General Ahmed allegedly met with Wolfowitz, Feith, and other neocons the week of 9/11.

[Bushwick Bill]

I fully expect the standard issue beating of Kevin Ryan, et al.

The Pakistani General Who Wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta Met with Wolfowitz, Feith and Other Neocons the Week of 911
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16641
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/confirmed-pakistani-general-who-wired.html

[seemslikeadream]

1. I KNOW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x215632


http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html


Thanks for posting :hi:

[Bassman66]

2. What the hell does it take to get 9/11 discussed seriously on DU?

Why should a thread like this be in the dungeon? This is dymamite.

Why can't people openly discuss the reasons why the 9/11 CR got away with saying the question of who funded the hijackers is "of little practical significance"?

"It's 9/11 Stupid".

All political roads lead to 9/11.

Come on, let's open the debate up or at least allow 9/11 threads to be recommended.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. What is your obsession with "getting this discussed on DU"?

Isn't there a whole internet out there where you can discuss this to your heart's content?

[Bassman66]

4. Why shouldn't THE hot political pototo be discussed on one..

..of THE hot politcal forums on the internet?

What is your obsession with objecting to it being more openly discussed?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Ask the moderators and the admins if you want to know the answer to that question.

Ask them in an appropriate way -- as in, their contact emails here at the site.

Bitching about it online is getting you nowhere.

[AZCat]

7. In case you haven't figured it out by now...

those decisions are made by the owners of this site, not by boloboffin and the rest of us "regulars" here in the 9/11 sub-forum. We don't give a shit where it gets discussed, we think it's ridiculous that you keep carping about it when a perfectly good avenue of inquiry is available.

[Bassman66]

8. "We don't give a shit where it gets discussed"...

But the same people who defend the OCT are always the same ones wading in to beat down anyone who suggests that these threads should be allowed to be recommended. Why is it the same people?

[AZCat]

9. Where have any of us "beat down" those...

who want to have the ability to recommend these threads (and threads like them)? We just want you to go ask the people in charge why you can't recommend them. It does absolutely no fucking good to whine about this restriction.

[Bassman66]

10. You know what the response will be.

It's always the same people doing the beating down. Why is that?

[AZCat]

18. I don't think that term means what you think it does.

If by "beating down" you mean "asking to support their claims" then you are using the wrong term. Otherwise, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Bassman66]

30. No, by 'beating down" I refer to the ad hominem attacks...

..the calls to defend other peoples stuff you don't agree with, the smears by association, the spelling and grammar corrections and the crys of "bullshit" without addressing anything said.

[AZCat]

48. That's a stupid fucking definition of "beat down". n/t

[SDuderstadt]

15. Please give us an example of....

how you've been "beat down". Please be specific.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. There are some here, AZ

who do campaign to have 9/11 threads stay out of GD.

For instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=167001

Of course, this thread was locked, but, it does illustrate that the GD 9/11 threads are most certainly alerted on when they do appear there.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Awww. Does someone need a tissue? n/t

[AZCat]

17. Does it?

I had forgotten about that thread (it seems a long time ago). I glanced through the thread, but didn't see boloboffin or anyone else state they alerted on 9/11 threads when they get posted to GD. He might be campaigning (or was) to keep them out of GD, but there doesn't seem to be evidence he alerts on them. But maybe I missed something.


I don't understand this whole issue. It seems like it would be beneficial to have a separate forum for discussion of a particular topic. Threads get lost in GD so quickly long-term discussion is difficult if not impossible. If there's a poster who you think should know about this sub-forum, it's easy to PM them and point them in the right direction. What's the big deal?

[Grateful for Hope]

23. Personally

I could care less about where these issues are discussed. Some posters, however, take issue with the fact that this forum is somewhat "hidden" in the sense that threads can't be recommended, etc.

It is against the rules to state that one is/has alerted on a thread or post. This doesn't mean that one hasn't done so.

[Diane_nyc]

14. I do think it would be worthwhile to have a discussion of the rationale ....

While simply "carping" about the policy might not be productive, I do think it would be worthwhile to have a discussion of the rationale, which has to do with the term "conspiracy theory," a highly ambiguous and loaded term.

Later today I'll be posting a thread on the meaning of the mulitiple meanings of the term "conspiracy theory" and the related term "conspiracism."

[SDuderstadt]

16. Gee....

I can hardly wait.

[AZCat]

19. The rationale for this decision isn't up for debate.

The owners of this site made a decision, and any discussion necessarily lies with them, not us.

[Diane_nyc]

21. The rationale has to do with the concept of "conspiracy theory," a very ambiguous and loaded term...

... Hence a discussion here, about the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory," could potentially lay groundwork for communication with the owner and moderators about the policy.

Please see the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

[greyl]

22. I'm afraid you're waxing quixotic, Diane_nyc.

Quixotic

Why not utilize the freedom this forum affords DUers to post the best evidence available that the Bush admin is responsible for letting the 9/11 attack happen and should be held accountable?

[Diane_nyc]

25. Discussion of the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory"

I haven't been around here long enough to know what the chances are of getting any policies changed. However, for those who do seek to change the policy, it seems to me that their best bet would be to lay some groundwork, by participating in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">this thread about the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism", before writing to the owner and moderators.

I also think that the definition of "conspiracy theory" is a topic worth discussing in its own right, given its frequent use around here.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215748&mesg_id=216040">greyl wrote:

Why not utilize the freedom this forum affords DUers to post the best evidence available that the Bush admin is responsible for letting the 9/11 attack happen and should be held accountable?

I've been doing that. That's what most of my recent kicks were about.

[greyl]

26. Abstract arguments on this board can't affect meaningful change in our government.

False, or true?

Do you feel that participating in the give and take on a message board primes you for authentic battles with oppressive social patterns of authority?

[HamdenRice]

27. huh??? "affect meaningful change in our government"

She is suggesting that "Abstract arguments on this board <can> affect meaningful change in our" message board -- namely, change the policy of limiting discussion of 9/11 to the dungeon where various narrow minded, counter-factually grounded, non-reality based hecklers can disrupt any meaningful discussion.

[Bassman66]

28. I've been using the search DU facility and have discovered...

..that DU allows lots of Conspiracy threads (some really interesting ones) - New World Order / International Banks - in all kinds of forums, why the clampdown on 9/11?

OK, keep them in this forum but at least allow them to be recommended.

[Diane_nyc]

33. Thanks. Good clarification. Some further clarification.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215748&mesg_id=216082">HamdenRice wrote:

She is suggesting that "Abstract arguments on this board <can> affect meaningful change in our" message board

I don't yet know whether they can help effect change around here, but I do think that an abstract discussion about the meaning of "conspiracy theory" would be the best possible way to lay some groundwork prior to contacting the owner and moderators about the policy, for those who wish to do the latter, if indeed it's possible to accomplish the desired change around here at all.

I personally am not as concerned as some other people here are about the desired change to DU policy, since I personally prefer to limit my focus to a relatively slow-moving specialized topic area like the September 11 forum, as part of my personal study of 9/11, rather than scatter my energies all over DU. However, to those who do have a stronger desire than I do to get the policy around here changed, I've made the constructive suggestion that they lay groundwork via more abstract participation in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">this thread about the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism".

(ETA: What I personally find more annoying here is the large number of threads on what I consider to be non-serious 9/11 topics, such as no-planes claims, plus assorted irrelevant topics such as chemtrails.)

[Grateful for Hope]

43. What I have noticed

In respect to this statement:

(ETA: What I personally find more annoying here is the large number of threads on what I consider to be non-serious 9/11 topics, such as no-planes claims, plus assorted irrelevant topics such as chemtrails.)

is that these types of threads tend to receive the most responses from the debunkers here. I also have noticed that these same types of threads tend to be kicked to the top by these same debunkers.

I think that the response level to these threads is correlated with how much some debunkers wish to make the 9/11 questioners in this forum look like "conspiracy kooks".

I tend not to participate in these types of threads because I don't want to see them at the top of the forum subject matter. Unfortunately, this is not true for many.

[Diane_nyc]

31. An effective political movement has many facets

Of course, the activities of an effective political movement do not take place primarily in online forums. But online forums can certainly play a vital role, as can many other things.

As far as my own personal activism is concerned, I'm at a transitional point right now. The arguments that originally drew me into the 9/11 Truth movement have turned out not to be valid. (At first I was convinced that the collapse of WTC 7 most likely involved some form of foul play. After delving more deeply into that topic, I'm no longer convinced that there is strong evidence of any kind of "assisted collapse" for any of the WTC buildings.) I'm now in process of studying other, much more complicated issues having to do with possible government foreknowledge, the history of the hijackers, etc.

It is clear, at the very least, that the 9/11 Commission was biased in favor of the Bush Administration. (Even the most die-hard official-story defenders around here don't dispute that point.) What's not as clear to me, yet, is exactly what sorts of things are likely to have been covered up the the 9/11 Commission's bias. It seems to me that there are good reasons to suspect worse than mere incompetence, and that there are good reasons to suspect, at the very least, more foreknowledge than anyone has officially admitted to. But I am not yet anywhere nearly as on top of the specifics as I would like to be. So, I'm now more focussed on study than activism.

I am hoping that this forum will be a good place to find out which evidence and arguments can best stand up to scrutiny. However, this forum has also turned out to be a good place to get some practice challenging the tactics used by all-too-many official-story defenders to dismiss serious discussion entirely instead of responding seriously to evidence and arguments.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215748&mesg_id=216058">grey1 wrote:

26. Abstract arguments on this board can't affect meaningful change in our government.

That should be "effect," not "affect." And that's a homophone, not a mere typo!

(Just being sarcastic here, and not towards you personally. Unlike some other people, I wouldn't use even major spelling errors as an excuse to dismiss everything you say. There are plenty of educated people have have made major spelling mistakes too, especially in online forums.)

[Grateful for Hope]

44. Foreknowledge

I have seen many make the distinction between MIHOP and LIHOP.

I am not so sure there is a real distinction. If it can be demonstrated that our gov had much more advance knowledge of the attacks then was admitted to, and still, nothing was done in the way of either actively addressing the threats, or, at the very least, preparing our country for possible attacks, then, in effect, our gov was a passive participant in the attacks.

Then, again IMO, the question becomes "Why did they allow these attacks to happen?".

To my way of thinking, there is very little difference between "making" and "letting" when it comes to the destruction of human life.

On edit: "Effect change" vs "Affect change". I have noticed that this is a very common error made by otherwise very articulate people. I have prided myself on knowing the difference (went to a very anal school that stressed grammar and spelling), but, in this case, I would tend to cut greyl some slack. However, I do understand why you are making this point (and, I agree with the sentiment).

[Diane_nyc]

51. MIHOP vs. LIHOP

Yes, it can certainly be argued that LIHOP and MIHOP are morally equivalent (in terms of culpability of people in the U.S. government, at least).

Nevertheless, they are different kinds of hypotheses in terms of the specifics of what is alleged to have happened. And, to prove anything at all, it is necessary to nail down specifics.

Also, while LIHOP and MIHOP may be morally equivalent from the point of view of culpability of the U.S. government, they differ greatly in terms of the degree and kind of blame, if any, that is placed on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Thus, various MIHOP purists have accused LIHOPpers of collaborating in a "blood libel against Muslims."

[wildbilln864]

6. kicked....

would recommend it also but...:shrug:

[HamdenRice]

13. The $100,000 wasn't the week of 9/11

There are some reports that have the money being sent a year before 9/11/01. I'm not sure how, with the retelling, that has morphed into the week before 9/11.

The importance of the timing is that it is probable that Atta used the $100,000 to finance the plot, including the cost of flight school training.

There are some reports that Atta wired what was left over back to Saeed Sheikh in the week before 9/11.

[Flatulo]

20. If the ISI supported the Taliban, then why would Ahmed support

a plot that would, in all probability, result in their being ousted by the almost-certain US invasion of Afghanistan?

[Diane_nyc]

24. Good question, but the same could be asked about Osama bin Laden too, and for the same reasons

After all, Osama bin Laden probably liked the Taliban better than any other Muslim regime anywhere on Earth. And he probably knew that a major attack on the U.S.A. would result not only in a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, with resulting great danger to the Taliban, but also an attack on his vary own home and training camps as well.

So then, given Osama bin Laden's support for the Taliban, why would he "support a plot that would, in all probability, result in their being ousted by the almost-certain US invasion of Afghanistan?"

Whatever the answer to this question may be, perhaps it's the same for both bin Laden and Ahmed.

[Flatulo]

34. This assumes that both had the same agenda. bin Laden

had hoped to lure US forces into a bloody protracted conflict in Afghanistan, where his Mujahadeen would deal them the same crushing defeat that they dealt to the Soviets. He wanted to dispatch both infidel superpowers. He tried to lure us in with the Cole bombing, but when Clinton declined to react, he needed a more spectacular attack.

In his arrogance, he was unable to understand that it was the CIA and Stinger missiles that allowed the Afghan rebels to repel the Soviets.

Did Ahmed have the same agenda as bin Laden? Was he acting as his agent?

[Diane_nyc]

37. There were lots of militant Islamists in the Pakistani government ....

... so maybe they were influenced by an Al Qaeda-like agenda. I don't know this to be a fact, but I think it's a possibility that should be considered and researched, unless there are good reasons to rule it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215748&mesg_id=216093">Flatulo wrote:

34. This assumes that both had the same agenda. bin Laden

had hoped to lure US forces into a bloody protracted conflict in Afghanistan, where his Mujahadeen would deal them the same crushing defeat that they dealt to the Soviets. He wanted to dispatch both infidel superpowers. He tried to lure us in with the Cole bombing, but when Clinton declined to react, he needed a more spectacular attack.

In his arrogance, he was unable to understand that it was the CIA and Stinger missiles that allowed the Afghan rebels to repel the Soviets.

Perhaps there were some folks in the Pakistani government with a similar delusion? One would think that the head of an intelligence agency ought to know better, but do you know what kinds of political pressures Ahmed was and wasn't subject to?

Anyhow, did the CIA help the Afghans directly, or mostly via the ISI? It's my understanding that the latter is the case. If so, then perhaps some arrogant folks in the Pakistani government (perhaps including some folks in the ISI?) might have believed that they could just as easily help the Taliban all by themselves next time around, not realizing that the Pakistani government was soon going to change in its political allegiance.

Of course, the above is just speculation on my part, at this point. But I think the above questions are worth looking into.

On the other hand, another possibility, which I think many 9/11-as-inside-job theorists would be inclined to believe, is that Ahmed was actually a double agent acting on behalf of some U.S. source. I'm not yet aware of any good evidence for this idea. (Other readers, please point me to such evidence, if it exists.) But it's at least a remote possibility, as far as I'm concerned. You never know who might turn out to be a double agent.

Thanks for participating in a discussion on one of the more serious 9/11 topics.

[Flatulo]

39. Yes, it could be that some of the radical ISI elements believed, lilke

bin Laden, that a US intervention in Afghanistan would prove to be our downfall.

By some acounts, as much as 50% of the ISI were Taliban sympathizers. I would assume that most of them were purged under Musharref, but who knows.

[Bassman66]

42. You know Bin Ladens beliefs well.

How come?

[Flatulo]

45. I read 'The Looming Tower' by Lawrence Wright. nt

[Bassman66]

41. You know the mind of Bin Laden well.

How come?

[Flatulo]

46. I only know what I can read -

Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower' is a lengthy tome on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism right through the 9/11 attacks.

Some here would argue that Wright has whitewashed a lot of the 'deep-state' (that's a JackRiddler phrase that I really like) stuff, but the basic saga of bin Laden's rise is pretty straightforward and well sourced.

[Bassman66]

29. Who is Bin Laden working for?

Is it still the same people he used to work for?

[Flatulo]

35. If you're referring to the proxy war we fought with the Soviets, using

him (among many others) as our agent, I would suggest that that was a marriage of convenience against a common foe.

[Bassman66]

36. OK so he was our agent working for us back then.

He's obviously not now.

[Flatulo]

38. Actually, bin Laden's people did very little against the Soviets.

His Arab fighters missed most of the fighting as they were ill-trained and did not speak Pashtun. The Afghans did all the heavy lifting while bin laden struggled to become relevant in the fight. He did move a lot of money and materials, but he himself saw (I believe) only one firefight.

[Bassman66]

40. Committed to the cause I see.

Mercenary or maniac?

[Flatulo]

47. His particular belief system requires

all Muslims to confront the infidels everywhere they can be found.

Read up on 'Wahabbism' and 'Salifism'. Pretty scary stuff.

Disclaimer: I find all religions to be somewhat irrational (no offense to Believers).

[Bassman66]

49. Is that his belief system?

How do you know?

[Flatulo]

50. I read a book. nt

[Bassman66]

52. I read books too.

You won't like what I read.

[Flatulo]

53. I'm not afraid of information that I don't agree with. I'll read anything

and make my own judgement as to its merit.

I've read Karl Marx, and I've also read Ayn Rand. It's hard to find two more polar opposites.

[Bassman66]

54. Were they both correct?

I got the impression that you thought that because you read it in a book it must be true, that's how you know Bin Laden's belief system.

[Flatulo]

55. Wright won the Pulitzer prize for 'The Looming Tower'.

Have you read it?

[Bassman66]

56. Pulitzer - Does that make it true?

No I haven't read it.
Have you read all the books I've read?

[Grateful for Hope]

57. No it doesn't

But, it does entice those who have not read the book to read it.

I don't know, Bassman, but, I stand behind what I believe. Because the investigation into 9/11 was such a sham both in scope and monetarily, and because so many of our citizens were killed as a result of 9/11, IMO, our government owes us a comprehensive, costly investigation into these events.

T

On edit: After I posted this, I noticed an extraneous "T" at the bottom of my post. I am, on principle, leaving it there. However, I am expecting the "grammar/spelling/don't you check your spelling before you post" kind of poster to point to this aberration.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. So the Pulitzer is simply an "enticement," nothing more?

:rofl:

[Grateful for Hope]

60. Awwww, Bolo

"Burp"

[Flatulo]

59. Why don't you read it and check the sources before you decide it's BS?

But for now I'm tired of talking to an echo.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Somebody who has to deny the weight of a Pulitzer to keep believing what she wants

isn't worth the effort.

[Flatulo]

62. I was replying to Bassman, but I take your point. A Pulitzer is no

small achievement. The standards are pretty high.

http://www.pulitzer.org/faq

[HamdenRice]

32. Can anyone elaborate on this? Is this new information?

After checking the OP's links again, I realized that the referenced articles claim that this is new confirmation based on a FOIA request.

But the articles are extremely terse and don't summarize the released documents. Can anyone who is close to the FOIA request elaborate on this?