Whatever is necessary?!?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 9, 2003, 6:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:who said that the first bomb in 93 was designed to knock the tower down? I'm not an architect but even I know blowing up a couple pillars in a parking garage isn't going to bring down a sky scraper.

The guy they convicted of being part of it freely admitted it. The plan was to knock that tower down, and into the other one. Of course, there planned sucked, and fell way, way short of acclompishing that goal, but the intention was there.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 9, 2003, 8:40 pm

was bin laden behind it?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 10, 2003, 9:02 am

I don't think he was. I am not 100% sure, but I think if he were behind it, Clinton would not have turned down the Saudi offer to hand him over.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 10, 2003, 10:04 am

I have found no information about bin Laden being behind it.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 10, 2003, 11:47 am

Wulfran wrote:On this whole tangent, my question to the Americans is that if you are so dissatisfied with the 2 parties you have, why not form/support others? I remember Ross Perot's run for the presidency, thus I assume this is more a self-imposed limitation, rather than a constitutionally imposed one. I mean I looked at your last presidential election and thanked my stars I didn't have to choose between Gore and W too...

In some states it is almost impossible to run a viable campaign as a third party. We do have a Green Party (Very Liberal) and a libertarian party (Moderate/conservative) but a lot of states have laws that make it nearly impossible to get on the ballots. If we do get on the ballots then we have to compete against huge money from the established political parties. Wisconsin's last governor race had a very strong libertarian candidate but he only had a campaign chest of $350k. He was unable to afford any TV time. The Dems and Republicans each had at least $7million to spend on their campaigns. To make matters worse, the tv stations refused to let third party candidates debate with the republicrats because the republicrats refused to show if they did. He still ended up getting 11% of the vote (most in 50+ years for a 3rd party) and a seat on the state elections monitoring board. Of course now the Republicrats are trying to turn the board into a non-partisan monitoring board so they can exclude a libertarian from sitting on it.

I can't remember which state specifically (maybe south carolina), 3rd party candidates have to get 10,000 signatures to get on a ballot while the Republicrats only need a fraction of that amount.

I bet I could find a dozen more examples like this.

To sum it up, it is nearly impossible for a third party to form a viable alternative to the two big parties in the USA. I envy other countries abilities to have multiple parties.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 10, 2003, 11:52 am

Deward wrote: To make matters worse, the tv stations refused to let third party candidates debate with the republicrats because the republicrats refused to show if they did.

Kyoukan posted that satellite feed clip a while back that showed a guy up for office getting the shaft on debate invites. I cannot remember if the guy was green party or an unsupported Dem though.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 11:58 am

kyoukan wrote:was bin laden behind it?

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

I also found just this quote:

"Yousef lived for a time in a Pakistani boarding house run by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden. Although in an interview in 1997 bin Laden said he did not know Yousef personally."

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individua ... ousef.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 10, 2003, 3:51 pm

so if bin laden wasn't behind it why are you using it as a parallel when I say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if gore was in office and not bush? if some random and totally unrelated whack job tries to blow up the world trade center when clinton was in office that has no bearing on my supposition about osama bin laden's motives.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 10, 2003, 3:54 pm

kyoukan wrote:so if bin laden wasn't behind it why are you using it as a parallel when I say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if gore was in office and not bush? if some random and totally unrelated whack job tries to blow up the world trade center when clinton was in office that has no bearing on my supposition about osama bin laden's motives.

And your position is pure speculation.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 3:54 pm

kyoukan wrote:so if bin laden wasn't behind it why are you using it as a parallel when I say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if gore was in office and not bush? if some random and totally unrelated whack job tries to blow up the world trade center when clinton was in office that has no bearing on my supposition about osama bin laden's motives.

Issued statement under banner of "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens--civilian or military--and their allies everywhere.

Who was in Office in '98? Clinton. His motives were in place before Bush was elected.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 10, 2003, 3:55 pm

who said that?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 10, 2003, 4:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:who said that?

There is a report claiming that the CIA had evidence that 9/11 would happen almost a year before hand. They got a lot of shit for that, but claimed that they get terrorists threats everyday and treated it as nothing (something to that effect). Now either Al Queda are fucking geniouses at American politics in knowing who would win the next election, or they were going to do this anyhow.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 5:12 pm

kyoukan wrote:who said that?

Osama Bin Laden.

Clinton launched a tomahawk strike on a training camp he was reported to be at as well!

When U.S. embassies in Africa were car-bombed last August, Clinton sent the Tomahawks after the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. The U.S. Navy launched about 80 of them--at $750,000 each, that's some $60 million. What bang did Clinton get for his bucks? The missiles tore up some sheds and shacks at a training area in Afghanistan and demolished a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which might or might not have been producing nerve-gas ingredients. The Tomahawks did not severely disrupt the bin Laden operation. But they gave the Administration the appearance of taking action in its war against terrorism. Best of all, no Americans had to fly through Pakistani airspace or risk possible death or capture in Afghanistan.

taken from:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/199 ... osovo.html

A L - Q A E D A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
Also known as: "The Base," the Islamic Army, the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places.
Al-Qaeda was founded by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s –early 1990s, following the victory of Muslim resistance fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Its aim is to channel the energy of its Sunni Islamic extremist recruits into the international arena. Its primary goal is to overthrow Middle Eastern regimes it considers non-Islamic, and remove westerners from Muslim countries. In February 1998, Al-Qaeda issued a statement under the banner "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens, civilian or military, and their allies everywhere.

Al-Qaeda was held responsible for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Cairo, Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 301 people and injured more than 5,000. The organization also claims to have engaged U.S. troops in Somalia, and to have been involved in plots to kill the Pope and U.S. President Clinton. Based in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda operates as a loose network of small cells operating independently and gets its funding from bin Laden's own personal fortune, as well as from legitimate businesses, and Muslim donors and charities

taken from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strik ... tions.html

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 10, 2003, 5:19 pm

Oh christ Skogen do not use facts to refute Kyoukan, she will just avoid the thread or call CNN a right wing organization rewriting history.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 10, 2003, 5:23 pm

Still don't see anything claiming the 1993 bombing was al qaeda though..

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 5:42 pm

Kelshara wrote:Still don't see anything claiming the 1993 bombing was al qaeda though..

Does it matter? Ramzi Yousef did visit & train at Al Qaed camps. His ideals & goals ultimatley are the same, whether Osama himself had prior knowledge of the forst attack or not.

btw this mans uncle is Khalid Mohammed

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime ... kh-khalid/

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 10, 2003, 5:53 pm

Skogen wrote:Does it matter? Ramzi Yousef did visit & train at Al Qaed camps. His ideals & goals ultimatley are the same, whether Osama himself had prior knowledge of the forst attack or not.

of course it matters. it's the very crux of my argument. I say 9/11 would not have happened if the president and his cabinet weren't known enemies of islam with long reputations of fucking with arab countries (well the president's daddy anyway). you counter with the fact that the WTC was attacked when clinton was in office, but by an almost entirely unrelated person. I don't think that there is a secret "arab terrorist" club where they all meet up together and have a secret handshake and share their plots to blow up america with each other.

you can disagree with me all you want but it won't change my opinion on the matter.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 6:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Skogen wrote:Does it matter? Ramzi Yousef did visit & train at Al Qaed camps. His ideals & goals ultimatley are the same, whether Osama himself had prior knowledge of the forst attack or not.
of course it matters. it's the very crux of my argument. I say 9/11 would not have happened if the president and his cabinet weren't known enemies of islam with long reputations of fucking with arab countries (well the president's daddy anyway). you counter with the fact that the WTC was attacked when clinton was in office, but by an almost entirely unrelated person. I don't think that there is a secret "arab terrorist" club where they all meet up together and have a secret handshake and share their plots to blow up america with each other.

you can disagree with me all you want but it won't change my opinion on the matter.

How much information did I just present? You STILL think Al Qaida wouldnt not have attacked if Bush wasn't present? Sorry, I gave you straight-up, undeniable information...if you dont want to believe it, that's fine.

"it's the very crux of my argument. I say 9/11 would not have happened if the president and his cabinet weren't known enemies of islam with long reputations of fucking with arab countries "

George W Bush is on the 3rd year of one term of his presidency. Our history of fucking with the middle east goes back 30 or so years. You original comment was that this would not have happened with George W Bush in the White house.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 10, 2003, 6:23 pm

It only matters when people name the 1993 attacks as part of the Al Qaeda war on USA, or list it together with the 2001 attacks implying a connection etc.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 10, 2003, 6:26 pm

Kelshara wrote:It only matters when people name the 1993 attacks as part of the Al Qaeda war on USA, or list it together with the 2001 attacks implying a connection etc.

Did Osama Bin Laden, or anyone from Al Qaeda for that matter, ever take responsiblity for 9/11? I can't remember..

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 10, 2003, 6:55 pm

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2003, 12:04 am

Actually, I remember him congratulating them.. but did he in fact ever actually straight out take the responsibility for it?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 11, 2003, 12:29 am

They found a bunch of shit in some cave that linked them to 9/11 I saw on cnn.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 11, 2003, 1:17 am

I don't recall them ever claiming responsibility, which is weird considering they praise the hijackers.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2003, 10:48 am

Yeah that was what I thought as well Forthe.. although I will gladly admit I am wrong if I am

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 11, 2003, 11:24 am

I don't think they ever came out with an official statement, but there is just so much damning evidence, an admission of guilt would be kinda redundant.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2003, 11:25 am

But the interesting part is that they have always been quick to accept responsibility, why not this time?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 11, 2003, 11:33 am

actually i dont recall Al Queda ever issueing statements "taking credit" for bombings.

They didnt in Bali, Kenya or with the USS Cole. Groups like Hammas, etc do that all the time yes, but that isn't the way al Queda operates, from my understanding.

There was pretty good video/audio evidence of bin Laden getting the info that the towers had been hit as it happened, and he made some statement that pretty indicated it wasnt surprised, and he then praised the martyr's whatever. I can't remember if this was in the big cache of tapes that CNN got in Afghanistan or if this was from another source.

But i dont think there is any doubt that al Queda was the group that was responsible for 9/11. i've never heard anybody suggest it was anybody else, except for some ultra-fundamentalist Saudi clerics who try to say that it wasn't even Muslims that were responsible, let alone al Queda.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 11, 2003, 12:11 pm

Kelshara wrote:But the interesting part is that they have always been quick to accept responsibility, why not this time?

This is patently false, they rarely accept or proclaim responsibility, it is part of the way they work. They do it then let others take the heat by claiming they did it. Not a dumb move for being murderous bastards.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2003, 12:29 pm

hum guess I was wrong then, as I mentioned in a previous post.. my brain is fried from too much .NET crap lately.