The Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[Bryan]

You.. have.. got.. to.. be... kidding... me ??

No.. I.. am.. not.. kidding.. you!!

And the CIA ADMITTING that they trained and provided weapons to Ousama during the Afghan-Russian war... was... what? A myth the CIA itself decided to confess to?

Show me where the CIA supposedly "admitted" that they trained and provided weapons to Bin Laden.

 

[Empire]

You.. have.. got.. to.. be... kidding... me ??

No.. I.. am.. not.. kidding.. you!!

And the CIA ADMITTING that they trained and provided weapons to Ousama during the Afghan-Russian war... was... what? A myth the CIA itself decided to confess to?

Show me where the CIA supposedly "admitted" that they trained and provided weapons to Bin Laden.

Other than the fact its been repeated on Controlled media 3 billion times.. Lets make this easier for you Bryan, Google "bin laden CIA"

 

[Cassin]

. Lets make this easier for you Bryan, Google "bin laden CIA"

well if its on the internet it must be true

 

[Hammy070]

The American Government during the Cold War viewed Russia as a monolithic threat. Contextually Islamic Militants posed almost no threat to America or the West when the Soviet Union was around. I do not even view it as hypocritical for the CIA to have directly supported the Mujahideen fighters in Aghanistan who in most peoples eyes certainly were fighting for a just cause - to repel the invading Soviet forces from the country. The Mujahideen fighters were local and foreign, and it was no secret whos' side the West was on, it was no secret who were the main players of the Mujahideen, the funders and political supporters.

The cause itself was multifaceted, it was nationalist as well as religious, and for many it was both. The majority of the Mujahideen disbanded back to their lives after the war, almost all foreign fighters returning home. A minority stayed behind that formed the basis of the Taliban and what we now refer to as 'Al Qaeda'.

I am not a huge fan of the CIA but whatever their intentions, I highly doubt they could have foreseen a developing threat that could materialize after the turn of the century. So their support for the Mujahideen was right then and they were definitly not the only ones who played a role.

The CIA does have a patchy record of contradiction and controversy.

And regarding 9/11, any conspiracy would be somewhat indirect - at the most awareness and letting it happen. I doubt very much they designed or planned any aspect of it. I also very highly doubt that it was 100% planned and executed without ANY knowledge from any high level government staff.

 

[Bryan]

Show me where the CIA supposedly "admitted" that they trained and provided weapons to Bin Laden.

Other than the fact its been repeated on Controlled media 3 billion times..

What do you mean by "controlled media"? Please be specific.

Lets make this easier for you Bryan, Google "bin laden CIA"

LOL!! I _did_ do that, and this is the very first hit I got:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen says the notion that Osama bin Laden once worked for the CIA is "simply a folk myth" and that there's no shred of evidence to support such theories.

BTW, there's also a nice piece on Wikipedia about terrorism in the Mideast which is very long and detailed. They ALSO state that there was no connection between Bin Laden and the CIA during the Afghan war in the 70's and 80's, and to believe otherwise is just a popular myth.

 

[Bryan]

The CIA does have a patchy record of contradiction and controversy.

Yeah. The Real World is rather full of contradiction and controversy, isn't it? Is it any wonder that the CIA would also have their uncertainties?

And regarding 9/11, any conspiracy would be somewhat indirect - at the most awareness and letting it happen. I doubt very much they designed or planned any aspect of it.

You get the "Understatement of the Month" award.

I also very highly doubt that it was 100% planned and executed without ANY knowledge from any high level government staff.

You're starting to go a little off the deep end. What kind of "knowledge" are you talking about?

 

[HughJass]

what google told me-

Bin Laden moves to Peshawar, a Pakistani town bordering Afghanistan, and helps run a front organization for the mujaheddin known as Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), which funnels money, arms, and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war. [New Yorker, 1/24/2000] “MAK [is] nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.†[MSNBC, 8/24/1998] Bin Laden becomes closely tied to the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and greatly strengthens Hekmatyar’s opium smuggling operations. [Le Monde (Paris), 9/14/2001] Hekmatyar, who also has ties with bin Laden, the CIA, and drug running, has been called “an ISI stooge and creation.†[Asia Times, 11/15/2001] MAK is also known as Al-Kifah and its branch in New York is called the Al-Kifah Refugee Center. This branch will play a pivotal role in the 1993 WTC bombing and also has CIA ties (see January 24, 1994).

Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah, is Osama bin Laden’s main charity front in the 1980s. The US government will later call it the “precursor organization to al-Qaeda†(see Late 1984). In 2005, investigative journalist Joe Trento will write, “CIA money was actually funneled to MAK, since it was recruiting young men to come join the jihad in Afghanistan.†Trento will explain this information comes from “a former CIA officer who actually filed these reports†but who cannot be identified because he still works in Afghanistan. MAK was founded in 1984 (see Late 1984) and was disbanded around 1996 (see Shortly After November 19, 1995). However, Trento will not specify exactly when CIA aid to MAK began or how long it lasted. [Trento, 2005, pp. 342] Bin Laden appears to have other at least indirect contact with the CIA around this time (see 1986).

1985-1986: CIA Becomes Unhappy with Afghan Fighters, Begins Supporting Islamist Volunteers from Other Countries


The Central Intelligence Agency, which has been supporting indigenous Afghan groups fighting occupying Soviet forces, becomes unhappy with them due to infighting, and searches for alternative anti-Soviet allies. MSNBC will later comment: “[T]he CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to ‘read’ than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So [Osama] bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the ‘reliable’ partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.†The CIA does not usually deal with the Afghan Arabs directly, but through an intermediary, Pakistan’s ISI, which helps the Arabs through the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) run by Abdullah Azzam. [MSNBC, 8/24/1998] The agreement is sealed during a secret visit to Pakistan, where CIA Director William Casey commits the agency to support the ISI program of recruiting radical Muslims for the Afghan war from other Muslim countries around the world. In addition to the Gulf States, these include Turkey, the Philippines, and China. The ISI started their recruitment of radicals from other countries in 1982 (see 1982). This CIA cooperation is part of a joint CIA-ISI plan begun the year before to expand the “Jihad†beyond Afghanistan (see 1984-March 1985). [Rashid, 2001, pp. 128-129] Thousands of militant Arabs are trained under this program (see 1986-1992).

1986: Bin Laden Works Indirectly with CIA
Osama bin Laden and Pakistan’s ISI, helped by the CIA, build the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This will be a major target of bombing and fighting when the US attacks the Taliban in 2001. [Guardian, 11/13/2000; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001; Hindu, 9/27/2001] In June 2001, one article mentions that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujaheddin from many Muslim countries.†This information has not often been reported since 9/11. [United Press International, 6/14/2001] It has been claimed that the CIA also funds Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) (also known as Al-Kifah), bin Laden’s main charity front in the 1980s (see 1984 and After). A CIA spokesperson will later state, “For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.†[Ananova, 10/31/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... l-khidamar

Early 1989: US Supplies Sniper Rifles to Bin Laden’s Mentor
The US government sends 25 high-powered sniper rifles to a group of fighters in Afghanistan that includes bin Laden. The armor-piercing weapons have range-finding equipment and night-vision scopes. In an early 2001 US court trial, Essam al Ridi, a pilot for bin Laden in the early 1990s (see Early 1993), will recall that he helped ship the weapons to Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden’s mentor. Azzam and bin Laden are close to each other at this time, and al Ridi will later testify he sometimes saw the two of them together. The president of the US company that made the rifles will later state that the rifles “were picked up by US government trucks, shipped to US government bases, and shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters.†The rifles are considered ideal for assassination. [Associated Press, 10/16/2001] The order, worth about $150,000 at the time, is a significant one for the manufacturer, accounting for 15-25% of its annual turnover on the guns. Their export would usually require an end user certificate from the US Department of State, but the circumstances of the sale are unknown, as al Ridi is not asked how he manages to purchase such a large number of rifles. [New York Times, 10/7/2001; Sunday Tribune, 10/15/2001] The CIA will deny being involved in the transfer. [Central Intelligence Agency, 3/7/2002] However, al Ridi will say that the CIA was aware that bin Laden ended up with some of the guns. [New York Times, 6/3/2002]

So it seems Bin Laden's close associates might havehad direct contact with the CIA.

The afghan muj were trained by the Pakistanis who had American and British advisers/instructors, where did the Arab fighters including Bin Laden get their training from?

I can't find anything on it.

 

[Hammy070]

Yeah. The Real World is rather full of contradiction and controversy, isn't it? Is it any wonder that the CIA would also have their uncertainties?

I said "contradiction and controversy", not "uncertainties".

For example, publically proclaiming a strategic reason for operational activity to "highlight dictatorial regimes using torture" or some other mantra. But in that press room one looks outside the window and wonders whether that plane in the sky is a rendition flight to a torture prison somewhere... :whistle:

You get the "Understatement of the Month" award.

I said I doubted the American Government directly engineered a primary aspect of 9/11. How is that an understatement? It is not blatantly obvious that they had absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

You're starting to go a little off the deep end. What kind of "knowledge" are you talking about?

Just little instances that seem too fishy to ignore, for example Larry Silverstein insuring the building days before it got attacked...the 5 Israelis watching the attack on top of a building and then seem to be celebrating it afterwards, they had fake passports and were posing as if I recall correctly a repair company or something...no scrambling of fighter jets even after 4 planes gone off course, quite contrary to standard procedure...just little things all happening at the same time, any single one of them is probably not enough to make any solid case, but combined raises it to a significant issue, in my opinion.

As I said before, I am not sure about anything conclusively - and neither should you be. I equally dislike those who are adament about a 100% conspiracy unwilling to consider anything else, and also those unwilling to question at all the standard story in the media.

I am open and receptive to ideas - but as far as probability goes - the maximum involvement an American conspiracy could be - is an intended turn of a blind eye to a potential PNAC trigger...

PS: One thing is certain about humanity - people talk. A full conspiracy on 9/11 is highly unlikely, I would imagine there would be a preponderance of individuals involved, and that if even one of them whistleblew, it would be catastrophic to all. Now can I get an "understatement of the month award" Bryan?

 

[Bryan]

Yeah. The Real World is rather full of contradiction and controversy, isn't it? Is it any wonder that the CIA would also have their uncertainties?

I said "contradiction and controversy", not "uncertainties".

Oh, is there a major difference in that wording?

You get the "Understatement of the Month" award.

I said I doubted the American Government directly engineered a primary aspect of 9/11. How is that an understatement? It is not blatantly obvious that they had absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

The idea that our government had anything to do with 911 is absurd. It's preposterous. I don't know how it is in Scotland, but in this country, only nutcases believe that.

 

[OverMachoGrande]

The idea that our government had anything to do with 911 is absurd. It's preposterous. I don't know how it is in Scotland, but in this country, only nutcases believe that.

The man speaks the thruth!

 

[ali777]

I have one big conspiracy theory to annoy Hammy, but I can't write it here :whistle:. Pretty much all the countries in the Middle East are Islamic Republics or Kingdoms, and they don't separate religion from the state. So, I can't write it here without touching religion.

Actually, it's not so much of a conspiracy theory. It's more of a historical analysis of the Middle East and it's based on an obscure book. Apparently, the ideas published in the book were outright rejected by the academic world. Just like Hammy says, it's the little things. Those little things could be put together to present any theory.... The author, collected historical evidence and wrote his interpretation of the history.

I do not believe the American government, or any of the "official" institutions had anything to do with 911. There might have been some underground group that was aware of it, but linking them to the US intelligence services is a bit insulting. It implies that they killed their own, and I sympathise with the likes of Bryan. If I was an American, I would find those allegations as offensive...

The problem is that anyone can put a few paragraphs on a blog or a website. We get most of our information from the web, and the web is full of intentional lies.

 

[The Gardener]

I do not believe the American government, or any of the "official" institutions had anything to do with 911.

That's pretty much my belief as well. Frankly, the "official" institutions have a history of always botching things (Vietnam, Iran hostage rescue, Katrina, Iraq, the Global Economy, et al) and are too incompetent to have pulled off such an act, much less keep it a secret. The President can't even get a blow job in the oval office without the whole world knowing about it.

As for "unofficial" institutions, it's a VERY well documented fact that there was a relationship between Bin Laden and elements of the Pakistani ISI intelligence agency. The Pakistani ISI had a close relationship with the Taliban, actively supporting the Taleban as they maintained a sort of stability on Pakistan's tribal borderlands. AND, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, the ISI, and the CIA all had significant relationships. It is in the legacy of these relationships that I harbor some questions.

 

[HughJass]

It's more of a historical analysis of the Middle East and it's based on an obscure book.

whats the title ali?

 

[Empire]

I do not believe the American government, or any of the "official" institutions had anything to do with 911.

That's pretty much my belief as well. Frankly, the "official" institutions have a history of always botching things (Vietnam, Iran hostage rescue, Katrina, Iraq, the Global Economy, et al) and are too incompetent to have pulled off such an act, much less keep it a secret. The President can't even get a blow job in the oval office without the whole world knowing about it.

So...

The the people who run the most militarily advanced nation in the world... is too incompetent to have done 9/11

But Arabs with boxcutters.. well thats a different story.

Oh, and fire melts steal.

Oh, and WTC7 fell down by itself.

Oh, and the high number of witnesses who said bombs were going off every building, mostly firefighters.. were wrong.

Oh, and Larry Silverstein specifically adding "Acts of Terror" on his insurance clause 6 weeks prior to 9/11 was a coincidence.

Oh, and the fact 9/11 was THE PERFECT reason to invade Afghan and Iraq was pure luck.

Oh, and the fact Rockefeller made a statement 1 year prior that for the U.S to achieve it's objectives it would need a new disaster, "a new pearl harbour".. was pure unrelated coincidence.

Oh, and the fact Osama Bin Laden NEVER admitted to 9/11 was overseen by the government, even though he always claim he did.

Oh, and the fact THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON DID NOT FIT THE MEASUREMENT OF AN AEROPLANE.. WHERE THE WINGS WENT COMPLETELY MISSING.. AND THE WINDOWS ON THE SIDES OF THE BIG HOLE WERE STILL INTACT.. YES THE WINGS MAGICALLY VANISHED AND THEY NEVER HIT THE PENTAGON. TAKE A LOOK AT A GOD DAMN PICTURE AND THEN TELL ME AKMAL AND KAMAL DID IT.

Those nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories.. with their facts.. and their ongoing number of discrepencies and freakish coincidences.. we should lock them all in cages.. HOW UNAMERICAN.

 

[Smooth]

Oh, and the fact 9/11 was THE PERFECT reason to invade Afghan and Iraq was pure luck.

Then why the f*** would America invade Afghan and Iraq for then?!?

 

[The Gardener]

My goodness. Most of the points you bring up have either been debunked, or are fabricated conclusions drawn by "quote mining" and picking and choosing from sources in order to piece together a "story", or are pure speculation.

Nobody doubts that anyone, pre-9/11, could have had the ability to physically take over a plane using boxcutters. My "incompetence" point refers more to the operational talent and logistics involved, and the ability to perform an operation without any informational leaks. The advantage the arabs had is that they didn't need an alibi! Whereas, for a domestic government to do this would require firewalling operatives from the rest of the US government, in order to prevent leaks. The terrorists required no such firewall.

And, just as a point of common sense here... lets assume that you are correct in your assertion that the US Govt wanted 9/11 to occur. How would they go about this? Would they, literally, have federal employees or federal operatives hijack jets? Or, would they simply coordinate with known terrorists and have them do the operation on a contract basis, so to speak? That way, the element of plausible deniability is preserved. Regardless of the broader intent, I find it a logical absurdity to think that federal agents were on those planes.

The "fire melts steel" claim has been solidly debunked by the Popular Science piece, as well as MANY other sources. You don't need to "melt" steel in order to render a building structurally deficient. Of course you'll probably reply that Popular Science is written or published or financed by Zionists or Bilderbergers or whatever. To this, I would reply that those stretching their beliefs to this level of paranoia are making a bigger statement about themselves than they are about the events surrounding 9/11. Thats a nice Freemason avatar you have there.

I'm glad you brought up the "witnesses reporting bombs" issue, because this issue really goes to the heart of the conspiracists intellectual dishonesty in piecing together their fabricated mythology. The conspiracists got their bluff called on this when others actually checked the conspiracists' references and found them to be filled with quotes deliberately taken out of context, edited and pieced together in order to skew the reality. The citations below are an analysis:

http://forthardknox.com/2008/05/30/trut ... witnesses/
http://forthardknox.com/2008/06/03/yet- ... ote-abuse/

I don't have any personal knowledge of the Silverstein insurance claim.

I am VERY aware of the Rockefeller statement... but, what's so controversial about that? YES, there are a couple think tanks with prominent members who desire global-level governmental institutions. They don't make any secret about it. I HAVE done quite a bit of personal research into the CFR and the Bilderbergers... and frankly, their aims are all very clear and are based on an honest belief that in a world of dwindling resources, increasing interconnectivity and cross-border commerce, climate change, and the increasing fragility of our social and economic system, they think humanity's survival depends on increasing intergovernmental cooperation. There is no evidence that the relationship between this and 9/11 is any more than coincidence. I mean, if you are going to take statements made by global players and try to attribute them as a causative factor for 9/11, why just choose Rockefeller's? There are PLENTY of international players who have made public statements indicating a willingness and motivation to launch an attack on the US.

As for the Pentagon "hole", its my understanding that the plane hit the base of the building and that the wings did not penetrate into the structure, just the front half of the fuselage.

Those nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories.. with their facts.. and their ongoing number of discrepencies and freakish coincidences.. we should lock them all in cages.. HOW UNAMERICAN.

Nice straw man you throw out there. Your debate class teacher would dock you a grade or two for that statement.

 

[ali777]

Those nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories.. with their facts.. and their ongoing number of discrepencies and freakish coincidences.. we should lock them all in cages.. HOW UNAMERICAN.

Nice straw man you throw out there. Your debate class teacher would dock you a grade or two for that statement.

That's assuming they have a debate class!!!

I'm gonna sound like my arch nemesis, tembo, now...

I was talking about Darwinism and evolution with a Middle Eastern guy last week. It's amazing how misinformed they are. I mean, most of the information out there seems to be about propaganda and people just believe it without questioning the source or thinking independently.

All those conspiracy theories about 9/11 are from the same sources, they are aimed at creating this sort of tension.

I agree that Iraq invasion was based on made-up evidence. TBH, most people could see it and they did oppose the invasion. We could argue all day long that Saddam was an evil man, etc... Bush wasn't that different.

 

[Empire]

My goodness. Most of the points you bring up have either been debunked, or are fabricated conclusions drawn by "quote mining" and picking and choosing from sources in order to piece together a "story", or are pure speculation.

Nobody doubts that anyone, pre-9/11, could have had the ability to physically take over a plane using boxcutters. My "incompetence" point refers more to the operational talent and logistics involved, and the ability to perform an operation without any informational leaks. The advantage the arabs had is that they didn't need an alibi! Whereas, for a domestic government to do this would require firewalling operatives from the rest of the US government, in order to prevent leaks. The terrorists required no such firewall.

And, just as a point of common sense here... lets assume that you are correct in your assertion that the US Govt wanted 9/11 to occur. How would they go about this? Would they, literally, have federal employees or federal operatives hijack jets? Or, would they simply coordinate with known terrorists and have them do the operation on a contract basis, so to speak? That way, the element of plausible deniability is preserved. Regardless of the broader intent, I find it a logical absurdity to think that federal agents were on those planes.

The "fire melts steel" claim has been solidly debunked by the Popular Science piece, as well as MANY other sources. You don't need to "melt" steel in order to render a building structurally deficient. Of course you'll probably reply that Popular Science is written or published or financed by Zionists or Bilderbergers or whatever. To this, I would reply that those stretching their beliefs to this level of paranoia are making a bigger statement about themselves than they are about the events surrounding 9/11. Thats a nice Freemason avatar you have there.

I'm glad you brought up the "witnesses reporting bombs" issue, because this issue really goes to the heart of the conspiracists intellectual dishonesty in piecing together their fabricated mythology. The conspiracists got their bluff called on this when others actually checked the conspiracists' references and found them to be filled with quotes deliberately taken out of context, edited and pieced together in order to skew the reality. The citations below are an analysis:

http://forthardknox.com/2008/05/30/trut ... witnesses/
http://forthardknox.com/2008/06/03/yet- ... ote-abuse/

I don't have any personal knowledge of the Silverstein insurance claim.

I am VERY aware of the Rockefeller statement... but, what's so controversial about that? YES, there are a couple think tanks with prominent members who desire global-level governmental institutions. They don't make any secret about it. I HAVE done quite a bit of personal research into the CFR and the Bilderbergers... and frankly, their aims are all very clear and are based on an honest belief that in a world of dwindling resources, increasing interconnectivity and cross-border commerce, climate change, and the increasing fragility of our social and economic system, they think humanity's survival depends on increasing intergovernmental cooperation. There is no evidence that the relationship between this and 9/11 is any more than coincidence. I mean, if you are going to take statements made by global players and try to attribute them as a causative factor for 9/11, why just choose Rockefeller's? There are PLENTY of international players who have made public statements indicating a willingness and motivation to launch an attack on the US.

As for the Pentagon "hole", its my understanding that the plane hit the base of the building and that the wings did not penetrate into the structure, just the front half of the fuselage.

Those nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories.. with their facts.. and their ongoing number of discrepencies and freakish coincidences.. we should lock them all in cages.. HOW UNAMERICAN.

Nice straw man you throw out there. Your debate class teacher would dock you a grade or two for that statement.

I could tear your rebuttle into pieces.

But I'll stick with the Pentagon episode.

Wheres the wings?

Look at the grass.. PERFECT. No skid marks. No pictures of wreckage other than body size pieces that were obviously planted.

Wheres the engines?

What hit the Pentagon wasn't an aeroplane. You don't need a rocket science to tell you that. Take a damn hard look at those photos. It was a bloody missile.

How the hell can you not see it? Or are you merely refusing to?

 

[Empire]

HERE.. TAKE A LOOK FOR YOURSELF

NO WING DAMAGE

NO REMAINING WING

NO REMAINING ENGINES

GRASS IS PERFECTLY IN TACT.

WINDOWS ARE PERFECTLY IN TACT.

 

[Empire]

NO WING DAMAGE FOUND.

NO GRASS/GROUND DAMAGE.

NO WINGS FOUND.