We can all relax, the Jews were to blame for 9/11 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Egyptian professor Abd Al-Sabour Shahin is head of the Shari’a faculty at Al-Ahzar University, the most prestigious academy in Sunni Islam, and is a lecturer at Cairo University. To make the point plain, this is not a spokesman for the “tiny minority of religious extremists.” This is a man at the very pinnacle of Islam.

On August 8, 2005, Saudi Channel 1 aired the following unhinged interview with Dr. Shahin, translated and subtitled by MEMRI TV.

Quote:

Shahin: Our enemies weave many lies about us, which we are not necessarily aware of. For example: One day, we awoke to the crime of 9/11, which hit the tallest buildings in New York, the Empire State Building (sic). There is no doubt that not a single Arab or Muslim had anything to do with these events. The incident was fabricated as a pretext to attack Islam and Muslims. The plan was to take over the world’s energy sources, and to achieve this control by force and not by agreement or negotiations, by interests, free trade, or anything like that. This is what they wanted.

So this incident was fabricated - and Allah knows that the Arabs and Muslims are innocent of it - in order to serve as a pretext to attack Islam and the Muslims.

All of a sudden, after we were used to consider America to be a rational and balanced country... All of a sudden, it violates international conventions, cancels treaties, ignores the U.N., acts on its own accord, attacks nations, kills innocent people, and claims it has the right to do so - and all this is based on lies. These were lies from beginning to end, and we were not used to lying - not in policy, not in our discourse, and not in the media. Imagine what crisis the Arab and Islam nation finds itself in, in the midst of these peculiar events, which we cannot explain or believe. All of a sudden, we were framed for an international crime, on the basis of lies.

I believe a dirty Zionist hand carried out this act. Zionism has taken the opportunity to escalate the war in Palestine, killing hundreds of thousands so far, while we watch from the sidelines in astonishment and ask: What’s going on?

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=800

Yes now its all clear to me, it was the Jews after all, not the innocent muslims.

This my friends is why I think war is the only long term course of action in the mid-east. When you have 'the best of the best' of them education wise spreading this nonsense and fostering hate, what can you expect from the undereducated man on the street? Its so laughable its almost comical but they believe it. I've seen this type of thinking myself from people I considered to be friends. One of the nicest guys I've known, from Jordan, spoke of prophecy where the Jews would be pushed back into the sea. If this is there intelligentsia, can we expect any more enlightenment from their average citizen which is fed a daily dose of this crap?

Glava · 08-09-2005, 07:05 PM

Muslim political leaders use Israel and Jews as scapegoats for many things. If a big wave hits Indonesia, it has to be the Jews' fault even though Israel is on the other side of Asia. The only people who have a legitimate gripe with Israelis are Palestinians and Lebanese. The rest are jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon to divert blame from the real factors.

samcol · 08-09-2005, 07:47 PM

Much of what he has to say is true and I agree with. However, saying that no Arab or Muslim has anything to do with this, and saying Zionists are to blame I do not agree with (well and the Empire State Building thing which I can't tell if he's ignorant or lieing for some reason).

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Much of what he has to say is true and I agree with. However, saying that no Arab or Muslim has anything to do with this, and saying Zionists are to blame I do not agree with (well and the Empire State Building thing which I can't tell if he's ignorant or lieing for some reason).

Care to point out the truth? I'm having issues seeing it.

alansmithee · 08-09-2005, 09:14 PM

Is this any big suprize? I thought it was all layed out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion /sarcasm.

The fact that anyone can believe anything that those fools are saying is baffling, and shows just how important the current war on islamic extremism is to the safety (if not survival) of the west.

host · 08-09-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Care to point out the truth? I'm having issues seeing it.

Yes, Ustwo..... so am I..... and this report is no less "farfetched" than what we have been told by our government, and by it's "9/11 comission":

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/po...gewanted=print
August 10, 2005
9/11 Panel Members Ask Congress to Learn if Pentagon Withheld Files on Hijackers in 2000
By PHILIP SHENON and DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - Members of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks called on Congress to determine whether the Pentagon withheld intelligence information showing that a secret American military unit had identified Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as potential threats more than a year before the attacks.

The former commission members said the information, if true, could rewrite an important chapter of the history of the intelligence failures before Sept. 11, 2001.

"I think this is a big deal," said John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the commission who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "The issue is whether there was in fact surveillance before 9/11 of Atta and, if so, why weren't we told about it? Who made the decision not to brief the commission's staff or the commissioners?"

Mr. Lehman and other commissioners said that because the panel had been formally disbanded for a year, the investigation would need to be taken up by Congress, possibly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

"If this is true, somebody should be looking into it," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission chairman and a former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Detailed accounts about the findings of the secret operation, known as Able Danger, were offered this week by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and by a former defense intelligence official.

Their comments are the first assertion by current or former officials that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who was the lead hijacker, had been identified as a potential terrorist before the attacks.

Spokesmen for the commission members said this week that although the staff was informed by the Pentagon in late 2003 about the existence of a so-called data-mining operation called Able Danger, the panel was never told that it had identified Mr. Atta and the others as threats.

In a final report released last summer called the authoritative history of the attacks, the commission of five Democrats and five Republicans made no mention of the secret program or the possibility that a government agency had detected Mr. Atta's terrorist activities before Sept. 11.

The Pentagon has had no comment on the credibility of the accounts from Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official.

At a news briefing on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he could not comment on reports about Able Danger and suggested that he knew nothing about such an operation.

"I can't," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I have no idea. I've never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it."

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, said later that "there were a number of intelligence operations prior to the attacks of 9/11" but that "it would be irresponsible for us to provide details in a way in which those who wish to do us harm would find beneficial."

An intelligence official said Tuesday that the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was "working closely with the Department of Defense to learn more" about Mr. Weldon's statements. The official confirmed that the congressman recently met with Mr. Negroponte, but declined to discuss the subject.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said in an interview that although he could not comment on classified subjects, he had recently talked with Mr. Weldon and that "I do take seriously any issues that may be brought to light by other members of Congress."

A spokeswoman for Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that "the committee is aware of Congressman Weldon's concerns" and that it "is looking into it."

Mr. Weldon went public with his information after having talked with members of the unit in his research for a new book on terrorism. He said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he had spoken with three team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mr. Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known in the Defense Department by mid-2000 and was not acted on.

An outspoken member of Congress on military and intelligence questions, Mr. Weldon, a champion of military data mining like Able Danger, has helped arrange interviews for reporters with the former military intelligence official. The official insisted on anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support for future data mining in the military.

The official said in an interview Monday that the Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive signed by Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.

He said that by the middle of 2000 the operation had identified Mr. Atta and three of the other future hijackers as a member of an American-based cell and that the information was presented that summer in a chart to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

The official said that the chart included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and the others, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi. Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official said Able Danger members had recommended that the information be shared with the F.B.I., an the idea that was rejected.

The official said the information was also not shared with the C.I.A. or other civilian intelligence agencies. "This was a highly compartmented program with very limited distribution," he said.

General Shelton said Tuesday that he did not recall authorizing the creation of the unit but that "we had lots of initiatives to find out where Al Qaeda was."

The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed the former staff director of the Sept. 11 panel, Philip D. Zelikow, and at least three other staff members about Able Danger when the staff members visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003. The official said that he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta in the briefing as a member of the American terrorist cell.

Mr. Kean, the commission head, said the staff members were confident that Mr. Atta's name was not mentioned in the briefing or subsequent documents from the Pentagon.

"None of them recalls mention of the name Atta," he said. "I think if that had been mentioned, it would have been on the tips of their tongue."

Mr. Kean said he had asked the staff members to retrieve their classified notes from government storage to be certain about not overlooking any reference to Mr. Atta or to an American-based cell in any of the Pentagon material.

A State Department spokesman for Mr. Zelikow, who joined the department this year, had no immediate comment.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting for this article.

The article above was prompted by this report:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html
Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.

The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, they said, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas. Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies. That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.

A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Mr. Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name.

The report produced by the commission last year does not mention the episode............

............The account is the first assertion that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who became the lead hijacker in the plot, was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks. Among the 19 hijackers, only Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been identified as potential threats by the Central Intelligence Agency before the summer of 2000, and information about them was not provided to the F.B.I. until the spring of 2001.

Mr. Weldon has long been a champion of the kind of data-mining analysis that was the basis for the work of the Able Danger team.

The former intelligence official spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly. He said the team had been established by the Special Operations Command in 1999, under a classified directive issued by Gen. Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.

"Ultimately, Able Danger was going to give decision makers options for taking out Al Qaeda targets," the former defense intelligence official said.

He said that he delivered the chart in summer 2000 to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and said that it had been based on information from unclassified sources and government records, including those of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said.

Mr. Weldon is an outspoken figure who is a vice chairman of both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he had recognized the significance of the episode only recently, when he contacted members of the military intelligence team as part of research for his book, "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the C.I.A. Has Ignored It."

Mr. Weldon's book prompted one veteran C.I.A. case officer to strongly dispute the reliability of one Iranian source cited in the book, saying the Iranian "was a waste of my time and resources."

Mr. Weldon said that he had discussed the Able Danger episode with Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and that at least two Congressional committees were looking into the episode...............

.............The former intelligence official said the first Able Danger report identified all four men as members of a "Brooklyn" cell, and was produced within two months after Mr. Atta arrived in the United States. The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed Mr. Zelikow and at least three other members of the Sept. 11 commission staff about Able Danger when they visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003.

The official said he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta as a member of a Qaeda cell in the United States. He said the staff encouraged him to call the commission when he returned to Washington at the end of the year. When he did so, the ex-official said, the calls were not returned.

Mr. Felzenberg, the former Sept. 11 commission spokesman, said on Monday that he had talked with some of the former staff members who participated in the briefing.

"They all say that they were not told anything about a Brooklyn cell," Mr. Felzenberg said. "They were told about the Pentagon operation. They were not told about the Brooklyn cell. They said that if the briefers had mentioned anything that startling, it would have gotten their attention."

As a result of the briefing, he said, the commission staff filed document requests with the Pentagon for information about the program. The Pentagon complied, he said, adding that the staff had not hidden anything from the commissioners.

"The commissioners were certainly told of the document requests and what the findings were," Mr. Felzenberg said.

This is not a partisan report. Republican members of congress with aongressional committee oversight responsibilities are questioning what the Bush government and the 9/11 commission have told the American people happened on 9/11. IMO, what the material in the thread starter has in common with what we have been told "happened" on 9/11, by the Bush administration and the 9/11 commission, is that both descriptions of the attacks and who "did them", are flawed, inaccurate and unreliable.

fastom · 08-12-2005, 10:36 PM

I think the arab fella is right. There is a lot that points to jewish involvement.

aKula · 08-12-2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=800

Yes now its all clear to me, it was the Jews after all, not the innocent muslims.

This my friends is why I think war is the only long term course of action in the mid-east. When you have 'the best of the best' of them education wise spreading this nonsense and fostering hate, what can you expect from the undereducated man on the street? Its so laughable its almost comical but they believe it. I've seen this type of thinking myself from people I considered to be friends. One of the nicest guys I've known, from Jordan, spoke of prophecy where the Jews would be pushed back into the sea. If this is there intelligentsia, can we expect any more enlightenment from their average citizen which is fed a daily dose of this crap?

How do you think war is going to solve the problem of leaders and ordinary people not accepting facts (or spreading such things intentionaly)?

Ustwo · 08-13-2005, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

How do you think war is going to solve the problem of leaders and ordinary people not accepting facts (or spreading such things intentionaly)?

War removes leaders. War would remove the institutions that foster the lies and the hate.

It worked before and it will work again, the only question is when, not if.

Superbelt · 08-13-2005, 04:45 AM

Despite the general delusion of the title article. Here is a prominent guy calling 9/11 a crime.

Quote:

Shahin: Our enemies weave many lies about us, which we are not necessarily aware of. For example: One day, we awoke to the crime of 9/11, which hit the tallest buildings in New York, the Empire State Building (sic). There is no doubt that not a single Arab or Muslim had anything to do with these events. The incident was fabricated as a pretext to attack Islam and Muslims. The plan was to take over the world’s energy sources, and to achieve this control by force and not by agreement or negotiations, by interests, free trade, or anything like that. This is what they wanted.

/For those who think the Muslim world is generally happy with what happened on 9/11 and complain that the Islamic world won't denounce it.

Dragonlich · 08-13-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Despite the general delusion of the title article. Here is a prominent guy calling 9/11 a crime.

/For those who think the Muslim world is generally happy with what happened on 9/11 and complain that the Islamic world won't denounce it.

Yeah. Too bad he then goes on saying how Muslims can't possibly have done it, and that only the Jews could be so evil.

Always blaming someone else... How typical.

host · 08-13-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

War removes leaders. War would remove the institutions that foster the lies and the hate.

It worked before and it will work again, the only question is when, not if.

Yes, Ustwo...I am that glad we agree that it is necessary to <b>"remove the institutions that foster the lies and the hate."</b>

One of our areas of disagreement is that I insist on accomplishing the "removal" by peaceful means, while you have made your own views very clear, here. One of the things that troubles me most, is that, over time....you have posted your credentials as a well educated and knowledgeable fellow.

Assuming this is true, why are you able to accept so much at face value, even when what you readily accept as "the truth", deteremines who you advocate "killing"?

How do you square this 9/11 Commission "finding", for example, with your cocksure opinion of who was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
(the following quote is located near the bottom of the web page, at the above link, just above the bold subtitle; "The Funding of the 9/11 Plot")

............To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance..............

Ustwo, I want you and everyone who reads your thread to understand that your advocacy to <b>"remove the institutions that foster the lies and the hate."</b> by "war", is based on what you have been told by a POTUS and an administration with a thin track record of credibility, (or of being "right", regardiing their "decision making" in a slew of policy matters) that appointed a "fact finding" commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks on the US; a commission that declared that "following the money" (that financed the attacks), was <b>"Ultimately the question is of little practical significance"</b>.

The 9/11 Commission issued their report in the wake of these other inconsistancies, previously posted at these links:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=26
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=29

Ustwo, you are a truly in possession of a superior intellect, if you can sift through these inconsistancies and come to a conclusion that results in a certainty that allows you to accurately determine who should be killed because of their opinions of who attacked the US on 9/11, and why !

Before I can advocate going to war against anyone, or using any violent means against another, I need answers to a long list of questions which you seem to have astoundingly little curiousity about. Why do you project such overwhelming trust of the Bush administration? Can you provide any examples of instances where they instilled that trust?

energus · 08-16-2005, 06:49 AM

Personally he has a point concerning the actions done by the US government. Not only from his point of view, but from many others, the US/GB actions were "curious" at some points down the line. I also feel, like him, that certain actions were based on lies. I can also imagine that he is upset that a neighbouring country was invaded and that there is a lot of violence in the region since. I would be to if it happened in my backyard.

However where he completely misses the point is the bit where he says that NO Arab or Muslim had anything to do with it. It annihilates any point he tries to make as well as robbes him of any credibility. I hope that this is a hoax, otherwise the Muslim community needs to ask themselves who their leaders, both spiritual and academical, are. And what their agenda is

08-16-2005, 07:53 AM

I don't see the problem with the posted article, it appears to be articulate, and makes some reasonable points. Of course, I don't <i>agree</i> with all of the points made, but I, and (surprisingly to some) many Muslims, have the ability to think for myself. I think it's a little extreme to advocate killing anyone because of their opinions, and I think that rather than having the intended result, it would result in a dangerous backlash.

Does Ustwo really think that by killing more civilians, the remaining Muslims will warm to the west, treat our motives without distrust and greet us finally with welcoming arms?

Yes, blaming the Zionists (extremist Jews) for 9/11 does seem a little extreme for my tastes and if it were posted here, I'd suggest for it to be moved to the Paranoia board. Something I'm temped to do to this post here, which is practically doing the same thing, only this time, the wild-eyed paranoia and hate-fostering is Ustwo's and appears to be directed at the Muslim/Arab population as a whole.

cyrnel · 08-16-2005, 09:00 AM

I see little wild-eyed paranoia or hate fostering, except perhaps between board members. Plenty of that to go around. I've noticed little tolerance around here lately, even with the reduced traffic & moderator messages. Alternate points of view can be annoying, painful, often a source of learning. Is forcing them underground really helpful?

Anyway...
Leadership of any form will manipulate people to its benefit using facts, lies, and everything in between. The post from UStwo shows some prize-winners from over there. A change in the professor's accent could make his quotations strangely familiar as items of ridicule on these shores.

I hope his intended listeners with minds are able to roll their eyes and keep their heads. I hope all listeners apply equal scrutiny to the messages and motivations of leadership, be it foreign or domestic.

08-16-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Alternate points of view can be annoying, painful, often a source of learning. Is forcing them underground really helpful?

My point entirely cyrnel.

This post is a fantastic opportunity to learn about points of view that are held by perfectly rational and intelligent people, people who are apparently extremely worried by the west's apparent irrationality. But rather than focus on that, we are asked to consider stepping up the continued policy of killing more civilians, and forcing these opinions underground.

The irony was just too much for me to resist.

cyrnel · 08-16-2005, 10:08 AM

I think you mean the quotation (a fantastic opportunity), not the post? My point was to treat both with equal cynicism. I don't find it easy to do to someone or something I love or agree with, but it helps reveal patterns in myself and whatever I'm studying.

stevo · 08-16-2005, 12:17 PM

If you think the posted article is full of reasonable points and you agree mostly with it - that only goes toward proving that the left's thinking is in line with how the terrorists think. Remarkably similar to the latest al-qaeda tape where Al-Zawahri's message is strikingly similar to michael moore rhetoric. yawn.

08-16-2005, 01:00 PM

I think it's useful to be aware of the consequences of our actions. I think it's important in our laudable goal of improving life around the world to adopt the most useful tactics possible. The post's title draws our attention to one of the articles authors' points - allow me to draw attention to some of the other ones:

Quote:

All of a sudden, after we were used to consider America to be a rational and balanced country... All of a sudden, it violates international conventions, cancels treaties, ignores the U.N., acts on its own accord, attacks nations, kills innocent people, and claims it has the right to do so - and all this is based on lies. These were lies from beginning to end, and we were not used to lying - not in policy, not in our discourse, and not in the media.

So this man states how much respect he used to have for America for its rationality and balance. How this expectation has evaporated in the face of America's actions.

Quote:

I believe a dirty Zionist hand carried out this act. Zionism has taken the opportunity to escalate the war in Palestine, killing hundreds of thousands so far, while we watch from the sidelines in astonishment and ask: What’s going on?

He's so astounded by America's actions, that he feels the need to cook up this implausible story - because he's at a loss to understand otherwise.

I certainly don't agree with his analysis, but I think it's important to recognise how worried one can become when the most powerful nation in the world appears to flex its muscles more or less indiscriminately.

I wouldn't label myself as being 'left' - far from it. And I have to ask, why does raising an important point of principle get labelled as being leftist?

Yawn on if you must, but I honestly don't understand how linking the left with the terrorists has anything to do with me, or this discussion.

To put it simply, I am disagreeing with Ustwo's assertion that more war is the solution to the percieved problem of Islam. This man hasn't called for the death of any Americans. He's done nothing different i.e. labelling a group of people i.e. 'The Zionists' as the bad guys, to Ustwo labelling all of Islam as the bad guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If this is there intelligentsia, can we expect any more enlightenment from their average citizen which is fed a daily dose of this crap?

The same could be said by those outside of America when reading articles by Anne Coulter, or those watching Fox News.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its so laughable its almost comical but they believe it.

cyrnel · 08-16-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

I think it's useful to be aware of the consequences of our actions. I think it's important in our laudable goal of improving life around the world to adopt the most useful tactics possible.

Agreed, to the point we're able. That nexus of perfect compromise between all interests. I don't believe such a beast exists however, given the interests and assets involved. Therein lies conflict, possibly on the scale we see today. Doesn't mean I'll give blanket support but I do believe it's inevitable given some circumstances.

Leaders push for what they can given their assets to maximize gains, with right and wrong becoming little more than PR percentages. The best we can do as individuals is support our individual goals and minimize losses. Not much different other than scale.

Quote:

The post's title draws our attention to one of the articles authors' points - allow me to draw attention to some of the other ones:
...
So this man states how much respect he used to have for America for its rationality and balance. How this expectation has evaporated in the face of America's actions.

Not unlike an angry shoppers letter to Sears. "I've shopped here for 30years but am outraged you stopped sending your catalog." Did he really have respect for the U.S., or is this just another phantom loss? His list of offensive actions are tilted in the usual way, just as opposing statements usually are. Summarizing with the best spin. I'd color things as a bit more complex.

Quote:

He's so astounded by America's actions, that he feels the need to cook up this implausible story - because he's at a loss to understand otherwise.

Is he?

Quote:

I certainly don't agree with his analysis, but I think it's important to recognise how worried one can become when the most powerful nation in the world appears to flex its muscles more or less indiscriminately.

I'm at a loss for where he began. Is he mad at Israel and trying to support it, or mad about the war, in denial about 9/11 and looking for scapegoats? Was it a message for U.S. citizens unhappy with the situation, for his student audience? It might be interesting to delve into if I didn't have a meeting coming up. Cutting it short I have a very tough time digesting the media so full of political press releases. It rarely seems useful other than as a measure of political platforms.

Quote:

I wouldn't label myself as being 'left' - far from it. And I have to ask, why does raising an important point of principle get labelled as being leftist?

Perhaps it isn't the principle so much as the assumptions? I'm not calling you leftist, but can see how your support of his points might seem so. My first take is the Zionist thing. I'm far from supporting the crap that's gone on surrounding Israel but when the professor starts blaming a "Zionist conspiracy" for 9/11 I have to question his credibility. Everything he says becomes suspect.

Quote:

Yawn on if you must, but I honestly don't understand how linking the left with the terrorists has anything to do with me, or this discussion.

I _think_ it's more likely interests over there are using language that nod heads over here. That's a deep one.

Quote:

To put it simply, I am disagreeing with Ustwo's assertion that more war is the solution to the percieved problem of Islam. This man hasn't called for the death of any Americans. He's done nothing different i.e. labelling a group of people i.e. 'The Zionists' as the bad guys, to Ustwo labelling all of Islam as the bad guys.

I'd say it's less about war being a pretty solution, but that war is the inevitable consequence of interests that cannot come to compromise. The final result may be changes that enable that compromise, at individual and societal levels. No doubt the costs are huge on all sides.

Quote:

The same could be said by those outside of America when reading articles by Anne Coulter, or those watching Fox News.

True, and of any source colored by agenda. Do any exist that are not? I can't find them on my radio/television/magazine/blog...

Arg, reallly late now... m-u-s-t s-t-a-y o-u-t o-f t-h-i-s f-o-r-u-m...

host · 08-17-2005, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If you think the posted article is full of reasonable points and you agree mostly with it - that only goes toward proving that the left's thinking is in line with how the terrorists think. Remarkably similar to the latest al-qaeda tape where Al-Zawahri's message is strikingly similar to michael moore rhetoric. yawn.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/po...gewanted=print

August 17, 2005
Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.

The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the bureau.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview on Monday night that the small, highly classified intelligence program, known as Able Danger, had identified the terrorist ringleader, Mohamed Atta, and three other future hijackers by name by mid-2000, and tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share its information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 attacks were still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Special Operations Command of the Defense Department had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States.

"It was because of the chain of command saying we're not going to pass on information - if something goes wrong, we'll get blamed," he said.

The Defense Department did not dispute the account from Colonel Shaffer, a 42-year-old native of Kansas City, Mo., who is the first military officer associated with the program to acknowledge his role publicly.

At the same time, the department said in a statement that it was "working to gain more clarity on this issue" and that "it's too early to comment on findings related to the program identified as Able Danger." The F.B.I. referred calls about Colonel Shaffer to the Pentagon.

The account from Colonel Shaffer, a reservist who is also working part time for the Pentagon, corroborates much of the information that the Sept. 11 commission has acknowledged it received about Able Danger last July from a Navy captain who was also involved with the program but whose name has not been made public. In a statement issued last week, the leaders of the commission said the panel had concluded that the intelligence program "did not turn out to be historically significant."

The statement said that while the commission did learn about Able Danger in 2003 and immediately requested Pentagon files about it, none of the documents turned over by the Defense Department referred to Mr. Atta or any of the other hijackers.

Colonel Shaffer said that his role in Able Danger was as liaison with the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington, and that he was not an intelligence analyst. The interview with Colonel Shaffer on Monday was arranged for The New York Times and Fox News by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a champion of data-mining programs like Able Danger.

Colonel Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, said in an interview that he was concerned that Colonel Shaffer was facing retaliation from the Defense Department, first for having talked to the Sept. 11 commission staff in October 2003 and now for talking with news organizations.

Mr. Zaid said that Colonel Shaffer's security clearance was suspended last year because of what the lawyer said were a series of "petty allegations" involving $67 in personal charges on a military cellphone. He said that despite the disciplinary action, Colonel Shaffer had been promoted this year from major.

Colonel Shaffer said he had decided to allow his name to be used in part because of his frustration with the statement issued last week by the commission leaders, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.

The commission said in its final report last year that American intelligence agencies had not identified Mr. Atta as a terrorist before Sept. 11, 2001, when he flew an American Airlines jet into one of the World Trade Center towers in New York.

A commission spokesman did not return repeated phone calls on Tuesday for comment. A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview on Tuesday that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta."

"And if these assertions are credible," Mr. Ben-Veniste continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite requests for all information regarding Able Danger."

Colonel Shaffer said he had provided information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta in a private meeting in October 2003 with members of the Sept. 11 commission staff when they visited Afghanistan, where he was then serving. Commission members have disputed that, saying that they do not recall hearing Mr. Atta's name during the briefing and that the name did not appear in documents about Able Danger that were later turned over by the Pentagon.

"I would implore the 9/11 commission to support a follow-on investigation to ascertain what the real truth is," Colonel Shaffer said in the interview this week. "I do believe the 9/11 commission should have done that job: figuring out what went wrong with Able Danger."

"This was a good news story because, before 9/11, you had an element of the military - our unit - which was actually out looking for Al Qaeda," he continued. "I can't believe the 9/11 commission would somehow believe that the historical value was not relevant."

Colonel Shaffer said that because he was not an intelligence analyst, he was not involved in the details of the procedures used in Able Danger to glean information from terrorist databases, nor was he aware of which databases had supplied the information that might have led to the name of Mr. Atta or other terrorists so long before the Sept. 11 attacks.

But he said he did know that Able Danger had made use of publicly available information from government immigration agencies, from Internet sites and from paid search engines like LexisNexis.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2319-2001Sep26
White House Drops Claim of Threat to Bush

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 27, 2001; Page A08

The Bush administration appeared to back away yesterday from its claim that a threat was lodged against Air Force One on the day terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After news reports Tuesday said administration officials could find no record of such a call, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was asked yesterday if the White House believes Osama bin Laden was trying to kill the president. Fleischer had said at a Sept. 13 briefing that a threat, "using code words," had been phoned in against Air Force One. He quoted the caller as saying, "Air Force One is a target." ............

........... On Tuesday, the Associated Press quoted administration officials as saying they now doubt the call was made. "They've been unsuccessful in trying to track down whether there was such a call, though officials still maintain they were told of a telephone threat Sept. 11 and kept Bush away from Washington for hours because of it," the AP said.

The "CBS Evening News" reported Tuesday that the call "simply never happened," and said White House staffers "apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail."

Bush was criticized for flying to Louisiana and Nebraska before returning to Washington, and White House officials had disseminated their belief that the threats were specific and credible. Vice President Cheney said Sept. 16 on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he had urged Bush to stay away, in part because of a threat against the plane.

Quote:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008371/
<h4>Whopper of the Week: Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Dick Cheney</h4>
Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, Sept. 28, 2001, at 11:11 AM PT

"They also made it clear they wanted to get us up quickly, and they wanted to get us to a high altitude, because there had been a specific threat made to Air Force One. ... A declaration that Air Force One was a target, and said in a way that they called it credible. ... So they wanted to get us up quickly. They also wanted to get us up with fighter air cover."

--White House senior counselor Karl Rove, quoted by Nicholas Lemann in the Sept. 28 New Yorker.

"We have specific and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were also intended targets of these attacks."

--White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Sept. 12 briefing.

"Q: [It was] yesterday reported that some of the people in the Pentagon were a little bit skeptical about your comments yesterday that the White House and Air Force One were attacked--were targets of attack, given that the plane had come from the south. What do you--

"Fleischer: Who are these people?

"Q: Well, I don't know. They weren't my sources, so--

"(Cross talk.)

"Fleischer: No. There's--I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.

"Q: Can you confirm the substance of that threat that was telephoned in ... that Air Force One is next and using code words?

"Fleischer: Yes, I can. That's correct."

--White House "press gaggle" with Ari Fleischer, Sept. 13.

"Vice President Cheney: The president was on Air Force One. We received a threat to Air Force One--came through the Secret Service ...

"Tim Russert: A credible threat to Air Force One. You're convinced of that.

"Vice President Cheney: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me."

--NBC's Meet the Press, Sept. 16.

"Finally, there is this postscript to the puzzle of how someone presumed to be a terrorist was able to call in a threat against Air Force One using a secret code name for the president's plane. Well, as it turns out, that simply never happened. Sources say White House staffers apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail."

--CBS News reporter Jim Stewart on the Sept. 25 CBS Evening News.

"[Administration officials have] been unsuccessful in trying to track down whether there was such a call, though officials still maintain they were told of a telephone threat Sept. 11 and kept Bush away from Washington for hours because of it."...............

stevo, the huge volume of information that you must avoid even contemplating, in order to swallow the lies and misinformation of your commandante and his cohorts is ever growing.

The "liberals", as you label them, are simply ordinary Americans who refuse to drink the kool-ade that these pukes mix up and distribute in the rare moments when they are not concocting or disseminating their latest lies.

They even resorted to making up the lies as excuses for Bush's 9/11 "cut n run", as he hopped from FLA....west to two AFB's until early evening.

Can you not even consider that, as long as they continue to lie, spin, stall, mislead. and cover up, that they demonstrate neither integrity or credibility.

When you bash those of us who are weary of this, and apologize for their horrendous attacks on the truth, it makes you look foolish.........

You may not comprehend this, but those who can "connect the dots" are not "liberals", they are people who are tired of the constant, "my dog ate my homework" bullshit from this administration!

stevo · 08-17-2005, 05:15 AM

host - a few articles from 4 years ago about whether there may or may not have been a threat against AF1 has no bearing on this discussion at all. What are you trying to prove? That the Bush administration planned 9/11, or at least was complacent in letting 9/11 happen so they could further their neo-con agenda? Is that it? Yeah, you really figured that one out.

zen tom, et al.- The part that the article and the left have in common are the "LIES LIES LIES" part. All I needed to justify the war in iraq was a speach bush gave after 911 where he said you are either with us or with the terrorists and if you are with the terrorists we will get you. Well, saddam was definately involved in terrorism, whether you want to believe it or not, and yes, the world is safer now that he doesn't rule iraq with impunity. I have no doubt saddam had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened and I have no doubt that if we didn't remove him he would have covertly done everything within his power to aid another terrorist attack in this country.

but then if I lived in bermuda I might have a different POV.

08-17-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

but then if I lived in bermuda I might have a different POV.

If you lived in Iraq, I'd imagine your point of view would be even more different!

stevo · 08-17-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

If you lived in Iraq, I'd imagine your point of view would be even more different!

Your're probably right about that.

Perhaps I should start a new thread later, but I've read some articles from contractors in iraq who claim the iraqis aren't fed up with the military, or insurgency even, as much as they are about the slow pace of the rebuilding process. And that is what is leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of the iraqis - the US bureaucratic process! Which I must admit is less efficient than the bureaucratic process in a dictatorship.

08-09-2005, 07:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Glava Betitled	Muslim political leaders use Israel and Jews as scapegoats for many things. If a big wave hits Indonesia, it has to be the Jews' fault even though Israel is on the other side of Asia. The only people who have a legitimate gripe with Israelis are Palestinians and Lebanese. The rest are jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon to divert blame from the real factors. Last edited by Glava; 08-09-2005 at 07:10 PM..

08-16-2005, 06:49 AM	#13 (permalink)
energus Tilted Location: Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands (find it on a map, it is there (somewhere))	Personally he has a point concerning the actions done by the US government. Not only from his point of view, but from many others, the US/GB actions were "curious" at some points down the line. I also feel, like him, that certain actions were based on lies. I can also imagine that he is upset that a neighbouring country was invaded and that there is a lot of violence in the region since. I would be to if it happened in my backyard. However where he completely misses the point is the bit where he says that NO Arab or Muslim had anything to do with it. It annihilates any point he tries to make as well as robbes him of any credibility. I hope that this is a hoax, otherwise the Muslim community needs to ask themselves who their leaders, both spiritual and academical, are. And what their agenda is __________________ Somnia, terrores magicos, miracula, sagas, Nocturnus lemures, portentaque. Horace

08-16-2005, 09:00 AM	#15 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I see little wild-eyed paranoia or hate fostering, except perhaps between board members. Plenty of that to go around. I've noticed little tolerance around here lately, even with the reduced traffic & moderator messages. Alternate points of view can be annoying, painful, often a source of learning. Is forcing them underground really helpful? Anyway... Leadership of any form will manipulate people to its benefit using facts, lies, and everything in between. The post from UStwo shows some prize-winners from over there. A change in the professor's accent could make his quotations strangely familiar as items of ridicule on these shores. I hope his intended listeners with minds are able to roll their eyes and keep their heads. I hope all listeners apply equal scrutiny to the messages and motivations of leadership, be it foreign or domestic. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

08-16-2005, 10:08 AM	#17 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I think you mean the quotation (a fantastic opportunity), not the post? My point was to treat both with equal cynicism. I don't find it easy to do to someone or something I love or agree with, but it helps reveal patterns in myself and whatever I'm studying. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

08-16-2005, 12:17 PM	#18 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	If you think the posted article is full of reasonable points and you agree mostly with it - that only goes toward proving that the left's thinking is in line with how the terrorists think. Remarkably similar to the latest al-qaeda tape where Al-Zawahri's message is strikingly similar to michael moore rhetoric. yawn. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by stevo; 08-16-2005 at 12:18 PM.. Reason: had to add rolleyes

08-09-2005, 07:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Much of what he has to say is true and I agree with. However, saying that no Arab or Muslim has anything to do with this, and saying Zionists are to blame I do not agree with (well and the Empire State Building thing which I can't tell if he's ignorant or lieing for some reason).

08-09-2005, 09:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Is this any big suprize? I thought it was all layed out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion /sarcasm. The fact that anyone can believe anything that those fools are saying is baffling, and shows just how important the current war on islamic extremism is to the safety (if not survival) of the west.

08-12-2005, 10:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I think the arab fella is right. There is a lot that points to jewish involvement.

08-16-2005, 07:53 AM	#14 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	I don't see the problem with the posted article, it appears to be articulate, and makes some reasonable points. Of course, I don't <i>agree</i> with all of the points made, but I, and (surprisingly to some) many Muslims, have the ability to think for myself. I think it's a little extreme to advocate killing anyone because of their opinions, and I think that rather than having the intended result, it would result in a dangerous backlash. Does Ustwo really think that by killing more civilians, the remaining Muslims will warm to the west, treat our motives without distrust and greet us finally with welcoming arms? Yes, blaming the Zionists (extremist Jews) for 9/11 does seem a little extreme for my tastes and if it were posted here, I'd suggest for it to be moved to the Paranoia board. Something I'm temped to do to this post here, which is practically doing the same thing, only this time, the wild-eyed paranoia and hate-fostering is Ustwo's and appears to be directed at the Muslim/Arab population as a whole.

08-17-2005, 05:15 AM	#22 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	host - a few articles from 4 years ago about whether there may or may not have been a threat against AF1 has no bearing on this discussion at all. What are you trying to prove? That the Bush administration planned 9/11, or at least was complacent in letting 9/11 happen so they could further their neo-con agenda? Is that it? Yeah, you really figured that one out. zen tom, et al.- The part that the article and the left have in common are the "LIES LIES LIES" part. All I needed to justify the war in iraq was a speach bush gave after 911 where he said you are either with us or with the terrorists and if you are with the terrorists we will get you. Well, saddam was definately involved in terrorism, whether you want to believe it or not, and yes, the world is safer now that he doesn't rule iraq with impunity. I have no doubt saddam had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened and I have no doubt that if we didn't remove him he would have covertly done everything within his power to aid another terrorist attack in this country. but then if I lived in bermuda I might have a different POV. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser