I'm no conspiracy theorist, but one thing about 9/11

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 02:18 AM

But one thing I find astonishingly peculiar about 9/11 was the way Bin Laden was blamed for it.

Firstly, Bin Laden denied having anything to do with it at first. This is really strange because it's totally against the MO of al qeada, which usually jumps to take credit for what they do, let alone the greatest attack on the infidels in history.

Secondly, after Bin Laden denying it, we just happened to find a VHS tape inside a mud hut in somewhere in Crapzakistan of him laughing about planning it. How convenient!

And Thirdly, why was Bin Laden openly residing in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened? If he did do it, surely he'd know that we'd blame it on him and try to get him afterwards. It makes sense, therefore, that he'd hide somewhere immediately after 9/11 or even before it happened.

You might say that Bin Laden initially denied the attack to protect his hosts, the Taliban. But if he knew we'd be coming after him and possibly endanger the Taliban, why would he have put himself in that predicament in the first place? Why not just hide, release a tape taking credit, and continue to elude the US like he's been doing ever since?

Can someone explain this?

Thorgrim · 07-15-2007, 02:36 AM

He didn't really think it would work, and he especially didn't think it'd kill 3,000 and bring down both towers...they were lofty goals much like Hamas has a plan to drive the Jews into the sea...if they actually did that, I think they'd shocked

There was nowhere for him to safely go besides Afghanistan...Pakistan had it's forces near the border region he currently resides to stop any Taliban influence

He honestly didn't know what the US would do...the last two campaigns were Kosovo where air strikes were denounced as "no war for monica" and vietnam where it was part of a huge cold war...a ground invasion was not out of the question

If there was more of a mystery to this, many many Taliban leaders still at large would have said SOMETHING to a media outlet in europe or the ME that doesn't censor jackshit about how bin Laden didn't do it and they lost all their power because of it...no such thing has happened

People love to talk and share information in the middle east, if Al Jazeera can't find anything good, there's nothing

Donkey® · 07-15-2007, 02:53 AM

No...I think it was definitely his organization. Not sure how much he actually had to do with planning.

kinggovernor · 07-15-2007, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No...I think it was definitely his organization. Not sure how much he actually had to do with planning.

it has been often described that he is the rich kid with the deep pockets that lets others spend his money and plan

Dylith · 07-15-2007, 05:47 AM

I never really thought about if he actually did it, I think that he probably did though (he was certainly planning something), what concerns me more is that we were warned so many times by so many countries about these attacks and even simulated them ourselves all right before they actually happened. How could we have blundered so badly in the intel field on this? Germany, Russia, Israel, even the Taliban warned us of Bin Ladens plots to attack the US one to two months before it happened. We had multiple people deciding to cancel traveling plans the day of citing security concerns.

We even had surges of financial transactions right before it happened.

How did we miss it? How did NORAD not do something? I find it hard to believe the ignorance card that everyone played after the attack happened.

I am not prone to believing in conspiracies, I believe the Holocaust happened and I believe that we landed on the moon, but I also believe that there was more to 9/11 then we the public have been told. What it was I can only speculate.

People may call me a nutter for saying something such as this, but Operation Northwoods is evidence enough that such planning can and sometimes does take place. Now whether or not our government allowed it to take place or whether or not they had a hand in it is unclear to me, but I certainly remain open to the idea.

SoFlaJDM · 07-15-2007, 09:13 AM

so wait, i thought saddam was behind that?

Dumpy Dooby · 07-15-2007, 09:32 AM

Bin Laden needed protection from Mullah Omar. He had already gotten shit from Omar for bombing our embassies. Omar made Laden publicly state that the Taliban had nothing to do with the embassy bombings. Laden ordered the assassination of Massoud to ease the tension between him and Omar. After he ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, the first thing we did was basically turn to Omar and say, "Okay Omar. You aren't keeping your guys under control. You're going to have to send them all over here, or we'll go attack you." Omar decided to protect Laden rather than handing him over, but this arrangement was made after Laden had already planned the attack.

Donkey® · 07-15-2007, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

so wait, i thought saddam was behind that?

Well done.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Bin Laden needed protection from Mullah Omar. He had already gotten shit from Omar for bombing our embassies. Omar made Laden publicly state that the Taliban had nothing to do with the embassy bombings. Laden ordered the assassination of Massoud to ease the tension between him and Omar. After he ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, the first thing we did was basically turn to Omar and say, "Okay Omar. You aren't keeping your guys under control. You're going to have to send them all over here, or we'll go attack you." Omar decided to protect Laden rather than handing him over, but this arrangement was made after Laden had already planned the attack.

So Bin Laden betrayed the only government in the entire world which was willing to accept him and which he needed for protection?

Dumpy Dooby · 07-15-2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So Bin Laden betrayed the only government in the entire world which was willing to accept him and which he needed for protection?

Mullah Omar is the leader of the Taliban, and the Taliban is not a government. The Taliban is a terrorist organization. That might sound condescending, but I'm not sure if you knew that, so I figured I would point that out.

Yes, bin Laden acted on his own accord and his actions were not condoned by the Taliban. Mullah Omar protected him after the fact because of Omar's ethical world view, which was that of the Pashtuns. Pashtuns submit that when they receive a guest, they are bound by honor to protect them with their life. Omar protects Laden because he feels its his duty to do so. The two are also connected in the sense that they're both very militant about spreading Wahhabism. Plus Laden has lots of money, which can be useful to Omar, and Laden also has the means to build roads and construct military buildings for Omar. So Mullah Omar is bound by honor to protect Laden, and he also has a vested interest in maintaining an alliance with Laden.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Mullah Omar is the leader of the Taliban, and the Taliban is not a government. The Taliban is a terrorist organization. That might sound condescending, but I'm not sure if you knew that, so I figured I would point that out.

The Taliban used to form the government of Afghanistan (except for the part controlled by the Northern Alliance) before we toppled them after 9/11. So when I talk about Bin Laden's actions prior to 9/11, betraying the Taliban, betraying Mullah Omar, and betraying the government of Afghanistan are all synonymous.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, bin Laden acted on his own accord and his actions were not condoned by the Taliban. Mullah Omar protected him after the fact because of Omar's ethical world view, which was that of the Pashtuns. Pashtuns submit that when they receive a guest, they are bound by honor to protect them with their life. Omar protects Laden because he feels its his duty to do so. The two are also connected in the sense that they're both very militant about spreading Wahhabism. Plus Laden has lots of money, which can be useful to Omar, and Laden also has the means to build roads and construct military buildings for Omar. So Mullah Omar is bound by honor to protect Laden, and he also has a vested interest in maintaining an alliance with Laden.

I understand that. But what I'm saying is...if you are about to pull off a huge crime, and you know the police will come looking for you, you don't openly hang out at your best friend's house afterwards, knowing that when the police come, you're going to get your friend in a fire fight with the police. You hide somewhere where the police won't find you and where you won't screw over your friend who will try to protect you.

If Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were such good buddies, he could have said, "Look, Mullah, I'm about to pull off a huge terrorist attack on the USA. I don't know what their reaction will be, but since we're friends, and you've been getting pissed at me for blowing up embassies lately, I'm gonna leave and lay low somewhere else for a while. That way you won't catch any heat."

Basically, after 9/11, Bin Laden acted like a guy who wasn't trying to hide and was careless about implicating his only friend in the world.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If there was more of a mystery to this, many many Taliban leaders still at large would have said SOMETHING to a media outlet in europe or the ME that doesn't censor jackshit about how bin Laden didn't do it and they lost all their power because of it...no such thing has happened

The majority of people in several Middle Eastern countries don't believe Bin Laden was behind 9/11. And since they all watch ME media, including Al Jazeera, maybe they did report to that effect. I mean, it's not like we'd get a FOX NEWS ALERT if some former Taliban guy said Bin Laden didn't do 9/11. Muslims have been saying for a long time it wasn't Bin Laden, and the Western media dismisses it as mass delusion.

BBC NEWS | In Depth | Survey highlights Islam-West rift

Muslims and Al-Qaeda

In one of the survey's most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan said they did not believe Arabs carried out the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

With numbers like that, obviously we're not getting the same reporting they are.

Dumpy Dooby · 07-15-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The Taliban used to form the government of Afghanistan (except for the part controlled by the Northern Alliance) before we toppled them after 9/11. So when I talk about Bin Laden's actions prior to 9/11, betraying the Taliban, betraying Mullah Omar, and betraying the government of Afghanistan are all synonymous.

Afghanistan had no official government as far as we were concerned. Internationally, the Taliban were never recognized as the governing body of Afghanistan, though I suppose one could make the argument that the Taliban were the governing body because they were the ones that brought law and order. In any event, the fall of the Taliban certainly didn't mark the fall of Afghanistan.

I understand that. But what I'm saying is...if you are about to pull off a huge crime, and you know the police will come looking for you, you don't openly hang out at your best friend's house afterwards, knowing that when the police come, you're going to get your friend in a fire fight with the police. You hide somewhere where the police won't find you and where you won't screw over your friend who will try to protect you.

If Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were such good buddies, he could have said, "Look, Mullah, I'm about to pull off a huge terrorist attack on the USA. I don't know what their reaction will be, but since we're friends, and you've been getting pissed at me for blowing up embassies lately, I'm gonna leave and lay low somewhere else for a while. That way you won't catch any heat."

Basically, after 9/11, Bin Laden acted like a guy who wasn't trying to hide and was careless about implicating his only friend in the world.

The United States asked Omar to send Laden over. Omar refused to do so until he talked to bin Laden himself. Once he did talk to Laden, he announced that Laden was under his protection. They probably struck a deal ... just like what happened after Laden was blowin' up embassies, and just like what happened when Laden first met Omar.

According to everything I've read about Laden, he's supposed to be very charismatic despite his zeal. To me, this suggests that he's probably very convincing, especially when talking to a big dumb soldier that grew up dirt poor and received very little education.

Thorgrim · 07-15-2007, 03:52 PM

A more balanced poll question would be "do you think christians carried out the 9/11 attacks?"

That'd give a real idea of what those countries really thought

I mean, I'd bet when they answered "oh it wasn't arabs" they meant "oh it was those dirty persians" or "oh it was asian muslims" or their favorite "it was the israelis"

Dylith · 07-15-2007, 03:55 PM

The Taliban did find out that Bin Laden was planning something and their response was to warn us about it.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The United States asked Omar to send Laden over. Omar refused to do so until he talked to bin Laden himself. Once he did talk to Laden, he announced that Laden was under his protection. They probably struck a deal ... just like what happened after Laden was blowin' up embassies, and just like what happened when Laden first met Omar.

According to everything I've read about Laden, he's supposed to be very charismatic despite his zeal. To me, this suggests that he's probably very convincing, especially when talking to a big dumb soldier that grew up dirt poor and received very little education.

Taliban-run Afghanistan was basically Bin Laden's model for how he wanted to world to look. Islamists finally managed to take over a country and run it exactly along the lines of fundamentalist islam that he liked. Why would he then jeopardize this model nation, and his good friend, Mullah, by directing superpower/international pressure onto the fragile Taliban government?

You might argue that it was Bin Laden's intention all along to get the USA into a war in Afghanistan, to try to repeat the USSR/Afghan war all over again. But if that were the case, why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for 9/11? If he was trying to bait the USA into a fight in Afghanistan, he would've said, "Yeah! I did it! And I'm here in Afghanistan! Come and get me!"

But either way, it doesn't make sense-- if he was trying to bait the USA, he wouldn't have denied responsibility for 9/11, and if he was really just trying to lay low after the attack, he wouldn't have openly hid in his best friend's back yard, revealing his location and simultaneously endangering his best friend and his model muslim nation.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-15-2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I mean, I'd bet when they answered "oh it wasn't arabs" they meant "oh it was those dirty persians" or "oh it was asian muslims" or their favorite "it was the israelis"

In any event, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this conversation. You said if Bin Laden really didn't do it, it'd be coming out in the ME media. And for those who watch ME media, they all believe groups did it which exclude Bin Laden. So it's quite possible, or even likely, that it is coming out in the ME media...either that or muslims are suffering from mass delusion.

Thorgrim · 07-15-2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

In any event, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this conversation. You said if Bin Laden really didn't do it, it'd be coming out in the ME media. And for those who watch ME media, they all believe groups did it which exclude Bin Laden. So it's quite possible, or even likely, that it is coming out in the ME media...either that or muslims are suffering from mass delusion.

i don't see why not, ask christians about christian terrorist events and they'll go "oh no that's not us...those aren't real christians"

ask arabs about what some arab did, and they'll say the same

every religion and ethnicity suffers from mass delusions about their own group

RMNIXON · 07-15-2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

But one thing I find astonishingly peculiar about 9/11 was the way Bin Laden was blamed for it.

Firstly, Bin Laden denied having anything to do with it at first. This is really strange because it's totally against the MO of al qeada, which usually jumps to take credit for what they do, let alone the greatest attack on the infidels in history.

Secondly, after Bin Laden denying it, we just happened to find a VHS tape inside a mud hut in somewhere in Crapzakistan of him laughing about planning it. How convenient!

And Thirdly, why was Bin Laden openly residing in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened? If he did do it, surely he'd know that we'd blame it on him and try to get him afterwards. It makes sense, therefore, that he'd hide somewhere immediately after 9/11 or even before it happened.

You might say that Bin Laden initially denied the attack to protect his hosts, the Taliban. But if he knew we'd be coming after him and possibly endanger the Taliban, why would he have put himself in that predicament in the first place? Why not just hide, release a tape taking credit, and continue to elude the US like he's been doing ever since?

Can someone explain this?

I don't recall that Bin Laden and his organization denied it. How long did that go on?

But what always bothers me with the Monday Morning Quarterback conspiracy theorists is that they look at a pile of data after the fact and whatever does not fit in a logical pattern of planning or reaction is proof of conspiracy. I know you are just asking a question, but others connect these dots as proof. The truth is people in power often do not behave in a logical way.