Log in

View Full Version : CIA: Saudi directly implicated to 9/11 attack



ChunkyMonkey
12-15-2013, 22:21
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup-and-the-report-which-will-never-be-made-public/story-fnh81jut-1226783752992


AFTER the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al-Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with "specific sources of foreign support" for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today, the New York Post reported.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section.
The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are "absolutely shocked" at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they've proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.
The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically.
The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:
LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)
SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al-Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)
WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were "welfare" for Bassnan's supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers' hands.
Other al-Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.
The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.
"Our investigations contributed to the ambassador's departure," an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for "personal reasons."
FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.
Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va, chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the ­official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.

The attacks changed America forever. Source: AP Source: AP
Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.
As I first reported in my book, Infiltration, quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a "Saudi representative." A federal warrant for Awlaki's arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he "feigned a seizure," one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)
SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched, the New York Post reported.
Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it's a "coverup."
Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.
Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on September 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

The September 11 attacks changed the world like never before. Source: Supplied
Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a "coverup beyond belief." Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.
Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.
Granted, it's not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.
But it's critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn't water under the bridge. The information is still relevant today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.
As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, "State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States."
Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.
Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration and Muslim Mafia.

Here is my surprised face @__@

jhood001
12-15-2013, 22:34
Here is my surprised face @__@

Maybe 'Al-Qaeda' was invented to be the Saudi patsy.

Great-Kazoo
12-15-2013, 22:42
Anyone who thinks SA was not complicit in 911, believes Al Gore was the inventor of the internet.
IMO we should have glassed over SA and opened serious Gas & oil production here.

nynco
12-16-2013, 00:11
So basically some of the allegations by Michael Moore and Farenheight 911 were right after all...[facepalm]

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 00:23
So basically some of the allegations by Michael Moore and Farenheight 911 were right after all...[facepalm]

Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 00:27
Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

Pretty lame reply even if it is to Nynco. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. What blanket population do you fall under? I'm predominantly german. Am I suppose to say 'Sieg Hail' and hate jews? Nah.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 00:35
Pretty lame reply even if it is to Nynco. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. What blanket population do you fall under? I'm predominantly german. Am I suppose to say 'Sieg Hail' and hate jews? Nah.

Not one Muslim will refuse the opportunity to get rid of the non believers. I am from the largest Muslim country. Lived the first 14 year of my life next to the most moderate Muslim family, befriended the same age son most of those years, trusted them with our property, only to watch them laughing, looting, burning our home when the Muslim riot started. I also have few other political Asylum groups in Denver metro area who can give you testimonies after testimonies of the same instances. I have made my conclusion.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 00:57
Not one Muslim will refuse the opportunity to get rid of the non believers. I am from the largest Muslim country. Lived the first 14 year of my life next to the most moderate Muslim family, befriended the same age son most of those years, trusted them with our property, only to watch them laughing, looting, burning our home when the Muslim riot started. I also have few other political Asylum groups in Denver metro area who can give you testimonies after testimonies of the same instances. I have made my conclusion.

Sorry you went through that.

Nynco's point (and regardless of how anyone might try to easily dismiss it under any premise *eg: all them muslims are BAD*), is that we went after nations that may have not been responsible for 911 with our full military might.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assumed 'kill 'em all approach', but saying: " they would have done it to us, too" is contrary to how us civilized folk in this country operate. We use evidence to identify and convict the guilty. If evidence exists of who the real perpetrators were, we should have a new target on our minds and perhaps a big basket of apology for some of them dirty muslims that we fucked up real bad.

Just sayin'.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 01:06
You are making another assumption again. I do not trust any of them, it doesn't mean I would condone any kind of genocide. That itself is very Islam. I still take 1.5 billion Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, over that cult.

Back to the topic, Islam is fundamentally responsible for 9/11 along with so many other terrorist attacks. What other political purpose can you think of why the riches of Saudi would donate and support these Wahhabi fighters?

jhood001
12-16-2013, 01:28
You are making another assumption again. I do not trust any of them, it doesn't mean I would condone any kind of genocide. That itself is very Islam. I still take 1.5 billion Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, over that cult.

Back to the topic, Islam is fundamentally responsible for 9/11 along with so many other terrorist attacks. What other political purpose can you think of why the riches of Saudi would donate and support these Wahhabi fighters?

And I don't disagree with you. If what you claim is true (and I don't have any reason to doubt you), you have more knowledge of the ugly side of the muslim religion than anyone else lurking around here. My point is this:

Is a closet pedophile who never acts on his urges guilty of anything? Should a person that fantasizes about being a serial killer who has never taken a life be tossed in the hot seat? And should the populations of entire countries that didn't harbor or directly contribute or finance the attacks against us be subjected to our full military might simply because "they're muslim, too"?

The "left" if that is what you want to call them, is still pissed about at least one war against a 'people' that didn't directly kill our citizenry. I just think your reply to Nynco, who simply cited the findings of one steaming bag of shit (Micheal Moore), that may in fact be true, is lame, dismissive, and lacking of any real thought. That's all.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 01:38
And I don't disagree with you. If what you claim is true (and I don't have any reason to doubt you), you have more knowledge of the ugly side of the muslim religion than anyone else lurking around here. My point is this:

Is a closet pedophile who never acts on his urges guilty of anything? Should a person that fantasizes about being a serial killer who has never taken a life be tossed in the hot seat? And should the populations of entire countries that didn't harbor or directly contribute or finance the attacks against us be subjected to our full military might simply because "they're muslim, too"?

The "left" if that is what you want to call them, is still pissed about at least one war against a 'people' that didn't directly kill our citizenry. I just think your reply to Nynco, who simply cited the findings of one steaming bag of shit (Micheal Moore), that may in fact be true, is lame, dismissive, and lacking of any real thought. That's all.

Nope, Michael Moore came out and stated that it wasn't the fundamental of Islam or even the radical of Islam who caused 9/11. During the promotion of his so called documentary, he clashed with bill maher on this very topic. When you thought maher is as left as one could be, there is Michael Moore!

Instead, he mentioned Bush administration' saudi goal and later, Saudi kingdom conspiracy to expand Sunni influence... To get rid of Saddam. He insisted there is no radical Islam.

That's the context in my answer.

Great-Kazoo
12-16-2013, 01:40
If Muslims were in the streets protesting / denouncing the 9/11 attacks, then yes some humbling conceding might be in order. HOWEVER not 1 imam, mullah, or middle eastern / Muslim leaning nation, condemned the attacks. Even worse was the lack of outrage, from clerics, here in America. Beheadings on line , silence.
Yet after warnings to evacuate villages where Known terrorist leaders were hiding, before bombing them.. Once we / coalition forces attacked. The uproar from Islamist, here and abroad was defening.
Islamist, jihadist, etc. Have only one goal, the suppression and elimination of any thing, other than Islam, Sharia law.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 01:52
Nope, Michael Moore came out and stated that it wasn't the fundamental of Islam or even the radical of Islam who caused 9/11. During the promotion of his so called documentary, he clashed with bill maher on this very topic. When you thought maher is as left as one could be, there is Michael Moore!

Instead, he mentioned Bush administration and Saudi kingdom conspiracy to expand Sunni influence... To get rid of Saddam. He insisted there is no radical Islam.

That's the context in my answer.

Moore may have made those points regarding the non-complicity of fundamental/radical islam in his film, but I personally got a much stronger message from his shitty movie. And it was this: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq? All fingers point to the Saudis.

He outlined numerous and deeply troubling examples and evidence of Saudi involvement in 9-11. Whether Moore is a tool or not is kind of irrelevant. He was RIGHT in regards to the involvement of the Saudi's and that naturally gave way to calling into question our involvement in Iraq.

I really, really, don't like Micheal Moore, but... he was right on at least one point.

I don't know about you, but I can hate the ever-living shit out of someone and still give them their credit when it is due.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 01:54
Islamist, jihadist, etc. Have only one goal, the suppression and elimination of any thing, other than Islam, Sharia law.

Agreed, Jim.

Arsalan
12-16-2013, 01:58
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. [dig]
lets ask him!![beatdeadhorse]
The findings, if confirmed,!!!!!!????? [pileoshit]

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 02:05
Moore may have made those points regarding the non-complicity of fundamental/radical islam in his film, but I personally got a much stronger message from his shitty movie. And it was this: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq? All fingers point to the Saudis.

He outlined numerous and deeply troubling examples and evidence of Saudi involvement in 9-11. Whether Moore is a tool or not is kind of irrelevant. He was RIGHT in regards to the involvement of the Saudi's and that naturally gave way to calling into question our involvement in Iraq.

I really, really, don't like Micheal Moore, but... he was right on at least one point.

I don't know about you, but I can hate the ever-living shit out of someone and still give them their credit when it is due.

You keep changing and expanding the argument. Mentioning everything from German nazi to Iraq. Those are a whole another political argument in which we may agree upon.

I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 02:18
You keep changing and expanding the argument. Mentioning everything from German nazi to Iraq. Those are a whole another political argument in which we may agree upon.

I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

I wouldn't say that I'm changing or expanding upon much of anything, but I do understand the "left" and I know what their point is even when they don't make it clear. Breitbart is a bit of an idol of mine. Regardless, I'll play:


So basically some of the allegations by Michael Moore and Farenheight 911 were right after all...


Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

I didn't see anything in Nynco's post about blaming, or not blaming "the muslims". He merely stated that SOME of the allegations is in fact 'right after all'. And that was the general gist of the article you posted, was it not?

How did we get of track here? I think I just followed your lead.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 02:26
I wouldn't say that I'm changing or expanding upon much of anything, but I do understand the "left" and I know what their point is even when they don't make it clear. Breitbart is a bit of an idol of mine. Regardless, I'll play:





I didn't see anything in Nynco's post about blaming, or not blaming "the muslims". He merely stated that SOME of the allegations is in fact 'right after all'. And that was the general gist of the article you posted, was it not?

How did we get of track here? I think I just followed your lead.

I explained the context of my answer. Moore is blaming the Saudi without touching the religion aspect which is the only aspect.

So, back to these..




I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

jhood001
12-16-2013, 02:59
Well, it took me all this time and typing to actually understand your initial reply to Nynco. Forgive me for that.


Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

I did, and still do feel that your statement is dismissive in regards to the importance of identifying the (possibly) true perpetrator and supporters of the murder of our citizens.

Regardless, I personally prefer to identify and pass judgement on people based on their actions rather than their beliefs. Maybe that makes me crazy. Or perhaps it makes me afraid of the repercussions of thought-crime prosecution.

You posted the original article which leads me to believe that you are an advocate of punishing any and all responsible. I just believe that we may deviate on where we stand in regards to those who were punished in the past that had nothing to do with it.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 03:22
Well, it took me all this time and typing to actually understand your initial reply to Nynco. Forgive me for that.



I did, and still do feel that your statement is dismissive in regards to the importance of identifying the (possibly) true perpetrator and supporters of the murder of our citizens.

Regardless, I personally prefer to identify and pass judgement on people based on their actions rather than their beliefs. Maybe that makes me crazy. Or perhaps it makes me afraid of the repercussions of thought-crime prosecution.

You posted the original article which leads me to believe that you are an advocate of punishing any and all responsible. I just believe that we may deviate on where we stand in regards to those who were punished in the past that had nothing to do with it.

Muslims are allowed to lie to the kafirs. Officially all of our allies in the Middle East with Israel as an exception denounced the attack.. While they celebrated in the open locally. The so called 'few' extremists are wealthy western educated Muslims. Look up all of the terrorists' background including our own homegrown.

My point in that comment is there is no way to punish just the perpetrators while there are 1.5 billions of supporters waiting for their turn, and expecting that that's the end of it.

My motive of posting the article is that the apologists keeps saying that lack of education, money, western suppression etc are what fueling the 'few' extremist. Meanwhile most of these assholes are from wealthy educated background supported and well funded by more assholes in high places of the govt of our allies.

The only common denominator is the cult they are all in.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 03:23
Double post

KestrelBike
12-16-2013, 05:04
So let's say that missing 28 pages directly implicates the government state of SA, what then? Or own gov "leaders" wouldn't do shit, because Bush & Co who actually invaded countries obviously didn't do anything. And I think our gov wouldn't/couldn't do anything against SA because of a paralyzingly fear of OPEC and threatening our oil supply. I think our country would be terribly vulnerable if we threatened the supply with delays brought on by any shutoff by sanctions/destroyed-infrastructure/war in general. I've heard it was congresses hand wringings that killed our chances to drill the shit out of Iraqi oil after the invasion, but still it was very plain to see that just because a country is occupied does not mean that the oil spigots miraculously burst open.

<MADDOG>
12-16-2013, 07:08
How is this news again?

From my readings, the Wahhabis' have been exporting terrorism for decades!

Great-Kazoo
12-16-2013, 08:59
So let's say that missing 28 pages directly implicates the government state of SA, what then? Or own gov "leaders" wouldn't do shit, because Bush & Co who actually invaded countries obviously didn't do anything. And I think our gov wouldn't/couldn't do anything against SA because of a paralyzingly fear of OPEC and threatening our oil supply. I think our country would be terribly vulnerable if we threatened the supply with delays brought on by any shutoff by sanctions/destroyed-infrastructure/war in general. I've heard it was congresses hand wringings that killed our chances to drill the shit out of Iraqi oil after the invasion, but still it was very plain to see that just because a country is occupied does not mean that the oil spigots miraculously burst open.

Once again, America has enough petro based products under our soil to keep us going as long, if not longer than that of SA. We are in bidding wars with Russia & China over OPEC oil. China & russia have made big inroads in Africa for oil. Yet we still suck on OPECS teat while ignoring other venues for Oil & gas.

Part of it was the decision, or lack of by all "coalition" parties involved to not divide Iraq up in to 3 entities, Shiite, Sunni, Kurds. That was on the table once saddam was no longer in power. Objections from numerous countries, especially turkey (kurds) quashed that idea. Kurds (supporters of the iraq invasion) were / are considered terrorist in turkey based on their issues with the T. .gov.

KestrelBike
12-16-2013, 09:42
Once again, America has enough petro based products under our soil to keep us going as long, if not longer than that of SA. We are in bidding wars with Russia & China over OPEC oil. China & russia have made big inroads in Africa for oil. Yet we still suck on OPECS teat while ignoring other venues for Oil & gas.

Right and I don't dispute that, but could there be a problem in the amount of time it would take to build the infrastructure to drill and refine the oil? If some of that oil is shale (sp?) perhaps that would have made things even more difficult, especially 12+ years ago? Or are we talking resources already primed and ready to draw production from (Texas?). Excuse my ignorance, but I am interested to know.

Besides that, one reason I could think of for continuing business with OPEC is simply to keep all of our resources as a reserve. Keep borrowing money to buy ME oil and ignore 'intangible' debt and save all of our locally available oil producing capabilities for when the ME finally runs out or for a rainy day.

nynco
12-16-2013, 13:48
If Muslims were in the streets protesting / denouncing the 9/11 attacks, then yes some humbling conceding might be in order. HOWEVER not 1 imam, mullah, or middle eastern / Muslim leaning nation, condemned the attacks. Even worse was the lack of outrage, from clerics, here in America. Beheadings on line , silence.
Yet after warnings to evacuate villages where Known terrorist leaders were hiding, before bombing them.. Once we / coalition forces attacked. The uproar from Islamist, here and abroad was defening.
Islamist, jihadist, etc. Have only one goal, the suppression and elimination of any thing, other than Islam, Sharia law.

Actually that is false they did condemn them until the Bush administration started to use 911 as an excuse to go on the war path.

ChunkyMonkey
12-16-2013, 15:13
Actually that is false they did condemn them until the Bush administration started to use 911 as an excuse to go on the war path.

The strongest and fastest condemnation came from The Kingdom of Saudi too.. yep..
Arafat 'horrified' at the attack but he is passing out candies to the celebrating people on the street.. yep..

If you venture out to the muslim world, 9/11 is still celebrated until today. You want a real view of the real world out there, stop watching the mainstream media here.


CELEBRATION OF 9/11 in Indonesia..
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-67276-Indonesia-militants-praise-911hijackers (http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-67276-Indonesia-militants-praise-911hijackers)
Every November, tshirt showing the burning twin towers are sold openly in street vendors and in the mall.

While president Arroyo of Philippines sent condolences, the Muslim Moro are throwing party and fireworks in the South.


The main newspaper in Cairo published the following:

"In all honesty, and without beating around the bush: I am happy about [what happened to] America; I am happy about the great number of American dead. Let them accuse me of whatever they want. It doesn't matter and it does not lessen the happiness and excitement that overwhelm me. No one can make me take back what I say, no matter what their claims and explanations. All the innocent citizens who were killed are victims of America's barbarism and terror, ranging over half a century… Count up the number killed by American weapons in the world and compare it to the number of those killed in the US; you will find that the number of [American dead] is much less than one percent [of the latter]. I have a right to rejoice; I have a right to be filled with happiness; the Americans are finally tasting the bitterness of death."

Ahmad Murad, Al-Arabi (Egypt), September 16, 2001 (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/519.htm)



Of course only a twisted liberal could forget the live coverage after the attack...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9JpRytCx0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOZvbYJMvU

Like I said, they are allowed to lie to the kaffirs.

Kraven251
12-16-2013, 15:52
As long as we lack the will to do what someone else will do, we will not be able to defeat an enemy. Our leaders lacked the will to identify friends as enemies, lacked the will to finish what they started in a myriad of wars/conflicts, and have time and time again convinced our allies to not take actions that are ultimately in our best interests all around.

Aloha_Shooter
12-16-2013, 17:13
Actually that is false they did condemn them until the Bush administration started to use 911 as an excuse to go on the war path.

Nope. Very few actually condemned the attacks outright, most offered mealy-mouthed platitudes while saying the attacks shouldn't be attributed to all Muslims.

nynco
12-16-2013, 17:43
Nope. Very few actually condemned the attacks outright, most offered mealy-mouthed platitudes while saying the attacks shouldn't be attributed to all Muslims.

I remember specifically in Iran of all places that there were solidarity candle vigils for America. It was the time of the mass amount of student uprisings. I actually thought the mass protests and uprisings were going to topple the gov of Iran, so too did the gov of Iran worry about that too. That all ceases once Bush messed it up with his axis of evil posturing. It gave the Iranian authorities all the excuse they needed to brutally crack down.