The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

I have some questions for MJD. Firstly, I must apologise, because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I only read up to page 20 of this thread.

1. If you're saying that 9/11 was an 'inside job', does this mean that you're saying it was totally organised by the US Government, and no terrorists were involved whatsoever?

2. If the answer to point 1 is 'Yes', then were the British Government in on it too? I ask because our troops were the next ones into Afghanistan with US troops, and British troops were right along side US Troops in Iraq.

3. If the answer to point 2 is 'Yes'; what has Britain gained from it's involvement in the War on Terror?

4. Taking points 1, 2 & 3 into consideration; who was it then that perpetrated the July 2005 London bombings?

1. No.

I guess this invalidates all the rest?

 

[Billdave2]

Completely erroneous example. If the JREF Globe was sufficiently reputable a source to be quoted at WH press conferences and MSNBC editorials, then the analogy would be more correct.

Oh, and please read the Counterpunch article posted above that no one wants to reply to.

The 9/11 commision report meets all these requirements, so in the future you have to accept it as reputable and any thing it says that you dispute, YOU must provide the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[mjd1982]

And how would you know if they did ?



Well it's better than your "well, it doesn't say it but it's what it meant."



Mjd, if ONE media outlet reports something, and fifty other media outlets quote FROM that original source, it's still ONE source. Perhaps you should look up the word "source".



You should look up "interpolation", too.



You keep saying that after it's been proven wrong again and again. Why do you do this ?

Right, well the only response worth giving there is to tell you to read the counterpunch article posted above, and to be honest in your conclusions.

The rest was pretty worthless I'm afraid.

 

[mjd1982]

Non US citizens still have rights. That is why there is so much argument about Gitmo, critics say there rights are being violated.

And this is an admin that has no concern for civil rights. So where's the problem?

 

[Dave Rogers]

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

I tried actually googling "India Globe" - it took a few seconds but it was worth it. A few seconds that maybe, mjd1982, you would have been advised to spend yourself.

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/10386/8063

Asia Today & India Globe
Mr Raghubir Goyal
2020 National Press Bldg.
Washington DC 20547
USA
Phone : 202 271 1100 / 7039781906 (H)

Is Washington DC "pretty much next to Afghanistan"?

The article suggests that the India Globe is a magazine for Indian expatriates in the Washington DC area, and its proprietor and sole employee is a bit of a running joke at WH press briefings for his insistence on asking when India is going to nuke Pakistan (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15642-2002Jan21.html, http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001838.html, http://www.goldtoe.net/2005_07_01_archive.html).

Overall, an excellent truther source - possibly even more unreliable than the American Free Press.

Dave

 

[mjd1982]

According to the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief there were at least fifty FBI teams across the USA investigating Radical Islamic Terrorists and chasing leads.

-Gumboot

I'm asking what did Bush do.

It is perfectly obvious that since the conspiracy couldnt have involved everyone, that such searches would have been happening. Read here for details of how their work was, essentially sabotaged by those above them

 

[mjd1982]

The 9/11 commision report meets all these requirements, so in the future you have to accept it as reputable and any thing it says that you dispute, YOU must provide the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up!

This has been done at the top of the thread.

Please keep up

 

[mjd1982]

I tried actually googling "India Globe" - it took a few seconds but it was worth it. A few seconds that maybe, mjd1982, you would have been advised to spend yourself.

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/10386/8063

Asia Today & India Globe
Mr Raghubir Goyal
2020 National Press Bldg.
Washington DC 20547
USA
Phone : 202 271 1100 / 7039781906 (H)

Is Washington DC "pretty much next to Afghanistan"?

The article suggests that the India Globe is a magazine for Indian expatriates in the Washington DC area, and its proprietor and sole employee is a bit of a running joke at WH press briefings for his insistence on asking when India is going to nuke Pakistan (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15642-2002Jan21.html, http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001838.html, http://www.goldtoe.net/2005_07_01_archive.html).

Overall, an excellent truther source - possibly even more unreliable than the American Free Press.

Dave

Good. Then deal with the Counterpunch article linked above.

 

[Billdave2]

I read the Cockburn article. It presents no evidence that its source is in any way relaiable. It says that he "has a letter from the bush administration" but does not provide it as his only link to Bush. If anything it points to the Clinton administration as being the ones you screwed up. They had everything in place before November 2000 and supposedly put it off to wait to let the next administration handle things. Of course the whole article is dubious at best and seems to have no base in reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Good. Then deal with the Counterpunch article linked above.

Please repost the link - there's 35 pages back there to look through for it.

Oh, and the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html is about secret talks between the Taliban and Saudi Arabian intelligence to hand over OBL to Saudi Arabia, and says the Taliban changed their stance after US cruise missile attacks. No suggestion there of any US involvement in, or even awareness of, these talks. If you're going to say that Saudi Arabia is a US client state and therefore the US is aware of all Saudi intelligence's secret negotions, please provide sources to back this up (ideally not the India Globe).

Dave

 

[Swing Dangler]

Here is a nice analysis of the OBL handover offers with numerous sources:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm

Does the Washington Post meet the criteria of another source?
Washington Post on Bin laden handover

 

[JonnyFive]

Wait a minute, mjd. The source you linked me to here doesn't at all support your claims about OBL being "handed" to the US. The only offer mentioned, which I did see mentioned elsewhere, was the pathetic offer to try OBL in an Islamic court, which would of course be of no satisfaction to the US, who would want him tried in either a US court for crimes against the US, or against a secular international court of some kind, as is generally done with war criminals.

The concept of trying a man who represents a religious organization (Islamic, incidentally) engaged in a religious crusade and stays in a country with a religious (Islamic, incidentally) theocracy at their behest in from of a religious (Islamic, incidentally) court is, well, kind of unsatisfactory. Oh, and one of the Islamic court's three judges would be from Afghanistan, and therefore directly connected to the Taliban government of that country. Fan-freaking-tastic.

But, of course, this would involve lifting sanctions against Afghanistan and, as the article you linked me to puts it "appease the United Nations." The article then goes on to say this:

Washington has been pressing Pakistan, considered the Taliban government's staunchest ally, to use its influence to secure bin Laden's surrender.

The Taliban, who rule more than 95% of Afghanistan, have rejected the pressure to release bin Laden, saying he can stay in Afghanistan until any terrorist activity is proved.

So, no, they didn't appear to have a particular interest in handing him to the US for trial. Note we're talking about a trial here, not handing him over for execution. Generally, the standard for bringing someone to trial is not absolutely proving they have done something.

You still haven't shown me a source for OBL being "handed" to the US and that being an offer that didn't carry major negative consequences, such as giving the Taliban government of Afghanistan free reign to do what they want without sanction.

Every source you've shown me, and every source I've dug up to corroborate your claims relating to the "India Globe" has come up with, at best, a one-sided offer from the Taliban to allow OBL to stand trial in Islamic court or, perhaps, allow him to stand trial in a secular court... but only if his involvement to terrorism can be proven. Isn't that the point of a trial? To allow a non-partisan group to decide whether or not the evidence proves the guilt of one party? The Taliban was, assuming this was all real, effectively making themselves the sole arbiter of his guilt or innocence.

I say again, this is not the slam-dunk proof you seem to believe it is. You've introduced a situation with considerable political complexity and nuance, and appear to be distilling it down to "Taliban offered to hand over OBL to US but they said no."

Well, not really. The sources you keep linking to (and those I posted in this post, in case you didn't read it) support a very different conclusion from the one you appear to be drawing.

I'm glad you were at least willing to cite some additional sources, ones that can at least be verified online for our convenience, to back up your claims, I really am. However, that is only half the problem I have with your claim, as you would well know if you'd followed my comments on this matter. The other half is whether or not you're correctly interpretting and evaluating what is said in those sources. It does not appear, given these sources, that there was ever a serious offer to hand Bin Laden over the US on the table, unless serious and possibly politically crippling conditions were imposed in exchange for it.

This would be a lot smoother if you could address the issues people have with your various claims without turning it into an excercise in pulling teeth. The polite, civil thing to do when someone asks you for clarification or additional proof is not to insult them, or claim they aren't reading, or claim they just don't understand. The civil thing to do is either provide that proof or simply say that is the extent of your research. If you come to debate something online, you must realize that your evidence may not be enough to convince everyone of everything you say.

 

[DGM]

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system. It also remained murky whether the Taliban envoys, representing at least one division of the fractious Islamic movement, could actually deliver on their promises

Swing please read the links before you post them. There is no PRIMARY sources listed. Lots of maybes though.

 

[lapman]

I have a question for you mjd1982.

The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.

Is this true?

Please comment.

There, now I give credence to said story. So it must be true since it's quoted by multiple sources.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Welcome to my world of frustration when it comes to mjd's posts. I told you he had a habit of posting links that don't have anything to do with his argument.

But y'all didn't want to believe me. A Pox on you ALL.

 

[JonnyFive]

There's another issue I have with this whole OBL thing - I'm concerned we might just be chasing a straw man anyway with it.

Every source on this seems to indicate that the Taliban wanted "proof" that OBL was involvedi n terrorism. The sources also agree that the hand-over would most likely be to an Islamic court. I, of course, have concerns that the proposal may have been less-than-sincere, or that the Taliban couldn't or didn't want to actually deliver.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Taliban is sincere. They want to become a legitimate political entity, and are willing to work with the international community to try OBL. Perhaps they really believe he is innocent of anything, perhaps they don't know... it doesn't matter. For our hypothetical, everything is on the up-and-up.

But even if the US accepted the conditions and Bin Laden was, say, turned over to an international court in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions against Afghanistan, what would this accomplish?

I suppose, presumably, that OBL could tell the US about the impending attacks, along with the indentity of the cell members. But why would he? OBL was being sought for his involvement in the Cole attack, and all he would need to do is not mention the impending attacks. By early 2001, the hijackers appear to have largely been in the US and plans were largely set for the attacks. If OBL, assuming he was brought to trial, said nothing about future plans of Al Qaeda, then what reason is there to expect security to be any tighter than it actually was on 9/11/2001?

Certainly the acquisition of OBL would not automatically deter his organization. Beyond that, speculation is too divergant from what actually happened to be of much use, but I'm not sure why OBL's potential hand-over for trial in any venue would somehow deter the 9/11 attacks.

 

[mjd1982]

There's another issue I have with this whole OBL thing - I'm concerned we might just be chasing a straw man anyway with it.

Every source on this seems to indicate that the Taliban wanted "proof" that OBL was involvedi n terrorism. The sources also agree that the hand-over would most likely be to an Islamic court. I, of course, have concerns that the proposal may have been less-than-sincere, or that the Taliban couldn't or didn't want to actually deliver.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Taliban is sincere. They want to become a legitimate political entity, and are willing to work with the international community to try OBL. Perhaps they really believe he is innocent of anything, perhaps they don't know... it doesn't matter. For our hypothetical, everything is on the up-and-up.

But even if the US accepted the conditions and Bin Laden was, say, turned over to an international court in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions against Afghanistan, what would this accomplish?

I suppose, presumably, that OBL could tell the US about the impending attacks, along with the indentity of the cell members. But why would he? OBL was being sought for his involvement in the Cole attack, and all he would need to do is not mention the impending attacks. By early 2001, the hijackers appear to have largely been in the US and plans were largely set for the attacks. If OBL, assuming he was brought to trial, said nothing about future plans of Al Qaeda, then what reason is there to expect security to be any tighter than it actually was on 9/11/2001?

Certainly the acquisition of OBL would not automatically deter his organization. Beyond that, speculation is too divergant from what actually happened to be of much use, but I'm not sure why OBL's potential hand-over for trial in any venue would somehow deter the 9/11 attacks.

As im about to head out, read this article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

This should help you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here is a nice analysis of the OBL handover offers with numerous sources:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm

This details negotiations between, as far as I can tell, private individuals in Pakistan and the Taliban for the extradition of OBL, which ended with a veto from President Musharraf. The article speculates on whether this was prompted by the USA but gives no evidence.

Does the Washington Post meet the criteria of another source?
Washington Post on Bin laden handover

Mixed messages from this one, but it suggests that there were considerable diplomatic efforts made by the US to get OBL extradited, which fell down either on misunderstandings, US unwillingness to proceed or bad faith by the Taliban, depending on who you believe. Note also that this second story contradicts the assertion in the first story that the US made no diplomatic efforts to obtain a peaceful extradition.

The impression I get from these two sources is that nobody really knows what offers were made or what course the negotiations took, only that there were various negotiations going on and none were particularly effective.

Dave

 

[mjd1982]

Please repost the link - there's 35 pages back there to look through for it.

Oh, and the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html is about secret talks between the Taliban and Saudi Arabian intelligence to hand over OBL to Saudi Arabia, and says the Taliban changed their stance after US cruise missile attacks. No suggestion there of any US involvement in, or even awareness of, these talks. If you're going to say that Saudi Arabia is a US client state and therefore the US is aware of all Saudi intelligence's secret negotions, please provide sources to back this up (ideally not the India Globe).

Dave

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

 

[Augustine]

Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

Squirm?? My boy, you are delusional!

Kabir Mohabbat's version of Frankfurt is clearly at odds with Secretary Eastham's (Eastham career Foreign Service officer, not a political appointee, although this is 2000 so that question is moot). So who might have an agenda? Who is claiming something that is unusual (given the Taliban's dodging of 30 efforts during the Clinton administration, their willingness post-9/11 to be bombed into the Stone Age rather than turn over bin Laden, the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance which exists to this day)? Mohabbat's credibility is suspect.

(Interestingly, I would suggest more appropriate reading for you might be Cockburn's "The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left". It's not just Chomsky who thinks you're a nutcase.)