WASHINGTON Sept. 21 —

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press.



Mohammed also divulged that, in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia, according to the reports.

Over time, bin Laden scrapped various parts of the Sept. 11 plan, including attacks on both coasts and hijacking or bombing some planes in East Asia, Mohammed is quoted as saying in reports that shed new light on the origins and evolution of the plot of Sept. 11, 2001.

... read the reast at the link above.

More LIES.

Bush and his oil cronies attacked us on 9-11!

Fresca... I have no doubt that in short order we'll be hearing exactly that from the leftist yahoos that lurk on this site.

Bush did it!

Bush, who is simultaneously stupid beyond words and fiendishly clever enough to mastermind such an incredibly involved conspiracy.

BUSH! BOOOOSHH!!

Oh, yeah...and the JOOOOS had something to do with it as well...

Yeah, yeah, thats it... thats who did it... Lets get 'em!

"Fresca... I have no doubt that in short order we'll be hearing exactly that from the leftist yahoos that lurk on this site."

Absolutely.

This will fall under the heading of, "You shills will swallow whatever the lapdog corporate media whores are told to make you swallow."

oooo a thread, posted carried and maintained by our resident campers.

Carry on. Do you mind if I bump it for a laugh? Must be important!

Or would you rather make lame jokes?

Once again, we see the the average imc regular is so completely lacking in a sense of humor.

Now, what do you have to say about the fact that Al Qaeda has (yet again) confessed to the 9/11 attacks?

What's the difference whether or not Bush et al. planned the attacks and profited from them versus not having planned the attacks but profiting from them? Aren't the two end results the same? In fact, it is highly probable we will never know the full extent to which Bush and company knew of or didn't know of the attacks? Who in the Bush Administration knew about international terrorism? Rice? Powell? Rove? Isn't it just possible they were grossly (criminally?) derelict in their duties? Enough questions?

Torture can uncover so much good information. We don't need no stinking EIight Amendment!

cant u dumbass liberals get a clue? god u are so fucking stupid. sure we provided saddam with weapons of mass destruction and sure he used them against his own people. but how is it our fault? how is it our fault that people died just because we installed brutal dictators in the middle east?

i mean its not our fault for the war in Iraq. i mean we gave saddam WMD so he would use them on iranians but instead he wants to use them on us now. so now we have to get rid of him! how is it our fault that hundreds of thousands of people died and will die as a result of our actions? u fucking liberal idiots somehow think that if we didnt give him WMD to use on the Iranians that we wouldnt have this problem in the first place! but then instead we would have to deal with evil Iranians! just like the evil vietnamese who wanted to rule the world with their commie ways. Its a damn good thing we fought in vietnam and stopped them otherwise vietnam commies would be ruling the world right now! thank god the USA has never lost a war

everyday Saddam wakes up and instead of having pancakes and syrup he plots on how he can nuke the US. he even came up with a plan to transport a nuclear device hidden in a dead donkey through underground shipping/global hashish trade to redmonton, Louisiana! REDMONTON for crying out loud! with a population of 450!!!!!!!!!!!!

how can us justice-loving americans stand by and let saddam threaten his neighbours? i mean its not like we gave him WMD so he could do that it in the first place right? i mean its obvious that people in the middle east and the rest of the world dont like us because they are jealous of our lifestyle. i mean, i live in a town of around 14,000 own a Ford F150. my brother lives in a neighbouring town which is just like mine and also drives a Ford F150. i took a tour through the united states and everyone lives in a town of 14,000 and drives Ford F150s! its obvious theyre jealous!

u fucking liberals dont understand these people want to rule the world, it is up to us to defend freedom and democracy!!!!!!!!!! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!

too bad i have a uhhh health problem otherwise i would join the army myself to fight! i mean the army wont let me join.

u liberal assholes dont deserve to be called american. u dont realize that the tree of freedom has to be watered with the blood of unselfish, patriotic, brave and good men like myself. i spit on u and ur graves u terrorist sympathizers.

I've been in journalism for most of my adult life, but even we crusty old veterans can learn something new from time to time. Back when I was learning how to write news stories, I was instructed in the "inverted pyramid"--i.e., you start with the most important part of the story and gradually work down to less important elements. That way if an editor is pressed for space, he can simply cut from the bottom.

What no one ever told me was what comes after the point of the pyramid: a total non sequitur. An example is this Associated Press dispatch, which begins: "A sister and brother were being held Saturday in the death of a baseball fan who was shot during a stadium parking lot dispute after attending a Dodgers-Giants game, police said." This is followed by some details about the shooting, information about the suspects and the victim, and the reaction of the Dodgers. So far, so good. Then the non sequitur:

"The Giants won the game 6-4."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030921/ap_on_re_us/baseball_fan_shot_3

There's no indication, however, that the shooting had anything to do with the score of the game.

Then there's this Reuters dispatch about a tabloid's claim that Saddam Hussein was negotiating a surrender: "The U.S. military on Sunday denied a British media report that Saddam Hussein had offered money and information on weapons of mass destruction in return for safe passage to the ex-Soviet republic of Belarus," reads the first paragraph. Fine. Then more information about the report, quotes from the military denying it, background information on the hunt for Saddam, a fact of two about Belarus--and then this complete change of subject:

"The United States, which invaded Iraq in March citing a danger from weapons of mass destruction, has said it would not negotiate with Saddam. It has so far failed to find any evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological arms."

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=3480795

Weapons of mass destruction have nothing to do with the story, but they did provide an opportunity for Reuters to sneak in its usual anti-American editorial commentary. Oh well, I'll have to try this non sequitur thing out one of these days.

Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.

You never answer my question.

If America is such a cesspool, why did you come here?

Hmmm?

You said....

"What's the difference whether or not Bush et al. planned the attacks and profited from them versus not having planned the attacks but profiting from them? "

You've made a big assumption.... You assume the president is profiting (presumably financially) from the attack. What actual evidence do you have that he is profiting from the attack? The question of the planning of the attack is useless. Your core concern is profiteering.. What actual evidence do you have that shows, conclusively, that George Bush is profiting from this attack? Do you have IRS records? What, sir, is your evidence to support your claim?

You then state... "In fact, it is highly probable we will never know the full extent to which Bush and company knew of or didn't know of the attacks?"

If this statement is true, then how can you make your first statement? Your first statemant seems to claim that profiteering is occuring, yet your second statement admits that we will never know the full set of facts. So how can you support your first statement? Please explain how ignorance of the full set of facts allows you to claim that your first statement, that profiteering is going on, is justified.

You said...

"Who in the Bush Administration knew about international terrorism? Rice? Powell? Rove?"

They all knew, just as everyone in the Bush (1), Clinton and Reagan administrations knew. This part of your statement does nothing for your 'argument'.



You said...

"Isn't it just possible they were grossly (criminally?) derelict in their duties? Enough questions?"

This is the silliest part of your comment... Both Clinton and Bush 1 were neglegent, but especially Clinton. UBL was offered up to Clinton twice by the Sudanese government and he refused both times. Clinton was useless against Al Qaida and Al Qaida knew it. I don't particularly hate Clinton as a person, but the simple fact is that he had multiple opportunities to defuse this situation and he blew it. As for the curent president being 'criminally" responsible... You aren't living in reality.

You sir, have much explaining to do.

A year ago President Bush issued a challenge to the U.N.: Act on Iraq, or become irrelevant. Today France's President Jacques Chirac spoke before the U.N. General Assembly, just after President Bush did, and he acknowledged that Bush was right last year. "The war, launched without the authorization of the Security Council, shook the multilateral system," said Chirac. "The United Nations has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/23/sprj.irq.un.chirac/index.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html

Chirac isn't quite right when he says the Security Council didn't authorize the liberation of Iraq; it did in fact authorize the use of force in the Gulf War, and the cease-fire in that conflict was always contingent on Iraq's compliance with a series of resolutions--17 in all. But in any case, the Security Council would have passed an 18th resolution, eliminating any ambiguity about the rightness of the liberation, if France had not vowed to veto, so the responsibility for the U.N.'s current crisis lies squarely with Chirac himself.

The French president is trying to rehabilitate the U.N. "It is up to the United Nations to give legitimacy to this process," he said, referring to the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. "It is also up to the United Nations to assist with the gradual transfer of administrative and economic responsibilities to the present Iraqi institutions according to a realistic timetable and to help the Iraqis draft a constitution and hold elections."

This puts Chirac more or less in line with the Bush administration's policies. It would be too much to suggest that the French have come around, but they do seem to have adjusted to certain realities.