9/11 Japanese main opposition party questions 9/11 in parliament

[freemars2259]

Here is the link to the video with english subtitles:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2680190129949942423&q=japan+9%2F11&total=276&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://www.binnallofamerica.com/rr4.11.8.html

 

[musictomyears]

Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

 

[fitzbew88]

I'm not sure the translation is correct; a couple of times I hear the nice gentleman say "New York" but it doesn't appear in the subtitles. I would take the subtitles with a grain of salt.

Some of the information provided by the gentleman is not correct. 7 WTC is mentioned about a half-dozen times in the 9/11 report (it's not a "hidden" event") and the graphics showing the plane was way too large for the resulting damage show the plane wildly too large in proportion to the Pentagon. (Also, I believe the graphic shows the SW wall of the Pentagon being hit; really, it was the west wall.)

He never mentions the videos of OBL bragging about the event, presumably they were manufactured by the CIA.

Gullibility is a choice.

 

[BrandonD]

Gullibility is a choice.

I agree. Gullibility and suggestibility are the main reasons why people swallow the establishment explanation for 9/11 hook line and sinker.

Osama was in a video, that settles it. No one would ever fake a video. Those of us in the ufo field know better than anyone that video footage can be trusted implicitly.

 

[musictomyears]

Hang on. Directly after 9/11, OBL denied any involvement. He only started to claim responsibility after Bushco labelled him the only suspect. Even today, when you go to OBL's FBI Most Wanted page, 9/11 is not mentioned:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

This is because the FBI has no hard evidence to link OBL with 9/11:

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

War on terror? No, but a war OF terror, paid for with tax dollars.

 

[fitzbew88]

I agree. Gullibility and suggestibility are the main reasons why people swallow the establishment explanation for 9/11 hook line and sinker.

Well, I have a 567 page report that details nearly every aspect of the attack, including communications between the hijackers and OBL's operatives. It's been in the public domain for years and I have not yet heard any reason to believe it is materially inaccurate.

I'm not "swallowing" anything, I'm just accepting the better evidence.

Give me better evidence that it was anything other than Islamic fundamentalism.

Just because it springs forth from Establishment, doesn't automatically make it untrue.

 

[fitzbew88]

Hang on. Directly after 9/11, OBL denied any involvement. He only started to claim responsibility after Bushco labelled him the only suspect. Even today, when you go to OBL's FBI Most Wanted page, 9/11 is not mentioned:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

This is because the FBI has no hard evidence to link OBL with 9/11:

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

War on terror? No, but a war OF terror, paid for with tax dollars.

Of course he denied involvement; this made it easier for the Taliban to not deliver him up.

The Wanted Poster is not relevant. Why does it need to say anything about 9/11?

Thanks for sharing your opinion about the WOT.

 

[musictomyears]

The Wanted Poster is not relevant. Why does it need to say anything about 9/11?

So you have no problem with the fact that the US launched 2 major invasions on the basis that OBL was a globally operating terrorist godfather who orchestrated 9/11, yet the FBI has no hard evidence to prosecute him?

 

[fitzbew88]

So you have no problem with the fact that the US launched 2 major invasions on the basis that OBL was a globally operating terrorist godfather who orchestrated 9/11, yet the FBI has no hard evidence to prosecute him?

No, but I would be worried if the U.S. Government as a whole didn't have any evidence. I wouldn't necessarily expect the F.B.I. to have any "hard evidence" --- and what is "hard evidence" anyway? DNA? Fingerprints? No, I wouldn't expect the F.B.I. to have any "hard" evidence. But what about the rest of the government? Try to get the P.R. guys at CIA and NSA to comment on any "hard evidence" they may or may not have.

Please don't try to construe one-line comments from government PR guys into vast conspiracies. There are plenty of vast conspiracies, no need to make them up out of smoke and wishful thinking.

In my opinion, the second war wasn't about OBL: it was about preventing Sadaam Hussein from ever providing our enemies with WMD. Mission accomplished.

By the way, the F.B.I. doesn't prosecute anybody.

 

[musictomyears]

Neocon alert!

 

[fitzbew88]

Neocon alert!

In truth, I'm more of a liberal --- especially in domestic matters. In foreign relations I tend to be more hawkish.

I don't recall voting for a Republican in the last 30 years, but I don't automatically rule out voting for future Republicans. I think most true neocons would hear some of my opinions and become sick.

Although the second Gulf far (in my opinion) achieved its goals, I still think (in hindsight) it was a mistake to move so soon. We could've waited; we had more time than we thought we did. And we wildly miscalculated the post-war environment, much to our [continuing] grief.

The problem with a pre-emptive war is that you never get to see what you "pre-empted". What would Sadaam have achieved in the next five years? Ten years? Would he have bought/built nukes? How many more Kurds and Shia would have suffered under his rule? Would he have gotten into another war with his neighbors? Whatever terrible scenario you can come up with, it has been averted. I hope we averted something worse than what we got. We'll never know.

The thread is sort've going off on a tangent now.

 

[musictomyears]

Explain to me, why did removing Saddam from office require the killing of at least 100.000 Iraqis (some say the true figure is closer to 1 million), the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, and the occupation of Iraq with no end in sight? Why did it require no-bid contracts with Halliburton and other American corporations? Why did it require the use of depleted uranium shells, which poison the land for generations to come?

Why did the west provide Saddam with weapons in the first place?

These occupations - Iraq and Afghanistan - look like massive land-grabs, because that's what they are: Massive land-grabs. Just about everybody in the world can see that - except for parts of the American public.

 

[fitzbew88]

Explain to me, why did removing Saddam from office require the killing of at least 100.000 Iraqis (some say the true figure is closer to 1 million), the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure..

Because he resisted.

... and the occupation of Iraq with no end in sight?

I disagree, the end it is in sight although it has been a long unhappy time.

Why did it require no-bid contracts with Halliburton and other American corporations?

We needed lots of stuff in a hurry. Not many companies could do it. Why did the American government engage with American companies? Is that a rhetorical question?

Why did it require the use of depleted uranium shells, which poison the land for generations to come?

Because he resisted.

Why did the west provide Saddam with weapons in the first place?

Because he was once an ally useful for containing the Iranians.

These occupations - Iraq and Afghanistan - look like massive land-grabs, because that's what they are: Massive land-grabs. Just about everybody in the world can see that - except for parts of the American public.

Dude, if these are land-grabs WE ARE NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

 

[freemars2259]

I agree. Gullibility and suggestibility are the main reasons why people swallow the establishment explanation for 9/11 hook line and sinker.

Well, I have a 567 page report that details nearly every aspect of the attack, including communications between the hijackers and OBL's operatives. It's been in the public domain for years and I have not yet heard any reason to believe it is materially inaccurate.

I'm not "swallowing" anything, I'm just accepting the better evidence.

Give me better evidence that it was anything other than Islamic fundamentalism.

Just because it springs forth from Establishment, doesn't automatically make it untrue.

Lets say it was Islamic fundamentalists, you have to ask who funded and trained them in the first place?

 

[fitzbew88]

Lets say it was Islamic fundamentalists, you have to ask who funded and trained them in the first place?

I'm not sure there is a consensus on "first place" when it comes to Al Queda. The organization has merged, and split up, and moved around so much...

But the term "Al Queda" first showed up in association with an organization that was originally merely a support branch for Afghan Freedom Fighters resisting the Soviets. They received financial support via donations from Muslim countries and Western nations who were determined to make the Afghan occupation cost as much as possible for the Soviets. OBL's wealthy family apparently was also willing to provide significant financial support. There was no lacking for help, apparently.

Are you implying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that "[if] it was Islamic fundamentalists..." that 9/11 was our fault because we funded the Mujahideen against the Soviets? Well, armchair historians will have to decide this. It's hard to say what would've happened if we had or hadn't done a certain thing.

But even if the root of the problem was our own doing, so what? There's no reason to believe 9/11 was anything other than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

 

[freemars2259]

Lets say it was Islamic fundamentalists, you have to ask who funded and trained them in the first place?

I'm not sure there is a consensus on "first place" when it comes to Al Queda. The organization has merged, and split up, and moved around so much...

But the term "Al Queda" first showed up in association with an organization that was originally merely a support branch for Afghan Freedom Fighters resisting the Soviets. They received financial support via donations from Muslim countries and Western nations who were determined to make the Afghan occupation cost as much as possible for the Soviets. OBL's wealthy family apparently was also willing to provide significant financial support. There was no lacking for help, apparently.

Are you implying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that "[if] it was Islamic fundamentalists..." that 9/11 was our fault because we funded the Mujahideen against the Soviets? Well, armchair historians will have to decide this. It's hard to say what would've happened if we had or hadn't done a certain thing.

But even if the root of the problem was our own doing, so what? There's no reason to believe 9/11 was anything other than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

According to the FBI the money for the 9/11 attacks came from major western ally Pakistan, a country with very strong intelligence links to Britain and America.

"Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details, including Sheikh’s mobile numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on these issues. The FBI has estimated the September 11 attacks cost between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates.

Those associates reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks from Pakistan, US officials have said. The Bush Administration is being cagey about declassifying 28 secret pages in a recent report on the 9/11 incident which officials say outline connections between Saudi charities, royal family members and terrorism.

US authorities are silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played in the conspiracy. The role of Sheikh and Lt Gen Ahmad has yet to see the light of the day. Sheikh, wanted for kidnapping and terrorist conspiracy in India, has since been sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl."

We have to ask why US authorities are being silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played in the 9/11 conspiracy?

Here is the link:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/107432.cms

 

[musictomyears]

You can't educate him. He doesn't want to know the truth. He also feels no compassion for he suffering of others.

 

[fitzbew88]

According to the FBI the money for the 9/11 attacks came from major western ally Pakistan, a country with very strong intelligence links to Britain and America.

Considering the subject at hand, you're being sort've deceptive. The article says the FBI “...traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan.’’

Said financial accounts were associated with the head of the ISI (the Pakistani Intelligence Services).

Well, so what? The ISI was an open and enthusiastic supporter of the Taliban who in turn was a supporter of AQ. It's not surprising that that the funds used by the 9/11 hijackers flowed through Pakistan. Almost everything coming out of Afghanistan comes through Pakistan.

Curiously, you didn't mention this section of the article:

"...India told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the leader of the hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist [Islamic] Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh [from the funds in Pakistan]."

So far, in order to convince me that 9/11 was not Islamic Terrorism, all you've done is tie the facts back to Islamic Terrorists.

Dude, I am trying to be open-minded here --- give me something to go on.

We have to ask why US authorities are being silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played in the 9/11 conspiracy?

Because it would embarrass them for it to be known as AQ dupes, and we desperately needed their support to go after AQ?

Let me ask you this: Is it that you think OBL was a proxy for some vast Western conspiracy, or that he was not involved at all? If you believe the former, then we need to take this conversation in a different direction. If you believe the latter, then we possibly need to reassess in a different manner.

 

[fitzbew88]

You can't educate him. He doesn't want to know the truth. He also feels no compassion for he suffering of others.

I'm sorry I've made you angry.

In truth, the war has caused me no end of anxiety and grief.

My kin have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan --- every day a loved one is in a combat zone is agony.

You live in the U.K.? Then you surely have some inkling of this. Both of our countries have invested a huge amount of "blood and treasure" in this venture.

Was it the right thing to do? Well, in my opinion, probably. But I'll *never* know for sure. We'll never know what insidious deeds Sadaam Hussein would have perpetrated on the Kurds or the Shia or the Israelis or on Kuwait. We'll never know what we avoided by taking this route. We'll only know what it cost us to take it.

I've already said that, in hindsight, I wish we had done things differently --- at least I surely believe that we did not need to be in such a big hurry.

 

[musictomyears]

Explain to me, why did removing Saddam from office require the killing of at least 100.000 Iraqis (some say the true figure is closer to 1 million), the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure..

Because he resisted.
...

Why did it require the use of depleted uranium shells, which poison the land for generations to come?

Because he resisted.

Let me tell you something. I also "resist" American corporate fascism, dressed up as democracy, in my own country (not the UK). There are many people who think the same way. Are your buddies going to bomb us as well, because we dare to "resist"? Or does it require our head of state to stand up to American demands, to wind up on your hit list?

Let's see. "Pre-emptive war" is the name of the game. You'll probably start with Iran, your neocon buddies have said so already. Then North Korea, for good measure. Now that you've warmed up, why not go straight for the biggie: China. And while you're at it, take out Russia (you never liked them anyway, didn't you?).
Many folks in New Zealand (a country where I used to live) strongly disagree with American foreign policies. They also deserve to die, right? You'll do those in an afternoon. Finally: Europe. Isn't it true that many of those "terror cells" operate from Europe? Germany would be a prime suspect, and naturally: France. Damn those French fries.

Bomb them all. War in the name of peace. Killing in the name of life. Devil worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I asked you about the depleted uranium shells. You could have said that you felt sorry about the damage that these will cause to yet unborn generations of Iraqis. You didn't. You justified their use "Because he resisted." Because one deranged maniac - former US asset Saddam Hussein - resisted American demands, tens of thousands of uninvolved civilians had to die or be poisoned, including future generations.