The Magnificent 19
Got your ticket yet?
http://www.almuhajiroun.com/
Seriously, this website is defending their position that they are not "celebrating" these characters, but rather trying to figure out what they did. Is it offensive?
I just think they could've done better and not had a smiling Osama bin Laden if they wanted a more sober tone.
http://www.almuhajiroun.com/
Seriously, this website is defending their position that they are not "celebrating" these characters, but rather trying to figure out what they did. Is it offensive?
I just think they could've done better and not had a smiling Osama bin Laden if they wanted a more sober tone.
Comments
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Is it offensive?
Offensive or not, whatever they're doing is OK.
Originally posted by bunge
Offensive or not, whatever they're doing is OK.
Consider the pictures they are using, ones that were splattered all over the media as identifying the bad guys, are they not inviting criticism for their intentions?
Why is the mainstream ignoring all the discrepancies of 9/11? Is it because we are afraid to question the govt's official version of what really happened that day? For fear of being branded as "against" the govt and "for" the terrorist?
Originally posted by segovius
Maybe it will shed some more light on the suppressed fact that at least 4 of these 19 alleged hijackers are still alive.
Hopefully the conference will also address the even more interesting fact that no Arab passengers of any description were mentioned on any of the four flight manifests published immediately after take-off.
Any criticism of this conference and it's rather sensationalist approach should also really take into consideration the foregoing issues in order to be valid.
They need to be "Magnificantly Dead"
I don't give a damn about their claims of "Atrocities" don't go targeting our Civilians. Cowards.
So now let me take this opportunity to excercise my God-given American right to offend the organizers of the conference (not all Muslims, since I know that not all Muslims are cold-hearted, civilian-murdering sacks of shit)
If...
the purpose of the commemoration of the 11th September 2001, is to examine its root causes and the driving force and motivation of the 19 men who partook in the operation, in order to have a clearer understanding and in order to discuss whether the continuation of the causes might result in a recurrence of such events, albeit by utilising different ways and means.
...then let me just say. Have your friggin meeting, rally your cause, and go out and do Allah's work. Just don't be angry when law enforcement puts a bullet through your skull or throws a black cloth over your head (oh wait, never mind) and tosses your dumb ass into the back of a van. Have fun in the interrogation chamber. Prick.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
oh, samantha! Anything is possible blah blah, but what's more probable? Ever hear of stolen identities? Occham's razor, my friend. It's not that interesting, really.
Guess you missed the release of autopsy results for 77 that showed that there wasn't anyone on the plane besides those on the passanger list.
I told him to piss off.
So, this isn?t a celebration because good Muslims celebrate the days of Eid al Fitr and Eid al Adha alone (I feel sorry for their kids because other Muslims all over the world have a stack'o Eids and feast days.) That must be why these terrible murderers are described on the poster as ?The Magnificent 19? then. With the quote ?They were youth who believed in their Lord and we increased them with guidance? underneath. It looks a ****ing Bollywood film poster.
Like all religious zealots everywhere, that judge in Alabamha included, they?re bloody awful hypocrites.
Proud to be an atheist today.
Originally posted by segovius
Hasan, did you go to SOAS ? Al Muhajiroun were banned from there while I was there about 10 years ago for distributing the usual anti-Jewish crap. Half of them weren't even at the Uni, wouldn't get in probably.
No, I didn't. I was in London, though. Must have graduated a couple of years before you.
Originally posted by segovius
I think it is.
Oh, come on.
Mind, you, if there's a convicing argument to prove my suspicions wrong, I'm happy to eat crow. But so far, I've seen people throw out questions like these and not really answer them, when they can be answered in very obvious ways if they are a bit pedestrian. I'm not shutting out other explanations if they can made convincingly, I'm just highly skeptical of more elaborate hindsights. After all, I would have been skeptical of how far Watergate went in the day too.
Anyway, I'm rambling incoherently now.
What these people are doing is OK, as in within their rights. It's obviously a publicity stunt. They do seem to be backpedaling from the "Magnificent" part of the "Magnificent 19" don't they? Wonder why they chose thhat word?
Terrorist A steals Middle Eastern Denizen B's identity. We'll now refer to A as faux-B.
Faux-B applies for visa to US. Crappy INS gives it to him.
A is now known to the US govt as faux-B. That's all.
Faux-B purchases flight ticket under alias of C, thinking that govt may be onto him in some way.
C is the name on the passenger manifest.
Plane goes down, passenger manifest is checked and double-checked, perhaps with video from terminal security. All are ID'd correctly except Faux-B and company. Govt goes through files, figures out that the picture taken at the terminal goes with the file for 'Faux-B'.
So now the govt publishes the name 'Faux-B' under the picture of A.
Meanwhile, real B in the Middle East sees name, and says "Excuse me... that's not me. He stole my identity."
Unfortunately, no one can seem to figure out A's *real* name... he's known only as Faux-B.
One stolen identity to get into the US, and a fake name to get on the plane. That seems pretty simple, to me.
I'm not saying this is what *happened*, only that it seems like the simplest explanation, and it's one that I think is plausible. *shrug*
Carry on, I'm going to go stand somewhere else away from here while y'all all duke it out.
The detailed timeline from which this material is taken from here. It is as essential read, unless one is just prepared to take the Fox, CNN etc. (sanitized, kindergarten versions) as the whole truth.
http://www.911timeline.net/
Putting blind credence in the"official version" of events of that day requires acknowledging only a very selective, cherrypicked and and filtered set of facts. There is too much that does not fit. Sooner or later, we will be mature enough to face up to the horrible probability that those "19 Arab hijackers, al qa'ida and Osama bin Laden" are NOT repeat, not, the only guilty parties concerning 9-11.
.
EDIT: Goats.
Originally posted by segovius
Just been reading this rather interesting and relevant article.
Briefly, the author claims to have been present at his University library (Oklahoma) in late 2001 when an FBI agent was interviewing a University employee about an online purchsase of an airline ticket made from a University computer for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania.
The author claims that the librarian later told him the individual had not been an Arab but a white American male. He and a colleague later made a claim to the Bureau under the FOI legislation to see the files relating to this but the request was denied. The incident was acknowledged though.
Regardless of the veracity of this report (which seeems credible enough in its basics, even though I would not support the author's conclusions from the data) it got me thinking about the earlier suggestion in this thread about false/stolen IDs.
Basically, they're a non-starter. The alleged hijackers were garnted visas in their own names - why are stolen/faked passports then necessary ? And if so, then why not fake the visas too ? And why would they not fake Arab names ? This is all about the fact that there were no Arabs on those flight manifests.
I wish someone from the corporate media would have the guts to throw an awkward topic like this (and numerous others) to a prominent member of the administration on prime time national network TV...if the opportunity ever arose. The certainty of being fired on the spot and wrecking a career in journalism (except the boutique liberal media pubs like Mother Jones and The Nation probably prevents this from happening. What a shame.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I wish someone from the corporate media would have the guts to throw an awkward topic like this (and numerous others) to a prominent member of the administration on prime time national network TV...if the opportunity ever arose. The certainty of being fired on the spot and wrecking a career in journalism (except the boutique liberal media pubs like Mother Jones and The Nation probably prevents this from happening. What a shame.
Stuff like that usually doesn't happen because <conspiracy theory> all the major media types and politicos meet secretly at the Bohemia Grove and Bilderberg Conference to plan their agendas and make sure this won't happen </conspiracy theory>.
In reality, most of those private, informal gatherings are less about ruling the world and more about developing contacts and rapport in the hopes that someone, in the future assuming a "friendly chat", just might slip up and say something on the record. Conspiracy theory has been around a long time, but the Nixon and Clinton presidencies should prove that the media doesn't go out of its way to bury a story.
We can only hope that this administration will be put into a situation that will require some answers. heard on the radio today that after two years, only 45% of the dead from the Twin Towers have been identified by DNA, even with folks working round the clock. Seems closure for some families is still far away as too many body parts are beyond being able to get proper DNA samples.