Press for truth!

Okay, 50 minutes in now...

We get the whole "we didn't catch anyone in Afghanistan" thing. I'm not sure when the doco was made, because at present Al Qaeda's command structure has been decimated.

I'm starting to see American arrogance in the doco now, which isn't surprising. People are arguing there's no way these Al Qaeda fighters could escape from the US. Well... nonsense. Come on people. Do some military history research.

Most of the American troops in Afghanistan had no previous combat experience. Even fewer had any decent experience in the sort of warfare or climate that they had to face (hence why NZSAS ended up playing such a disproportiantly significant role).

In contrast, the Al Qaeda fighters have been fighting around the world, basically constantly, for THREE DECADES. They defeated the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and know the terrain backwards. They have high level friends in Pakistan - the neighbour that the US was relying on for support.

It's is quite plain and simple. Al Qaeda were BETTER than the US Military. It might be a hard pill for arrogant Americans to swallow, but it's true. Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups were running circles around the US intelligence community for a decade leading up to 9/11, and in Afghanistan, for the first year or so, Al Qaeda ran circles around the US Military.

I simply don't understand this incredulous "US is invincible" stance that is so often espoused by those claiming inside involvement. Would anyone we so utterly disbelieving if Soviet cold-war intelligence out-foxed US or British intelligence? Of course not. Yet Al Qaeda beat BOTH the Soviets AND the West. We grossly underestimated them. And by fixing blame on "incompetent US officials" we are CONTINUING to underestimate them. They are a REAL threat. They are not a bunch of towel-heads hiding in a cave. They are highly trained, incredibly experienced, thorough, patient, smart, and dedicated.

Want to know what Al Qaeda looks for in its members? This, according to the Al Qaeda training manual (Second Lesson):

Necessary Qualifications fro the Organization's members

1-Islam:
The member of the Organization must be Moslem. How can an unbeliever, someone from a revealed religion [Christian, Jew], a secular person, a communist, etc. protect Islam and Moslems and defend their goals and secrets when he does not believe in that religion [Islam]? The Israeli Army requires that a fighter be of the Jewish religion. Likewise, the command leadership in the Afghan and Russian armies requires anyone with an officer's position to be a member of the communist party.

2-Commitment to the Organization's Ideology:
This commitment frees the Organization's members from conceptional problems.

3-Maturity:
The requirements of military work are nUfflerous, and a minor cannot perform them. The nature of hard and continuous work in dangerous conditions requires a great deal of psychological, mental, and intellectual fitness, which are not usually found in a minor. It is reported that Ibn Ornar -may Allah be pleased with him -said, "During Ahad [battle] when I was fourteen years of age, I was submitted [as a volunteer] to the prophet -God bless and keep him. He refused me and did not throw me in the battle. During Khandak [trench] Day [battle] when I was fifteen years of age, I was also submitted to him, and he permitted me [to fight] .

4-Sacrifice:
He [the member] has to be willing to do the work and undergo martyrdom for the purpose of achieving the goal and establishing the religion of majestic Allah on earth.

5-Listening and Obedience:
In the military, this is known today as discipline. It is expressed by how the member obeys the orders given to him. That is what our religion urges. The Glorious says, "0, ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those charged with authority among you." In the story of Hazifa Ben AI-Yarnan -may Allah have mercy on him -who was exemplary in his obedience to Allah's messepger -Allah bless and keep him. When he [Mohammed] -Allah bless and keep him -sent him to spy on the Kureish and their allies during their siege of Madina, Hazifa said, -As he [Mohammed] called me by name to stand, he said, 'Go get me information about those people and do not alarm them about me.' As I departed, I saw Abou Soufian and I placed an arrow in the bow. I [then] remembered the words of the messenger - Allah bless and keep him -'do not alarm them about me.' If I had shot I would have hit him."

6-Keeping Secrets and Concealing Information
[This secrecy should be used] even with the closest people, for deceiving the enemies is not easy. Allah says, -Even though their plots were such that as to shake the hills! [Koranic verse]." Allah's messenger -God bless and keep him -says, "Seek Allah's help in doing your affairs in secrecy."It was said in the proverbs, "The hearts of freemen are the tombs of secrets" and "Moslems' secrecy is faithfulness, and talking about it is faithlessness." [Mohanlned] -God bless and keep him -used to keep work secrets from the closest people, even from his wife A'isha-may Allah's grace be on her.

7. Free of Illness
The Military Organization's member must fulfill this important requirement. .Allah says, -There is no blame for those who are infirm, or ill, or who have no resources to spend."

8. Patience
[The member] should have plenty of patience for [enduring] afflictions if he is overcome by the enemies. He should not abandon this great path and sell himself and his religion to the enemies for his freedom. He should be patient in performing the work, even if it lasts a long time.

9. Tranquility and "Unflappability"
[The member] should have a calm personality that allows him to endure psychological traumas such as those"involving bloodshed, murder, arrest, imprisonment, and rever,se psychological traumas such as killing one or all of his Organization's comrades. [He should be able] to carry out the work.

10. Intelligence and Insight
When the prophet -Allah bless and keep him -sent Hazifa Ben AI-Yaman to spy on the polytheist and [Hafiza] sat among them, Abou Soufian said, "Let each one of you look at his companion." Hazifa said to his companion, .Who are you?" The companion replied, "So-and-so son of so-and-so."
Click to expand...

Now. Does that sound like a rag-tag bunch of cave-dwellers? Or a sophisticated unified organisation?

-Andrew
 
Rasmus said:
On what grounds should the USA give up their sovereignty and allow for who exactly to investigate precisely what about 9/11? :confused:
Click to expand...

Fair point, but you might want to remember that your Government has a habit of "requesting" that the FBI and other bodies helps with criminal investigations involving American citizens in other countries before you get too bolshy about it.
 
Childlike:

If I had to guess, I'd say your theory re: paid disinfo agents in the truth movement didn't resonate because it added another layer to the conspiracy. If even one of them gets tired of the game, all they have to do is wave their checks from the NWO in front of a camera and there goes your conspiracy. JREFers will hack you to death with Occam's Razor at any opportunity.

If you'd said something like "I think the Bushies counted on the emergence of nuts after 9/11 and used their CIA media assets to play up the nuttiest of them to discredit the truth movement", at least that would be a starting point for discussion. You'd still be asked for evidence though....
 
Pardalis said:
Could we keep this discussion board in English please?

Si ça continue de même j'vais écrire en français bâtard!

So... That said, for the sake of it Childlike, I'll watch the movie.
Click to expand...

ce n'est pa une probleme pour moi, francais at allemands sonts sujets obliqitoire dans les ecoles ecossais(e)
 
Childlike Empress said:
@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... very interesting observation.

Would I be right in guessing this is due, primarily, from my opinion that Radical Islamic militants pose a genuine and serious threat to Western civilisation and values?

Just asking questions. :boxedin:

-Andrew
 
60 minutes in... and it's a return to the "Al Qaeda couldn't have pulled this off alone" argument.

Like the "collapse in own footprint" argument, this is one that has just befuddled me from day one. "Elaborate"? "Complex"? C'mon. They hijacked four planes. All they needed was a bunch of guys, some watches, some knives, a fake bomb or two, and an airline timetable.

How hard could it be? This was hardly Operation Overlord.

Not that I think Al Qaeda can't do complex (see my post above...). But this just didn't require a whole heap of effort. The perfect success of the mission lay in its simplicity. Western, liberal, life-loving societies simply never seriously thought about airliners being used as a weapon. There was no system in place to RESPOND to a threat like that.

-Andrew

ETA. It also goes into the whole "CIA created Bin Laden" argument. Grossly simplified (to the point of being inaccurate).
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Were any non-US individuals involved in the investigation? Have any non-US individuals asked to take part, or to do their own; and subsequently been denied? blah, blah, blah

CE, prove your statement about mocking victims, or retract it; or it will be reported as an abusive post.
Click to expand...

I believe there was one Canadian engineer invited by FEMA. His speciality was dealing with fire damage on material, considered the best in the world or some such.
 
gumboot said:
I find this a little ironic. You have never hid your significant dislike of the current US government.

And here you are, accusing people here of mocking victims, while peddling a documentary that uses families of 9/11 victims to push a political agenda that you support.

Sick.

I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Hard to admit easier to deny.
 
Right, we're 70 minutes in now...

We've just covered ISI connections to Al Qaeda in more detail. It's really about the money trail. Did the ISI fund it, did they not?

Of course, there's some issues here. As we know the ISI is heavily filled with Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathisers. Not surprising, since they have three decades of involvement with each other. The mistake is to think these connections are official.

In other words, just because an ISI agent is also supporting Al Qaeda doesn't mean the ISI is involved in 9/11.

That logic would determine that the CIA was involved in the 1998 embassy bombings, since CIA agent Ali Mohamed was actually planning the bombings as an Al Qaeda member.

My hypothesis. The US underestimated the level of Al Qaeda infiltration of the ISI (probably partly because Pakistan down-played it) and decided it wasn't enough to hinder operations in Afghanistan. They took the gamble. (Don't forget Pakistan has nuclear weapons...).

-Andrew
 
The Documentary's Conclusion

Well, I'm disappointed.

This would have to be one of the poorest conclusions I've ever seen. It really makes the entire program fall apart...

It begins with three bold statements:

"The sponsors of the attack yet to be confronted"

A number of international laws passed post-9/11 have strickly clamped down on terrorist funding networks (which were incredibly comprehensive and well-networked). Organisations like Al Taqwa Bank were closed down. These are the people who "sponsor" terrorism. There's certainly holes - a number of nations continue to get away with sponsoring terrorism. This needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure a simultaneous war with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is a good idea.


"The men named as the culprits allowed to escape"

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).


"The government officials who ignored warnings before 9/11 still in their positions"

As I said, I've yet to hear a single example of a credible piece of actionable intel regarding the 9/11 threat. I'm not surprised the admin ignored vague rumours of threats. I'm sure the US public would have gone postal if the US government had clamped down on civil liberties BEFORE 9/11. People like
Michael Moore would have had a field day.


"Despite years of inquiry...the official story of what happened on 9/11 remains little changed"

Yeah. Because it's pretty much spot on. Aside from the brief CT arguments at the beginning (NORAD stand down, buildings don't collapse) the documentary actually offers no argument whatsoever that anything happened on 9/11 other than 19 Al Qaeda operatives hijacked 4 aircraft, flew three into buildings, while passengers on the 4th revolted and caused it to crash. Why would the official story change? Even if it were proved Pakistan officially DID fund the attacks, how does "what happened on 9/11" suddenly change?



Okay, so after this "conclusion" the doco loses it, because it just randomly goes off into a whole new realm that really related only loosely to the rest of the doco...

It basically goes into a rant about the media and how they have to "hold everyone accountable". It seems to imply that after 9/11 the media suddenly stopped doing serious investigating, pushing an agenda instead (never mind all the "failing to connect dots" the doco talks about occured BEFORE 9/11). It's laughable. Did the media only suddenly become subjective, biased, corrupt, political, sensationalist, and straight out false AFTER 9/11? Please. It has been that way for decades.

We get these widows saying no one can get up to speed on everything... it took them thousands of hours of research to learn about 9/11 (yet they still think no fighters were launched...:confused: )

Apparantly there's no one "connecting the dots". Of course, these "dots" are really mainly just "false articles". These days journalists are so desperate to push a story first, they publish stuff that turns out to be false. Instead of retract it with a follow up, they just leave it hanging. Hence you get a "dot" (the Osama kidney dialysis myth is one of the "dots" the doco presents).

There's then a bit about how people are "afraid to consider the truth" which smacks of typical CT logic when confronted with a superior argument. As this subforum demonstrates, there's plenty of people who have managed to gather enormous amounts of information about 9/11, and yet none of the claims made in this documentary have surfaced. Funny that.

My favourite is the argument that basically runs "we should be questioning the official story because governments are evil liars". Bravo. Nice objective reasoning there. It's the same tired "accepting the official story" line. No one here that I've seen "accepts" the official story. They've independently researched everything and come to the conclusion that the official story is accurate.

If you want to take me, for example, I've never read the entire 9/11 Commission Report. Why? Because I've gathered my understanding of what happened from first hand evidence and materials, not from someone else's version of them. My NORAD research is entirely independent of the 9/11 commission report. Yet still I get labelled as "blindly accepting the official story". It's just ridiculous.

The tragedy is these filmmakers of this documentary are oblivious to the irony in their claim that anyone who doesn't have their point of view must be a blind sheep.

Then we have pearls like "Yes they lied, they all lieds, whether consciously or unconsciously" (from one of the widows). How exactly do you unconsciously lie?

Of course, the documentary has never really presented WHAT they apparantly lied about. It just throws in a whole heap of unsupported arguments at the end that don't really reflect the remainder of the doco. Kind of reminds me of a History Channel programme.

And in conclusion?

Well, I'll be a little insensitive here. The four widows are the centrepiece of the documentary. It's pretty clear from this documentary (unless, of course, they have been very badly misrepresented) that they are on a witch hunt, plain and simple. Their loved ones died, and they want someone to burn. The terrorists who did it are all dead, or on the loose. No one has been brought to trial.

They can't accept that the US was simply out-smarted (maybe no one has sat down and talked about this with them, because very few people seem willing to even consider it). Therefore US officials must be at fault. Someone needs to swing.

I think their sentiments are wrong, and their research appears to be flawed, but I understand their feelings - grief impairs reason.

What is sickening is the way the filmmakers have used that to their own advantage, to make a propaganda piece.

I'm not overly impressed.

On a technical and stylistic note Loose Change and Terrorstorm are both better made and better structured documentaries.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom