Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 4:17am

The "evidence" is just a summary of the World Views as seen from Riyadh and Teheran.

If you wish to learn more, I suggest checking out the introductory curriculum to top rated Universities in the field of history and find the courses specifically aimed at Islamic tension and not get your info from Huffington Post or other pundits to either side. What has happened is not really interesting, the question is always 'Why' and needs to have the full backstory and analysis can't start at an arbitrary date.

Andrew Marr has some fascinating insights on people with lots of opinion and no background - citizen interpretation of facts are usually erroneous. :)

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 4:21am

So no evidence for Saudi involvement in 9/11 then?  I'll stick with 0 lives being sacrificed to bring that regime down.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 4:33am

Not unless you are willing to get a proper education on the subject. Then the evidence is self-evident.

Why do you think Americans always get put down for not knowing history..? :)

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 5:28am

I'll take that as a confirmation that you have zero evidence.  Thank you.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 5:54am

You are perfectly welcomed to do that, but it speaks to your lack of a proper understanding of historical events.

There is no right or wrong in history, there just is.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 6:01am

Well as long as your only citation is 'get an education' then I can only assume  that no such evidence exists.  I've spent more time reading than you have playing video games, which is saying a lot, and I haven't run across any evidence suggesting Saudia Arabian government had direct ties to 9/11.  Do you have a single credible source for such an allegation?

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 6:19am

justfuckinggoogleit.com:

Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists (punditry)

Going to the Source: Why Al Qaeda's Financial Network Is Likely to ... (science)

From the latter's abstract:

Third, Al Qaeda has built a significant base of Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia with international divisions that have not been scrutinized or controlled by the regime.

Read: The Saudi regime at least tacitly supports AQ. Most likely also directly, but that is more a point which I won't speak for certain upon.  

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 6:35am

The second source lists the author as Mark Basile, who seems to be a chemical engineer at the heart of the 911 truth movement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

 

That first source, however, is convincing on it's own.  So assuming that purported evidence is valid - why isn't the U.S. going after the Saudi Regime?  I mean if this war on terror is actually about stopping terrorism, then shouldn't they be toppling the Saudi Regime?  Still not justification for Iraq, or even for this extended occupation of Afghanistan.  Cutting off that funding, however, should be a huge priority - shouldn't it?

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 8:13am

1. I provided a peer reviewed article which has been cited 42 times. That implies it is interesting and closer to the truth than most articles which are rarely cited.

2. Whatever M Basil does on his free time, which also assumes that he is the same M Basil as in the video below (which I cannot be certain of), is a moot point. For reference, Newton wrote a lot of smart stuff about Gravity, and a lot of dumb stuff about Christianity. His dumb stuff does not impede on his smart work.

3. "That first source, however, is convincing on it's own."

No it's absolutely not convincing. It's a newspaper. It is not peer reviewed, thus just punditry. Punditry is only acceptable as evidence if linked to science or taken with a massive grain of salt. Newspapers do not form the base of an informed opinion, neither does subjective books.

First you have to read the introductory and intermediate textbooks (summary of commonly accepted position on a subject), then you can read the subjective books, and wade through newspaper non-sense.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 8:32am

I'm taking your word here - you've provided some evidence, I've agreed to take at face value.  Now, are you saying that the saudis have a direct connection with 9/11 or not?

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 9:18am

"Direct" as in the US having a "direct" involvement in the overthrow of Allende. Speculation with quite weak documented evidence, but it is the most plausible explanation for the events which followed. :)

There's probably no paper trail if the Saudi state actively support(ed) terrorism (it's not something countries write down or make public), and the perpetrators are either dead or not talking. It's an effort to interpret what the most likely outcome expectations of the actors at the time of the event. Iraq being an OPEC country sort of negates the US invading with oil as a major consideration.

(By historic standards, the US have a legitemate claim to Iraqi land and resources since they have beaten them in war, ref German war reparations and land cessions after losing wars.)

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 9:34am

I doubt the UN or World Court would acknowledge that the U.S. now owns Iraq because they just decided to invade it without just cause or provocation, but now you're going all over the place.  I've already granted you the assertion that the Saudis backed 9/11.  The question I have is, if the U.S. is as well informed about this conspiracy as you, and since they don't seem to be laying claim to Iraq as a possessed territory - what the fuck are they doing over there?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• Next ›
• Page