Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

9/11 conspiracy Theories

Rate this topic


miz astrid

Recommended Posts

In one of his novels, Tom Clancy states "If you look at the wars in the industrial era, you'll see those who started the war lost. The South, Germany twice, Japan. They all lost. They all tried to take on larger opponents. So the motive for starting a war doesn't matter since it's probably irrational."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"If you look at the wars in the industrial era, you'll see those who started the war lost. The South, Germany twice, Japan. They all lost. They all tried to take on larger opponents. So the motive for starting a war doesn't matter since it's probably irrational."

The Korean War for instance ended in stalemate, Vietnam was won by the VC, and the British also won a bunch of wars they started, back in the 19th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard and seen, huh? So you have a tape of him saying any of this dated before the Afghan invasion?

How exactly do you draw an indication of time from the senses I've utilized to merely draw a conclusion?

The 9/11 Report, Abdul Bari Atwan's interviews with Osama Bin Laden, and Bin Laden's two videos - one from November 2001, and the other from October 2004 - all provided pretty clear evidence. And in fact, the November 2001 video features him next to a few of the 9/11 hijackers, so yes, this would have been created before the Afghanistan invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't "draw any indication" about you, just asked a question. And you answered it, so now I'm ready to draw the conclusion that answer indicates.

Since I read, heard, and seen bin Laden cite US military presence in Muslim countries, and US support for Israel and India, as the main motivations for the 9/11 attacks, your extraordinary claim that he in fact ordered 9/11 as part of a bigger plan to draw Americans onto Muslim land would require extraordinary evidence (hopefully more than him saying this was my plan all along, after the invasion happened). So far the absence of some evidence, the combative attitude and even the fact that you are speculating about the man's true motivations, which are pretty hard to come by even in the case of someone not hiding in a cave, leads me to believe it's something made up to support the general idea that waging war in Muslim countries is a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't "draw any indication" about you, just asked a question. And you answered it, so now I'm ready to draw the conclusion that answer indicates.

Since I read, heard, and seen bin Laden cite US military presence in Muslim countries, and US support for Israel and India, as the main motivations for the 9/11 attacks, your extraordinary claim that he in fact ordered 9/11 as part of a bigger plan to draw Americans onto Muslim land would require extraordinary evidence (hopefully more than him saying this was my plan all along, after the invasion happened). So far the absence of some evidence, the combative attitude and even the fact that you are speculating about the man's true motivations, which are pretty hard to come by even in the case of someone not hiding in a cave, leads me to believe it's something made up to support the general idea that waging war in Muslim countries is a bad thing.

Mr. Atwan drew the conclusion through his interviews with Bin Laden:

TONY JONES: When you met bin Laden, he told you that his long-term plan was to "bring the Americans into a fight on Muslim soil". That must have sounded like madness at the time, but now we have Iraq.

ABDUL BARI ATWAN: It seems Osama bin Laden had a long-term strategy. He told me personally that he can't go and fight the Americans and their country. But if he manages to provoke them and bring them to the Middle East and to their Muslim worlds, where he can find them or fight them on his own turf, he will actually teach them a lesson. It seems the invasion of Iraq fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish. That's why the Americans are losing in Iraq, financially and on a human basis, and even their allies, including Australia, are really losing patience, losing money, losing personnel, losing reputation in that part of the world.

TONY JONES: When bin Laden told you this back in 1996, the only thing he had that was close to what he was talking about was [former US president] Bill Clinton's intervention in Somalia. Bin Laden was evidently extremely disappointed the Americans had pulled out?

ABDUL BARI ATWAN: Yes. He told me, again, that he expected the Americans to send troops to Somalia and he sent his people to that country to wait for them in order to fight them. They managed actually to shoot down an American helicopter where 19 soldiers were killed and he regretted that the Clinton Administration decided to pull out their troops from Somalia and run away. He was so saddened by this. He thought they would stay there so he could fight them there. But for his bad luck, according to his definition, they left, and he was planning another provocation in order to drag them to Muslim soil.

And it seems President Bush did not actually give him a lot of hard work to plan for this. Immediately after the bombardment of Afghanistan - which actually destroyed 85 per cent of Al Qaeda infrastructure, personnel, deprived them of a safe haven - after that huge success against Al Qaeda, President Bush made terrible mistakes when he sent his troop to invade Iraq, one of the most difficult countries to be invaded, to be occupied, the worst land for democracy, human rights. And we can see the outcome.

Considering this is one of the only Western reporters to ever speak to the man, I call this credible enough. Until there is evidence to disprove this, I will stand by it.

You're confusing motivation with strategy. I agree with all of the motivations you've cited, however, that Bin Laden believed these attacks would draw Americans into Middle Eastern soil is nothing more than one of the strategic elements in Bin Laden's attack against us.

I have no problem with waging war against countries in the Middle East - just the ways by which we are going about doing so. No need to put words in my mouth, Jake.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of his novels, Tom Clancy states "If you look at the wars in the industrial era, you'll see those who started the war lost. The South, Germany twice, Japan. They all lost. They all tried to take on larger opponents. So the motive for starting a war doesn't matter since it's probably irrational."

Absolutely. The employment of the initiation of force to get what one wants, needs or desires is irrational. I reckon it is an unavoidable development as a result of having anointed altruism as a viable way to live a human existence.

Altruism doesn't work for humans, and the continued existence of poverty in the under-developed world and gigantic debt in the industrialized world is ample proof.

Altruism does work for insects, tho.

Humans cannot live for others. The act of being human is the act of using one's mental faculties. One can only trade, and in order to trade profitably one must know one's own mind before one can make exchanges with others.

But that's the concept people seem to not want to examine or deal with. They'd rather swing fists first and get drunk afterwards.

Given the corrupt behavior of the American government, I'd be more surprised to learn that they did not have some role in 9/11. The whole structure is completely rotten. Surely you must see that by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Former Malaysian Prime Minister came out today with his belief that 9/11 was staged. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad cited that there was evidence, but only offered one: "If they can make Avatar, they can make anything!" In his view, the goal of staging 9/11 was to launch a war of aggression on Islam.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNew...121-193339.html

KUALA LUMPUR: There is strong evidence that the Sept 11 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3,000 could have been 'staged' as an excuse to mount attacks on the Muslim world, said Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

'I am not sure now that Muslim terrorists carried out these attacks. There is evidence that the attacks were staged.

'If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,' the former prime minister told a press conference here yesterday after delivering his speech at the General Conference for the Support of Al-Quds to aid the Palestinians.

He said killing innocent people to provide an excuse for war was not new to the US.

'But whether real or staged, the 9/11 attacks have served the United States and Western countries well. They have an excuse to mount attacks on the Muslim world,' he added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Korean War for instance ended in stalemate, Vietnam was won by the VC, and the British also won a bunch of wars they started, back in the 19th century.

In what way was Vietnam won by the VC? Wasn't it the North Vietnamese Army, NVA, that overran the south after the US stopped funding them. And wasn't their direct involvement the consequence of the VC being thoroughly defeated in response to the overhyped Tet offensive?

Not that any of that was good, but Cronkitian revisionism is something I can't stand.

If I'm not mistaken, once the NVA overran the South, former VC were among the first slaughtered and sent for reeducation.

But if your argument is that aggressive communists violently overran an otherwise non-communist government, provoking a larger military opponent, successfully, you are correct.

Edited by ZSorenson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way was Vietnam won by the VC? Wasn't it the North Vietnamese Army, NVA, that overran the south after the US stopped funding them. And wasn't their direct involvement the consequence of the VC being thoroughly defeated in response to the overhyped Tet offensive?

Not that any of that was good, but Cronkitian revisionism is something I can't stand.

If I'm not mistaken, once the NVA overran the South, former VC were among the first slaughtered and sent for reeducation.

Not only were the VC allied to the North, they were an integral part of the NVA's command structure, answering directly to the communist leadership in Hanoi. They started the war in the South, in the late fifties, for the North, and they effectively won it for them with the otherwise disastrous Tet offensive, which caused the US to give up any ambitions of defeating communism in Vietnam, and negotiating a retreat.

The fact that former VC later (post war) fell prey to their own ideology, or Cronkite's reporting, are in no way relevant to actual events during the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...