Political Crossfire Forums

[krims]

This looks potentially interesting. Just throwing this out for other people to take a look at.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QI66CVs-zmE

Very peculiar that I've only heard of this up to now. What other things could have happend that are still hidden in obscurity?

[Wizard From Oz]

Its not doing much for me - To much assumed and alleged in the report to be really worth anything.

I dont believe either side of the debate could see much ammunition in the information

[Patriot911]

Since you believe the government and not Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, how can you believe this man if he says he met 3 of the hijackers?

[krims]

The government might've been the shadow hand behind al Qaeda for all we know. It's common knowledge that at one point Osama worked for and was funded by CIA. Al Qaeda literally means "the database" and was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen recruited and trained with help from the CIA to fight the Soviets.

The important thing about this story is that this man tried to warn the FBI and publish a manuscript about it. After 9/11 he saw photos of these people as the hijackers and was supposed to testify against the Pakistani man who hosted them, but was poisoned. Supposedly this is a matter of national interest and yet it's hidden in obscurity. So my question is, who poisoned this man? In who's interest was it to keep this man shut? Who was capable of this? If it was this Pakistani man, then it would be a simple matter to just bring this to national attention, have an investigation, and bring the culprit to justice. If it's someone within the US government or CIA, then it makes sense for them to try to suppress this story and try to keep the national media from digging too deep.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: The government might've been the shadow hand behind al Qaeda for all we know. It's common knowledge that at one point Osama worked for and was funded by CIA

And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding

[Mighty Oak]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: The government might've been the shadow hand behind al Qaeda for all we know. It's common knowledge that at one point Osama worked for and was funded by CIA

And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding The ISI funded them and The CIA funded the ISI.

[Wizard From Oz]

And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding[/quote]

[Norrin Radd]

MG1962 wrote: And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding [/quote]

Then who did fund Osama?

Was it individuals in Saudi Arabia?

Yes, it was. So where did these Saudi's get their money?

Is it from oil? Yes, most of it is.

Who uses most of the world's oil?

Is it the USA? Yes, it is.

Who protects Saudi Arabia, even though they treat their women like property and have a horrible human rights record?

Is it the USA? Yes, it is.

People like you will never, ever, flipping get it.

You love having others tell you what to think.

Hopefully in your next life you will be a woman born to a Saudi scumbag.

What country supplies the poppies for 50-70% of the world's heroin? Is it US occupied Afghanistan? Yes, it is.

The war on terror, much like the war on drugs, is a scam for people like you who love having other people tell you waht to think.

[Patriot911]

So because Saudi Arabia gets money from the US citizens, this proves the US government's involvement in 9/11?!? MAN you guys are getting desperate in trying to pin this on the US Government.

So the claim is now that the government is the "shadow hand" behind Al Qaeda? Tell me. When was the last time you saw ANYONE willing to commit suicide for a foreign government? Apparently you want us to believe there were 19 of them on 9/11. :roll:

What does Osama get out of it? Money? He already has money. He can't spend it anywhere as he has a 25 million dollar bounty on his head. The line of thinking that Osama is a government agent makes about as much sense as all the rest of the conspiracy theories. In other words it is as substantial as a wisp of smoke.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: So because Saudi Arabia gets money from the US citizens, this proves the US government's involvement in 9/11?!? MAN you guys are getting desperate in trying to pin this on the US Government.

So the claim is now that the government is the "shadow hand" behind Al Qaeda? Tell me. When was the last time you saw ANYONE willing to commit suicide for a foreign government? Apparently you want us to believe there were 19 of them on 9/11. :roll:

What does Osama get out of it? Money? He already has money. He can't spend it anywhere as he has a 25 million dollar bounty on his head. The line of thinking that Osama is a government agent makes about as much sense as all the rest of the conspiracy theories. In other words it is as substantial as a wisp of smoke.

First of all, I wasn't talking to you.

Second of all, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

Third of all, why do we continue to support a country which treats women as property and has a horrible human rights record, with no freedom of speech, or other basic liberties?

Lastly, this same country teaches hatred for the west in it's schools, while we continue to bend over backwards to please the royal family, all because they honor their oil contracts and because, at the moment, we still need them.

In your last post, you made many claims, almost all of which were wrong. I say that the US has helped fund Osama, indirectly and you turn that into Osama being a government agent.

You are some piece of work. You are an expert at twisting words to fot your personal agenda.

I also noticed you didn't reply to my last post in the other thread, the one where I thought we were actually going to have an adult conversation.

Why did you run away?

Afraid of the truth?

[krims]

Quote: So because Saudi Arabia gets money from the US citizens, this proves the US government's involvement in 9/11?!? MAN you guys are getting desperate in trying to pin this on the US Government.

No, I'm not trying to pin this on anybody, I'm just trying to make sense of this. I don't have any prejudice against the US government, but the fact is that the US government has done a lot to warrant this kind of suspicion. The US government has screwed up big time on several occassions on and since 9/11, and has done a lot of suspicious things, like ignore all prior warnings of the coming attacks of 9/11, Bush personally asking to limit the depth of 9/11 investigations, Bush opposing 9/11 query panel, FBI confiscating all known tapes of the Pentagon attack, FBI whistler-blowers who've complained of obstruction from bureaucrats trying to limit investigation into terror financing activities, the military hosting huge war games on 9/11 involving hijacked planes and a plane crashe into a building (what a strange coincidence, eh?), etc. etc. There's loads of other things I haven't mentioned, but you get the idea.

[Wizard From Oz]

Then who did fund Osama?

The Bin Laden family was extremely rich. And Osama funded his freedom fighters out of his own pocket

Was it individuals in Saudi Arabia?

Yes, it was. So where did these Saudi's get their money?

Is it from oil? Yes, most of it is.

Who uses most of the world's oil?

Is it the USA? Yes, it is.

Using this idiot arguement means that I support the 911 coverup because I drive a Ford

Who protects Saudi Arabia, even though they treat their women like property and have a horrible human rights record?

Protects Saudi Arabia from what exactly

You love having others tell you what to think.

Based on?

Hopefully in your next life you will be a woman born to a Saudi scumbag.

Unlikely - my faith does not pescribe to re-incarnation

What country supplies the poppies for 50-70% of the world's heroin? Is it US occupied Afghanistan? Yes, it is.

Its actually 91% - Your figures are from pre- Taliban poppy ban days

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003241581_poppies03.html

you who love having other people tell you waht to think.

Is that because I dont roll over and accept as Gospell all you say. You dont know me. You dont know anything about me. Yet you feel capable of making sweeping generalisations about who I am

[/quote]

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: So because Saudi Arabia gets money from the US citizens, this proves the US government's involvement in 9/11?!? MAN you guys are getting desperate in trying to pin this on the US Government.

So the claim is now that the government is the "shadow hand" behind Al Qaeda? Tell me. When was the last time you saw ANYONE willing to commit suicide for a foreign government? Apparently you want us to believe there were 19 of them on 9/11. :roll:

What does Osama get out of it? Money? He already has money. He can't spend it anywhere as he has a 25 million dollar bounty on his head. The line of thinking that Osama is a government agent makes about as much sense as all the rest of the conspiracy theories. In other words it is as substantial as a wisp of smoke.

First of all, I wasn't talking to you.

I know that. However, if you ONLY want one person to read and respond to your points, you should PM them instead of posting it publicly. Otherwise people are going to respond to what you write even if you weren't writing directly to them.

Norrin Radd wrote: Second of all, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?
Most of them. But the only thing that proves is that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. It doesn't prove anything else, especially that the Saudi government was behind 9/11 and thus the US government was behind 9/11.

Norrin Radd wrote: Third of all, why do we continue to support a country which treats women as property and has a horrible human rights record, with no freedom of speech, or other basic liberties?
Because they have resources we need. I despise the way they treat their women and the way they abuse people. They aren't the best, but they also aren't the worst.

But what does this have to do with your claim the US is behind the hijackers by claiming the US buys the oil that funds the Saudi government?

Norrin Radd wrote: Lastly, this same country teaches hatred for the west in it's schools, while we continue to bend over backwards to please the royal family, all because they honor their oil contracts and because, at the moment, we still need them.
And we do the same for Iran, Iraq and the rest of the oil producing countries. This still doesn't prove US government because US citizens buy the oil.

Norrin Radd wrote: In your last post, you made many claims, almost all of which were wrong. I say that the US has helped fund Osama, indirectly and you turn that into Osama being a government agent.
My last post wasn't directed just at you or I would have just quoted your post. YOU may not believe that Osama is a government agent, but you do believe the US government helped fund Osama. My point to you is that claiming the US government funded Osama because we bought their oil is a flawed argument because it is the US citizens that buy the vast majority of the oil purchased from Saudi Arabia by the US.

Norrin Radd wrote: You are some piece of work. You are an expert at twisting words to fot your personal agenda.
If you see me twisting words, point it out. If it is a valid re-statement of your words I will stand behind what I said. If I got it wrong I will apologize.

Norrin Radd wrote: I also noticed you didn't reply to my last post in the other thread, the one where I thought we were actually going to have an adult conversation.
I see. So that is the only thread we were suppose to act like adults? That would explain the whining and insults you throw around in this post. I had not noticed you replied in the other thread. I will get to it later.

Norrin Radd wrote: Why did you run away?

Afraid of the truth?

From you? Well, first I have to see you actually post something truthful before I could be afraid of anything you write. See how this works? You act like a child and start insulting / taunting and then others reply with more of the same. The only difference is you whine and complain about it. The rest of us just laugh at you. ;-)

[Patriot911]

krims wrote: Quote: So because Saudi Arabia gets money from the US citizens, this proves the US government's involvement in 9/11?!? MAN you guys are getting desperate in trying to pin this on the US Government.

No, I'm not trying to pin this on anybody, I'm just trying to make sense of this. I don't have any prejudice against the US government, but the fact is that the US government has done a lot to warrant this kind of suspicion.
On this we agree. Two points on this. First, the government changes with who is in control. Saying Bush is guilty of something because of something Johnson did isn't very fair.

Second, I don't see any real evidence the government was behind 9/11. Sure there are some coincidences and some things were suspicious, but when you check everything out, the claims of the conspiracy theorists fall apart and it becomes clear the government was not behind 9/11 given the evidence.

The US government has screwed up big time on several occassions on and since 9/11, and has done a lot of suspicious things, like ignore all prior warnings of the coming attacks of 9/11, Bush personally asking to limit the depth of 9/11 investigations, Bush opposing 9/11 query panel, FBI confiscating all known tapes of the Pentagon attack, FBI whistler-blowers who've complained of obstruction from bureaucrats trying to limit investigation into terror financing activities, the military hosting huge war games on 9/11 involving hijacked planes and a plane crashe into a building (what a strange coincidence, eh?), etc. etc. There's loads of other things I haven't mentioned, but you get the idea.[/quote]

Did the government screw up on 9/11? Undoubtedly. Screwing up is not the same thing as perpetrating the crime.

As for the rest of your "evidence", that isn't evidence and most of it is exaggerated beyond proportion. Examples: FBI confiscating tapes. That is their job; collection of evidence. War games? Those specific games happen every year. Numerous drills occur throughout the year. And the "plane crash into a building" was designed around dealing with the consequences of a small lear jet hitting a specific building.

One can come up with all kinds of coincidences to prove just about anything. That is why coincidence is very rarely allowed into a court of law as evidence. When was the last time you heard someone got convicted because their last name was kind of like the victims? Same kind of logic is being used here to claim the government is responsible for 9/11.

[Medius]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: The government might've been the shadow hand behind al Qaeda for all we know. It's common knowledge that at one point Osama worked for and was funded by CIA

And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding

This is a tricky bit. Al Qaeda wasn't formed at that point, Osama was working with Maktab al-Khadamat at that point (the Afghan/Soviet war). Osama was working to raise funds to back the mujahidin in the resistance at the same time that the CIA was funneling money through the ISI to fund the same resistance. The Maktab al-Khadamat held close ties with the ISI and the CIA had close ties with the ISI, so it is possible, but not proven, that the ISI had a direct connection with Osama and MAK.

We know the funding took place by the CIA through the ISI and to the mujahidin.

Funding

[NAB]

Medius wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: The government might've been the shadow hand behind al Qaeda for all we know. It's common knowledge that at one point Osama worked for and was funded by CIA

And that common knowledge is wrong as has been proven endlessly. Bin Laden's group was not financed

There were 11 groups in Afghanistan opperating against the Soviets. Only 9 recieved funding

This is a tricky bit. Al Qaeda wasn't formed at that point, Osama was working with Maktab al-Khadamat at that point (the Afghan/Soviet war). Osama was working to raise funds to back the mujahidin in the resistance at the same time that the CIA was funneling money through the ISI to fund the same resistance. The Maktab al-Khadamat held close ties with the ISI and the CIA had close ties with the ISI, so it is possible, but not proven, that the ISI had a direct connection with Osama and MAK.

We know the funding took place by the CIA through the ISI and to the mujahidin.

Funding

I can pretty much agree with what you wrote there. One thing I believe the CIA did very poorly during that period was to not hold the ISI accountable to where US funds were going. They were handing bags of money to the Pakistani's to help fight the common enemy (the Soviets), and "trusted" the ISI to do the "right" thing with said money. The ISI was running their own agenda and sent the money to whomever they wanted. This is the real failing of the CIA in Afghanistan. Many of the people there during this period will say as much. With that said, the CIA never had any direct contact with OBL, and only knew of him through second-hand references as "The Sheikh". The particular variety of foreign mujaheddin that he was a member of didn't want to meet with any US operatives since they were infidels. I liken the pre-cursors of AQ using funneled US money/weapons via the ISI as a distasteful thing for them. They needed some of this support, but they would rather have gotten all of it from their "brothers" (which they received a lot from as well). The groups the CIA knowingly supported directly in Afghanistan were primarily of native Aghani origin. I'm sure the CIA turned a blind eye to were some of the money went, but hindsight is 20/20.

One other thing on the fact that a majority of the hijackers were of Saudi descent. OBL did this on PURPOSE. He hated the Saudi ruling family about as much as he hates the USG, so any little bit of discord he could sow on that front would be a bonus in his eyes. Ever since the House of Saud allowed US troops on their soil, they became his enemy as much as anyone.

[Medius]

I don't think we can assume things about the CIA. Maybe they knew and maybe they didn't. If you read around you will find some interesting bits, especially by Zignew Brezynski, you will see that the goal of the funding was seen as much more important than any potential fall-out. The whole point was to draw the Soviet Union into an unwinnable war and break their bank and public confidence.

I have no doubt that we would have funded nearly any tactic at the time to break the Soviet Union and win the coldwar.

I will, however, say that this funding could in no way be considered the actual funding of Al Qaeda. If there is or was any direct funding to Al Qaeda from the US government or even knowingly through the ISI, it is not proven by our funding of the mujahidin during the attempted soviet occupation.

I will, however, say that Osama was not funding the resistance himself, he was working to raise money. All the money coming through the MAK directly was only a fraction of what came through the CIA and ISI from what I've seen.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote:
From you? Well, first I have to see you actually post something truthful before I could be afraid of anything you write. See how this works? You act like a child and start insulting / taunting and then others reply with more of the same. The only difference is you whine and complain about it. The rest of us just laugh at you. ;-)

I have been sick for the last week, actually longer, but I am starting to get better.

I will post more when I get a little healthier, but you are right, I was acting childish. I will try to watch this in the future.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: I have been sick for the last week, actually longer, but I am starting to get better.



Welcome back dude - Was wondering where my favorite jousting partner was. See ya when ya gets bettter

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote:

Did the government screw up on 9/11? Undoubtedly. Screwing up is not the same thing as perpetrating the crime.

As for the rest of your "evidence", that isn't evidence and most of it is exaggerated beyond proportion. Examples: FBI confiscating tapes. That is their job; collection of evidence. War games? Those specific games happen every year. Numerous drills occur throughout the year. And the "plane crash into a building" was designed around dealing with the consequences of a small lear jet hitting a specific building.

One can come up with all kinds of coincidences to prove just about anything. That is why coincidence is very rarely allowed into a court of law as evidence. When was the last time you heard someone got convicted because their last name was kind of like the victims? Same kind of logic is being used here to claim the government is responsible for 9/11.

This is perhaps the most honest post I have ever read from you.

You seem eager to dimsiss the dozens of coincidences, but some of us are not eager to dismiss these coincidences.

Isn't it possible all of the coincidences might not be coincidences?

Anyways, your post was great, except for the last paragraph. That last papragraph is not so honest.

If the government had foreknowledge of this attack and allowed it to happen in order to go to war, it would not be the first time such an event occurred. I have no way of judging my governmnet, but by their past actions and when looking at their record, it is hard to trust a government which lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, which withheld vital information from the commanders at Pearl Harbor before the attack and which has admitted to testing toxins on it's own servicemen, veterans and civilians.

Just because they lied in the past doesn't mean they are lying now, but really, how can we trust anything that our government tells us when they have allowed American citizens to be killed by government testing with no punishment whatsoever to those responsible????????????????

Answer me that.