My Counterknowledge post last month elicited some responses from “truthers”, with varying degrees of ineptitude. One, a certain Stewart Bradley, posted a “rebuttal” online with four follow-up questions which I thought was worthy of a response. Mr Bradley writes for a website which is ostensibly set up to “debunk the debunkers” of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Although “truthers” often see fit to ignore inconvenient questions, or treat them as irrelevant, I will rise to Mr Bradley’s challenge.
The first part deals with his attempts to rebut me (with his responses in italics). The second, with his attempt to turn the tables on me. I will leave it to readers to decide which of our replies are the most convincing and best supported by the evidence.
PART I
(1)
JW) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an “interview” in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
SB) Your question asserts as fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination. How do you know that some other involved faction did not commit the crime and use Al Qaeda as the scapegoat? The only people who know for sure are conveniently dead.
This is false. The link between Massoud’s killers and Al Qaeda has been established, and it is indeed worth noting that the widow of one of the bombers - Malika El Aroud - is herself a fevent jihadi who supports OBL’s cause, and his proud of her husband’s role in murdering Massoud (her spouse was Dahmane Abd al-Sattar, who conducted the attack along with Bouraoui el-Ouaer):
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/europe/terror.php
http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/72-56-17674/la-belge-malika-el-aroud–l-une-des-plus-influentes-djihadistes-sur-internet.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/11/belgium
The French authorities identified Abd al-Sattar in December 2001. Four years later, four militants the plot were convicted:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001482,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4555633.stm
(2)
JW) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
SB) Here you assume that the CIA wanted the involvement of the Northern Alliance before the invasion. If the true motive of the war was the construction of the Trans-Afghani pipeline, along with occupational forces to guard the project, would Massoud and the NA have supported the invasion? Especially when the US already had Harmid Karzai, who was directly involved with the pipeline deal, to install as Afghanistan’s new leader.
These statements can be refuted simply by anyone who has actually paid any attention to developments in Afghanistan since September 2001. Firstly, Massoud and other Northern Alliance commanders desperately wanted external assistance to defeat the Taliban, and NA forces of course played a crucial role in the overthrow of Mullah Omar’s regime in November 2001 (see Richard B. Andres, “Winning with Allies: The Strategic Value of the Afghan Model”, in International Security, Volume 30, Number 3, Winter 2005/06, pp. 124-160, and William Maley, The Afghanistan Wars). Secondly, NA commanders firmly support the Karzai government and the NATO effort against resurgent Taliban guerrillas in the South. Thirdly, anyone studying the current conflict will notice the complete dearth of anti-NATO and anti-government insurgent activity in Northern Afghanistan - the heartland of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities which supported the NA. Finally, the Karzai/UNOCAL story is debunked here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/hamid_karzai_and_unocal.html
(3)
JW) - Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
SB)- Despite the Bush administrations outrageous claim that there were no warnings of the 9/11 attack, there are dozens of documented reports of an imminent attack on America, many of which Osama bin Laden had access to. ( Many claiming to be from Al Qaeda. ) The real question is why our military allowed bin Laden to escape into Pakistan when we had him boxed in at Tora Bora?
That is a transparent attempt to dodge my question. In any case, as my reference to Wright’s The Looming Tower showed, bin Laden’s behaviour prior to and on 9/11 was (see pp.356-361) showed that he had full knowledge of the attacks that were due to unfold on US soil. Perhaps you could read this account, if you’re open-minded enough to have your views challenged. If you do so, perhaps you can tell me what he got wrong.
As for the failure at Tora Bora, that was very much a product of the improvised nature of CENTCOM’s war plan, not to mention the reliance on Pashtun Afghan militiamen (as opposed to trained US or coalition soldiers) to block the escape of Bin Laden and other leading AQ terrorists. That is what happens when you fight a war on a shoe-string with airpower and Special Forces, rather than a full commitment of ground forces:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDE1731F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=FAZAL+AHMAD&st=nyt
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/bergen
But then this links in neatly with my point in question 4 - that the Bush administration and the JCS had to draft a plan from scratch to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Foreknowledge would have lead to prior planning.
(4)
JW) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
SB) Congratulations on telling your first bold faced deception. It has been well publicized that according to Condi Rice on September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan.
On the contrary, it is you who has provided a “bold faced deception”. The “plan” (see Coll, “Ghost Wars”, p.580; and Benjamin & Simon, “Age of Sacred Terror”, pp.345-346) involved a covert programme to arm anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. It was not a plan for a war and an invasion of Afghanistan as you falsely imply (I emphasise this point so that there is no misunderstanding). Approval of this covert programme came after years of futile diplomatic attempts by the Clinton and Bush administrations to persuade Mullah Omar to abandon his alliance with Bin Laden. In any case, as Coll notes, “there remained uncertainty [after the Cabinet meeting on 4th September] about where the money [to aid anti-Taliban forces] would come from and how much would ultimately be available”. This is not a characteristic of a government anticipating and gearing itself up for a war in the middle of Central Asia.
(5)
JW) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 “bogus” Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
SB) While we could speculate for years, as to the true identities of the hijackers, or if there is any hard evidence that these men were really on board the doomed flights.
See here, and try to explain these stories away:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/79402/Exclusive-Remains-of-9-11-killers-found
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print
[I]t is clear that the attack was meant to incriminate Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. Your guess may be as good as mine here, but considering this was the opening of the “War on Terror” the enemy “Boogymen” had to be portrayed as part of a world wide network and not linked specifically to one nation if they hoped to extend and expand the war as wide as possible.
But that does not answer my question. Why link it to bin Laden and AQ? And I also don’t understand your contention here - are you saying that AQ is a myth, that it does not exist? Then who was responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, the Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam attacks (1998), the thwarted millennium plot of 1999 and the USS Cole (2000)? Were these “false flags” too?
(6)
JW) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
SB) Indeed, how do bullies on the playground coerce the lunch money from smaller children? With threats of military action. I’m not sure if you recall our president telling the world, “If you are not with us you are against us”, and how quickly all aforementioned countries joined the US led effort against terrorism, despite the US being instrumental in the creation of these very terror organizations.”
This is utter rubbish. Read the following for a real account of the USA”s relationship (or lack of relationship, to be more accurate) with AQ. These authors specifically state that the Makhtab-al-Khidmat (“service bureau”) which Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden set up to support the few thousand or so Arab fighters who travelled to Pakistan in the 1980s worked autonomously, funded by private donations from the Gulf, and had no contact with the CIA or ISI:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0753816687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Osama-Bin-Laden-Know-Al-Qaedas/dp/0743278917/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141031360/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883353&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883520&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Al-Qaeda-Rohan-Gunaratna/dp/1850656711/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883676&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaedas-Road/dp/0141029358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883694&sr=1-1
Peter Bergen - There is “no evidence” of any US funding or assistance to bin Laden, or “any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone else in his circle” (“The Osama bin Laden I knew”, pp.60-61).
Jason Burke - CIA funding for the anti-Soviet jihad went “exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers” (p.59).
Steve Coll - OBL was “out of CIA eyesight” during the 1980s (p.87).
Lawrence Wright - States in “The Looming Tower” that the Makhtab-al-Khidmat and the Arab fighters operated autonomously from Peshawar (pp.100-108).
Milt Bearden (the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986-1989, and a critic of the “war on terror” and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan) stressed that US training was only offered to Afghans, not to any Arab or other foreign jihadis (“The Main Enemy”, (Random House 2003),p.243).
You are also telling us that the Saudis were intimidated by the US government into falsely admitting that 15 of their citizens were hijackers. But other “truthers” (see http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm) would have us believe that the Bush clan has a corrupt relationship with the Saudi royal family and indeed the bin Laden clan (who disowned Osama in 1994 (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/15/steve_coll_on_the_bin_ladens), but that’s another story). So why was AQ framed by the “real” plotters if all this did was highlight their ties with the Saudi royals and the bin Ladens? You are asking us to believe on the one hand that the Bush administration is in the pockets of the Saudi elite, and that on the other the Saudis are US puppets. It stretches logic to suggest that both these propositions are true.
(7)
JW) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the US’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
SB) Again your question is based on false information. First, if Pakistan was such a Taliban ally then why was the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmed meeting with Bush administration officials in Washington during the time of the attack, while approving funding to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta?
Ahmed Rashid’s book Descent into Chaos makes it clear why Ahmed was invited to Washington in September 2001 - it was because US officials wanted to coerce the Pakistani military into breaking their ties with the Taliban (something which Washington had consistently tried, but failed, to do). The fact that Ahmed was in Washington on the morning of 9/11 was a coincidence, and one which gave American demands to break off ties with Mullah Omar additional force (see pp.24-33). But as Rashid shows, the “military-mullah” alliance that has existed in Pakistan since Zia”s time has continued to endure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
While Pakistani official ties to the Afghan Taliban are a matter of record, links with AQ are more questionable (in fact, they are as tenuous as the Bush administration’s pre-2003 accusations that bin Laden had ties with Iraqi intelligence). The story on Ahmed’s alleged links with Mohamed Atta came from an Indian newspaper, basing its claims on “senior Government sources”. You might have noticed that Indo-Pakistani relations have historically been a bit ropy, and both governments are quick to blame each other for terrorist atrocities and any other internal difficulties (the Pakistanis are now accusing the Indians of supporting Taliban militants fighting on their North West Frontier!):
http://www.911myths.com/html/isi_first_reports.html
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12818192
I find it rather ironic that “truthers” who are quick to accuse their critics of automatically trusting government sources are very uncritical when it comes to approaching the pronouncements of foreign authorities.
(8)
JW) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
SB)- Israel has obviously benefited from the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, who were two known enemies of Israel, and certainly enjoys having US troops nearby to help protect it from it’s [sic] other enemies in the region. Although I have personally seen no empirical evidence to suggest that the Mossad were involved in 9/11, it’s always useful to debunkers to try to associate the 9/11 Truth Movement to anti-semitism and other hate based groups.
But in what way has Israel’s position changed for the better since 9/11? Before the attacks on New York and Washington, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israelis were backed and armed to the hilt by a sympathetic US government. After 9/11, they were backed and armed to the hilt by a sympathetic US government. Nothing has changed in that regard - the one thing that Obama shares with Bush is his pro-Israeli stance. This extends to Congress too, particularly regarding House and Senate resolutions on the Gaza conflict (notice the cross-party consensus linking Republicans and Democrats):
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/49912
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/49541
As for anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the links between “truthers” and neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers are close and undeniable. The frequency with which Israelis/Jews crop up in 9/11 conspiracy theories is also striking:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge
Eric Hufschmid, Christopher Bollyn, Texe Marrs and Nicholas Kollerstrom are truthers and Holocaust deniers. The far-right British National Party (BNP) are also keen on 9/11 conspiracy theories:
http://edmundstanding.blogspot.com/2008/11/british-fascists-and-911-untruths.html
… and this is from Justin Raimondo – an online article hinting at Israeli involvement in 9/11:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10528
For more on anti-Semitism and the “truth” movement, read the following:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/30/pzn.01.html (scroll down the page)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/holocaust-denier-hosting-9-11.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-you-lie-down-with-dogs.html
http://edmundstanding.blogspot.com/2008/11/continuing-anti-semitism-in-911-truth.html
In my first post on Counterknowledge, I also pointed out that the Japanese Diet member Yukihisa Fujita (lionised by “truthers” as one of them) got his claims from a raving Jew-hater and a Holocaust denier:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=1231
The facts are that the “truth movement” is infested by anti-Semites, and people like you are turning a blind eye to them. Is this something to be proud of?
(9)
JW) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn”t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
SB) I don’t personally believe that the story of the “dancing Israelis” is either true or relevant to the 9/11 case.”
That’s your first sensible and informed answer. So I presume you deplore the Raimondo story (and similar false claims) that I linked to above.
(10)
JW) - If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
SB) While this question is purely speculative and ignores the WTC anomalies that are in question, the tactic of using hijacked commercial aircraft in Kamikaze style attacks had been know about and planned for by our air defenses before 9/11.
Actually, this is hopelessly wrong (I’m always suspicious of people using YouTube to prove their points). As the renowned terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman notes, US counter-terrorism planning prior to 9/11 was focussed on dealing with other contingencies:
The implicit assumptions of many American planning scenarios on mass casualty attacks were that they would involve germ or chemical agents or result from widespread electronic attacks on critical infrastructure. It was therefore assumed that any conventional or less extensive incident could be addressed simply by planning for the most catastrophic threat. This approach left a painfully vulnerable gap in our anti-terrorism defenses, in which a traditional and long-proved tactic - like airline hijacking - was neglected in favor of other, less conventional threats and in which the consequences of using an aircraft as a suicide weapon seemed to have been ignored. Indeed, according to one estimate, of more than 201 federal planning exercises conducted in the United States up until 9/11, at least two-thirds were concerned only with defending against biological or chemical attacks and thus ignored the possibility that other kinds of attacks - such as those at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - might result in large numbers of casualties and might present unique challenges of their own in terms of emergency response and rescue.
(See here, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Terrorism-B-Hoffman/dp/0231126999/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231769065&sr=1-2, p.280).
(11)
JW) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
SB) While it is impossible to know whether Niaz Naik’s story is legitimate the agreement for the pipeline deal was signed in December of 2002, while the construction of the pipeline (now called TAPI) has been hindered by the ongoing war.
Naik’s account (which interestingly enough did not even mention pipelines) was debunked here - I linked to it in my original post:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/
So let’s be clear of the facts here. Naik was a retired Pakistani diplomat talking to retired US diplomats, and he has a record for embellishing the truth:
Oakley and other sources confirm that Naik ran into trouble for the way he characterized the ongoing talks between India and Pakistan in 1999 and 2000. At the time, he claimed that a deal between the longstanding enemies was imminent; Naik only had to show the right maps to Indian officials, who would then sign an agreement that would end to war over Kashmir. But soon after these claims hit the Pakistani press, critics refuted Naik”s assertion. And of course, no such deal was ever inked. “He played up his role as an unofficial intermediary between Sharif and [Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari] Vajpayee,” Oakley says. “He claimed they almost reached this agreement. But again, I think there was a lot of exaggeration. The Indians were nowhere close to reaching an agreement.” Oakley believes Naik is no more believable now.
Your link to this pipeline story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm) also contains absolutely no evidence suggesting a link between this development and the UNOCAL pipeline negotiations which fell through in 1999 (see Rashid, “Taliban”, pp.157-182). Which firms are involved? Is this purely a deal between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (hence TAPI)? The only source of funding mentioned is the Asian Development Bank. Unless you can provide evidence showing a US hand here, you have nothing.
(12)
JW) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
SB) Both of these scenarios assume incorrectly that a “stand down” scenario would require complicity with all NORAD personnel. These men follow orders in a chain of command and are informed of situations on a “need to know” basis. The person in charge and giving the orders is the only one who is responsible for their actions, or inactions. On the morning of 9/11 that person was Dick Cheney.”
Wrong again. Richard Clarke’s memoirs (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743268237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231769873&sr=1-1) make it clear that it was he who was in charge of the inter-agency group responding to the attacks on the morning of 11th September 2001. This is confirmed by the 9/11 Commission report (pp.55-57).
Furthermore, the deputy commander of NORAD is a CF Lieutenant General (currently Lt Gen Charlie Bouchard). The Deputy CINC NORAD on 9/11 was a CF General called Ken Pennie:
http://www.norad.mil/leaders/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bouchard
The Canadian staff at NORAD are not bottle-washers and rivet-fitters. They are a fully integrated part of the command structure. If 9/11 was an inside job, then either General Pennie was part of the plot, or he is a complete idiot who didn’t notice his American colleagues doing anything nefarious. If the former was true, was he acting independently, or under his own government and military’s chain of command?
(13)
JW) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
SB) You do not need to convince me that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack, rather you need to convince the FBI. To this day the FBI claims it has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11 and the 9/11 attack is conspicuously absent from his list of crimes on their website. While it only took three months to obtain a Federal indictment against bin Laden for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, there has been no indictment issued for 9/11 after 7 years of searching. The justice department isn’t even trying to get an indictment. What do they know that you can’t seem to accept as reality?”
This is complete and utter claptrap. The myth of the FBI having no evidence on bin Laden was perpetrated by a “truther” called Ed Haas. He distorted the contents of an FBI press conference (as reported here):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
Note the following:
The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice,” the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. “Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
None of this found its way in Mr Haas’ account, which can best be described as a travesty of the record:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
The “fake video” claim has already been refuted, and doesn’t even detract from the series of AQ statements of responsibility (check the links in my original post) since 9/11:
http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html
Perhaps you can also clarify one point for me. “Truthers” say that when the FBI identify 19 Arabs as hijackers they are liars and are part of the conspiracy. They also allege (as you do below) that their efforts to investigate terrorist plots are being frustrated on high. Furthermore, they also say that the FBI’s supposed inability to indict bin Laden is proof of an inside job. Can you clarify which of these propositions is correct?
(14)
JW) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
SB) Again you focus on moot questions that neither make or break the 9/11 case. It can be safe to assume that Flight 93 was not meant to crash there, seeing that it was heading towards Washington. Maybe the passengers did overpower the hijackers, whoever they really were, and lost control of the aircraft. Maybe it was shot down on Cheney’s order. We can only speculate.
Or as an alternative you could actually check the evidence. But then what would “truthers” be without speculation?
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html
“why was the WTC the main target of the attack? Did Al Qaeda have a grudge against old, asbestos laden buildings?”
AQ targeted the building which Ramzi Yousef failed to destroy in 1993. They also destroyed a building which symbolised US capitalism and global financial dominance. Bin Laden also stated in his 29th October 2004 video that it was also “revenge” for US support for Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 1982:
I will explain to you the reasons behind these events, and I will tell you the truth about the moments when this decision was taken, so that you can reflect on it. God knows that the plan of striking the towers had not occurred to us, but the idea came to me when things went just too far with the American-Israeli alliance’s oppression and atrocities against our people in Palestine and Lebanon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm
(15)
JW) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
SB) The obvious reason is that if popular and outspoken Truthers would start dying in mysterious accidents it would only serve to raise suspicions about what they are saying. Why go to all the trouble of assassinating the Truthers when the guilty parties have the media power to assassinate their character by publicly denouncing them as “loony moonbats” while preventing any serious debate about their claims on any mainstream media source. Small radio shows and internet videos aren’t considered a threat when they know most Americans only get their information from major network news broadcasts.
Which just goes to show poorly the “truthers” have done in proving their claims. They are either too incompetent at their job to bother the “real conspirators”, or they’re actually concocting complete fabrications, and people recognise this fact. If you are upset about being presented as “loony moonbats”, then perhaps you should wonder why it is that your persecutors find it so easy to present you to the world as objects of ridicule and contempt.
Now for your “questions”:
PART II
“1. Why did the Bush administration ignore 9/11 warnings and obstruct FBI investigations?”
The warnings of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were long on threat and short on specifics. The “Bid Wedding” warning from the Jordanian Mukhabarat, for example, involved a code-name for the attack but no details. And as Coll and Wright show, the main reason why signals of an impending attack on the USA were not picked up by the CIA and the FBI was because of institutional rivalries between - and within - the two which prevented effective collaboration and sharing of intelligence. The “obstruction” of the FBI is a myth:
http://www.911myths.com/html/back_off_bin_ladin.html
Perhaps you can also clarify my point above. Are the FBI part of the conspiracy and cover-up, or are their genuine investigations into 9/11 and other terrorist plots being thwarted by the powers that be?
“2. Who scheduled the multiple military war games for the morning of 9/11?”
On the morning of 11th September NORAD was holding exercises dealing with bombers approaching the US coast, not hijackings involving airliners. That gives you a clue as to what kind of role NORAD had pre-9/11 - namely that it was organised to concentrate on external threats to US airspace rather than internal problems like hijackings (see the Lambeth source I link to in my initial post. See also the following links).
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD_background
Of course, that’s just the kind of inconvenient fact that “truthers” willfully ignore.
Regarding Ruppert’s accusations (which you link to), it is first worth noting that NORAD as a command had its budget and forces cut during the 1990s, on the not unreasonable grounds that because the Cold War was over, the USA and Canada didn’t need to worry quite so much about air defence any more:
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151250.pdf
For more on NORAD’s mission and tasks
That is why there were only 4 interceptors available from the Air National Guard to cover the North Eastern Seaboard of the USA on the morning of 9/11 (see Lambeth, passim).
Contrary to Ruppert’s assertions, there were two routine exercises NORAD was running on 11th September 2001. Northern Vigilance deployed fighter aircraft to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Soviet air force exercise in the North Pacific.
Vigilant Guardian (the exercise run from NEADS) was a scheduled semi-annual exercise which the military refers to as a CPEX (Command Post Exercise, or what the Army terms a TEWT - Tactical Exercise Without Troops). The scenario involved responding to a bomber incursion from the former USSR, and was run by computer simulation. No fighter planes were involved. As General Ralph Eberhart (the then CINC NORAD) noted in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, “’it took about 30 seconds’ to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. [Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004]. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise” (Chapter 1, fn.116).
Whatever the case, exercises or no exercises, the air defence of the entire USA on 9/11 rested on just 14 fighters (4 of which - as noted above - were allocated to NEADS).
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/War_games
So Ruppert has nothing, and neither do you, Stewart.
“3. Why did the Bush administration try to block the 9/11 investigation?”
Viable reasons why the Bush administration was not keen on an investigation - the most creditable involves protection of intelligence-gathering methods and sources relevant to current anti-terrorism operations; the least creditable (and most likely) involves concerns about being embarrassed (prior to a Presidential election) by an inquiry that would show bureaucratic and political incompetence at the highest levels.
My impression that the main reason why Bush et al were unwilling to co-operate had a lot to do with purely party-political and electoral calculations. I guess that on planet truther all politicians are cunning, devious Machiavellian geniuses whose powers of mind-manipulation and deception are on a par with those of Keyeser Sose in “The Usual Suspects” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/). But in the real world political leaders are more likely to be short-term opportunists who will shy away from any scenario that is likely to lose them votes - such as an enquiry that would reveal home truths about how unprepared the US government was for an Al Qaeda attack. Remember Karl Rove’s advice to Bush in the 2002 congressional elections to “run on the war” and make the Republicans the party of national security (http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2006-Ra-Z/Rove-Karl.html). Such an electoral strategy was bound to run into trouble if a Democratic Presidential candidate could use the findings of an official enquiry to discredit the Republicans, and to tell voters that Bush and his pals were asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened. That’s typical politics, in my view, but not evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP.
“4. The FEMA funded study by WPI documented WTC steel melting. How did this steel melt?”
Read and learn:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel
In the meantime, do you want to have a go at these?
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
86 responses
Bravo. Great rebuttal and I applaud your effort. I will be curious if Mr. Bradley can back up his response with the same amount of information and RESPECTED sources.
Thank you, Buck. I wait Mr Bradley’s response with interest.
Oops - ‘I await Mr Bradley’s response with interest’.
Notice how the twoofers have taken to wearing quasi-uniforms. All fascistic types tend to need someone or something to scapegoat.
Fantastic rebuttal. I want to believe that it will have an effect.
‘Fantastic rebuttal. I want to believe that it will have an effect.’
Thank you. The lack of a ‘truther’ response to this post speaks volumes.
It would be interesting to find out how many Truthers blame the Jews for the 9/11 tragedy- Because in my exeperience, EVERY SINGLE Truther I have ancountered was a rabid anti semite.
To the best of my knowledge, the most overt purveyors of MIHOP accusations- the Loose Change team, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage - have not endorsed the ‘theories’ claiming Israeli responsibility, and there have been some ‘truthers’ I’ve debated with online who have admitted that the ‘5 dancing Israelis’ story and other similar tales are groundless.
However, anti-Semitism is rife within the ‘truther’ camp, which reflects its political roots in the extreme right as well as the far left (elements of which have embraced Jew-hatred in the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’). I think I will post on this in due course.
Given that hundreds of Jews didn’t show up for work at the WTC on 9/11, and given how the US fighting radical Muslims would benefit Israel (because our troops would be fuighting and dying instead of theirs), and given the fact the US has a foreign policy that seems to serve the interests of the Israel, it may be politically incorect, but the truth is crystal clear- 9/11 was planned, funded and carried out by the Jews. Jews financed 9/11, and Jewish ‘Jew Yorkers’ planted the explosives without concience. The Jews do have a plan of global domination, and causing the events of 9/11 not only made America a very subserviant paranoid frightened nation, but put us in Israel’s contol.
The true enemy of America is not the Muslim; our true enemy is the Jew. This is not ‘anti Semitism, it’s the truth-
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot …
The state of C.G.Macey’s mind can be best gauged by the fact that he believes wholeheartedly a rumour put about by that renowned beacon of truth, the Hizbollah TV station ‘Al Manar’:
http://911myths.com/index.php/4000_Israelis
I suppose this retard also believes in the ‘Protocols’ and blood libel as well.
C.G Macy, in your bigoted diatribe, you did a better job than I ever could in demonstrating how you ‘9/11 Truthers’ are little more than bottom feeders and Jew bashers ….
“Jew Yorkers’??? Are you fricken serious????????
Jospeh, what are this ‘Protocals of Zion’ the Truthers often babble about? More Jew bashing I assume…. It is shocking how the Truthers share many philosophies in common with neo Nazis, in particular, fear of a Jewish conspiracy for world domination.
The one big question I have for truthers is this- If 9/11 was an inside job, what was the point of the whole operation?
Some Truthers insist it was so Bush could seize dictatorial powers and declare hilmself president for life.
But Bush is out of power, so he can hardly be labled a fascist dictator anymore- as dictators do not step down willingly…
He was lemon of a president, but hardly a Nazi. It’s an irony, as Truthers have many views they share in common with Neo Nazi groups (like rabid anti semetism)- so they are closer to being Nazis that Bush ever was….
Since Truther theories about Bush being another Hitler have evaporated, I suspect their focus will shift to blaming the Jews.
The Truthers who claim it was carried out by a shadow government, and there are black helicopters everywhere are the true tinfoil hat types, and are people who belong in straight jacket.s..
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a document concocted by the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, describing a conspiracy by ‘World Jewry’ to take over the globe. It’s about 100 years old, it helped provide the ideological basis for German Nazism, and its pronouncements are alive and well in elements of the far-right in the West, and are particularly popular in the Arab world. I will comment on this at greater length in due course.
I assmed the truthers were an ultra left wing group, as many of them are staunch anarchists-which tends to be an ultra left ideology- Ultra right wing tends to be fascist.
Could the anti semetic Truthers be far left AND far right, right,?
Perhaps the far right and far left one in the same, in their preaching of hatred.
The ‘truth’ movement has seen a convergence between far-left and far-right, and I suspect that the latter’s ideology has contaminated the former.
This self-described “investigative journalist” Stewart Bradley posted a debate on his blog that he claims was with me. It wasn’t with me or with anyone representing himself as me. I’ve insisted on a retraction and apology.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135322
I have yet to lose my capacity for amazement at the incompetence of 9/11 truthers.
That’s interesting, Mark. It just goes to show that ‘truthers’ can’t deal with debates with real people, as opposed to straw men.
Incidentally, can I take this opportunity to thank you for all the hard work you’ve done in rebutting the various lies surrounding 9/11?
Joseph, what I can’t figure out from the Truthers is that what was the objective of the so called ‘conspiracy’?
If it was a conspiracy, whay was it caried out?
I don’t agree with these Truther freaks- I’m just curious why they think it was an inside job. Who would benefit? I have a theory some of the more militant anrachist Truthers hate the US so much, they are engaging in projection- in their minds, it’s oinly natural for people to hate America and want to detroy Americans- How else could they even think thousands of Americans would be willing participants in such a coverup? Do they any clue how many people would immediatly blow the whistle if they were approached to be a part of mass murder? Truthers get around this by saying all those involved or approached were likly killed.
And of course, they offer no proof..
More often than not Truthers assert 9/11 was staged so Bush and Cheney could assume dictatorial powers….but Obama is in, Bush is out, so their calling Bush a latter day Hitler doesn’t hold much water….
I’m wondering if this is why the mood amongst Truthers has turned from blaming Bush to blaming the Jews- hence the rise of anti Semitism in their ranks.
I wonder if there are any x-Truthers out there, who came to their senses, and came to realise that the truther movement was little more than an anarchist and anti Semetic group.
If I can see any political trends behind 9/11 conspiracy theorists, this is broadly where they are:
(1) Hard left - This branch does incorporate LIHOP views, but basically states that 9/11 was the pretext for wars of aggression in the Middle East, with oil as the main motive.
(2) Radical right - This incorporates the so-called ‘Patriot’ movement, and has its roots in the John Birch Society etc. These people are hostile to big government and on the far right, without overtly being racist/Nazi. The reasons given for 9/11 are similar to those of the far left, although an additional perceived motive is that of imposing a dictatorship on the USA. In this respect, established suspicion of the Bildebergers, UN etc are combined with a loathing of the Federal government dating from Waco etc.
(3) Racist right - This incorporates neo-Nazi and other fascistic groups. These guys will either blame the US government and the ‘Jews’/Israel, or just the latter. However, some elements of the racist right also expressed delight at the attack on ‘Jew York’, and also regrets that ‘Aryans’ had neither the courage or initiative to emulate Al-Qaeda.
(Source: Martin Durham, ‘The American Far Right and 9/11′, ‘Terrorism and Political Violence’, 15/2 (2003), pp.96-111).
What is evident is the intermingling of alternative theories and culprits within the ‘truth’ movement, which explains why some leftist ‘truthers’ are keen to emphasise conspiracy theories blaming Israel. But the essential point here is that ‘truthers’ are wildly incoherent and inconsistent in their claims, and I hope that my posts have shown this.
Great poste Joseph!
It would appear both the radical left and radical right both share the view that 9/11 was staged so fascism could rise in America- But in such a view, I think the extreme left is more vocal, given the number of ultra left wing anarchists who concidered Bush to be a Hitler like dicator. I always saw the extreme right as being supporters of Bush.
And for the record, I’m a moderate Democrat, and didn’t like Bush- but he was not behind 9/11, nor was he a dictator- He was just a lousy president, like Herbert Hoover. A new president has been elected, and in my view, that successful transition of power fully disproves Bush is a fascist- as fascists seldom give up power willingly…
Of course i’m sure some Truthers think Obama was in on 9/11 too, or is a hologram…
The Truthers on the left are as much an embarassment to liberals as the Intelligent Design advovates are for Conservatives.
Just to show you how extreme these people are-
Noam Chomsky, an intellectual of the far left, who is highly critical of US foreign policy, has openly riduculed the Truther movement of being absurd. No surprise- they now hate chomsky-they now dub Chomsky a ’shill’, and attack him for being a Jew.
So I guess there are people even further to the left than Chomsky.
I really think a book needs to be written exploring the severe anti semetic undertones of the Truther movement.
Youtube has become the Truthers favorite venue for spreading their propaganda- and the ‘proof’ the present is anything but…
The advoates of the idea of controlled demolition can never clearly explain the point of flying planes into buildings if they were riggered to explode anyway…Plus they can’t seem to grasp that if a building is imploded, the explosions are riggged to start on the bottom floors first, as opposed to the top floors first…
Hello again my skeptical friends,
Sorry to keep you waiting but here is my response to your post.
No, it’s not another “Rick Rolled” video.
I do hope you may actually consider what I have to say, and I wish you and your gang all the best.
Warmest regards… Stewart Bradley
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/beyond-15-questions-historical-context.html
Mr Bradley, from reading your comments I can see that you have ignored most of my rebuttals, failed to read nearly all my sources, and also ignored all my follow-up questions. This is most disappointing, but hardly comes as a great surprise. I will follow up your pitiful attempt at a ‘response’ in due course.
Incidentally, given your scepticism about the linkage between 9/11 ‘truthers’ and anti-Semitism, I suggest that you check the web-page of one of your (very few) readers, hANOVER fIST, and follow some of the pages he links to (such as ‘Auschwitz for Dummies’). I hope you will share my revulsion at what you see.
“[Stewart] ignored most of my rebuttals, failed to read nearly all my sources, and also ignored all my follow-up questions.”
I was pretty disappointed to see the exact same claims as well. I presented quite a bit of evidence and argument to help Stewart understand that metallurgy study that he keeps referencing. He obviously read it. I wonder why he continues presenting the same argument without any discussion of the clear holes he has in his argument.
The morons who buy the official story are just part of the problem- They blindly believe what the government tells them-They forget that NO plane debris was found in Washington or in Pensylvania. You government hacks need to OPEN YOUR EYE$ and read about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion- It will then be CLEAR who was begind 9/11. Blood is on their hand$.
You’re boring.
In another life, I’ll be a film director. I’ll make a movie about the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement called ‘Dawn of the Brain Dead’.
‘They forget that NO plane debris was found in Washington or in Pensylvania (sic).’
Is that a fact?:
http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
Oh, wait a minute? What does all that look like? Could it possibly be … debris?
‘You government hacks need to OPEN YOUR EYE$ and read about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion- It will then be CLEAR who was begind (sic) 9/11. Blood is on their hand$.’
Are you saying the Tsarist Okhrana did 9/11? They’re the ones that wrote the ‘Protocols’.
I honestly don’t know what to say about anyone who still believes that a document concocted in Imperial Russia in 1904 to justify both pogroms and the maintenance of the Tsarist system is actually true. Maybe there are parts of the world where siblings are allowed to marry and procreate, and ‘Jeff R.’ is one of the results.
No ‘no planers’ are a sad lot- But to play devil’s advocate, I can see what they might draw the false conclusion why no plane went down in PA, as photos show very little debris- Contrast that with photos of most crash sites, where debris is everywhere.
At most plane crash scenes, you couldn’t step anywhere without hiotting wreckage
But of course people at the recovery site, and earlier cell phone calls from the plane prove the plane did crash.
I think what happned is that the plane in PA nosedived-and most of the debris was underground-and had to be dug out
Welcome back, DOOPS!
First…let’s get a little science here - http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf - I hope now that you’ll get that “controlled demolition” does not necessarily involve EXPLOSIONS.
Can we grow up and try another tack besides the old “antiSemite” canard? It’s really getting old, and that dog doesn’t hunt anymore.
Did you see the CBS broadcast admitting that the collapse of WTC 7 was NOT normal by any means? If not…I’m sure I don’t need to tell you where you can see it…
Controlled demolition without an explosion? Well, one of the authors got his doctorate in Asian Religion and Literature. Maybe the conspirators used chi to bring the building down.
Incidentally, the ‘Journal of 9/11 Research’ doesn’t use the same process of anonymous peer review that is standard for established academic journals. Wonder why?
“the collapse of WTC 7 was NOT normal by any means?”
Describe a normal collapse.
Joseph
I do not think it was “chi”. More likey controlled feng shui. It seems from hUNGOVERS article that some plants were placed in the building that did not match the decor and this caused the building to collapse.
Also no Chinese people turned up for work on 911.
And five dancing Chinese people were spotted as the buildings collapsed.
Obviously a “psy- ops” and “false flag” operation.
More garbage, garbage, garbage……
Talking of Mr fIST, he was crowing about the fact that Counterknowledge was ‘KAPUT’ last week. But I’m sure that secretly he’s pleased we’re back. After all, without us who would pay his shitty little blog even the slightest hint of attention?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705295677/Traces-of-explosives-in-911-dust-scientists-say.html?pg=1
Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.
Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.
The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a “nano-thermite” material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Story continues below
Quantcast
The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate “who made the stuff and why it was there.”
A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine “the whole truth of the events of that day.” They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.
One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, “It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later.”
Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.
Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.
The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a “highly energetic” form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, “super thermite” is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.
Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn’t have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives.
Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. “I would like to think I could stand up for the truth,” he says.
The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. “As a young student said to me a while back: ‘It’s exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.’?”
So…what now?
“So…what now?”
If “highly explosive” nanothermite was used to demolish the building…why was it not..
Exploded?
If the temperatures within the collapse were such that they could sustain a thermite reaction then he should have found the products of such a reaction in his dust. Far more compelling to the argument would be the presence of Aluminum oxide, and iron, among the ambiguous “highly explosive nanothermite”
But let’s not let science get in the way of some buffoon comparing himself to Galileo and Newton.
As Boxer would say, ‘If Comrade Napoleon says so, it must be true’.
Much the same can be said of that complete fruitcake hANOVER fIST and Steven Jones.
What happened to the plane at the Pentagon? No wings? No engines? No seats? No mini bottles of scotch?
“If the temperatures within the collapse were such that they could sustain a thermite reaction then he should have found the products of such a reaction in his dust. Far more compelling to the argument would be the presence of Aluminum oxide, and iron, among the ambiguous “highly explosive nanothermite”
So…you attempt to completely change the meaning of this statement by changing the tense of “exploding” to “exploded”.
You should admit that you have even less knowledge than I about this, since you have no good reason to explain how the buildings were “collapsed”, and I have at least a methodology.
Paul…get ready for these tools to attack like retarded piranha - after all, yesterday was National Fudge Day, and these tools are professional packers.
????? ?????????? ??? ????! ?????????? ?? rss. ???? ????????? ??????.
‘What happened to the plane at the Pentagon? No wings? No engines? No seats? No mini bottles of scotch?’
No wreckage at all, eh Paul …
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2
Please join hANOVER on the shortbus.
Karzai/UNOCAL/Pipelines? Debunked??
I believe you may be a little off the mark there.
‘Karzai/UNOCAL/Pipelines? Debunked??
I believe you may be a little off the mark there’
See here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/9_11_and_the_afghan_pipeline.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/hamid_karzai_and_unocal.html
Perhaps you can also tell me why - if the Afghan war was all about building a pipeline - the Americans haven’t actually built one.
Dont mean to teach you to suck eggs here, but its clear that after a campaign longer than the last great war, the Taliban have not yet been defeated. The nation is still too volatile.
The TAP has been in discussion since it was agreed upon in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance to start construction in Spring 2011. Fortunately coinciding with the US surge of 30,000 extra US troops.
If you evidence is that the campaign is not about TAP is simply that it has not been built, then where does that leave your contention when it has been constructed.
Seriously, we all now its about the pipe.
911 myths conclusion, regarding Karzai and UNOCAL…Unproven.
According to an ex chairman of UNOCAL now living in London, this is no’ truthers’ myth.
Dont mean to teach you to suck eggs here, but its clear that after a campaign longer than the last great war, the Taliban have not yet been defeated.
The objective has never been the defeat of the Taliban. The objective was to remove the Taliban administration, track down Al-Qaeda personnel, destroy Al-Qaeda infrastructure, and restrict Al-Qaeda movement.
If you evidence is that the campaign is not about TAP is simply that it has not been built, then where does that leave your contention when it has been constructed.
This is a major shift in the goal posts. First of all, this was not the original claim. Second, it’s not our responsibility to prove your theory incorrect. It’s yours to prove your theory correct. How does the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan prove that the U.S. removed the Taliban so that the pipeline could be constructed. You have no evidence of this. Your evidence was speculation connected to Unocal which is no longer involved in the deal at all.
Why wouldn’t any government want to construct a pipeline in that area?
Fangbeer, your first point is mere semantics, and not worth commenting upon.
As for your second point: Firstly..
…”Perhaps you can also tell me why - if the Afghan war was all about building a pipeline - the Americans haven’t actually built one.” JW
That comment was used in refutation of my claim and It really was quite a peculiar question.
Secondly, the burden of proof question is meaningless.
The pipeline, if built, cannot prove anything. however considering the western strategic interest in the project, it does raise questions.
You can believe that the US is in Afghanistan to search for Osama Bin Laden and support the “Democratic” Mr Karzai. Or you can believe that this war is about control of resources.
If you believe the former then you are looking at an abysmal folly at the expense of billions of dollars and tragically thousands, nay millions of lives. If you believe the latter things start to make a modicum of sense.
Finally,
“Why wouldn’t any government want to construct a pipeline in that area?”
Indeed..of course any government would want access to the Central Asian gas fields. So I guess it makes sense that the biggest kid on the block…the USA…the worlds only superpower (accompanied by token NATO forces) is occupying Afghanistan, the only viable route for the TAP.
Fangbeer, your first point is mere semantics, and not worth commenting upon.
It’s a direct refutation of the fallacy you created with your statement. You claimed that the Taliban has yet to be defeated. Why would you expect them to have been defeated if that was not our military objective?
That comment was used in refutation of my claim and It really was quite a peculiar question.
Actually, it was the link that Joseph provided that refuted your claim. He added the second question, which is hardly peculiar, as an addendum to the refutation given in the link.
The pipeline, if built, cannot prove anything. however considering the western strategic interest in the project, it does raise questions.
And thus you descend into the very same argumentative style that Joseph intended to address with his initial post on this topic. You’re just asking questions right? Your leading questions are intended to paint the picture of a narrative that you’re never brave enough to actually outline. You’re perfectly willing to suggest it though, aren’t you?
So Joseph turned the tables on you. He asked you a question instead. If the Americans overthrew the Taliban government for the purpose of building a pipeline, why didn’t the administration that actually hatched your half baked plan actually build one?
I’ll ask you another one. Why would the Americans want a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan when we have such vast and untapped natural gas reserves right here in America?
Fangbeer,
Your waffling.
I am not asking any questions.
Anyway, I find the notion that questions should not be asked a little ridiculous, maybe its worth telling that to the Chilcot enquiry team.
” why didn’t the administration that actually hatched your half baked plan actually build one?”
Again…Im sure you can figure out the answer yourself.
I find the notion that questions should not be asked a little ridiculous
It is ridiculous because it’s a straw man. My point isn’t that you shouldn’t ask questions. My point is that your questions are rooted in false premises. And don’t tell me statements like this:
The pipeline, if built, cannot prove anything. however considering the western strategic interest in the project, it does raise questions.
aren’t meant to question western motives. This statement:
I am not asking any questions.
is clearly a lie.
So that brings us to this:
” why didn’t the administration that actually hatched your half baked plan actually build one?”
Again…Im sure you can figure out the answer yourself
No. I can’t figure it out for myself. I think your story makes no sense at all. Why would I have answers for you? This is your speculative narrative. You’re the one that’s supposed to have establish that it makes sense. Am I supposed to believe that the same administration that masterminded a massive conspiracy, which would have required near omnipotence to carry out, was too impotent to build a pipeline in Afghanistan?
If you evidence is that the campaign is not about TAP is simply that it has not been built, then where does that leave your contention when it has been constructed.
This is the example of your fallacious argument. It’s not our job to prove that the campaign is not about TAP. We can’t prove a negative. It’s your job to prove that there is a connection between the Afghan war and a pipeline in Afghanistan. And on that point you fall so short of the mark that it can’t even be seen at all. If there is a pipeline built in Afghanistan it doesn’t prove that there’s a link between the war and the pipe. It in itself is not even evidence that there’s a link.
More waffle! no substance to your comments.
Let me spell it out for you young Fangbeer:
In simple terms. The proposed pipeline cannot be built because of a certain security issue invoving the Taliban.
A proposal originally involving UNOCAL and ENRON.
(Karzai comes directly from the Bush camp and was in fact a consultant for UNOCAL on this project. and was put in place because of this)
Are you really so naive as to think the US does not has its own geostrategic sights set on the Central Asian gas reserves. If it did’nt it would stand alone among the worlds greater powers.
It is not possible for an individual such as myself to prove that this is the prime motive in the face of denial. It is however blatantly obvious what the motives are. It is equally impossible to prove that the sole motive is the ‘war on terror’.
Questions? Straw Men? what proposterous notion.
Everything must be questioned if it is to be understood.
Let me spell it out for you young Fangbeer:
More fallacy. This time it’s ad hominem.
In simple terms. The proposed pipeline cannot be built because of a certain security issue invoving the Taliban.
Oh this is the reason why? You’re sure of that? You have evidence that this is the case? Hmm. It’s not because Unocal no longer wants to build the pipeline? Heck, even the article you posted mentions that Unocal denies involvement, and that the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkministan are seeking funding for the project. Do you have an article that reports on interested investors? I doubt you’re going to find any interest from Unocal because they already invested in a pipeline from the Caspian sea through Turkey. Unocal got their pipeline in 2005.
No. The reason the pipeline hasn’t been built is that there’s no money for it currently. Hell, if the Afghan government had the cash they’d build the pipeline themselves.
It is not possible for an individual such as myself to prove that this is the prime motive in the face of denial
Apparently, it’s not even possible to put together a cohesive narrative.
Karzai comes directly from the Bush camp
This is just a shameless invention; a completely unsupported assertion. Karzai was involved in Afghan politics long before the Bush administration ever came to power.
[Karzai] was in fact a consultant for UNOCAL on this project
Another shameless invention; completely unsupported. There’s no evidence that Karzai worked with or for Unocal. Tsk Tsk. You didn’t even read the link that Joseph Welch provided.
“they already invested in a pipeline from the Caspian sea through Turkey. Unocal got their pipeline in 2005″
This is an oil pipeline!!!
” It’s not because Unocal no longer wants to build the pipeline?”
UNOCAL no longer exists it was bought by Chevron.
I said the ‘original’ planning involved UNOCAL, ENRON.
I’m sorry but Karzai was a consultant for UNOCAL as certainly as Khalilzad, US Evoy to Afghanistan, was a former employee of UNOCAL. For how long and in what capacity, I do not know.
But I have it on good authority that this is true and I put credence in the source.
“This is just a shameless invention; a completely unsupported assertion. Karzai was involved in Afghan politics long before the Bush administration ever came to power.”
He was put on power by the US!!
He has only recently been “Democraticaly” elected. (Theres another can of worms)
Look up TAPI investment, you obviously have not done this already. Main backing is from the conglomeration of finance, The Asian Development Bank.
Incidentally…no Ad Hominen intended. Sorry if you regarded it as such.
I have a comment still awaiting moderation, but there’s two points to make:
(1) The Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India (TAPI) pipeline is being funded by the Asian Development Bank, a regional bank consisting of 67 members. The onus is on you, Steve, to prove a link with the long-defunct UNOCAL pipeline project (dead and buried in 1998) and US government policy.
(2) Far from an ‘ex-chairman of UNOCAL’ confirming that Karzai was a consultant of their firm, he actually said the opposite:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Joseph Welch said
on 9 December 2009 ‘The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance to start construction [of the TAPI] in Spring 2011.’
So in order to prove your point that the US government needed a pretext for a war in Afghanistan so that a US firm could build a pipe-line in that country, you cite a project sponsored by a multilateral regional development bank with 67 members. Hmm, that scraping sound I hear is the sound of goalposts being moved.
‘According to an ex chairman of UNOCAL now living in London, this is no’ truthers’ myth’
This claim comes from the ‘truther’ Jared Israel, who interviewed Barry Lane in October 2001:
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm
‘Jared Israel: … The other thing that is being asserted everywhere is that Hamid Karzai, the current head of the Afghan ‘government’ once worked for you.
Barry Lane: Yeah. Yeah, well that’s probably one of the great urban legends. He never worked for us.
Jared Israel: He didn’t work for somebody else who worked for you?
Barry Lane: No. No, not him. He was never a consultant, never an employee. We’ve exhaustively searched through all our records to try and find out where the hell that came from.
Jared Israel: Le Monde. Dec. 6th, 2001.
Barry Lane: Le Monde. Le Monde was the one who wrote it first and you know what’s strange about it is I’ve asked reporters over and over again, go ask Mr. Karzai himself. And nobody has.
Jared Israel: Well the argument is that there is something sinister and therefore you would both deny it anyway. But my argument is in order to posit that this relationship existed in the first place you have to have some evidence - something - but all le Monde has is their own assertion. They just say he was a consultant. They say, “At one time.” Not even a date. And no source. And then all these writers repeat this as if Le Monde’s assertion is enough to counter your denial. I mean, you can’t use the fact that somebody denies something to prove it’s true.
Barry Lane: Hey, it makes a great story. But I gotta tell you, our CEO was asked this kind of question about the project at the annual meeting, in May, and he was absolutely emphatic that we have no interest, no plans. I’m not sure what part of that is confusing for people’.
This may be a bit difficult for you to accept, Steve, but can you acknowledge that the ‘pipeline/UNOCAL story is bereft of that one thing which provides substance to a ‘theory’ - namely, evidence?
“This claim comes from the ‘truther’ Jared Israel, who interviewed Barry Lane in October 2001:”
This concludes that Karzai did not work for UNOCAL so why would I draw my conclusion from that source?
“So in order to prove your point that the US government needed a pretext for a war in Afghanistan so that a US firm could build a pipe-line in that country”
I dont make this claim, that would be absurd to spend that much on a campaign that would generate a fraction of the money spent.
Its long term global strategy, the money is not in the buiding of the pipeline, its in the uplift of the gas. Even if the US does not profit from this, it still needs to secure its supply of energy resources. (Afghanistan is the only option).
I am sure you understand this more than me, as an Historian.
I dont see how the fact that the funding is from the ADB relinquishes the US of its obvious strategic interest in this project.
Theres is ample evidence of US interest in getting Asian Gas to the open market via the Indian Ocean.
I can say that providing evidence of motives is nigh impossible, for example: The motive of NATO intervention in the Balkans is hailed as humanitarian, The prime motive was however geopolitical interests, as it always is.
Steve…meet Fung, the fucking Wizard of Straw Men.
He might be the biggest bullshite artist trolling this site. The other posting seems to have exceeded its capacity, whenever I refresh the page, it won’t display the entire posting, so I guess I’ll do the Curly shuffle here until this one is filled to capacity by Fung’s scarecrow droppings.
For the record, Fung…the Taliban nearly eradicated opium production; it is now booming! There’ll be enough horse to stun even your dull brain.
Let’s see about Hamid:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
“Hamid Karzai, Unocal’s former representative in Afghanistan who was handpicked by Bush to become head of Afghanistan’s interim government.
Once in office, Afghan leader Karzai wasted little time trying to help his former employer. During his first visit to Pakistan on February 8, Karzai announced that he and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had agreed to revive the pipeline.
Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov, another American ally in the U.S. war in Afghanistan, expressed delight with Karzai’s announcement, saying the pipeline would provide a crucial new export outlet for his country’s huge gas reserves. Karzai took the cue and visited the Turkmen despot within a month to get his endorsement of the pipeline plan.
If Bush follows up on his threats to attack Iraq and he did, U.S. forces has ended up controlling the nation with the world’s second-largest oil reserve. At that point, Saudi Arabia, with its larger oil reserve, homebred terrorists and the terror network’s biggest financial supporters, would no longer be so important.
Now that the attention is on Iran, Bush and other war crime criminals are setting their guns on China through the Tibet protesting, and nuclear material sent to Taiwan “accidently”. Unfortunately, very few have noticed the stench the deadly concoction gives off. ”
So…he may not have been “on the books” at UNOCAL, but he carried water for them.
So much for “shameless inventions”. Fung…stick to snowballing big loads of choda…you’re good at that.
The fact that the US (and UK) relies on concocted evidence and false testimony, obtained by torture, to continue to feed the terror threat narrative to the public, suggests that the war on terror is a false motive for the war in Afghanistan.
Western occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is fuelling tension among muslims and risking and to an extent creating the very situation that these governments claim to be protecting us from.
So what of Gordon Browns claim that our forces in Afghanistan are keeping Britains streets safe? It is completely Illogical.
But what a perfect perpetual opportunity for conquest under the guise of good fighting evil.
I thought the reason the UN are in Afghanistan was because of the fact that Afghanistan was a base for the 911 attacks?
The UN must be really really stupid if that is not the case?
The fact that the US (and UK) relies on concocted evidence and false testimony, obtained by torture, to continue to feed the terror threat narrative to the public, suggests that the war on terror is a false motive for the war in Afghanistan.
What false testimony and concocted evidence was obtained by torture? Why do you assert that this is what they rely on as justification for the war on Afghanistan?
Western occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is fuelling tension among muslims and risking and to an extent creating the very situation that these governments claim to be protecting us from.
Provide evidence for this statement. Show me your vast research on terrorism, and motives for terrorism. Cite specific actors on the world stage who were motivated to commit terrorist acts who would not have been otherwise motivated to do so if not for our response to the attacks on 9/11.
‘“This claim comes from the ‘truther’ Jared Israel, who interviewed Barry Lane in October 2001:”
This concludes that Karzai did not work for UNOCAL so why would I draw my conclusion from that source?’
Well where is your source, Steve? Right now, you’re long on assertions, but a little short on that tricky little thing we call ‘evidence’.
‘I dont see how the fact that the funding is from the ADB relinquishes the US of its obvious strategic interest in this project.’
Well unless you can (1) link UNOCAL with the project or (2) show that the ADB’s backing of TAPI was not a mulilateral decision, but one deriving from unilateral American interests, you haven’t really got a case, have you?
As for hANOVER, yet again our Nazi simpleton misses an obvious point: Karzai was not a former UNOCAL representative in Afghanistan. And maybe even someone as inbred as he should realise that if you can’t back up your claims with a shred of evidence, you shouldn’t really stick with them.
Fangbeer:
“What false testimony and concocted evidence was obtained by torture?”
For one, most worryingly, the testimony extracted by torture in Egypt of Shaykh Al Libi. (details contained in link)
http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/
Torture is a magnificent method of extracting information that is convenient to the sponsor and/or proxy states agenda.
The tortured will say whatever the torturer wants him to say.
This is well documented, read “Murder In Samarkand”.
“Cite specific actors on the world stage who were motivated to commit terrorist acts who would not have been otherwise motivated to do so if not for our response to the attacks on 9/11.”
7/7 Attack:
Tanweer said:
“What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, said:
“Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.”
For one, most worryingly, the testimony extracted by torture in Egypt of Shaykh Al Libi. (details contained in link)
False information provided by Al Libi was used as evidence for the invasion of Iraq. I asked you:
What false testimony and concocted evidence was obtained by torture? Why do you assert that this is what they rely on as justification for the war on Afghanistan?
You have not answered the questions. What types of interrogation were used on al-Libi? When did he make his false statements? What were his false statements? How was this used as justification for the invasion on Afghanistan?
Now on to this topic:
“What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
Do we want to take this quote on its face value that the attack was the “beginning” of our conflict with Muslim extremism? I think that’s demonstrably false. Regardless, this statement above is a pretext that did not exist prior to the Sept 11th attacks. The pretext didn’t even exist in its entirety when your two actors began their training for the attack. Yet the attacks took place. How can this be? Clearly there is some other political motive that drives these young men who are some of the same actors on this much different stage.
I asked you to provide evidence of your statement. You provided me 2 quotes and no evidence that these men were recruited as a direct result of our occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Curiously, you also provide testimony from Mohammad Sidique Khan who had been the lead bomber and had been thinking about Jihad as early as 1999. How could the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have been his motive for waging a holy war?
A similar pretext was the arrest of Omar Abdel-Rahman in 1993. It was cited as the pretext for the Deir el-Bahri massacre. Should we have not arrested him under the premise that stopping him from planning and advocating war against the U.S. might piss off some people sympathetic with his twisted goals?
Nonsense Fangbeer,
Three of four London bombers were youngsters, prior to the invasion in 2002
The earliest allegations of Khan’s involvement in terrorism were from 2002, and these have not been proved.
This was home grown terrorism in response to western occupation and attrocities abroad, The home office actually dismissed any Al Qiada involvment.
You’re claim that invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq has not been a motive for terrorism is quite franky utter codswallop.
Yes indeed Al Libi’s testimony concerned Iraq, I used it as an example of the unreliability of evidence obtained by torture and the consequences of using it.
If you need more examples, the book I refered to is a good start.
Ref your last comment:
Are you trying to compare the arrest of an individual with the invasion and occupation of 2 nations and all the slaughter that that has and continues to cause.
Steve, I don’t suppose you’ve noticed that Mohammed Siddique Khan’s radicalisation (as reported in the 7/7 Report) started well before us evil infidels invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. But I suppose that’s yet another inconvenient truth you’ll choose to ignore.
He was not actively involved in acts of terrorism prior to the invasion whether he was a radical or not.
I did notice however that he was known to be at a suspected terrorist camp in W Yorkshire. I would be interested to know why why, if the police suspected it was a terror training camp, they cannot confirm their suspicions. But yes, I agree his radicalisation began prior to the war.
People do not blow themselves up without powerful motives and the cause is a topic seldom if ever touched upon in the media.
Broadly speaking the cause is well know to be the result of western foreign policy. To say that the 2 most significant and overt actions by the US led coallition has no impact on levels of terrorism is simply myopic.
Yes AQ did exist prior to these actions, yes muslim terrorism has been a fact of life for decades, just as was the IRA.
If the war on terror is to be taken literally, then it cannot be won.
Personally I dont believe its meant to be won, but used as justification for western dominance in the strategically important middle east and central Asia.
“He was not actively involved in acts of terrorism prior to the invasion whether he was a radical or not.”
Seeing as you know so much and seem to think your opinion has any importance. Would you care to tell us, in your great opinion, why he was a terror camp before the invasion of Iraq, if you believe that Iraq was the cause of his radicalisation.
Why was he at the camp? Was it the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that pissed him off?
Lee,
Firstly, I do not know so much, but strive to learn more, which is why I like to engage in dialogue on blogs such as this one. (not so long ago I half believed 9/11 was an inside job, one particular poster on this site has gone a long way to convinced me otherwise).
I do base my opinions on what I learn and dont regard my opinion of any greater importance than yours, in the great scheme of things, it is however my opinion and one to which I am rightly entitled.
Secondly:
“Would you care to tell us, in your great opinion, why he was a terror camp before the invasion of Iraq,”
If you took heed of my last comment you would see that I already drew attention to this.
On that issue I cant comment because I do not know the actual nature of this meeting, Something I have in common with British security services.
I would dearly like to think that if this was actually a terror training camp that those entrusted with the security of the UK’s citizens would have acted accordingly rather than retrospectivley suspecting that the event they surveilled was terrorist training.
Perhaps it was, Perhaps Khan would have attacked regardless of the invasions. (I dont claim that islamic terrorism was prevalent before). All we can do is speculate.
What I do know is that occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan has enflamed tensions among much of the muslim community to a level unheard of prior to, and is certainly leading to greater radicalisation of muslims such as Major Hasan.
I know its not a popular notion and is seldom touched upon in the media because it turns the alleged motive of keeping our streets safe at home on its head.
If I thought the western governments invaded afghanistan to capture or kill a relative small number of highly mobile terrorists with the full weight of conventional warfare, I would be worried.
If you were known to be Al Qaida…would you still be in Afghanistan? No you would have run over the border to Pakistan or Yemen, do we now invade these nations, install a government of our choice and kill thousands more more who have nothing to do with terrorism, but oppose occupation. where does it stop.
I may be wrong here and dont have time to google it, but were the Taleban not going to hand over Bin Laden to the US before the US bombed them with cruise missiles in 1998.
(I dont claim that islamic terrorism was prevalent before).
Sorry that was supposed to read ‘not prevalent’.
I have a comment in moderation still, but I’d like to ask the question I asked in that comment.
You assert that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan incites terrorism. I say so what?
Do you mean to say that those actions should not have been taken based on this premise? If you do, would you also say the same about other pretenses for terrorism? (such as the arrest of Omar Abdel-Rahman)
You complained that I was comparing two pretenses that did not seem equal in your eyes, but a pretense is a pretense. Do we really need to worry about how they justify their actions, or can we outright condemn their actions regardless of their excuse?
Could you state your message a little clearer please.
I think you’re saying: We must condemn terrorism whatever the cause or pretext.
Do you mean ‘So what?’ that its my assertion, or do you mean ‘ So what?’ that the invasions incite terrorism?
An insightful article from Jon Pilger
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/01/afghanistan-war-pilger-obama
I mean that while your statement may be true, that some people chose to become terrorists as a result of our actions, that does not mean that our actions are the cause of terrorism. Our response to terrorism cannot be considered the cause. Whether we are right or wrong, we did not cause fundamental Islamists to slaughter civilians. They made that choice on their own original reasons.
It is true that arresting gang members incites some people to become involved with gangs. While this may be true, it doesn’t speak at all to the actual problem of gang violence. Should gang members not be arrested for violent crimes simply because someone else might decide to become a gang member as a result?
Here’s yet another analogy. Think of an avalanche. An avalanche starts in patches of snow that have been warmed by the sun. As the warm snow slides down the mountain it entrains more snow that might not have fallen on its own. Trees can help to arrest the motion of an avalanche, but sometimes they can be uprooted, and they become part of the problem as they drag along even more snow then would have been part of the avalanche then before.
Now it’s perfectly true that trees can cause more snow to join the avalanche, but does that mean that trees cause avalanches? Does that make it a bad idea to plant trees to help prevent avalanches?
Fangbeer, heres the view of a rather more informed individual than myself.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_case_of_dr.html#comments
in a video broadcast posthumously Saturday that all jihadists must attack U.S. targets to avenge the death of Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/general/view.bg?articleid=1224317
So what’s the right pretext? Was it Iraq, or was it a U.S. missile strike in South Waziristan that killed the assassin of Benazir Bhutto? Should we not have struck Baitullah Mehsud because someone in the future might use it as an excuse to attack us? Should we not fight back against people who are at war with us because it might make them mad?
Can you answer that question please?
Steve
“that occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan has enflamed tensions among much of the muslim community to a level unheard of prior to, and is certainly leading to greater radicalisation of muslims such as Major Hasan.”
Firstly, there are no occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracies have been established and the elected governemnts can ask the “occupiers” to leave at any time.
Secondly, if people are being radicalised by the killing of muslims, should they not be radicalised against AQ. as it is AQ who have killed the majority of muslims? Indeed this is what has happened, according to the PEW global attitudes studies, which have shown a fall in support for AQ in the muslim world.
Thirdly, of course it is possible that some people have been radicalised by whatever is in their minds. In London, there was recently bomb attacks against black and gay targets. The bomber was “radicalised” by gay rights and racial equality. Simple question, was he right and do you support him?
Lee,
I dont condone any form of terrorism, I find it abhorrent.
Of course I respect your interpretation, I dont agree with it though.
Of course I respect your interpretation, I dont agree with it though.
I don’t understand what that means. Do you not agree because you believe Lee’s examples to be non correlative? If so, why are Lee’s examples different? I think he raised a valid analogy with his third point.
Why do you keep dodging these questions?
Steve
“Of course I respect your interpretation, I dont agree with it though”
But what was the “root cause” of the radicalisation of the London Bomber?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland
Was he a “freedom fighter” for straight white guys? Or did he want to impose his disgusting views of the world on an unwilling majority?
Fangbeer.
Whats with the non correlative examples bullshit?
Lee put across one obscure example of radicalisation and posed a question which I answered.
“I dont condone any form of terrorism, I find it abhorrent”
Lee’s other 2 points were that our presence is not an occupation, which displays an understanding reflective of his belief that the occupying force in Afghanistan is the UN.
And that AQ does not have the support of the muslim majority.
This is a very generalised statement, but quite obviously true.
No dodging questions as far as I can see.
Whats with the non correlative examples bullshit?
I was wondering if you thought Lee’s analogy didn’t apply to the situation. You called his analogy “obscure” so I have to assume that I was correct.
Clearly you are attempting to express the opinion that our response to terrorism has created terrorism. I think that’s the only bullshit that’s going on here. That bullshit, specifically lay in the fact that in order to express this opinion you must validate the terrorist’s motives. That leaves you on the rocky moral ground that while you claim that terrorism is abhorrent, they have a good reason to commit it.
You stated:
[our actions are] creating the very situation that these governments claim to be protecting us from.
You call this tactic:
a perfect perpetual opportunity for conquest under the guise of good fighting evil.
This paints the terrorists as freedom fighters, defending themselves against our attempts at “conquest”.
Speaking for myself, I’d like to point out that this line of thinking is in itself abhorrent. You’ve just justified the terrorists actions, and blamed them on the victim.
No dodging questions as far as I can see.
Your answers certainly don’t support your conclusion. If terrorism is abhorrent, then it is abhorrent regardless of the pretense used to justify it. If the pretense is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant to say that we create terror by fighting terror.
…and down falls the support for your claim that are actions are only a ruse to steal what rightfully belongs to people prone to become terrorists.
The aspertions upon my moral footing ironically come from one who appears to morally condone illegal invasions, imprisonment and torture.
Also on “rocky moral ground” are those that imprison indefinitely, without charge, and orchestrate rendition and torture of mainly innocent people.. This is in contravention of US law, international law and the Geneva convention, not that the US cares much for international agreements. It refuses to even ratify the Genocide Convention.
from one who appears to morally condone illegal invasions, imprisonment and torture.
When wrong on a subject it’s not always advisable to switch the subject to something else you are wrong about. Before we address what I “appear” to be and all the rest of those factually inaccurate statements you just made, let’s finish up with the previous topic.
Your assertion that we are responsible for the very situation that we claim we are fighting is clearly based in a false premise. You admitted that it’s based in a false premise when you stated that terrorism is abhorrent and not condonable in any form. When pressed on the issue you said you respect the opinion but don’t agree with it.
I think you should elaborate on just how you justify your position when you are clearly wrong on the subject.
Incoming links from other sites