Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

Split: posts on AQ

You have contributed 14.3% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
To appreciate this topic, click 'Appreciate Topic' on the right.
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 30th January 2019 13:56
Sipraomer's question has not been answered properly even though he's said it again and again. Why would Maulana Asim Umar and not only him but all the AQ leaders who were very close to OBL, some with day to day dealings with him during those years, be convinced that OBL did it? It's not something that he could easily hide from his closest friends. And why should we take the word of non-muslims over all these Muslims?

Also a question for sipraomer, if OBL was somehow involved, why did he deny it when confronted by the Taliban as testified by Mullah Zaeef?
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Like x 1Agree x 1Disagree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 30th January 2019 15:18
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post


I don't have access to him. I only know him by his books. Nothing else.

Anonymous!

Possibility 1: He knew that Mullah Umar RH is a man of his word and if he admits then he will handover him for trial as he promised.

Possibility 2: He confirmed it in private but Mullah Umar Rh decided not to announce it openly and he would never hand over OBL even if the Americans would have given him clear proofs. He knew it very well that Osama is not the objective. The real objective is Islamic Shariah implemented in Afghanistan.

I will repeat again that I am uncertain about it all. Something is really fishy going on here.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
306
Brother
464
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 30th January 2019 16:02
I don't rule out the possibility that AQ had been infiltrated by CIA and Mossad agents long before this incident and it was them who orchestrated the attack without OBL's knowledge. However, I am not convinced by what Maulana Asim has said. Like the brother said above this sounds more of the same like ISIS's claims for an attack that they didn't even commit. Perhaps Maulana wanted to draw people towards AQ and was giving them proofs of its successes. Or perhaps he himself was one of those who were misinformed. I don't know. Perhaps the attack was indeed carried out by AQ but because OBL's second in command leaders and AQ's followers thought the directives for the attack were from OBL himself when in reality they weren't. There's a lot of deception involved and it's really hard to uncover things like this when the perpetrator has done his utmost to cover his tracks. They would have had contingencies for their contingency plans. That's how deep one would have to dig.

Haven't you gleaned anything from Pakistan's pathetic attempts to uncover Zardari's misadventures? :P
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 31st January 2019 19:26
The debate here is pointless. What happened with twin towers is standard procedure for all terrorist attacks. A successful terrorist attack is merely an entrapment exercise minus the final intervention before the attempted attack plus a massive cover up strategy to push an official storyline.

Here's a very very rough sequence of events:

* Arrange and plan for destruction of twin towers.

* Make up an official storyline about airplanes crashing into twin towers and so on

* Create animation, video footage, testimonies, etc. and other fake evidences to prove the official storyline

* In the meantime, use fake muslim agent provocateurs to contact numerous willing patsies who might think that destroying twin towers is a great deed.

* Fake muslim agent provocateurs inform patsies about brilliant idea or even elicit the idea from the lead patsy, and ask lead patsy to provide leadership and inspirational guidance.

* In the months it takes to progress such an operation, keep the patsies always in the loop with regular contact and seeking of operational guidance.

* Patsies are convinced that they are carrying out this operation. Some patsies may actually be directly involved on the ground while others are providing strategic guidance.

* Twin towers destroyed with whole world convinced by the media story about the airplanes and that the patsies are responsible.

* Even the patsies themselves are convinced they did it. Even Sipraomer is convinced the patsies did it. And even Superglue can't seem to work out why Sipraomer is convinced the patsies did it. Hence the pointless argument here.

America and co. have done this so many times in the past that it's become obvious for anyone who just digs a bit below the surface.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Like x 1Optimistic x 1
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,591
Brother
6,765
abu mohammed's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 31st January 2019 19:50
This sentence made me laugh more than the introduction goof thread.

"Even the patsies themselves are convinced they did it. Even Sipraomer is convinced the patsies did it. And even Superglue can't seem to work out why Sipraomer is convinced the patsies did it. Hence the pointless argument here."
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 04:23
super-glue wrote:
View original post


Ok! Let me ask you very simple questions which are very important.

Did OBL really found Al Qaida?

Or was he an independent Mujahid without any organization?

Did he conduct suicide bombings in US embassies around the globe before 9/11?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,591
Brother
6,765
abu mohammed's avatar
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 09:54
sipraomer wrote:
View original post

Let Hillary Clinton answer a question
Did OBL really found Al Qaida?
Halalified YouTube Audio


report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Disagree x 1Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,591
Brother
6,765
abu mohammed's avatar
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 10:04
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
super-glue's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
398
Brother
666
super-glue's avatar
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 14:23
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 15:37
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post


No! They funded the people there who were fighting Soviet Union at that time. AQ came into being later on. AQ was not there at that time. There is a difference between people fighting Soviet Union and being funded by US and a jamaat which has an ideology.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#11 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 15:38
super-glue wrote:
View original post


Was Shaykh Anwar Awlaki Rh real or was he fake too?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#12 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 15:42
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post


So you are agreeing with them in that Salafi/Hanbali Osama bin laden collaborated with Shia Iranians for co operation in 1998 bombings?

Now your evidence is being flimsy here.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Optimistic x 1
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#13 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 15:48
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-responsible-for-1998...

Quote:
They warn that Iran could very well have a weaponized nuclear capability when the next president takes office in January 2013. Imagine what this means. If Iran helped al-Qaeda attack the United States without a nuclear umbrella to protect it from retaliation, what might the regime do once it possesses nuclear weapons?


You are referring this article as evidence for Iran instead of AQ's involvement in embassy bombings.

This clearly looks to be like another propaganda thingy to prepare the minds of gullible American nation for US attack on Iran for the interests of the greedy elite.

Are you serious?
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Bad Spelling x 1
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,507
Brother
237
sipraomer's avatar
#14 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 16:28
super-glue wrote:
View original post


So was he also part of a fake organization and was he fake too?

Are all these people fake?

Did US murder his own agent through drone attacks?

Did US really kill Shaykh Anwar Awlaki Rh?

Was he also an US agent?

I am asking because these are prominent figures who appear to be affiliated with AQ and you say that it was not real so that is why am asking this question.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Optimistic x 1
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,591
Brother
6,765
abu mohammed's avatar
#15 [Permalink] Posted on 1st February 2019 16:40
sipraomer wrote:
View original post

I'm not saying that. It's the Americans who are saying that!

Please correct your language in the post above, jzk.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top

 

Quick Reply

CAPTCHA - As you are a guest, you are required to answer the following:


In the above image: What shape is the green shape ('box' is not a shape)?