is there any real proof that Usama Bin Laden organised the WTC attacks?
 

I have never seen any.

All I have seen evidence of is that Bin Laden is a religious bigot, a loudmouth, and a trouble maker.

Has anyone shown that he actually physically organised these attacks?

I think it is less frightening for people to blame Bin Laden, the idea of the mad criminal mastermind with his terrorist army is far less scarey than the probable truth: which is that all it takes to kill so many innocents, even in th emost powerful country in the world, is a ragged band of 20 people who are ready to die to damage another power, and who are armed with steak knives and a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The weapons and means of destruction are so great, and so numerous, no country or people can hope to defend itself, the bomber will always get through, and if history teaches you nothing else - vengance is never sated.

There was actually very conclusive links between the hijackers and UBLs organisation. There were known meetings, money trails, and the increase in communication with the group just prior to the event.

The link between UBL and Hussien is far more tenuous...

What do you suggest as a course of action then? Sit and take it?

I think the choice is pretty stark, either peace, or destruction.

And how do you propose to achieve peace?

Try singing Kumbayah with Mr. Bin Laden. I wish you luck.

War has been and continues to be the one constant of human nature. There will always be someone willing to take up arms in support of their interests, and at that point what is the only response? Idealism does not solve real-world problems.

And war cannot for much longer. Human nature must change, or end. We have weapons now that could realistically slaughter 60% of the worlds population in one burst, and biological weapons might have the potential to do more.

How long do you really believe these "limited" or "contained" wards can go on? There is no secret in making an atom bomb, how soon before someone like Bin Laden has one?

One sensible root to peace is for some kind of one world government, many would see the most logical, or in fact inevitable form of this being a communist worlwide revolution, freeing all people from the bonds of capitalism and exploitative economic systems, as well as the constant fear of war.

I don't know how old you are, I am 25, I would say that - if I live a natural life span - I expect to see one or the other in my life, a great war that will decimate the human race, or else the revoltion, and a communist world of peace and democracy.

Yes so your suggestion is to sit still and do nothing? Thanks but no thanks. I see you take the European stance, and will only act when the enemy is buring down your neigbhorhood. I assume you learned nothing in history classes.

My choice is you make peace with people, you share wealth with the poor countries where the terror attacks come from.

Bin Laden may be a madman or a murderer, he is also a product of the social world, and by changing the world we eliminate people like him.

Do you think Bin Laden will just roll over? The man has billions yet the people he pretends to care for dont have food, medicine or educations. You think he acutally cares? Your suggestion is a joke.

My understanding is that Bin Laden's personal forture is onlya couple of million? Are you sure he is so rich?

Bin Laden will always be a bigoted and intolerant trouble maker, but better social conditions would mean that less ordinary working men and women follow his message of hate out of desperation.

If America spend as much money helping Afghanistan as they did bombing it, the Taleban wouldnt exist, and Bin Laden would be a religious freak preaching on some street corner somewhere about destroying Israel

Bin Laden is a billionair. Your information is as inaccurate as your conclusions. We are rebuilting Iraq right now, spending 87 billion to do so, as you even said in an other post, and Bin Laden is not saying "wow look at that, America has fixed Iraq so that more schools, more water, more freedom, better pay for teachers and police, better equity, than EVER in a nation of Muslims, better lay off and let the solidiers finishe their work"
Instead he called many of his people to move to Iraq so they can cause more damage. This is a fact. So your prediction of Bin Laden is proven to be wrong. But something tells me that you will just ignore this.

And BTW...the social conditions are not because of what we have done to these nations,
but what they have done to themselves.
The social structures there are set up so only a proportional few have most of the nations money,
and ALL of the power & influence.

This is throughout the Middle East, including some of our "allies"
such as Saudi Arabia...where most of the terrorists from 9-11 came from.

So the nations of the west pushing money over there is going to do no good,
until their OWN social system change by their OWN leaders.

The social conditions that cause the suffering in the East are those caused by capitalism.

They are the same conditions that caused wrected poverty and intolerable cruelty towards the working class in 19th century Britain.

They are the same conditions that caused slavery in the America's

But I fear I am getting off topic again if I go in this direction.

Bin Laden is a corrupt and barbaric man, my point is that in a fair and equal society, if people like Usama do exist, they have no power and no call. That is my point here.

I do believe Bin Laden approved of the WTC attacks, I am not convinced he actively arranged them.

It is not necessarily American national policy to exploit Asia and the mid East, it is the restless and relentless logic of capitalism.

Because we all know that communism has done a bang up job of creating a great quality of life for its citizens *rolls eyes*. Look, UBL is not a result of a "capitalist oppressive government" he is the result of a perverted form of a peaceful religion. Yeah, we had slavery, but we managed to fix that little aberration, just as the Anti-Communist Revolutionaries in 1991 fixed that prolonged version of slavery in Russia. Communism is a noble goal, everyone gets the same and everyone is happy. However, reality doesn't allow for this because some megalomaniac will always take advantage of the Revolutionaries and use it for his own personal political gain.

um
 

Are you aware that the free market is the most effiecient market? There is a reason that communism failed in the USSR. There is a reason that captialism did not fail in the USA. Capitalism is not the cause of the troubles in the middle east. The cause of the troubles is dictatorships that use fear and religion to keep people down. By keeping people undereducated and poor the dictatorships can keep their stranglehold on a nation.

There are a few things that really contribute to America's success as a nation. Probably the two most important are the free market and the free press.

Hehe, I think this sums up why anything you would try would fail.

We have our nature, its what we are, and no radical like yourself can ever hope to change it. Its been tried, it failed.

No socialist or communist nation state has ever existed in the modern world.

The closest were some of the native American tribes, who lived in peace and harmony with nature until being brutally attacked by Europeans. (I know not all the tribes were peaceful, but many were)

the USSR, Cuba, China, are not communist countries, they are state capitalist.

LOL The Native Americans did not exist in harmony. That is a popular lie. The Hopi were slaughtered before whitie showed up. The Anasazi built homes in a mountain to make it easier to defend against neighboring warring tribes, that were not whites. Many Eastern tribes were too busy fighting eacht other before whitey showed up, andeven teamed up with whites to slaughter their red enemies. Your information is very very inaccurate. So far EVERY post you made is inaccureate, Slaine.

OK then, back to the topic at hand that I seem to have help veer away from. Strange Famous, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. Sure, UBL comes from a rich family and has made his money share in the free market, but that didn't turn him terrorist. There have been distinct documents, and trails between the 19 and UBL, the 9/11 attacks are exactly the modus opperendi of UBL, simultaneous attacks, willingness to kill anyone (including Muslims) to kill Americans, and the use of either Arabian Peninsula natives or former Mujahideen from Afghanistan as the expendables. 9/11 could have only been committed by UBL because he is the only one with the kind of infrastructure needed to carry out these sort of attacks. I still fail to see what you are trying to get across to us.

I guess all those documents that show the links with Atta Mohammend to Al Queda and the money trail as long as the confirmations of all those capured in raids and in Afganistan are all forged and lies by the US? Man you are a riot...

Do you work for Howard Dean?

That the only infrastructure those attacks REQUIRE is a gang of 20 guys with knives and a couple of flying lessons between them. It didnt NEED money, power, terror contacts... it just needed suicidal people who hated a given enemy. UBL isnt the only person who could carry it out, any loose knit cell of 20 deviants could have done it.

Again ignoring the mountain of evidence to draw the wrong conclusions....

The heck it didn't require money. Flying lessons don't come too cheaply, neither do airline tickets. It wasn't just a "couple" of flying lessons, Atta and Co. got quite a bit of hours in flight training. They needed fake IDs and passports, among other things. The timing of it requires some work and research and some smarts to do this. Atta and Co. took "vacations" to Afghanistan to train for six months as terrorists. You seem to be oversimplifying here when it in fact requires a lot more than what you think. To get some of the best trained special forces in the world, all you really NEED is some guns and a few soldiers, but that doesn't include all of the work necessary to do so does it?

Well, its true I dont know of any evidence, which is why I asked if there actually was any.

I dont see why someone needs 6 months training to know how to kill themselves by flying a plane into a building.

flying a jumbo jet isn't exactly easy, neither is navigating a jumbo jet to a specific area. Running it into a building may seem easy but once you factor in wind and such it isn't so easy. Crashing a plain is easy hitting a target with a plane is not so easy.

Just cause YOUdont see it, doesnt mean it didnt happen. How about you do some research before you post anymore, you are embaressing yourself.

He is certainly not embarassing himself. His insights into the root causes of 9/11 are much more intelligent than the whole "they're just evil" mentality that I see from many here. It's about time people started holding the West accountable for its actions around the world and how it affects the poor and exploited. Can you possibly imagine what so much of the world's population deals with because of the US "free market"? Is it so surprising that from time to time these people will strike back? Instead we focus on religion and good guys vs. bad guys.

What's important to realize though is that the US decided on destroying Afghanistan long before any of these money trails and "terrorist" connections were revealed. People spend all their time trying to cure the symptoms instead of looking at the root causes behind them.

I'm not advocating a communist society, but Strange Famous is right, we're heading down a path that will lead either to change or the end of the species. Can you imagine the destruction the US will wreak when its hegemonic status finally comes into question? They'll go down shooting, that's for sure, and with thousands of nukes you'll have to excuse me if I'm a tad nervous. I'd hate to think what would happen if Israel felt similarly threatened.

War is not part of our nature, it is merely one way of solving problems that has been very effective for the victor. It's not absolute in this world, and not all societies have resorted to it.

Thank you for your contribution, Strange Famous.

SLM3

Wow another post without one shred of proof.

Can you please explain to me SLM how we caused 9 11 to happen? I really want to know what America did so they can be blamed for this tragedy?

Please, also, provide the documentation to back up your claim that America wanted to Destroy Afganistan before 9 11 happend. Ok I am waiting.

Please provide us with the evidence that we are heading to the end of the species as well.

You made alot of serious claims in your post SLM and not one of them is backed up by even a modicum of proof. No wonder you backed up Strange Famous, he does the same exact thing.

I would be interested to hear of a society that did not have to resort to war...

Tragedies like this occur all over the world and have been for a long time. The US has directly and indirectly supported dictators and killing squads for decades. Many states are crippled due to US sponsored SAP's that have created one product econmies that drain funds out of the developing state. The US economy is propped up on the backs of the poor and the helpless. Is it so hard to understand why there is a lot of resentment towards the US in the world? Is it so hard to even consider the idea that perhaps these people might lash back?

I never said anything of the sort.

Well, I'm just going by the number of people killed by war in the 20th century. The trend is a scary one, to me atleast. Perhaps you're more comfortable with it. However, we're no longer playing with canons and bayonets anymore. Did the Cold War and mutually assured destruction theory teach you nothing about how easily we could wipe ourselves off the face of the Earth?

How do you see things playing out in the future, at the rate we're going?


SLM3

Interesting point on the number of people killed in the 20th C., SLM3, but as a percentage of total population it is the least disasterous century in our history...

But do you think the tools of destruction are progressing at the same rate as the population? In the 19th Century the security of the species as a whole was note threatened by the weapons of a few powers. Today it most certainly is.

You see, I don't think there's a correlation between population and how much damage we can do before it's considered worse or less worse than any other era. We have the means to destroy the planet right now, and with the development of those means came the mentality to somehow justify it.

As we speak, initial development is underway on tactical nukes. This flies right in the face of the treaties signed banning such practices. Russia, in predictable response, has become nervous and is now questioning whether they should be conducting similar research. Is this the path we want to head down?

SLM3

We have had tac-nukes for years, as have the Russians, Brits, French, etc.

:confused:

Your first paragraph doesnt do anything to tell me why America is responciple for 9 11. Again, I want you to provide me with proof that my nation killed 4000 people who just want to go to work. You make a wild inflamitory claim, and I DEMAND that you back up your claim or apologise. Some lame ass screed is not proof. I assume you have documentation to back up your absoultly ridiculous claim?

Remember the people killed in war was a direct result of leftist political parties doing bad things. Such as Communist and socialist expansion and Nation Socialits. I assume had there been no wars to stop this leftist terror, you would be happy?
And remember that the nations of USSR, Cambodia, and CHina killed more people during PEACE time than the wars of the 20th century did.

You know guys, there are people worth arguing with, people worth debating with and people worth discussing with. Then there are people who are SO far out of reality, that it’s not worth doing anything with. Sometimes on the boards, you have to do the written equivalent of backing away smiling while not making eye contact and leaving these people alone.

I'm speaking of these new "bunker buster" nukes that Bush just allocated research money to look into.


SLM3

Ya know, even the most hawkish of US citizens will atleast acknowledge what happened in Nicaragua, Chile, Lebanon, El Salvador, Laos, Oman, Guatemala, etc, etc, etc. The question isn't whether the US supported or directly killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. The question is whether it was justifiable in a realist sense. If you have no clue what I'm talking about with the above examples, there's really nothing more for us to talk about.


SLM3

Oh. I believe the loophole there is that the actual nuclear device is the same as older models, only the delivery method is being revised (ie a bomb that allows for deeper penetration of a hardend target).

People whine over bunkerbusters why? If anything, being able to take out an underground complex with such a weapon would prevent needing an overkill amount of true 'wmds' to do the job.

People whine because we have signed a treaty saying we are not to develope new nuclear weapons. What they do not understand is what I posted above.

Again where is your proof that America is responcible for 9 11. I am eagerly awaiting the proof for your INSULTING comments. Keep spewing things that have nothing to do with it all you want, or you can admit that you are talking out of a differnt oriface than your mouth.

I don't see why you're so confused.

This is what I'm saying. The US, through its foreign policy as highlighted by my list of examples, has created many enemies out of the people effected by its policies.. It is of little surprise to me that these enemies decided to strike back at the US. This is what I say was the root cause of 9/11. In my opinion, in order to avoid similar attacks in the future, the US would have to re-evaluate its foreign policy in order to alleviate the oppressive pressure which it places on many people around the world.

Easier said than done.


SLM3

Just as I thought, no proof. Just rhetoric. Bin Laden as stated that the reason he attacked the towers was in direct retaliation of the US putting troops in Saudi Arabia. The troops were placed
their at the request of the Saudi Government as they were scared of Saddam moving into their nation.
So you are wrong. Bin Laden attacked us because he thinks that we violated Koranic Law in placing heathen soldiers in the holy land, not for anyother reason. This was what he read on his tapes that were broadcast on Al Jazera, and then restated many times over.
So once again, you are wrong. Our policy of HELPING an ally ( one that I have many problems with) against an aggressor is the reason why 4000 Americans were murdered.

Blaming the US for 9/11 is like blaming a woman for getting raped. Sure she looked good in those hotpants and she shouldn't have left her drink unattended, but that doesn't give you the right to drug her and make her your fuck toy.

Perhaps if she were more attentive it wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't mean you don't punish the rapist.

Bin Laden may well believe that.

The social conditions that give him power and supporters are those of gross poverty, inequality and injustice.

In many cases, these governments are supported by America (for example, in the Kingdom, or in the case of Saddam Hussain who America supported in preference to the Islamic Iran.)

I hope it will not be considered a personal attack to say that I do not agree with your analogy, and also find it to be very insensitive.

What is being said is that ever since at least the end of WWII, throughtout the cold war and onwards, America has behaved in a way in its foriegn policy that has created many many enemies.

Every innocent civilian that is gunned down in Iraq creates tomorrow's suicide bombers, not Islam - which as a religion is more peaceful and tolerant that Christianity. Bin Laden may well be a maniac, he certainly preaches hate, but his message of hate only reaches people because of the damage done to them by corrupt governments and intolerable social conditions.

America did not bomb the WTC itself, nor did it ask anyone else to do so, but by attacking, undermining, and intimidating other cultures and countries, it created an environment in which it was more likely to be struck down.

I doubt any of the office workers killed in the WTC deserved to die anymore than the average Iraqi hit by a stray American bomb or a panicky bullet fired in the wrong direction (not to mention the occasional rapes, murders and muggings, which ALL occupying forces carry out on foriegn soil)

You have to have understanding of basic facts, if you blow up medicine factories in Africa, if you bomb civilians all over the world because you dont like their governments, if you undermine elected governments everywhere, carry our murders, and everything else the CIA does... you create a wave of hatrid that will retaliate, however strong you are.

I'd say it's more like hitting a bully from behind with a bat.



SLM3

stange most bullies take people's money not give them money.

And you of course have proof of this insane accusation?

There are plenty of stories online, check out any anti-war site, I will find some for you tomorrow if you need help.

I am not accusing America of being especially guilty of this, in almost every case in history, an occupying army carries out rapes, looting, petty crime, often killing local drugdealers for their stash...

It is the way that people behave when you train them to kill and surround them with the enemy who has been trying to kill them but is now helpless I guess.

You want to know the real reason OBL decided to go for the WTC and Pentagon, possibly Congress/White House attacks? I'll give you three guesses, and I'll give you a hint, his initials are WJC and he held the Presidency for two terms (1993-2001).

December 29, 1992-UBL targets the Goldmore and Aden Hotels in Yemen with bombings in order to kill American soldiers. Hotel Aden bombing is thwarted, Goldmore bomb explodes killing Yemeni citizens, but no American forces were killed because they had checked out the previous day. Goldmore still housed the Marine Corps' Aerial Refueler/Transport Squadron 352. These Marines were evacuated due to "security concerns". Bush Administration deferred to incoming Clinton Administration on this decision. In the weeks and months following, Yemen asked for international help (especially American help) to search for this new terrorist, Osama bin Laden. No help came, Clinton was more concerned with his economic package instead of responding strongly to terrorism and eliminating the Most Wanted Man in America. OBL's first success, didn't even have to kill Americans to get them the hell out of Dodge.

February 26, 1993-The first Twin Towers bombing carried out by the infamous Ramzi Yousef and various "expendables". Clinton never visits the damage site and hardly ever mentions the bombing to the public again, treating it more like a natural disaster rather than a murder. Launches the FBI on the case, while the FBI is successful in eventually capturing Ramzi Yousef, this sends the worse message possible to bin Laden, we won't strike back, we're only going to prosecute you. Bin Laden-2 Clinton-0.

September 25, 1993-Black Hawk helicopter Courage 53 is shot down by RPG fire over the streets of Mogadishu. The two pilots somehow survive, but thanks to a Clinton order back in June, no American armored vehicles are in the vicinity which are able to help the downed pilots. However, the United Arab Emirates fortunately had armored vehicles as part of their troop and were able to rescue the two downed pilots. Response from the White House is non-existent. Previously, the Clinton Admin had responded to a threat on former President George HW Bush's life with a cruise missile attack on an abandoned building. Bin Laden is emboldened and throws his support behind Mohammed Farrah Aideed and trains his men to use RPGs and Rocket Launchers to take down helicopters. Clinton doesn't learn this major lesson "Don't go to the well too many times", in several attempts to capture Aideed or his top advisors, the United States followed this action plan: using helicopters to set up a perimeter, using special forces as policemen, and using Humvees (not the Bradley Fighting Unit) as transports for the captured advisors. None of this worked, they used this plan six times, and Aideed's men pounced on it, using the techniques given to them by bin Laden's men, they subsequently caused what is know as the Battle of the Black Sea which caused the death of 18 soldiers from Task Force Ranger. Clinton again responds with weakness instead of swift justice and again, bin Laden is emboldened to do more because the score is now 3-0 in favor of "Sheikh Osama".

This is just three out of many incidents where Clinton didn't do enough to stop bin Laden before 9/11. What created bin Laden and his attacks was the weakness showed by Clinton and that weakness only furthered bin Laden's courage to continue his attacks because he knew that America would not respond with strength. Until he bit off more than he could chew.

Is that why he fled Saudi Arabia and his own family disavowed him? Is that why he had to flee to Afganistand and over throw a government? Aal becahse he was as you erroneously claim " he was suported by the Kingdom". Man arent you embarressed by being wrong on every point you make yet?

Yea, right.....

The US takes far more money from the world than it gives.


SLM3

Its insesitive to whom, the rapist?

Quote:

What is being said is that ever since at least the end of WWII, throughtout the cold war and onwards, America has behaved in a way in its foriegn policy that has created many many enemies.

And look at the enemies we made, the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Castro, Saddam, Iran, Looks like we are picking the right kind of person to be enemies with. Why did France, England, Iceland not make that list? Cause they respect live, freedom and other nations.

Quote:

Every innocent civilian that is gunned down in Iraq creates tomorrow's suicide bombers, not Islam - which as a religion is more peaceful and tolerant that Christianity. Bin Laden may well be a maniac, he certainly preaches hate, but his message of hate only reaches people because of the damage done to them by corrupt governments and intolerable social conditions.

Acutally you are wrong again. The Madrassas teach hatred, and chanting Koranic Law. Not much else. In Iraq, were teachers pay has increased 12 times since the invasion, more and more teachers will take the job. Under the democratic leadership that over 80% of that nation now has, and 99% of the schools are opened ( more than were when Saddam was in charge) are TEACHING again. Not brainwashing. When those properly educated childred get nice jobs, and eat nice food, and see how life is pretty good since the Evil Americans came it, I seriously doubt they will be killing for allah anytime soon. If you are correct why does two thirds of Iran WANT American intervention? And if you think that ISlam was more peaceful than Christianity, you are laughably wrong. Your ignorance on topics you talk about is embarressing. Mohammad himself was a warrior that attacked caravans for fun, rape and profit. Very peaceful indeed.

Quote:

America did not bomb the WTC itself, nor did it ask anyone else to do so, but by attacking, undermining, and intimidating other cultures and countries, it created an environment in which it was more likely to be struck down.

Umm you have any proof of this? O, look who I am asking for proof. Sorry, carry on ranting.

Quote:

I doubt any of the office workers killed in the WTC deserved to die anymore than the average Iraqi hit by a stray American bomb or a panicky bullet fired in the wrong direction (not to mention the occasional rapes, murders and muggings, which ALL occupying forces carry out on foriegn soil)

I know, no civillian deserves to die, but since you are so smart, you can tell me your plan to stop the 100,000 killings per year in Iraq, while France, CHina, Russia, and Germany were willing to by pass UN resolutions and continue to enable Saddam? I thought you didnt have a plan. All your suggestions would do is allow 100,000 more people to die each year. I thought you cared about the Iraqis, when your stance clearly shows you just are just the opposite.

Quote:

You have to have understanding of basic facts, if you blow up medicine factories in Africa, if you bomb civilians all over the world because you dont like their governments, if you undermine elected governments everywhere, carry our murders, and everything else the CIA does... you create a wave of hatrid that will retaliate, however strong you are.

You have to realsie that for 50 years, the very peopel you champion, the communists, were aggressively arming and taking over nations like a fat man eating candies. While most of the world was content to let this happen, the US took the hard stance and halted communist expansion. As you know, communistm has claimed the lives of 125 million people this century alone. So the actions taken by the US stopped this monsterous spread of an idealogy worse than Nazism. You can, and will, choose to ignore this, but the fact remains, that US forgein police over the past 50 years stopped the deadliest threat to mankind since the Black Plauge. And people like you would rather they didnt.

DOnt bother to thank us, I know you wont.

You have proof to back this up?

Technically no. If that were true we wouldn't have a trade imbalance.

I'm not talking just import vs. export. Look at the big picture. Where does money flow and why does it flow that way?



SLM3

You made the claim, show us.

This makes for interesting reading:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...Criticisms.asp


We can spout on about the free market economy until we're blue in the face, but we have to realize the reality of it all is far from a free market. The US, exerting the most influence, has always seen the "free" market work more in its favour than anyone else.

I wonder if you guys honestly don't believe that the US is the richest nation in the world because it takes more from the world than it gives, or if you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.


SLM3

I thought we were the richest nation cause we work the hardest, and have the best freedoms, and reward the industrious. But go figure...

I don’t think that the main question has been answered.

IS there any documentation available to the public that shows the links between 9/11 and Bin Laden? I frankly cannot find any. All I get is news reports with latest headlines stating “US reports Bin Laden did it!” So if any has any good links detailing the government’s case of 9/11 I would really love to read them.

Further more, I am sick and tired of people thinking that just because some one is skeptical of the 9/11 case then believe that the American government did it or the Israelis did it or some other crap like that. Being a skepticism simply means that you are not ready put your faith in a particular answer.

Thousands of Americans were killed on September 11th. More Americans were killed in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghani civilians were killed during the war. We spent billions of dollars to bomb a country into ruin and then forget about it.

Our response needs to be justified. If our response was wrong some one needs to be held accountable.

There are problems though. Asking for the current Administration to give us proper information of the 9/11 case is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. The Administration has been known to flat out lie to the public on several occasions (read weapons of mass destruction evidence and Saddam link to Bin Laden evidence among other cases). Therefore it is necessary to have an independent investigation of the 9/11 case. So far the only investigation I am aware of occurred behind closed doors and the results of which were heavily censored. Mind you I have never even seen these documents, I simply heard that they exist.

This whole argument between SLM3 and other posters is completely irrelevant until details are known. So it would be nice to actually get some of the details. God knows there are about a trillion websites out there dealing with the holes in the 9/11 case; yet I cannot find one that provides documentation offering proof of the 9/11 case. So once again as the starting post asked, has any one have a link to such a information. Thank you.

After about 120 seconds on google I came up with this british report from October 1 2001.

and then of course there is this OBL quote...

http://www.sovereignty.net/center/bi...tape_text.html

So I ask you, what more proof do you NEED?

That article is filled with nothing but hearsay, there is not one strand of actual evidence. The Bin Laden tapes are probably fakes also.

:crazy:

so we have archer saying OBL attacked us because we didn't act and we have others saying OBL attacked us because we did act. So which is it?

OBL has admitted that he was behind 9/11 what else do you need? Ask Arabs throughout the world if they believe OBL was behind 9/11 and I bet you a large majority of them would say yes.

There is no proof of the holocaust either right? It never happend? We never visted the moon and Kezer Soce doesn't really exist :).

There is a great deal of proof of the holocaust, including official records, photographs and films, bodies and the property of the murdered, eye witness accounts, and survivor testimony.

doesn't OBL saying "I did it" count as real evidence? How about all the money trails that lead back to him? How about the fact that all of the hijackers had recently attended an alqueda training camp?

unfortunatly a blind man can see better than you strange famous

You misunderstood. The Kingdom is supported by America, the government of Saudi Arabia is very unpopular and would be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists if not for American support and arms.

Please show me evidence if I am wrong. I do not believe that Bin Laden has ever claimed responsibility, and has in fact denied that he was involved. I have heard him congratulate the bombers, and encourage other's to follow their example and said it a a good thing, but I have never seen or heard any example of him saying he did it.

He released a video in which he was talking about how the planes hitting the twin towers would cause them to colapse. They discussed how they planned which floors they wanted to hit and such.

Obviously, I'm going to side with my argument here. (Well duh ya know?) Anyways... I'm saying that Bill Clinton had plenty of time to take out OBL before the end of is term. There was even a chance when bin Laden attacked those two hotels in Yemen (which are incidentally on the same bay that the USS Cole was docked when it was bombed) to stop him, the Yemeni Intelligence Service asked for several nations to help track OBL down and bring him in. No help came. Bin Laden wasn't identified as a "major threat" by the United States until 1994 when Bill Clinton was identified as one of the targets in "Project Bojinka" he took it personal, but not personal enough and continued to work terrorists as a legal problem, not a threat to National Security. Clinton did some good things in fighting terrorists, but it wasn't enough, as evidenced on the morning of September 11th. That's what I believe, and there are plenty of facts to back that up, with documents from the CIA, Middle East Intelligence Services, and Filipino Intel Services and officials high up in each of the governments have commented on Osama bin Laden and the efforts to capture him pre-9/11.

Thats the quote I put in my last post (from the video) but of course thats fake.

You don't understand, if it shows OBL guilty, it must be faked.

There is also proof that the communists killed 125 million people. All the same evidence mentioned above. Yet some people say communism is still viable.

So you are supporting a regime of Islamic fundamentalists to take over the largest oil reserves in the world? Man your postion on everything is abusrd.

Technically, were they even communists?


SLM3

The dead may not be, but the killers sure were.

So many of your replies are filled with you putting words in other people's mouths. Then you attack whatever argument you've created for yourself. And then of course you top it all off with a personal attack.

Seriously, stop it.


SLM3

Do you deny that the communists killed 125 million people or are you just angry with me for showing how you are always incorrect?

Explain.

Endymon32 - Just a bit of info for you. Whenever you corner a leftist on how many millions of their own citizens communist governments have murdered they like to point out that the governments weren't really communists.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I'm sorry Ustwo, I'll remember from now on not to ask the Right to use language which actually represents anything more than a generalized, innacurate and ultimately useless point of view.

I'm sorry, I was asking too much and I apologize.


SLM3

The communists caused the deaths of 125 million people. There I explained it.

Do you understand now why it's so hard for me to take you seriously?


SLM3

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

http://www.ncpa.org/debate2/blackbook.html

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Glob...Communism.html

These are the first links i got there are plenty more.

Communism kills.

So prove me wrong if I am so factually wrong. Show me that Communism DIDNT kill 125 million people. And while you are at it, lets deny the holocost too.

Just like how guns kill, too. Right?


com·mu·nism

a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

Do the communist countries you list adhere to this philosophy?

SLM3

I'm not sure why I bother, but...
 

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF

And the paper...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

and another..

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.3.GIF

At least communism seems good at ONE thing.

But I know its all lies....lies..lies..lies...

What's the name of that list of online debate rules? Ya know, the one that says you automatically lose if you mention Hitler. Is there anything about accusing someone of being a Holocaust denier?

It bothers me that I have to completely spell out my point for you every single time. I disagree with Ustwo on practically everything, but atleast I don't have to hold his hand in order for him to tleast see what I'm saying.

I'm not defending communism. In fact, I think it's an idealistic notion that doesn't have any basis in reality. There will always be those who wont settle. But I'm not going to create a scapegoat in order to boost my argument. I'm not going to oversimplify something so it fits my point of view. Communism, as it is ultimately meant to look, has never even come close to being represented by a major power.

I'm arguing with you because I want you to take the time to actually give these subjects the respect they deserve. How is China different from the USSR? How are they both not communist? Why can't we make blanket statements?

SLM3

So you admit that communism killed 125 million people? Wasnt that my whole point?

Now if only you can admit that Osama Bin Laden planed 9 11 we can make progress...

Oh Dear God.


SLM3

I know its shocking when you think that the communists could be WORSE than the nazis. But weather its National SOCIALISM or just plain communism, its a bad day for the common man.

Now now lets stay on topic.... :p

Caution, extreme sarcasm ahead:

Yep, I'm sure Osama would have turned out to be a wonderful man if only he didn't live in squalor as he grew up.

The evil oppressive US governmental policies throughout the middle east caused the economic/social divide amongst the people there. Sultans didn't exist before we needed their oil.

There's no need for war. Everything can be talked through and so long as we "understand" each other we can live in peace and harmony. No nation will ever again covet another's land/resources.

Sarcasm off.

Seriously though, absolutely the US has had some horrendous policies (just as every other nation has) and we are typically guilty of looking out for #1 to the detriment of others we deal with. But that does NOT mean that 9/11 or any terrorist acts are excusable or understandable. In the long term there absolutely needs to be changes made in dealing with MANY countries. In the SHORT TERM we need to protect our citizens. Even if we could change the societies that produce terrorists overnight, there are still far too many willing to die just to kill the "infidels".

Nice one, Ustwo.

Communisim doesn't really kill the problem is communism in theory doesn't work because it goes completly against human nature. Human nature does not promote sharing it promotes power mongering (which seems to happen in communist governments often). In addition if you share everything equally not everyone will contribute their fair share. If I get the same check as everyone else does no matter what I do then i'm not going to do anything. And neither is the next guy or the next guy. Thus we have a problem. In addition if you take a basic economics course you will quickly learn that a free market always pushes it'self to an equillibrium which is the most effecient point. Communism does not do this. In addition a free market offers incentive for people to work harder, communism doesn't.

Anyways enough about this because it is way off topic.

There is no proof of this and there can be no proof of it, because it is not true.

More people have been killed by leaders who claim to be guided by Christianity, would you applaud America working to eliminate Christianity and crush Christian nations?

Just because Pol Pot or Stalin calls himself a communist, does not mean it is true (anymore true than Hernan Cortes saying he was guided by God to destroy the Aztecs...). Things done by a Stalinist dictatorship are not done by communism.

Also, to come close to a figure that is so huge, you must be including those killed in famine in China and Russia, yet these famines were made far worse by the West refusing to help.

Please show me WHY you think the Soviet Union was a communist country?

Can you give evidence of worker democracy? of democratically owned means of production? of completely free and open elections of all public posts? Of the ansence of any kind of state in the modern sense of the word? Of the completely equal distribution of political power?

Can you show links to examples of how these communist ideals where enjoyed in Stalin's Russia, rather than a graph that shows how many people died in Russia which someone types "communist" next too?

See what did I tell you Endymon32, the above is always the excuse. A tenent of communism is if it didn't work it must not have been communism.

Can you not even try to answer the question then?

What evidence do you have that the Soviet Union was a communist country?

Because either you do not know what "communism" means, or you do not know what "Russia" is, it would seem.