not so
given the huge amount of conflicting information out there which makes this is huge debate for both sides - both of which have a very valid argument
to dismiss one side as fantasists is supremely arrogant of you not to mention ignorant of the complexity of this issue -
add into that mix those you would include in this slurring - the military officers, ex FBI translators ( ex FBI Sibel Edmonds ) etc who have gone public
Michael Meacher, The Guardian, Saturday September 6 2003 ;
This war on terrorism is bogus
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
to call people like Meacher a fantasist just loses you credability as you are not addressing the valid points which make this debate
not least issues like The Pakistan ISI (the ISI is backed by the CIA) connection in 911
"There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers" www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11
QUOTE:
" Omar Sheikh is the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman"
END QUOTE
of course it's easier to dismiss them than to tackle this inconvenient information - and remaining completely ignorant the role covert operations has played throughout history
operation Gladio anyone?
and in the BBC ' Power of Nightmares 'documentary CIA Operatives admit Al-qaeda is a fabrication
(, Fri 7 Mar 2008, 15:21, Reply)
It'd be good if
people checked their saddles were on straight before climbing on their f*cking high horses
;)
(, Fri 7 Mar 2008, 15:48, Reply)
the word 'reason' must have a definition I've not previously
been made aware of.
(
chenobble bogling to Aswad, Fri 7 Mar 2008, 17:04,
Reply)
There is currently a debate going on in America about whether life appeared via some natural process such as evolution
or whether it was all created by some big beard in the sky.
The fact that I reject one side of the arguement offhand does not make me closed-minded, it makes me able to weigh the facts, dismiss spurious, fantastical and biased claims and come to a sensible decision based on the most reasonable evidence.
The same applies here. The internet gives you access to lots of information. Unfortunately too many people lack the ability to understand that not all that information is of equal worth.
(
chenobble bogling to Aswad, Fri 7 Mar 2008, 16:59,
Reply)
They don't so much admit al qaeda to be a myth as such
it is instead a set of constructs with a figurehead and not a heirarchical structure, like a social movement with a council and self-funding initiatives.
Doesn't mean that the people themselves don't exist, but rather that al qaeda does not share the formal structure of previous terrorist groups.
/studies terrorist group structure blog
(
Fishcat Walk without rhythm and you won't attract the worm, Fri 28 Mar 2008, 10:52,
Reply)