Did Bin Laden aim to limit casualties on 9/11?

[rjbcar27]

I was talking to a guy from Barhain today, he spent 5 years in the US and was in Boston on 9/11. (I was in VA) He's a wealthy arab and appears to be quite well conncted and he made some interesting points.

He seemed to think that at the time of 9/11, Bin Laden wanted to cause maximum financial damage to the US. Civilian casualties were not the main aim. If he wanted to kill as many people as possible, why do it first thing in the morning?

Also, can anyone shed any light on the claim that the Saudi government bankrolled the first Gulf war? He seems to think that's true too.

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Not sure about bankrolling, but they definitely were an influence on Poppy

The Saudis were afraid they would be the next target if Saddam kept rolling through Kuwait. Reality is, he never came close.

[Braden]

2. could have knocked down the towers on a sunday

If he was concerned about loss of life. He (or whomever may have done it) also could have chartered airplanes and not killed the passengers.

First thing in the morning is when everyone is at work. I used to work in the WFC across the street and trust me, 8:58am is a terrible time for an elevator to break down, let alone a bad time to smash a 767 into the building.

[Trek234]

50. He didn't say Bin Laden cared about loss of life

but that he could give a damn rather it was 100 dead or 3000, so long as the main goal (major economic hit) was achieved.

[DUreader]

3. Where is the evidence that Bin L. was involved in 9-11?

I have not seen any yet.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. try

the video of him talking with an Egyptian saying that he hadn't anticipated that the towers would fall.

[DUreader]

9. That fake video was debunked the same day, that all you got?

?

ON edit, do you have a link for the video?

[Yupster]

58. Try this article

though I'm sure some will say he's just part of the BFEE too. Actually, the way he looks, he could be the elusive hominid Bigfoot.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-09-21-terror-plot_x.htm

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Funny how the "Osama" in that video

Was considerably shorter and fatter than the usual Bin Laden pics.

I suppose the excess weight could be explained by kidney disease or whatever, but I seriously doubt it made him shorter.

I'm not saying Bin Hidin wasn't involved, but I am saying that most of the "hit singles" he's supposedly released since have come from the Puff Daddy DJ wannabes at the CIA, sampling his old stuff, or complete forgeries like this tape was.

[Blue_Chill]

18. Don't waste your time

The tin hatters don't accept anything that doesn't fit in with a "the goverment did it" conspiracy. Remember if it proves anyone other then the goverment did it, then that was faked by the goverment.

[Forkboy]

33. Sorry not everyone

is the Hercule Poirot that you seem to be BC.Some people actually want to know the truth,no matter who did it.And if that means asking questions that you dont like to hear then so be it.

[Blue_Chill]

34. Ah yes and the best way to the truth is saying everything is a cover up

You can't debate with this logic, any evidence you present is automatically false, and you are a sheep for thinking otherwise. So like I said it's best not to waste your time.

[Forkboy]

37. Those aren't my words

there are some very valid questions about 9-11.

[Blue_Chill]

62. That was my point that you responded to

So if you don't plan to defend it now, don't defend it in the first place.

[Pastiche423]

42. There is absolutely

nothing false about wanting to get to the truth.

Getting to the truth is why whistle ass et al have been stalling an investigation.

As of November 24, 2003, NO PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS!

NONE!

[Yupster]

59. You mean no proof you'll accept

Certainly there's been proof.

There's Osama's words himself.

There's the Khalid Shaik Mohammed interrogations.

There's the Abu Zubaydah interrogations.

You can argue whether any of that is valid proof or not, but you can't really honestly say there's no proof.

[Pastiche423]

67. Where and when did OBL claim responsibility?

If you are referring to the fat/skinny tapes, those were debunked a long time ago.

Have the interrogations been made public? If so, where? Link, please.

I can honestly say, I have neither seen, nor read proof that OBL was responsible for the attacks.

If you have proof, please supply a link. Otherwise, you are only regurgitating what you have heard the RW media say.

[Yupster]

68. Linked post 58

Please provide the link debunking the OBL tapes though.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. a UBL apologist

great. the 9:00 hour is not first thing in morning, its when everybody arrives at work.

[TNOE]

14. Well all the fat cats and CEO's

big $$ important people were invited to a big shindig at an airforce base center that very morning - bin laden apparently wanted all the wealthy to be safe. And apparently he wanted all the jewish people to be safe as Odigo warned them not to go to work that day.

[aquart]

20. Not to mention the extra bonus of the rush hour hordes.

Not only were people at their desks, but thousands were arriving on the subway and path trains for jobs all over the area.

[QC]

23. Hitting two of the largest office buildings in the world,

on a workday, with jumbo jets, is a peculiar way to limit casualties.

[BurtWorm]

6. Why do it on a weekday morning if he didn't want maximum fatalities?

I doubt he was giving too much thought to the lives he'd be wasting.

[Gulf Coast J]

22. That time was probably the easiest time to hijack the planes

Tuesday mornings in September are probably one of the least busy travel periods during the year. Notice how few people were on each jet. I imagine it's much easier to overtake a plane with fifty passengers than it is to overtake a plane with one hundred and fifty passengers; especially if they start finding out what is really going on.

[RamboLiberal]

44. That's probably also when flights least likely to be delayed

If anyone remembers one of the big stories that summer was how screwed up air travel was with lots of delays. As it was whomever planned this got screwed when Flight 93 was late getting off the ground and for some unknown reason it took them longer than the other flights to hijack it.

No matter whether you believe the passengers revolted or Flight 93 was shot down, if it had left on time and been hijacked as soon as the other 3 flights, then a 4th target would've been hit.

[JI7]

7. saudis, europe, and japan paid for most of first gulf war

i think the saudis , europe (france, germany, britain), and japan paid for most of the first gulf war. they paid for more than we thought i think.

[leftofthedial]

8. it's pretty easy to look up

I believe the Saudis kicked in LOTS of dough for Bush the First's Gulf War.

[amlouden]

10. i've heard that too

but why not do it at night when there were as few people as possible?

[Ficus]

12. He sees Americans

as cogs in the wheel. We're all parts of the big anti-islam economic/millitary machine. As other posters have noted, if he cared about killing less people, then he would have done it other ways.

As far as funding for the first Gulf War, many nations funded it through the UN. Unlike Gulf War II.

[remfan]

13. Gulf War

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

How much did the US pay for the Gulf War above and beyond the yearly cost for supporting its military? The US Department of Defense estimated the incremental cost at $61 billion. This additional cost included deployment, construction and operations in the Gulf. However, $54 billion was offset by contributions of other members in the Coalition. Two-thirds of the $54 billion was provided by the Gulf States ($36 billion) with the remaining one-third mostly provided by Japan and Germany ($16 billion).

Payments were made in one of two ways: with financial assets ("Cash") and with services such as sealift and airlift ("In-Kind")
As of March 1992, there was a shortfall in receipts compared with commitments. The total amount committed was $54 billion but only $52.9 billion had been received. The shortfall was $1.1 billion.
Saudi Arabia provided the US Military with fuel, food, water, local transportation and facilities, accounting for the "In-Kind" assistance. This accounted for 25% of the Saudi commitment to the US Military presence and was 71% of all "In-Kind" contributions.
The US paid roughly $7 billion, less than 12% of the total US cost and less than half what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid.

[Westegg]

15. more of the same

Yes, the Wall Street/Lower Manhattan region is humming with humanity by 8 a.m. on weekdays. And it's relatively abandoned at night, and on weekends. I know. I live there. I WAS there on 9/11. So no, honey, OBL was not trying to limit casualties. What utter bullshit.

[mrgorth]

16. also

if you're concerned about life you can have someone call to evacuate the buildings.

[Trek234]

52. Did you put ANY thought in to that?

When exactly would he call? BEFORE anything happened? Well that would be stupid if Osama wanted to execute his plans.

Immediatly AFTER the planes struck? Well duh. I hate to say it, but whoever made the call to NOT order an evac IMMEDIATELY after the first plane struck is an idiot. Any fool should realize that is the best course of action in such a situation.

Furthermore, after the planes hit, who the hell would listen to so anonymous call from the middle east? Who would even answer the phone or pay attention that particular call? Do you know how many calls emergency services got that day? "Yes this is Osama bin laden. NO REALLY IT IS TRUST ME. I called to say evacuate. I'm on the Afghanistan long distance carrier from my cave." Uh, yea.

[DUreader]

17. hmm

[Blue_Chill]

19. Why not hit the towers at 3 AM then?

Bin Laden preaches the death of Americans all the time, to pretend he cares for innocent life while advocating suicide bombing is a sick joke.

[spindoctor]

26. Because there are less (if any) flights and it is harder to navigate.

n/t

[Blue_Chill]

27. Plenty of flights on the weekends.

and this is NEW YORK we are talking about, when aren't there planes coming in and going? l

[spindoctor]

29. Plenty of business going on in WTC during the weekends

I don't think there are too many planes leaving New York at night, beside the fact that you would not want the plane to leave from New York, you would want it to travel across NYC (or near). If a plane travels away from NY, you have to go all the way back which is not only a hassle for poorly trained pilots, but also highly suspicious. There are enough planes coming in, but an incoming plane is low on fuel and would make a poor excuse for a bomb.

[Blue_Chill]

31. The point is it would be possible

but it wasn't done, it was instead hit just as people arrived for work.

enough with the UBL isn't such a bad guy crap.

[spindoctor]

48. He's in the same league as say George W Bush as far as bad guys go

Although I believe he is more ideological.

I know as much about what goes on in the mind of OBL as about what motivates GWB. In history, the victor will declare himself the good guy.

I can only guess what OBL tried to achieve with the 9/11 attack.
Fact is, his targets (White House, Pentagon, Twin Towers) were obviously chosen for their prestigious value, rather than their destructive impact. Two out of three targets are military and he officially declared war before attacking.

We also know from the video that the damage to the WTC was greater than OBL expected.

Considering these facts, I draw the conclusion that the original question in this thread cannot be answered with no. Whether or not he tried to limit the number of casualties or that it was simply no concern of his, to that I can only guess like the rest of us.

Is he truly the Son of Satan? Not unless he turns out to be Dick Cheney's long lost brother.

[JHB]

21. No, he's out for high death tolls...

Read The age of Sacred Terror, which I think is out in paperback now. It has a good overview of the history and theology of bin Laden's particular Wahabbist faction, and sparing the lives of "crusaders" and "apostates" isn't exactly on his priority list.
It's true that they could have gotten a higher body count if they'd struck about 2 hours later, but we have no idea what considerations were used to determine which planes to hijack and when to strike (other than fuelled for a transcontinetal flight, of course).

As for bankrolling the First gulf war, which one do you mean? The one between Iran and Iraq, in which case the answer is "yes", or "Desert Storm", in which case the answer is also "yes". Not all of it, of course, but some.

[BigBigBigBear]

24. Not how I hear it

Poppy used his influence to get Saudis and Kuwaitis to loan money to finance the Iran-Iraq war. AFter the war (which Saddam effectively "lost", because he did not topple the Ayatollah), they both wanted repayment. Saddam was broke, asked for assistance or forgiveness from the Kuwaitis (who were drilling Iraqi oil, under the border at the time), and they told him to go jump in the lake. Further, the Saudis and the Kuwaitis pushed for a production increase right after the war was over, driving down oil prices and nearly bankrupting Saddam. These were part of the reasons he attacked Kuwait.

[MrPrax]

25. I tin-foiled that angle for a while...

If the Terrorists wanted to inflict massive casualities on the US...there might be other things that could have done the deed...like nuke plants or dams...

If they did those unthinkable things then the effects would linger and linger for weeks, months and years...

The Towers were more of a 'shock and awe' thing...

But since the Towers were already attacked once, you would think that Terrorists for avoid it for that reason...fear of great vigilance and say go after something else...

Whole thing smells like a 'script'...their's or our's...who knows...

Just like I think the 'box cutter' thing is interesting--no survivors, no proof other than a couple of refs in a cel phone conservation, yet the M.O. spread like wildfire via the 7/24 coverage!

**So if it were an 'inside job' could it be there was a decision to NOT use/mention handguns, because of a fear of the public backlash to support gun-control and that would annoy the NRA supporters and that crowd?**

Like I said, it smells like a 'script' by a committee of writers--their's or our's...who knows

[BringEmOn]

32. Operation Northwoods/PNAC

Operation Northwoods

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

"...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Project For a New American Century

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

Whoever did the killing, MIHOP, LIHOP, or Al Qaeda acting alone, calculated the number of deaths it would take to and to bring about "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" and to "cause a helpful wave of national indignation." Approximately 2400 were killed at Pearl Harbor. Tens of thousands would have been too many and hundreds may not have been enough.

If it were Bin Laden and Al Qaeda acting alone, why not follow up with more attacks...keep ringing the cash register? How could we stop them? Israel, with their vast military superiority, hasn't been able to stop terrorist attacks. Why not go tit for tat with every bombing of Afghani/Iraqi civilians by Coalition Forces? Why hit once, then sit back and get the crap kicked out of you without reprisal? Doesn't sound much like a terrorist organization M/O to me.

I'm definitely not a "UBL (Fox News)Apologist" There just seems to be a lot of unanswered questions.

[Ficus]

39. Not their style

If it were Bin Laden and Al Qaeda acting alone, why not follow up with more attacks...keep ringing the cash register? How could we stop them? Israel, with their vast military superiority, hasn't been able to stop terrorist attacks. Why not go tit for tat with every bombing of Afghani/Iraqi civilians by Coalition Forces? Why hit once, then sit back and get the crap kicked out of you without reprisal? Doesn't sound much like a terrorist organization M/O to me.

Al Qaeda doesn't work like that. Al Qaeda plans for years for major operations like 9/11, the USS Cole, and so on. And their strategy seems to be to top their last attack. Kohbar then Africa Embassy Bombings, then USS Cole, then 9/11 - who knows what is next, but I bet they are planning something bigger than 9/11.

[BringEmOn]

45. Damn good planners

I'm amazed at the planning and logistics skills of the Al Qaeda organization. I wonder how they managed to hijack four airliners almost simultaneously, and fly three of them with precision into their targets...how they managed to get the military to stand down...how they blocked any meaningful investigation into 9-11...how Bin Laden was able to escape capture and convince the *resident that he is no longer relevant.

They are only rivaled by the planning skills of Lee Harvey Oswald. It's amazing how he managed to land a job at the TSBD weeks before the JFK assassination and how he managed to change the parade route to pass the TSBD at 11 mph...and managed to stand down the military...and arrange to leave JFK without proper protection from the SS.

Oops! They both managed to conveniently leave so many telltale clues behind and call attention to themselves days before their actions...after all the years of world class precision planning.

I'm not sure if years of planning went into car, truck, and small boat suicide bombings, but I agree that another more devastating attack is planned...especially if *'s poll numbers are tanking in 2004.

[MrPrax]

51. I have read this as well...

about Al Queda (The Base)...then I have to remember...
Everything I know about Al Queda is from the same 'sources'.

Up till 911, they have generally attacked 'infidels' in the ME.

I read about the Haig 'green belt' strategy back in the 80s...has this program been concluded?

I also read that a month before 911 (according to Le Figaro) the CIA met with OBL at a hospital? http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

I keep reading about the ISI and our good friends in Karachi...

I also read that Unocol Oil met with Taliban reps in Texas to negotiate a pipeline in July 2001, the taliban (only a month previous) were being praised by the US Drug Tsar, for their efforts on heroin interdiction...the talks fail and the US invades Afghanistan 4 months later?

I read the installed Puppet in AF. ,Hamid Karzai, is a former exec with Unocol?

I read the CIA still had contacts with Al Queda in Korosovo (KLA), Chechnya and Kazakistan as late of 2000 even though these people are wanted on charges in the US...

I read that Jack Straw, Foreign Minister, in the summer of 2001 personally denied a political refugee claim for an Iraqis because as he explained Iraq had adequate safeguards for fair trials and detentions? so why the change of heart...?

Too many questions and given the reaction of the US administration to 911 (attack first -- review security much much later -- place no blame on anyone for not even fulfilling the basic recommendations of the FAA report in the early 90s--ignore international intelligence reports--Rice not having time to read a intelligence dossier) etc etc...

Too many questions and given the track record of 'finding out the truth' afterwards, I am inclined to suspend believe and be skeptical regarding the 911 'meta-narrative' until much of these questions are answered

[spindoctor]

28. Rather hard to determine who pays for a war.

The UN picked up the majority of the tap if I remember correctly.
SA paid Bush what he wanted most, militiary bases in the Middle-East outside of Israel.
I doubt that there was any significant financial backing from SA or other Arab countries.

SA definitely feared living next door to Iraq and appeared to be greatly concerned about a possible march-on from the Iraqi army.

I would rather question why not too many people remember (or know) that Iraq had near-valid reasons to invade Kuwait.

As for OBL's motives, who knows? In the aired video that was presented as evidence of his involvement you hear him say that he did not anticipate the total distruction of the buildings (or the damage was far greater than he expected...something like that).
That shows how good of a civil engineer he is. lol

[tritsofme]

30. Is this the type of discussion life under * has driven us to?

nt

[bpilgrim]

35. Someone wanted to MINIMIZE casualties thats for sure the real question is

WHO?

notice how wtc7 also falls in it's footprint as well...
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

:shrug:

peace

[salmonhorse]

36. My understanding...

...is that they had no idea that the towers would even come down. That that was a 'kicker' that they attributed to: Allah. Their purpose was to create economic hardship; knowing full-well that America, in the end, worships 'the all mighty dollar'.

[bpilgrim]

38. the real kicker... WTC7

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

:hi:

peace

[latebloomer]

40. Well, a plane could have hit Indian Point,

given a death sentence to millions and made a huge area uninhabitable for all foreseeable time.

But maybe Osama-- or WHOEVER masterminded it, and I am not convinced it was Osama-- didn't want to cause QUITE so much damage.

[piece sine]

41. This thread is worrisome!

While DU bans farcical, parody sex threads, it's still open to discussions about the humanity of Bin Laden wanting to limit human death. And I can hardly believe the responses here that validated that point of view. Folks, you are BEGGING; PLEADING; PRAYING to lose the next election. The mindset displayed here will never convince a majority of the public to support the candidate DU mosts wants to win. We are our own worst enemy.

Defending Bin Laden is beyond the pale and will NOT help any of us defeat Bush. Quite the contrary, it screws us to the wall as out-of-touch assholes!

[WoodrowFan]

46. yep

I agree, this is what the rw means when they say liberals "hate america" or refer to the "blame america first crowd." They're a small faction but a damn noisy and embarrasing one.

[BringEmOn]

55. Who cares what the RW thinks?

If seeking the truth without blindly accepting the RW party line is hate America or blame America first, so what?

You know what's really embarrassing?...certain Senate Democrats and those on the left (God love 'em) who bend over and grab their ankles every time a right wing pig squeals.

[Pastiche423]

47. Precisely, who is defending OBL?

Wanting to get to the truth and defending OBL are hardly the same thing.

You do understand truth, don't you?

[piece sine]

54. well, you, for example

Your claim that there is no proof bin Laden planned it, in the face of various videos of bin laden discussing the outcome, "allah be praised" and all that. Inserting that preposterous falsehood leads a thinking person to conclude you choose to defend him.

[Trek234]

53. No one is defending Bin Laden

There are two possible FACTUAL situations:

1. Looking at the FACTS were the 9/11 attacks as deadly as they could have been had alternate targets/times been chosen?

2. If NOT is that because of the FACT that the motivation for the crime was not destruction but a different motivation such as economic failure? And if so what FACTS will back that up?

Like all crimes the MOTIVATION and INTENT should be taken in to consideration. When there us a murder investigation do you think one side is defending the murder if they ask "Was the murder comitted just to kill X person out of hate because he was a minority, or was it an accident?" One of them is MUCH more evil. No one is defending the murder - they are only asking WHAT the motivation and intent may have been.

[piece sine]

57. by your way of thinking, yes..

but only IF all the opinions expressed here were of such an orderly investigative nature as yours. They're not. I always give every thing I read the "Washington Post Front Page" test. What would this sound like if it were reproduced on the front of page of the Washington Post. "Lefties Question bin Laden's Culpability" is not a headline I'm eager to see.

[Yupster]

43. No -- when Clinton

blew up the factory in Sudan at 3 am with an unmanned missile, that was purposefully minimizing civilian casualties. Big difference to me.

[JohnLocke]

49. Your Friend is a Moron.

Make no mistake -- bin Laden aimed at maximum casualties . They went in the morning because security was more lax eraly in the day.

[latebloomer]

56. Again--if he wanted casualties

Why weren't all 4 planes flown into nuclear power plants???

[quaker bill]

61. Because they would not have been as symbolic

He wanted symbols of Americanism / American power to fall.

Secondly, nuke plants are smaller and harder targets.

How do you know that he did not think the towers would fall when first struck killing thousands more?

[Blue_Chill]

63. It also makes a point

They attacked once and security was increased. He was showing that you can't stop him, he can hit it even if you defend it.

I hope the bastard gets caught and dragged before a US court. I would love him to face the humiliation of being judged by those he hates.

[bpilgrim]

65. why didn't anyone react for almost 2 hours?

is another BIG question that no one has recieved an answer to as of yet...

peace

[quaker bill]

60. No

I don't believe he cared overly much one way or another. I am sure they used whatever opportunity was most available to them with little concern over casualties. I have no doubt that they wanted to kill some people and would not have minded a higher death toll in the least.

I would not be surprised if they expected that the buildings would fall when first struck killing many thousands more.

This is not the sort of activity you engage in, if you are at all concerned with innocent life.

[LastTime2BeFree]

64. why do it first thing in the morning?

Less people on the planes to fight back. Very simple.

[leesa]

66. Do you have any evidence bin Laden was involved?

Lots of evidence Bush was probably involved, but next to nothing links OBL with the event.