What is Digg?448 Comments
- RogerStrong, on 10/10/2007, -59/+115That's because the FBI hasn't stated any such thing. The person who posted this is merely parroting yet another "truther" lie.
"The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[56] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion, regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001 attacks.[57] But so far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal charges against bin Laden (or anyone but Zacarias Moussaoui) for the 9/11 attacks. This has provided what some call "fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings." [58]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
=====
9/11 was considered from the beginning by the U.S. to be a military attack, not a criminal one. The U.S. military would handle it, not the police services. - doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -32/+70http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm
Buried as inaccurate.
So in answer to your question, this is not news because it's not true. - theone3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36Straight from the horses mouth - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
You would THINK 9/11/2001 would be on the wanted poster - right? - fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -16/+41It seems to me that 9/11 was interpreted as an act of war by the administration as to avoid any burden of proof before launching their so called war on terror.
Calling 9/11 an act of war was the single biggest mistake the Bush presidency ever made and also the root of this administration's self deception that has lead to one policy blunder after another.
Eventually citizens of US will realize that limitations on the power of the presidency were provided by the founders for the good of the nation and are absolutely necessary even in times of perceived crisis. Those in power now can only distract citizens from this fact for only so long and will eventually be exposed as the looters and pillagers of American democracy that they truly are. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Seems a bit odd that although BinLaden is on the FBIs most wanted list, its NOT in relation to 9/11 or anything recent.
Is it just me but why wouldn't he be on the list as responsible for 9/11 if he actually did the thing?? - labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Well, lets look at history and see what the US government has done in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
Luckly for us, our government has learned about trying to decieve the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
Ooops.. - str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -22/+40The simple truth is that we STILL have no real proof that Bin Laden did it, we merely assume that he did. The thing some people don't understand is that there are people elsewhere that would love to take credit for the attacks, giving them that kind of credit (even when they didn't do it) gives them notability and a reputation - hence why Bin Laden initially denied having any part in it, and then later on claimed he did it. Why would he deny it first, and then later on claim he did it? Think about it, it doesn't make sense - the US government could have done it, but that's too far fetched. Some other group may have done it and they could very well be planning something else - there were allegations of Israel spies, Saudi nationalists, blah blah..
We'll never know the truth, and even if we did - skeptics like myself will never believe it. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -20/+37THIS JUST IN
The CIA was unable to prove Japan was behind the Pearl Harbor attack - cp833, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22So you are a 'wackjob conspiracy nut' if you don't believe the official version of events, right? If so then, are you telling me you believe:
1. We were attacked because we are the brightest beacon for freedom in the world and Bin Laden hates our freedom?
2. Despite the enormous amounts of debris, smoke, charred remains, fire and dust, one of the alleged hijackers passports SURVIVED UNTOUCHED, floated down to the floor and just happened to be spotted by an FBI agent who was just passing through?
3. The hijackers accidentally left their Korans in their car (but remembered to bring their box-cutters)?
4. The Pentagon was taken by surprise and could not have foreseen or prevented itself from being attacked?
5. The BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 early because of a mistake due to the confusion, even though they managed to not only 100% accurately 'predict' the way it would collapse as well as the (unprecedented) REASONS for its collapse? (And then lost the tapes for reasons of *****-up, not conspiracy?)
6. The war games being conducted that morning (of planes crashing into buildings) was a pure coincidence and no-one could have guessed that it would actually happen on the same day?
7. Fighter jets weren't scrambled in time to prevent the attacks because after the Cold War it was assumed that an attack would come from outside the country?
8. The plane that hit the Pentagon swooped down and flew in a straight line just metres off the ground at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour, before accurately ploughing into a wall only several metres high, piloted by a man who had never flown a Boeing passenger jet before let alone under conditions of extreme stress?
9. Debris from Flight 93 can be expected to be found 600 ft/one mile away from the crash site, along with the bandana of Zacarias Moussaoui which, like the passports, survived unscathed?
10. 19 fanatical Arabs, directed from a cave in Afghanistan, caught the whole of the U.S. military intelligence, the whole of U.S. political and diplomatic establishments, and NORAD completely off guard?
According to the official version of events, all of those things are supposed to be true. But obviously only 'wackjob conspiracy nuts' wouldn't believe it, right?! - jebudas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20From ncloud's comments on the article page ::
"You know, on Sept. 11 I spent all day swapping out blank video tapes in my VCR, recording news coverage of the Twin Towers, and what surprised me most was how *quickly* blame was pinned on Bin Laden. It seemed that, not moments after the second tower was hit, the talking heads everywhere were claiming that we knew for *certain* that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I am, to this day, unsettled by that." :: Can anyone confirm this? - piradians, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Nobody has any access to the evidence, and there is no criminal case being pursued, so the "clear and irrefutable" evidence doesn't ever have to be shown. bin Laden also denied involvement twice, only to admit it 3 years later in a questionable video released before the 2004 Presidential election. Considering the fact that this government blatantly lied to garner support to invade Iraq, I would say the scepticism is valid.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19 Why did OJ proclaim to not rest until he found the real killers?
Pr my friend, it is all about PR.
The same way Bush was going to find out who outed Plame and make sure they are held to account.....
See the pattern? - DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/10/2007, -13/+27Or you could just say "but there's a lot of people who don't know it" instead of ranting like you're trying to get your English PhD.
- Davede70, on 10/10/2007, -17/+31MY GOD!! YOU ARE RIGHT!! This must mean that 9/11 was a gigantic government conspiracy. Involving hundreds, if not thousands of people, none of whom have come forward. One look at George Bush and the competent and organized administration he (well Cheney) runs shows that he is capable of pulling off the largest and most daring secret attack ever!!! The inability to plan a war, keep secret torture, keep secret politicizing the justice department, keep secret who leaked an undercover CIA officer's name to the press, and the general idiotic stupidity they display on a daily basis is all a cover for their brilliant minds.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I did the same thing, I have 4 tapes and by #3 Bin Laden was being mentioned.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17A comment from the article{
# Peter Says:
August 7th, 2007 at 7:12 am
what about the fact bin ladin and his frienda had been trying to blow up the WTC since ‘93?
}
Peter is an idiot. Ahmad Salam (the guy who carried out the 1993 WTC) bombing involved in what he thought was a sting operation was working for the FBI. He recorded his conversation with the FBI after asking them why we was given a real bomb and a real detonator and they told him to still go through with the bombing.
video.google.com: wtc 1993, watch the first result. It doesn't matter who narrates it, it matters what his references are. Research your ***** people. - dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I think that's his point.
- thelonecabbage, on 10/10/2007, -31/+43Not news because
A) Binladen got on international TV and said: "I did it. It was me. Ha Ha, you suck! I'm sending more you stupid f#ckers!"
or
B) The FBI deals with domestic crime, and has no facilities for dealing with internationals? (like say the CIA, which has linked him to a lot more than just 9/11)
or
C) There is bigger news to report on like a Truther moving out of his mothers basement. - verge, on 10/10/2007, -16/+28Point taken regarding with regards to Internet-savvy newshounds. The salient, poignant element of the question, however, to me - do you believe most who watch primary news channels are aware of this? If not, would they be interested if they were aware? Most important in my opinion, Digg users are more informed than most I know. - The exception, not the rule. With that in mind, is it incumbent on those who care and are informed to address these issues? I respectfully submit my answer as yes. The question asked in the post was not confined to Diggers. The context of the article pulled the camera lens back and questioned apathy, ignorance, and bias. Themes that many argue have become pervasive, corrosive parts of our culture.. NOT respecting and discussing these issues, asking these questions if you will, seems to me, is succumbing to the very habits we say we loathe. .
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18All that confirms is that the FBI can't currently link Bin Laden to 9/11.
Also, a lot of people don't realize that although he praised the attacks on the WTC he DID NOT take responsibility for them unlike how he used to stand up straight away and claim responsibility. - Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16 How about he at first denied it? How about the other videos of him admitting to it, came from the US - which has been caught how many times now with false info??
Please wake up, even if OBL was in on it, he couldn't have done it alone, without huge amounts of help. - cp833, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12How depressing. I'll tell you why it matters - because the fact of the matter is your government are still exploiting 9/11 constantly to obtain greater power for themselves, to strip you of all of your personal freedoms and to attempt to keep us all in perpetual fear. They are using 9/11 as a political tool to enslave you.
"Terrorists are everywhere!! Be afraid!! Give up your rights!! We need to spy on you, take your fingerprints, track you and know where you are at all times just to keep you SAFE!! Trust us!! We are here to protect you!" is basically what we are told. Sadly most people fall for it.
The most infuriating and depressing thing of all is people like you, who sit back and go 'Yawn!! I'm bored of hearing about this now, when's American Idol on?' while your rights, freedom and this country are all heading straight to hell. - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Drop the apostrophe and come out with your hands above your head.
Scalawag. - synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Bin Laden is not the "James Bond" style uber-villain that people are lead to believe he is. Al-Qaeda does not have a pyramid like hierarchy with Osama at the top, masterminding everything. They are a grassroots movement with hundreds of individual groups and cells independent of each other and bound mostly by ideology. Bin Laden became the recognized face of Al-Qaeda because he was the most experienced and most wealthy of all the Mujahadeen, he's the guy you go to with an idea to get advice and financial support. He did not order the 9/11 attacks or mastermind them, the plan was hatched by other terrorists and he gave his blessing to it. All this doesn't make him any less guilty and he certainly deserves a bullet in the head, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this will be like in the movies, where you kill the top bad guy and then his entire evil empire dies with him. Al-Qaeda will be just as strong with Bin Laden dead or in jail because it's more of an idea than an organization.
- onyxraven1979, on 10/10/2007, -36/+45One more inaccurate conspiracy theory on the front page of Digg.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10What are you blabbing about? Plame wasn't covert in the 90s. She only became a covert agent in January of 2002. (From the CIA documents). She was outed by the Novak article and it is unclear (thanks to Libby's obstruction of justice) who initially leaked Plame's covert status.
Read the actual CIA documents which called for the investigation.
From the CIA document:
"At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a COVERT CIA EMPLOYEE from whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligences relationship to the United States."
Note that July 14th was the date of Novak's article.
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/ (read the full thing here) - MilitantRabbit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Lee Harvey Oswald got shot on the way to be arraigned. It's kind of hard to carry out due process when the defendant is dead.
- meechwings, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9From the standpoint of the Bush administration I wouldn't say that. Calling 9/11 an act of war probably gave Bush the leverage to implement the policies he wanted, with little to no resistance.
Which, for the rest of us, turned out to be a big mistake. - ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -16/+24Both the US and UK governments are not trustworthy because they are proven liars in many cases.
- Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Honestly, I was sitting there in college the morning it happened and my list of possible people that would do something like 9/11 narrowed down to Bin Laden in about 3 minutes.
- AforAlexander, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7So building a conspiracy on unclassified but viewable documents is more nutty than basing your truth on documents that are classified and that you'll thus never see?!
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You do know He isn't the only person who wants to hit the US right? We have turned him into the poster child for Islamic fundimentallist terrorist groups. If you listed to the news you'd think he's the only game in town.
- Mise777, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually "Usama" is closer to the correct Arabic pronunciation of this name than "Osama."
- chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Well, maybe its just me, but if I were going to pull off a massive terrorist attack on my own country, I would try and keep it a secret and make sure people couldn't piece together evidence from unclassified documents. But, that's just me.
- manicleek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I could say I did a number of things on video to look good in-front of my buddies. Doesn't mean I actually did it. I'm sure there is other evidence though
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13 NO, they are pointing out the inherient nonsense in the official story. How is it that within hours of the attack they knew who did it? Yet years later the Anthrax attacks still nothing?
It is almost like a group of people are intentionally keeping you fearful, and as a result incapable of thinking critically. Thus all the anger over this stuff. - leakus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I haven't really heard that before and I also live in Europe. Could you please provide a link? Or are you confusing Saddam Hussein with Bin Laden, because there was never a doubt in the European news that there was no connection between him and 9/11.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6ORLY
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm - wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10To those villainizing Verge's supposed verbosity: what is the problem with flexing one's vocabulary and syntax skills in an effort to make a point? Verge has clearly thought about what he wants to say -- he wants to say it specifically to us, digg users, whom he COMPLIMENTS -- and he is using language to articulate his point as precisely as possible. Perhaps he put too much faith in the user base of this site? To insult a thinker and a writer for thinking and writing well is silly, useless, immature and it goes against the whole supposed community mindset of this site.
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -13/+19Why would 'al qaeda' want to attack the WTC buildings when the PNAC group publically stated they needed a quote 'new pearl harbor' in order to carry out their plans of global domination, including their plans for invading Iraq and many other middle eastern countries ?
And how about this "On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honor was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama." http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html Inside job for sure. - Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15 You mean it isn't news because you haven't been told you are allowed to think about it..
- lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Alright fess up..which one of you is Osama and how are you getting on the internet?
- ZWarren69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+611 different countries warned the U.S.
FBI warned the President
CIA warned the President
One FBI agent tried to tell FBI HQ, that they were training to fly planes into buildings, 70+ times.
Nope, no one everrrrrrrrr knew 9/11 was going to happen.... - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6While I think this is all *****, your claim that the middle east doesn't have a lot of oil. Of the top five countries with the largest oil reserves, three of them, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Kuwait are already allies, Iran and Iraq are the other two.
Is that evidence enough that we went to war for oil, no really, but you can't say the middle east doesn't contain a lot. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Supposedly the Russians and Israel warned the US.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"When a passenger check-in desk at Terminal Two, Heathrow Airport, shot up through the roof engulfed in a ball of orange flame the usual people tried to claim responsibility. First the IRA, then the PLO and the Gas Board. Even British Nuclear Fuels rushed out a statement to the effect that the situation was completely under control, that it was a one in a million chance, that there was hardly any radio-active leakage at all and that the site of the explosion would make a nice location for a day out with the kids and a picnic, before finally having to admit that it wasn't actually anything to do with them at all."
-- The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul / Douglas Adams. - mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm -
FTA:
"However, as the events of September 11 demonstrated with horrible clarity, the United States also confronts serious challenges from international terrorists. The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests. The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable." - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You are correct, but OBL is a shiny object to distract the television news watchers.
The fact is, the USA is the problem in the Middle East, not the Arabs. They live there. - MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Well said.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 438 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is