Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Taliban’s Top Spokesman Claims ‘al Qaeda Was NOT Perpetrator’ of 9/11 Attacks

The Taliban’s top spokesperson claims al Qaeda was not the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks – the single deadliest terrorist attack in human history.

“It is not known who is behind that,” Suhail Shaheen told CBS News in an interview this week. “If there is proof given to us, we are ready to try him.” 
Msn.com reports: The denial of al Qaeda’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks has a long history in Afghanistan and across the political spectrum there, with conspiracy theories flourishing just as they have in much of the world.
These ideas are not limited to groups like the Taliban, which espouses a fundamentalist view of Islamism that shares similarities with al Qaeda’s worldview: during an interview with Al Jazeera in 2015, former U.S.-backed Afghan president Hamid Karzai said it was a “fact” that 9/11 had not been plotted in Afghanistan and suggested that al Qaeda was a “myth.”
However, Shaheen’s denial of al Qaeda’s involvement in the attacks comes at the start of renewed peace talks where the Taliban’s relationship with the group and its continued presence in Afghanistan are central. The United States has long demanded that the Taliban refuse to let al Qaeda operate in areas it controls, but found the group unwilling to fully cut ties with an old ally.
Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, moved to Afghanistan in 1996 as it came under the rule of the Taliban. Bin Laden, a wealthy founder of al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia, had previously fought in the Soviet-Afghan war in the previous decades along with the mujahideen fighters who would later form the Taliban.
Though Bin Laden initially distanced himself from 9/11 the attacks, in 2004 he released a video statement that claimed responsibility and suggested al Qaeda was motivated to strike the United States again. From the start, the Taliban’s own public statements on the attacks that targeted New York and Washington were similarly muddled.
In the years before September 2001, Taliban representatives had met with U.S. officials to discuss whether they could find an agreeable way to hand over Bin Laden, who had been wanted in connection with bombings against American interests in the Persian Gulf and Africa. Immediately after 9/11, the Taliban’s foreign minister denounced the attacks and said Afghanistan did not know who was behind them.
Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s leader, would go on to reject American demands to hand over Bin Laden, instead calling for evidence of bin Laden’s role in the attacks and suggesting the Taliban would only hand him over to a neutral third party.
“No. We cannot do that,” Omar said during an interview with Voice of America in Sept. 2001 when asked if Afghanistan could hand over Bin Laden. “If we did, it means we are not Muslims… that Islam is finished.”
The Taliban continued to distance themselves from the attacks for years after U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, but would not condemn al Qaeda as the perpetrators. Even the death of Bin Laden in 2011 and Omar in 2013 did not end the ambiguous view of al Qaeda’s 9/11 role: as recently as this July, the Taliban released a video that blamed the 9/11 on the United States’ “interventionist policies and not our doing.”
Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been almost totally overshadowed by other extremist groups. The Taliban emerged as a more structured insurgency after the invasion and a local affiliate of the Islamic State has gained strength and carried out deadly attacks in Kabul.
But al Qaeda is not necessarily totally defeated. During an appearance at an event hosted by The Washington Post in December, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said the group and others like it could reconstitute and plan events like 9/11 again if the United States eased pressure.
With peace talks progressing, some key figures in Washington argue that the Taliban could not be trusted to control al Qaeda, even if they promised to.
“I hope President Trump and his team make sound and sustainable decisions about radical Islamist threats emanating from Afghanistan — the place where 9/11 originated,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement last week.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018


Jerusalem Post

The former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia said in an interview this week that following 9/11, Saudi King Salman had insisted to him that the Mossad was responsible for the attacks.

“One of my first calls was with then-governor of Riyadh... Prince Salman, who is now the king. His response was very emphatic [that] this could not have been Saudis, we couldn’t possibly have done this,” former envoy Robert Jordan said on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.

“I got the same thing from the minister of interior, Prince [Mohammed bin] Nayef,” Jordan continued. “I finally had to bring a CIA briefer out and show some of these princes some compelling evidence that it, indeed, was Saudis who were the hijackers.”

Jordan went on to say that he saw the Saudis as being in denial about the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from their country.

The Saudis eventually altered their position, he said, after al-Qaida bombed three Western housing compounds in May 2003.

“At that point, Crown Prince Abdullah said to me that he understood that they had a problem, that they would take immediate action to capture or kill the attackers and to treat just as harshly anyone who gave them comfort or aid or even tried to justify what they did,” said the former ambassador.

In his new book, Desert Diplomat: Inside Saudi Arabia Following 9/11, Jordan writes that the Palestinian issue was often a “source of Saudi anger directed at me.”

“America should be able to resolve this, they told me.

After all, the United States was omnipotent. All Washington had to do was snap its fingers and Israel would come to heel, do whatever we commanded it to do,” he says in the book.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Mobilizing the Muslim community for false flag awareness

Muslims are the biggest victims of false flag operations. According to the Jewish Australian physician Gideon Polya, an expert on preventable mortality:

"About 60 Americans have been killed by terrorists in America since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed 3,000 mostly American people (one would hope that the governments of non-American victims of 9-11 would conduct their own expert inquiries into this atrocity – indeed failure to do so is evidence of depraved indifference).  In stark contrast, 32 million Muslims have been killed by violence (5 million) or through deprivation (27 million) in the subsequent Zionist-promoted US War on Muslims (aka the US War on Terror)." (source)

Here at Muslims for 9/11 truth we support the long list of notable Muslims who have followed the tradition of the prophets and spoken truths that are often unpopular and unwelcome. Among those who have spoken truth to power:

Anisa Abd el Fattah, Muhammad Abdullah, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nafeez Ahmed, Taha Jabir AlalwaniMD Alam, M. Atta (father of the real Mohamed Atta not the Hebrew-speaking imposter), Anwar al-Awlaki, Ghayur AyubOmar al-Bashir, Mirza Aslam Beg, Osama Bin LadenNaveed ButtAhmet Davutoglu, A.K. "Khalil" DewdneyYusuf EstesLouis Farrakhan, Karin FriedemannMelih Gokcek, Gen. Hamid GulZaid Hamid, Mohammed Heikal,  Terry HoldbrooksImran Hosein, Zahir Ibrahim, "Col. Imam," Jamat-e-IslamiMujahid Kamran, Hamid Karzai, Kaasem KhaleelAsif M. Khan, Faiz Khan,  Iftekar Khan, Gen. Muhammad KhilfMohammad KowsariRamzi Mamdouh,  Enver MasudKamron Memon, Mahathir MohamadSaman MohammadiMohamed Morsi, Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, Feroze Mithiborwala, Heidar MoslehiZabihullah Mujahid, Ali Muhammed al-MujawarImam Musa, Riyad Nadwi, Mohammad NaseemCrown Prince NayefAhmad Reza Pourdastan, Muammar QaddafiYusuf al-Qaradawi,  Yvonne Ridley, William RodriguezFarouk ShamiKatib al-Shammari, Noha al-Sharnoubi\, Aafia Siddiqui, Salah SoltanAbdul-Baki Todashevthe Tsarnaev family, Salam al-Marayati, Anab Whitehouse, Moeen Yaseen, Harun YahyahKhalid Yasin, Syed ZaidiAsif Ali Zardari...

...not to mention the rising generation of Russian Muslims, the Egyptian people99% of British Muslims, the majority of Muslims in several Middle Eastern countries, the Lok Janshakti Party of 
India, the people of Yemen, 97% of Pakistani Muslims, and 60% of American Muslims...

No wonder the FBI had to shut down key Muslim websites in the days leading up to 9/11, to make sure the victims of the coming false flag could not speak out.

The War on Islam must end. Truth persists, falsehood perishes. The time to act is now.

Egyptian state media claims Isis is 'made up' and 9/11 was carried out by West to justify war on terror


A columnist for a state-run newspaper in Egypt has suggested the US invented Isis and set up the 9/11 attacks to justify its military interventions in the Middle East.
“Is it possible to believe the official version, from the US government, of the events of 11 September 2001?” wrote journalist Noha Al-Sharnoubi in Al-Ahram, a major national Egyptian newspaper owned by the government.
Ms Al-Sharnoubi said the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks could have been premeditated to "justify the war on terror” in her column, published on 23 August.
Ms Al-Sharnoubi does not appear to shy away from controversial subjects. Her weekly column has recently discussed issues such as burkini bans, French military involvement in Libya and whether it is acceptable to sacrifice chickens, duck and geese.

According to an English translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Ms Al-Sharnoubi wrote: “Is it a coincidence that the commanders of the September 11 attack trained at American flight schools?”
“Is it conceivable that four hijacked planes flew around so freely, penetrated US airspace and hit the towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon one by one, with an interval of 15 minutes and 30 minutes between the attacks," she added. 
"All this took place without the Americans targeting the planes and downing them, despite all their intelligence, satellites and radars?
“Or was the whole thing planned [in advance] in order to justify the war on terror, the [first] episode of which [later] began in Iraq?”

Ms Al-Sharnoubi also questioned the contents of Isis propaganda videos, suggesting the militant group could be “another story that was prepared in advance [by the West] to justify the devastation, partitioning and occupation” of Middle Eastern countries.

“Does it make sense that most Isis members are foreigners [i.e., Western nationals], unless ISIS is another story that was prepared in advance [by the West] to justify the devastation, partitioning and occupation [of countries] that is taking place and will continue to take place in the Middle East?” she wrote, according to Memri.
“Those who are murdered and [then] accused of perpetrating terror attacks in the West – are they the real culprits?
"[Perhaps Western] intelligence elements are behind the attacks and the bombings, and later Muslim citizens are arrested and killed and simply accused of perpetrating [the attacks] in order to justify what is happening in the Arab countries in the name of the war on terror, and in order to justify the plan to persecute the Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and expel them? Have we really been deceived, and continue to be deceived, to such an extent?!” 
Egypt is listed as number 159 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index.
According to the report, “journalists are obliged on national security grounds to report only the official version of ‘terrorist’ attacks” under an anti-terrorism law passed in 2015.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Sheikh Khalid Yasin on 9/11 controlled demolition

From "Khalid Yasin: The New Voice of Islam?" on "Nine's Sunday"

SARAH FERGUSON: And he’s waded right into one of the most divisive issues between the Muslim community and the Federal Government — September 11.

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: There has been no evidence that has surfaced, no bona fide irrevocable, irrefutable evidence that had been surfaced that showed that there is a group called al-Qa’ida that did the September 11 bombings. I’m of the opinion there was a rogue operation that took place. Now, to go beyond that would say I would have to have some evidence, which I don’t.

 SARAH FERGUSON: But he does go beyond it.

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: An operation that took place with the complicity of some very sophisticated entities other than some Middle Eastern guys on an airplane or being orchestrated by someone in a cave in Iraq. 

SARAH FERGUSON: What do you mean by “sophisticated entities”?

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: Sophisticated entities means entities who themselves were governmentally instructed, equipped, motivated. We now know that the way that the World Trade Center fell the way that those buildings fell — they fell from internal explosive charges, the same way it’s done in a construction site.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

96% of British Muslims reject official story of 9/11

Global Research, December 29, 2016

A recent poll reveals that a maximum of 4% of British Muslims believe the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks. This is one of the strongest rejections of that story ever recorded. The sponsors of the poll have done their best to link these poll results to extremism and terrorism, but the data offer no support for this interpretation.  
The poll was released as both a set of data and an interpretative report on December 2, 2016. [1] The sponsor of the poll was British think tank, Policy Exchange, which had the polling company ICM carry out the survey. Policy Exchange, regarded as a highly influential institution, is known for its relationship to the Conservative Party. The current Chair of its Board of Trustees is well known neo-conservative, David Frum. Policy Exchange has been described by a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain as an “anti-Muslim organization,” a useful observation for readers puzzled by the think tank’s interpretation of the poll.
The question in the poll that most directly addresses the events of September 11, 2001 is: “Who do you think was responsible for 9/11?” Five possible responses are listed, with results as follows (Report, p. 75; data set, p. 802):
Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists4%
The American Government31%
Don’t know52%

The belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks is an essential component of belief in the official narrative of 9/11. If only 4% regard Al-Qaeda as responsible, then no more than 4% accept the official narrative.
The authors of the interpretive report on the poll (among whom, sadly, is Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood) attempt to make British Muslim respondents look isolated and peculiar for their views on 9/11. But, of course, Muslim populations have been critical of the official account of 9/11 for years.
In 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org polled over 16,000 people in 17 countries, five of which had a majority Muslim population. Of the total Muslim population represented in the survey (399.6 million people in 2008), only 21.2% assigned guilt to Al-Qaeda. [2]
In 2011 the Pew Research Group surveyed eight Muslim populations. Of the total Muslim population represented (588.2 million in 2011), 17% assigned guilt to Arabs (see endnote 2).
In short, a very modest percentage of Muslims around the world has accepted the official story. Knowing this makes the recent results for British Muslims look less peculiar. It is true, however, that these recent results show an even greater scepticism than usual among Muslims, and this is fascinating given the location of this Muslim population in the midst of a country where both government and mainstream media routinely recite the official story.
The interpreters of the recent poll support their aim of making British Muslims look peculiar by contrasting their responses to those of a control group included in the ICM survey. This group of about 2000 UK citizens, intended to represent the British population as whole, responded to the above question as follows (Report, p. 76; data set, final page):
Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists71%
The American Government10%
Don’t know16%
The contrast between 71% and 4% fingering “Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists” is, indeed, dramatic. But what Policy Exchange does not tell us is that, if British Muslims are not representative of world opinion, neither is this control group.
The 2008 17-country survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org indicated that only 39% of the total population represented in the survey (2543.2 million people in 2008) said that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. These results contrast sharply with ICM’s control group. They also let us know that in 2008 a maximum of 39% of the surveyed population, which I believe to have been representative of the population of the world as a whole, supported the official narrative of 9/11 (see endnote 2).
Determined to make British Muslims look not only peculiar but dangerous, Policy Exchange has even engaged in practices that are clearly deceptive in its poll and in its discussion of the poll results.
The authors of the poll report say that some Muslim respondents, within the focus groups held in various locations in the UK, repeated the erroneous claim that no Jews died in the Twin Towers. The authors comment that this is an example of a “belief in conspiracies rooted in anti-Semitic tropes” and they explain that this claim is meant to be a sign that Jews “had foreknowledge of the attack–and were therefore implicated in the crime” (Report, p. 77)
The attempt to criminalize 9/11 dissent, in the UK and elsewhere, has depended in large part on the idea that everyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11 says “the Jews did it.” This allows 9/11 dissent to be regarded as a form of anti-Semitism and attacked by states with all relevant legal apparatus. The notion that 9/11 dissenters are racists plays into the criminalization effort much better, for example, than the notion that 9/11 dissenters are troubled by violations of the laws of physics in the official narrative.
The authors are correct when they say that the claim that no Jews died in the Towers is false. But they do not attempt to quantify this result. How many Muslims referred to this claim? In the only relevant part of the survey that is quantified respondents chose the US government as responsible for the attacks far more often than they chose “Jews.”
And what, precisely, does “Jews” mean in this poll? This option is one of five offered to respondents. Muslims did not choose the wording of this option: the designers of the poll did. To whom is the term pointing? The state of Israel? A group of high-ranking neo-conservative state officials in the US? Jewish teenagers in Montreal? We are not told.
The 2008 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org asked an open-ended question (“Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”) and established its categories on the basis of responses given. It ended up with a category called “Israel.” This option has the virtue of clarity–it also has the virtue of plausibility, given the evidence of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. [3] But perhaps “Jews” is useful for Policy Exchange precisely because it is not clear? Its generality and vagueness are useful for making the charge of anti-Semitism. Our suspicions about Policy Exchange’s motives are strengthened when we find that the Policy Exchange interpreters use the expression “the Jews” repeatedly in their discussion of poll results. That is, they say 7% of British Muslims blame the 9/11 events on “the Jews” (Report, pp. 9, 75, 77, 86). In this way they imply that the blame is cast on all Jews, on Jews as a collectivity. This is straight misrepresentation. The question in the poll says nothing about “the Jews.”
Conspiracy theory and extremism
In the poll British Muslims were asked this question (data set, p. 767):
From time to time we all come across so-called ‘conspiracy theories,’ which supposedly explain events in a different way to commonly held beliefs. You may have seen or heard about conspiracy theories about, for example, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.
(Further sub-questions then ask about other aspects of belief in “conspiracy theories.”)
Now, the so-called War on Terror utilizes several powerful and slippery terms. “Conspiracy theory” and “extremism” are two of them. Both of these terms are used in the poll, yet neither of them is defined. This shows the extent to which the poll violates basic principles of public polling and veers into propaganda and entrapment.
About the only things clear in the above question are that “conspiracy theories,” whatever they may be, are bad; that extremism, whatever it may be, is also bad; and that conspiracy theories may be connected to extremism. So it is not surprising that many respondents chose to steer clear of these menacing notions: 40% agreed with the statement that extremists dupe Muslims into conspiracy theories.
How frustrated the Policy Exchange interpreters must have been when, having achieved this result, they found that their most despised “conspiracy theory,” the one about 9/11, was strongly supported by respondents! Unwilling to consider the possibility that many Muslims support the claim of US government responsibility because they think it is the hypothesis best supported by evidence, and determined to draw links between 9/11 dissent and “extremism,” the Policy Exchange authors say (Report, p. 80):
In considering the importance of this apparent readiness to see the world through a lens of conspiracy, it is worth noting how far these theories cast Muslims as the victims of nefarious intrigue. This is crucial given the extent to which radical Islamist groups feed on narratives that place a sense of Muslim victimhood at their core. Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS portray the world as divided between Islam and ‘unbelievers’, with ‘the West’ held up as the primary manifestation of the latter. In that context, they insist that Muslims face an existential threat from the West, which demands a response – and it is this narrative, which is used to justify acts of violence and terrorism across the globe.
The argument seems to go like this: Muslim terrorist groups undertake violent acts because they think Muslims are under deadly assault from the West; the belief that Muslims are under assault is not rational but is an example of victim mentality and political paranoia; the delusional 9/11 “conspiracy theory” supports this irrational belief that Muslims are under assault from the West; therefore, the 9/11 conspiracy theory supports violence and terrorism.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the international political scene has been dominated since 9/11 by a series of extremely violent assaults by the United States and its allies on Muslim countries. Muslims killed, wounded and left homeless are in the millions. Moreover, we know perfectly well that those attacked have been “the victims of nefarious intrigue.” Is Policy Exchange really unaware of the Downing Street memo, for example, which shows high-level members of the British government, including the Prime Minister, meeting to make a secret plan to support what they acknowledge is an illegal assault on Iraq?
And if the belief that Muslims are under attack is a true belief, what is irrational or immoral about saying that this demands a response from Muslims? There is no reason the response need be violent, and British Muslims clearly do not want it to be violent. The survey actually shows that British Muslims are less sympathetic to terrorism and political violence than the control group representing the general population (Report, p. 8). In other words, this 2016 poll shows that British Muslims reject both terrorism and the official story of 9/11 and see no contradiction in this double rejection.
The real goals of Policy Exchange and those in the British government that the think tank supports begin to become clear when we ponder the wording employed in the conspiracy theory question:
Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.
Who are these extremists? The question implies they are not Muslims. Are they members of the 9/11 truth movement? Given that 9/11 dissent is the only “conspiracy theory” given prominence in this poll, who else could be meant?
If it seems absurd that this non-violent social movement should be called “extremist,” we must remember that for some years now the criminalization of 9/11 dissent has been a goal of high-level actors in the British government. Many of us living outside the UK first became aware of this when we listened to then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2014. In that speech he referred with a show of indignation to the claims “that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.” He said that these ideas were connected to “extremism” and that his government intended to take on all forms of extremism, including “non-violent extremism.”
Mr. Cameron continued to pursue this theme after his UN speech. In a July 2015 speech on extremism in Birmingham, for example, he repeated his 9/11 and 7/7 examples and said that in taking on extremism the government would need to “take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories.” He reiterated his determination to “tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent.”
The decision to target “non-violent extremism” had, in fact, already been British government strategy for some years, having been made part of the controversial “Prevent” strategy for countering terrorism. But Cameron was intent on integrating “conspiracy theories” into this target.
There is little doubt that Policy Exchange, which openly supports the Prevent strategy in its discussion of the recent poll (Report, p. 10), wishes both to keep British Muslims on a tight leash and to discredit the global 9/11 truth movement.
Yet, in the face of these aims, the poll responses stubbornly remain. They indicate that British Muslims are aware of major empirical claims made by the 9/11 truth movement (see focus group quotations, Report, p. 76) and they also indicate that respondents distrust mainstream media (Report, pp. 80 ff.).
Here is an interpretation of the poll that is at odds with the Policy Exchange interpretation: the official narrative of 9/11, which has been a minority position among the world’s people for years, is in increasing trouble, fed by growing scepticism toward mainstream media, increasing influence from the movement for 9/11 dissent, and a courageous willingness– demonstrated in this poll by British Muslims–to think independently of Western mainstream ideologues and propagandists.
[1] “What Muslims Want:” A survey of British Muslims by ICM on behalf of Policy Exchange. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.  
Unsettled Belonging: A survey of Britain’s Muslim communities. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.
[2] All figures relating to the 2008 and 2011 polls have been arrived at by using data from the polls themselves in combination with country population data for 2008 and 2011 from the Population Reference Bureau.
[3] Examples of Israeli foreknowledge are referenced on pp. 151-153 of my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy (Clarity Press, 2014). Another well-known example is the warning received two hours in advance of the attacks by employees of the Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo. See “Odigo says workers were warned of attack,” Haaretz, Sept. 26, 2001; “Odigo clarifies attack messages,” Haaretz, Sept. 28, 2001; “Instant messages to Israel warned of WTC attack,” Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2001; “Agents following suspects’ lengthy electronic trail–web of connections used to plan attack,” Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2001.