[Ed.] Ziad Jarrah, second doubts?
- Thread starter Bell
- Start date
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Oooh! Oooh! (Waving hand in air) A question I can answer!
The rotunda mentioned is the space beneath the dome of the Capital Building in Washington, DC.
http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/rotunda.cfm
And all this time, I thought the Rotunda was the Dome. Ah, well, live and learn.
This then may have been the only flight communication between different hijacking teams. It's the difference between what the authorities know and what we know here. But if so, that fits in with my hypothesis that the takeover of Flight 93 was timed to takeoff time and not an actual time.
My theory of how the attacks were planned to happen is that there would be one attack drawing television and video cameras out, followed by a second one. This could just be the way things worked out. They may have planned simultaneous attacks in each city to make sure one actually got through defenses (little realizing that every attack would get through).
To be quite honest, having 19 of 20 hijackers in the United States was a victory. If they had all been arrested on the tarmac and the plans exposed, it would still have been a massive success as far as a terrorist plot. Would that they had been so stopped! But the foreign policy of the United States would probably have followed exactly the same course.
I certainly can't dismiss the idea of a reluctant Jarrah because there's nothing conclusive one way or the other. But I don't think we need that element to explain anything about the attacks.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
That is a completely ridiculous assumption. None of the actual hijackers who committed the acts would have been able to provide enough information to have "completely destroyed" anything. Even saying such a thing is indicative of either total ignorance or post-hoc exaggeration about exactly what is involved in suicide attack missions. Even though KSM was captured and held for interrogation by the CIA for the last four years, al Qaeda still exists intact and by all indications its network has grown in number of affiliations.
There really isn't a need for unrealistic hyperbole when profiling these guys. The same kind of unrealistic hyperbole ("Hanjour wasn't a good pilot") is the standard operating procedure of conspiracy theories, and engaging in the same behavior in response is not a good counter to their unrealistic claims. there is a high possibility that 9/11 could have been averted had Jarrah defected, but there is no indication that he had any critical information about the network calling itself al Qaeda beyond the scope of his suicide mission. No close connections with the leadership, no known knowledge of their international accounts holding their money, and no known secret "silver bullet" information that would have meant the demise of the network itself.
Come on, guys. It's irresponsible things like this that conspiracy theorists love to latch on to. Let's not feed the fire.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Al Queyda is a cell system if I understand correctly. A properly-run cell system is self healing and very hard to compromise.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
In some ways it's even less than that, and in other ways it is no different than a franchise. It isn't just self-healing, it also isn't under any specific centralized control except for the basic direction of "kill whoever the main leadership calls evil today."
That's what makes them such a pain in the tuckus to fight in a frontal assault.
That's what makes them such a pain in the tuckus to fight in a frontal assault.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Well, the only thing I can think of is him being nervous or terrified that it was all going to go wrong. I don't think he had any moral judgements, like what about the passengers, would Allah approve, what will happen after death? Once you are that far radicalised the entire world is dar al-kufr, and you have developed a fundamental hatred of the world ruled by man. And neither do suicide bombers really think they, nor the innocents are dying. After all, in their eyes, the time of being a servant to God on his property is short. Again, it is speculation, but I doubt he could have had such philosophical thoughts within the course of months, let alone hours. It's important for people to know that Islamists don't enjoy killing people, they enjoy doing Gods work. I'm sure a bombed nightclub sends up cheers, but getting blood on your hands may be a different matter. That's all I can think went through Jarrah's mind.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
Please read the following two articles:
TIME: Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber
60 Minutes: Mind of the Suicide Bomber
Here also is a video from CNN:
More information like this needs to be disseminated in order to pass along at least a little understanding of the mindset of terrorism. It is a difficult concept for many out there to be able to find any way to relate to, and because of this creates a lot of confusion and conflict about why people are willing to plan for and walk directly into their violent deaths in order to inflict pain on their ideological enemy. It is considered a foreign concept to the idea of Western "sanity" and as such has its own mythos surrounding it to a lot of people. The reality is that a lot of these suicide bombers are convinced that they are taking completely rational and practical steps that fit in with their ideology, and individuals who would seem completely rational otherwise would not hesitate to bringing about their own deaths if it meant wounding their perceived enemy.
TIME: Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber
60 Minutes: Mind of the Suicide Bomber
Here also is a video from CNN:
More information like this needs to be disseminated in order to pass along at least a little understanding of the mindset of terrorism. It is a difficult concept for many out there to be able to find any way to relate to, and because of this creates a lot of confusion and conflict about why people are willing to plan for and walk directly into their violent deaths in order to inflict pain on their ideological enemy. It is considered a foreign concept to the idea of Western "sanity" and as such has its own mythos surrounding it to a lot of people. The reality is that a lot of these suicide bombers are convinced that they are taking completely rational and practical steps that fit in with their ideology, and individuals who would seem completely rational otherwise would not hesitate to bringing about their own deaths if it meant wounding their perceived enemy.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
I hope you are not saying I am wrong...
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
I wasn't directing my post at just you. I am saying that speculating on what possibly went through one of the hijackers' mind is one thing, but the whole exercise is an attempt to understand what went on, why they did what they did, and whether they had any idea of the horror they were going to inflict on others.
Do they have doubts? Probably, at least in as much as one does whenever they are about to make a huge step in their lives.
Are the committed? Usually so. It's rare to find a suicide bomber who gets cold feet, and most programs training suicide bombers involve handlers who explicitly work out the things that would cause reservations.
Can they really fit into the everyday lives of the enemies they infiltrate? Well, since it is their duty to basically go about their normal duties and not be concerned over grand issues, it's likely no different than having to move to a new area and get to know a new neighborhood.
Why do they go through with it? From what any source I've ever read seems to show, they do it for the same reason most people tend to be courteous to one another-- because it seems like the right thing to do. That may sound horrible to some, but that reaction of horror is one of the (few) things that may separate you from a suicide bomber.
"I would never do such a thing." Maybe, but I bet there are circumstances where many people in Western culture, if faced with what look like extreme circumstances, would actually come to the decision to do the same thing. People have in the past, it isn't a concept that exists only in the near and far East.
Do they have doubts? Probably, at least in as much as one does whenever they are about to make a huge step in their lives.
Are the committed? Usually so. It's rare to find a suicide bomber who gets cold feet, and most programs training suicide bombers involve handlers who explicitly work out the things that would cause reservations.
Can they really fit into the everyday lives of the enemies they infiltrate? Well, since it is their duty to basically go about their normal duties and not be concerned over grand issues, it's likely no different than having to move to a new area and get to know a new neighborhood.
Why do they go through with it? From what any source I've ever read seems to show, they do it for the same reason most people tend to be courteous to one another-- because it seems like the right thing to do. That may sound horrible to some, but that reaction of horror is one of the (few) things that may separate you from a suicide bomber.
"I would never do such a thing." Maybe, but I bet there are circumstances where many people in Western culture, if faced with what look like extreme circumstances, would actually come to the decision to do the same thing. People have in the past, it isn't a concept that exists only in the near and far East.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
There really isn't any need for that tone with anyone here, GreNME. I don't appreciate being attacked in that manner and I am going to ask you to stop it immediately.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Absolutely.
Once you have a conviction that the world is God's property, and almost all on his property are stealing from him and abusing his mercy, it is easy to see the tears on passengers faces as being simply tears on misguided servants.
Last edited:
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
This forum encourages critical thinking. If you cannot accept a critical examination of what you said without taking it as a personal attack, then perhaps you need to take that up with someone other than myself. I directly addressed the ridiculousness of your statement and explained why it was ridiculous. I went further and pointed out that ridiculous statements like that are par for the course in most conspiracy theorizing, and are exactly the kind of outlandish statements that conspiracy theorists latch on to.
If you would be so kind as to actually address my criticism of what you said instead of just telling me to stop, I would be very appreciative. Remember: attack the statements, not the person. I showed you that consideration by focusing on what you said and not you personally. I think I deserve the same consideration.
GreNME, those where very enlightning articles/video. They oppose the idea of Ziad having doubts. Still, it is still very hard (for a western) to grasp this concept, even after reading those articles.
"You love life and we love death."
Gren:
While I can appreciate your analysis and critique of Bolo's statement, and I personally think there is not much to back it up, especially given the flight delay, I would say this. Given Bolo has not exhibited any signs of irrationality or superficial thinking in the past, the use of the word "ridiculous" and any belittling that MAY have been intended OR interpreted as such, might be a little harsh.
I realize this is a skeptics forum, and that "don't like the heat...get out of the kitchen" often applies, but I am not sure belittling or terming a suggestion as ridiculous is really going to help anyone here.
Bolo:
Apart from the "ridiculous" comment, did you find any other part of Gren's analysis incorrect, misdirected, or particularly harsh? If not, then I think all in all he was not that hard on you or your comments really.
Just my 2c
TAM
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
It's not about the information provided, but the extreme framing. It is well-poisoning and demeaning, and I don't particularly care for it.
Let me demonstrate a more respectful and civil tone:
Instead I got a lot of emotionally driven framing, and when I called him on it, GreNME showed how many times he could work ridiculous into a sentence concerning me and my post, along with a clear implication that I should consult professional help. It is an attack, it is not appreciated, and I demand that it stop.
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
That quote is a classic Islamist catchphrase. It is used in both Shehzad Tanweers matyrdom video, and Sidique Khans, further pontificated by Abu Izzadeen.
It is the definition of their view of the entire world being a Bilad al-Kufr.
I don't think it is too hard to grasp. Have you ever felt frustrated that people tend to talk about who they shagged rather then what is the future for mankind? How drunk they got last night rather then the knife crime in Manhattan? I presume so.
Expand on those, become slightly psychotic about it, and replace 'knife crime' with 'Allah's property' and 'future of humanity' with 'Allah's mercy'.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
T.A.M. said:
Explain to me how calling a statement that if one of the hijackers defected that it would have destroyed al Qaeda. Please, I would be very interested to see the reasoning behind considering such a claim anything but outrageously ignorant or excessivly unrealistic.
I explained for my part why the statement is ridiculous, and quite honestly I am surprised at the response to this criticism, considering claims like that are exactly what conspiracy theorists hone in on as lies and deceit.
T.A.M. said:
I'm belittling no one.
Aren't most conspiracy theories consisting of overblown statements and claims without any basis in fact? You see, when I look at things like conspiracy theories I don't approach them as "woo" or "crazy people talking," instead I look at the actual claims and try to determine where they came from, in order to figure out where their basis lies and if any exaggeration has been made in order to come to a conclusion that does not seem logical.
That same methodology applies everywhere. Making outrageous claims in order to try to make a point is no better rhetorically than what Alex Jones or Dylan Avery do on a regular basis. Claiming moral high ground or accusing the likes of those two for only doing so for monetary gains still does not excuse engaging in such behavior. It's intellectually lazy, and deserves all the credit that intellectually lazy claims deserve. It doesn't matter if the claims are that of a flat Earth, that 9/11 was an "inside job", or that one person could have brought down al Qaeda.
The claim you made is the well-poisining statement, and you are being called on it. Can you support your claim that Ziad Jarrah's defection would have brought down al Qaeda, or will you admit that you engaged in baseless hyperbole?
Because quite honestly, what I don't care for is intellectual dishonesty, especially in a forum that seems to criticize such practices heavily on many occassions.
No, you didn't get an emotionally-driven framing, you got an honest criticism of a claim you made that you know full well you have no ability to support with any factual basis whatsoever. What you are currently engaging in now is an attempt to deflect my criticism by making it personal, and I am insisting that we continue to stay out of the personal and focus on the actual claim I am criticizing. I don't know you, I don't claim to know you, and all I have to go on are the words you type in your post. The same applies to you regarding me, which makes your claim of what you assume my intentions are the second case of unsubstantiated, baseless claims so far in this thread.
I propose an easy solution: either admit that what you said was a completely false statement, or be so kind as to offer some kind of factual basis for your statement to qualify it. All you have to do is explain how Ziad Jarrah's defection would have brought down al Qaeda based on a reasonable evaluation of factual data. If you cannot do so, simply do the intellectually honest thing and acquiesce.
Frankly, some of the comments I read of many of you posters here are some pretty eggregious personal attacks that, were the targets not the popular "moonbats" and "wooers" would sure be attracting complaints about civility. However, the zeal which is easily observable in the truth movement is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the truth movement, to conspiracy theorists, or to people in their teens and 20's in general. It is an observable phenomenon that exists in all sorts of places, and is something that makes some threads in this forum very difficult to read, especially since there are topics that I am quite interested in. Because I am convinced that critical thinking and a reasoned approach are what lead people who believe conspiracy theories to change their minds or at least give more thought to their original premises, I think it would be hypocritical to not apply that kind of approach to other things as well.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
I know the difference between an honest debate and a terrier shaking what it considers a rat. GreNME, you are involved in the latter.
Gren:
I am not here to defend his position. If you read my posts on this thread, I do not.
I guess, when someone states something as opinion, rather than trying to promote it as fact, I tend, myself, to be a little less critical...I also tend to consider it invalid in terms of proof, but I do not think Bolo was trying to suggest such.
That said, I will leave you two to work it out.
TAM
I am not here to defend his position. If you read my posts on this thread, I do not.
I guess, when someone states something as opinion, rather than trying to promote it as fact, I tend, myself, to be a little less critical...I also tend to consider it invalid in terms of proof, but I do not think Bolo was trying to suggest such.
That said, I will leave you two to work it out.
TAM
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
I would appreciate not being addressed in a condescending tone and would prefer that you address the argument I made, not what you think of me personally.