The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[nicepants]

We have the middle man, as documented by many sources, between the Bush admin and the Taliban, primarily responsible for arranging for OBL to be killed, and his unequivocal opinion? Bush had him on a platter, but said no thanks. How is this treated by you? It's a "fairy tale", and he must be lying.

1 - Proof that he is "the middle man between the Bush admin and the Taliban"?

2 - If this guy KNEW for certain that Bush could have OBL on a platter, why doesn't he just state it as a fact, rather than simply an opinion?

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, and you were doing so well. Now you have to go back to this "stick to the point" crap. I thought that the issue of the US having OBL "on a platter" was essential to your point that the US allowed 9/11 to happen. I've asked you why capturing, trying, or killing OBL would help stop those terrorist attacks in early 2001, when the negotiations you reference actually happened.

Stick to the point that is relevant to this segment! I.e. whether OBL was refused by teh Bush admin, either handover or death.

Could have had him dead? The US seemed to want to put him on trial. That's what all those sources you keep referencing say. Why would they want him dead? They wanted him held accountable for his crimes.

What? The US has tried to kill OBL many times under Clinton, the reason for the trial comes from the fact that according to those sources the Taliban were at one point stating that they would give him to be tried. The US wanted him dead, how could they refuse such an offer?

There is also the minor issue of them not really having his "head on a platter" in the sense you keep using. The US was negotiating with an unreliable, unstable, dogmatic political entity to try to secure the release of a man they treated as a guest. Somehow I don't think this was a particularly "good faith" negotiation.

lPlease read:

We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul.

...

The Bush administration sent Mohabbat back, carrying kindred tidings of delay and regret to the Taliban three more times in 2001, the last in September after the 9/11 attack. Each time he was asked to communicate similar regrets about the failure to act on the plan agreed to in Frankfurt. This procrastination became a standing joke with the Taliban, Mohabbat tells CounterPunch "They made an offer to me that if the US didn't have fuel for the Cruise missiles to attack Osama in Daronta, where he was under house arrest, they would pay for it."

How could the US have had him dead? Did we know precisely where he was? "Inside Afghanistan" clearly isn't enough, given our inability to capture him during the recent war there.

as above

No, because you haven't shown proof of it, and every source you've linked to flatly defies the idea of him being "handed" to anyone.

Handed on a platter, i dont just mean given over, I mean disposed of. Head on a platter is the line from the article.

You have no idea how organizations like Al Qaeda work, do you?

Terrorist groups, like AQ, are often organized into what is known as "cells." These cells, generally comprised of a small number of people, operate largely independently of the larger group itself. The larger group supplies funding, training, equipment, and guidance, then allows the cells to operate without direct leadership from the main group.

Sure, but of course you are not suggesting taht the US didnt want OBL dead, are you?

Evidence suggests that OBL had contact with members of the cells periodically before they carried out their mission, but there is no reason to suspect that their operation would cease when the leadership was destroyed.

not cease maybe, but be hindered, for sure.Otherwise whats the point in killing terror leaders?

Just as the AQ cells in Afghanistan are able to continue to fight against American troops despite the death of several of their key leaders, any cell in the US is generally able to continue its mission unless that specific cell is destroyed to the point where its operational capacity is removed.

as above, (incidentally I assume you are not taking "insurgents" who attack US troops to be terrorists?)

Moreover, the motivation behind most terrorist groups is not adherence to a particular figure or group, it is adherence to a set of particular ideals and beliefs, regardless of how pathological those ideals and beliefs may be. This is largely what allows the cell system to work - individual operators do not require constant reinforcement from on high to continue their operations.

You can examine several situations to see how this works: the Afghan insurgency, the Iraqi insurgency, the terrorist operations carried out by HAMAS in Israel and the surrounding area, the IRA operations in Northern Ireland that took place for decades, and the activity of any of the "lone gunman" terrorists that show how much damage a motivated individual can do.

Cutting off the head of a terrorist organization is like cutting off the head of the Hydra. It might make you feel good, and it might even hurt them for a bit (OBL was a key organizer and provided a lot of money), but it will never kill them. That is one of the key things that make terrorism so enduring and dangerous. Remember that many terrorist groups have long outlasted the lifespans or involvement of their original members - they are not defined by one leader.

Even more to the point, by the time OBL was even "offered" to the US, again assuming such an offer was even remotely genuine, the cell planning 9/11 was in its end run. Despite all its moving parts, the hijacking plot was pretty low-tech, so it's not like they needed a constant influx of OBL money to continue operations.

all as above

That's the thing, the War on Terror is such a great deal for the government precisely because it doesn't need one man for that. All it needs is the shadowy boogeyman of "the terrorists." It works even better if you don't tie it in to one man. Osama could die at any time, even if the US was working full time to protect him secretly, but the concept of a shadow group that hates America will never go away.

I like this point Jonny, I think I have made it before, you touch on a very important point.

It is very hard to deny that The War on Terror is not a diversionary construct, since it is not a realistic war, i.e. one that can ever end. It is a self perpetuating cycle of threats ->fear-> invasion of resource rich countries/military radicalisations that serve precisely the basic purposes outlined in RAD. This is why the WOT gives the game away. It is as blatant a falsehood as can be conceived. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? Further, I take it you understand that the US is in no way opposed to terrorism? See my longish post on p3 for more. Finally, nor is it opposed to Jihadism either.
So what is the WOT? Look at what it was called in Sept 2000, and you will have your answer.

More to your point, it doesnt need a bogeyman, but it works all the better for it- although it is a faceless enemy, he is the epitome of it. As for his death- maybe he is dead right now? Who would know? If no one knows, all the better for it. You might also wanna watch 911 Press for Truth, or read the Cockburn article to find out more on the astonishing fact as to why OBL hasnt been captured, after 6 1/2 yeears.

I'm willing to bet large sums of money that there will never be a world where there are no terrorists of one sort or another. There will always be people willing to use terroristic violence to try and achieve their political ends. If you want to be cynical about it, the War on Terror's abstract qualities ensure we will almost always have an enemy to fight. Unlike the Cold War, which largely ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there will always be some terrorists.

that would be a safe bet. as above.

I, again, contest the idea that he was "handed on a platter." The evidence you have linked to does not at all support this idea. In fact, it appears more to be Taliban obfuscation and diplomatic posturing than anything else. This isn't "we had him in our custody and let him go" stuff, not by a long shot.

Read the article as stated.

 

[Augustine]

LMAO, right, who's going to have an agenda, the guy from the US State department, or the Afghan/American link between the US and the Taliban? Why does this guy have an "agenda", pray tell?

Nice gag! Tell me why his credibility is suspect, over a US state dept official commenting in March 01, vs the independent intermediary between the US and the Taliban commenting in November 04? How can you make this claim with a straigh face?

I have bolded your misleading word. Mohabbat is not independent. Why would a US State Department career employee risk his career (30+ years) over lying about the Taliban response to US demands for bin Laden? Why would everyone else involved be complicit except for Mohabbat? Why would the US State Department career FSO risk going to jail in falsifying reports of what was discussed at a meeting?

Does Mohabbat have links to the Taliban? What tribe is he? How has his "business" fared since the Taliban has been driven from power? What evidence does he have? When did he produce it? I trust a memorandum written immediately following a meeting documenting what was said far more than a version "remembered" four years later.

What is pashtun-wali? What is pannah warkawel? Do you notice that honesty is not part of this code?

What Cockburn or Chomsky thinks of the movement has zero relevance in terms of a debate on the facts. If you want to debate them seriously, for which there is little evidence, you would not need me to tell you this.

I'm just busting your chops on Chomsky. I find it amusing that your intellectual hero would think that you are a fool.
Cockburn is relevant because he clearly has looked at the same evidence as you have; you cite him as a reference. Yet he arrives at a completely different conclusion; i.e. not LIHOP. Well, where does Cockburn fall into the categories of non-twoofers? Is he in the ill-informed or the deluded? If he is ill-informed or deluded, why should I trust his references? You have said that "sensible and honest people will come to sensible and honest conclusions"; well, is Cockburn sensible and honest? Is his conclusion sensible and honest?

 

[mjd1982]

I'll just let your own words speak for me.

Dave

There is nothing wrong with arguing from incredulity, through sarcasm etc, if such tools are not used to avoid addressing the point.

This is a very, very simple point, and one that you should evidently take time to understand.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is nothing wrong with arguing from incredulity, through sarcasm etc, if such tools are not used to avoid addressing the point.

This is a very, very simple point, and one that you should evidently take time to understand.

I'm getting quite curious about what you actually hope to achieve here. Your tactics throughout this thread have generally been unchanged: state an opinion as fact, if anyone points out that it's an opinion then state that it's the only opinion an intelligent and unbiased observer can reach, and if anyone advances a rational counter-argument, abuse them. Your tone in all your posts has been superior, overbearing, condescending and generally contemptuous of anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you. How exactly, using tactics such as this, do you hope ever to convince anyone of anything? All you do is alienate not only those who disagree with you, but the casual observer as well. Your logical analysis skills may be more germane to the point of this discussion, but your interpersonal skills appear to be letting you down very badly.

Dave

 

[nicepants]

Stick to the point that is relevant to this segment! I.e. whether OBL was refused by teh Bush admin, either handover or death.

His point is....even if OBL WAS handed over and killed, we have no evidence to suggest that would have stopped the attacks of 9/11.

 

[JonnyFive]

Stick to the point that is relevant to this segment! I.e. whether OBL was refused by teh Bush admin, either handover or death.

This is all connected to that point. You cannot control discussion of it by bullying people with "stick to the point."

What? The US has tried to kill OBL many times under Clinton, the reason for the trial comes from the fact that according to those sources the Taliban were at one point stating that they would give him to be tried. The US wanted him dead, how could they refuse such an offer?

The US wanted him handed over, in this particular case.

The US Government is funny like that. They kind of switch between trying to kill people with bombs and cruise missiles and trying to capture them. Ironically, this is exactly what happened with Saddam Hussein. We spent a lot of money trying to bomb him into oblivion, but then capture him when we found him in the spider hole.

Why? Politics. It's political gold to put someone like OBL on trial. You can have him convicted and legally executed or indefinitely jailed for the crimes he committed. It makes the US look much better than simply killing him secretly.

lPlease read:

as above

Any evidence that the US actually wanted to target him with cruise missiles, or knew his specific location for a targetted strike.

There's also that messy little issue of international diplomacy... and your own sources. All your other sources are consistent with US negotiation to put OBL on trial. Again, I'm making the very liberal assumption that all the facts are exactly as your sources claim.

Handed on a platter, i dont just mean given over, I mean disposed of. Head on a platter is the line from the article.

However, as I just said, your other sources are all remarkably consistent with attempting to secure OBL for a trial with regards to his involvement with the 1998 attack on the USS Cole. Nothing the US did is particularly consistent with them wanting him dead without trial, and to say that their failure to attack him with cruise missiles is suspicious, absent additional evidence that they wanted simply to kill him at that time, is speculation.

Sure, but of course you are not suggesting taht the US didnt want OBL dead, are you?

I'm suggesting that, at the time, they wanted to put him on trial. The probable result of that trial would be an execution, but it would be a politically beneficial execution.

But wait, your point was that the failure to kill OBL was somehow significant in 9/11 happening. What was it you said about sticking to the point? I'm arguing that, even if we grant you everything you believe to be true, your ultimate point is still incorrect.

not cease maybe, but be hindered, for sure.Otherwise whats the point in killing terror leaders?

At that point in this specific operation (the 9/11 attacks), probably not even hindered. You're taking the generic and trying to use it to suggest something about a very specific case, rather than using the issues of this specific case.

So what is the point? Well, partly it's done to prevent new cells from being recruited and forming. It can also help to reduce funding, which has the long-term goal of reducing the operational capacity of the group.

It's also partly political posturing - it can make people feel safer to know that some big leader of some terrorist group is dead or captured. It may not reduce the operational effectiveness of the existing cells one bit, but it makes people feel safer, and that counts for something when one of the primary terrorist weapons is fear.

I didn't say there's no reason to target terrorist leaders, but the reasons don't have so much to do with harming individual cells as generally harming the group's ability to continue to form cells, recruit new members, and carry out future operations where elements like funding and manpower haven't yet been finalized.

as above, (incidentally I assume you are not taking "insurgents" who attack US troops to be terrorists?)

There is a very, very fine line between an insurgent and a terrorist, and often they are two sides of the same coin. A lot of it has to do with targetting, and a bit has to do with tactics. Historically, the two are usually linked: HAMAS, FARC, Al Qaeda, IRA, PLA... they all use both terrorist and "guerilla" or "insurgent" tactics as needed to further their goals.

all as above

Your evasion is noted. You appear to weakly resort to "as above" to address complex situations where your simple answers don't work. You seem to believe the death of OBL would hinder the 9/11 attacks, and that the fact the US didn't kill him is suspicious. However, you're failed to actually explain how killing him would prevent or hinder those attacks. Funding? Organization? Authorization?

Why don't you explain what you think about this situation. How do you believe killing OBL in early 2001 would significantly hinder the 9/11 attacks?

I like this point Jonny, I think I have made it before, you touch on a very important point.

It is very hard to deny that The War on Terror is not a diversionary construct, since it is not a realistic war, i.e. one that can ever end. It is a self perpetuating cycle of threats ->fear-> invasion of resource rich countries/military radicalisations that serve precisely the basic purposes outlined in RAD.

I don't think it's a "diversionary construct," I think it is simply something that cannot really ever be "won" in the traditional sense. The enemy we face, though real, is one that is shifting constantly. All we (all target nations) can do is strive to defend ourselves more effectively, and not succumb to the fear that our real enemies wish to use to further their own ends, without depriving the citizens of target countries of their rights. To defend ourselves only at the expense of all our freedom would effectively be self-defeating.

This is why the WOT gives the game away. It is as blatant a falsehood as can be conceived. How do you wage war on an abstract noun?

This is a misconception and piece of equivocation on your part, mjd. No one is suggesting that the US is using its military to fight against the abstract noun, "terror," as that is an impossible and silly concept beyond all comprehension. When you say such a thing, you cheapen your arguments considerably, as when you simply reply "as above" to a point without addressing the finer details.

Further, I take it you understand that the US is in no way opposed to terrorism? See my longish post on p3 for more. Finally, nor is it opposed to Jihadism either.

I understand that the US sometimes uses repulsive or violent groups to fight groups that are a threat to it, or to further its ends. I am not naive enough to think that we do not (e.g. our support of the Afghan insurgency against the Soviets that brought the Taliban into power, our support for various insurgent groups in Latin America, among other things), but it is quite a leap from this to your position.

This is not tantamount to not opposing terrorism. We clearly oppose terrorism when it is directed against us, or our allies, or basically anyone we aren't actively fighting. We also, remarkably enough, seem to generally refrain from actively supporting terrorism against used against our enemies, and don't seem to have used US forces for direct, sanctioned, terrorist activities in recent history.

So what is the WOT? Look at what it was called in Sept 2000, and you will have your answer.

In September 2000, the "war on terror" as a political entity did not exist (as you claim it is simply a "diversionary construct" I would think you would readily agree with me on that point). That does not mean the US was not engaged in a conflict with groups that used terrorist tactics against them or their allies.

The US population became more aware of terrorism after 9/11, but the actual face of the conflict was remarkably similar to that which had been boiling for some time.

More to your point, it doesnt need a bogeyman, but it works all the better for it- although it is a faceless enemy, he is the epitome of it.

That is unimportant to my point: the war on terror is useful as a political entity because it does not require a particular person.

As for his death- maybe he is dead right now? Who would know? If no one knows, all the better for it. You might also wanna watch 911 Press for Truth, or read the Cockburn article to find out more on the astonishing fact as to why OBL hasnt been captured, after 6 1/2 yeears.

Because he is a slippery bastard with money and influence in certain circles, and the US military cannot search every inch of the face of the Earth for him. I don't find his not being captured "astonishing" at all.

Actually, I'm astonished that we found Saddam. Of course, he wasn't accustomed to the kind of underground, off the grid existence that Osama uses. Hussein seemed to rely overly on his power inside of Iraq, and couldn't manage once that power was gone. Another story for another day, I suppose.

Read the article as stated.

I did (I assume you mean the Counterpunch thing). I am not particularly impressed. Your other sources (and even this, in many ways) point in a direction that you seem to heading away from in the interest of making some point, and it's not really helping your case.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

1) a war on terror- no sane person is going to wage a war against an abstract noun

Word of advice: Don't steal a Michael Moore quote and try and palm it off as your own.

 

[JonnyFive]

Word of advice: Don't steal a Michael Moore quote and try and palm it off as your own.

No kidding? I thought that sounded sort of familiar.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh boy, a plunge into the incredulous here. Why would they not be able to understand Mohabbat? He's a Texan businessman, who was born in Afghanistan. So that point is out the window and in the dustbin. Further, the argument is a complete catch all, since it would imply that even if the Taliban were saying "OBL is here, please bomb him", which they were, then the Bush admin would just not understand it, due to cultural differences. I take it you are not making this argument seriously. Moreover, read the article carefully. The reaction of the Bush admin was not that they didnt know that they could, they knew they could, they were just procrastinating:

Just coming back to this one, did you read the same article I did (http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm)? And did you spot the following paragraphs?

Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.

U.S. officials struggled to communicate with Muslim clerics unfamiliar with modern diplomacy and distrustful of the Western world, and they failed to take advantage of fractures in the Taliban leadership.

"We never heard what they were trying to say," said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

Publicly, the Taliban said they no longer knew where he was. Inderfurth now says the United States interpreted such statements "as an effort to evade their responsibility to turn him over."

Others, however, say the cryptic statements should have been interpreted differently. Bearden, for example, believes the Taliban more than once set up bin Laden for capture by the United States and communicated its intent by saying he was lost.

"Every time the Afghans said, 'He's lost again,' they are saying something. They are saying, 'He's no longer under our protection,' " Bearden said. "They thought they were signaling us subtly, and we don't do signals."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. If Mohabbat was in the middle of all this, and was quite capable of understanding the cultural nuances of what the Taliban was saying, it might well appear to him as if the US was stalling. And no, being a Texas businessman doesn't necessarily make him an ideal emissary between two parties who mistrust and misunderstand each other; his very familiarity with both sides of the discussion could easily blind him to the fact that neither side ever really understood the other.

As for the Taliban saying "OBL is here, please bomb him", this article suggests that they weren't saying that. They were actually saying "We don't know where OBL is" and expecting the US to hear the words "It's open season on OBL, guys, come loaded for bear". The article suggests that the US negotiators simply didn't realise this.

But that's all about nuances, and your posts so far suggest that you don't do nuances. Very like the US negotiators, if this is an accurate picture.

Dave

 

[JonnyFive]

That article linked in inforwars doesn't seem to agree at all with mjd's conclusions. Here's another pertinent quote:

Taliban leaders also kept demanding the United States provide more evidence of bin Laden's terrorist activities.

"It became clear that the call for more evidence was more a delaying tactic than a sincere effort to solve the bin Laden issue," Inderfurth said.

Throughout 1999 and 2000, Inderfurth, Sheehan and Thomas R. Pickering, then undersecretary of state, continued meeting in Washington, Islamabad, New York and Bonn to review evidence against bin Laden. They warned of war if there were another terrorist attack.

"We saw a continuing effort to evade, deny and obfuscate," Inderfurth said. "They had no interest in an international panel, really. Their only intention was not to hand bin Laden over."

And

Even after Sept. 11, as U.S. aircraft carriers and warplanes rushed toward Afghanistan, the Taliban's mysterious maneuvering continued.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Excuse me? May I ask why you are here if you have no inclination to look at facts with the slightest degree of honesty?

The source here was the link between the US and the Taliban. It is hard to realistically conceive a more important source than this. He is unequivocal in his opinion- the US "could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter".

What is there to debate? This could not be any more simple.

How was said severed head to be delivered? Where was said severed head to be delivered? Was it to be delivered on an official White House silver platter, or some other pattern?

I say this to point out the underlying bias of ther person who wrote that piece. You must ask yourself it it colours the way he wrote the rest of it, and where his bias lies.

There was no bogeyman in N Ireland, but that doesnt mean that it would have been less effective with one. These are 2 completely different instances; one is a manufactured war against an invisible enemy, the other is a genuine conflict. Were the Troubles manufactured, there would be good reason to construct a bogeyman to put fear into a population, and gain credence.
(snip)

Can you clarify this, mjd1982? Are you trying to argue that the US government has framed Usama bin Ladin as a patsy?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Incorrect. As has been pointed out, there is no need for a 'bogeyman'. The British Government/Army fought terrorism in Northern Ireland for over 30 years with no recourse to a 'figurehead' of any kind. Why would the US Government need one?

There was no bogeyman in N Ireland, but that doesnt mean that it would have been less effective with one. These are 2 completely different instances; one is a manufactured war against an invisible enemy, the other is a genuine conflict. Were the Troubles manufactured, there would be good reason to construct a bogeyman to put fear into a population, and gain credence.

But AQ aren't 'invisible'... many government agencies worldwide are fully aware of prominent members of AQ. OBL was on the FBI's 'Most Wanted' list years before 9/11. Neither is the threat invisible.


Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Of course, if the head of AQ was killed it would cause problems - as has been pointed out, but given the nature of Islamic terrorism, I don't think this would make too much of an impact; It would result in the head of AQ being 'martyred', and would only serve to inflame passion and resistance in the rest of the movement. Saddam Hussein being captured and subsequently hanged did nothing significant to quell the dissidents in Iraq.

Right, but that doesnt invalidate the validity of killing Saddam, does it? Which is the point.

So what IS the point?! With Saddam alive or dead, the dissidents will still fight. With OBL alive or dead, they will still fight.


Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Again, can I seek clarification that you're suggesting that the US government were fully aware that a terrorist attack was planned for 9/11, and did nothing to stop it, in order to push through weapons development, obtain oil/gas and establish footholds in the Persian Gulf?

yes, to further and entrench geo political hegemony. See my long post half way down p3 for more.

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
And not only did they do nothing to stop it, but they indirectly alluded to it in the PNAC prior to the event?

This evinces the propitiousness of such an event in their minds, im not arguing anything else

So they are dastardly superfiends who leave clues to their cunning plots littered around to mock the only ones who are intelligent enough to realise what they are - the 'Truth' movement?


Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
If this is the case, can you tell me how (if at all) the British Government was complicit in this, seeing as how British % US troops were 'shoulder-to-shoulder' in the War against Terror almost from the outset? Do you think that this implies that the British Government were also 'in on it'?

No, I don't. The Brits (we) see that, again for geo political reasons to stand shoulder to shoulder (or knee) with the US is beneficial. Of course this has obvious benefits such as stable access to cheap oil and gas, as well as a boon to the weapons industry, whose importance Goldsmith et al are very aware of, but this is all tangential. They are not in on it, nor are they possblly even aware that this is an inside job.

So, given that the entire gullible British Government has been unwittingly hoodwinked by the villainous and cunning US Government into going to war over a terror plot they allowed and encouraged, and as a result of which have lost probably millions of pounds in destroyed equipment, brought the popularity of the current Government to an all-time low, spent millions on getting troops to war, millions maintaining them while they're AT war, are currently undergoing an armed forces manning crisis as overstretched soldiers are leaving the army in droves, and last - but not least - have had 150 British soldiers killed - many who's deaths sparked newer controversies - in Iraq alone, can you tell me if you think the benefits outweigh the negatives?

 

[MSgtWeiss]

You're wrong. "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian. And we all know that anything with "truth" in the title has to be true!

It's true!

Old goats like me may remember the old Russian joke from Cold War days, pretty much a standard among the Russian lower classes: "No news in Isvestia, no truth in Pravda"

(Isvestia translates as "news")

 

[mjd1982]

1 - Proof that he is "the middle man between the Bush admin and the Taliban"?

2 - If this guy KNEW for certain that Bush could have OBL on a platter, why doesn't he just state it as a fact, rather than simply an opinion?

Oh boy!

1. Ok. Now let's think about how "proof" in a situation such as we are in works.

I make an assertion. I back that up with evidence. That evidence needs to be of a certain level of credulity for it to be accepted. Once that is done, then someone who wants to oppose that viewpoint, puts forth countering evidence, of a sufficient level of credulity to neuter the previous. Asking for "proof" is just stupid and evasive- how can "proof". i.e. something that unequivocally proves something, be brought forth on an internet forum? E.g. I know that Henry Kissinger is of frequent counsel to the Bush admin. My evidence for this miht be, amongst other things, Cheney being quoted in "State of Denial" that he is the person he speaks to most outside the Admin. But it this "proof"? No, of course not, and if it were crucial to the issue at hand here, you would not accept it, since it is not proof. Very little can be proven on an internet forum, qualititatively in any case, so stop asking for it, since it is merely a manifestation of a tragic intranisgence.

If you want evidence for it, then read the article again. 1stly, he is not stated by Cockburn as someone who claims he is the middleman, he is someone who is. 2ndly this is corroborated by many other news sources. Finally, he showed Cockburn et al official documents to corroborate this. End iof.

2. He does state it as fact. What is your point?

 

[mjd1982]

I have bolded your misleading word. Mohabbat is not independent. Why would a US State Department career employee risk his career (30+ years) over lying about the Taliban response to US demands for bin Laden?

Such a "lie", if it is such, puts the US in a favourable light, seeing as they were doing nothing about it.

Why would everyone else involved be complicit except for Mohabbat? Why would the US State Department career FSO risk going to jail in falsifying reports of what was discussed at a meeting?

?!

As above. I think your getting desperate now.

Does Mohabbat have links to the Taliban? What tribe is he? How has his "business" fared since the Taliban has been driven from power? What evidence does he have? When did he produce it? I trust a memorandum written immediately following a meeting documenting what was said far more than a version "remembered" four years later.

Excuse me???

This is 100% speculative, and is soooooo very desperate, it is pretty sad. Of course, this is a standard tactic of a dishonest debater- muddy the issue, and then no one can win. Cast aspersions on a source, aspersions with no base for proof, nor for dismissal.

Unfortunately such sub moronic tactics aint gonna wash here; my deluded friend, all the above is rank speculation with zero basis in reality. The reality is that Eastham is a state dept official of 30 yrs, hence completely un-independent. For all we know, Mohabbat is independent. Full stop.

What is pashtun-wali? What is pannah warkawel? Do you notice that honesty is not part of this code?

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm just busting your chops on Chomsky. I find it amusing that your intellectual hero would think that you are a fool.

Since when is he my hero? And why would he think i was a fool?

Cockburn is relevant because he clearly has looked at the same evidence as you have;

think before you post please. How do you know he has looked at what I have?

you cite him as a reference. Yet he arrives at a completely different
conclusion; i.e. not LIHOP. Well, where does Cockburn fall into the categories of non-twoofers? Is he in the ill-informed or the deluded? If he is ill-informed or deluded, why should I trust his references?

ill informed, I would assume

You have said that "sensible and honest people will come to sensible and honest conclusions"; well, is Cockburn sensible and honest? Is his conclusion sensible and honest?

Oh boy, what a terrible post, this is one of the worst yet.

Maybe you can try again, here catch: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

 

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI View Post
This is the case you are trying, but everyone here is showing you the fallacy of your arguments.

Haha.. nice gag! I hope you dont actually believe that.

Ah, but I do believe that

If you do, you may want to start by learning the difference between addressing someone's points (i.e. as I have done here) and restating ones own (i.e. if I had just said, "No, PNAC did say what i say it said")

Mjd, you said PNAC was propitious to the Neocons, correct? The exception in the document regarding the difference between the long term and the short term is the key you are using. The key is the catastrophic and catalyzing event written in the document. Since this was written before 9/11, please show how the "sentiment" was there;

not necessailry "planned the doc", but the sentiment was present in the doc, this we can say

The consensus of all those who signed the document had determined these changes will take place over the long term. Where is the proof of the short term "sentiment?"

 

[twinstead]

This is 100% speculative, and is soooooo very desperate, it is pretty sad. Of course, this is a standard tactic of a dishonest debater- muddy the issue, and then no one can win. Cast aspersions on a source, aspersions with no base for proof, nor for dismissal.

Jesus, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You speculate, then hand wave away any sources that contradict you all the while saying that any reasonable person couldn't help but only come to your conclusion.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm getting quite curious about what you actually hope to achieve here. Your tactics throughout this thread have generally been unchanged: state an opinion as fact,

You are confusing a statement of inference with a statement of fact. This has been pointed out a number of times to you.

if anyone points out that it's an opinion then state that it's the only opinion an intelligent and unbiased observer can reach,

Please show me where this has been done

and if anyone advances a rational counter-argument, abuse them.

as above

Your tone in all your posts has been superior, overbearing, condescending and generally contemptuous of anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you.

Though there is a degree of currency to what you say, it is only slight. The people who debate sensibly here, and respect facts, honesty and common sense, I debate with respect. Those who lay pretensions to, but in reality are contemptuously ignorant, all the while posting intranisgently and self deceptively, I will be contemptuous of, in an issue as important as this.

Incidentally, although you have problems when a CTer addresses you in this tone, this is, from my observation, the standard tone adopted by OTers towards CTers on this forum. So to complain of such is astonishing hypocrisy, and yes, contemptuously ignorant.

How exactly, using tactics such as this, do you hope ever to convince anyone of anything? All you do is alienate not only those who disagree with you, but the casual observer as well. Your logical analysis skills may be more germane to the point of this discussion, but your interpersonal skills appear to be letting you down very badly.

Dave

The former part resides in the honesty of an observer; this should be the case in any scenario, this is obvious.

The latter part may be correct; my "interpersonal skills" on this forum are, perhaps truculent. This is very simply explained.

In the texts I have referred you to many times, Propaganda and Public Opinion, both written in the 20's, it is stated very clearly that the biggest threat to the smooth running of a democratic society, is democratic thought. Thus, consent needs to be manufactured, opnions need to be commoditised and mass produced, in order that the elected minority can get about their job of ruling, "serving by leading, rather than leading by serviing", to paraphrase Bernays. Of course, the prime way that such is achieved, is through mass means- media, school, commonly propagated cultural ideologies etc.

Now what this relies on is very simple. A populace which is, in broad enough swathes, lazy, ignorant, and intransigent. Thus they will not care to educate themselves as to the truth, which is highly evident upon the most cursory inspection, and will refuse to believe it when it is placed in front of their very eyes; they will be intransigent and accept any subterfuge to not have to accept such simple truths, since they conflict with the lessons they have held most dear- such as those from school, media and cultural ideology. In this way, which as stated relies on ignorance, intransigence and subterfuge of the public, the powerful minority can do whatever they like.

Now... Given that these characteristics are such a blight and such a danger, when they get evinced on this thread, where they are, so overwhelmingly evident, it is understandable that I would get riled, and contemptuous of people who exhibit characteristics that are surely as worthy of contempt as anything could possibly be. As I have said many times, I have no problem, none at all with people disgreeing, if they can do so via rational counter-debate. This does not happen here, or hardly at all. It could not be a more evident example of the acceptance of any subterfuge in order not to have to swallow an unpalatable reality. Look at any post- the last one, I think, where the person was claiming that ~we cant trust Mohabbat, since he may have an agenda, since his business may have suffered when the Taliban went down etc. A prime example of muddying the issue, raising a subterfuge, to prevent oneself from facing a version of events one doesnt want to. And there are too many examples to go through here, it is pretty astonishing. And depressing.

It will continue, of that I have no doubt.

 

[mjd1982]

His point is....even if OBL WAS handed over and killed, we have no evidence to suggest that would have stopped the attacks of 9/11.

It would have surely hindered them. There is no excuse or possible explanation for why he wasnt handed over, within your scheme in any case.