Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Jahar Tsarnaev 9/11 Paradox

  • 28-05-2013 09:57PM
    #1
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭


    In his own words Jahar Tsarnaev was of the opinion that "9/11 was an inside-job",

    Jahar @J_tsar Idk why it's hard for many of you to accept that 9/11 was an inside job, I mean I guess **** the facts y'all are some real #patriots #gethip
    5:37 AM - 2 Sep 2012

    This doesn't fit the narrative at all of someone "inspired" and "radicalised" by Al Awlaki and his Al Qaeda friends to carry out Islamic terrorism. It's trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

    It doesn't work both ways. EITHER Bush, Bibi and co framed (or conspired with) the (relatively) innocent Bin Laden to wage their imperial wars OR Bin Laden struck a blow against thei nfidels as part of a global jihad.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It doesn't work both ways. EITHER Bush, Bibi and co framed (or conspired with) the (relatively) innocent Bin Laden to wage their imperial wars OR Bin Laden struck a blow against thei nfidels as part of a global jihad.

    Bin Laden is "relatively" innocent.

    Tell me what do you think is he innocent of?


  • #3
    rockygsd123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 ✭rockygsd123


    he says 'relatively' so he means he is not as bad as bush e.t.c I guess


  • #4
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Bin Laden is "relatively" innocent.

    Tell me what do you think is he innocent of?

    Global warming.

    By

    "It doesn't work both ways. EITHER Bush, Bibi and co framed (or conspired with) the (relatively) innocent Bin Laden "

    That Bin Laden may be innocence of 911 but not innocent in a general sense. The point is that from Jahar's perpective as OBL and AQ have claimed responsibility for the attacks, at least as the story goes, then he is very probably a co-conspirator with Bush Cheney and friends.

    So why oh why would Jahar be inspired by Al Qaeda - again as the story goes - to attack it's secret ally, from Jahar's perspective?

    Doesn't add up.


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That Bin Laden may be innocence of 911 but not innocent in a general sense. The point is that from Jahar's perpective as OBL and AQ have claimed responsibility for the attacks, at least as the story goes, then he is very probably a co-conspirator with Bush Cheney and friends.

    So why oh why would Jahar be inspired by Al Qaeda - again as the story goes - to attack it's secret ally, from Jahar's perspective?

    Doesn't add up.
    It doesn't add up if you make certain assumptions.
    You are assuming that he believes that: OBL and AQ did really claim responsibility. Many conspiracy theorists do not believe this is the case.
    You are assuming that he believes that OBL is the real leader of AQ. Many conspiracy theorists do not believe this.
    You are assuming that he believes that AQ was involved in 9/11.

    However it adds up perfectly well if we imagine something like he believes that Al-queda was framed to detract from their "legitimate" and "justified" attacks and as an excuse to go after them or that they were just picked as an excuse to start wars for oil etc.
    Or perhaps he believed that the organisation doesn't exist as portrayed for whatever reason in the evil mainstream media and it is used to link different actions, some legitimate and justified for him, others not so.
    Or perhaps he believes that the organisation was infiltrated and manipulated into attacking on 9/11.

    There are dozens of scenarios and possibilities that do make sense, but very few, unlikely ones where it does not. The only reason to believe that it doesn't make sense is to artificially exclude possibilities so that there is another "inconsistency" to point at.


  • #6
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    You don't get it.

    If you are a Jihadi terrorist then 911 was the ultimate success story that brought great prestige to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the 19 "martyrs"

    If you are a Jihadi terrorist you don't think that Bush and Cheney orchestrated a false-flag attack with the assistance of your old friend from the mujahadeen Osama bin Laden.

    Jahar believed in no uncertain terms that it was Bush/Cheney.

    Can you list off some other jihadi terrorists that also believe that "911 was an inside job"?

    I doubt it.,


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Dr Zakir Naik for one off the top of my head.

    Your logic is bizarre and twisted. To draw a analogy there are plenty of anti semitic holocaust deniers. The sort of people who would like to see another Holocaust are often the same people calling the Holocaust "the Holohoax".

    These are people who want to commit violence for their faith, it's unsurprising that they can hold two contrary opinions at the same time.


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You don't get it.

    If you are a Jihadi terrorist then 911 was the ultimate success story that brought great prestige to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the 19 "martyrs"

    If you are a Jihadi terrorist you don't think that Bush and Cheney orchestrated a false-flag attack with the assistance of your old friend from the mujahadeen Osama bin Laden.
    Unless of course you believe that it was more of a benefit for Bush and Cheney than for Jihadi terrorists.

    Or you believed along the lines of the scenarios I presented which are all things conspiracy theorists believe.

    There's no basis for your generalisation and you are making it simply for convenience so that you can conclude that there is something strange.


  • #9
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Dr Zakir Naik for one off the top of my head.

    Your logic is bizarre and twisted. To draw a analogy there are plenty of anti semitic holocaust deniers. The sort of people who would like to see another Holocaust are often the same people calling the Holocaust "the Holohoax".

    These are people who want to commit violence for their faith, it's unsurprising that they can hold two contrary opinions at the same time.
    ... You'll have to provide more than a name. Is this guy a "Jihadi Terrorist"? If so, provide evidence.


  • #10
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Unless of course you believe that it was more of a benefit for Bush and Cheney than for Jihadi terrorists.

    Or you believed along the lines of the scenarios I presented which are all things conspiracy theorists believe.

    There's no basis for your generalisation and you are making it simply for convenience so that you can conclude that there is something strange.

    There is no generalising. Can you name another "Jihadi terrorist" that believes that "911 was an inside job"? If you can't just say so and then try to figure out yourself why that is...


  • #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... You'll have to provide more than a name. Is this guy a "Jihadi Terrorist"? If so, provide evidence.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik
    In a YouTube video, speaking of Osama bin Laden, Naik said that he would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He added that, "If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "If he is terrorizing America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist – I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam. Whether he is or not, I don’t know, but you as Muslims know that, without checking up, laying allegations is also wrong."
    In a lecture delivered on 31 July 2008 on Peace TV, Naik commented on the attacks of 11 September: "it is a blatant, open secret that this attack on the Twin Towers was done by George Bush himself".

    He is a radical Muslim who thinks that Bin Laden is genuine and that some of his actions are justifiable, but who also thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

    If what you were saying was true, this guy could not possibly hold both of these positions. But he does, so therefore so can other people.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    There is no generalising. Can you name another "Jihadi terrorist" that believes that "911 was an inside job"? If you can't just say so and then try to figure out yourself why that is...
    I cannot do as it is not possible. Not all terrorists outline their beliefs in every topic in publicly available media.

    It has been shown however that someone can be sympathetic and forgiving to jihadi terrorism and still believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
    And I have outlined several lines of logic that would allow someone to consistently hold the same opinion.

    Can you address these points rather than insisting we provide something you know we can't provide and doesn't support your point?

    And yes, unless you can provide a good reason beyond your own assumption and ignoring other possibilities, assigning a singular belief to all jihadi terrorists is a generalisation by definition.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik

    He is a radical Muslim who thinks that Bin Laden is genuine and that some of his actions are justifiable, but who also thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

    If what you were saying was true, this guy could not possibly hold both of these positions. But he does, so therefore so can other people.

    and here we go again. :rolleyes:

    Look it's late. I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered - is this man you never heard of before a jihadi terrorist? Can you name any Jihadi terrorists that think 911 was an inside job?

    Honestly, I'm done with this. If you are not going to answer simple questions in a direct way I'm done, don't bother replying to me any more it's a waste of our time.


  • #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    and here we go again. :rolleyes:

    Look it's late. I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered - is this man you never heard of before a jihadi terrorist? Can you name any Jihadi terrorists that think 911 was an inside job?

    Honestly, I'm done with this. If you are not going to answer simple questions in a direct way I'm done, don't bother replying to me any more it's a waste of our time.
    I have answered your question directly in the edit above.

    Could you please extend the same courtesy and address the first points I have made?
    It doesn't add up if you make certain assumptions.
    You are assuming that he believes that: OBL and AQ did really claim responsibility. Many conspiracy theorists do not believe this is the case.
    You are assuming that he believes that OBL is the real leader of AQ. Many conspiracy theorists do not believe this.
    You are assuming that he believes that AQ was involved in 9/11.

    However it adds up perfectly well if we imagine something like he believes that Al-queda was framed to detract from their "legitimate" and "justified" attacks and as an excuse to go after them or that they were just picked as an excuse to start wars for oil etc.
    Or perhaps he believed that the organisation doesn't exist as portrayed for whatever reason in the evil mainstream media and it is used to link different actions, some legitimate and justified for him, others not so.
    Or perhaps he believes that the organisation was infiltrated and manipulated into attacking on 9/11.
    Could you please explain why you think these are unlikely scenarios?


  • #14
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    It's "not possible to name any" because they don't exist. Why don't they exist? Because if you are going to risk/give up a life for a cause, however misguided, for the ideology of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda then you aren't going to do it if there is a giant question mark over the integrity of the cause.

    This is inescapable in the case of Jahar. He thought the USA attacked itself on 911. Ironically, and rightly or wrongly, if he was consistent and could separate himself from the Boston attacks as an impartial observer he would again think that the USA attacked itself.


  • #15
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I
    Could you please explain why you think these are unlikely scenarios?
    It's an unreasonable request and pointless in any case. Tell me specifically what you think, what the best explanation is and we can take it from there if you like.


  • #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's "not possible to name any" because they don't exist. Why don't they exist? Because if you are going to risk/give up a life for a cause, however misguided, for the ideology of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda then you aren't going to do it if there is a giant question mark over the integrity of the cause.
    Unless of course you didn't think there was a giant question mark as you know that the US is underhanded and willing to do anything to justify a war and that Bin laden was either not involved or always a plant from the US to discredit the true cause.
    Or any of the other scenarios I suggested. You have not shown why they are impossible for someone to believe.

    And again you have been shown an example of a person who is sympathetic to Jihadi terrorism but also believes the conspiracy theories. How can he hold an opinion you are insisting that he cannot hold?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is inescapable in the case of Jahar. He thought the USA attacked itself on 911. Ironically, and rightly or wrongly, if he was consistent and could separate himself from the Boston attacks as an impartial observer he would again think that the USA attacked itself.
    What exactly are you basing this on? You interpretation of one tweet and the assumptions and generalisations you are making around it?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's an unreasonable request and pointless in any case.
    It's not unreasonable as you are rejecting them, so therefore you must have a solid reason for doing so. Why is it unreasonable for you to outline these reasons?

    Nor is it pointless as if you cannot exclude them as possibilities, then they mean that it's possible for a Jihadi terrorist to believe in the conspiracy and still be consistent which disproves your central point.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Tell me specifically what you think, what the best explanation is and we can take it from there if you like.
    They are valid and likely, but the simplest is that he could believe that Al-queda had no involvement what-so-ever and that any claims of responsibility were faked or twisted by the government to support the conspiracy.


  • #17
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,790 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Too much sniping at each other going on here. Discuss things civilly or not at all.


  • #18
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    There is no generalising. Can you name another "Jihadi terrorist" that believes that "911 was an inside job"? If you can't just say so and then try to figure out yourself why that is...

    Najibullah Zazi
    "The admitted mastermind of a foiled plot to bomb New York City subways testified Tuesday that he wanted to fight jihad in Afghanistan after coming to believe that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20416542/najibullah-zazi-testifies-at-nyc-trial-alleged-accomplice


  • #19
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that younger jihadi terrorists could have these views. Ironically, it may even be more prevalent among those based in the US.

    The wiki page on opinion polls about 9/11 is quite interesting.

    You can see the geographic distribution of who people in different countries thought was responsible for the attacks below:

    911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008.png

    In terms of the hypothesis that younger people might be more likely to think that 9/11 was an inside job, you can see that general attitudes have changed over time in the following CBS News /New York Times poll on the Iraq War, from the above page:
    "Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"

    April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
    October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
    September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
    September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.


  • #20
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sacksian wrote: »
    Najibullah Zazi
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20416542/najibullah-zazi-testifies-at-nyc-trial-alleged-accomplice

    C'mon, think about it... You reckon this guy is an American patriot that was so angered by America attacking itself that he...also... at America??

    He was so disgusted that the American govt killed US citizens in a terror attack that he planned to kill "US citizens in a terror attack"?

    Put the statement into context. This guy made this statement AFTER his plea deal. Is there a motive for the US government to include this nonsensical motive into the case?


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    C'mon, think about it... You reckon this guy is an American patriot that was so angered by America attacking itself that he...also... at America??

    He was so disgusted that the American govt killed US citizens in a terror attack that he planned to kill "US citizens in a terror attack"?

    Put the statement into context. This guy made this statement AFTER his plea deal.

    There is no mention of anyone referring to themselves as an American patriot, but there is reference to the accused being angered by American intervention in Afghanistan.

    That's a very sensible and logical reason someone might use to justify terrorism. The fact he might think that the US government is corrupt enough to attack their own citizens to justify an attack on Afghanistan is all the more reason to act.

    Once again it appears that you are artificially excluding possibilities and making hurried generalisations to reject points that refute yours.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Is there a motive for the US government to include this nonsensical motive into the case?
    Why would the US government add this apparently fake and obvious motive then? Why force him to say it when it makes it clear to the casual observer like yourself that it's a conspiracy? That would seem like a very good reason to not have him say that.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,790 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    King Mob and Brown Bomber,

    You both repeatedly and needlessly get into petty arguments with each other and seem intent on constantly trying to outdo each other, which usually results in the need for mod action due to one or both of you making the discussion personal. It derails and destroys threads, causes hostility and is ultimately pointless.

    This nonsense stops or bans will be given as required. Any issues with this, PM me.


  • #23
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    C'mon, think about it... You reckon this guy is an American patriot that was so angered by America attacking itself that he...also... at America??

    He was so disgusted that the American govt killed US citizens in a terror attack that he planned to kill "US citizens in a terror attack"?

    Put the statement into context. This guy made this statement AFTER his plea deal. Is there a motive for the US government to include this nonsensical motive into the case?

    Would you hold on a moment, you appear to be shifting the goalposts before the game is finished.

    You asked for "any" jihad terrorist who thought 9/11 was a inside job, you got a respect member of India's Muslim community who defends Jihad, and Bin Laden and yet thinks 9/11 was a inside job. You get another name, and you again shift the goalpost.

    You asked for people who support terrorist jihad who think 9/11 was a inside job, you got two very clear examples. I politely suggest you stop digging.


  • #24
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    C'mon, think about it... You reckon this guy is an American patriot that was so angered by America attacking itself that he...also... at America??

    I don't think anyone said he was an American patriot? To be fair, I think this answers your original question. He is quite clearly identified as a terrorist motivated by jihad - which is what you were asking about - who believes the US govt were involved in 9/11.
    Only 3 percent of Pakistanis think Al Qaeda conducted 9/11 attacks
    Link

    Lots of people hold the view that Al Qaeda were not involved in 9/11. As the polls above suggest, some believe that America (and Israel) were involved in its planning or execution.

    It is a fairly big stretch to deny the possibility that some jihadi terrorists (particularly those based in the US) may hold this view and believe that the US govt was involved in 9/11.

    In fact, I would argue that it requires a significantly greater amount of work to deny that possibility than to permit it.

    I don't think it's much of a paradox for any jihadi terrorist to believe the US govt were involved in 9/11.


  • #25
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Sacksian wrote: »
    I don't think it's much of a paradox for any jihadi terrorist to believe the US govt were involved in 9/11.

    These are people who think the US govt is "the great satan" and distrust everything they say and do. And this man thinks its amazing that people who want to murder civilians would also be of the opinion that 911 was a inside job?


  • #26
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Would you hold on a moment, you appear to be shifting the goalposts before the game is finished.

    You asked for "any" jihad terrorist who thought 9/11 was a inside job, you got a respect member of India's Muslim community who defends Jihad, and Bin Laden and yet thinks 9/11 was a inside job. You get another name, and you again shift the goalpost.

    You asked for people who support terrorist jihad who think 9/11 was a inside job, you got two very clear examples. I politely suggest you stop digging.

    I'm not moving the goalposts, I am applying common sense. That random Indian blow hard is not a "terrorist". The latter example is from police generated testimony. As I've said it is spoken only AFTER a plea deal has been arranged. The would-be suicide bomber was being pressured into flipping and becoming an informant as they were threatening to lock up his whole family as accessories to his crimes. Any statements anybody makes after a plea deal that weren't made before are suspect. Doubly so if the statements serve an agenda. That is case here. Can you tell what agenda it serves?


  • #27
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Your argument is that it makes no sense that a Jihadi terrorist would believe that the US was behind 9/11 as it undermines Al-Qaeda.

    The name of a Jihadi terrorist who believes that the US is behind 9/11 has been produced.

    It has been shown that many, many people believe that the US govt was behind 9/11 - only 3% of Palestinians believe that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11.

    And there's more...

    pew11.png

    More than 2/3 of respondents from the Palestinian Territories believe that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified.

    Cumulatively, this evidence suggests that it is quite likely that there are many people who believe suicide bombing can be justified and that 9/11 was not conducted by Al-Qaeda.


  • #28
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sacksian wrote: »
    Your argument is that it makes no sense that a Jihadi terrorist would believe that the US was behind 9/11 as it undermines Al-Qaeda.

    The name of a Jihadi terrorist who believes that the US is behind 9/11 has been produced.

    It has been shown that many, many people believe that the US govt was behind 9/11 - only 3% of Palestinians believe that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11.

    And there's more...

    pew11.png

    More than 2/3 of respondents from the Palestinian Territories believe that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified.

    Cumulatively, this evidence suggests that it is quite likely that there are many people who believe suicide bombing can be justified and that 9/11 was not conducted by Al-Qaeda.

    I'm not sure what the relevance is of your post but for balance:

    kill-civilians.jpg?resize=480%2C214

    kill-civilians-2.jpg?resize=480%2C230

    Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:
    Mormon-Americans 64%
    Christian-Americans 58%
    Jewish-Americans 52%
    Israeli Jews 52%
    Palestinians* 51%
    No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%
    Nigerians* 43%
    Lebanese* 38%
    Spanish Muslims 31%
    Muslim-Americans 21%
    German Muslims 17%
    French Muslims 16%
    British Muslims 16%
    Egyptians* 15%
    Indonesians* 13%
    Jordanians* 12%
    Pakistanis* 5%
    Turks* 4%
    *refers to Muslims only


  • #29
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Source for the above.

    Isn't this more goalpost shifting on your part, you asked anyone to name one jihadist who thinks 911 was a inside job, you were given at least one name.


  • #30
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm not sure what the relevance is of your post but for balance

    The opening post of this thread and subsequent posts suggest that this thread is about whether or not it is plausible or paradoxical for someone to support jihad AND believe that the US govt was behind 9/11.

    I think the empirical evidence suggests that it is quite plausible for people to both support jihadi terrorism and believe that the US govt was behind 9/11.

    And that it is not a paradox to hold these two views.

    If you have some evidence which contradicts this, I'd be delighted to discuss this further.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Source for the above.

    Isn't this more goalpost shifting on your part, you asked anyone to name one jihadist who thinks 911 was a inside job, you were given at least one name.

    Thinking and saying are two different things. What you think and what you say as a condition of your plea deal - one that stops your own mother from going to prison certainly can be.

    Have you any idea at all why the government would want him to state his motivation for the attacks as 911 being a false-flag attack?

    And the data was from Gallup polls.


Advertisement