Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

Old talk archived at:

Reversion of talk pages?

By the way, where do we discuss reversion of talk pages? We need talk talk pages I guess, with SheikYerBooty around lumping all these sections back into one long ramble. Going to be hell to pay when it comes time to archive, it's much easier to rename the sections rather than delete them and inevitably have to add them back in later. Measure once and cut twice, SheikYerBooty, that's what my dad always told me. - Plautus satire 05:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles

Why is there a link to Globalisation?? It doesn't seem particularly relevant and should be removed. pir 04:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing on that article that refers to 9/11. -- ChrisO 20:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, I've removed the intentionally disruptive and misleading section headings that you gratuitously inserted into the middle of other users' responses. Your constant manipulation of talk pages make it's very difficult for interested observers and participants to follow the discussion. --SheikYerBooty 05:37, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, are you for real? Is there a person back there or are you on autopilot? - Plautus satire 05:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's surname

"bin Laden" is indeed Osama's family name (or patronym, more precisely): it means "son of Laden". His full name is Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden (Mohammed is his father's name, Laden is his grandfather's, from whom the rest of his family take their last name). See http://www.arab.net/arabnames/ for more info on the Arab naming conventions and http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp for how it applies to OBL specifically. -- ChrisO 10:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See: Osama bin Laden.

"Strictly speaking, under the Arabic naming convention, it is incorrect to use "bin Laden" as though it was a Western surname. His full name means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Laden". However, the Bin Laden family (or Binladin as they prefer to be known) generally use the name as a surname, in the Western style. The family company is known as Binladin Brothers for Contracting and Industry and is one of the largest corporations in Saudi Arabia. For this reason, although the Arabic convention would be to refer to him either as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden," using "bin Laden" is in accordance with the family's own usage of the name and is the near-universal convention in Western references to him." WhisperToMe 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm. Check the history - I wrote that, after some more research on the issue... -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Someone just added a section on 9/11 as war crimes. I would have thought that the reason several countries enacted specific anti-terrorism laws was that this wasn't a matter of war crimes. Anyone know how international law applies to this? Rmhermen 13:49, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

That is a very good question. The answer isn't at all clear, principally because there are so few precedents. There's an interesting article at http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-November/006708.html which discusses some of the issues. I suspect that it probably would count as a war crime (one can envisage crimes against humanity) being a possible charge) but there are many political issues bound up in this as well. -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would assume that one reason the war crimes issue has not been highlighted is that there was no obvious state actor to bring to trial. I would venture another is that the public mind is not directed toward the concept of war crimes being committed against a major power, as evidenced by the lack of UN resolutions, etc., declaring it a war crime. Consider also the possibility that without an obvious state actor, many people do not consider this a war. Cecropia 15:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes charges do not necessarily have to be leveled against a state actor. The majority of those charged by the Yugoslav war crimes tribunals have been non-state actors - the Bosnian Serbs and Croats, the Croatian Serbs and the Kosovo Albanians have all been non-state actors, as have the Serbian paramilitaries. An even more obvious example of this involves the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, which the International Criminal Court is now investigating for war crimes following a request from the Ugandan government [1]. As far as I know, any person or group is capable of being charged. I don't think a state can collectively be charged - the governments of Serbia, Croatia, Germany and Japan were not charged as entities in their respective war crimes tribunals.

With regard to war crimes being committed against major powers, that was a large part of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war trials. It's been rather overshadowed by the issue of the Holocaust, but one of the chief issues of both trials was that of illegal attacks on other countries (Poland, Russia, the US etc). There were also trials for war crimes committed against individual soldiers of the major powers (principally killings of prisoners by German and Japanese forces). -- ChrisO 17:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I was examining why the public (and worse, the media, who have not bothered to educate themselves on laws of war during wartime) does not view 9/11 as a war crime. Some are aruging it was a "crime against humanity." This is correct—it was a "crime against humanity" which also involved identifable war crimes. Cecropia 17:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes don't presuppose a state actor, but they do presuppose a war. The section is legally nonsensical (and that's before we start on the grammar). Markalexander100 03:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In what sense is the section "legally nonsensical"? It is a war and specific sections of valid international law are quoted. Cecropia 04:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"It is a war" What is a war? There's a fairly major difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. This was the latter. Markalexander100 05:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hague III refers to the commencement of hostilities requiring a declaration of war (either immediate or conditional). The lack of declaration doesn't make it not a war, the fact of the lack of declaration may make the commencement a violation of the laws of war, and may have some effect in the domestic legal status of one or both of the belligerents. In the case of the WTC bombing, the war once the first building of the WTC was hit. The belligerants in the war are the United States of America and Al Queda and its allies. Cecropia 06:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Unindenting, for readability). Declaration or otherwise is a separate issue (see below). Merriam Webster: "war: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". Or try the UN: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime". Take your pick- terrorism or war crime? Markalexander100 06:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For those who didn't follow the link (Terrorism = Peacetime War Crime) that was a proposed short definition in 1992 that doesn't carry the weight of either law or agreement. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in black and white:

Fourth Geneva Convention, article 2: "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them"

Annex to the Hague convention, article 2: "The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers".

Unsurprisingly, Al Quaeda is not a party to either treaty. Markalexander100 08:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your point is good so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough if you are implying (1) that terrorism vs. war crimes is an either/or proposition or that (2) that since al Queda is not a signatory of Geneva or Hague, ir is not guilty of war crimes vis a vis WTC.

I've made the point here (I think) and in other related articles that terrorism is not a thing in itself so much as a tactic in war, a point made just yesterday (23 March 2004) by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie S. Gorelick (former deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration) who said "[...]terrorism is a tool. It is not an enemy in itself; it's a tool."

Al Queda not being a signatory to any of the laws of war does not render it immune from the consequences of being a belligerent and its conduct as such. It's true that they are not bound by Geneva and Hague, but if they refuse to agree to adhere to those conventions (which they can do without being signatories) they lose all of the protections of those conventions. By attacking a signatory nation, they are defenseless to law of war remedies. The attacked signatory nation is still entitled to treat them in accordance with the provisions of Geneva and Hague. In short, if they bomb civilian targets (like the WTC) they cannot avoid retaliations, military tribunals and other remedies prescribed by the laws of war by saying "well, we can do those things (but you can't) because we don't agree to the law." This is part of what Guantanamo is all about. You can't fail to meet the requirements of lawful combatants in the Conventions and then say, "you have to give us all the rights of Prisoners of War."

As an aside, it is even arguable that al Queda and other groups can fully claim they are non-signatories, because the nations that harbor them almost always are. Put another way, if the US and Britain were to decide to outsource their war making powers to an NGO contract organization, that would not free either power from the position of belligerent, nor allow the NGO organization to avoid the consequences of violating the wars of law. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No- look further down in article 2 (Geneva 4): "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." In other words, a signatory need only follow the convention against a non-signatory if the non-signatory voluntarily follows it (the Guantanamo point); AQ certainly hasn't followed it, but the corollary is simply that the US is not bound by the convention regarding AQ, not that AQ is bound. Trust me, I'm a lawyer. ;) Markalexander100 01:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, counselor, I think you're going to have to explain the fine points to your "expert witness," because I don't see where we're disagreeing. Don't both our arguments boil down to "AQ can't benefit from Geneva unless they adhere to it, signatory or not"? Cecropia 03:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly they can't benefit from it- that's the Guantanamo point. But not benefiting from a treaty is not the same as being liable under it. AQ is not a party to the treaty. Therefore the treaty imposes no obligations on it. This is a basic principle of international law: a treaty between countries A and B can't impose duties on country C (or even group of homicidal fanatics C). September 11 was many things, but a war crime under Geneva 4 or Hague it was not. Markalexander100 05:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This somehow reminds me of an old Bob & Ray routine where they do a piece on a criminal, and then at the end a voice sums up: "Louie the Lump was convicted of two counts of murder, but since murder is not illegal under California Statutes, he was released."

That is, I see your point, but it is would be more accurate to say that September 11 did involve war crimes as defined under Geneva and Hague, but that the perpetrators cannot be directly punished under the Conventions since they are not bound by them, but they (meaning their superiors and protectors, obviously, since the immediate perpetrators are dead) are still liable to severe punishment (including death or reprisal) without the aggrieved power being in violation of international law. To not note this in a layman's encyclopedia is to leave hanging the implication that not being parties to the written laws of war immunizes a non-signatory from liability. Cecropia 06:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We may be in sight of some sort of agreement! How about: "The September 11 attacks would have been war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibit X Y and Z. However, because AQ is not a party to these conventions, criminal liability falls to be determined under US domestic law rather than international law". Markalexander100 06:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I would word it a little differently, which I will explain anon:

"The September 11 attacks would have involved a number of war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention. However, because [AQ] is not a party to these conventions, liability and punishment falls to be determined under appropriate US law rather than international law".

I used "number of war crimes" to indicate specificity, rather than just say "it was a war crime." This is especially true because certain of the crimes apply to both Pentagon and WTC (the killing of the civilians on the planes) but others only to WTC (Pentagon is a legitimate military target, WTC was not). I reworded the US law section to remove the implication that this becomes a straightforward criminal matter that must be pursued according to criminal law in civilian jurisdiction. I would definitely keep the specific citations of Geneva and Hague, so people know some of the war crimes we're talking about.

As an aside, perhaps an important aside, neither of our wordings deal with the issue of War by Proxy, insofar as al Queda is supported, protected and funded by, and represents the interests of, powers who are signatory to the Conventions. These include most of the states that provide one or another type of support to organizations like al Queda. Even if their attitude is merely permissive ("we don't support them, they're merely on our territory") they risk their standing as neutral nations. Remember Uruguay and the Graf Spee. Cecropia 06:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've put that wording in. The possible connections between AQ and various states (Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?) are very shadowy; I doubt there's much we can usefully say about it. As far as I know, the US government didn't even accuse Afghanistan of having an active part in the plot. Let's save that one for another day. Markalexander100 07:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, now we can put it to bed! :) Cecropia 07:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed the point about no declaration of war from the war crimes section and I thought I should justify this. The list is stated to be a partial, easily justifiable, non-complete list of war crimes that could be charged over 9/11. In keeping with this I thought it important to remove anything that could be easily argued against. The statments attributed to OBL in the articles from date prior to September 2001 clearly say that his organization is fighting against the US, this in effect a declaration of war. Yes I accept that it isn't a formal decrlaration of war, but Al Qadeir (spelling?) are not a true state actor and can't really enter into standard formal declarations. Anyway I thought it better not to include an arguable point in a partial list Steven jones 05:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The form of a declaration of war is proposed but not mandatory, usually along the lines of "The Republic of Ruritania declares that, as of 1200 hours, 17 January 2004, a state of war exists between the Republic and the Kingdom of Blatting." However, this specific wording is not required, but what is required is "that hostilities between [the parties] must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Did Omasa provide that? "explicit warning"? "clear and reasoned"? Can you point me to any published reference? TIA, Cecropia 06:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I can't, but I haven't looked and IANAL (not to mention that I can't speak Arabic, which I presume would be the language any declaration would be made in), so I'm not even sure I would be definatively state a declaration was made even if I saw it, also others (meelar later on this page), seem to believe there was one. Which is the real reason I made the mod. When the list, by its own definition is an "incomplete compilation", why weaken it with arguably false claims Steven jones 08:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I accept that the issue of whether there was a valid declaration of war is debatable, but I'm curious as to what form it might have taken. "previous and explicit warning" and "reasoned declaration" mean that the declaration must be in some form that your intended enemy knows what you intend to do. Does a comment in a TV interview that "we will destroy America", especially if not in a language readily understandable to be US do it? Would a picture postcard "Dear US imperialist. We're going to use all means to destroy you. Kind regards, the 433rd Anti-American Brigade (Provisional)"? It's an interesting, if perhaps academic subject, but you could see some possible consequences. That is, was there a declaration before the 1993 bombing of the WTC? If the U.S. believed the declaration, and that a state of war existed, it might not have tried the case as a criminal issue in open court, and susbequent history might have been different. Cecropia 14:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there any claim by al-quaeda that they attacked the towers? Any evidence or judgement that they did? It seems to me that this is an assumption that was not established as fact. am I wrong?Pedant 02:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Over times there have been multiple claims from individuals in al Queda (included UBL) alluding to responsibility for 9/11. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why on 9/11?

Looking at recent edits, I think too much meaning is being placed on "Why 9/11"? Especially remember that, in most of the world, 9/11/2001 is 11.9.2001. I think that is true in Saudi Arabia, country of most of the hijackers, even assuming that would run to the common calendar rather than the Arabic one for arcane meaning.

In most parts of Europe it is written as 11-9-2001. Either way, since the / is not smart for use in URLs, I would choose 9-11 as the better notation. Julius 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to the issue of rescue personnel, New York had plenty on hand--look how many were on the scene to die in such a short time after the first plane hit.

I remember the day well, living in New York. It was a clear day, perfect for minimally experienced pilots to navigate to and hit the towers. If the day had been overcast (especially since the tops of the towers were often shrouded in fog or clouds) they may have had to pick a different day. This is not my original theory, but it makes sense. Cecropia 23:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some of the rescue vehicles were out of town was one of the theories. I guess there could have been more vehicles or something? Mabye its the absence of the type of vehicles required for skyscrapers? Perl 23:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really doubt that. NYC has a HUGE emergency service department and they wouldn't send a significant number of any emergency vehicles out of town. The real problem (emergency services-wise) is that, above a certain floor level, you can't do anything from the outside of skyscrapers. That's why NYC firefighters are required to be so fit. Tapes of radio transmissions from the FDNY in the building showed that some of the firefighters actually made it to one of the floors (I think in Tower Two) where one of the planes hit--running up 60-odd flights of stairs. Cecropia 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that "theory"? We're an encyclopedia, not a rumor column. Let's only keep theories that are verifiable in established primary or secondary sources. Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

9/11 was a week after the end of congress' summer holiday. Therefore, most of the congressmen and US senators were in the Capitole. And the 4th plane was suposed to be crashed on that monument. I think that's an explanation given by the 9/11 comission.

Possible misidentification of victims

Please justify removal of this paragraph:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [2]. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that many of the men identified as suicide hijackers were still alive and may have been victims of identity theft [3]. Although FBI director Robert Mueller did initially acknowlege that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt [4], the FBI still identifies them by the names they were using at the time

Newer version:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [5].

As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that the indentities of at least four of the men identified as suicide hijackers were in doubt. The Telegraph of the UK was the first to interview four men whose personal details, including place and date of birth, name, and occupation, were listed on the FBI's list of hijackers. [6] [7]

This entire passage was put there by Plautus Satire (now banned for a year by the way) as part of some sort of implication that at least some of the Sep 11 hijackers were still alive and there was some kind of FBI conspiracy in which false names were knowingly sent out by the FBI - or something like that anyway. It is a bit hard to follow exactly what he was trying to say, but its reliability and neutrality must be held in doubt. Once again, we can do without that kind of POV thing in this article. Period.

Putting this aside, there is the question of relevancy. What we have listed here is a stage in FBI investigations that took place after the events of the day, in which it was established that some of the hijackers had suspect IDs. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not really relevant to an area that gives earlier revelations as to what organisation was behind the attacks. The newer version quoted above is certainly better, but the irrelevancy remains. Perhaps this should go to the Sep 11 timelines.

Actually, the whole "earlier revelations" bit does bother me, because it reads more like a subjective "it was America's fault!" essay than a NPOV account of evidence uncovered and statements issued as to who was behind the attacks. But my main problem is just that first paragraph.

BTW, I'm also puzzled about this section's title- the hijackers were victims?? How does that make sense? Arno 10:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleting terrorist

I'm surprised at KingTurtle, an admin, removing the word "terrorist" from the description of the 9/11 attacks as POV. I don't even think the terrorists themselves think the attacks (at least the 3000 non-combtanat civilians killed in the WTC attack) weren't terror attacks. What were they then. If these attacks aren't terrorist we should simply delete the entry under terrorism in Wikipedia, and give it a REDIRECT to newspeak. Cecropia 00:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I totally support your revert. If premeditated mass murder of innocent civilians isn't terrorism, nothing is. You are correct that Al Qaeda itself views 9/11 as terrorism-- a somehow justified terrorism. If KingTurtle wants to join them in sanctioning it he is free to do so, but he shouldn't turn language upside down in the process. JDG 02:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word terrorist was removed from the title of this article and it should be removed from the first paragraph of the article as well. The word terrorist is POV, IMHO. You ask me what were they then and my reply is they were attacks. Why do we need any adjective in front of the word "attacks"? The people working on the terrorism article can't come up with an easy definition of the term. The word is loaded with meanings and submeanings. Kingturtle 02:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Therefore you think that maybe they weren't terrorist attacks? The fact isn't POV, only the label is. So you think a NPOV encyclopedia should avoid an obvious truth that some consider controversial—that's a POV in itself. For that matter calling it a "suicide" attack is POV and politically freighted. Death to the perpetrators was an "effect", not a motivation, as is true suicide. Why not call them a "homicide" attack as some do? As I said, newspeak. Cecropia 02:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, this is precisely the nonsense that I feared. Terrorist is not some evil word not be to be uttered, and it mist be used in the articl. Arno 06:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Placing a value-judgement adjective in front of a noun does not represent an obvious truth. There is no reason to place such an adjective. You won't believe it, but calling any attack a terrorist attack is newspeak. When asked why he supported the terrorist attacks of the Contras, Ronald Reagan said they weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters. So we get to pick and choose which is which, depending on what side they are on. As I said, our fellow wikipedians cannot even come up with a fair definition on terrorism. I'd rather call this article 9/11 - IMHO that is the most NPOV title we could have. Kingturtle 06:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

News Headline: 3,000 KILLED BY NUMBER! Cecropia 07:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's all you have to say? No comments about value-judgments encased in some words? No comments about why an adjective must or must not be placed in front of the noun? No comments about Reagan's doublespeak - a doublespeak that supports the idea that the term terrorism is POV? No comment about the difficulty in defining the word terrorism? Kingturtle 07:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Spot on Cecropia - unlike KingTurtle PMA 07:11, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The only real issue is this: does any substantial number of people not consider these attacks terrorist? I strongly suspect not. Thus it is not a violation of our NPOV policy to characterize something as being part of a category when that fact is not seriously disputed. The name issue was a separate matter - the word simply is not used commonly enough in the title of the event for us to use it. It was not removed because it was "POV." It is also an absurd notion to think that titles are anything but POV since one and only one term can be used as the main title of any topic. --mav

Fair points. Kingturtle 18:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I had some satiric fun at your expensive, Kingturtle, but I have a hard time resisting a good straight line. Nevertheless, it made my point, which point was elucidated very nicely be mav—at some point, by avoiding a correct and commonly understood usage, it become more POV to avoid the term than use it.

That's ok. we all need a good laugh :) Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, I beg you look at the opening definition I have proposed at terrorism/draft. You see, terrorism is not an end in itself (unless you're psychotic, perhaps); it is a tactic in warfare. "Terrorist" is not an occupation (unless you're strictly a mercenary, and not many terrorists seem to be); it is a tactic, a method of warfare that is proscribed by the laws of war—it is this recognition that causes those who practice to the craft to tend to take one of two rhetoric tacks: (1) to redefine themselves: "i'm not a terrorist; i'm a freedom fighter" or to redefine the term: "maybe i'm a terrorist, but you're one too, so we're even." Either way, it doesn't alter the definition of the term.

One other point, though: the fact that you bring up "Reagan's doublespeak" certainly implies that you feel that the Contras were terrorists but that Reagan was lying by calling them "freedom fighters." A fair enough observation. I wouldn't use Ronald Reagan as my standard for political word definition and I imagine you don't either. Let me propose another point. Given my assertion that terrorism is a tactic not an end in itself, could you consider that (balancing the poles of the political spectrum) that the Contras on one hand, and the PLO on the other hand, could be both freedom fighters and terrorists? One is the goal, the other the method. Cecropia 19:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My point about Reagan is that langauge can be used to paint the exact same action as terrorism or as not terrorism. Same action+different POV = different words used to describe the actions. Depending on one's personal politics, the Contras were terrorists or they were freedom fighters; the PLO were terrorists or they were freedom fighters. Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? That's the trouble with using only one of the words. Potentially, we could call September 11, 2001 attacks Jihad attacks, Kamikaze attacks, suicide attacks, terrorist attacks, Al-Qaida attacks, etc. etc. I look forward to reading the terrorism/draft. Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, 3 years ago I would have agreed with you that terrorism is a tactic, and that therefore the word terrorist should be used here to describe 9/11.

However I support Kingturtle: we should not use terrorist here, especially in a prominent place such as title or introduction. The reason is that since 9/11, terrorism and the "War on Terror" have been used by all kinds of politicians and governments (esp. the US government and its allies) to get support for policies for which it would normally have been very difficult to obtain popular support , e.g. Iraq was supposedly invaded to combat terrorists, the Russians devastated Chechnya in the name of fighting terrorism, China re-defined Falun Gong as terrorist, the government of Burma feels free to kill KNU oppisitionists because it classifies them as terrorist. The result of all this propaganda is that the meaning of the word terrorist has slightly changed. To call someone or something terrorist is to make a moral judgment: to label it as "wrong", "evil", to delegitimise.

Like the vast majority of people everywhere, I think that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist and morally wrong. But: Wikipedia is not there to make moral judgements or to tell right from wrong, it is there to inform people - and leave them to make up their own mind.

We must be careful about how language is used at Wikipedia: do we use it as a tool to communicate knowledge in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV ideal ; or do we use it as a tool for spreading particular points of view. pir 00:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, Pir, yet we can separate out at least some acts under the kind of definition we are (hopefully) working toward in terrorism/draft. I have to return to the point that 9/11 were the quintessential terrorist attacks. Since you see terrorist as a label of "wrong", "evil" and "delegitimizing"; you need to look at the issue before us. If you are arguing that the use of treachery to hijack civilian planes to murder some 3,000 innocent men, women and children having their morning coffee isn't "wrong" and "evil", what is? Do you feel that it is a legitimate war tactic? Virtually every international treaty and convention (and UN resolution) for 150-odd years says it isn't. If we can't use the word "terrorism" for the bulk of the deaths on 9/11 (possible exception that the pentagon is a legitimate war target) than we should be work to eliminate the word in every article in Wikipedia. Cecropia 04:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I don't think you really understood me. Compare the following:

The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.

The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.

The word terrorist doesn't add one bit of information. No reader will have any doubts about their terrorist nature (unless they support the goals and methods of al-Qaeda). The difference between terrorist and non-terrorist uses of violence is that terrorist ones are illegitimate. To call 9/11 involves making a moral judgement.

Of course I think that 9/11 was terrorist - and that it was therefore illegitimate and criminal. But I think the same is true of Hiroshima and Dresden and many Western-supported counter-insurgency operations - a view many here will disagree with. In fact I think Hiroshima was very much a "quintessential" terrorist attack, much more so than 9/11.

My point is that it is not for us at Wikipedia to tell readers that 9/11 or Hiroshima or Dresden were "wrong" and "evil" and "illegal" - it is to provide facts and report various views of these facts, so that the reader is in a position to make his/her moral judgements themselves. Wikipedia ought to be a source of objective knowledge, not a moral authority ; an encyclopedia, not a bible.

That is not to say that the word "terrorist" should be banned from Wikipedia - we only need to specify who thinks that a particular attack is "terrorist", and who thinks it is not. This would be far more elucidating and informative anyway. pir 21:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

International treaties are craftily written so that terrorist acts performed by nation-states are not covered under their definition of terrorism. If 9/11 was a terrorist attack, then wasn't the My Lai Massacre a terrorist attack? Shouldn't it be called the My Lai terrorist attack? What about dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima? Wasn't that a military tactic used in warfare that targeted civilian populations in a manner prohibited by the laws of war? The laws of war stipulate protecting noncombatants from unnecessary suffering. Wasn't its purpose to force Japan to terms favorable to the U.S. by creating fear and demoralization among civilian population in Japan? How many 1,000s of innocent men, women, and children were killed that day? See, the way the rules are written for terrorism, nation-states don't feel their acts fall under terrorism. What about the Bombing of Dresden in World War II? Kingturtle 04:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read my points above again please. --mav

"Craftily written" shows an inappropriate reading of the origins of the laws of war. You are implying that the central issues of laws of war were to enable big powers to dictate that what they do is fine, but what irregular forces do is prohibited. Hardly. You are trying to fit centuries of historical precedent into a jaundiced 2004 view. The laws of war were written when terrorism in the modern sense did not exist as an important factor in determining methods of warfare; rather they were written as agreements of what was fair and what was not in order to reduce (though not eliminate, obviously) the horrors of warfare (especially toward non-combatants) by reducing the instances of horrible retaliation.

As to your specific examples?

My Lai? Almost certainly a war crime, possibly a terrorist act. If Calley was carrying out orders to massacre civilians, both he and the government committed a war crime. If he didn't act under orders, he and his men who participated were guilty of war crimes.

Hiroshima? The answer turns on at least three issues: (1) depending on whether Japan was using the civilian areas for military purposes; (2) whether the act was proportional to the military objective gained; and (3) the often-ignored point that Japan foreswore the rules of combat at the beginning of the war, and carried out that decision ruthlessly, placing them at risk for retaliation that is otherwise prohibited. Answer: Maybe.

Dresden? I'm not completely familiar with all the aspects of the action, but my gut feeling is almost certainly terrorism, but problematic as to it's being officially so in a prosecutorial sense because under the rules of retaliation we have to consider whether or not it was an appropriate and proportional retaliation for the extensive and intentional V2 bombing of civilian populations in London and other English locations. So my answer here is also probably as to its being terrorism, but probably not actionable as such under international law.

So what have we proven? I think you're too hung up on the word "terrorism." And of your three examples, only My Lai potentially fits your implication that rules of war are written to favor state actors over non-state actors. Both Japan and Germany were state actors, in spades.

But I hope I have demonstrated to you that, by addressing your three examples, terrorism can be defined without necessarily prejudicing the result by sympathy to the parties. And I have to return to the question: do you favor expunging all references to terrorism in this article and every article in Wikipedia? Do you think this is NPOV or serves the reader? Is it shocking to consider that Wikipedia is ultimately a resource for the reader rather than a playground for the editor? Cecropia 06:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In answer to your edit summary, bin Laden actually did declare war against the U.S. in a TV interview in 1997. He actually used that exact phrase. Meelar 06:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

APPENDIX

Further speculation and studies of September 11, 2001 attacks:

A few key contemporary/historical terms and concerns:

- U.S. Government support of Al-Quaeda in the Balkans - U.S., Brittish, and Saudi Oil companies and Bin Laden - Anti-Israeli/American Movements (such as Black September / Abu Nidal which date back decades) - March 11, 2004 Spanish Attack - Mysterious death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone following September 11. - Significance of the language barrier in U.S. anti-terrorist intelligence. - Credible experts in related fields:

John Wolfsthal Joseph Wilson John Hamre James Woolsey Anthony Cordesman Robert Baer Rachel Bronson

Speculative research: http://whitecloud.com/wag_the_dog.htm#Did bin Laden have help from U.S. friends

I think that belongs more in the conspiracy theories section. --Rei

Please read the articles before you discount them as conspiracies. The Jean-Charles Brisard book is internationally acclaimed, and utilized heavy factual documentation as supporting evidence for reasonable speculation. This is not UFO type stuff.

Symbolic meaning of 9/11

Is the symbolic meaning of 9/11 discussed anywhere in Wikipedia? Obviously, mass killing was not the only purpose of the perpetrators. What they attacked were symbols of America's economic (WTC) and military (Pentagon) dominance (they probably also wanted to hit the White House - symbol of America's political power).
--Kpalion 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

20 hijackers?

The article says "There were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I know of no evidence that this is the case. Can this be verified? Quadell 02:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui and Ramzi Binalshibh ;) WhisperToMe 03:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you count them both, that's 21, not 20. I've seen accustations of more participants (including actions that never happened, because planes were grounded), so maybe there were 30. Or 50. Or maybe every suspected al qaida member living in the US should be a suspect, so there are at least 1,000 or so suspected hijackers. Point being that being accused of being a hijacker is not the same as evidence that there were actual plans to have 20 hijackers. Ronabop 05:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ronabop, the U.S. Government asserts that Binalshibh was at first the "20th hijacker", but could not take that title as he could not enter the U.S. on his Yemeni visa. So, they got another guy, Moussaoui, to be the "20th hijacker", but he got arrested shortly before 9/11. WhisperToMe 12:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: the U.S. Government no longer asserts that. [News24.com] The FBI asserts that Moussaoui "played no part in the 9/11 scheme and was only a minor player in al-Qaeda."

Please note: the above News24 reference does not contradict this article. Al-Qaeda had decided that Moussaoui was to be kept out due to unsuitability. Therefore, he was always a minor player in the Sep 11 story. Arno 10:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the phrase "twentieth hijacker", what I mean is, I've heard it often asserted that there were to be a fifth hijacker on the fourth plane, bringing the total to twenty. But I've never heard any support for this claim besides the tenuous "Well, there were five on the others. . ." That seems a pretty weak rationale for the dramatic assertion that there is a would-be 9/11 hijacker that got away.

(This is wholly separate from the suggestion that other planes were to be hijacked. There are unconfirmed reports that other hijackings were prevented by flight delays or the flight ban. The UK even reported that hijackers were going to crash a plane into Big Ben, but were stopped, although no evidence of this was offered.)

Zacarias Moussaoui was in contact with the 9/11 hijackers, and considers himself a member of al-Qaeda, but there is no evidence (that I know of) that he was ever slated to be a 9/11 hijacker. The Justice Department no longer contends he was ever a "twentieth hijacker".

Ramzi Binalshibh may have also been a "twentieth hijacker", but again, I know of no evidence. It seems to me equally likely that al-Qaeda planned to have six hijackers per plane, and five were prevented -- or that al-Qaeda simply wanted to have at least four per plane, and divided their resources semi-equally. I don't think "twenty" is a magic number to anyone except the pundits. Speaking of "the role of the 20th hijacker" is just speculation.

I therefore suggest that the following paragraph:

There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers. Binalshibh was meant to be the 20th, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability.

. . .be replaced with:

There are suggestions that original plans may have included additional hijackers and, perhaps, additional planes as well. Ramzi Binalshibh may initially have been selected to be a hijacker in the 9/11 operation, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

Quadell 14:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion objected to. The revelations are as reported by Yosri Fouda , who has a lot of research on Al-Qaeda. I suggest that you read "Masterminds of Terror", by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, or do some google searching (eg this page or this one).

The sources - what the terrorists said - also appear at the top of the passage , that you're disputing, as terrorist admissions. This change that you want means that you are in effect misquoting them. What the terrorists have stated to is first hand stuff. Arno 09:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we change the second sentence to be "may have been intended to be a hijacker". How you propose wording it, it sound like he may have been on the planes. Steven jones 02:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Right-o. Done. Quadell 12:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be links to our Propaganda wikipedia entry? Consider the terms "misinformation", and "disinformation". These two terms came into full bloom during and following the 911 fiasco. Given that we will not know what happened for decades if ever, we should allow for dicussion of conflicting information.

Objections to reversion

Part 1

Recently I suggested replacing one paragraph with another. A few days later, when no one had yet objected, I made the change. Afterwards, Arno objected and reverted it. The two paragraphs, before and after, are above.

As I see it, there are still inaccuracies in the paragraph as it now stands, and I think they ought to be fixed.

First of all, Arno directed me to the following fascinating article. It reveals that Binalshibh was selected to be a pilot, but that he couldn't get into the U.S. and had to be replaced. Only afterwards were the other hijackers selected. The article doesn't support the notion that "there were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I suspect the "20 highjackers" idea is an invention by the press. I don't know of any evidence that al-Qaeda considered 20 to be better than 19 or 21. So I'd recommend references to "the role of 20th hijacker" be removed.

Second, the paragraph as it now stands baldly states "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability." That doesn't seem to be the case. I know of no evidence that Moussaoui was involved in any way with 9/11. The FBI no longer asserts Moussaoui was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Why is it stated as a fact?

I'd recommend replacing the paragraph with something factual we can agree on. And I'd recommend that no one unilaterally revert it afterwards.

Here's my suggestion:

Senior al-Qaeda officials have revealed that an additional pilot, Ramzi Binalshibh, was originally intended to take part in the attacks. When he was repeatedly denied entry into the US, a replacement pilot was found. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

What does everyone think? Can this be improved?

Quadell 16:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better than what is there currently. Mdchachi 18:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is better then what is currently there but I would remove the last sentence. I think rumours should go in the 911 rumour article, not in this one. Steven jones 02:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Part 2

I say that this paragraph is wrong, period, and it's best improved by getting rid of it.

What was said originally was based on al-Jazeera interviews and what was released by US authorities.

As regards Moussaoui, the terrorists stated that he was considered as the 20th hijacker and even trained for it. He was linked to the terrorist cells that carried out the Sep 11 attacks. But he was never made part of the plot because he was considered unsuitable( too clumsy, apparently). See Chapter 9 of the book I mentioned above, or try this recent article for an account dated April 15, as opposed to the News24 article which is dated October last year. Also, try this April 14 article as a second source about the FBI and Moussaoui. They tie Moussaoui in with the Sep 11 plot, albeit dormantly. Also, try this msnbcand this jihad watch article. One hypothesis was that he was going to be part of a series of followup attacks.

At no point did I say that there were 21 hijackers. Ramzi was considered for the 20th. When this fell through, Moussaoui was considered but never included. Period.

The article also says that Khalid originally wanted to use ten planes (five each) on the US east and west coasts, but that this got cancelled very early on. The Washington Post article supports this. So do this Australian article and this one.

All this is also supported in an interrogation report that admittedly I have not seen.

Sources enough, I think, to justify my move that this whole attempt at rewording this paragraph on the grounds given was ill-advised.

On another note, you lodged your proposal during Easter , when I was away on wikivacation. I suspect that others were, too. Hence the delay in responding to the incorrect statements. Arno 08:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with the paragraph as it stands, is that it doesn't attribute its info. It sounds like the writer of the paragraph was a terrorist and knew exactly what happened. Why not add something like "According to law enforcement officials, Khalid said that..." Mdchachi 13:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno, the news pages you link to are very informative, but they don't support the claim that al-Qaeda ever specifically wanted 20 hijackers, and they don't support the claim that "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". (Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy.}

This isn't anything personal. You obviously know your stuff. But that one paragraph states as fact things that are speculation.

Can we put this to an opinion poll?

Quadell 14:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have begun to feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

Then stop doing it. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That entire "Recent Statements and Revelations" passage reports "the things that were said to be revealed in [the] interrogations of Khalid and Moussaoui " and from "an exclusive interview with al Jazeera journalist Yosro Fauda in September 2002", to quote from that passage. That was the whole point of that entire passage - to say what these revelations were, rather than to list as Gospel fact. They may not be true, maybe there are inded things missing in what but that is not what the passage says!! If you have followup revelations, or proof that disproves these statements, then I am sure that you will let me know what they are and their sources.

It was alleged. I'd prefer the article say it was alleged, rather than state an allegation as fact.

You seem constantly intent on changing what was said on those occasions, all based on one newstory, one source that has since been superseded. Where does your allegation of "speculation" come into it? Are you trying to say that these things were not said in the al-Jazeera interview or during the interrogation of Khalid and Ramzi???

No, they were said. But that doesn't make them true. Bin Laden also said he wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack. That doesn't make it true.

And this isn't my source vs. your source. The FBI maintains to this day that although Moussaoui knew some of the 9/11 hijackers, and although he was an al-Qaeda member, that he was not involved in the attacks. No one disputes that this is the FBI's position.

I am also at a loss as to your logic on one matter. You agree that Ramzi Binalshibh was supposed to be the 20th hijacker.

No, Binalshibh was supposed to be the 4th pilot. This was before the number of hijackers was decided. There was no attempt to have a 20th hijacker.

The paragraph you are so intent on changing says that the final list consisted of 19 hijackers. Yet you keep saying that this is wrong and that there was no intention to have 20 hijackers!

There are no sources that claim an intention to have 20 hijackers specifically.

You have, I presume, now changed your mind about Moussaoui's links to the Sep 11 terrorists.

This isn't about me. It's about the facts. Moussaoui was linked, in that he knew some of them. He did not, it seems, know about the 9/11 plot specifically. I'm not objecting to Moussaoui being mentioned; I'm objecting to the claim that he was considered for the "role of 20th hijacker", a role that never existed.

However, I see no practical difference between "Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy." and "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". The idea of his getting involved in followup attacks was news to me - you have at least enlightened me to that - but my sentence allows more leeway.

If there wasn't a role of 20th hijacker, then he couldn't have been considered.

Have a quickpoll? Well, that would be a last resort for me. In view of what I've written above, how necessary is it?

Arno 09:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I believe that paragraph in question is substantially inaccurate. But this is getting entirely too personal for my tastes. If other people think that paragraph could be improved or replaced, I'll leave it to someone else to bring up. I'm tired of arguing. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Is it appropriate to list what crimes these would have been had the parties committing them been states? They are clearly not states, and I don't think other articles about crimes have equivalent passages saying what kind of war crimes they would have been if the culprets had been parties to the Geneva Conventions? Appreciating the seriousness of the attack, but it does seem pretty irrelevant. Am I way off base here? Mark Richards 21:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The list is irrelevant. I suggest we remove that section and (if we feel like something is necessary) give actual legal status of the acts - American and international laws and treaties covering terrorist acts (as of September 2001).Paranoid 16:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the section. It is relevant to the context and understanding of the Acts, and, if it is ever determined that the killers were acting in any way in concert or complicity with any signatory state actor (even *cough* Saudi Arabia), they would be actionable war crimes. Why would you want to remove such incredible potential war crimes in the murder of 3,000 civilians at a time we're alleging every out-of-line act is a "war crime"? -- Cecropia | Talk 17:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Update--they are war crimes. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cecropia, leave the section. It is apparently accurate and very relevant because it points toward an alternative route that could have been taken to deal with this crime against humanity, and that the US also have an interest in maintaining a framework of international law. (as an aside Cecropia, what are you referring to by "every out-of-line act" ?) - pir 19:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I mean detainee maltreatment, though not specifically Abu Graib, which may well be individual war crimes. I am talking about a matter of scope and proportion, rather than the technical meaning of the phrase "war crime," which is actually very broad. Technically, Adolf Eichmann did not commit war crimes when he harmed German Jewish civilians, yet a prison guard who makes a POW do forced labor is. Just the nature of the thing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't war crimes.

I realize this has been discussed before, but I disagree with classifying the September 11 attacks as war crimes. In the earlier discussion, at least a mention was made of limiting the statement.

You can't have war crimes without war. The citation used in the article is too general to be applicable. If the war crimes classification has merit, you should be able to find something specific, ideally, to the attacks themselves.

Here is information from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"What does humanitarian law say about terrorism?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/256CFA98B1DCE442C1256CF6002D63F0

"Terrorist acts may occur during armed conflicts or in time of peace. As international humanitarian law applies only in situations of armed conflict, it does not regulate terrorist acts committed in peacetime."

"When is a war not a war?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/3C2914F52152E565C1256E60005C84C0

"What is the proper role of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) in the 'war on terror'? Humanitarian law applies in and to armed conflict. Thus, terrorism, and by necessary implication, counter-terrorism, are subject to humanitarian law when, and only when, those activities rise to the level of armed conflict. Otherwise, the standard bodies of domestic and international criminal and human rights laws will apply.

...

"Humanitarian law recognizes two categories of armed conflict - international and non-international. Generally, when a State resorts to force against another State (for example, when the "war on terror" involves such use of force, as in the recent U.S. and allied invasion of Afghanistan) the international law of international armed conflict applies. When the "war on terror" amounts to the use of armed force within a State, between that State and a rebel group, or between rebel groups within the State, the situation may amount to non-international armed conflict a) if hostilities rise to a certain level and/or are protracted beyond what is known as mere internal disturbances or sporadic riots, b) if parties can be defined and identified, c) if the territorial bounds of the conflict can be identified and defined, and d) if the beginning and end of the conflict can be defined and identified. Absent these defining characteristics of either international or non-international armed conflict, humanitarian law is not applicable."

Maurreen 07:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WTC 7

I removed the following: " In addition, Larry Silvertstein, who held a seven-week-old lease on One and Two World Trade Center, claimed in an interview that he, jointly with the New York Fire Department, made the decision to deliberately demolish Seven World Trade Center, also known as the Solomon Building, which he also owned, and which was then the headquarters of the crisis and disaster command center for the mayor of New York City."

While the popular suject of alternate theories concerning 9-11, this is not an accepted fact. For one, the FEMA report contradicts it. At the very least it cannot go in the article at the top as a fact. Perhaps later in a deeper discussion of both sides. Rmhermen 04:16, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."[8]

"This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower."[9]

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, stood to gain $500 million, and the federal government gave the order to destroy WTC7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 (InfoWars article). Silverstein's revelation is on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' (MP3 audio file) and a cleanup program for building 6 (MP3 audio file)."[10][11][12]

"Check out this RealVideo clip from the PBS documentary, "America Rebuilds." In it, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder on the World Trade Center complex in Manahattan, admits that WTC 7 was "pulled," that is, intentionally demolished:"[13]("UPDATE: Higher-res mpg on another server"[14])

"You can hear Silverstein say this by downloading VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3 - HERE*."[15]

"In addition, we received communications from Mr. Jeremy Baker expressing concern that WTC 7 was in fact purposely demolished by its owner Larry Silverstein at 5:20 p.m. on 911. As evidence, Mr. Baker provides a PBS documentary that was aired on September 2002 titled "America Rebuilds". In the documentary Larry Silverstein is heard saying, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.""[16]

"Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?"[17]

I'm curious. What makes you say that it's not an established fact? FEMA disagrees? Larry Silverstein said he demolished his own building. If FEMA disagrees perhaps they can explain why Larry Silverstein lied as well. Is Larry Silverstein a liar? Is that your contention? That the FEMA investigation overrules Larry Silverstein's recollections from that day? Energybone 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"It is now known that this fire was fuelled by 28,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored underneath the building. Ironically, this fuel was intended to power the emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."[18]

"The dispute focused on the Seven World Trade Center site investigation, where above-ground diesel tanks were considered a possible source of the raging fire that destroyed the building. The tanks were installed four years ago, over the city Fire Department's objections, to provide emergency power to former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's doomed emergency command center on the 23rd floor."[19]

"The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include[20]:

bullet and bomb resistant windows
an independent secure air and water supply
the ability to withstand winds of 160 MPH"

"These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor."[21][22]

Are you still unwilling to accept the facts? Energybone 05:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing is to say who says who. That way, we can decide who is telling the truth for ourselves. :) WhisperToMe 05:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy."[23]

"Larry Silverstein purchased a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease of the World Trade Center in July 2001, along with the above mentioned partner Westfield America for the shopping parts. Silverstein took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by terrorist attacks."[24]

"Silverstein, who took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by a terrorist attack, said a memorial at the site to the victims of the attack "is necessary and totally appropriate.”"[25]

"The conditional settlement ends a two-year dispute between the companies and allows site reconstruction to proceed without lengthy delays. GMAC lent $563 million to the part-owner of the World Trade Center seven weeks before the terrorist attacks destroyed New York's twin towers."[26]

"Late last year, General Motors Corp.'s giant lending arm, GMAC settled a lawsuit it filed against Silverstein and the site's owner, seeking repayment of the $563 million it lent to the World Trade Center's owners just seven weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."[27]

There certainly seems to be a broad and deep coalition of people who concertedly perpetrate this hoax, because these "unaccepted facts" have been reported again, and again, and now yet again here, again and again and again. How much proof is required to get facts into an entry? At what point do they cease being facts and become UNDENIABLE FACTS? Energybone 06:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If a FEMA report conflicts, and that's a United States governmental agency we are talking about here, we HAVE to do a X said this, Y said this scenario. WhisperToMe 06:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with citing the FEMA report that conflicts with Larry Silverstein's own statements, particularly his admission that he had the building demolished. Since he is the one who ordered the demolition, I think it's safe to say he's a more reliable source than the FEMA-come-latelies who were trying to put the pieces back together after Larry Silverstein orders those pieces taken apart. It's probably still in there somewhere, that entry is enormous and needs a good housecleaning. There's no reason for it to be that huge. Energybone 06:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The only fact cited in this lengthy collection of blog quotes etc. is that they say a PBS documentary says that Silverstone said that he let WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally. So, in the article it could be stated that "numerous web sites and blogs cite a PBS documentary called "America rebuild" in which WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstone is said to state that he let the WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally" (or something similar). Everything else wouldn't be fact, but opinion-presented-as-fact accoding to our NPOV policy. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 18:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you need to back up and check your facts. The documentary appeared on PBS, and Larry Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE AS YOU ERRONEOUSLY STATE) plainly stated that he had the building demolished. If you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion then you need to take some remedial English lessons. Energybone 18:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would rather link to the PBS documentary itself. WhisperToMe 18:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tillwe, why do you and Rheanurmanurmnherm keep taking out these facts and replacing them with the erroneous statement that the intentional demolition of Seven World Trade Center is a THEORY? It's clearly NOT a theory, it's an easily verifiable fact, and a fact Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE) admits publically, as if he's some sort of hero for demolishing the building. Energybone 18:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the FEMA report is contradictory to Silverstein's claims, then the claims should be called a "claim". They can be mentioned, yes, but only as what Silverstein says. WhisperToMe 21:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to anywhere were Silverstein claims he had the building "demolished". Any quote from Silverstein saying "demolished"? Anywhere? Rmhermen 21:04, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

No web links maintained by PBS do, but this video may: http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/ - It is temporairly out of stock. WhisperToMe 21:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of 7WTC

The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters. 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc. If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do. In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center." Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --Golbez 04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI

Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.

If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.

But MEMRI? Come on, people.

--68.110.71.34 18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. WhisperToMe 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at [28]. HTH, KeithTyler

If You Were President on 9/11?

Something I wonder about is how other, ordinary Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11? Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit. But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11. My response would have been Biblical in proportions. It would have been the stuff of legends. Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now. Some nations would probably only be a memory. And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions. That's how mad I was on September 11th. It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position. You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes. What would you have done?

JesseG 02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. WhisperToMe 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. DJ Clayworth 15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric Article Pieces

I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.

Examples:

Earlier revelations
... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S. & the majority of the U.N. at this time.

Effects
...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq & the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners.

Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US & it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US & Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act. Duemellon

I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". WhisperToMe 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --Duemellon 12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV. I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment. Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. Yitzhak 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emotional & perspective response

I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event & perspectives at the time.

I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.

Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.

Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.

A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).

I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.

I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? Miss Puffskein 04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article's last paragraph

Hi,

The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.

I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion & perspective on the events & their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --Duemellon 12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) Quadell (talk) 12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --Duemellon 14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - Tεx τ urε 18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning something) while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis were Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the "The Israelis done it!" variety. Quadell (talk) 19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

About the link to 911truth.org

Their onsite Editorial policy and disclaimer says enough, if you ask me:

"We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best. - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur. - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion. - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."

It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe 17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with WhisperToMe, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)

For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And please sign comments with four tildes! WhisperToMe 23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. Quadell (talk) 02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some OverGeneralization

This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.

While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim.
--KeithTyler 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). Rmhermen 04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe

WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --Golbez 06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... WhisperToMe 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nope, I didn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=5536845&oldid=5536701

Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. WhisperToMe 23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --Golbez 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida

195.7.55.146, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. Quadell (talk) 16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not - 195.7.55.146

august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures

What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for the august 6th briefing can be found here. Bontenbal 08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Learning from the September 11 Attacks By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001 With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.

President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).

President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."

But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.

In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.

In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.

But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.

Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)

--- Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. WhisperToMe 21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War

User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. WhisperToMe 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period. Therefore its an important piece of information which puts the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--Xed 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. WhisperToMe 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Loweeel 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The war was going on at the same time--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. WhisperToMe 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds nothing to the article. - Tεx τ urε 22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. WhisperToMe 22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --Cantus 23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into every entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another... Wetman 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added him to the RFC >.< WhisperToMe 23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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: [29], [30], [31], [32]. The particular reference I found was to a celebration in London on Sep 11 2004 [33], 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. 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=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=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. ;) WhisperToMe 19:48, 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 was—for the first time ever—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 — 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. 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_timeline&theme=coverup&startpos=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.Alberuni 05:07, 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. Alberuni 20:50, 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. 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." [34] Alberuni 15:53, 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. 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? Alberuni 15:53, 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. 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 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. Alberuni 15:53, 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!. Matt Stan 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you think that bin Laden family members were admitted to the USA, allowed todonate 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. Alberuni 14:43, 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!" 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. [35] 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? Alberuni 21:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

www.911truth.org

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

911Truth.org is a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup.
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. Alberuni 21:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"World Trade Center attacks"

Why is this page being moved now? I don't recall a poll to move this back... WhisperToMe 01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a problem? It looks like a redirect from WTC attacks with no change in content here. Alberuni 01:27, 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. WhisperToMe 01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the title itself, September 11 consisted of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania incidents. WhisperToMe 01:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing comma

I'm going to move this article to put in the comma missing after "2001" in the title. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there is no missing comma 'September 11, 2001, attacks' just looks naff and silly. There's also no grammatical rule that allows for a comma there (September 11 2001 is essentially an adjective here - you don't put commas between adjectives and their nouns!). Personally I'd prefer no comma in the title. Jongarrettuk 13:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)