Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
eewwll said:Not true. We funded some of the very Afghan rebels that eventually turned on us and teamed with the Taliban. So that statement is not entirely true. We essentially traded one enemy (the communist Soviets) for another (the Islamic Fundamentalist). We just didn't understand that we were getting played by the fundamentalists because we didnt understand the movement.However, we funded the winning faction. It's just that we didn't know that we were funding a future enemy. Even the Afghan rebels whom we most trusted Massoud, inherently were Anti-US. It was just that the communists Soviets were the biggest enemy at the moment.
This is not true. Bid Laden was from a family of construction. He had a construction operation in Afghanistan that built many of the transportation routes to ship munitions, troops, food, etc in the rough Afghanistan environment during the world. He was a continuous business man that ran profitable businesses thorough the middle east. Bid Laden did not "run out of funds". I do not know where you go that info. But it was not the case.
This again is not fully correct and has no barring on Osama Bid Laden. The Saud Royal Family and the Bid Ladens were very Secular. VERY. SO much so that the Saud Royal family has always been under direct threat from Wahhabism and are still seen by Bid Laden and other fundamentalist as corrupt leaders who do not follow true Islam. They have always been criticized for being two faced..the fold to Wahhabisms and the greater fundamentalism community by enforcing strict laws on the public...but their family..which numbers 100s of self proclaimed princes of 1000s of family members... enjoy a very secular...very WESTERN lifestyle behind closed doors. If you do not know what Wahhabism is you need to look it up. When Osama Bid Laden became into direct confrontation with the Saud Royal Family, he was banished not only from Saudi Arabia but was admonished by his family who were direct benefactors of the Saudi Royal Family. Politically, ideologically, philosophically, etc.. the Saud Royal Family and the rest of the Bid Ladens were in DIRECT conflict with Osama Bin Laden and he considered them infidels. Couple that with the fact that Bid Laden was the son of a lowly comcubine of his Father who was married over 20 times had over 60 children...and Bid Laden's mom was not on the favorite's list...and the fact that Bid Laden's family was disconnected and spread all through the middle east and many had little contact with the others... Again...it is the difference between separating correlation and causation. On a surface level, you may get a oh my god...there is a connection. However, when you know the details, you know it is clearly a false lead and incomplete knowledge of those relationships can cause a person to draw wild erroneous conclusions..that may seem plausible when you only have surface level knowledge. However, when you know the more intimate details, you know that Bush's associate with the Carlyle Group has absolutely nothing to do with him being aware of one of the lowely 55 children of one one of the unfavorable 22 wives of one the ceos of one of the companies who was apart of the porfolio of hundreds of companies, partnerships, and stock under the Carlyle Groups branch of operations. That should put things more into perspective for you.
I've seen the Bohemian Grove thread. I covered that stuff back in the late 80s...but they only understand a minor portion of it based on some the claims that make. But it is a good thread.
but back to your oil comment..
I wrote this years ago on BGOL..AFTER i came back from Iraq.
Gambitv01 said:Do you know wut is a Wahhabi??? Excerpt from The "Wahhabi" Myth:
The word "Wahabism" is in fact nothing but a meaningless appellation which is used by people in two cases: The term "Wahabism" is often used to describe those who closely stick to the verses of the Qur'an and the narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) in all religious affairs. Consequently, instead of directly attacking Islam for those things that do not appeal to their desires, they call anyone who follows these texts "Wahabis."
Another different and contemporary usage has appeared for this term. Anybody who belongs to any of the current Qutbist type groups or movements that call for political overthrows, endless blind purported Jihads which are based upon principles other than those found in Islam and led by people who have no knowledge based background in Islamic scholarship, are entered into a giant umbrella group called "Wahabism." This is done even though these followers of Sayyid Qutb despise the Salafi/"Wahabi" scholars and their creed.
Hence, in the first case, "Wahabism" is used to mean "anything I don't like about Islam," and in the second case, "anything I don't like about what the contemporary Qutbist movements do; things that have no basis in Islam."
The media and general population are invited to actually begin to study the principles of Salafism/"Wahabism" and report about it accurately, especially as it seems that the "War Against Terrorism" seems to slowly be turning into the "War Against Wahabism."
Some Western intellectuals are doing something to contest this trend, but they are few and far between, and their knowledge of the nature of Salafism is limited. Gary Leupp, a history professor and coordinator of the Asian Studies Program at Tufts University, posed the following question concerning this current of thought: "In Saudi Arabia itself, is "Wahabism" really the threat posited by some neocons? John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, suggests otherwise."
Professor Leupp quotes Esposito as saying: "Even conforming to an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic faith does not necessarily make you a violent individual." Leupp adds: "There are of course millions of peaceable if ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic Christians."
Driving in his point, Leupp cites F. Gregory Gause III, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont, when he warned the House Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia about the "dangerous trend" of linking "Wahabism" with terrorism, wherein he explained that this phenomena "is not Saudi or 'Wahabi' in any exclusive sense. It is part of the zeitgeist of the whole Muslim world right now. It is undoubtedly true that the al-Qa'ida network was able to recruit many Saudis. But it would be a mistake to attribute this simply to some purported affinity between 'Wahabism' and al-Qa'ida's message of jihad."
Stating that although "some Saudi clerics and intellectuals have supported al-Qa'ida's message [note: the supporters of Sayyid Qutb, the Qutbists]," he adds that "the vast majority have condemned it [note: the Salafi/"Wahabi" scholars]."
"Moreover," he says, "Al-Qa'ida has been able to recruit both fighters and intellectual supporters from many countries - Egypt and Pakistan, to name but two - where 'Wahabism' is not a prominent intellectual current."
Is Osama Bin Laden Really a 'Wahhabi'?
The term "Wahhabi" is often misused for less than honest purposes...
On September 30, 2001, Roger Hardy, the BBC's Middle East analyst wrote an article entitled "Inside Wahhabi Islam." Hardy himself notes that the term "Wahhabi" is often misused for less than honest purposes, "The term 'Wahhabi' is often used very freely. The Russian media, for example, use it as a term of abuse for Muslim activists in Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia itself - rather as the Western media use the vague and derogatory term 'Islamic fundamentalism'."
Regrettably, Hardy falls into the same trap of misappropriating this term when he states that Osama Bin Laden is a "Wahhabi": "Osama Bin Laden, named by US officials as the main suspect in the 11 September attacks against America, is Saudi-born and a Wahhabi."
The mistake that Hardy has fallen into here is that he has assumed that since Bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, that this in turn necessitates him being a "Wahhabi". In fact, this is a superficial conclusion which has been repeatedly mentioned in the media and is worthy of refutation.
Osama bin Laden comes from a Yemeni family which is based in Hadramout, a coastal section of Yemen that is well known for being a base of a particular sect of Islam called Sufism. Sufism could be briefly summarized as being the antithesis of "Wahhabism". Bin Laden himself is not concerned with differentiating between matters of creed, and some of his statements indicate that he still acknowledges certain Sufi practices. He also embraced the Taliban as his close friends and protectors, and it is well known that the great majority of this group belong to Deobandism, a Sufi movement.
However, a differentiation is made between demonstrating that Bin Laadin acknowledges certain Sufi practices, and claiming that he is an outright Sufi. Rather, Bin Laadin has shown that he is not concerned with the same matters of belief and worship that a Salafi would concern himself with, because the sect he belongs to (Qutbism) does not distinguish between matters of belief, so long as people adhere to their “movement.”
Another misnomer which has been oft repeated in the mainstream media is the notion that the Taliban were “Wahhabis.” On December 10, 2001, The Washington Post’s Ron Kampeas wrote that “Wahhabism” is “a puritanical faith that rejects change. A brand of Islam that drives the Taliban…”
This in fact is another great inaccuracy which indicates that those who have repeated these claims have approached these intricate matters in a simplistic fashion.
Although Roger Hardy’s BBC article made the error of stating that Osama bin Laden was a “Wahhabi,” he, unlike Kampeas, stayed clear of repeating this error when addressing the Sufi Taliban movement:
“But the Taleban are not Wahhabis. They belong to what is known as the Deobandi movement, named after the small town of Deoband in the Indian Himalayas. It was here that the movement was founded, in the 1860s,
during the period of British rule in India.”
On November 9, 2001, Hamid Mir of the Pakistani daily, The Dawn, interviewed Osama Bin Laden just prior to the fall of Kabul:
Hamid Mir: "After (the) American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct 7, you told Al-Jazeera TV that the September 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims?"
Osama bin Laden: "The Americans themselves released a list of the suspects of the September 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers. Fateha was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers."
Bin Laden’s statement “Fateha was held for them in their homes” is referring to the reading of the opening chapter of the Quran (al-Fatihah) for the souls of the deceased, a common practice of the Sufis. This act of worship has no basis in Islam, either from the Quran, the Sunnah, or the practice of the earliest generations. More precisely, this is an innovated practice which later generations of Sufi Muslims fabricated. This statement indicates that Osama bin Laden is neither knowlegeable in Islam, nor is he attached to the principles and practices of Salafism.
- abridged from the book: The 'Wahhabi' Myth
jackass3000 said:nAW HOMIE IT WASN'T A QUESTION. IT WAS A STATEMENT SIMPLY to EXPLAIN HOW INCOMPETENT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION IS, AND HAS BEEN SIMPLY IN MY MIND MAKING IT IMPOSSABILE FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS A INSIDE JOB
@DON IMUS IS A NAPPY HEADED HOE@
( just writing however it comes to me)smokedacane said:It's is very real my friend, governments have used lies and propoganda before just to instil their will and desire to get what they want.
9/11 was nothing more than a beautifully executed plan that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Do you honeslty believe that a group of terrorist with limited flight skills could manuever a Boeing 757 at the speeds of Moc 10 and crash them into the twin towers? Even pilots who have 30 years of experiance can't even do that.And the mere fact that Boeing 757 can be controlled by REMOTE CONTROL doesn't raise any eyebrows?
THe fact that ONLY ONE person on both the planes that crashed into the towers had an Arabian sounding name.......
There is NO PROOF what so ever that a plane crashed into the pentagon. PLEASE find me a picture of a plane lodged into the Pentagon..........you won't find it. Because if anything it looks like a damn bomb or missile hit the Pentagon not a plane
Keep digging and you will see all the holes in the 9/11 crap we were spoon fed
Twistyaaliyah said:( just writing however it comes to me)
im not checkin that out. I dont do physics or nuthing to do with building infrastructure.
But please explain to me how can fuel from a plane explode outside d building and somehow reach the base fast enuf for the twin towers crumple and fall in one staight line? (weren't firemen down there rescuing ppl for a while?)
I mean the plain hit it at such an angle that if nething and the fire was intense enuf to weaking the steel shouldnt the to top that was hit first.. lean and fall off or some shit like dat?
And y after the the builing collapsed not one piece of furniture(besides a small piece of a telephone keypad) was found? just...dust. In a building that has many offices they can't even find a piece of a chair leg, A FUCKIN WINDOW??! BUTTTT the passports of the "terrorist" MADE OF PAPER survived those flames?
its fuckin retarded. LOL.
Now on to the plane thing.
on the news they said some shit about those men were flying the plane for an hr and some going on a route (most suited for the amusement part rides on a roller coaster to me.)
And ive heard of some protocol - if a plane goes off route for more than 30 minutes it is intercepted by the navy or some shit like dat.( i ain from american excuse the ignorance)..if so what happened? did they have a all employee sick-out or some shit?
How is it that men with pen knives hijacked a plane and the pilots are armed with guns![]()
Last but not least. Some one needs to fire those fuckin architects.
Ive seen buildings survive fuckin infernos going one for more than a couple minutes.. probably a whole day and some. that was built years b4 all this technology
smokedacane said:Yeah, I forgot to bring up the fact that it is Air traffic patrol protocol that if a plane goes off course and the pilot does not give a good reason why and the plane CONTINUES to go off course a fighter jet is then sent into the air to find the plane and see what is wrong. That didn't occur during 9/11 and the FBI has put a gag order on them and they can't even talk about it to the media or news papers.
And the architect of the twin towers doesn't need to be fired. The building looked like it was takin down by a demolition team. The building shouldn't of even feel to the ground to begin with, it just wasn't hot enough. And the building feel to the ground as if explosives were carefully placed throughout the building.
Twistyaaliyah said:[/B]
sorry i didn't clarify myself. I mean if they are tryin to make us believe that fuel from a jet could cause a skyscraper like the twin towers to fall to dust. THen those architects should be fired. Cuz buildings that were made b4 that wern't so sophisticated survived flames that engulfed the whole building ...the structure still stood
smokedacane said:Are you trying to say that since the government is TRYING to sell us the idea that jet fuel brought down the plane then the architects should be fired?
or somethin else
Because like I said, the twin towers looks as if they were taken down by a controlled demolition.
Mo Pizorn said:Americans are stupid as fuck. September 11th 2001 was a message, not the start of a war. WE accepted the bullshit propaganda and bought into that. The message was simple: YOU TOO CAN BE TOUCHED.
This was a message sent by Arabs. Why the fuck don't people undertsand that almost all of the September 11th attackers were Saudi? We are stupid as fuck as a country.
MIhandleNE said:Post a flowchart of this logic and variants; beginning with the mode of "manipulation" and the categorical outcome (e.g. power, money, revenge, etc) as the "boundaries" (so to speak).
You have good points. I like to study frameworks and then work from the derivatives of situations thereafter. Without, I skim over post like yours that I suspect to have some accurate info and commentary.
Bonus: Provide 3 examples where the flowchart is valid.
BGOL University
rude_dog said:Eewwll,
it has been reported in open source material that there may be Islamic terrorist groups operating in the tri-border area of Brazil, Columbia, and Venezuela. There is a large Muslim immigrant population in Venezuela and possibly Brazil.
Living in Brazil, you should no that Brazil doesn't have control over large parts of the jungle.