letter are certainly written from a particular religious perspective, which is underscored by the second half of the letter...which explicitly states - repeatedly - the specific Islamic justifications and reasoning behind Al-Qaeda's violence against America. He not only uses religious justification for political motives, but he then specifically uses religion as a motive in and of itself. One does not have to glean this from between lines of text; it is stated explicitly and clearly.

 

So, there is a very significant sense in which the letter justifies the concept of talking about "Islamic terrorism" or "terrorism justified by Islam" (however you want to specifically word that). To take Islam out of the equation is to take out the core principles cited by Osama himself.

post #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

Yes, I have read this letter. There are a couple of points to make about it though, which I'd consider to be the low hanging fruit in terms of critique.

 

Firstly, the letter is prefixed with clear religious justification for violence.

Secondly, the political aspects of the letter are certainly written from a particular religious perspective, which is underscored by the second half of the letter...which explicitly states - repeatedly - the specific Islamic justifications and reasoning behind Al-Qaeda's violence against America. He not only uses religious justification for political motives, but he then specifically uses religion as a motive in and of itself. One does not have to glean this from between lines of text; it is stated explicitly and clearly.

 

So, there is a very significant sense in which the letter justifies the concept of talking about "Islamic terrorism" or "terrorism justified by Islam" (however you want to specifically word that). To take Islam out of the equation is to take out the core principles cited by Osama himself.

 

He was a terrorist who used Islam to justify his heinous actions.

Just as those who carried out the Crusades used Christianity to justify their heinous actions.

 

The religion is not responsible for the terrorism. It is the individuals trying to use religion to justify it that are responsible. So calling it "Islamic Terrorism" is, I think, misleading and only fosters suspicion and hatred for about 23% of earth's population who by and large are peaceful people.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #70 of 80

Both the Bible and the Koran are FULL of passages where "God" commands his followers to go to war and kill everything in their way.  Who's to say "God" isn't really still telling people to do that today???

 

If you believe the Bible or the Koran to be a true account of your God, then you have to accept the POSSIBILITY that that God still talks to some people, whether it's Osama Bin Laden, or Fred Phelps. Just because your God doesn't talk to YOU doesn't mean he isn't talking to SOMEone... at least Osama and Fred are "getting" a message that's consistent with the supposed history of their God.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
 

 

He was a terrorist who used Islam to justify his heinous actions.

Just as those who carried out the Crusades used Christianity to justify their heinous actions.

 

The religion is not responsible for the terrorism. It is the individuals trying to use religion to justify it that are responsible. So calling it "Islamic Terrorism" is, I think, misleading and only fosters suspicion and hatred for about 23% of earth's population who by and large are peaceful people.

 

Yes, he was a terrorist who used Islam to justify his heinous actions; and you are right that the same was true for the perpetrators of the Crusades. I don't disagree with that.

 

Nobody is saying, as far as I can tell, that the individual people who commit the acts are not responsible. I lay the blame squarely on those who plan, organise, and carry out the acts of violence.

 

However, we do ourselves no favours by denying the root justifications for the acts. The causes and motivations behind the terrorism in Northern Ireland, for example, are different from what Timothy McVey did, which are different again from what Al-Qaeda did.

 

If we want to be in a position to understand why such acts occur - and therefore how to stop them or prevent them - then we must understand those underlying justifications.

 

The religion itself is not a conscious actor, so it can't be "responsible" for the violence in the same way that an inanimate gun can not be "responsible" for a mass shooting. But the conversation does not end there; it only begins there. This shouldn't stop us from talking about evidence-based gun control measures, nor should it stop us identifying cases where fundamentalist ideologies contribute to poisoning the minds of people who - by their own lights - believe they are doing the "right" thing.

 

In a similar vein, I disagree with those who seem content to simply say that Osama bin Laden is "evil" and that we must "fight evil". These kinds of sweeping, inane statements don't get us any closer to understanding where the causes of terrorism come from and how these elements can be addressed.

 

Those who paint an entire group of people with a particular brush are simply making a mistake and are not applying the relevant nuance to the argument. Just because those people exist does not mean we should shy away from pointing out clear causal linkages between fundamentalist ideology and violence.

 

Also, I should note something very important about your own comments. You were happy to talk about justifications and their relevance when you thought they were political in nature. When I point out the clear religious nature of the justifications, it is now all of a sudden irrelevant and we should only talk about the individual. Do you see the contradiction there?

 

I think it further highlights the idea that it's OK to subject some ideologies to scrutiny, and it's taboo to acknowledge others. Reinforcing those social taboos is also not going to get us any closer to a clear understanding of terrorism and fundamentalism (whether political or religious or - as is often the case - a combination of both).

post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

Yes, he was a terrorist who used Islam to justify his heinous actions; and you are right that the same was true for the perpetrators of the Crusades. I don't disagree with that.

 

Nobody is saying, as far as I can tell, that the individual people who commit the acts are not responsible. I lay the blame squarely on those who plan, organise, and carry out the acts of violence.

 

However, we do ourselves no favours by denying the root justifications for the acts. The causes and motivations behind the terrorism in Northern Ireland, for example, are different from what Timothy McVey did, which are different again from what Al-Qaeda did.

 

If we want to be in a position to understand why such acts occur - and therefore how to stop them or prevent them - then we must understand those underlying justifications.

 

The religion itself is not a conscious actor, so it can't be "responsible" for the violence in the same way that an inanimate gun can not be "responsible" for a mass shooting. But the conversation does not end there; it only begins there. This shouldn't stop us from talking about evidence-based gun control measures, nor should it stop us identifying cases where fundamentalist ideologies contribute to poisoning the minds of people who - by their own lights - believe they are doing the "right" thing.

 

In a similar vein, I disagree with those who seem content to simply say that Osama bin Laden is "evil" and that we must "fight evil". These kinds of sweeping, inane statements don't get us any closer to understanding where the causes of terrorism come from and how these elements can be addressed.

 

Those who paint an entire group of people with a particular brush are simply making a mistake and are not applying the relevant nuance to the argument. Just because those people exist does not mean we should shy away from pointing out clear causal linkages between fundamentalist ideology and violence.

 

Also, I should note something very important about your own comments. You were happy to talk about justifications and their relevance when you thought they were political in nature. When I point out the clear religious nature of the justifications, it is now all of a sudden irrelevant and we should only talk about the individual. Do you see the contradiction there?

 

I think it further highlights the idea that it's OK to subject some ideologies to scrutiny, and it's taboo to acknowledge others. Reinforcing those social taboos is also not going to get us any closer to a clear understanding of terrorism and fundamentalism (whether political or religious or - as is often the case - a combination of both).

 

It is one thing to point out a linkage. It is another to imply it is the only linkage.

I never said the religious aspect was irrelevant. You misunderstand me. My point is we shouldn't focus ONLY on the religious aspect when there are clearly others. For example, the fact that the U.S. and some of its allies have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades is, I think, an important factor that should not be ignored.

 

I think you and I are largely in agreement here. I just don't think calling it "Islamic Terrorism" is an accurate descriptor.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
 

 

 

I think you and I are largely in agreement here. I just don't think calling it "Islamic Terrorism" is an accurate descriptor.

 

So I suppose just to clarify the point from my perspective: the reason I use the term "Islamic Terrorism" is because it seems clear that the overwhelming justification falls within that context. Even the political components are often couched in a religious context.

 

For example, Osama bin Laden has stated that his key opposition to the U.S. really started when the U.S. used the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia to strike Iraq in the first Gulf War. bin Laden's opposition was not about any strike on Iraq, or concern for the Iraqi people - his opposition stemmed from his view that infidels were utilising sacred Muslim lands. A similar justification is used for his opposition to the Saudi royal family.

 

Osama's additional "political" justifications came much later, and are questionable for a variety of reasons (in large part it appears that these justifications help Al-Qaeda to recruit more people to their cause, where a pure religious justification does not).

 

So, yes, I wouldn't want to ignore the political aspects of terrorism. But in this case...it is overwhelmingly a religious motivation (thus the label "Islamic Terrorism").

 

In other cases where relevant I'd be very happy to use terms like "political terrorism" or "ethnic terrorism", for example. In that sense, I'm prepared to be an equal offender. :-)

post #74 of 80

Evidence please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

So I suppose just to clarify the point from my perspective: the reason I use the term "Islamic Terrorism" is because it seems clear that the overwhelming justification falls within that context. Even the political components are often couched in a religious context.

 

For example, Osama bin Laden has stated that his key opposition to the U.S. really started when the U.S. used the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia to strike Iraq in the first Gulf War. bin Laden's opposition was not about any strike on Iraq, or concern for the Iraqi people - his opposition stemmed from his view that infidels were utilising sacred Muslim lands. A similar justification is used for his opposition to the Saudi royal family.

 

Osama's additional "political" justifications came much later, and are questionable for a variety of reasons (in large part it appears that these justifications help Al-Qaeda to recruit more people to their cause, where a pure religious justification does not).

 

So, yes, I wouldn't want to ignore the political aspects of terrorism. But in this case...it is overwhelmingly a religious motivation (thus the label "Islamic Terrorism").

 

In other cases where relevant I'd be very happy to use terms like "political terrorism" or "ethnic terrorism", for example. In that sense, I'm prepared to be an equal offender. :-)

 

Despite Osama bin Laden's known and stated opposition to the US on account of (US) troops being based in the "cradle of Islam", there are a number of inconsistencies as regards his alleged involvement in 9/11:

 

For starters, there are statements allegedly from OBL that are in total opposition: We have all heard of the ones in which he allegedly admitted playing a part - broadcast ad nauseam in the media in the immediate wake of the attacks. But what we didn't hear was the other broadcasts - one statement includes the following, as published in Ummat, a prominent Pakistani daily newspapers published in Karachi:

 

"In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

 

In the 2nd paragraph, he says: "I have already said that I am not involved...." this implies that this is at least his 2nd public denial of involvement. Inconsistency: Why would the alleged leader of the world's most prominent terrorist group distance himself from the greatest success that the group had *allegedly* achieved? What happened was the literal jackpot - the terrorist's wet dream - a major hit against the world's most powerful nation, hitting not only their military headquarters but also one of the most prominent symbols of American economic power - the World Trade Center? And then the leader of the accused group washes his hands of it, rather than basking in the "glory" of inflicting so much death and destruction on the "Great Satan"?

 

OK... these are just one or two statements. But there are many other inconsistencies which, had he been guilty as accused,  are 100% out of place in the overall scenario:

 

(1) He was *not wanted* by the FBI for 9/11. *QUOTE* ".... we have no hard evidence linking OBL to the crimes of 9/11 - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb, 2006. Also, his FBI "most wanted page" dossier, never mentioned 9/11. However, he was "most wanted" for his alleged part in the bombings of US Embassies in Africa.

 

(2) OBL was never indicted by US Dept. Of Justice for any crime related to the 9/11 attacks. Why the hell not?

 

(3)  According to the CIA: "There are no connections between OBL's personal finances, and 9/11 funding". 

 

(4) OBL's "confession" videotape found in Jalalabad is unreliable. The Pentagon's translation was debunked by Arab language experts all over the world. This was the "smoking gun" evidence produced by the Bush Administration to justify going to war in Afghanistan....but it's no more reliable than the Weekly World News.

 

(5) OBL was visited by CIA agents and station chief Larry Mitchell, in Dubai, June 2001, while he was already on the FBI's "Most Wanted" List for various bombings in Africa. He was neither arrested nor detained. (Le Figaro, 2001). One wonders why not?

 

(6) 9/10/2001: CBS News: OBL stayed at a hospital the night before 9/11/2001 in a joint Pakistan/US military/intel facility in Rawalpindi, under tight security. Again, he was neither arrested nor detained, even though the US personnel at the Rawalpindi facility report to Washington DC on a daily basis. This was the last reliable public sighting of OBL.

 

(7) OBL "escaped" the US military after being "surrounded" in the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan - FOUR times in 2001/2002. (!) I find it hard to believe that the professional soldiers in the US military could display that degree of incompetence - and allow the #1 superstar of terrorism escape 4 times after being surrounded? Come on.

 

(8) OBL's subsequent alleged video broadcasts - have all been single sourced (violating one of journalism's sacred rules) with neither a verified time stamp nor a certifiable chain of custody. They did however, serve to terrorize the American people pretty effectively.

 

(9) OBL's relatives were allowed to exit the US, on a private flight immediately after 9/11 (while private flights were grounded by the FAA). This  bizarre action prevented the FBI from detaining and questioning people close to OBL who may have had a very good idea regarding his whereabouts and travel intentions.

 

(10) Until is alleged death in 2011, there was a $25 million reward on the head of OBL, dead or alive... and nobody in Afghanistan or Pakistan ever came forward. Nobody wanted all that money?

 

(11) After 10 years, the combined might of the US and coalition military, the intelligence community and Interpol have failed to locate OBL, let alone capture him. However in 1999, ABC reporter John Milller is able to waltz into bin Laden's hideout and conduct a series of interviews *on camera*. Miller was treated well. This interview occurred *after* the US Embassy bombings in Africa, while OBL was on the FBI's most wanted list in connection with those attacks.

 

(12) President Bush, on several occasions after 9/11, was asked about OBL by various media persons. The president on each occasion intoned: "I am not particularly concerned about him or his whereabouts". This is a very strange thing to say about the man touted as the mastermind behind the event which set the entire Bush/neoconservative foreign policy agenda into overdrive.

 

(13) The CIA's OBL investigation unit Alec Station was disbanded in 2006 - some 5 years before he was *allegedly* assassinated. How come - did they lose interest?

 

(14) Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator and "the most legally gagged person in US history" has since come out with the following: "Bin Laden – and his number 2 Al Qaeda lieutenant – Ayman al-Zawahiri – worked with the U.S. government for 3 months after 9/11 to coordinate destablization in the Caucus region".

 

**

 

All these facts and statements - (just a sampling .... there are many more) - point away from the popular notion - perhaps myth or conspiracy theory - that Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the US and was the mastermind of the most deadly attack against America in US history. And there's the bizarre, even unique scenario - that the US gets involved in the longest war/military campaign in US history against a sovereign nation - just to get one man, who appears to have been an asset rather than an enemy? I find all this stuff very hard to buy. There are way too many contradictions and inconsistencies for the OBL story to be kosher.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #75 of 80

I had quite a response typed out here, but I've actually removed it. As I read through your post again, I'm getting a real "Loose Change" vibe. And that vibe is telling me not to continue to debate on this point with you. There are just too many "facts" and assumptions to correct in the above post, and too much obvious evidence ignored (perhaps deliberately?)

 

At this juncture I think I would just tend to rest on my original comments, which are a bit broader than this issue anyway. 

That is, the general idea of how we describe and/or classify terrorism when we know its original justifications/motivations (and whether or not it is correct to use these as a way of describing certain "brands" of terrorism).

post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

I had quite a response typed out here, but I've actually removed it. As I read through your post again, I'm getting a real "Loose Change" vibe. And that vibe is telling me not to continue to debate on this point with you. There are just too many "facts" and assumptions to correct in the above post, and too much obvious evidence ignored (perhaps deliberately?)

 

At this juncture I think I would just tend to rest on my original comments, which are a bit broader than this issue anyway. 

That is, the general idea of how we describe and/or classify terrorism when we know its original justifications/motivations (and whether or not it is correct to use these as a way of describing certain "brands" of terrorism).

 

I wouldn't say a "Loose Change" vibe. I would go for a more authoritative source - someone who should really have some kind of clue. By that, I refer you to William Binney, former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, highly regarded in the agency as one of the finest analysts and code breakers in the NSA's history.

 

On August 28, 2014, Binney signed the petition started by investigative group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which demands a full, scientifically rigorous and completely independent investigation of 9/11 with full subpoena power. In this interview here, he states:

 

"There is clearly evidence that needs to be considered in a review of what happened in 9/11. We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened". 

 

He also stated in the interview that the investigations to date have – at best - been incompetent, and failed to address the observable facts.

 

We already know that the 9/11 Commission Report was, according to the majority of Commissioners, "set up to fail","compromised", "untruthful", "inaccurate", stacked with "cherry picked data", and relied on single-sourced/hearsay material with no verifiable chain of custody, extracted largely by torturing prisoners in extraordinary rendition facilities. In other words, a 571-page pile of useless, stage-managed hogwash. 

 

So, if nobody within the US power structure has anything to be scared of, how about commissioning a group of expert, impartial investigators to do the job properly?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #77 of 80

... at the same time, just because I might choose to "plead the 5th" in a courtroom, does not NECESSARILY mean I'm hiding anything.

 

(meaning: just because the feds won't re-examine things, or allow an independent party "full subpoena power", does not NECESSARILY mean they are hiding anything.)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post
 

... at the same time, just because I might choose to "plead the 5th" in a courtroom, does not NECESSARILY mean I'm hiding anything.

 

(meaning: just because the feds won't re-examine things, or allow an independent party "full subpoena power", does not NECESSARILY mean they are hiding anything.)

 

Also - and I did mention this earlier - there are numerous things mentioned as facts (or assumed to be facts), which are actually not true at all. So before any real analysis can happen, those foundational things have to be corrected. But to do that would be pretty time-consuming, because sometimes the corrections required are subtle.

 

For example, I've noticed people taking a "fact" and slightly slanting their interpretation of it based upon something they've read online from a dodgy source or simply interpreting a fact in a certain way based on their own confirmation bias.

 

This is why, for me, it's a debate-stopper. It's a bit like debating about whether or not we really went to the moon; if you are in the position of debating well-established first principles, then you simply can't move further.

 

In any case - if we return to the original intent of the topic for a moment, because I think that's where we can find more fertile ground for discussion - I had mentioned in another thread that one consequence of the rise of militant Islam is the corresponding rise of a fairly hardcore, nationalistic, right-wing political view across parts of Europe. Although this is not as dangerous as militant Islam itself, I do worry that it will lead to a much more polarising situation.

 

On this basis, I think it's very important for there to remain a strong, secular, liberal-democratic voice throughout the discussion - for example, where we might see value in criticising militant religious views, we should refrain from being nationalistic to the point of outright racism (and unfortunately I see this creeping into some debates here and there).

post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post
 

... at the same time, just because I might choose to "plead the 5th" in a courtroom, does not NECESSARILY mean I'm hiding anything.

 

(meaning: just because the feds won't re-examine things, or allow an independent party "full subpoena power", does not NECESSARILY mean they are hiding anything.)

 

That is true. Funny you say that, but the powers-that-be always hack up some similar "justification" for mass surveillance, illegal wiretapping and the like by inferring: "if you got nothing to hide, then what are you so worried about"? I guess such logic doesn't extend to the examination of those in positions of power - when it comes down to the "police inquiring into police corruption", or "the Mafia investigating the Genovese Family", and other conflict of interest scenarios - can one honestly expect truth and transparency? Yeah. Right. Does the Sun rise in the West?

 

It could also be about (at least) two other situations, separately or simultaneously:

 

(1) Bloodymindedness and the arbitrary projection of power: ie "We're not letting the people know, just because we say so and because we have that power. "Just because we can". "Because I say so". In other words, a case of the establishment giving the following message to the people, i.e. their (theoretical) bosses: "Go F**K yourselves, you don't count". Kinda par for the course in a plutocracy or oligarchy n'est ce pas?

 

(2) Protection of - as of yet unknown parties. 13 years later, even the corporate weasel media is daring to venture a couple of tame questions, see this video clip on CNN (!) re. the involvement of foreign governments which prompted President Bush to redact those infamous 28 pages in the Joint Congressional Inquiry int 9/11. One obvious and pertinent question about that episode is "if it's not OK to let the people know about foreign government involvement in 9/11 in 2002, then why is it OK now"? One thing we can be sure as regards the identity of "foreign government, or governments" - is that they cannot be those of enemy nations, otherwise the material would have been broadcast as widely and repetitiously as the supposed "guilt" of Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of still being kept secret, 13 years later (?/!!).

 

No, it's not just about "hiding things" - it's about provably lying to the people (and worse), on so many counts that its hard to keep track of it all.

 

*

 

The issue has induced an ongoing case of mass public cognitive dissonance in the recent decade. Ask almost anyone - regardless of political leaning or socio economic, racial etc background - about "people in government/positions of power" and you'll invariably get a string of negativities (liars, manipulators, crooks, power-crazed bureaucrats, thugs, warmongers, nepotists etc etc etc), usually preceded by an expletive. People tend to have an awareness that those who get into positions of power often get there via "less than ethical" methods, and certain psychological traits that are common amongst those with a quest for power are aggravated when they reach those goals; they invariably want more.

 

But despite the broad contempt which most people hold for government officials - when it comes to possible malfeasance in the case of 9/11 - so many people do an angry, indignant 180 degree switch: "How dare you imply such things, or even ask such questions! Suddenly, in the case of 9/11, our lying, conniving, criminal and self serving officials suddenly are assumed to be angelic, honest, incapable of wrongdoing and must be shielded from all inquiry!

 

Note: I am not accusing "the government" of perpetrating 9/11.  I never have done, because such a notion is patently absurd. "The Government" is a huge and varied entity comprising hundreds of thousands of employees in hundreds of diverse agencies and departments from NASA to the USPS. But, if, as the official explanation goes, it only took "a guy in a cave 11,000 miles away, some senior aides and 19 young men" to pull off the (out of pattern) operation, then why should it remain secret that they received aid from other parties? In US law, accessory before (or after) the fact to a crime is regarded as seriously as committing the crime itself. Are we looking here at a case of "one treatment for some (full scale war, hundreds of thousands killed, nations bombed into oblivion) - even if they had nothing to do with it - and another attitude/action/treatment for others (full protection afforded by secrecy/classification, nepotism, privilege) - when there is both hard and implied evidence that they may have aided and abetted in the attacks?

 

If such a situation is acceptable or "good enough" for the American public, then I guess this nation is pretty much finished as a viable entity. It's just a case of how much longer can the decay keep going, or the "I don't give a shit" attitude last until enough people wake from their slumber, the tipping point is reached and the whole house of cards implodes and crumbles into its own footprint?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #80 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

That is true. Funny you say that, but the powers-that-be always hack up some similar "justification" for mass surveillance, illegal wiretapping and the like by inferring: "if you got nothing to hide, then what are you so worried about"? I guess such logic doesn't extend to the examination of those in positions of power - when it comes down to the "police inquiring into police corruption", or "the Mafia investigating the Genovese Family", and other conflict of interest scenarios - can one honestly expect truth and transparency? Yeah. Right. Does the Sun rise in the West?

 

I wasn't trying to imply guilt or innocence either way.  Merely stating that denying something doesn't NECESSARILY mean you're trying to hide what you're denying.

 

We'll have to start a whole different thread if you want to get me started on an over-reaching government. ;)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should the 9/11 museum drop all mention of "Islamic" terrorism?