Osama and 9-11 Why?

Sorry.. Imho all that you have said is happening and was happening . The problem was each agency was not talking with each other. The only extra thing they need to do is 'communicate'.

 

...One terrorist working for a terrorist organisation attacking the States isn't an excuse for the States to attack the Middle East...

 

It is a good job that was not the reason then...ok before i get lynched.. I would ask if it is as simplistic as Bocks thinks?.

 

no more simplistic than the consensus reality view: ie, there's a vast network of evil-doing terrorists existing in sleeper cells all around the world poised ready to destroy our way of life at osama's say so, etc, etc. that to me seems very simplistic not to mention wrong. funny how the spectre of al quaeda gets periodically revived when the myth looks in danger of fizzing out but that's the beauty of a permanent war i suppose, plenty of time to invent new enemies or revive old ones. the 'real' reason america has invaded the middle east has got many contenders: oil, strategic imperative, israel, opium, world domination, any one of these things is true. my best guess is it's probably a gay pou porri of many things, fighting islamic terrorism however is not one of them. that's just a pretext for invasion not the motive.

 

Their is a vast network.. with a multitude of different allegiances between particular muslim fundementalist.. Not all under OBL control, no.. but happy too take his resources ... and ready to use his pretext when they wish..

He does get periodicaly revived [as a figure within the news] with large scale attacks against his enemies [outside his main arena] .. recently London.. .. His main focus of course is Iraq.. So on the other hand his 'organisation' is evident daily... and we hear about its activities constantly... with suicide bombing going on frequently.

 

"with a multitude of different allegiances between particular muslim fundementalist.. Not all under OBL control, no.. but happy too take his resources "


See that's the argument, many think OBL is actually an asset of the US, Saudi, and Israeli Governments, he funds these terrorist groups to attack US citizens and US bases to give the US a pretext for invasion, if OBL actually WANTED the US to get out he wouldn't fund terrorist groups that are going to give the US an excuse to be in his country. You can give me all the evidence you want or all the info about terrorist groups you want, this will never make sense in my head.

 

well where is it then, this vast network? governments have awarded themselves the right to search and seize and hold people indefinitely without charge and still there've been few convictions. as far as i know no-one's been charged with the crimes of 9/11 despite the fact that many of the alleged hijackers are still alive and living in their own countries. criminal prosecutions, i imagine, are the last thing the bush ppl want b/c they know full well that al quaeda is largely a myth, a fiction, an invention and a confection. it seems this vast network is a necessary and quite paranoid delusion that our leaders foist on the rest of us as 'truth' in order, as it has been stated here quite a few times already, to justify their own outrageous and warmongering actions. as for bin laden being responsible for the london bombings, or even for 9/11 itself, in the words of a wise man here let me paraphrase:"and i should believe this... why?"

 

The list of possibilities was drawn up within the first week.. it has been a darn good few years and many prosecutions and re-evaluations later it's not as 'cut and dry and you may wish'.


MMmm Ok London whould be under

''Not all under OBL control, no.. but happy too take his resources ... and ready to use his pretext when they wish..''

I think the Myth of al quaeda has a bit of validity..because 'homegrown' attacks seem to inspired and then taken as his 'trophy' by OBL.. He does not have to orchestrate all the campaigns personaly.. neither do they have to be affiliated with him.. just inspired by him, by those wishing to bask in his 'glory' and ideals... Its a win win situation for him and the rest of the idiots that follow him and his jihadi ideology.

You only have to watch, the video by one of the 'London bombers' to see how pathetic the whole thing is.. and how your buying into all the crap they use too justify there actions.. I sometimes find that strange.. but appreciate that its a personal POV.

Thats not taking away the attacks he does have a hand in.. are you avoiding the Iraq situation ?.. Are we fighting ourselves ?.. I guess we are fighting those poor oppressed people, wishing to take their homeland back for the good of the Iraqi people etc etc etc.. mmm, i don't think so.

 

seperate the two arguements.. and then evaluate them for their own merits.. I don't entertain half the notions you and james [and others] do. Though i do try and not be that closed minded about it all. It is difficult.. and i could try and explain how i cam to believe what i do.. with a EPIC post... but i don't wish to bore the pants off people more than i already do.

 

No, of course that isn't the reason. The reason the US went after the Middle East was for the oil, I agree. They used the terrorist attack as an excuse. That's what I was denouncing, although I'm against attacking a country over oil, too.

 

not so. there are actually hundreds of alleged al queda members in detention on guantanamo bay right now. not one of them have been charged - two are about to be, the australian boy, terry hicks, is one of them and as far as i know he's done no more than train in afghanistan to fight in the balkans for the muslims, something that be4 9/11 the americans actively encouraged in their war against milosevic - and many of them are undoubtedly wrongfully arrested and innocent. it's one thing to say there's a vast network and it's another thing to prove it. arresting ppl without charge, evidence, and trials is not proving anything other than america has become a police state. like i said earlier i believe al queda as a terrorist organisation does not really exist.

obl is a brand name, that's all. he's the emmanuel goldstein of 2005. for sure, every crappy little group can claim to be a part of his group if they so wish and who will deny it in this day and age if it happens to be false? associating your name with his gives your own group power and status far beyond that which it may deserve. the biggest winner by far are not these pathetic jihadists but rather it's the ppl who profit from wars they allege are necessary to defend us. they're laughing all the way to the bank as they plunder the public purse not least of all, i imagine, at their own supporters.

why does me opposing the 'war on terrorism' equate with endorsing or tolerating the claims and actions of real terrorists who have bombed and killed? on principle i utterly oppose all forms of murder whether committed by individuals or by the state. i am saying that the al queda threat is greatly exaggerated and distorted, to say the very least. i believe it's paranoid actually and a deliberate false construction. and on the strength of this delusion the world is now plunged into everlasting war and exponential murder and violence. well, can u understand that i sometimes find your view a bit strange too.

well i do. the coalition of the willing are pitted against a range of iraqis who are fighting to defend their country from invasion. these people are not terrorists, they're not insurgents, they are simply nationalists defending their country. is that so mysterious or hard to understand. you'd do the same thing if england were invaded, wouldn't you? what does this have to do with osama bin laden who isn't even iraqi, isn't even there, and most likely doesn't even have a viable organisation left? any past attacks obl may have had a hand in have yet to be proved. i'm not saying he's innocent but i would like to see on what evidence these claims are made. you know my views on 9/11: i believe that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and others conspired to attack the world trade centre and the pentagon so they could justify military invasion abroad and a police state at home. ergo, this makes me highly suspicious of the london bombings as well, esp after what we heard about the relationship between mi6 and the alleged ringleader. to use a popular australian phrase: 'i doubt osama bin laden could organise a chook raffle'.

 

This is the kind of convenient rationalisation which is needed to support the resistance.

If it were true, then the most patriotic Iraqis COINCIDENTALLY happen to come from former Baathist strongholds in the Sunni triangle, and the least patriotic Iraqis would just happen to be those who were Saddam's victims, i.e. the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and the Shiites.

This is, to put it diplomatically, idiotic.

 

Done know more than ?? Thats the point he is training his fighters and others for any 'war' [with islam as a justification] just happens the latest one is in Iraq.. and it might be personal...I never said there was a vast network.. as i agree with [and said as much earlier] what you say below.

Thats true, who would you rather say you are a member of, Al-Quaeda [strange legitamcy] or half cooked ramblings like the London Bomber came out with..

I think they are...as we are talking about them now...and some are using them as a tool to attack [accusations, obviously]the same targets [The west and its influence etc etc ].

See.

Thats hopefully not true [everlasting war] .. You should be realising that these clever terrorists are playing on your fears and ideals... they know a lot of people would rather sound off at the American goverment..than acknowledge that these terrorist organisations are fairly powerful and un-negotiable.

 

All those connections away from the actual culprit.. are just happy conveniances to not accept the truth. Read the endless rants OBL sends the west.. Watch the Video of the London Bomber.. Take a look at the news. It is very clear .. then compare it to the scenario you think, its just not what is happening..thats all i can really say..

 

osama is just a pawn of the oil companies.

 

it's not really a rationalisation. it's common sense. if england were invaded by iraq tomorrow would you then be happy to be typecast an insurgent and a terrrorist if you resisted that invasion? and if people from ireland and france came over to help you repel the illegal invasion is it right then to say they are international terrorists? it's because you support the illegal invasion of iraq that you are happy to lable them as insurgents and international terrorists but if the shoe were on the other foot then of course, you would consider yourself nationalists and freedom fighters which you would be, as were the brave men who defended britain from nazi invasion. this smacks so much of racist stereotyping it's quite unreal at times. and i think someone like you knows much better than that really. obviously the us can't go marching into other people's countries causing mass destruction, death and mayhem as they have and not expect to meet serious resistance, whether local or otherwise.

 

no, from what i know the muslim brotherhood is real. this is the organisation that was started by, can't remember his name now but can see his silly face: the guy naser hanged in 1966... anyway, they have gone along for quite a while now i believe. the thing to remember about them tho' is their efforts to terrorise the muslim populations into jihad in algiera failed to produce an islamic state and they were, prior to 9/11, rather a dismal group on the fringes. since 9/11 of course they are the world of terror on wings.

i don't doubt they aren't iraqi but they are there in response to the illegal american invasion because they are muslims. why is that so strange? if my country, australia, were invaded i would expect people from new zealand and new guinea and other foreign places, probably even america, to come here to help us fight them off. of course. naturally. and we would no doubt study the guerilla tactics of the vietcong, mao, anyone we could find, in our fight if we thought it would be successful. that's not strange nor sinsiter either, it's warfare. but what u are suggesting, i think, is that this group(s) somehow constitutes the main sinister body and brain of the resistance and therefore the resistance as a whole is illegitimate. i can't agree with you about that. i think they have got every right to defend their country from invasion (even if the invaders happen to be my own countrymen and their allies) and i think they have every right to gather supporters and borrow tactics from wherever they can in their struggle. this is, after all, a war they didn't start.
regarding the resistance, do you recall that one of the first actions of the new provisional government of bremer was to demobilise the entire iraqi army fully armed. at the time this was strongly cautioned against by just about anyone who had experience in invasions. don't do it, they said, you will be buying big trouble. however they went ahead and did it, thus insuring they had instantly created a huge army of half a million or more armed and disaffected soldiers. here's your instant nucleus of resistance fighters. and the reason, i believe, the resistance is ongoing and effective is because it has got the popular support of the local people who are not that stupid that they need foreign fighters to organise it for them. the whole situation is explosive and for this we can thank the american invasion.

mmm... too arcane for me. i think if you want to track who's doing the funding you'll find alot of tracks go back to islamabad and langley.

 

100,000 people were killed in Algeria before the islamic insurgency was defeated. So not too many people want to see more "failed" movements like that. And this "dismal group on the fringes" killed 225 people and wounded over 4,000 in the 1998 embassy bombings.

The invasion was not illegal, and supposing it was approved by a 100% UN vote, do you think there would have been no resistance? No, these people really do not care about international law, this is you projecting your values onto them. After all polls showed most Iraqis supported the US removal of Saddam by force.

You also continue with the absurd presumption that it is MERE COINCIDENCE that the resistance just happens to be strongest in former Baathist strongholds. The Kurds, Saddam's victims, mysteriously want no part in the resistance. So its not the patriots who are supporting this resistance. It is not patriots who bombs polling stations and Shiite mosques, crowds of day labourers, the UN, the red cross, who round up elementary school teachers and execute them, and who proudly show videos of aid workers and journalists being exectuted. This is not patriotism. Patriotism is not murdering representatives of a democratically elected government.

I'd say recruiting hundreds of foreigners to come to your country to blow up suicide car bombs outside of mosques and street markets harms your legitimacy. Your standards may be lower.

The were not demobilised fully armed. In fact they were already long gone. However the important thing is, had the US kept the same army in place that had waged a genocidal war against the Kurds, crushed a Shiite rebellion and destroyed the homeland of the Marsh Arabs, not to mention the routine every day repression and murder that characterised the Baathist regime, what would you have thought of that? What would Iraqis have thought of that?

 

yes you're right i phrased that poorly. what i was trying to say was that they failed in their objectives to create an islamic state in algeria or elsewhere. their polcies, tactics and objectives were defeated b/c the muslim ppl quite rightly didnt support them. but yes, my god, they killed alot of ppl. so did the army as well.

why is the iraqi invasion 'not illegal'? because the invaders say so? anyway, i'm sure there would be resistance whatever the united nations decreed. would you stop defending your country if it were invaded b/c the un said the invasion was legal? i'm sure they don't give a rat's arse about international law: i imagine that their main task is to repel the invaders now that it's a fait accompli.

yes but most iraqis also want the americans to go home now.

i made no such claim. look, the plain fact of the matter is there are many groups and factions supporting the resistance and i'm not surprised that the baathists are one of them. after all they were the ones tossed out of power so they'd hardly be helping the invaders. the kurds on the other hand have been supportive of the americans from the start b/c they see their political future being best served by the invasion and it has been. so why is that a mystery?

i don't like it either, it's abhorrent. may i ask then do you feel equally as disgusted that america bombed and destroyed fallujah mercilessly and regularly tortures prisoners? don't both sides engage in acts of wanton violence and cruelty? but america is the one who started this war and if a country illegally invades another country for no good reason other than as pre-emption against possible future attack you open up a terrible pandora's box. the last time someone did that was when hitler invaded poland and we all know what that lead to. that's why the nuremburg trials hanged the nazis, for doing exactly what george bush has done in iraq.

america should have minded its own business and not invaded another country. it's not their business.