9/11 CT: A disregard for History

[TOHMS]

I often read or hear arguments from people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories which shows them making claims of Osama Bin-Laden being a CIA asset, our prior involvement in the Middle East, the Pakistani ISI connection, etc. Though I'm not really suprised by this, all their claims seem extremely dillusional and out of context.

For one, many of the CT camp seem to believe that Osama Bin-Laden is still a CIA asset. It is too hard for them to believe that at one point, there was a larger evil in the eyes of OBL than the USA, namely the Soviet Union. Somehow they are under the impression that something that was true 20 years ago still stands true today. Of course this assumption is based on an unsubstantiated claim from one newspaper. I heard Jason Bermas on some radio show, where he mentioned a US embassy bombing, and then spoke about what a big coincidence it was that the Bin-Laden family received the contract to do the reconstruction. Of course if you take the name only it sounds very suspicious...but once you acknowledge that the Bin-Laden's are some of the wealthiest people in the region, and part of their empire involves construction, it sounds alot less supsicious. Especially considering OBL has been disowned by his family. (And you may want to remind them that the Bin-Laden family is huge, as in, this is not a Mom Dad and 3 kids kind of deal)



As far as the ISI connection is concerned, I haven't full researched this claim myself. But from what I understand, it was based on one INDIAN newspaper's account of the story. Hmm, wouldnt take me long to figure out that based on HISTORY, India and Pakistan are not the best of friends (my mom's side of the family is from Lahor, and were forced into exile after the Indian and Pakistani war, in which 2 of my great uncles fought in). Aside from this fact, an event like 9/11 is obviously beneficial to the Pakistani government, which by most accounts is barely holding onto power in the face of an Islamic revolution. I really wonder why they would want the US to back them. Pakistan is a major ally of ours in the middle east, and if it wasn't for their support in the war on terror, I am quite sure we would most likely side with India based on our economic relationship with them.


I don't even want to get started on Alex Jones, but I do want to add some of the ridiculous claims I have heard him make regarding History:

-The Evil Bankers funded the communist revolutions in order to trick the people into serfdom
-Bush helped bring Hitler to power
-Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was encouraged by the US, UN, etc.

And many more.

Basically, seeing some of the more retarded things I have seen them claim, it is no wonder they make such ridiculous claims about the present.

 

[TOHMS]

Oh, almost forgot. Taking experts on subjects such as Al-Quaeda completely out of context...they take a phrase along the lines of Al-Quaeda does not exist as a large global organization and turning that into, "SEE AL-CIADA IS FAKE!!!". I mean, they say it couldn't be the terrorists, but instead of understanding how they work, they simply call them cave dwellers. I think anyone who has looked into Al-Quaeda understands that it is a very loose organization, with only about 200 full fledged members. What makes them so dangerous is that they are not in large numbers, but have many groups and people who are sympathetic to their cause, or who act on behalf of Al-Quaeda.

 

[stateofgrace]

I often read or hear arguments from people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories which shows them making claims of Osama Bin-Laden being a CIA asset, our prior involvement in the Middle East, the Pakistani ISI connection, etc. Though I'm not really suprised by this, all their claims seem extremely dillusional and out of context.

For one, many of the CT camp seem to believe that Osama Bin-Laden is still a CIA asset. It is too hard for them to believe that at one point, there was a larger evil in the eyes of OBL than the USA, namely the Soviet Union. Somehow they are under the impression that something that was true 20 years ago still stands true today. Of course this assumption is based on an unsubstantiated claim from one newspaper. I heard Jason Bermas on some radio show, where he mentioned a US embassy bombing, and then spoke about what a big coincidence it was that the Bin-Laden family received the contract to do the reconstruction. Of course if you take the name only it sounds very suspicious...but once you acknowledge that the Bin-Laden's are some of the wealthiest people in the region, and part of their empire involves construction, it sounds alot less supsicious. Especially considering OBL has been disowned by his family. (And you may want to remind them that the Bin-Laden family is huge, as in, this is not a Mom Dad and 3 kids kind of deal)

It is no secret the CIA funded the Afghan resistance, some reports put this funding at $500 million and some even go as high a $3 billion over the ten years. I have seen no reports or evidence that any of this funding went directly to OBL.Although there are reports that the CIA helped OBL to build camps and train fighters.

The US backing of the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan was even acknowledged by the Soviets when they withdrew. The commander of the Soviet forces General Valenkov said "The United States played a really decisive role....when we entered Afghanistan they did their utmost to fully support the Afghan oppression, materially, technologically and idealogically."Again this is no secret.

What is know is that OBL actually hated the US support saying back in 1980 " I always hated the Americans because they are against Muslims.... We did not want the US support in Afghanistan, but we happened to be fighting the same enemy".

The fact of the matter is that as soon as the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan so did the CIA. This was actually said by Madeline Albright" the United states walked away from Afghanistan once the Soviets pulled out, leaving a vacuum".

As for Jason Bermas claim, he is talking though a hole. Like you rightly point out the Bin laden family disowned Osama, I believe in 1998. This family is highly respected and had Bermas even bothered to look at the history of this family he would know.
The head of the family was Mohammed, a peasant,who arrived in Saudi penniless. He built an empire on hard work and dedication. The Bin laden family were all highly educated; they gave millions in charities to schools and hospitals. They were involved in many construction jobs, including the construction of Saudi Royal palaces.
His silly and stupid assertion that there is guilt by family ties is stupid, but hey why am I not surprised?

Oh, almost forgot. Taking experts on subjects such as Al-Quaeda completely out of context...they take a phrase along the lines of Al-Quaeda does not exist as a large global organization and turning that into, "SEE AL-CIADA IS FAKE!!!". I mean, they say it couldn't be the terrorists, but instead of understanding how they work, they simply call them cave dwellers. I think anyone who has looked into Al-Quaeda understands that it is a very loose organization, with only about 200 full fledged members. What makes them so dangerous is that they are not in large numbers, but have many groups and people who are sympathetic to their cause, or who act on behalf of Al-Quaeda.

Al Qaeda actually means the base. It comes from the phrase "Bait Al Ansar" which literally translates into “house of the Lions Den ". It was a base of operations for volunteer Arab fighters going into and coming from Afghanistan. It was the place was highly sensitive information was kept regarding these people and was well defended.OBL renamed it to Al Qaeda in 1988.
I'm not sure how many people are on Al Qaeda s book but it was reported that some 15 to 20 thousand Arab fighters were fighting inside Afghanistan and some of the fighters that came out to name but a few, through the base are.

Tayeb al-afghani leader of the Islamic Army movement in Algeria.
Another Arab fighter, Sid Ahmed Mourad took over from him.

These guys started a small civil war in 1992, 70, 000 people died.

Mohammed Al- Islambouli, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, sentenced to death for plotting to other throw Egyptian Government.

The same group killed 58 tourists in the Valley of the Kings 1997.

Islambouli fought with OBL in Afghanistan.

Mohammed Nazzal another Arab Afghan fight became the leader of Hamas.

Cave dwellers indeed.

ETA, welcome to the Forum.

 

[Loss Leader]

Bush helped bring Hitler to power

My real problem with the Prescott Bush angle isn't one of historical accuracy; it's one of logic. Assume that everything said about Prescott is true - it says NOTHING about his children and less than nothing about his grandchildren.

Adolf Eichmann had children who are still alive. I think Stalin had children. The sins of the fathers do not follow the sons.

It's just so ... stupid.

 

[rwguinn]

<<snip>>. The sins of the fathers do not follow the sons.

It's just so ... stupid.

But...but....THE BIBLE says they do!
And we all know how accurate that book is, don't we?

 

[TOHMS]

My real problem with the Prescott Bush angle isn't one of historical accuracy; it's one of logic. Assume that everything said about Prescott is true - it says NOTHING about his children and less than nothing about his grandchildren.

Adolf Eichmann had children who are still alive. I think Stalin had children. The sins of the fathers do not follow the sons.

It's just so ... stupid.

I have not fully reserached the clam myself. I've only seen it in Alex Jones video, and I take anything he says with a 10 lbs bag of salt.

Bush (Busch) is a German name. It would not surprise me if Prescott had a vested interested in German politics at the time. I just don't see how George or George W. would have anything to do with it.

 

[maccy]

I have not fully reserached the clam myself. I've only seen it in Alex Jones video, and I take anything he says with a 10 lbs bag of salt.

Bush (Busch) is a German name. It would not surprise me if Prescott had a vested interested in German politics at the time. I just don't see how George or George W. would have anything to do with it.

The Anti-Defamation League say there is no Nazi link:

http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm

More about the allegations here (to be taken with the usual Wikipedia pinch of salt):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#War_seizures_controversy

Also, the American lineage of the Bush family can be traced back to c.1728, with no suggestions that they spelled their name Busch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Bush

Apparently, the family may well trace back via Ireland and England:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1399353,00.html

No suggestion of a German connection.

 

[332nd]

My real problem with the Prescott Bush angle isn't one of historical accuracy; it's one of logic. Assume that everything said about Prescott is true - it says NOTHING about his children and less than nothing about his grandchildren.

Adolf Eichmann had children who are still alive. I think Stalin had children. The sins of the fathers do not follow the sons.

It's just so ... stupid.

Or the Grand-relatives it seems. That's how my fiancee is related to Eichmann and not only is she marrying a Black guy, but the boyfriend before me was Jewish.

 

[milesalpha]

There are damn few of the major history texts on Nazi Germany that I haven't read. From Bullock to Kershaw to Weinburg. None of them mention Prescott Bush. I have looked into the allegations and they generally rest on corporate political donations given to the Nazi Party from companies on which Bush was a director or board member. It is not surprising that LC members know little about corporate structure but considering Bush's positions it is incredibly unlikely that Bush even voted on a donation, let alone initiated one. German corporations, like some socialists, like some liberals, like some Catholics, like the Generals, etc, supported Hitler because they thought they could control him in the end.

As to the thread title, they butcher history more than they butcher science. From the Reichstag fire to Pearl Harbour, they cite the wildest ideas that can pretty much be found only on the net and wouldn't last 10 minutes in a historical journal (barring the IHR of course, should anyone consider that a journal).

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Which begs the stupid question...

Or the Grand-necies it seems. That's how my fiancee is related to Eichmann and not only is she marrying a Black guy, but the boyfriend before me was Jewish.

What does your fiancee think about folks who say the Holocaust never happened?

 

[Kiwiwriter]

History? Who needs history?

There are damn few of the major history texts on Nazi Germany that I haven't read. From Bullock to Kershaw to Weinburg. None of them mention Prescott Bush. I have looked into the allegations and they generally rest on corporate political donations given to the Nazi Party from companies on which Bush was a director or board member. It is not surprising that LC members know little about corporate structure but considering Bush's positions it is incredibly unlikely that Bush even voted on a donation, let alone initiated one. German corporations, like some socialists, like some liberals, like some Catholics, like the Generals, etc, supported Hitler because they thought they could control him in the end.

As to the thread title, they butcher history more than they butcher science. From the Reichstag fire to Pearl Harbour, they cite the wildest ideas that can pretty much be found only on the net and wouldn't last 10 minutes in a historical journal (barring the IHR of course, should anyone consider that a journal).

They have even less respect for history than for science. You should see some of the crazy stuff I've had to wade through over on The History Channel's forum. The sheer ignorance is incredible, and made worse by their blind acceptance of the most convoluted and complicated conspiracy nonsense.

 

[332nd]

What does your fiancee think about folks who say the Holocaust never happened?

She thinks they're nuts.

(BTW I just looked in the family history book she gets every year, and Uncle doesn't seem to be the correct term according to the tree. More like a cousin. regardless I still appreciate the irony.)

 

[TOHMS]

My grandpa and grandma are both from Austria (where I was born). Talking to them, and other relatives, they all claimed to know less than what was going on (my Grandma actually told me that most of them were quite aware as to what was going on by around '42)...My grandparents are both from within 20 minutes from Mauthausen, which I have personally visited.

People who think the Holocaust never happened are stupid. Go to Germany or Austria today, the Swastika is even banned in video games. German's are so apologetic for their role in WW2 and the Holocaust that it is almost frowned upon to have a German flag (not Nazi, but German) hanging at any time besides the Olympics or World Cup.

If it were easy to prove that the Holocaust did not happen, don't you think that MANY of those who lived at the time would not be quick to jump onto those claims. Why admit to such autrocities if they never occured? Probably because they did occur.



Honestly if you listen to Alex Jones and his accounts of History it is comical. I mean the guy matter-of-factly just reels off major historic events and his explanation for them like it's going out of style. I've never heard him recount any History by what is accepted as Historical knowledge, instead he takes the most obscene view of what happened and mascarades it as the truth.

What the Nazi's did with the Reichstag fire is very much like what Bush did with 9/11...connecting it with those who had no involvement, as in Iraq, and in Hitler's case, enemies of the Reich.

 

[beachnut]

Honestly if you listen to Alex Jones and his accounts of History it is comical. I mean the guy matter-of-factly just reels off major historic events and his explanation for them like it's going out of style. I've never heard him recount any History by what is accepted as Historical knowledge, instead he takes the most obscene view of what happened and mascarades it as the truth.

What the Nazi's did with the Reichstag fire is very much like what Bush did with 9/11...connecting it with those who had no involvement, as in Iraq, and in Hitler's case, enemies of the Reich.

I do not remember any thing about Iraq and 9/11 or Bush saying anything about Iraq and 9/11. I missed that. I bet the terrorist were not detained by old Saddam. I bet you Saddam never gave us a terrorist after 1991. Did he?

What I did not miss is the times Saddam/Iraq shot at our planes after the Gulf War. I also remember him not being very good at telling us he did not have WMDs. I would have done a better job of being humble and making sure everyone in the world knew I had no WMDs. Blame it on Saddam.

I still do not understand why people tie 9/11 and Saddam. Saddam broke the agreements after the war! Saddam was too proud to make sure we believed he was done with WMD programs.

WMDs? His own generals were fooled. He must of fooled you too. I remember he fooled us all. Saddam fooled the world right into a necktie party!

 

[TOHMS]

I do not remember any thing about Iraq and 9/11 or Bush saying anything about Iraq and 9/11. I missed that. I bet the terrorist were not detained by old Saddam. I bet you Saddam never gave us a terrorist after 1991. Did he?

What I did not miss is the times Saddam/Iraq shot at our planes after the Gulf War. I also remember him not being very good at telling us he did not have WMDs. I would have done a better job of being humble and making sure everyone in the world knew I had no WMDs. Blame it on Saddam.

I still do not understand why people tie 9/11 and Saddam. Saddam broke the agreements after the war! Saddam was too proud to make sure we believed he was done with WMD programs.

WMDs? His own generals were fooled. He must of fooled you too. I remember he fooled us all. Saddam fooled the world right into a necktie party!

I don't know about all that. If I remember the fear mongering that was going on before the invasion of Iraq, Bush and co. were desperately trying to forge a link between Saddam and Terrorism. Sure they played the WMD angle, but they also tried to ride the coattails of 9/11 into getting the public to go along with the war.

The whole WMD thing was completely absurd to me at the time, and still is today. Even if Saddam had WMD's, he would be foolish to use them. He saw what happened when he decided to invaid Kuwait. You really think he would dare to launch any such weapons at other nations? He sure as hell was not going to use them directly against the USA, something Bush was implying.

I didn't say that Bush directly said that Saddam had any involvement in 9/11, in fact he stated that they didn't, but again, they tried to tie the two together as much as possible without saying it. They never said that Saddam was behind the attacks themselves, but...

Cheney on meet the press:

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."

No, you are right, they never said that Saddam pulled of 9/11. But they sure as hell made it sound like Saddam could provide terrorists WMD's, etc. Which would make sense, if they weren't lying about the WMD's in the first place.

 

[Loss Leader]

Or the Grand-relatives it seems. That's how my fiancee is related to Eichmann and not only is she marrying a Black guy, but the boyfriend before me was Jewish.

I remember seeing an interview with Eichmann's son. He was very young when Eichmann died. He disavowed Nazism and his father's actions entirely, but he seemed sad about the fact that he had missed growing up with a father.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Thanks for that answer

She thinks they're nuts.

(BTW I just looked in the family history book she gets every year, and Uncle doesn't seem to be the correct term according to the tree. More like a cousin. regardless I still appreciate the irony.)

Glad to hear that. And I hope your fiancee doesn't get any grief on her being related to Eichmann. I am reminded that a family is a club we are required to join at birth, whether we wanted to or not.

I have a book of interviews with descendants of top Nazis. Bormann's son became a priest. Frank's son an anti-Nazi journalist. Hess's son Wolf-rudiger, on the other hand, refused to serve in the Bundeswehr. Goering's daughter had been pretty reclusive. Interesting stories.

 

[Brainster]

I don't even want to get started on Alex Jones, but I do want to add some of the ridiculous claims I have heard him make regarding History:

-The Evil Bankers funded the communist revolutions in order to trick the people into serfdom
-Bush helped bring Hitler to power

A lot of people don't realize that the source of the Bush/Nazi claim is none other than Webster Tarpley.

 

[rwguinn]

I do not remember any thing about Iraq and 9/11 or Bush saying anything about Iraq and 9/11. I missed that. I bet the terrorist were not detained by old Saddam. I bet you Saddam never gave us a terrorist after 1991. Did he?

What I did not miss is the times Saddam/Iraq shot at our planes after the Gulf War. I also remember him not being very good at telling us he did not have WMDs. I would have done a better job of being humble and making sure everyone in the world knew I had no WMDs. Blame it on Saddam.

I still do not understand why people tie 9/11 and Saddam. Saddam broke the agreements after the war! Saddam was too proud to make sure we believed he was done with WMD programs.

WMDs? His own generals were fooled. He must of fooled you too. I remember he fooled us all. Saddam fooled the world right into a necktie party!

Most people, Like tohms--and the CT'ers, as well as many well-intentioned folk, and power-hungry politicians, and the news media--have very, very short memories.They forget all the events leading up to an action, since that doesn't fit their needs. They look at consequences, rather than intent, all the while wanting us to look at what they intend.
Like project managers, thir philosophy is "So what have you done for me recently?", forgetting the goodies delivered just last night.

 

[gumboot]

The whole WMD thing was completely absurd to me at the time, and still is today. Even if Saddam had WMD's, he would be foolish to use them.

He DID have them and he DID use them, and against coalition forces at that. So I guess there's that argument down the toilet.

And post 1991, he massed troops to invade Kuwait TWICE, and only withdrew after the US massed their own forces and pounded him from the air.

Why is it people think there was brief activity when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and nothing at all before that, and nothing at all after that, until the US randomly invaded?

After 1991 there was a DECADE of conflict, both militarily and politically, between Iraq and the UN. Iraq showed ZERO signs of cooperating with the UN, and as each year passed the UN's credability was being eroded (after the enormous boost they received in confronting Saddam in 1990/1).

Simply look at all the other messes that stirred up between 1991 and 2001 in other parts of the world (from 1945 until 1989 there were 94 armed conflicts around the world (an average of about 2 a year), between 1991 and 2002 there were over 40 (average of over 3 a year, or a 50% increase)). Saddam was showing the world that the UN was utterly toothless.

-Gumboot