PDA

View Full Version : 911 commision and CIA




Jimmy
06-17-2007, 11:02 AM
Could someone please direct me to a link of the 911 commision report and the CIA's findings about the reasons for 911. I'm wanting to look at the report myself and CIA findings that back Ron Pauls statments about US involvement in middle east and how that fueled 911. I'd like to be able to show people EXACTLY what was said and how it supports RP thinking.
Is there any site that has put this all together with links to reports, findings and RP's statements? Any help would be appricated:)

xcalybur
06-17-2007, 11:35 AM
Here is the 9-11 Report:

9-11 Commision Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)

The CIA stuff is harder to find.

coplinger
06-17-2007, 05:30 PM
For the CIA stuff, google Ray McGovern & Michael Scheuer.

angrydragon
06-17-2007, 06:46 PM
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/06/02/ron-pauls-reading-list-for-the-farsighted/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmakyb5bZec

Ira Aten
06-19-2007, 02:38 PM
Here is the 9-11 Report:

9-11 Commision Report

The CIA stuff is harder to find.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ron Paul for President



Now that Jimmy found the link to the report, does anyone know Rudy Guliani's email address?

He could sure use a copy.

Jimmy
06-19-2007, 07:13 PM
Many thanks everyone:D

Shmuel Spade
06-19-2007, 11:26 PM
This is an excerpt of a post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=7850&postcount=35) I wrote in the thread, "How to Rescue a Neo-Con:



And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion.

And the very same 9/11 Commission Report Paul referred to actually says our activities in the region are only a small part of Bin Laden's motivation. Most of it comes from the centuries old political history of the region (again, before the USA was ever thought of.)

The centuries of war over there kinda supports that, don't you think? Duh. And historically Bin Laden and those before him we an equal opportunity hater, as evidenced by their attacks on a slew of other countries, too, including those who are not friends of ours.

But Paul's "argument" probably sounds good to those who don't know any better. And obviously sounds good to the America-Haters.

(As if anybody really believes the "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" story. Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period.)

Yes, you are correct that Islam is an old religion (was this supposed to be news?). And I will go further and agree with you that yes, Islamist "extremists" have been killing, slaughtering, raping, pillaging, enslaving the mushrikun, the People of the Book, and general infidels for the entire history of Islam. It is a part of the religion, and those actions can find their support in the Koran, in the Hadith, in the Umdat al-Salik, and other Islamic jurisprudence. This really doesn't have much bearing on Iraq now does it? Ron Paul differs from the other GOP hopefuls (and DNC hopefuls) in at least one very distinct way: he's against the Iraq war. He is and has always been supportive of capturing and punishing those who were responsible for 9/11. Usually the point about the never ending jihad against the west is brought up as an ultimate "root cause" for just why we were attacked that day, and it may be a valid point. This needs no further discussion.

In my paperback copy of the 9/11 Commission Report it says here in chapter 2 on page 51:


Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you." These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.

Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."

and in chapter 12 on page 362 says:


The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped nd spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who onsider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters... He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of slam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of anctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.

I see nothing about a "small part." If you really want to understand what Bin Laden is saying go directly to the source, and we won't even have to have it filtered through a government commission report.

His 1996 Fatwa entitled, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

His 1998 Fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html)

His 2002 letter. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)

See if you can piece together a pattern in what he's saying his grievances are and what his motivation is. I'm not going to deny that he hates the United States in the same way Sayyid Qutb did, for it's licentiousness, but we are a match for Europe (and judging by some of their activities, are no match) in that regard.

Perhaps the evidence will show that the attacks on 9/11 were inevitable. That they were mostly the result of a resurrected Islamic revanchism. Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.org (who has also been against the Iraq war from the beginning) makes that case quite well. But it does not address the specific charges of American aggression and aid for aggression made by bin Laden. Prior to 1993 what attack was there by any part of the Islamic world on the soil of the United States? None? What was the cause of the February 1993 WTC bombing? Ramzi Yousef (nephew of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed) made three demands: 1) Stop aiding Israel. 2) End diplomatic relations with Israel. and 3) Pledge to never intervene with the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations again.

Why do you think the jihadists weren't singling America out for attack in the 1930s, or anytime prior to open American support for Israel? America was certainly decadent then, and other Western countries even more so. The West was even more un-Islamic back then. What changed between then and now? I'll tell you. We further deviated from the Constitutional position of defined powers for the government. The feds not only wanted to be masters of America, but masters of the universe in their 40 year fight with the blood red Soviets.

Intervention is the complaint, and intervention is what Ron Paul seeks to end. Those who have attacked us will still be brought to justice under president Paul. The United States will be a free (that is, consistently Capitalist), and prosperous society through a return to the Constitution. A Paul presidency will mean a United States that is essentially unassailable by foreign enemies. A United States that returns to it's Constitution will respect the 2nd Amendment again, assuring that 9/11 can never happen again.