September 11 attacks/Archive 9

{{aan}}

Celebrating 9/11

Is there a reliable, objective source to substantiate this broad, inflammatory statement?

"In numerous cities of the Islamic world, in 2002, 2003 and again in 2004, the anniversary of the attacks, September 11, has been celebrated with crowded streets filled with dancing chanting men and celebratory gunfire, documented at al-Jazeera and very briefly in the Western media."

Links mentioning "celebration" of 911 attacks: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968195/posts, http://www.bible-prophecy.com/warmideast2001.htm010911, http://www.samizdata.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6642, http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD77804. The particular reference I found was to a celebration in London on Sep 11 2004 http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD77804_edn1, which contains: "The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 Suicide Attackers," but had cancelled it at the last minute." I couldn't find anything mentioning dancing in the streets, however. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 20:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*I didn't realize that London was considered part of the Islamic world already. Perhaps the article should name the celebrants as members of "the UK extremist group al-Muhajiroun" rather than inflaming the gentle reader with the image of barbarian hordes dancing all over the Islamic world in celebration of 9/11's carnage. Perhaps a quote from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be appropriate here if Wikipedia would like to record the reactions to 9/11 from Christian leaders.

**http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=articlenode=contentId=A28620-2001Sep14notFound=true

God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

Ramzi Binalshibh

Ramzi Binalshibh's name is misspelled "Binalsibh" in two places on the page.

No it's not "misspelled" - It is inconsistent. ;) WhisperToMe19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations

The allegations that "all member of the bin Laden family" and other Saudis were ferried out of the USA during the three day flight ban following 9/11 are inaccurate.

"Civilian air travel across the United States was8212;for the first time ever8212;suspended almost totally for three days, with numerous locations and events affected by closures, postponements, cancellations, and evacuations. However, according to the controversial political commentator Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, there was during this time an airlift to Saudi Arabia of all members of the bin Laden family in the USA at the time, leading to claims that potentiallly useful witnesses had been allowed by the US government to escape investigation"

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

But the key point is that the Saudis mentioned in these accounts were not flown out of the country 8212; they were assembled at locations from which they could be conveniently flown out of the country once regular airline travel resumed.

........

No news account had a flight of Saudis leaving the U.S. until after the resumption of normal air traffic. The earliest date posited for a flight bearing bin Laden family members leaving the U.S. was September 14, a date by which the resumption of air travel had already begun:

OK, but the point that should be made is that the Bin Ladens were "rescued" by the US authorities and allowed to go to Saudi Arabia at the request of a high ranking Saudi official, rather than being treated as potential witnesses in a regular murder enquiry. It is usual, I understand, in a murder enquiry, for potential witnesses to be asked to remain available to police in case they have information that might be useful, such as, in this case, the location of their relative. Whether they flew straight to Saudi Arabia or whether they were flown first to some assembly point while everyone else in the US was grounded is perhaps useful to know, but it doesn't detract from the main point being made here. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 20:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*The FBI had an opportunity to question the Saudis before they left the country and apparently did not consider them witnesses or otherwise deserving of detention.

War Crimes, Part 3

I deleted the section on war crimes. If anyone disagrees with me, I hope you will discuss it and provide some authority specifically stating that the attacks were a war crime. Also see the material in my previous comments, from the Red Cross.

I forgot to sign that.

Maurreen

04:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations again

Moore's allegations have wide currency because of the success of his movie F-9/11 but, unfortunately, they are not entirely factually accurate according to Snopes.com, the 9/11 Commission, and journalists who have looked at the sequence carefully.

In that case you really HAVE to first make/be sure that Moore was actually wrong, which I very much doubt after thoroughly reading http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelinetheme=coverupstartpos=100

Thanks for the links. I wish there was more substance to these allegations but he's really just grasping at straws. There were no unusual flights. Moore even admits it. He hinges the accusation that one flight was flown out of Tampa a day early based on local newspaper article speculation. Very weak. The Bush-Saudi connection exists, no doubt. The rich and powerful flock together. But then where do you go with it from there? That doesn't make them responsible for 9/11. It's a sideshow. Can you tie up all those Michael Moorish insinuations in a way that works for an encyclopedia and not some conspiracy theory rant? We want wiki NPOV facts, not innuendo and fiction.Alberuni05:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the conspiracy speculation limited to the conspiracy section of this main page. If the conspiracy needs alot of explicating, there is a wiki dedicated to just that. Conspiracies are interesting and potentially damning but unless backed up by strong facts, I believe they detract from this otherwise solid and important article. Alberuni20:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm: In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 09:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly. Overall, it appears that all flights -- the ones gathering up Saudis domestically and the one from Boston to Jedda -- took place after the government allowed aviation to resume." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 Alberuni15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And from the same source: Clearly bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the September 11 attacks, and this was effected with the approval and assistance of the American government. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? That bin Laden family members are somehow guilty by association of the crimes of Osama bin laden? The FBI knew who was flying, they could have questioned or arrested anyone on any flight leaving the USA, as I'm sure they would if they had even a sliver of a reason. They authorites detained more than 1200 innocent Muslims on various immigration and other pretexts in the weeks after 9/11 "just in case" they were involved in terrorism. Would you have all Saudi Arabians in the USA and all bin Laden family members arrested and held in detention because of their surnames, nationality, or religion despite the lack any evidence of criminal wrongdoing? Alberuni15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am no supporter of any conspiracy theory. The idea that the Saudis requested that their nationals should be removed from USA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, particularly when it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was a prime suspect, is not fantastic. (Moore shows an interview with the Saudi minister which attests to this.) The fact that the US acquiesced to this request, given the economic dependency that various US interests have on Saudi goodwill, is not surprising. The fact that a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave, appears to be from independent sources. What is surprising is that any wikipedian should wish to censor the fact that an Oscar-winning journalist has reported this story. I think the intrinsic interest that this story has means that it should remain prominent in this article. I fear that it is embarrassment and insecurity of position that is prompting my censors. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, censorship and defense of the Bush administration are completely anathema to me. It's funny that I would even be accused of it. Please don't be paranoid. I am just trying to be objective. I agree with your basic premise that global economic dependence on Mideast oil contributes to US foreign policies of propping up repressive regimes like the Saudi government, waging wars on Iraq, building military bases in Saudi Arabia, and defending Israel (considered a bulwark against Soviet domination of the Mideast at one time); and that the al-Qaida movement and 9/11 attacks represent radical resistance to these US foreign policies. These foreign policy issues need to be explored but how do the bin Laden family flights after 9/11 explore those issues? If the White House gave special permission for bin Laden family flights after 9/11 as Michael Moore claimed, then that would presumably reflect the tip of the iceberg of US-Saudi relations. I think Michael Moore hoped that F-9/11 would cause viewers to question US foreign policies that led to 9/11 instead of believing government propaganda that "terrorists hate America because of our freedom" and i commend him for that. Unfortunately, the issues are so complex and convoluted that people can't begin to peel the layers of US foreign policy intrigue so Moore's rabble-rousing populist message ends up feeding anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria because viewers ask, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" In fact, the flights carry very little significance, if any, because apparently no special permissions were granted. The danger in using weak or forged arguments should be clear from the Dan Rather case. It can backfire against the accuser and lower the credibility of an otherwise good case. Even though close US-Saudi ties deserve scrutiny, there does not appear to have been anything particularly unusual, illegal, or covered-up in the bin Laden family flights. The bin Laden family members and other Saudis were understandably fleeing from what they expected to be an ignorant violent backlash against innocent Arabs, Muslims and people surnamed "bin Laden". You claim that the "US acquiesced to this request" but apparently there were no special privileges to fly internationally during an overall public flight ban as Michael Moore asserted in F-9/11 and no privileges were issued even domestically as Snopes.com claims but has been debunked http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 elsewhere, as I noted above. You claim that "a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave" but there is no evidence that they would or should have been detained. The FBI had an opportunity to question them but had no reason to detain any of them. These are people who would be much more likely to become targets of al-Qaida than members of al-Qaida. The US is not dependent on goodwill of Saudi elites. The US is trying to protect the Saudi elites from bin Laden! If people are suggesting that the Saudis on those flights after 9/11 were involved in the 9/11 attacks but the White House let them leave the country, then I suggest the issue be explored under Conspiracy Theories. I don't think it should clutter the documentation of Effects of the Attacks/Grounding of Flights. All of above IMHO. Alberuni15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If a relative of yours were suspected of murder, would you not think it reasonable that the police might say to you "Hang about, mate. You might have some information that will help us catch the suspect"? Or would you expect them to say, "Gosh, there's something else going on here. I'm not going to use a weak of forged argument to detain you. You'd better get out of the country fast. And never mind if you have information that might help us catch our suspect. We'll do without that because "'there's something else going on here"'!. Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you think that bin Laden family members were admitted to the USA, allowed tohttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1564428.stm donate money to Harvard University, own property and invest in US businesses without the FBI knowing that they were related to a man who was already the world's most wanted terrorist prior to September 11, 2001? Do you think the bin Laden family members were not already questioned, investigated and probably under surveillance by the FBI/CIA? You think they had new information about Osama's whereabouts but were spirited out of the USA by the Bush administration because...............? Please elaborate. What does Michael Moore think? There is a conspiracy wiki for the discussion. Alberuni14:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The something else going on is that the US is evidently treating some people as above the law. Why that is can plausibly be explained by the level of Saudi investment, including that of the Bin Laden family itself, in the US. There's no conspiracy there. The only conspiracy is that there are some who would like to cover this story up because they find it embarrassing and, no doubt, because, as Alberuni has written, people might say, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" Surely that IS the point. We can explain: those rich Saudis are allowed to fly BECAUSE they are rich and powerful. Never mind that they just "might" be able to give us information that just "might" help us catch our suspect (ostensibly the most wanted man in the world), as would be the case in other murder enquiries - yes, I've been watching Columbo. There is something indecent about letting the Saudis fly away just like that, whichever way you look at it, and it is surely a relevant part of the story of 9/11. I deem those who revert the facts that I put into the main article to be the conspirators here. If my relative were suspected of murder and I said, "Sorry mate, I'm pissing off to Arabia and I'm not coming back", I think the police might get an order to take away my passport, pending future enquiries. But if I'm called Bin Laden then it's, "Yes, of course, sir. Have a nice trip!" Matthew Stannard Matt Stan 19:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How were they "treated above the law"? They were allowed to fly, like everyone else, AFTER the ban on charter flights was lifted 3 days after 9/11. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 Michael Moore was mistaken about this point. (Please excuse me for disputing the allegations of an Oscar-winning movie director). If you believe innocent people should be harassed just because they are Saudi, Muslim, or members of the bin Laden family - even though they are upstanding community members, 100% innocent of any crimes and there is no reason to suspect otherwise - well, then you should understand why they would want to leave the country in a hurry. See Balbir Singh Sodhi for details. If one of your relatives commits murder and you are not involved in any way, the police will not (should not) take away your passport or deny you your basic rights. Why should they? You haven't committed a crime. Out of curiousity, what is your opinion about locking up innocent Japanese-Americans at Manzanar during WWII? Alberuni21:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 9/11 commission reported that it was Richard Clarke (yes, the same Richard Clarke who was so critical of Bush) who was the highest ranking official to sign off on allowing the bin Laden family members to leave. They also found there was no higher political pressure to do so, as reported by the press, including "The Washington Post" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10070-2004Jul23.html.

www.911truth.org

There have been alot of annoying anonymous reverts regarding this link.

http://911truth.org/ 911Truth.org is a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup.

http://911truth.org/ 911Truth.org is a website that states that there is a coverup of the true cause of 9/11 by the U.S. Government.

It is neutral to describe the website that states that there is a U.S. government coverup of the true cause of 9/11. It is not neutral to refer to a campaign to educate the public about "the Sept. 11th coverup." The factual basis of a Bush administration cover-up is not a neutral fact. (I wish it was; I'd like to hear it). It is an opinion. Why is this such a difficult concept? Wikipedia shouldn't take a position on whether or not there is a U.S. government cover-up. Wikipedia can report facts related to the purported cover-up. Let's report facts and stop the silly revert war over the description of this link. Alberuni21:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

&quot;World Trade Center attacks&quot;

Why is this page being moved now? I don't recall a poll to move this back... WhisperToMe01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a problem? It looks like a redirect from WTC attacks with no change in content here. Alberuni01:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still is a problem because it ruins all of the redirects. If one wants to change the title of a popular article, he or she should ask around first. WhisperToMe01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the title itself, September 11 consisted of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania incidents. WhisperToMe01:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'September 11, 2001' and '7 December 1941'

The article seems to jump from the MM/DD/YY format to the DD/MM/YY format, and mostly uses the DD/MM format (eg 11 September). Also the very first sentence combines formats: The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001.

Is this just inconsistency (which should be changed to a US format of MM/DD/YY and MM/DD throughout)? Or is there some underlying purpose to it that I don't understand?

Just thought I'd ask before changing anything. Jongarrettuk20:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's your fault.

...

Oh, you probably want an explanation. :) In your settings, you must have it set to display dates in the European format, "DD Month YYYY". But that only works for linked dates, which is why almost every date on the pedia is wikified. However, the article name in the lede is not, and should not (since it would then differ from the article title). That's why. --Golbez21:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)