babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Bin Laden Says He Organized 9-11: Conspiracy Theorists Disconcerted?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bin Laden Says He Organized 9-11: Conspiracy Theorists Disconcerted?
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 May 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission.'' He was referring to the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Please, please, please, please, please please please please pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase learn to use the URL feature. - Michelle

[ 25 May 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 May 2006 07:04 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Jeff, for shedding some light here, and hopefully grounding all our discussions in a little more reality. The issue is an important one. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a reasonable person might have held doubts about the reality of al Qaeda and its affiliates, and suspected it represented nothing but an overblown threat created for US propaganda purposes. That was five years ago, and in the interim, a mountain of evidence testifying to the reality of al Qaeda and the deadly seriousness of their purposes has accumulated. Astonishingly, it seems many on the left and/or conspiracy theorists have nonetheless concluded that al Qaeda is trivial, insignificant, or non-existent.

The hard core conspiracy theorists will of course argue that the latest bin Laden tape is not genuine, but created by the CIA. Thanks for a note of sanity.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
slimpikins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9261

posted 23 May 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for slimpikins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, don't be fooled by the conspiratory theorists, Al Qaeda is real. As a matter of fact, they not only are responsible for 9/11, but they put those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and spirited them away before the invasion, thank you very much), singlehandedly stripped the freedoms from every single person outside of America, oppressed women (and not the Republican way which involves staying at home and having babies on demand, the much more oppressive Muslim way, as in staying at home wearing a burka and having babies on demand), and I am not sure but I think that they may have been involved in fixing the last 'Survivor' series.

Yes, I am in fact glad that someone here can help us all get grounded in reality when it comes to Bin Laden. Thanks, folks.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 May 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See what I mean?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 23 May 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see the US-government-conspiracy narratives around Sept. 11 as being all that plausible, but I do tend to agree with people who've characterized the idea of an international Islamic fundamentalist organization called Al-Qaeda -- one that's responsible for a large number of large-scale and small-scale terrorist attacks -- as also being an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

The thought occurs that if Bush could take advantage of someone else's terrorist attack for his own political purposes, so too could bin Laden.

"9-11? Sure, we were behind that. Madrid? London? Yup, that was us too. Every time an IED goes off in Afghanistan or Iraq? That's right, it's Al-Qaeda again! We are a strong and deadly force. Fear us! .. Hey, turn the camera off, we have to move my dialysis machine to the next cave before they find me."


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 May 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sidescroll alert!

On what is sure to be a long thread . . .


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 23 May 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al-Queda is a fact, so is Osama bin Laden's history as a terrorist mastermind. It's also a fact that he used to be on the CIA payroll.
From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 May 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:
Al-Queda is a fact, so is Osama bin Laden's history as a terrorist mastermind. It's also a fact that he used to be on the CIA payroll.

And your point is...?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 May 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This should probably continue in the international news forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 May 2006 08:12 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While you're here Michelle, could you fix the sidescroll thingy?
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 24 May 2006 08:35 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was another video soon after the 9/11 attacks that had Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks as well. As pointed out in the loose change videos, there were several inconsistancies in that video that did not jive... This can be taken the same way quite easily.


quote:
but they put those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and spirited them away before the invasion, thank you very much)

Debateable if the AQ was invovled in Iraq until after the invasion... Not taking anything away from the seriousness of AQ, but there is little evidence showing AQ was involved in Iraq prior to the invasion.


I seriously doubt if this 'confession' will cause many conspiracy theorists to change their tones.

addit:

quote:
Al-Queda is a fact, so is Osama bin Laden's history as a terrorist mastermind. It's also a fact that he used to be on the CIA payroll.

Including funding up to 2001.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 24 May 2006 11:07 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Astonishingly, it seems many on the left and/or conspiracy theorists have nonetheless concluded that al Qaeda is trivial, insignificant, or non-existent.

Well none of the above for me, however after growing up during the height of the cold war, where the end of the world was never more than 30 minutes away (still is but tensions are greatly reduced), I can't get overly paranoid worrying about actors on the scale of OBL. Certainly not a big enough threat to ever consider giving up any civil liberties to counter it. I've found the fear mongering around OBL to be way out of proportion to the actual threat.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Jimmy Brogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 24 May 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Astonishingly, it seems many on the left and/or conspiracy theorists have nonetheless concluded that al Qaeda is trivial, insignificant, or non-existent.

Canadians killed in traffic accidents since 2000- 14,135 (Transport Canada)

Canadians killed by Al Queada since 2000- 0*

*9-11's culprits have yet to be determined beyond reasonable doubt. We are offered just speculation, assertion, and dubious tampered evidence by the same people responsible for the rape of Iraq.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 May 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It wasn't the left who shovelled billions in covert funding to unsavory causes for the spread of militant Islam.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 24 May 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the threat of al Qaeda has been overblown for neo-con political interests too, and agree that they are not worth giving up any civil liberties over. What I cannot accept is this cavalier, dare I say childish attitude that al Qaeda may be ignored, that a well-developed intelligence/police/military response is not called for, that if we just close our eyes and blame America, we'll never have to think of al Qaeda again, and it will all just go away. This is not a basis for policy development in the face of a declared and demonstrated enemy.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 May 2006 04:06 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brett, weren't the Taliban refusing to handover bin Laden to the U.S. at some point ?. You'd think they would be considered terrorists by proxy or something, especially when they are attacking Canadian and NATO troops over there.
I think there might even be a few Taliban stashed away for safe keeping in USian gulags for torture in EurAsia and Gitmo.

US does not consider Taliban terrorists - CSM


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 24 May 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I think the threat of al Qaeda has been overblown for neo-con political interests too, and agree that they are not worth giving up any civil liberties over. What I cannot accept is this cavalier, dare I say childish attitude that al Qaeda may be ignored, that a well-developed intelligence/police/military response is not called for...

This still leaves the question of how serious the Al-Qaida threat is unanswered. So if it was overblown, how overblown?

quote:
This is not a basis for policy development in the face of a declared and demonstrated enemy.

Someone can declare they are my enemy all day long, but if they don't pose a reasonable threat to me, then there is no need for a "well-developed" response. Here -- as in another thread -- you have alluded to the "demonstrated" threat of Al-Qaida. However, you have yet to provide evidence that this threat is real and significant to Canadians. You have not provided a clear catalogue of a specific threat and/or what a response designed for that specific threat might look like. You decry the loss of liberties, but without a specific threat to respond to, there is little more that can be done than implement the kind of liberty-eroding observation and surveillance techniques in place in the U.S..

Also, in that other thread you mentioned other attacks in Western states, and yet the two most significant terrorist attacks in Western states since 9/11 (Spain and England) show no clear links to Al-Qaida according to investigators. You didn't respond to my reposte on this point there, perhaps you might deign to here. It seems to me, that in spite of your attempts to position yourself as the 'measured' and 'reasonable' response, you are yourself involved in overblowing the threat posed by Al-Qaida.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 24 May 2006 05:09 PM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
explain this then you 'al ciada is a danger' people:
snip>
Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm


From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 24 May 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I apologize for not offering more specifics yet, B.. Zeebub. How great is the real threat from al Qaeda? I don't know of course, nobody does. We do know that during the '90s, al Qaeda ran training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan which are reported to have trained over 70,000 terrorists. But even this is not exact - many or most of those trained would likely have been nationals of Arab/Islamic nations, (as well as many from western nations). Most were probably trained mainly in armed insurgent combat - not a serious threat to western nations, but very effective in Iraq, Lebanon and similar situation. Some however were more sophisticated, and tasked with major attacks on modern nations. The main specific case I am aware of at this point is that of a Canadian, Mohammed Mansour Jabara, who was intercepted before he could carry out a well-financed and organized attack in Singapore, designed to stir up ethnic strife between the Muslim population in that region and their neighbours. According to The Martyr's Oath by Stewart Bell, this attack would have caused casuaties on a 9/11 scale.

As you correctly point out, it seems that the attacks in London and Madrid were carried out without the direct operational control of al Qaeda, unlike 9/11, the Cole attack, and attacks in Africa. However the fact that some would-be Jihadists take action outside of the command structure of al Qaeda in no way diminishes the threat of al Qaeda. Here in Canada, we have evidence of the Ressam case, where a Montreal-based Jihadist group were planning a major attack in the US. We have also recently the evidence of Canadian complicity in the British attacks. Early on, shortly after 9/11, Canadian newspapers carried stories of an interrupeted Jihadist plot in Montreal to bomb the Jewish section of that city.

Now these are not huge threats. Even a bomb killing a couple of hundred people on the TTC, say, would have incalcuable political consequences, but really would not be that great a catastrophe in the larger scheme of things. But al Qaeda is reputed to be very patient and determined, and we have every reason to believe they are trying to acquire nuclear weapons for an attack on North America. Absent a nuclear attack, there are other places where a well-planned terrorist attack could cause mass casualties, far in excess of Madrid and London.

And finally, there is an important feature that many are overlooking here. In our real lives, we deal differently with danger when it seems the result of our own carelessness or pure accident, and when it arises from an individual or group which has declared they will do us harm. We do not let people go running around loose after they have demonstrated evil intent toward us, and acted on that intent. We simply do not have the option of ignoring or downplaying such threats, any more than if there were a killer in your neighbourhood who had promised to kill your family, and had shown a willingness and ability to kill other families. You would not say, "well, he likely can't do it anyway, so why worry?" The circumstances require that the threat be removed, somehow. Al Qaeda has declared war on us. "Us" including Canada. Given their track record, I think it would be the height of foolishness to discount this declaration. Perhaps al Qaeda has been irrevocably weakened and no longer presents the threat it once may have. But we can't bank on this, and the conclusion I draw is that al Qaeda must be eliminated.

We are caught in a hell of a situation here. Al Qaeda is undoubtedly the child of America to a large extent, and like most on this board, I fear and depise nascent American fascism even more than Jihadists. We cannot likely counter the al Qaeda threat without doing some of America's dirty work. But we do not have the luxury of pretending we are on the sidelines here - innocent Canadian people could well be victims too, and while it may sound trite, America has not yet declared war on us. Al Qaeda has.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 24 May 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
hey Brett, this info is new to me. Got a cite that AQ has declared war on Canada that you could provide us?
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 24 May 2006 07:05 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wage Zombie (great handle) - sorry, I can't give the specific link/reference right now. I'd have to dig for it, and it's a couple of years old now, but was contained in one of the al Qaeda messages to the world, declaring Jihad against the west, and naming Canada, among other nations, specifically as targets. Some have discounted this message as false, manufactured by the CIA or whatever, but I think otherwise. Help me out somebody, when did we get that al Qaeda missive, and who supposedly signed it? But then again, after the attacks in London, Madrid, New York, Bali, etc. does anyone seriously doubt al Qaeda's intentions?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 24 May 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Doesn't really matter if Al Q has "declared war" on us or not. They're not likely to care if we get in the way of an American target, or hesitate to attack Americans on Canadian soil if the means arose.

I agree with Brett on this one. The threat is overblown (what colour terror alert are we at now?), especially from "Al Queda" per se. But whether they are carrying out the attacks or just inspiring them (e.g. Spain and the UK) there is a threat. Not one worth giving up our liberty for but not something to be ignored.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 May 2006 07:32 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought the London bombing was a group of Pakistani extremists?. That country is an alleged friendly, yet Pakistani border guards wave self-proclaimed Taliban past check points into Afghanistan, by what I've read. At least they were friendlies during the CIA-British-Saudi's proxy war against our one-time world war two allies, the Soviets. It's all very confusing to the average Canadian.

And I think it's meant to be. There are no parliamentary debates as it was for our entry into WWII, just total and unbending compliance with American imperialism. And this is what bothers most Canadian's, we might assume, as public support for this combat mission has plummeted since March. Ask the average Canadian what they think of our aiding and abetting the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader in Haiti. Too many will have no idea what you're talking about.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 24 May 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, i don't doubt their intentions. They're a scary organization. Which is not to say that i see them as a threat to my personal safety, just that i think that they're playing for keeps (understandably so) and they're very willing to hurt people to accomplish their objectives (there are a lot of scary organizations in the world on many sides).

I was just not aware that they haed declared war on Canada. And while the Madrid and London bombings were terrible events, Spain and London were involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq, and i think there was a connection. I don't know of any terrorist attacks where there hasn't been some connection to other events, and i think that "they hate us for what we do" is a better description than "they hate us for what we are".

A terrorist attack by AQ in Canada would be a terrible thing. I feel though that Harper's rhetoric is backwards and our recent actions in Afghanistan is more likely to lead to an attack. He says that we're in danger so we have to be aggressive against them--but past events suggest that those who have been aggressive are the ones in danger.

If anyone else can provide a cite for AQ's declaration of war against Canada i'd love to see it.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 25 May 2006 06:22 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Increased military budgets around the world, curtailed civil liberties around the world, meaner and nastier politics, and the invasion of whole countries around this threat. Moreover, the US has killed more people ostensibly going after Al Qaeda, than Al Qaeda has in return!

I think Al Qaeda is more of a threat as a convenient boogey-man to serve as a punching bag for some of the nastiest, most machiavellian ideologues in the world.

Some of Al Qaeda's demands are also perfectly reasonable (leave Saudi Arabia, end the bloodletting in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine) and call for the same democratization that the US is trying to impose by force.

For that, more than anything, there is this disgraceful symbiosis which may explain why Osama Bin Laden is still free -- after almost 4 3/4 years. Or counting back to the embassy bombings, 8 years.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 May 2006 06:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sidescroll fixed. Jeff House, would you mind, pretty please, taking a look at the opening post in this thread. It explains, step by step, how to make it so that your links do not cause sidescroll. It's really easy.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 25 May 2006 06:49 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A quick Google search of the terms "al Qaeda, Canada" produced many hits. Reuters reports

"In recent years Al Qaeda has twice specifically threatened to strike against Canada. In 2004, Judd's predecessor as CSIS chief said "it is no longer a question of if, but rather of when or where, we will be specifically targeted"."


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 25 May 2006 08:14 AM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the info Brett,

I will note that the headline of the article that you linked to is "Canada plays down talk of an al-Qaeda attack".

The quote you provided seems like the strongest one that implies that Canada is under threat.

I'm not trying to knitpick on language here. I'm saying that statements made by AQ specifically threatening Canada or declaring war on Canada would be very significant, and if they've been made then people need to know about them. That would be very serious indeed. Vague comments from csis that later have to be qualified just do not carry the same weight.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 25 May 2006 08:29 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Osama also states that two US prisoners knew about 9/11, but that Moussaoui wasn't involved:

quote:
The terror mastermind did indicate that two suspects had links to the attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon: "All the prisoners to date have no connection to the Sept. 11 events or knew anything about them, except for two of the brothers," bin Laden said. But he did not provide names or elaborate further and it wasn't possible to determine if or where they were held.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape_moussaoui

The problem is, how trustworthy is this guy? He says he wants to kill us, and he's not dumb, or poor. I'm sure he has his own message-managers helping with these tapes who would give Harper's handlers a run for their money.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 25 May 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess I was not clear enough, Wage Zombie. The al Qaeda threats and the CSIS responses to them were two separate events, as this CTV storymakes clearer.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 25 May 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's really easy.

I follow the steps and then my computer blows up.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 25 May 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He also said Maher was NOT involved in any of the plotting. But few seem to consider the implications of that statement.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 25 May 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry to be obtuse, Otter, but what implications are your referring to? You mean OBL says Maher Arar is innocent? What are the implications beyond the likelihood that OBL is simply telling the truth? What am I missing here?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
erroneousrebelrouser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12363

posted 25 May 2006 10:02 PM      Profile for erroneousrebelrouser   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I spent a few days away from my book last summer to research all of Bin Laden's tapes where they could be found on the internet and as they were transcribed so that I could read everything that he had been saying to the journalists who had been interviewing him during the late nineties and up into the early 2000's. Quite eye opening and almost ethereal; (by that it was like it was unreal); to read exactly what he was saying and to understand what he meant by what he was saying; it was very terrifying.

What really was an eye opener for me was how he felt no remorse for the women and children and civilians who had been killed; he likened it to the extreme hatred that he mentioned over and over that he felt for the American people; and mentioned that American troops had come over to kill their women and their children, so he saw that it was exactly the same thing; like an eye for an eye. He kept referring to the "cities of the two temples" and had mentioned that the killing would not stop until this city that he referred to was joined again by their chosen people. Referring to the killing he asked the question back; "what is the difference?" I remember reading it and feeling my skin crawl with the utter contempt that he felt for Americans; the way that he proceeded to tell the journalists that he would not stop until America was left torn in pieces; and many other things similiar to this.

I will try to find the stories and provide the link; it took some time to read all about how he felt and why he had been doing what he had been doing; and that he felt it totally justified with religeous fervor without guilt or conscience. It was a bit hard to swallow; I will look for it. I remember that I never felt the same after reading how he felt; and before I had read it I had just thought of him as a murderous thug; the only thing that changed was that he was a murderous thug with unlimited resources and a hatred for America and America's allies, and a vision to destroy and ruinate everything that we have and everything that America believes in. I remember one really scary sentence he had said; something to the effect that he will not (or they will not) stop until America and it's people are on it's knees and America is an unrecognizeable nation that has been torn to pieces by their supposedly unstoppable cause. It was chilling.

These tapes were made of course, before 9/11. I wish that we had taken him more seriously before; maybe like some refer to say that some DID; and some knew this was coming. I think all of us knew it was coming; the attempt on the world trade center was made in 1993; I remember that day well too. I never thought that it would actually happen; though. Kind of surreal, to look back on it. But what we have learned here gives a whole new meaning to "who's running what."

And..."why"...


From: home sweet home | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 May 2006 11:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

I follow the steps and then my computer blows up.



I'll bet he can't change the spark plugs in his car either. This professor type once told me he can't do a lot of things other people do, even though he belongs to MENSA.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 26 May 2006 10:11 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Topic: Bin Laden Says He Organized 9-11: Conspiracy Theorists Disconcerted?

Answer: depends on what the conspiracy theory is. If it is a LIHOP flavor conspiracy theory, then Bin Laden's statements would be completely consistent. Also, if it is one of the conspiracy theories that posits that Bin Laden is secretly in US gov't care and custody, then the new tape would be consistent with that too.

The Bin Laden tape does knock out some other conspiracy theories -- specifically the craziest margin of conspiracy theories that nobody believes anyway.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 May 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll bet he can't change the spark plugs in his car either.

That is usually done by my chauffeur, of course.

(I am so glad "Fidel" still retains those long-departed prejudices whereby intellectual workers can be demeaned without evidence, in the name of the proletariat!)

Those attitudes can carry one SO far!


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 May 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No offense intended, Jeff. I can't do a lot of things myself. We're human. If you were offended, then please accept my apology.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 May 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apology accepted. Anyway, computer knowledge is techy, whereas car knowledge is working class.

Lots of people who can change a tire can't cure sidescroll, or even know what it is.

When you are 80 years old like me, you will understand why.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 26 May 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Apology accepted. Anyway, computer knowledge is techy, whereas car knowledge is working class.

Lots of people who can change a tire can't cure sidescroll, or even know what it is.

When you are 80 years old like me, you will understand why.


Oh. I thought you just hated me and wanted to keep my comments off your threads.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 26 May 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Sorry to be obtuse, Otter, but what implications are your referring to? You mean OBL says Maher Arar is innocent? What are the implications beyond the likelihood that OBL is simply telling the truth? What am I missing here?

I think Otter might be referring to Zacarias Moussaoui, not Arar.

The implication to me (if it is Moussaoui) is that the American justice system got their prosecution wrong. Whether or not it is true is a different subject.

(BTW -- EmmaG seems to be responsible for the current sidescroll. Just sayin'.)


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 May 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Huh, now that's a surprise to me. I had you pegged as a 40-ish brat like me, Jeff. My mother's 81. My brother and I are almost finished building her sun room, just some trim to nail up now. It's a beaut with stone hearth and Indonesian wood flooring. She likes to feed birds and squirrels and bash political conservatism with her friends over a cup'a.

cheers Jeff


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 26 May 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But Siren, Otter wrote "He also said Maher was NOT involved in any of the plotting." Not Zacarias Moussaoui. I'm still confused.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 26 May 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No really sure Brett Mann but my suggestion was that it is perhaps otter who is confused -- the original link starting this thread does not mention Maher Arar at all.

Guess we'll just have to wait for otter to show and explain. S/he's probably out having a beer right now. Nice pub, nice summer evening, cold beer. Think I'll just wander down to my beer fridge now that I'm thinking about it.

Maybe I'll work on a new conspiracy theory that explains it ALL. Bwahahaaa.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
erroneousrebelrouser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12363

posted 26 May 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for erroneousrebelrouser   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
here is one link most of you have probably read it or are familiar with it; I just thought I'd add it here; I'm still trying to find the one that I had found.

[URL=www.flexwiki.com/.../ Hamid%20Mir%20the%20last%20journalist%20to%20interview%20Osama%20bin%20Laden.html]web page[/URL]

here's another one

[URL=english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ 79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm - 65k -]web page[/URL]


From: home sweet home | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 27 May 2006 10:45 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But Siren, Otter wrote "He also said Maher was NOT involved in any of the plotting." Not Zacarias Moussaoui. I'm still confused.

Sorry, it was Moussaoui NOT Maher. I guess i got my Bush victims mixed up again but i blame the mistake on the fact that there have been so many and the total is far from being tallied as yet.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 May 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by otter:
Sorry, it was Moussaoui NOT Maher. I guess i got my Bush victims mixed up again but i blame the mistake on the fact that there have been so many and the total is far from being tallied as yet.



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 27 May 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff, there is a difference between your


quote:
Bin Laden Says He Organized 9-11: Conspiracy Theorists Jeff House

AND

quote:
A person claiming to be al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said in an audio recording released on Tuesday that he had personally allocated roles to 19 men of his group to launch attack on September 11, 2001. There is a big question mark about him, whether he is alive or dead? http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=1504



How did you know it was actually Bin Laden ?

[ 27 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 May 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Huh, now that's a surprise to me. I had you pegged as a 40-ish brat like me, Jeff.
House has a couple of decades to go before he's even within shouting distance of 80.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 28 May 2006 06:29 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This [URL=english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ 79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm]Atlantic [/URL] article provides an interesting overview of OBL and his network, and probably is as factual and probable as anything else we will see at this point.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
erroneousrebelrouser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12363

posted 28 May 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for erroneousrebelrouser   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I still haven't found that link that I had read summer before last..damnit!

Yea, Hamid's overture regarding the agonizing ritualistic preparation that he had to make in order to make and complete his journey, years ago even to OBL...was bizarre at best to read. Imagine, having to take shower after shower, very hot water as he described; then have to take laxatives over and over; emptying his bowels to the point of I'm sure extreme dehydration and electrolyte imbalance; and the drugs that they gave him both to clean him out, (inside and out) and still the showers; only to finally have to be drugged again; then wrapped up in some kind of makeshift coffin...then hours and hours later; blindfolded and stuck in the trunk of some vehicle with no shocks in the rocky terrain; all the while it was explained to him by these men that "this was necessary" so that there could be no tracking device on or inside of his body; can you imagine the terror that this man felt. He said himself that he knew that he would not come back alive; having prepared letters to say goodbye to his family -- all for the sake of an interview and a meeting of this man, Osama Bin Laden. I'd say he was pushing the envelope in the 'paranoid' department; but as he explained in the interview that very soon afterward, all this would make sense.

I know I couldn't have done it. Even if I were a man. Imagine trying to set up an interview now. ('if' he's alive; and I believe he is.


From: home sweet home | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Montovan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4972

posted 28 May 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for Montovan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it unfathamable that anyone who has taken the trouble to do even a minimal amt of research on 911 is still able to believe that Osama was its orchestrator. Not on your life. Government is constantly conspiring against its citizenry--and all I can say is that if the people of the U.S. (and yes, Canadians too) don't smarten up soon, we're done for. Our democracies have already been eroded, but mass gullibility will be the finish of us.

Not only was 911 an inside job, the "official report" (and a long time coming at that) is an insult to one with even half a brain. I am sure that many of us here on that very ominous day immediately smelled a rat--a big ugly rat. Four megaplanes veering off course and heading for U.S.'s sensitive areas and no fighter planes to intercept. Helllllooooo, anyone home? Three buildings "go down" (in like manner) and the guy (the fellow who held the WTC leases was heard to say on t.v. that he was ordering WTBldg 7 "pulled." There is only one way to construe "pull" and that is "controlled demolition" (which takes days if not a few weeks to set up). Very, very interesting. And the list of other unlikely happenings is exceedingly long. For the pooh poohers of "it was an inside job," don't let the real bad guys count on you setting aside your plain good common sense.

Denial of the Obvious - Why?

P.S. Is it not possible to preview something on Babble to ensure one is doing the "instant formatting" right.


From: B.C. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 May 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Operation Northwoods

quote:
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

John Pilger said they were looking for another Pearl Harbor. Isn't it at least strange how a crisis of that magnitude falls in the laps of the very pro-military chickenhawks?. The CIA and NSA's favorite past time was masterminding and carrying out dirty tricks around the world. Who can say with a straight face that they were above perpetrating 9/11?. They were warned by the CIA about possible hijacked airliners being used as missiles. The hawks are at the very least guilty of criminal negligence.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 29 May 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 28 May 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By the way, I just finished watching JFK.

[Edited to add] Opps! I just realized Fidel had already mentioned JFK.

[ 28 May 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 29 May 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That the WTC towers were demolished, not attacked, does not automatically mean there is no terrorist threat in the world, from Al Qaeda or anyone else.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 29 May 2006 10:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How come bad things happen to good people and their imperialist cousins ?. We had no direct military ties with imperialism in Afghanistan until now. I guess we're due for a 3/11 or bus bombing or something as of Martin and Harper inserting themselves into Uncle Sam's back pocket.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 04 June 2006 05:09 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(I am so glad "Fidel" still retains those long-departed prejudices whereby intellectual workers can be demeaned without evidence, in the name of the proletariat!) -Jeff House

Jeff,

Talking about prejudice, you have yet to explain what clearly appears to me as your prejudice towards Arabs whereby they cannot build a better society even if the US and other imperialist forces quit interferenring interfereing in their affairs.

You also have yet to explain your affirmation that it was actually Bin Laden and not a person claiming to be Bin Laden (my question above).

The most obvious "disconnection" to me is yours from your past objectivity and sense of courtesy to reply.

[ 04 June 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
JaneyCanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12682

posted 04 June 2006 04:51 PM      Profile for JaneyCanuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a small minor pt re: "Canadians killed by Al Queada since 2000- 0*"

If one accepts that this group was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, the number is 26. There was also an American who was a sibling of mine (former Cdn) killed in the Trade Center. So I do think that yes, Canadians have been killed by Al Queada.

I do think there are many questions about the attacks that require answers however - even the bin Laden video looks strange.

There may be others I cannot think of at the moment - not sure if the 26 includes the Boston Bruins' hockey official who was on one of the planes that left Logan.


From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 04 June 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have always thought that Bin Laden was perfectly clear about what he wanted. There are certainly enough tapes around that have been authenticated.

To bankrupt the US economy among other things. It was push back against the US influence in the oil countries of the middle east.

His method was brutal, but then when it comes to brutal who knows anymore who owns that crown.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 04 June 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JaneyCanuck:
Just a small minor pt re: "Canadians killed by Al Queada since 2000- 0*"

If one accepts that this group was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, the number is 26. There was also an American who was a sibling of mine (former Cdn) killed in the Trade Center. So I do think that yes, Canadians have been killed by Al Queada.

I do think there are many questions about the attacks that require answers however - even the bin Laden video looks strange.

There may be others I cannot think of at the moment - not sure if the 26 includes the Boston Bruins' hockey official who was on one of the planes that left Logan.


How would it affect you if you learned that 911 was staged, a part of the coup d'etat that began in months prior to the nov7/00 US election, but really took off on election night and on dec12/00 when supreme court stopped florida recount? i know you refuse to believe this, but it still perplexes...how can you insist on believing in an 'al ciada' angle when you cannot explain the anomalies present on 911? And still you use 911 to convict al ciada!


From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 04 June 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It would be worth a whole new thread to discuss the acutal structure, reach and capabilites of al Qaeda et al. One estimate I saw cited about 70,000 jihadists trained in camps in Afghanistan in the 90's. Only a fraction of these would have been capable of serious international terrorism because of the nationality of their passports. It seems a disaffected section of Islamic youth in Europe and elsewhere are systematically and effectively screened and selected for further training.

Madrid, London, and now Toronto (almost, praise Allah) now show us that home-grown terrorism is a reality. But this is likely to be intercepted, as in the current case, because it is the work of relative amateurs. It is quite likely (certain, actually) that al Qaeda has deep cover agents in Canada and the US who remain under central, long term command and who are unlikely to be caught in the kind of web CSIS and the RCMP wove here.

So the question is, how dangerous are they? Although infintesimally small in number, they might well be sufficient for another September 11, 2001 attack, possibly on a far greater scale of destruction and mayhem. It seems to me that the threat they present is directly proportional to the threat posed by a well-funded, well-organized, rejuventent al Qaeda. Thus the argument for going after the problem at its root, within a 1000 km radius of Kabul.

Maybe the most important point to keep in mind in all this is that the radical Islamo-fascist approach of al Qaeda is at least as much an attack on the venerable and wise and compassionate religion of Islam and its followers as it is on the rest of us.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 04 June 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brett, if you think al ciada is a greater danger to society then rightwing fascism as represented by rush limbah-humbug and geebush etc, then you are, to say it harshly, a damn fool!
From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 June 2006 04:23 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clandestiny, you miss the point (but don't worry, you are certainly not alone in that here

This is not an either/or choice. Both the Bush crime family and international terrorism present real threats. I agree, by the way, that the former is more dangerous. We do not effectively oppose the Bush crime project by denying the reality of terrorism. This seems to be an awfully hard concept for some folks to grasp.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 June 2006 05:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
This is not an either/or choice. Both the Bush crime family and international terrorism present real threats. I agree, by the way, that the former is more dangerous. We do not effectively oppose the Bush crime project by denying the reality of terrorism. This seems to be an awfully hard concept for some folks to grasp.

Well argued, Brett. I think you've just contributed a new entry to the fallacies catalogue. Permit me:

quote:
This is not an either/or choice. Both child-abusing parents and difficult children present real threats. I agree, by the way, that the former are more dangerous. We do not effectively oppose child-abusing parents by denying the reality of difficult children. This seems to be an awfully hard concept for some folks to grasp.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 June 2006 05:41 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...by denying the reality of terrorism.
The only 'terrorism' I recognise as reality here is the campaign of FUD that we see in our media, and hear from our current government. The real fear is that too many will actually internalize this propaganda, as it seems Brett Mann has.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 05 June 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hear, hear, LTJ.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 05 June 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recommend this informative BBC 3-part series for an interesting perspective on the idea that Al Qaeda actually exists as an organized global terrorist network.

The Power of Nightmares


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 June 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So if anyone grants any authenticity to the existence of al Qaeda and states a need to deal with this threat, they are automatically "internallizing propaganda" and exaggerating the threat. This kind of thinking is either deliberately dishonest (in an unconscious sort of way) or really really blinkered and blind. In any case, this whole terrorist threat and the left's response, or lack of response to it, is doing incalculable damage to the left in this country. Fantasy, wishful thinking and head-in-the-sand avoidance will destroy the credibility of progressives on this issue, and on many others, I am afraid.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 June 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After all the lies and deception about the Iraq threat and WMD, it is the left that lacks credibility?

You're not worth our time.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 June 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Help me out here, LTJ - are we discussing the Iraq war or international terrorism? Or are the two synonymous in your mind? And are we speaking about Canadian foreign policy or American foreign policy? Or are the two synonymous in your mind?

By the way, there was an interesting piece in the Focus section of the Globe and Mail last weekend "Shake it to the left" by Terry Glavin. The topic is the "Euston Manifesto"- a document produced by a bunch of journalists, activists, academics and students on the left. The document is rapidly gather ing support and signatures across the world. A sample: "the document deliberately draws attention to deep world wide fault lines that run across the broad political spectrum of the liberal-left. These are ruptures, rarely acknowledged in the press, that are buckling the tectonics of the entire liberal realm."

The bottom line is that a lot of leftists feel the left has been undermined and hi-jacked by far left thinking. A major shakeup may be underway to rid leftism of its unfortunate post-modern baggage and contradictions. A new realism would be a breath of fresh air indeed. I don't think we'll get it from Mr. Layton who today said he was totally surprised at the possibility of a terrorist attack in Canada. Although I'm paraphrasing him, if this is true, he should resign from the party leadership immediately. Such ignorance is incomprehensible.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 June 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hardly. But then again, even yours is not difficult to understand.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 June 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BTW, I doubt I've ever seen anything more fuzzy, formless and meaningless than the "Euston Manifesto". I was briefly curious; afraid that I had missed something. Now I'm afraid that I totally wasted a couple of minutes of my time on it.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 05 June 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recall reading a thread here about the Euston Manifesto when it was published -- several months ago, I think. Tried searching on Google and using the Babble search function, but couldn't find anything. I was reminded of the manifesto when I read Glavin's article on Saturday. Glavin is a writer who I have a great deal of respect for, but the manifesto sounds sort of half-baked, so I thought the topic might be worth some more discussion.

Letter in reply to Glavin article

quote:
The Euston Manifesto promoted by Terry Glavin (Shake It To The Left -- June 3) is presented as a bold reassertion of progressive political values intended to reinvigorate an enervated left that has lost its way. What we get instead is a laundry list of things we should all be against (evil dictators, racism, and suicide bombers) and things we should all be in favour of (democracy, human rights, and, uh, open-source software).

But the fundamental failing of the Euston Manifesto goes beyond its simplistic "Saddam bad, U.S. good" logic. The manifesto presents neither a coherent analysis of the world's problems nor any plan for solving them. One does not have to be a Marxist to believe that the role of capitalism, an economic system that requires endless growth and is eating the planet alive, at least needs to be addressed. The manifesto does not even mention the word.

-- Angus Taylor, Victoria



From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 June 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well the Euston Manifesto may or may not be worthy, but its existence and the attention its receiving do point to some re-shaping occuring on the left. Long over due, I think.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 05 June 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It turns out the thread I remembered was on En Masse (it didn't spark a lot of discussion there either), and it wasn't "several months ago", but only one month ago.

I might start a thread specifically on the manifesto, but not just this moment, so if someone else wants to beat me to it, feel free.

In the meantime, here's some links to:

A large excerpt from Glavin's article, reprinted in Normas Geras' blog

An excerpt from Glavin's blog

The Euston Manifesto

[ 05 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 05 June 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Euston Manifesto has it's coordinates mixed up. "The Far Left" hasn't been heard from in years, replaced as it has been with "Third Way" economics and the mealy-mouthed "ethics of tolerance" - you know a pleasant world of nice folk dances and exotic food as long as those doing the dancing and cooking follow OUR way of life...
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 June 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Norman Geras, the big mover behind the Euston Manifesto, is a right-wing social democrat who supported and still supports the war in Iraq.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca