My Photo

My Online Status

Twingine


Support Bastards Inc.


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2003

Site Meter


« Beattie lies | Main | Soldiers in skirts »

Comments

Rachy

I went to google news in German and can't find a single article reporting on a rebuke of terrorism from Muslim leaders. I monitor German media pretty closely so I will let you know if I find anything

Jimmy2shoes

FYI the current scorecard for prosecutions in relation to the 9/11 attacks are:
Charges laid: 1
Convictions: 0

Why you would expect people to be condemning those charged with crimes but not yet convicted is anyone's guess.

CB

Dunno, perhaps it's because of this?

"The first man to be convicted over the September 11 attacks on America was today sentenced to seven years in prison after a German court found him guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation.The verdict against Mounir el Motassadeq concludes a year-long retrial. In February 2003, the 31-year-old Moroccan became the first person anywhere to be convicted in connection with the 2001 attacks. He was jailed for 15 years on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder, and for membership of a terrorist organisation."

Perhaps your comment should have read;
FYI the current scorecard for prosecutions in relation to the 9/11 attacks are:
Charges laid: >3000
Convictions: 1

Idiot.

Lguy

Oh they just love to put a pretty show for the media but when it comes to cooperating with investigations, then you don't hear anything from them.

D

15 years only, for 3000 counts of murder before counts of belonging to syndicates type terrorist - what the thuck, in the U.S. death penalty automatic.

Jimmy2shoes

You are calling me an idiot?
Have another look at your news link and force yourself to read all the way to the 4th paragraph:

"The retrial has seen el Motassadeq cleared of the thousands of accessory to murder charges, as the Hamburg state court stopped short of convicting him of direct involvement in the 2001 attacks."

Time for you to take a lie down now no doubt.

CB

I see your 4th paragraph on the grassy knoll and raise you to the 5th. That is to say, the very next one.

"He has however been found guilty of membership of the al-Qaeda cell that included suicide pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah."

Conviction = 1. For the stupider amongst you, 1>0

I could have sworn it was written in English and not Fuckwitese. Were you born this dumb or is it a skill you've worked on? If so, it appears that you are very good at it. Idiot.

Jimmy2shoes

Yeah, the article wasn't fictional.
He has actually been convicted for being a member of al-Qaeda.
He hasn't however been convicted for the 9/11 attacks as you mention in your blog or as we were discussing.

Jimmy2shoes

BTW, just to put this criminal trial and the individual concerned into perspective...

"I have been unable to find a news report of ANY Muslim leader condemning the single man charged with a crime over the Septermber 11 2001 suicide bombings in the US."

I have been unable to find any news report that the head of the foreign intelligence agency known to have run the mujahadeen since creation, known to support al Qaeda and known to have financed the September 11 attacks has even been questioned by any intelligence or law enforcement agency since then.

The only reason I have been able to find for this is that he was having breakfast with the current head of the CIA when the attacks occurred. That's not a good reason or even a credible one, but without it you have to conclude the US hasn't interviewed his is that it has no interest in finding those responsible for 9/11. Or both reasons.

Either way this is like putting Michael Jackson's hairdresser on trial. It means nothing and is just a distraction.

Lguy

Another amateur crackpot conspiracy theorist. How "unexpected"...

CB

Listen up, Jimmy me lad. I couldn't give two shits whether you read or comment here or not. If you are going to take 60 seconds out of your day to leave a message in my comments, then feel free to go ahead and make your fucking point. Because right now all I'm seeing is someone who is making vague assertions about the United States and how they (the US) aren't keen to see the perpetrators of the Septermber 11th suicide attackes brought to justice? Is that what you are saying? Exactly what message are you trying to get across? Those associated with terrorist cells SHOULDN'T be charged with a crime? An interesting code of ethics you've got going there Jiminy.

Jimmy2shoes

Problem is it ain't my theory. But I'd love to hear yours.

So when the worldwide press, intelligence agencies and even the FBI confirm that the head of the Intelligence agency which ran all the mujahadeen groups from start to finish, and who still has ties to them, paid the lead hijacker $100k before the attacks you would have to be a crackpot to put 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 together and get something other than 0 ?

Well okay then. You can refer to The intelligence agencies, media etc who have the mental function to join those dots "crackpots amatuer conspiracy theorists". And they will call you "mentally handicapped".
Seriously, there's less connecting Osama to these attacks than this guy LMAO.

Or did I get that wrong and you already knew all this, you just happen to think there was another reason Atta was paid $100k a year before the attacks. An inheritance maybe? Lotto?

Jimmy2shoes

Because right now all I'm seeing is someone who is making vague assertions about the United States and how they (the US) aren't keen to see the perpetrators of the Septermber 11th suicide attackes brought to justice? Is that what you are saying?

Of course.
The 9/11 commission stated who was funding al-Qaeda prior to the attacks and that information was part of the 30 redacted pages of the report. Hence they aren't keen on going after those people.

The US senate investigation found that Atta was paid $100k prior to the attacks. The intelligence agency that intially provided this intel which was confirmed by the US later confirmed who that person was. The head of the ISI. They haven't gone after him, or as I stated, even questioned him to the best of anyone's knowledge.

I don't have to alledge that no action has been taken in regard to who funded the attacks. Who we have and haven't gone to war with is no secret.

Exactly what message are you trying to get across? Those associated with terrorist cells SHOULDN'T be charged with a crime? An interesting code of ethics you've got going there Jiminy.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be charged with a crime, I'm saying who the hell cares that he was. He shared a flat with Atta and a couple of the other hijackers in Germany. Well so did about 30 other people. So we could take our intel resources and scour the earth for all of them and charge them crimes.
Or we could go after those known to have funded the 9/11 attacks.

I'm happy with my ethics on that.

CB

Ah, so that's it. Forget Osama. Forgo the Taliban. Let's go after the head of Pakistan's intelligence services. Cunning plan. So exactly where in those two comments was your point again?

Jimmy2shoes

"Ah, so that's it. Forget Osama. Forgo the Taliban. Let's go after the head of Pakistan's intelligence services. Cunning plan."

Better than forgetting Osama, forgetting the Taliban and not going after the intelligence service that supports both of them. ie: what has happened.

Or right after questioning my ethics regarding punishment for anyone even remotely related to terrorists are you suggesting that Pakistan's unchanged and unchallenged support of al-Qaeda shouldn't be a prime target ?

You do realise that of the known al-Qaeda training camps identified in 2000 that the only ones still operating in 2005 are located in Pakistan right ? The same locations too. They haven't even needed to move them.

"So exactly where in those two comments was your point again?"

Yeah that's a real mystery ain't it. Why am I talking about Pakistan intelligence in this blog about al-Qaeda. What's the connection ?

Same for me talking about those blacked-out sections of the 9/11 commission report. Can't have anything to do with Saudi Arabia supplying most of the foreign fighters captured/killed in Iraq... being the base of Wahhabi teachings... supplying most of those involved in 9/11... most of the al-Qaeda funding.
Yeah it's all one big mystery.

Meanwhile at least we got that guy who split the rent with some hijackers prior to the millennium.
Feel safer ?

CB

I've think I've figured it out. You want the US to target Pakistan and depose Musharaff instead of Ba'athist Iraq and a Taliban Afghanistan. Then what?

Jimmy2shoes

I don't want the US to do anything.
Fuck do I care if they fight a war on terror and create legions of enemies only to leave in place the exact same people who orchestrated the initial attacks ? If they don't see this as a problem nobody else should. Likewise, US citizens seem pretty comfortable with foreign policy blowback by now.

I am just pointing out that this is the actual situation and that this 1 guy in Germany counts for shit.
4 years after the attacks there is this 1 guy charged with 9/11 and he beat those charges. There is another pending but still... its 2005 and the guy was toast a long time ago. 6 supposed terrorist cells in the US and the only charges that stuck were for those supporting Kashmir fighting which is a legitimate border dispute. Only 2 people (from memory) out of the 1500 or so to go through Guantanamo have been charged with anything and around half have been set free without charge.

As I said, I couldn't give a rats arse if the US leaves their nuclear proliferating terrorist supporting allies in the war on terror or not.

It would be nice thought if there was some resolution that when the phrase "war on terror" is utterred for the 4 billionth time that they actually started having one.
There is also some merit to the concept that if you are going to invade and overthrow the rulers of two Islamic nations and piss off a good portion of the world's population doing it in the name of fighting terrorism that you actually pick the countries that supports you getting attacked... rather than the 2 you already picked out before 9/11.

CB

Well, thank you for your strategic insight. Perhaps you should take your show on the road. Big seller, the anti-US meme. I agree. Jailing one guy in Germany does fuck all. Personally, I'd nuke Tehran and Damascus. Do you think it is going far enough Jiminy? Do we need to put a couple of high velocity rounds into Pervez Musharaff and his cronies to thin the crowd? What about that Chavez clown? He's stirring the terrorist pot. And Castro.

Shit, so many countries, so many thousands of nukes.

Jimmy2shoes

"Well, thank you for your strategic insight. Perhaps you should take your show on the road. Big seller, the anti-US meme."

And just to clarify that... I am the only person in this thread calling for those known to be reponsible for 9/11 to be removed. Because I differ from the US on having such a policy this means I am anti-US. Hence it is an accurate assessment.

"I agree. Jailing one guy in Germany does fuck all. Personally, I'd nuke Tehran and Damascus. Do you think it is going far enough Jiminy?"

Pretty much the only thing I have tried to inform you of here is that it is not a question of going far enough if you are headed in the wrong direction.
Nuke Tehran and Damascus twice if you like. The al Qaeda camps will remain open. The only thing it will do to those known to have participated in organising the 9/11 attacks is make their job easier next time it comes to find willing martyrs.
If you see that as progress so be it.

BTW strategic insight isn't as big of a seller as ill-informed commentary and opinions about how to address threats which exist primarily as propaganda. But you already knew that.

Lguy

"Well okay then. You can refer to The intelligence agencies, media etc who have the mental function to join those dots "crackpots amatuer conspiracy theorists"."

I do, because for starters they can't even agree on what the conspiracy IS. You group a whole spectrum of people, ranging from those that think the US let it happen to start a war, to those who think the twin towers were hit by cruise missiles (which is obvious grade A bullshit) as believing in the same thing. Second, would you say the London bombings were part of the propaganda? cause the explosions sure seemed very real to me, and probably to all those people who died or got injured.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)