Hmm. So Osama REALLY didn't do it.

So Glad

Or did he? (News article)

bonkey

KSM has been touted as the "organiser" of the 911 attacks for quite some time. This is indeed mentioned in the very first line of the article you link to.

OBL was, that I can remember, held responsible more for being the leader of AQ (who carried out the attacks) then for being the man who planned the details.

An analagy might be the following...

Say that the US special forces were found to have carried out some dirty deed (say the events of 911, for arguments' sake).
Say then that some Special Forces general admitted to having been responsible for the operation from day 1.
But lets also say that it was the case that the US president was aware of the actions being carried out and was believed to have given his approval if not his go-ahead.

Who would be "behind" such an action? The soldiers who flew the planes? The squad-leaders of the soldiers who took over the planes? The general who planned the operation? The Commander Chief who was aware of what was being planned?

I'm pretty sure that the people who lay 911 at the feet of the US Administration might agree that the general planned and executed the operation (cause thats what he did), but would still say that Bush was "behind it all" and therefore responsible.

If my hypothetical really occurred...would Bush have "done it", or not? If not, then fair enough...OBL didn't do it either.

Gordon

I have no idea who did it, or didn't do it. But it is very possible that this guy is either covering for Osama/the true culprit or he is taking the glory for it instead. Of course, he could well have been tortured to say such things.

Incidentally, I much prefer the Guardian piece to the BBC report.

bobbyjoe

That guy was probably tortured so much he'd say he was Santa Claus if they wanted him to.

So Glad

bobbyjoe wrote:

That guy was probably tortured so much he'd say he was Santa Claus if they wanted him to.

Hahaha. Yeah, I'd agree with that.

So Glad

"The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress when he confessed to his role in the attacks."

Oh so, he WAS tortured but the torture didn't make him want to say he conspired to do 9/11? So the very act of torture is irrelevant here? Isn't torture SUPPOSED to get answers out of people? Who writes this ****?

Diogenes

So Glad do you remember on the great big thread where I posted that Khalid was described as Osama's right hand man? That he was considered to be the mastermind of 911? That Khalid's nephew is the only person convicted for the 1993 WTC van bombing?

None of that ringing any bells?

So Glad wrote:

"The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress when he confessed to his role in the attacks."

I imagine that the author is saying that while yes Mohammed was tortured but at the moment of confession there wasn't a gun to his head, or he was recieving a chinese burn.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

So the very act of torture is irrelevant here?

Well, no.

If he was tortured, that casts the US in a bad light.

If he was tortured and the torture was ineffective, that casts the US in a worse light, as it calls into question any reason for using torture.

If he was tortured, the torture was ineffective, and he gave up the information for a reason other than being tortured, it casts the US in an even worse light again, and further calls into question any justification which can be offered for the use of torture.

Nick_oliveri

KSM's happy face:

So Glad

Nick_oliveri wrote:

KSM's happy face:

"As you can see, torture played no role in this."

Nick_oliveri

So Glad wrote:

"As you can see, torture played no role in this."

Nahh i think that was when he was caught. Think of it like Saddams video when the doc is is examining him! God he looked pathetic in that.

Other Thread