If Al Qaeda Planned 9/11...

[gumboot]

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism was aided by covert relationships with the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and probably others.

Methinks you paint with too broad a brush.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Actually it was mostly aided by westerners driving cars. Vast amounts of oil money were used to open and support the Madrasses across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border which in return helped those groups in the area including the Taliban.

I do have to agree with JJ in one point, Intelligence Agencies about the world helped to create the moster that has now turned on them. The main culprit was the ISI, Pakistans, but the CIA bears some responsiblitity in that they knew that the ISI was targeting the Afghani radicals for the majority of funding and they ignored it. Saudi Arabia bears blame for the rise of Bin Laden and his group because of their using, funding, and then discarding of him when he went rogue. Telling him that the US was out to kill him to get him out of the country before the US even knew about him didn't help a lot either.

There is plenty of blame to spread about though. No one group created Fundametal Islam, it has roots in many things, but mostly in a dark ages type mentality that says we should all be living lives like theit prophet did, that moderisation, westernisation, and human government are evil and ungodly, and need to be destroyed. Unfortunately the very people that these groups target unwittingly gave them the ability to do exactly that because at the time they faced a bigger monster and they were too short sighted to see the future once that monster had been destroyed.

 

[MarkyX]

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism was aided by covert relationships with the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and probably others.

Why the hell would all those countries aid Hassan Al-Banna ?

 

[jaydeehess]

There isn't "ample evidence" of either scenario. A lot of vital evidence has been destroyed.

that you cannot accept the evidence for one senario does not negate it.

Evidence of Intelligence manipulation and evidence of a terrorist plot are very different in nature. The main evidence indicating any covert Military/Intelligence operation is the ensuing cover-up. There is also evidence of pre-911 investigations being obstructed from upper end of the chain of command.

A cover up of what---exactly?
How high up?

It is also possible that "a small group in the CIA" or some other group in some other organisation would seek to use Islamic militants to further other agendas. Note, also, that the US allied with Islamic Fundamentalists in the Balkans and that al Qaeda is allegedly part of the Afghanistan/US/Turkey illicit drug business.

Of course now we are into the realm of spy novels. Are you Robert Ludlum?
http://www.ludlumbooks.com/

I 'll say it again as you still appear not to have registered it, I was only talking about the "one impact". All the rest is your red herring.

Oh, I got it. You seem not to understand that it is simply not surprising or of particular significance that the impact was caught live on TV.
That you thought it was says much about your lack of critical thinking.

Perhaps, while you're checking the spelling of "hegonomy" you could find out what the word means and how it might be relevant to US foreign policy.

hegemony :: leadership or dominance of one nation over others

Pretty much what we are attempting to say was the reason for any involvement in these attacks by persons whose interests should have been quite the opposite of rendering assistance to the perpetrators of the attacks.

Which is what I said: "a major reason for carrying out the attacks in the first place," was "to get the attention of the western world" and “it worked". You have been arguing with your own projections.

I have never argued the opposite. I have said that all evidence points to it being a reason for a fundementalist Islamic group that believes itself to be at war with the USA to carry out the attacks. no evidence points to it being caused or allowed to occur by persons wishing to use it as a reason to further US dominance in the middle east.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally posted by jaydeehess
just looking at the WTC complex it is obvious that if a tower comes down buildings nearby are not going to survive.

Unless they happened to be a building other than those in the WTC, since no other building collapsed that day.

Originally Posted by DGM
Actually let's be accurate. WTC 1, 2, 3, 7, Saint Nicks Cathedral and the Sky bridge (from WTC1 to WFC) all collapsed.

Thats 5 buildings and one large structure.

ETA these are total collapses not partials.

Originally posted by jaydeehess
WTC 4, 5, 6 and Banker's Trust were later torn down.

Originally posted by gumboot
Plus 30 West Broadway and a couple of row houses south of the WTC site.

Oh yeah, and the Church.

Red Ibis' point (one oft repeated by so many 'truthers') evaporates into the ether..................