Mother of God, is this a joke? I read that interview a couple of times thinking maybe there is some loophole like “I wasn’t involved in the killing , but definitely was there in the planning” kind of catch, but nope.
Did I just read propaganda or did the US really kill a guy not involved in 9/11?
The tricky part is if someone is ok with killing thousands of people, then one could imagine they might not be totally truthful in an interview.
Biggest point toward taking someone at their word is that usually the point is to take credit, to let people know why it happened and what you wanted to change to prevent it from happening again. On the other hand, this was after USA made it clear that the answer was to just be angry and inflict more violence and interference in the middle east, so it might cause someone to switch strategies to try to defuse the situation even if they started it.
Short answer, no way of knowing what to think of the interview in and of itself.
Wasn’t al quaeda in the habit of claiming responsibility for pretty much every terrorist attack around that time regardless of their involvement? It would still be a little out of character to deny responsibility if they actually were. But most of the hijackers were Saudi, and Saudi trained and funded, so clearly the answer was to start a war in Iraq.
Well, that was the point in my second paragraph, usually they took credit, but they might have changed their mind realizing that it brought down a more violent response than they might have expected.
The Iraq theory problem is that even with a trigger-happy, iraq hating administration, they justified action in Afghanistan instead, and used a different theory to eventually attack Iraq. If the goal was Iraq, then they should have tried to pin it on Hussein instead.
All in all, it’s just too murky to assert a certain narrative to go through it all.
You should read up on how we did Sadam. The US diplo April Glass gave tacit approval for his occupation of Kuwait and we then used that as a reason to retaliate and stabbed him in the back to get the oil.
Even better, you should look up how we completely fabricated a boogeyman out of Gaddafi.
Everything that reaches the ears of the public is a lie.
Mother of God, is this a joke? I read that interview a couple of times thinking maybe there is some loophole like “I wasn’t involved in the killing , but definitely was there in the planning” kind of catch, but nope.
Did I just read propaganda or did the US really kill a guy not involved in 9/11?
The tricky part is if someone is ok with killing thousands of people, then one could imagine they might not be totally truthful in an interview.
Biggest point toward taking someone at their word is that usually the point is to take credit, to let people know why it happened and what you wanted to change to prevent it from happening again. On the other hand, this was after USA made it clear that the answer was to just be angry and inflict more violence and interference in the middle east, so it might cause someone to switch strategies to try to defuse the situation even if they started it.
Short answer, no way of knowing what to think of the interview in and of itself.
Wasn’t al quaeda in the habit of claiming responsibility for pretty much every terrorist attack around that time regardless of their involvement? It would still be a little out of character to deny responsibility if they actually were. But most of the hijackers were Saudi, and Saudi trained and funded, so clearly the answer was to start a war in Iraq.
said pretty-much-every terrorist attacks also involved “the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciate act”, no?
Well, that was the point in my second paragraph, usually they took credit, but they might have changed their mind realizing that it brought down a more violent response than they might have expected.
The Iraq theory problem is that even with a trigger-happy, iraq hating administration, they justified action in Afghanistan instead, and used a different theory to eventually attack Iraq. If the goal was Iraq, then they should have tried to pin it on Hussein instead.
All in all, it’s just too murky to assert a certain narrative to go through it all.
Lol, first time?
You should read up on how we did Sadam. The US diplo April Glass gave tacit approval for his occupation of Kuwait and we then used that as a reason to retaliate and stabbed him in the back to get the oil.
Even better, you should look up how we completely fabricated a boogeyman out of Gaddafi.
Everything that reaches the ears of the public is a lie.
It’s all propaganda on all sides. Some of it is true. Some of it isn’t.
Apparently it was so obvious that the news anchors new it was OBL within minutes