No, I dont doubt that. I doubt the US admins version of events but that doesnt mean that Bin Laden is free of all blame nor that he took no part.
But that is contradictory, via "ASSUMING that it was Bin Laden". If there was no doubt, then that line was irrelevant and should of been un-necessary.
"Who breems publically? How hard do you think it is to fabricate (with the state of the art technology we have nowadays watch Wag the Dog and youll know what I mean) the tapes that seem to be released at every juncture that suits the US govt. Tapes in which the speech is hardly decipherable and can easily be translated to suit anyone needs. Tapes whose content seems of no benefit whatsoever to Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden. I mean, now that you admit that the US fabricate intelligence to go to War in Iraq, why wouldnt they fabricate other stuff that goes to help them in achieving their ends? Also, if you want to go by Bin Ladens words, I recall one video were he denied any involvement but apparently praised those who did it."
Many of the hijackers who were later investigated were resulted to be of Al-Qaida descent or affliation. The attack and it's pre-sequent planning was in co-ordination with Al-Qaida. Looking contented and chuckling at times, Osama bin Laden boasted about the attacks in one of the videos released a week or so after the attacks. The tape showed bin Laden indicating that he had advance knowledge of the suicide attacks and that he was involved with it's co-ordination. He said the collapse of the World Trade Center towers surpassed his "optimistic" expectation of the damage the jets would cause. He also says that the 19 hijackers on the four jetliners commandeered Sept. 11 were told of a "martyrdom operation" but that they didn't know what their mission was until the last minute. Their actions, he maintains, brought new followers to Islam worldwide.
"This event made people think (about true Islam), which benefited Islam greatly," he said.
Now hypothetically, let's assume that he didn't co-ordinate or had any involvement with the attacks, yet he highly endorsed the unwarranted killing of those thousands of people. Does he not deserve to be ousted?
1. The attack on the 9/11 apparently took yrs of planning and was carried with great precision. Yet the perpetrators left a quran and a flying manual (brilliant combination) near the area. Was that part of the planning? Or is this just a nice way to put the blame on Islamic extremists?
This 'evidence' is counterproductive for you. Al-Qaida in many circumstances wants to be recognised for their effort, just like many other terror organizations, like Hamas. Similarly, the Quran and other Arabic books of interest were left in relatively obvious locations after the Spain train bombings.
So as for your quote, I don't understand why you are discussing this.
2. The perpetrators are supposedly Islamic extremists/fundamentalists who were putting the lives on the line, waging on a jihad against the US, yet the night before some of them were in night clubs drinking alcohol and having a great time. I mean how dumb do they think we are. Moderate Muslims dont even drink let along visit such clubs and these are meant to be extremists???
How do you know that they were drinking prior to the attacks? Secondly, many Muslims have claimed that the legitimacy of their scope of their religion is a fabrication, as 'true' Muslims don't massacre in such manner. A splinter faction of Islam perhaps? I don't know.
3. Four planes changed course around the same time. Plane flights are always on radar. No action was taken. Even after one crashed into the WTC. Why? I mean you have four diff flights changing course, practically doing 360 turns.
So what were they to do? Automate the imaginary self destruct button for the Boeings, or perhaps scramble some jets in less than an hour for an event so unconventional that the US were completely unprepared for? A Boeing against a building has never conventionally happened before. You can't expect the military to have policies regarding what to do in a flash situation for something like this. Like I said before, the attack was ingenious, and the US sank like ducks that day. After the first plane hit, the original assessment was an accident. Reasonable really, who would of thought that there were people willing to fly jets into grand buildings?
4. The third plane hit the pentagon, so were told. We have many photos of the aftermath, yet no sight of any plane, no broken bits, whole or parts. Looks much more like a missile hit. Apart fomr this, this is meant to be the pentagon, the US militarys main headquarters. Sure there not superhuman and mistakes can happen, but to suggest that a jumbo can crash into the pentagon and not be picked up until after it hits is highly fanciful.
Here comes the conspiracy theories. I guess you're a fan of the 'fake moon landings' ones too? So am I, actually.
Assuming it was a missile hit, are you speculating that the US generated a missile attack on it's own building?
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numer.../erreurs_en.htm
Hmm ironic how the site is French affliated.
5. None of the names of the said perpetrators were found on the flight passenger lists of the flights that crashed!
That is a widely known fact, with many variable explanations. Ever heard of a fake passport?
Since you are such a believer in the integrity of the US's tendencies to deceive and fabricate, would it make sense then for the US to claim openly that they were not on the flight lists, if it was their goal to convince the international community of their plight for war-pretext? Of course not.
Its hard to believe, to say the least.
Depends on how biased you are really.
If the perpetrators were the Russians or the British or any developed society the innovation argument might carry some weight. But you say that a guy living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan can innovate to outsmart the US
It doesn't take overwhelming brain power to conceive an unconventional innovation, considering the innovation in these attacks embodied no new innovation in terms of technological or scientific elements.
They used jets to fly into buildings. It's obviously something the US would never expect, and it doesn't take an academic to 'invent' something like this, as it's not technologically oriented.
Also, it would be less credible if the idea was driven up by the Russians or the British, because the ideologies of hardline Muslims parallels the scope of immoral massacre strategies present in these kinds of disastrous attacks. That's why it's the most credible for people like these to come up with these ideas, and not individuals or organizations of more Western nations.
What attacks? His been in this situation since the first gulf war, he hasnt done any attacks? And since he hasnt got any WMD, wat was he meant to attack with?
Emphasis on the keywords 'long-term' and 'potential'. A fundamental political rule is to take out your adversaries before they become too powerful and hence unfeasible to attack. Like China. If the US could foresee the political and power projection of this rising superpower fifty years ago, I'm sure they would of done something about it. For Saddams case, you have a leader hell bent on the hatred of US, it's ideologies and it's interests. You have a leader who is willing to openly use chemical weapons in warfare, and you have a regime which is strikingly similar to conventional despotism. It's not the surprise of the century that the US decided to attack it.
Of course not, but if the policies are unfair to begin with, then they should be changed. And what ideologies do you talk about? Is it too much to ask for US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, or for the sanctions on Iraq (at the time), which resulted in hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqis dying, most of whom were infants, to be lifted. They had no effect whatsoever on Saddam. They simply killed off innocent Iraqis. Is that not terrorism? Albeit more sophisticated then flying planes into buildings. Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism? Yet the US wont say anything, and continues to aid them with billions annually.
Why should they have to leave Saudi Arabia? What possible ghastly ramifications does some troops have upon those hardline militants? It's not like they were going to invade the country.
Sanctions? Those sanctions were passed within a body of international communities, hence it would be unfair for you to slightly hint the blame at the US as the sole instigator. What else would you have the United Nations to do in the form of punishment? Just ignore them? Or you could oust the regime, which is what the US did, thank God. Saddam's regime in originality is barbaric against it's civilians, and infact many resolutions which induced such deaths were caused by Saddam's hardline policies in the first place.
Now we're here arguing about how 'unjust' the US was at crushing this regime, yet it was a similar situation when Iraq invaded Iran. And used chemical weapons on her troops. And Iraq's reasons for invasion were hardly up to par with the US's. Dejavu.
The sanctions against Iraq are not terroristic as what Saddam's regime is to her people.
Oh great, I had a feeling you'd be an Israel hater. Somehow getting suicide bombers to blow up bus full of people seem just a tad more terroristic.. maybe?
Killing innocent ppl is wrong, no matter what anyones cause is. But that doesnt mean you try and muddle up their causes.
Well killing several thousand people in such an explicit fashion really just outlined your point quite fantastically.
Yeah. They're the closest types of people I come across who argue in such an anti-US fashion. Note that I'm not unreasonably biased against the Iraqis/Arabs/Islam. If something is irrefutably factual such as Bush's apparent lying, then I'm not going to go into things like conspiracy theories.
Also I didn't know why you mentioned the regimes of socialism and communism. I actually like communism, in it's perfect however-unattainable utopic form.
