Al Qaeda a myth says Russian

[Jazzz]

Here's your own words. Wriggle away:

"In some ways your illiterate 15C serf - a man concerned largely with minding his own business - will prove a tougher customer to manipulate than the likes of many on these boards."

So who are these "many" people on the boards you're referring to, DrJ?

I need not name names either of 15C serfs or board members who are likely descended from them. I have made the point I was making several times now, and indeed the more you try to intimate that considering someone susceptible to propaganda is a heinous insult, the more you make it for me.

 

[editor]

Totally outrageous stuff. Here we are with one of the best politics forum posters, and, just like bigfish, you're talking about banning them.

...if they continue to break the Posting FAQ.

Or should certain posters be allowed to post up gibberish all night long just because you like them?

And remind me: why was bigfish warned?

 

[editor]

The amount of off-topic stuff, eg johnny, mears, pbman, and the likes, and no chance of being banned.

Nah, it's the kind of opinion they come up with that makes you itching to press the ban button.

So how come a proven liar like you is still posting away?

 

[editor]

I need not name names either of 15C serfs or board members who are likely descended from them. I have made the point I was making several times now, and indeed the more you try to intimate that considering someone susceptible to propaganda is a heinous insult, the more you make it for me.

Face it: your point sucked and just made you look foolish.

 

[fela fan]

So I'm in league with the US and UK government, am I? And I'm actively "promoting" a fraudulent conspiracy theory, am I?

Nah, just like the rest of us, you're a nobody. Nobody important at all. But you seem increasingly ready to ban those that have the wrong opinion.

And that is scary in a way. Perhaps reflective of the current britain, the blair britain.

Oh dear.

 

[fela fan]

So how come a proven liar like you is still posting away?

A proven liar, is that what i am these days? Where on earth was the proof except in your own imagination?

 

[editor]

A proven liar, is that what i am these days

You claied that you were never going to post in world politics again. You claimed you were never going to bang on about 9/11 again etc etc

This has been pointed out to you by several posters.

 

[editor]

Nah, just like the rest of us, you're a nobody. Nobody important at all. But you seem increasingly ready to ban those that have the wrong opinion.

And that is scary in a way. Perhaps reflective of the current britain, the blair britain.

Oh dear.

So who'd been banned just for expressing the wrong opinion then?

To help you out, I've compiled a list ready for you:

PEOPLE BANNED BY THE EDITOR IN THE LAST MONTH FOR HAVING THE 'WRONG OPINION':

1.......................
2.......................
3.......................
4.......................
5........................

 

[Jazzz]

You just threatened to ban, yes BAN, raisin d'etre citing offences which are the Urban75 equivalent of tieing one's shoelaces in the wrong fashion!

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Who funded the 911 hijackers? None other than Pakistan's ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed. He instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta's bank account prior to 911. Another story that received scant coverage in the western press, although pressure was put on Pakistan to fire Ahmed. Coincidentally he was in Washington on the day of the attacks.

At the time of the attacks, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D) and Representative Porter Goss (R) (Goss is a 10-year veteran of the CIA's clandestine operations wing). The meeting is said to last at least until the second plane hits the WTC. [Washington Post, 5/18/02] Graham and Goss later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which has made headlines for saying there was no “smoking gun” of Bush knowledge before 9/11. [Washington Post, 7/11/02] Note Senator Graham should have been aware of a report made to his staff the previous month that one of Mahmood's subordinates had told a US undercover agent that the WTC would be destroyed (see Early August 2001). Evidence suggests Mahmood ordered that $100,000 be sent to hijacker Mohamed Atta

Check out the Wall Street Journal for more info.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Or should certain posters be allowed to post up gibberish all night long

Er, what about all day long?

You've posted on this thread, so you know what's happening there. You haven't threatened to ban anyone there, though. Gibberish? in spades. Meaningless drivel? oodles of it. in fact over 200 posts of unadulterated crap in under 30 minutes. And no bad-mouthing from you. What makes people on this thread into targets for your anger?

 

[editor]

You just threatened to ban, yes BAN, raisin d'etre citing offences which are the Urban75 equivalent of tieing one's shoelaces in the wrong fashion!

I threatened to ban her if she CONTINUED to post up off topic, content free posts in an inappropriate thread. This is fully in accordance with the FAQ and I see no reason why I should make exceptions just because she's one of the very few here who actually believes your paranoid theories.

 

[editor]

Er, what about all day long?

You've posted on this thread, so you know what's happening there. You haven't threatened to ban anyone there, though. Gibberish? in spades. Meaningless drivel? oodles of it. in fact over 200 posts of unadulterated crap in under 30 minutes. And no bad-mouthing from you. What makes people on this thread into targets for your anger?

Bless! Look who's predictably popped up to have a pointless dig again!

Read the FAQ carefully and then crawl back to your hole:

Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned.

Understand what " inappropriate" means?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

*shoots self*

 

[Lock&Light]

You just threatened to ban, yes BAN, raisin d'etre citing offences which are the Urban75 equivalent of tieing one's shoelaces in the wrong fashion!

Many people have been banned for posting up nonsense and for thread-derailing. They have then been able to return usually within a day or two. Why should raisin be an exception?

 

[Jazzz]

Just a coincidence I'm sure raisin, like the Bushes being pals with the Bin Ladens. Interesting to read in the same article about our hijacker's predilection for spending huge sums on Vegas lapdancers. Was that Osama's teaching? They must sure have hated the West

 

[Raisin D'etre]

You'd have to be a conspiraloon to believe that there were any connections! Wear your badge with pride!

 

[Jazzz]

You'd have to be a conspiraloon to believe that there were any connections! Wear your badge with pride!

I shall change my tagline!

 

[ViolentPanda]

First of all, for fuck's sake please learn how to use the "quote" function properly. I believe that instructions are in the FAQs.

Regardless of your definition of government, the taliban were the ruling clan in afghanistan at the time and were actively aiding AQ and OBL. Therefore the yanks had to invade afghanistan to get rid of OBL and AQ and to free the majority of afghanistan from the taliban

The Taliban were not the "ruling clan" in Afghanistan (in fact the Taliban are/were not a "clan" at all, more an assemblage of fundamentalist religious zealots who, although mostly Pashtun, contained members from other ethnic groups). They were the rulers of parts of Afghanistan. Simplying reiterating your view that they "ruled Afghanistan" so the Americans were justified in invading Afghanistan is factually incorrect.

they had camps over the majority of the country, only lacking a presence in the north (where the northern aliance was in control). Hence why most of the country had to be invaded to get rid of taliban and AQ.

Right, so we (you) have moved from "camps all over the country" to "camps over the majority of the country".

once again, your points have been counterd. anything else to add?

Countered? You call that "countered"?
I don't know where you get your information from (although I suspect the Daily Telegraph, going by the amount of "spook" tales in your posts), but it obviously isn't a credible source, as it contains all the inaccuracies the press has disseminated and not an ounce of original thought.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Re: Mahmood Ahmed the "money man" behind the 911 attackers

So Mahmood Ahmed wires $100,000 to Mohammad Atta and in the immediate aftermath of 911 the Bush administration decides to cooperate with Pakistan's ISI even though they knew that the ISI was financing the hijackers! The implications of this are staggering.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Re: Mahmood Ahmed the "money man" behind the 911 attackers

So Mahmood Ahmed wires $100,000 to Mohammad Atta and in the immediate aftermath of 911 the Bush administration decides to cooperate with Pakistan's ISI even though they knew that the ISI was financing the hijackers! The implications of this are staggering.

Why so?
I've been trying to explain to another board user in the "Bush sells arms to Pakistan?" thread that the ISI are pretty much notorious for playing a "long game" with the Americans, and that the Americans are complicit, balancing what they believe to be control of ISI personnel with the (mis)use of US resources.
In effect the US funded the madrassahs which "educated" the Afghanis (and Pakistanis) who became the Taliban. That they may have directly or indirectly given assistance to "terrorists" doesn't surprise me at all. The ISI are merely playing the game by the rules "the west" taught them.

 

[Jazzz]

I suppose it doesn't surprise you either VP that Osama's muslim fanatics who 'hate the freedoms' of the west would have a huge budget for lapdancing! Or that they all, somehow, gained entry into the US with mis-filled and incomplete visa applications.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Yes. Yet again where is the public discourse on this? It's almost taboo to mention the links. It is staggering because it implicates key members of the Bush admininistration at the time: CIA Director George Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman, as well Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September). Although there has been a vigorous attempt tot camouflage these links. Senator Graham who had breakfast with Mahmood on that fateful morning later said

In December 2002 ... he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.

source

It is also very curious that the two men Mahmood met with that fateful morning for breakfast - Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham - later went on to head the joint commission inquiry to reveal the truth of 911.

source

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suppose it doesn't surprise you either VP that Osama's muslim fanatics who 'hate the freedoms' of the west would have a huge budget for lapdancing! Or that they all, somehow, gained entry into the US with mis-filled and incomplete visa applications.

Not at all!
As far as I'm concerned it is good psychology to pander to a person's vices. That way you can manipulate their religious sensibility, play on their guilt. Hassan-I-Sabbah had it down to a fine art 800 years ago.

As for the visas, Given that the US puts most of its effort into policing the border with Mexico (with the knock-on effect this must have for INS everywhere else) there were an awful lot of entry points that were badly policed and an awful lot of overworked bureaucrats who "rubberstamped" rather than checked visa applications.

That doesn't rule out American collusion, of course, but it doesn't rule it in either. As far as I'm concerned so-called "conspiracy theories" are/were unnecessary. There was more than enough common or garden incompetence and laziness abounding that what happened did happen.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

According to [Michel Chossudovsky, a Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa for the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal, Canada] in assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, “it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans.

“The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".

source

 

[laptop]

the Bush administration decides to cooperate with Pakistan's ISI even though they knew that the ISI was financing the hijackers! The implications of this are staggering.

They might be, if "intelligence" operations followed neat (Hollywood-stylee) narratives.

A perfectly sufficient account of the whole shebang goes:

• Reagan throws money at whoever will fight the USSR in Afghanistan, much of it via the ISI
• These people, and ISI itself, pursue their own agenda with the cash, thank you Uncle Sam
• "Oh fuck, blowback" say the US spooks...
• "We'd better try to buy the ISI back again," they continue...

 

[Jazzz]

Not at all!
As far as I'm concerned it is good psychology to pander to a person's vices. That way you can manipulate their religious sensibility, play on their guilt. Hassan-I-Sabbah had it down to a fine art 800 years ago.

Gosh, you know, if I was programming a West-hating muslim fanatic, I would think that sending them to Las Vegas with $unlimited for lapdancers might just, well, loosen the grip somewhat. But what would I know?

 

[editor]

Just so I know: am I still being accused of promoting a "fraudulent conspiracy theory" about "the myth of Al Qaeda being responsible for 911" in league with the UK and UK governments and the "corporate media"?

 

[cynical_bastard]

Have you asked the CIA for a donation to the server fund yet?

 

[editor]

Have you asked the CIA for a donation to the server fund yet?

Ssshhhh! I'm already on the payroll: $500 per binned thread with bonuses for a conspiraloon ban.