Here's an article written by the US military in September of 2006, posted in the DOD's website: LINK.

Do the math from this article and compare the results to the propaganda spouted by the US, the media and other warmongers.

Here's a ten minute clip from the excellent BBC three hour documentary, "The Power of Nightmares."

Quote :

A difficult enemy to defeat if you can find him. And there are more than one Osama Bin Laden too I'd say ... Was Ireland ever anything like that with the warring chiefs and clans? If it was anything like that the English found a way around it.

They should be experts on counter-terrorism at this stage.

I can`t say categorically about medieval./ early modern Ireland but I`d greatly doubt it in so far as the English were able to play off one clan against the other etc. The British should be counter-terrorism experts but their dealing with fellas here who`d make the IRA look like altar boys. You`d have to have great sources on the ground in the arab and Muslim world to know exactly how well or how badly their part in the war on terror is going. It`s going to be very difficult for themselves and the Americans to eradicate this threat in the long term, assuming of course that they want to. I think that it`s virtually impossible for these reasons because they involve a change in mentality in an awful lot of people:

1. The elites that rule the West have behaved badly towards the poorer people of this world, both directly and indirectly. The people living in the poorest areas in the world aren`t stupid and they aren`t blind. They see this happening and they`re pissed off about it. A change in this attitude is going to require a change of behaviour, lifesyle and attitude in the west. Not going to happen.

2. There are hugely negative aspects to Arab and Muslim culture in large parts of the world. Until these are eradicated they`re also going to struggle to keep pace with the West economically not to mind close the gap. This requires a change in attitude of a huge number of people. Not going to happen.

3. It only requires a small number of cells to keep the Al Qaeda thing alive. The name has now entered the Western Pysche so they don`t have to do a whole lot. Our over-reaction will do it for them.

4. Terrorism will only be eradicated with a joint military, economic and political solution (the last two have to be just). This won`t happen until defence contracters start investing in building tractors.

I should add that numbers 1,2 and 4 refer to the sea that the little Al-Qaeda fishies swim in. Only number three refers to them themselves. The number of Muslims who support Bin Laden is tiny but that`s irrelevent to Bin Laden and his supporters and allies.

Hermes wrote:

Here's an article written by the US military in September of 2006, posted in the DOD's website: LINK.

Do the math from this article and compare the results to the propaganda spouted by the US, the media and other warmongers.

Here's a ten minute clip from the excellent BBC three hour documentary, "The Power of Nightmares."

The US through the newsmedia have always promoted the idea that there is a formal enemy out there called "Al Qaeda" that was based in Iraq, responsible for 9/11, and that could be defeated by the US army. Most people don't go behind the headlines. They think that the Russians invaded Georgia and that Russia has just threatened to bomb Poland for no particular reason.

cactus flower wrote:

The US through the newsmedia have always promoted the idea that there is a formal enemy out there called "Al Qaeda" that was based in Iraq, responsible for 9/11, and that could be defeated by the US army. Most people don't go behind the headlines. They think that the Russians invaded Georgia and that Russia has just threatened to bomb Poland for no particular reason.

Well, I doubt they've always promoted the idea that Al-Qaeda was based in Iraq. Not when they went rooting around in Afghanistan for Bin-Laden, who is the figure-head of Al-Qaeda and is generally thought to be behind the 11 September attacks. And, as a mere human, he is as vulnerable as anyone else to the US army. So they're not a million miles off in what you allege they say.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The US through the newsmedia have always promoted the idea that there is a formal enemy out there called "Al Qaeda" that was based in Iraq, responsible for 9/11, and that could be defeated by the US army. Most people don't go behind the headlines. They think that the Russians invaded Georgia and that Russia has just threatened to bomb Poland for no particular reason.

Well, I doubt they've always promoted the idea that Al-Qaeda was based in Iraq. Not when they went rooting around in Afghanistan for Bin-Laden, who is the figure-head of Al-Qaeda and is generally thought to be behind the 11 September attacks. And, as a mere human, he is as vulnerable as anyone else to the US army. So they're not a million miles off in what you allege they say.

I guess you don't watch satellite tv 905. This siucra is churned out day and night.

You guess correctly, but point out where the basics are wrong. Of course, the devil's in the details, as Iraq illustrated.

905 wrote:

You guess correctly, but point out where the basics are wrong. Of course, the devil's in the details, as Iraq illustrated.

Sorry, my point wasn't made clearly. It is still suggested in the media that Iraq was associated with 9/11.

Oh dear. In a 'it was the Iraqis wot done it' way, or a 'the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror' way?

Bin Laden was an excuse, never a target.

He was trained by the CIA ffs, he has no hidey holes or powerful friends that the US is either unaware or not in control of. First rule of deploying a crazed animal: know and control the fucker's limits and his boundaries.

The US has practiced rendition for decades. They knew where he was after 9/11 (Christ, the media were even saying he did it on 9/11. Funny though, he's never claimed to have done it). Why didn't they catch an snatch him after 9/11? Would have worked and been somewhat cheaper.

The US could easilly have taken Bin Laden out with a surgical strike and nobody would have batted an eyelid (excepting maybe the Saudis).

How come catching Bin Laden evaporated after Iraq was invaded, it's not as if the world got bigger. Indeed, Bin Laden's world shrank.

Nothing regarding the truth has come out, and that's the only credible truth.

905 wrote:

Oh dear. In a 'it was the Iraqis wot done it' way, or a 'the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror' way?

Its as well you don't watch Fox and CNN 905. Whilst the underlying ideology may be close enough to your own, I think that the total disregard for reason, and facts, would deeply displease you.

Hermes wrote:

Bin Laden was an excuse, never a target.

He was trained by the CIA ffs, he has no hidey holes or powerful friends that the US is either unaware or not in control of. First rule of deploying a crazed animal: know and control the fucker's limits and his boundaries.

The US has practiced rendition for decades. They knew where he was after 9/11 (Christ, the media were even saying he did it on 9/11. Funny though, he's never claimed to have done it). Why didn't they catch an snatch him after 9/11? Would have worked and been somewhat cheaper.

The US could easilly have taken Bin Laden out with a surgical strike and nobody would have batted an eyelid (excepting maybe the Saudis).

How come catching Bin Laden evaporated after Iraq was invaded, it's not as if the world got bigger. Indeed, Bin Laden's world shrank.

Nothing regarding the truth has come out, and that's the only credible truth.

Is anything you said there not disputed? A quick look at his wiki page (I'm not really a Bin Laden expert) suggests that he did indeed admit responsibility for the attacks and they question the fact that he was CIA trained. And if he were CIA trained does that mean that they would neccessarily know his every movement years later?

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Bin Laden was an excuse, never a target.

He was trained by the CIA ffs, he has no hidey holes or powerful friends that the US is either unaware or not in control of. First rule of deploying a crazed animal: know and control the fucker's limits and his boundaries.

The US has practiced rendition for decades. They knew where he was after 9/11 (Christ, the media were even saying he did it on 9/11. Funny though, he's never claimed to have done it). Why didn't they catch an snatch him after 9/11? Would have worked and been somewhat cheaper.

The US could easilly have taken Bin Laden out with a surgical strike and nobody would have batted an eyelid (excepting maybe the Saudis).

How come catching Bin Laden evaporated after Iraq was invaded, it's not as if the world got bigger. Indeed, Bin Laden's world shrank.

Nothing regarding the truth has come out, and that's the only credible truth.

Is anything you said there not disputed? A quick look at his wiki page (I'm not really a Bin Laden expert) suggests that he did indeed admit responsibility for the attacks and they question the fact that he was CIA trained. And if he were CIA trained does that mean that they would neccessarily know his every movement years later?

Most of what I've said is disputed. The issue is though, is what I've said disputed by fact or mere assertion. I say it's disputed by assertion only.

Here's an article that shows that anyone saying that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 is not using factual material to back up their assertions. LINK.

Here's a good article that brings Bin Laden's involvement with the CIA to light: LINK.

Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden is not or indeed, was not the superhuman and super-intelligent supervillan that the US and the media have portrayed him to be. He was simply a rich scumbag with a very wide range of powerful connections. It's his connections that would make him useful to a terrorist organisation, not his brain or his leadership skills.

Even if it could not be shown that Bin Laden had CIA support and connections, his very placement in Afghanistan during the conflict with the Russians, coupled with his family's relationship with the Bush family (Don't forget papa Bush's relationship with the CIA either) and big oil, point to him as being a conduit for the US in the same conflict. A claim to the contrary would beggar belief, considering that this conflict occurred at the height of the Cold War and is often cited as the exact cause of the decline of the USSR and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Hermes wrote:

Most of what I've said is disputed. The issue is though, is what I've said disputed by fact or mere assertion? I say it's disputed by assertion only.

That's fair enough.

Hermes wrote:

Here's an article that shows that anyone saying that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 is not using factual material to back up their assertions. LINK.

I'm afriad I've lost you here. In the video released on 29/10/04, he claims to have been behind the attacks.

Hermes wrote:

Here's a good article that brings Bin Laden's involvement with the CIA to light: LINK.

Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden is not or indeed, was not the superhuman and super-intelligent supervillan that the US and the media have portrayed him to be. He was simply a rich scumbag with a very wide range of powerful connections. It's his connections that would make him useful to a terrorist organisation, not his brain or his leadership skills.

Even if it could not be shown that Bin Laden had CIA support and connections, his very placement in Afghanistan during the conflict with the Russians, coupled with his family's relationship with the Bush family (Don't forget papa Bush's relationship with the CIA either) and big oil, point to him as being a conduit for the US in the same conflict. A claim to the contrary would beggar belief, considering that this conflict occurred at the height of the Cold War and is often cited as the exact cause of the decline of the USSR and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Osama Bin-Laden has had CIA connections in the past. But I don't see how it would mean that the CIA can keep track of his every movement and control him. I just don't think the CIA is the super-intelligent infallible villain you're making it out to be.

From what I heard CIA has become too technocratic.

They've got databases and procedures and stuff, it prevents them to react efficiently.

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Most of what I've said is disputed. The issue is though, is what I've said disputed by fact or mere assertion? I say it's disputed by assertion only.

That's fair enough.

Hermes wrote:

Here's an article that shows that anyone saying that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 is not using factual material to back up their assertions. LINK.

I'm afriad I've lost you here. In the video released on 29/10/04, he claims to have been behind the attacks.

The link I gave above deals with this. Bin Laden has been claiming up to this point that he was not involved in 9/11. The person in the 2004 video is widely disputed as being Bin Laden. Indeed, it's been claimed that the 2004 tape helped Bush in his bid to be elected once again. Folks who've claimed this include the CIA and the current presidential candidate McCain.

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Here's a good article that brings Bin Laden's involvement with the CIA to light: LINK.

Don't get me wrong. Bin Laden is not or indeed, was not the superhuman and super-intelligent supervillan that the US and the media have portrayed him to be. He was simply a rich scumbag with a very wide range of powerful connections. It's his connections that would make him useful to a terrorist organisation, not his brain or his leadership skills.

Even if it could not be shown that Bin Laden had CIA support and connections, his very placement in Afghanistan during the conflict with the Russians, coupled with his family's relationship with the Bush family (Don't forget papa Bush's relationship with the CIA either) and big oil, point to him as being a conduit for the US in the same conflict. A claim to the contrary would beggar belief, considering that this conflict occurred at the height of the Cold War and is often cited as the exact cause of the decline of the USSR and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Osama Bin-Laden has had CIA connections in the past. But I don't see how it would mean that the CIA can keep track of his every movement and control him. I just don't think the CIA is the super-intelligent infallible villain you're making it out to be.

I'm hardly making the CIA out to be super intelligent. I'm saying the opposite, they're a bunch of evil and incredibly stupid fucks (pardon my profanity).

This is what is not in dispute. The bin laden family were flown out of the US the day after 911 despite everyone else being grounded. Greenspan was stuck in Japan and had to return sitting on a crate in a military plane. The Bushes and bin ladens are partners in business and that is no secret

Hermes wrote:

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Most of what I've said is disputed. The issue is though, is what I've said disputed by fact or mere assertion? I say it's disputed by assertion only.

That's fair enough.

Hermes wrote:

Here's an article that shows that anyone saying that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 is not using factual material to back up their assertions. LINK.

I'm afriad I've lost you here. In the video released on 29/10/04, he claims to have been behind the attacks.

The link I gave above deals with this. Bin Laden has been claiming up to this point that he was not involved in 9/11. The person in the 2004 video is widely disputed as being Bin Laden. Indeed, it's been claimed that the 2004 tape helped Bush in his bid to be elected once again. Folks who've claimed this include the CIA and the current presidential candidate McCain.

I'm sorry, I just can't see where in the link it suggest that it wasn't Bin Laden in the tape. Getting Bush re-elected would have done wonders for Bin Laden's campaign.

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Most of what I've said is disputed. The issue is though, is what I've said disputed by fact or mere assertion? I say it's disputed by assertion only.

That's fair enough.

Hermes wrote:

Here's an article that shows that anyone saying that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 is not using factual material to back up their assertions. LINK.

I'm afriad I've lost you here. In the video released on 29/10/04, he claims to have been behind the attacks.

The link I gave above deals with this. Bin Laden has been claiming up to this point that he was not involved in 9/11. The person in the 2004 video is widely disputed as being Bin Laden. Indeed, it's been claimed that the 2004 tape helped Bush in his bid to be elected once again. Folks who've claimed this include the CIA and the current presidential candidate McCain.

I'm sorry, I just can't see where in the link it suggest that it wasn't Bin Laden in the tape. Getting Bush re-elected would have done wonders for Bin Laden's campaign.

You're correct, my link does not claim that the 2004 tape is not Bin Laden. My apologies for implying that it does. I meant only that the 2004 reference in the link points out that up until this point, Bin Laden had been denying that he was responsible for 9/11.

I could point to loads of links to sites where it's claimed that the 2004 tape is an artful deception and you or anyone else could probably point to many places that counter this assertion. We'd end up in a semantical debate where opinion would be seen to be the be all and end all. I want to stick to facts and am somewhat sorry I brought up the fake Bin Laden argument.

The facts are:

i. The Americans have never once produced evidence that they've claimed possession of, that links Bin Laden to 9/11. Despite promises from parties like Bush and Powell to do so shortly after 9/11. Indeed, the FBI's most wanted list still does not cite 9/11 as one of the crimes that Bin Laden is wanted for: LINK.

ii. Counterpunch has a very interesting article that shows (asserts) that Bin Laden was offered to the US by the Taliban before 9/11 and up until the invasion of Afghanistan: LINK.

iii. In 2003 the Guardian printed an article that claims that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral Islamic country for trial on September 20th 2001, if the US was willing to produce evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11: LINK.

I don't agree that the second election of Bush either helped the Bin Laden or the Al Qaeda cause. If Kerry had won and the US pulled out from either Afghanistan or Iraq, Bin Laden would have been in a position to claim a major victory (if he were still alive that is, and I have major doubts that he is).

arnaudherve wrote:

From what I heard CIA has become too technocratic.

They've got databases and procedures and stuff, it prevents them to react efficiently.

Whatever we hear is almost certain to be the opposite of the truth. The British IS put it about vociferously in the 1980s that they would never, never involve themselves in honeypot operations. We should not underestimate the CIA or make gods out of them. They are professionals and have a lot of impact and they are crawling around under every rug. I met an American guy in the 80s who had been sent in to Khazakstan and the eastern Caucusus to buy every book published there (he said that was not a very large number). They were badly caught on languages in 2001 but no doubt have caught up by now.