If Al Qaeda Planned 9/11...

[T.A.M.]

i love it when the quote Rense.com...classic.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Thats laughable. The bombers are the only thing that would be effective against a modern army, dummy.

Perhaps against a modern occupying army, but exactly what use would suicide bombers be against an advancing row of modern battle tanks?

 

[apathoid]

Suicide bombers are chicken?? Are they afraid they might get hurt or caught? Do these bombers that blow up fruit stands that kill only other arabs get virgins? Why dont they ever go after political targets?
Its all a lie. http://www.rense.com/general67/suicc.htm

Suicide bombings are all a lie...got it.

And you wonder why noone takes you seriously. I won't make fun of you or flame you as others will likely do. I just want to know if you truly, earnestly believe what you wrote. If so, how do you explain away the (tens of)thousands of suicide bombings on historical record? Exactly how stupid do you think think the Middle East media is..? Or are they "in on it"? What about the Arab population? They in on it too?

Saying suicide bombings are all a lie is like saying 9/11 never happened. I wonder how you feel about the Holocaust. Nevermind, I don't want to know.

 

[apathoid]

Thats laughable. The bombers are the only thing that would be effective against a modern army, dummy.

First you say suicide bombings are all a lie...ie a myth. Now you go on to say that suicide bombings are the only effective defense against a modern army, and that is so obviously the case that anyone who doesn't realize this is a "dummy".


Can you say doublethink?

 

[cludgie]

i love it when the quote Rense.com...classic.

TAM

Its always fun to see just how few paragraphs it takes before they mention Israel/Jews on any given subject. Bless 'em.

 

[alexi_drago]

but exactly what use would suicide bombers be against an advancing row of modern battle tanks?

Caterpillar lube.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A suitcase nuke in NYC would have been a lot worse.


..just sayin'.

I wonder why the NWO didn't just go with that, then. It also has the excellent benefit of wiping out all possible evidence within half a mile or more. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a suitcase nuke. I mean, who would find out if the nuke was actually set off from the back of a S.W.A.T. van?

 

[twinstead]

I wonder why the NWO didn't just go with that, then...

Are you kidding? Suitcase nukes? Too risky. If they used them, there would just be a bunch of idiots coming out of the woodwork declaring that it was an inside job....Oh. Wait. Never mind.

 

[Corsair 115]

Perhaps against a modern occupying army, but exactly what use would suicide bombers be against an advancing row of modern battle tanks?

Well, I suppose if you had the fellow hiding in a slit trench waiting for a tank to pass overhead, that might work. The explosive would be hitting the lightly armoured underside of the tank, much in the same way an anti-tank mine would.

Of course, it'd probably be easier and more efficient to just bury thousands of anti-tank mines and save the fellow for some anti-infantry guerilla warfare work.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Thats laughable. The bombers are the only thing that would be effective against a modern army, dummy.

And the basis for this statement would be what? Your obviously encyclopedic knowledge of modern military defensive tactics and asymmetric warfare? You must have had some counter-insurgency training at some point. And of course, by some, I mean none.


Suicide bombers, while certainly causing headaches for an occupying force, can really do little to stop an invading armored enemy from reaching their tactical goals.

Kamikaze pilots in WWII were not enough to stop the encroachment of the U.S. Navy across the Pacific and they were one heck of a lot more effective then some Mahdi with a Semtex vest were.

The bombers are effective, but only in a few things. Encouraging more easily manipulated and angry young men into putting on bomb vests is one. Getting some kind of misguided sympathy from left-leaning folks in developed societies is another.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by JihadJane
My first thought when I heard about the attacks was that bin Laden did well to get it live on TV. Perfect mass media manipulation.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Only the second aircraft into the south tower was live on TV Jane.
By coincidence a French docuementary(thanks PW) crew was filming in Manhattan and caught the first plane hitting. As far as I know that is the only video of the first impact.
there were no videos of Flights 93 or 77 eitherSo your incredulity seems to be that in NYC, the home of major networks NBC, CBS, ABC and of the CNN morning show as well as several other smaller stations, several of which have airborne traffic report helicopters with cameras, that it was possible to get cameras set up and feeding live images within half an hour..

I don't understand the connection between my comment and your comment. Please explain what you think my comment was about. All I said was that I thought bin Laden was good at mass media manipulation. Where's the incredulity in that?

Sorry for missing this thread fora few days.........

I mistakenly assumed sarcasm on your part then. However I am quite sure that even one suicide hijacking into a major US city (hell, even a medium sized one) would have resulted in live coverage of the aftermath. Its the nature of the news biz all over the world. Hitting NYC absolutly, positively garauntees a quick response from TV news crews.
So AQ wants to hit the USA in its symbols of power. Where are those places? In D.C. and NYC. Where are the concentrations of news crews? In D.C. and NYC BECAUSE that is where USA political and finacial power is. Thus a natural consequence for disasters in those cities to get immediate coverage.
In short AQ/OBL did not have to do anything to "to get it live on TV. ", other than to carry out the attacks. Surely you don't think that Bin Laden or any AQ leader thought that hitting these targets and killing a few thousand Americans would bring the country to its knees and require the USA to surrender. This was a PR terror attack. It made Americans fearful and it gave credence to AQ and the fundementalist Jihad to rid the Islamic Holy Land of western influence.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

and wanted to create maximum impact and terror, why would they not choose flights that coincided with when the towers were full? Does anyone wonder whether there was a specific reason for choosing these particular flights?

Anyone want to consider this question without resorting to flippancy or contempt? Surely this raises an interesting point as to their motivation and planning?

Because they weren't on a maximum casualty mission. The World Trade Center towers were a financial symbol, and as long as they destroyed that symbol they completed their objective.

 

[jaydeehess]

Speaking of the gulf war, why didnt the arabs use/have suicide bombers then to fight the infidels? What advice did you give those servicemen?

Wow, just,,, wow

Gulf War - a rather typical set piece war of an advancing mechanised armed force on an other mechanised force in defensive positions. albeit a lopsided affair as far as each side's abilities went.

Now its just remotely possible that Saddam could have had fanatic clandestine agents in Saudi Arabia who could saunter into the American bases with bombs strapped to themselves and take out a tank or two or destroy an A-10, maybe even wander into a crowded mess hall. It would not have even slowed the progress of the advance on Iraq.

However, tweeter seems to conflate the Islamic fundementalist Jihad, a reactionary insurgency to a (real -Iraq,,,or perceived - Saudi Arabia, Israel,,,,) occupation, with the the typical national defense network of what was, at the time of the Gulf War, a modern, largely secular, country.

 

[jaydeehess]

First you say suicide bombings are all a lie...ie a myth. Now you go on to say that suicide bombings are the only effective defense against a modern army, and that is so obviously the case that anyone who doesn't realize this is a "dummy".


Can you say doublethink?

What is the quote someone used about the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs to be true at the same time?

 

[apathoid]

What is the quote someone used about the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs to be true at the same time?

If I may...I don't know the formal designation of the logical fallacy he is commiting, but I believe his reasoning is this: suicide bombings = suspicious. Lack of suicide bombings = suspicious.

This is about the third time I've seen a truther advance two completely opposing ideas at the same time in the course of minutes and be completely oblivious to that fact....

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] I don't know the formal designation of the logical fallacy he is commiting [...]

It's called cognitive dissonance^WP, but it's not a logical fallacy.

 

[funk de fino]

So obl used suicide bombers to fight saddam? When was this war? Got any links for your claims?

The first gulf war he volunteered mujahadeen to fight Saddam. He wanted the war over as fast as possible and then wanted the US out of Saudi. The US did ot leave leadin to the situation we have today.

You are not very clued up on stuff from around 1990 are you? how old were you then?

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps against a modern occupying army, but exactly what use would suicide bombers be against an advancing row of modern battle tanks?

Battle tanks don't stay forever and you can always bomb the tank operators, their families or indeed, anyone, while they're having breakfast or saying their prayers.

I really hate the word "unthinkable" I perfer unbelievable.<snipped the good stuff>

I agree with your post and your point, but I was using unthinkable to refer to the action, not the idea. For example, prior to 9/11, I had a chance to "fly" a full 727 simulator at Purdue. We were practicing a take-off from SFO, and the person in the pilot's seat (I was the co-pilot) suggested we go and "lawn-dart downtown San Francisco". It was funny at the time mostly because although the idea was thinkable, actually carrying it out was completely unthinkable, or, as you say, unbelievable.

No one I know (or at least, no one I would care to know) would make such a joke these days.

Perhaps the idea was “unthinkable” to you because you are on the wrong side of the oppressor/oppressed divide. Before (and after!) 911 many people around the world regarded the US as a rogue state, even as a terrorist state. If you poke hornets’ nests you will eventually get stung.

Perhaps the thought that someone would use the tried and tested kamikaze technique on the US was unbelievable in the same way that the decades of documented US atrocities are “unbelievable”. “Unbelief” can be a form of psychological denial.

As perpetrators and originators of extreme violence themselves the US military chain of command does not share this need for "unbelief" and is somewhat better informed about the effects of US foreign policy.

Bush was simply lying when he said:

"Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

So was Rice:

“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center”

The US defense apparatus was well aware of the threat:

“In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm


Time Magazine, April 3, 1995 :

"Even very sober public officials are deeply concerned. Three weeks ago, Georgia's Senator Sam Nunn sketched a lurid fantasy: how terrorists might wreck the central government of the U.S. On the night of a State of the Union address, when all the top officials are in the Capitol, Nunn said, a handful of fanatics could crash a radio-controlled drone aircraft into the building, 'engulfing it with chemical weapons and causing tremendous death and destruction.' This scenario, said Nunn, 'is not far-fetched,' and the technology is all readily available.

‘The Price of Fanaticism

Now that extremists are willing to use weapons of mass destruction, they have crossed a threshold that experts have watched with dread for two decades’

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/info/time040395.html


April 13, 2004:

"At an evening press conference, Bush connects the 'Genoa Warning' (kamikaze attacks) to the Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6th, 2001 (domestic hijackings).

'And I asked for the briefing [the PDB],' he says. 'And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas.' And so, 'part of it had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the report.'

Could 'no one have imagined'? Perhaps inadvertently, Bush has exposed his own national security adviser and his Secretary of Defense as liars."


(Bush’s version of the genesis of this PDB doesn’t agree, unsurprisingly, with the version of those who wrote it.)

Interestingly, outlaw VP Cheney is spinning similar lies about the much-predicted financial meltdown:

‘Cheney: No One Could Have Predicted The Financial Crisis, Just As No One Foresaw 9/11’

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/cheney-911-economy/

Take this for example. How many people here today would take the idea of Al Qaeda hijacking a Soviet Missile Sub and launching a nuclear strike on the US seriously?

On the face would seem pretty ridiculous and unlikely. In the same way the idea of them hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings was considered pretty ridiculous and unlikely by those at the top prior to 9/11.

It doesn’t seem like a ridiculous and unlikely idea to me. One of the biggest fears upon the break-up of the USSR was that nuclear weapons would gets into the hands of non-state terrorists. The US has shown itself willing to use this horrific WMD. Why not al Qaeda who, supposedly, don’t have such high morals as the USA?

However I am quite sure that even one suicide hijacking into a major US city (hell, even a medium sized one) would have resulted in live coverage of the aftermath.

I was referring to the actual act of mass murder rather than coverage of the aftermath.

... Surely you don't think that Bin Laden or any AQ leader thought that hitting these targets and killing a few thousand Americans would bring the country to its knees and require the USA to surrender. This was a PR terror attack. It made Americans fearful and it gave credence to AQ and the fundementalist Jihad to rid the Islamic Holy Land of western influence.

I agree. That's what I meant by "perfect psychological operation".

However, if any of bin Laden's alleged statements can be taken at face value, he also stated that his aim was to draw the US into unwinnable wars and bankrupt it as the US did with the USSR in Afghanistan. The US was already well on the way to bankruptcy before 911 but it is arguable that bin Laden's alleged plan has worked very well.

 

[funk de fino]

Battle tanks don't stay forever and you can always bomb the tank operators, their families or indeed, anyone, while they're having breakfast or saying their prayers.

And yet again you completely and utterly miss the point. Talk about a swing and a miss.

Are you going to admit you are from the UK yet?

 

[funk de fino]

Bush was simply lying when he said:

"Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

Ironically you are lying when you post that.

too funny.