Farenheight 9/11 debunked?

[Elfdart]

None.

How do you know this?

1. If they did know, they would have said something already.
2. Why would they risk associating with Osama? These are not dumb people.
3. There's no evidence WHATSOEVER that they know where Osama is. You conveniently skip this little detail, and demand that I supply proof of a negative.

1. Not necessarily. The FBI gets new information all the time. Just because they might have been interviewed in the past doesn't mean the information is up-to-date.
2. They are still his family. Scott Peterson's brother gave him his ID in an obvious attempt to flee the country. O.J. Simpson's family sticks by him to this day. People regularly cover for relatives, no matter how vile they are or how sickening their crimes.
3. How do you know when the FBI didn't question them seriously after the bombings?

What a false analogy! I know a McVeigh family who lives a few blocks away from me. Where was the FBI after Oklahoma City?

Were these McVeighs closely related to Timothy McVeigh?

More importantly, though, Tim McVeigh was not estranged. His dad and several other members of the family enjoyed somewhat-regular communications with him. Moreover, they were looking for evidence to use against him, and not looking for information regarding the whereabouts of their son.

A distinction without a difference. Do you think that if McVeigh were still at large the FBI would have left his family alone?

Let's review:

Elfdart doesn't care if the bin Laden family had been interviewed in the past.

Elfdart does care, he just thinks that the authorities shouldn't have let potential witnesses skip the country without examination.

Elfdart can't show that there was ANY evidence, beyond guilt-by-NAME-association, that the bin Ladens knew where Osama was.

Elfdart doesn't care that Osama had been estranged for years. They still could've had information withheld from all but the most trusted Al Qaeda members, and usually even them. Namely, the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Even estranged relatives keep in touch, either directly or through mutual friends or relatives. The FBI should have done its job and followed up on ANY possible lead.

Elfdart thinks that the fact the FBI didn't talk with the bin Ladens BEFORE they flew out of the country was "thoroughly criminal."

I don't really know much about this particular story, but is there any evidence that Bush was the one who ordered them out of the country? It seems like that was Clark's doing.

Clarke was working for Bush. If he did something Bush didn't approve of, wouldn't we have heard about it? Whether Clarke did it on his own or under orders is irrelevant. If he did it, HE FUCKED UP!

Strange. You didn't even seem to ATTEMPT to answer that point about how Clark may have ordered the bin Ladens out of the country without Bush's knowledge or consent, yet you placed responsibility for the decision on Bush, earlier. Am I to take this as a concession?

see above

If there was even a miniscule chance of turning up a lead or two, it would have been worth the trouble of delaying their departure for several hours or even a few days to check things out. It's the Bureau's job to INVESTIGATE, hence the name Federal Bureau of Investigation.

No, I don't think Ashcroft should have handed the Bin Ladens over to an angry mob with several lengths of rope. I do think it's reasonable for them to have been questioned in depth before they left the country. I also think it's reasonable to say that when the FBI and Justice Department didn't do their jobs, that they should be called on it.

These aren't the only possible leads the FBI didn't follow up on.

[Axis Kast]

Aaaah, the standard, right-wing, "OMG CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!" evasion bullshit.

How is this evasion?

Moore uses the Bush family's ties with Saudi Arabia as the centerpiece of much of his attacks on the legitimacy and competance of this administration. Yet he never raised his voice a single time when it came to investigating whether this was par for the Presidential course. He's drawing the subject out of context. And that's obviously designed to give false impressions.

[Axis Kast]

I'm just curious, Elfdart. Why do you think the FBI would have, in all liklihood, simply helped the Bin Ladens out of the country without questioning them? Do you want to save yourself by pleading you're interested in exposing potentially rank incompetance, or do you actually have a tin-foil hat scheme about how Bush orchestrated the September 11th attacks and how Republicans hold blood rites every second Tuesday of the month?

[Andrew J.]

Aaaah, the standard, right-wing, "OMG CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!" evasion bullshit.

How is this evasion?

Moore uses the Bush family's ties with Saudi Arabia as the centerpiece of much of his attacks on the legitimacy and competance of this administration. Yet he never raised his voice a single time when it came to investigating whether this was par for the Presidential course. He's drawing the subject out of context. And that's obviously designed to give false impressions.

Whether it's typical for recent presidents or not doesn't matter. Bush has ties close to the Saudis, he's in the wrong. Clinton did and he's in the wrong too, but the movie's not about Clinton.

[Darth Wong]

I'm just curious, Elfdart. Why do you think the FBI would have, in all liklihood, simply helped the Bin Ladens out of the country without questioning them? Do you want to save yourself by pleading you're interested in exposing potentially rank incompetance, or do you actually have a tin-foil hat scheme about how Bush orchestrated the September 11th attacks and how Republicans hold blood rites every second Tuesday of the month?

I like the strawman. No one's saying George Bush "orchestrated" the September 11 attacks. The point is that he has diverted retribution for those attacks in such a manner as to feed his personal agendas and pre-existing prejudices, rather than allowing it to fall where it belonged.

[Axis Kast]

I like the strawman. No one's saying George Bush "orchestrated" the September 11 attacks. The point is that he has diverted retribution for those attacks in such a manner as to feed his personal agendas and pre-existing prejudices, rather than allowing it to fall where it belonged.

No, that wasn't the point of Elfdart's argument. Elfdart is indeed attempting to accuse Bush of a cover-up. Go read the thread again, Wong.

And before we get away from it, let me remind you that not everybody believes that what happened on September 11th was or should be totally unrelated to those pre-existing prejudices.

[jegs2]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

[Plekhanov]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

I’m by no means Moore’s biggest fan but I really think that equating him with one of Hitler’s better propagandists is a bit much.

[Master of Ossus]

1. Not necessarily. The FBI gets new information all the time. Just because they might have been interviewed in the past doesn't mean the information is up-to-date.

And you think that the bin Ladens had better information about Osama's whereabouts?

Besides, if the bin Ladens knew anything about the attacks, they WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN IN THE COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

2. They are still his family. Scott Peterson's brother gave him his ID in an obvious attempt to flee the country. O.J. Simpson's family sticks by him to this day. People regularly cover for relatives, no matter how vile they are or how sickening their crimes.

Too bad the bin Ladens have NEVER done that with Osama. This is just a red herring.

Moreover, this is libel against the bin Ladens. To suggest that they would be "covering" for Osama, or even that they associate with the same people that Osama does, is repugnant. I hope you have evidence to back up your claim other than the vague mumblings that some families stick up for each other (never mind the fact that many of them don't).

3. How do you know when the FBI didn't question them seriously after the bombings?

wtf are you talking about?

Elfdart, all of your evasions mean nothing. You're trying to prove that the FBI's actions were criminal. The best you can do is mumble about their guilt by NAME ASSOCIATION, and argue that they might have known something, so therefore they should have been detained at the risk of their own lives.

Were these McVeighs closely related to Timothy McVeigh?

They were the great-uncle and aunt of Timothy McVeich--much more closely related than some of the bin Ladens you wanted to have detained.

A distinction without a difference. Do you think that if McVeigh were still at large the FBI would have left his family alone?

This is STILL a false analogy. They would have needed SOME evidence that his family knew where the fuck he was. If McVeigh had been estranged for years, with his family outright saying that he deserved to die for his crimes and seizing all recoverable funding from him, then yeah, I think that would constitute grounds for preserving their safety above demanding immediate information.

Elfdart does care, he just thinks that the authorities shouldn't have let potential witnesses skip the country without examination.

What the fuck are they "potential witnesses" of? And how the fuck is that relevant? You claimed that the FBI's actions were "criminal," and when asked why you can only mutter that they're bin Ladens so they might have known something about something, but can provide NOTHING to back up any of your assertions.

Even estranged relatives keep in touch, either directly or through mutual friends or relatives.

Show that the bin Ladens had this sort of contact with Osama following his estrangement. Oh, wait, you can't.

The FBI should have done its job and followed up on ANY possible lead.

Great. Let's question 6 billion people and find out if they know where Osama bin Laden is. The point is, dumbass, that the risk to the bin Ladens was far greater than the potential for benefits they could have maybe sort of provided with the sort of detainment that you demand.

Clarke was working for Bush. If he did something Bush didn't approve of, wouldn't we have heard about it?

Moron! Clark was the chief of a significant government branch, and as such had a certain layer of autonomy. In other words, the best you can do is say that the FBI should've risked the bin Ladens lives, even though they had almost NO possibility of knowing where Osama was. Someone, however, made the decision to fly the bin Ladens instead out of the country, so therefore Bush was responsible for it.

SHOW that Bush had anything to do with Clark's decision.

Whether Clarke did it on his own or under orders is irrelevant. If he did it, HE FUCKED UP!

WHY? The best you've been able to do is say, "well, they have the same name. They might've known what was up, even though they've publicly made death threats against Osama and haven't spoken with him in years.

If there was even a miniscule chance of turning up a lead or two, it would have been worth the trouble of delaying their departure for several hours or even a few days to check things out. It's the Bureau's job to INVESTIGATE, hence the name Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I'll call the FBI and tell them that you might know where Osama bin Laden is, then have them risk your life and property in an effort to question you. After all, there IS a miniscule chance that you know where he is.

You are obviously a dumb-ass.

No, I don't think Ashcroft should have handed the Bin Ladens over to an angry mob with several lengths of rope. I do think it's reasonable for them to have been questioned in depth before they left the country. I also think it's reasonable to say that when the FBI and Justice Department didn't do their jobs, that they should be called on it.

In other words, you can't back up your original allegation that the FBI's behavior was "absolutely criminal," so the best you can do is mutter about how they didn't do their jobs to YOUR satisfaction.

These aren't the only possible leads the FBI didn't follow up on.

No. I know of about 5.99 billion people whom haven't had any visitations by FBI agents demanding the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. OMFG, the FBI is ridiculously derelict in its duties!

[Joe]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

I’m by no means Moore’s biggest fan but I really think that equating him with one of Hitler’s better propagandists is a bit much.

You're right, Leni Riefenstahl was a much more talented filmmaker than Moore.

[Andrew J.]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

I'd actually like to see Triumph of the Will someday, for historical reasons. Think of Moore's movies as living history: film classes and political classes of the future will probably have to study them.

[Plekhanov]

You're right, Leni Riefenstahl was a much more talented filmmaker than Moore.

She was undoubtedly a very talented woman but I found “Triumph of the Will” (the only film of hers I’ve seen) whilst technically superbly made to be rather dull and repetitive after a while though that probably had a lot to do with her rather dull and repetitive source material.

In contrast I’ve seen a fair bit of Moore’s stuff from the old TV Nation days to BFC and apart from his chat show which didn’t really work and Canadian Bacon which was a mistake, he is at least consistently amusing even if he is often rather heavy handed politically.

[Elfdart]

I'm just curious, Elfdart. Why do you think the FBI would have, in all liklihood, simply helped the Bin Ladens out of the country without questioning them? Do you want to save yourself by pleading you're interested in exposing potentially rank incompetance, or do you actually have a tin-foil hat scheme about how Bush orchestrated the September 11th attacks and how Republicans hold blood rites every second Tuesday of the month?

I think the fear of violence directed at someone named Bin Laden was legitimate. Here in Texas, a mosque was attacked and somewhere in the southwest a Sikh was murdered because someone thought all those swarthy towel-wrappers are in league with the WTC bombers. I think the FBI and others were fearful of violence aimed at the Bin Ladens and assumed that they knew nothing. Law enforcement officers working on something as important as 9/11 should never have assumed anything. They're supposed to follow up on leads and evidence.

Once again, if the Justice Department had simply come clean, Michael Moore would have to look elsewhere for something suspicious to beat Bush over the head with.

[Elfdart]

I'm just curious, Elfdart. Why do you think the FBI would have, in all liklihood, simply helped the Bin Ladens out of the country without questioning them? Do you want to save yourself by pleading you're interested in exposing potentially rank incompetance, or do you actually have a tin-foil hat scheme about how Bush orchestrated the September 11th attacks and how Republicans hold blood rites every second Tuesday of the month?

For the record, GOP blood rites are held every full moon. *

[Stormbringer]

I think the FBI and others were fearful of violence aimed at the Bin Ladens and assumed that they knew nothing. Law enforcement officers working on something as important as 9/11 should never have assumed anything. They're supposed to follow up on leads and evidence.

And once again you're assuming that Moore's claim is entirely truthful. The fact is that even high level whistleblowers like Richard Clarke flat out contradict him.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

Moore probably has less homosexual undertones, though.

[Elfdart]

1. Not necessarily. The FBI gets new information all the time. Just because they might have been interviewed in the past doesn't mean the information is up-to-date.

And you think that the bin Ladens had better information about Osama's whereabouts?

Besides, if the bin Ladens knew anything about the attacks, they WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN IN THE COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

They might, they might not. But the FBI should have at least asked. Your second statement is a fatuous assumption.

2. They are still his family. Scott Peterson's brother gave him his ID in an obvious attempt to flee the country. O.J. Simpson's family sticks by him to this day. People regularly cover for relatives, no matter how vile they are or how sickening their crimes.

Too bad the bin Ladens have NEVER done that with Osama. This is just a red herring.

Moreover, this is libel against the bin Ladens. To suggest that they would be "covering" for Osama, or even that they associate with the same people that Osama does, is repugnant. I hope you have evidence to back up your claim other than the vague mumblings that some families stick up for each other (never mind the fact that many of them don't).

Jesus Christ Almighty! First, you have no idea whether any of Osama's family had been in touch with him. That's why the authorities should have questioned them. Who knows? maybe someone DID have information, but you'll never know if you don't ask.

Second, asking that the family of a known mass murderer -no matter how estranged- be questioned, (not jailed, tortured or anything else) is hardly libel. You should look up the definition of a word before using it.

3. How do you know when the FBI didn't question them seriously after the bombings?

wtf are you talking about?

Elfdart, all of your evasions mean nothing. You're trying to prove that the FBI's actions were criminal. The best you can do is mumble about their guilt by NAME ASSOCIATION, and argue that they might have known something, so therefore they should have been detained at the risk of their own lives.

What danger would their lives have been in while being questioned by the FBI? You seem hung up on my use of the word "criminal". Fair enough. Let's change it to "negligent" or "irresponsible". Is that better? What the FBI did was irresponsible in my opinion.

Were these McVeighs closely related to Timothy McVeigh?

They were the great-uncle and aunt of Timothy McVeich--much more closely related than some of the bin Ladens you wanted to have detained.

A distinction without a difference. Do you think that if McVeigh were still at large the FBI would have left his family alone?

This is STILL a false analogy. They would have needed SOME evidence that his family knew where the fuck he was. If McVeigh had been estranged for years, with his family outright saying that he deserved to die for his crimes and seizing all recoverable funding from him, then yeah, I think that would constitute grounds for preserving their safety above demanding immediate information.

Elfdart does care, he just thinks that the authorities shouldn't have let potential witnesses skip the country without examination.

What the fuck are they "potential witnesses" of? And how the fuck is that relevant? You claimed that the FBI's actions were "criminal," and when asked why you can only mutter that they're bin Ladens so they might have known something about something, but can provide NOTHING to back up any of your assertions.

Even estranged relatives keep in touch, either directly or through mutual friends or relatives.

Show that the bin Ladens had this sort of contact with Osama following his estrangement. Oh, wait, you can't.

The FBI should have done its job and followed up on ANY possible lead.

Great. Let's question 6 billion people and find out if they know where Osama bin Laden is. The point is, dumbass, that the risk to the bin Ladens was far greater than the potential for benefits they could have maybe sort of provided with the sort of detainment that you demand.

Again, what risk is there while being interviewed by the FBI? You'd have to go all the way back to the assassination of Fred Hampton in 1970(?) to find the FBI involved in murder. By the way, I said POSSIBLE LEADS, numbnuts. I think they could scratch most of the six billion off the list.

Clarke was working for Bush. If he did something Bush didn't approve of, wouldn't we have heard about it?

Moron! Clark was the chief of a significant government branch, and as such had a certain layer of autonomy. In other words, the best you can do is say that the FBI should've risked the bin Ladens lives, even though they had almost NO possibility of knowing where Osama was. Someone, however, made the decision to fly the bin Ladens instead out of the country, so therefore Bush was responsible for it.

SHOW that Bush had anything to do with Clark's decision.

He worked for Bush and Bush has not denounced his actions.

Whether Clarke did it on his own or under orders is irrelevant. If he did it, HE FUCKED UP!

WHY? The best you've been able to do is say, "well, they have the same name. They might've known what was up, even though they've publicly made death threats against Osama and haven't spoken with him in years.

If there was even a miniscule chance of turning up a lead or two, it would have been worth the trouble of delaying their departure for several hours or even a few days to check things out. It's the Bureau's job to INVESTIGATE, hence the name Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I'll call the FBI and tell them that you might know where Osama bin Laden is, then have them risk your life and property in an effort to question you. After all, there IS a miniscule chance that you know where he is.

You are obviously a dumb-ass.

No, I don't think Ashcroft should have handed the Bin Ladens over to an angry mob with several lengths of rope. I do think it's reasonable for them to have been questioned in depth before they left the country. I also think it's reasonable to say that when the FBI and Justice Department didn't do their jobs, that they should be called on it.

In other words, you can't back up your original allegation that the FBI's behavior was "absolutely criminal," so the best you can do is mutter about how they didn't do their jobs to YOUR satisfaction.

OK, you win: they weren't "criminal". Happy?

These aren't the only possible leads the FBI didn't follow up on.

No. I know of about 5.99 billion people whom haven't had any visitations by FBI agents demanding the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. OMFG, the FBI is ridiculously derelict in its duties!

I was referring to the leads from the whistleblowers in the Minnesota and New Mexico FBI offices before 9/11. There's a difference between questioning a few dozen people and six billion, drama queen.

[HemlockGrey]

I've as much desire to see Moore's new film as I do Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl.

Right, because, as we all know, blind dismissal and glib comparisons are much better than having to actually think critically.

[Axis Kast]

I think the fear of violence directed at someone named Bin Laden was legitimate. Here in Texas, a mosque was attacked and somewhere in the southwest a Sikh was murdered because someone thought all those swarthy towel-wrappers are in league with the WTC bombers. I think the FBI and others were fearful of violence aimed at the Bin Ladens and assumed that they knew nothing. Law enforcement officers working on something as important as 9/11 should never have assumed anything. They're supposed to follow up on leads and evidence.

Once again, if the Justice Department had simply come clean, Michael Moore would have to look elsewhere for something suspicious to beat Bush over the head with.

Somehow, I doubt every single one of the considerable number of FBI agents that would necessarily have been involved with an operation such as the one that airlifted dozens of people out of the country in the middle of an air travel moratorium right after one of the largest terrorist attacks in the nation's history would have simply ignore the fact that the people they were dealing with had potentiallu significant links to Osama bin Laden. Master of Ossus has presented a far more likely scenario than your Keystone Cops version of events.

As for the, "Well, they should have prepared a defense against Michale Moore" argument? Don't be ridiculous. The issue isn't even a big one today, after Michael Moore's cried to high Heaven about conspiracies in the White House.

[Elfdart]

I think the fear of violence directed at someone named Bin Laden was legitimate. Here in Texas, a mosque was attacked and somewhere in the southwest a Sikh was murdered because someone thought all those swarthy towel-wrappers are in league with the WTC bombers. I think the FBI and others were fearful of violence aimed at the Bin Ladens and assumed that they knew nothing. Law enforcement officers working on something as important as 9/11 should never have assumed anything. They're supposed to follow up on leads and evidence.

Once again, if the Justice Department had simply come clean, Michael Moore would have to look elsewhere for something suspicious to beat Bush over the head with.

Somehow, I doubt every single one of the considerable number of FBI agents that would necessarily have been involved with an operation such as the one that airlifted dozens of people out of the country in the middle of an air travel moratorium right after one of the largest terrorist attacks in the nation's history would have simply ignore the fact that the people they were dealing with had potentiallu significant links to Osama bin Laden. Master of Ossus has presented a far more likely scenario than your Keystone Cops version of events.

As for the, "Well, they should have prepared a defense against Michale Moore" argument? Don't be ridiculous. The issue isn't even a big one today, after Michael Moore's cried to high Heaven about conspiracies in the White House.

From what I've read about the movie, the Bin Ladens weren't allowed to leave until AFTER the moratorium was lifted. The flights that were allowed were within US airspace and were apparently used to simply round up the Bin Ladens. I can understand that. What I can't understand is why these people weren't interviewed more thoroughly. Even if nothing turns up, you at least made an effort.

[Axis Kast]

And who says they hadn't earlier been interviewed?

[Stormbringer]

ELFTARD:

There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that the Bin Laden family was let go with out finding out what they knew. I mean what would it take to make you happy, lock every last one of them up at Gitmo and beat them till they talk? Come on and be reasonable, it sounds like from every reliable source that they were interveiwed and they simply don't know jack shit. Which is not suprising consider there are a few hundred of them in just the branches close to Osama and he's on the outs with almost all of them.

[Howedar]

I see that Elfdart has been hanging out in Toker's Aurora thread for too long.


Elf-fart, here's a little rundown of debating for you. You might find it useful in the future.

• When you say something, it is called a claim.
• When you make a claim, you can't just say it for fun. You need to provide something else with it. That something is called evidence. In effect, this evidence is a set of facts or reasonable inferences that support your claim. That is to say, the evidence gives your audience a reason to believe your claim.
• If you do not provide evidence to support your claim, it will be revealed to your audience that you are a weasel and a bullshitter. The audience will quite reasonably not believe your claim until you do in fact bring forth evidence.
• If you continue to fail to provide evidence of your claim or claims, everyone will realize you are a fucking retard and you will be mocked to death.

This helpful debating guide has been brought to you by Howedar and the number ten.

[Elfdart]

And who says they hadn't earlier been interviewed?

Not seriously, they weren't. Jack Cloonan from the special FBI task force handling Al Quaeda said that there were only a few brief interviews and none of the statements were recorded in any kind of formal proceeding. Does he get a tinfoil hat, too?

[Stormbringer]

And who says they hadn't earlier been interviewed?

Not seriously, they weren't. Jack Cloonan from the special FBI task force handling Al Quaeda said that there were only a few brief interviews and none of the statements were recorded in any kind of formal proceeding. Does he get a tinfoil hat, too?

Yes, because aside from Michael Moore no one has stood by him. The fact that not even Richard Clarke (you know the Cabinet Member that left over the handling of Sept 11th!) has backed it up, and indeed he flat out fucking contradicted the Coohan/Moore claim. So I think the notion is pretty much put to rest unless you've got better evidence than you've provided.