[Archived] Hang Em High

[thenodrog]

The history books will have recorded that the tories won the election and thats that. The fact that they didn't win an overall majority is a different issue entirely. Are you so thick or what?

[Steve Moss]

Have read that whole page Steve but it doesn't really debunk anything, just suggests the FBI are vague about their "hard evidence" talk. Take away the supposed confession tapes and you don't have much, really, except this elusive audio that doesn't mention any specifics. In fact judging from those quotes in your post at best you could say bin Laden knew about the operation, not that he was a part of it or the mastermind. Obviously would have to hear the audio in full to understand the context of the conversation though, and I'm guessing this hasn't been publically released?

This is directly from the articles:

1. The FBI has repudiated the statement, made by a publicity officer, that it has no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. The fact that it won't declassify much of the evidence is not the point and is entirely sensible for obvious reasons.

2. Ed Haas of the Muckraker report, who carried the "no hard evidence" line, as since abandoned it as the evidence became overwhelming even for Haas, a vehement critic of Bush.

3. There is pre-9/11 audio of bin Laden discussing the operation to occur on or around September 11.

4. Pre-9/11 electronic bank transfers from bin Laden's deputy to the hijackers.

5. Tapes of bin Laden immediately following 9/11 discussing the plan and how it was carried out which he did not release but which were captured as part of the Afghani campaign.

6. Bin Laden's multiple video taped confessions after the above.

Based on the above alone, ignoring the classified information, it is obvious Bin Laden and his organization orchestrated 9/11.

And I'm very curious how you can contend that bin Laden's advance knowledge doesn't indicate he was part of the conspiracy. Do you think terrorists ring each other and casually discuss the details of their operations for sake of mere conversation?

[jim mk2]

The history books will have recorded that the tories won the election and thats that. The fact that they didn't win an overall majority is a different issue entirely. Are you so thick or what?

To repeat in A-B-C form for the hard of learning, in 2010 the Tories won the most votes but they failed to win outright and have not done so since 1992. A 5-year-old understands this. Thanks for showing your worthlessness again.

[thenodrog]

. The same is happening here with the Tories who have now failed to win an election in this country since 1992 and are unlikely to do so again in 2015.

To repeat in A-B-C form for the hard of learning, in 2010 the Tories won the most votes but they failed to win outright and have not done so since 1992. A 5-year-old understands this. Thanks for showing your worthlessness again.

Ahh .... I see what you have done to cover your errors. You have now introduced the word 'outright'.

btw I think the term 'overall majority' might have been more accurate. Were you better at mathematics and the sciences at school?

[jim mk2]

No error. Your lack of understanding.

[DE.]

This is directly from the articles:

1. The FBI has repudiated the statement, made by a publicity officer, that it has no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. The fact that it won't declassify much of the evidence is not the point and is entirely sensible for obvious reasons.

2. Ed Haas of the Muckraker report, who carried the "no hard evidence" line, as since abandoned it as the evidence became overwhelming even for Haas, a vehement critic of Bush.

3. There is pre-9/11 audio of bin Laden discussing the operation to occur on or around September 11.

4. Pre-9/11 electronic bank transfers from bin Laden's deputy to the hijackers.

5. Tapes of bin Laden immediately following 9/11 discussing the plan and how it was carried out which he did not release but which were captured as part of the Afghani campaign.

6. Bin Laden's multiple video taped confessions after the above.

Based on the above alone, ignoring the classified information, it is obvious Bin Laden and his organization orchestrated 9/11.

And I'm very curious how you can contend that bin Laden's advance knowledge doesn't indicate he was part of the conspiracy. Do you think terrorists ring each other and casually discuss the details of their operations for sake of mere conversation?

I'm not necessarily indicating OBL was not a part of the conspiracy, Steve, I just don't think there's full proof to definitively suggest he played an extremely active part or indeed 'masterminded' the attack. He may well have known about the attack and even advised on it, but that's not how he's been portrayed. He's essentially been the Emmanuel Goldstein of the US ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson42.html ), evidenced by the delirious celebrations in America of his unusual demise despite the fact he hadn't been a threat for years upon years, and was also only one of many people who organised the 9/11 attacks. OBL was built up to be such a boogeyman that he became larger than life and the gravitas placed on his importance was likely disproportionate to reality. Others who were likely just as involved in 9/11 have died in US attacks, and yet these deaths were not publically celebrated.

I don't think it can be denied that bin Laden's guilt was a primary factor in the beginnings of the war in Afghanistan. He fronted al-Queda and was therefore labelled the 'mastermind' behind the attacks as the US hastily decided al-Queda were 100% the culprits. The Taliban were then linked and eventually set upon when they refused to bow to US demands of co-operation and extradition. They had already publically condemned the attacks and OBL also protested his innocence twice during interviews in the weeks following the attacks. Although OBL's remarks should be taken with a pinch of salt. In the late 90's he declared "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they [Americans] are all targets", yet in his interviews post 9/11 he claims he would not target civilians. This makes the interviews arguably irrelevant, but at this point he was protesting his innocence regardless - which is unusual as he had never previously denied any of his attacks and had been very clear on his intent to hurt the US in whatever way possible. In fact he revelled in being anti-American and even issued fatwas against America (something he wasn't actually allowed to do as he wasn't an Islamic scholar and only they can issue fatwas). Regardless, the Taliban requested OBL leave the country but wouldn't (and maybe couldn't) hand him over without the US providing evidence that he was guilty. It must be kept in mind that at this point the US refused to provide evidence, they did not consider it a legitimate or worthwhile request. This may be due to already heightened tensions between the US and the Taliban related to the US Embassy Bombings in '98, which OBL was indicted for, but is most likely because at the time they did not have the evidence necessary to go ahead with their demands. As per the wiki page on the War in Afghanistan:

The United Nations Charter, to which all the Coalition countries are signatories, provides that all UN member states must settle their international disputes peacefully and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense. The U.S. Constitution states that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified by the U.S. are part of the law of the land, though subject to effective repeal by any subsequent act of the U.S. Congress (i.e., the "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant" or "last in time" canon of statutory interpretation).^[71] The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).

What we have to assume from the above is that the US believed OBL and al-Queda to be a serious threat to their security (in theory a fair assumption given the 9/11 attacks) and that by harbouring these people the Taliban were also a threat to US national security and therefore a war in this instance was justified. However, what is crucial to note is that at the time of the attacks it's highly likely the US did not have sufficient evidence to declare war. This is assumedly the reason the UN refused to authorise Operation Enduring Freedom and why the Taliban initially refused to hand over OBL based on the accusations. Of course, the Taliban should already have been required to hand him over due to the US Embassy Bombings, but that in of itself is not sufficient action to start a war. The Taliban asked for an independent investigation into the attacks by the UN and then threatened if this was not forthcoming and innocent people were killed as a result:

"jihad becomes an order for all Muslims."

"If the Americans provide evidence, we will cooperate with them, but they do not provide evidence. In America, if I think you are a terrorist, is it properly justified that you should be punished without evidence? This is an international principle. If you use the principle, why do you not apply it to Afghanistan?"

Evidence was purportedly shown to the Pakistani Government who said it "provide[d] sufficient basis for indictment in a court of law", but the evidence was never made public and Pakistan by this point knew it was not in their best interests to defy the US as war was almost certainly on the way regardless of what happened (this evidence was provided to Pakistan on Oct.4 and bombing started in Afghanistan on Oct.7). It's also worth noting it took the US until early October to provide any evidence to anyone, but they demanded extradition much earlier than this. Whatever evidence was presented also apparently failed to convince the UN, as they did not sanction Operation Enduring Freedom. Please note the below paragraph also:

A week into the bombing campaign, on 14 October, Abdul Kabir, the Taliban's third ranking leader, offered to hand over bin Laden if the U.S. government provided evidence of his guilt and halted the bombing campaign. President Bush rejected the offer as non-negotiable.^[98] On 16 October, Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister, dropped the condition to see evidence and offered to send bin Laden to a third country in return for a halt to the bombing.^[99] US officials also rejected this offer.^[100] At that time, some Afghan experts said the United States failed to recognize the Taliban's need for a "face saving formula."^[101] In 2007, bin Laden indicated that the Taliban had no knowledge of his plans for the 9/11 attacks.^[102]

Whilst the UN said this:

"Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime".

In Dec 2001, their lack of support for Operation Enduring Freedom tells its own story as to their thoughts on the legitimacy of full scale war and the devastating effects it was likely to have on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

So, with the above in mind, Steve, if we look at your list of evidence and think about whether it justified the US declaring war on Afghanistan in Oct '01 and refusing to negotiate under any circumstances:

We can immediately remove 1/2 as they're only relevant contextually to the other points.

Point 3 has I'm assuming never been released publically so it's difficult to make any judgement on it. I don't know how smart it is to trust the likes of the CIA or FBI, who are well known for covering things up or embellishing evidence in the interests of 'national security'. Even if we assume there was explicit pre-9/11 audio of OBL discussing the attacks, was this available at the time 9/11 occurred? If not we can dismiss it instantly as irrelevant. If so, and the dates were so specifically named, why was more not done to protect national interests? Surely at the very least the pentagon should have been on alert around this time if such information had come to light? Of course the information could have come to light directly after 9/11, but as it isn't publically available it's impossible to speculate much further. We can't even say whether OBL personally links himself to the attacks or just mentions that he's aware of them.

Point 4 is actually the main "smoking gun", and was discovered in late September/early October 2001. The problem is it isn't a direct link to OBL - it's his supposed deputy and was also perpetuated from the UAE, not Afghanistan. It should also be noted the 9/11 Commission concluded:

that the "9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack" but the "origin of the funds remains unknown." The Commission noted: "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding."

However:

According to Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, "Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship," as reported by the Miami Herald.

"And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees."

Points 5 and 6 are also irrelevant as they occurred after the US entered Afghanistan and conveniently exonerated them. The tapes are the subject of intense scrutiny anyway but in this instance that doesn't matter.

I think OBL's involvement in 9/11 has been grossly overstated, but it's very likely he was involved in some way. It's difficult to determine to what extent, though, as any serious evidence is either classified for the foreseeable future or marred by inconsistencies. I think what can be deduced relatively confidently is that at the time war was declared on Afghanistan, the US did not have adequate evidence to support the destruction of Afghanistan in retaliation. The grounds for declaring war on this occasion were potentially almost as invalid as those used to invade Iraq in 2003.

I'd also like to quote a part of the article I linked at the start of this post:

Furthermore, the prospect of justifying the attacks on nations because they harbor terrorists borders on the absurd when one thinks of the U.S. experience. First, all credible news reports have demonstrated that most of the terrorists had been living in the USA for many years, using our own facilities to train themselves for the attack of last week. Second, it turns out that at least two of the hijackers were placed in temporary federal custody earlier this year after they were discovered taking photographs of government installations in New York City. The feds had them, but then let them go even though it was obvious that they were involved in terrorist planning.

In other words, if the U.S. Government wishes to condemn other nations for harboring terrorists, then it must begin with the USA, for we gave the perpetrators of this latest outrage everything they needed, all the way to taxpayer-funded assistance. Congress has passed laws — dutifully enforced by federal agencies — that have all but guaranteed that terrorists can operate at will in this nation and receive even more protection than the average U.S. citizen, who now must face a loss of freedoms, despite the fact that ordinary citizens are no threat to this nation in any way.

Another way to examine this episode is to ask what would be our response if another nation had (1) allowed these terrorists to live five years or more virtually unchecked by governing authorities, despite the fact that they had records of associating with terrorist groups, and (2) trained these terrorists to fly passenger jets. Most likely that nation would have been blasted into a pile of rubble by now.

Yes, by all means kill bin Laden if he has been behind these awful crimes. By all means, those who had a hand in this must be held accountable for their deeds. However, let us also remember that if we are to demand accountability, it begins at home with those who govern us.

[ABBEY]

[Amo]

@DE - Brilliant post. The US loves its bogeymen in the Middle East, be it Bin Laden, Saddam, or Yasser Arafat. Thankfully more and more people are waking up to their propaganda.

@Abbey: Any bozo could have done that.

[Audax]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/hyndburn/accrington/10446384.Machete_attack_horror_at_Accrington_barber_s_shop/

MACHETE wielding thugs have left two men with ‘serious injuries’ after attacking them in an Accrington barber’s shop.

The two victims had been inside the shop in Ormerod Street when four
masked men carrying machetes and knives forced their way inside.

.....

The thugs also attacked a parked car during the incident at midnight on Saturday.

Could be anyone that carried out this attack, what were 2 people doing in a barbershop around midnight on Saturday. Still, an incident to take into consideration, I hope they catch the culprits.

[Steve Moss]

DE- In summing up your post you are of the opinion:

1. That a nation cannot got to war without proof sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction; and,

2. When the FBI and CIA present proof to leaders of foriegn nations, which they accept, it doesn't count because: a) the FBI and CIA cannot be trusted; and, b ) the proof wasn't publically released.

I disagee with you.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Democracy cannot be sustained by anti-democratic methods.

[Steve Moss]

Democracy cannot be sustained by anti-democratic methods.

And exactly when has Britian conducted a criminal trial before employing military force?

Use of military foce is not a due process issue, it is a national security issue.

[ABBEY]

@DE - Brilliant post. The US loves its bogeymen in the Middle East, be it Bin Laden, Saddam, or Yasser Arafat. Thankfully more and more people are waking up to their propaganda.

@Abbey: Any bozo could have done that.

check the express ...ccctv of it.

HAVE NOT SEEN BEEB REPORTING THIS LIKE THEY DID IN BOLTON.

[Tom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22678874

I personally think its best in these cases to not give the culprit the platform they are after be it extremist Muslims or people trying to stoke up bother they are doing it for a reaction either way

[LeChuck]

check the express ...ccctv of it.

HAVE NOT SEEN BEEB REPORTING THIS LIKE THEY DID IN BOLTON.

Probably because it's not important news.

[ABBEY]

It was important news when Muslims cars and a mosque got vandalised .

[Stuart]

It seems clear to me why people support organisations such the EDL.

It's because no other groups will listen to their concerns - as evidenced by some of the uber-liberal posts on here. Even UKIP have been accused of being an "upmarket" BNP.

We need to have dialogue between all the groups involved and not only listen to one side. But for there to be dialogue we need to get rid of the climate of fear - fear of saying the 'wrong thing' in case it 'offends' someone.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

It's clear to me why people support the EDL. The football season's over and the football hooligans have nothing else better to do for two months.

[Stuart]

You seem like a reasonable, intelligent bloke Tyrone.

Why wouldn't you listen to concerns of people who support the EDL?

[thenodrog]

You seem like a reasonable, intelligent bloke Tyrone.

Why wouldn't you listen to concerns of people who support the EDL?

Obviously goes against the grain with him. He'll learn of course but then some other misguided soul will take over.

[LeChuck]

Why wouldn't you listen to concerns of people who support the EDL?

Because on the whole they are racist football hooligans getting the same kick out of the tribalistic led violence from following the EDL that they used to get from organised hooliganism. Their leader is the typical example of this.

Obviously they are not all that way as the pleasing story from the York mosque showed, but when the top members are rotten to the core it's not surpising that most of the followers are.

I never had you down as the sort to play that naive act that others do with regards to the EDL - "listen to their concerns"? Come off it.

[DE.]

Here are the EDL's "concerns": http://englishdefenceleague.org/home/about-us

I don't even know where to start the amount of contradictions and fallacies on this page alone are staggering.

Islam is not just a religious system, but a political and social ideology that seeks to dominate all non-believers and impose a harsh legal system that rejects democratic accountability and human rights. It runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy, and it must be prepared to change, to conform to secular, liberal ideals and laws, and to contribute to social harmony, rather than causing divisions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/28/four-charged-edl-protest-counter-demonstration

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/68735/three-arrested-ahead-of-edl-demonstration-in-newcastle

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/403095/Clashes-seen-at-EDL-demonstation

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/soldiers-london-murder-sparks-firebombs-and-fury/story-fnb64oi6-1226652526173

The EDL practising what they preach

[ABBEY]

So to summarise ... Soldier is brutally murdered on the street outside the barracks in the so called name of Islam , however EDL are the scumbags of UK.

My grandad will be spinning seeing what is happening for the country for which he fought .

[Tom]

There's all kinds of scumbags of different levels

Some EDL numpties are scumbags

The sickos that murdered lee rigby much worse

Then the likes of Mark Bridger even worse than them (not seen him mentioned on here since some of the details came out)

Just because there is worse out there doesn't mean it's in some way wrong to point out the scumbags

[LeChuck]

So to summarise ... Soldier is brutally murdered on the street outside the barracks in the so called name of Islam , however EDL are the scumbags of UK.

My grandad will be spinning seeing what is happening for the country for which he fought .

Obviously the Islamic fundamentalists are worse. Who has said otherwise?

What people like you and the most of the EDL seem to want to do is blame the whole of the Muslim population. That's the ridiculous part. 2 nutjobs (born in England into Christian households I might add) perform a horrendous act and thousands of people use it as excuse for racism.

As I said, seeing the EDL plastered over Spanish television was an embarrassment to this country. A tide of hooligans and St. George flags.