Can American Muslims Talk About 9/11?

Terrific article here by Kamron Memon of Muslims for a Safe America. I'll be inviting Kamron on my radio show.
-KB

Muslim opinion silenced by the Zionist-dominated media

Can American Muslims Talk About 9/11?

10 Sep, 2011 Debates About Domestic Security, Debates About Foreign Policy, Debates About Religion And Identity

While many Americans of various faiths have opposed the U.S. government’s domestic and international “War on Terror,” American Muslims who have expressed their criticisms and doubts about these policies have often had their loyalty questioned.

Many Americans wonder why a large number of American Muslims oppose monitoring mosques and Muslim charities, phone wiretapping and airport profiling. Is it because American Muslims are unwilling to tolerate any personal inconvenience or intrusion on their privacy, even if it makes the country safer? Is it because American Muslims sympathize with terrorists, and they don’t want terror plots disrupted?

And many Americans wonder why many American Muslims opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it because American Muslims put the safety of their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq over the safety of their fellow Americans here at home? Is it because American Muslims want al-Qaeda to have bases it can use to strike America again?

It’s true that American Muslims care about their privacy and about Muslims overseas. But it’s also true that they don’t want to see America attacked, because America has given them freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the opportunity to make a living and take care of their families. In addition, the safety of American Muslims is intertwined with the safety of their American neighbors; American Muslims don’t want their families and friends to be blown up, which would happen if there are future attacks in the US. Furthermore, they don’t want to be victims of a backlash (discrimination, hate crimes, and restrictions on civil liberties), which would certainly follow future attacks in the US.

So why do so many American Muslims oppose U.S. government policies described as preventive measures against attacks on the US by perpretators portrayed as Muslims?

It’s simple. Many Muslims in America don’t believe that any Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that 60 percent of Muslims in America are not convinced that Arabs were involved in 9/11; 40 percent do believe Arabs were involved. Pew confirmed the findings of a poll, conducted on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, at the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention, which found that 62 percent of American Muslims are not convinced that Muslims were involved in 9/11; 38 percent do believe Muslims were involved. A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America found that 66% are not convinced that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks; 34% said Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The poll at the ISNA convention also showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that al-Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America. (And the poll showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that Muslims committed the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London.)

Many also believe that alleged plots discovered since 9/11 were set-ups by government informants, entrapping Muslims who posed no real threat to America. For example, skeptical Muslims cite the case of Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was found guilty of conspiring to blow up a NY subway station. Siraj claimed that he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was being paid by the NYPD. Siraj said the informant suggested the plot and incited him to act by showing him pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated and by saying he had received a fatwa allowing Muslims to kill American troops. Wary Muslims also cite the case of Hamid Hayat, who was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Hayat claimed he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Naseem Khan, who was being paid by the federal government. The informant encouraged Hayat to talk about fighting America, encouraged Hayat to attend a terrorist training camp, and cursed at Hayat when Hayat said he hadn’t yet attended the camp.

If Muslims weren’t involved in 9/11 or other plots, many American Muslims argue, there’s no need for the government to watch mosques, wiretap Muslim calls, or profile Muslims at airports. There’s no need for the government to torture alleged Muslim terrorists. And there was no need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pew study found that 74 percent of Muslims in America don’t believe America’s “War on Terror” is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. The poll at the ISNA convention showed that 68 percent of American Muslims believe the American government is at war with the religion of Islam.

American Muslims hesitate to publicly discuss their views regarding what really happened on 9/11, because they fear being further isolated and marginalized; after all, mainstream media and political leaders tend to mock anyone who questions the official 9/11 story. American Muslims also fear the government will investigate them if they speak out. (Pew found most Muslims in America say life has become more difficult for their community since 9/11, and most believe the government singles out Muslims for scrutiny.)

In private discussions in mosques and Muslim homes, American Muslims often argue that no “real Muslim” would have carried out such attacks against civilians. Furthermore, they say, the 19 young Muslims accused of being the hijackers could not have pulled it off. They could not have snuck knives onto four planes, successfully hijacked four planes using just those knives, and then flown three of the planes — unchallenged by US air defenses — into three buildings including the military headquarters of the US. Many American Muslims believe someone else, someone better connected, hijacked the planes, or that the planes were crashed into buildings by remote control. They also believe the World Trade Center was ultimately brought down by explosives.

The poll at the ISNA convention showed that most American Muslims believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur. The poll also found American Muslims almost evenly divided about whether the US government actually organized the 9/11 attacks, and also about whether the tapes of Osama bin Laden — claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks — are real or fake.

Angered by the American government’s perceived political and religious hostility towards Islam and Muslims before and after 9/11, skeptical American Muslims believe the government allowed 9/11 (or orchestrated 9/11) to justify greater domestic control over Muslims and invasions of Muslim countries.

This belief that the US government framed Muslims on 9/11 in order to justify further oppression of Muslims (including shutting down major American Muslim charities which used to benefit the poor in the Muslim world, and high-profile prosecutions of Muslims like Captain James Yusuf Yee who was wrongly accused of spying), creates significant tension and depression in the American Muslim community at the grassroots.

While the general public has never been polled about whether Muslims were involved in the attacks, many Americans have questions about 9/11. A 2004 Zogby International poll showed that 49 percent of New York City residents (whose city was attacked on 9/11) and 49 percent of New York State residents believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur.

A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that the US government and the 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence about 9/11, and 45 percent of Americans want Congress to re-investigate the attacks and whether any US government officials allowed the attacks. Ironically, few American Muslims are actively involved in the growing, self-proclaimed “9/11 Truth Movement.”

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll showed that thirty-six percent of Americans believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

Does it matter that so many American Muslims, and other Americans, have such basic questions about such a significant event? Should the rest of the country care?

Our country generally marginalizes conspiracy theorists who reject the official story about any national tragedy, like the assassination of JFK.

So should America just write most American Muslims off as a bunch of kooks?

That would be risky.

After all, American Muslims are an important community when it comes to the “War on Terror.” Government officials often speak about the need for American Muslims to monitor their community and mosques for suspicious activity. And American Muslims can serve as an important bridge between America and the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism is growing. So it’s in America’s interest for American Muslims to feel like they are part of the American family, rather than outsiders.

But is there any common ground between American Muslims and other Americans on security issues? Is there any reason to think that American Muslims might be inclined to help protect America? Or are American Muslims innately hostile to America for religious and political reasons? Pew found that 61 percent of Muslims in America are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the US, and 76 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism around the world. In addition, the poll at the ISNA convention found that the vast majority of American Muslims oppose attacks within the US, and they would report plots if they learned about them.

If these American Muslims had believed that some Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if they had believed that there are some Muslims who continue to pose a genuine threat to everyone in America (including a threat to American Muslims), they may have actively supported some domestic and international security efforts after 9/11.

To bridge the gap between American Muslims and other Americans, Muslim organizations (local mosques as well as national organizations) around the country can provide public forums encouraging American Muslims to openly discuss 9/11. Thus far, these organizations — concerned about political correctness and fearful of government investigations of those who take unpopular views — haven’t facilitated such discussions.

Why would American Muslim groups benefit from hosting such discussions? Depending on these Muslim organizations’ perspectives, such discussions would either help American Muslims understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11, or such discussions would help the rest of America understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11. Such discussions would also be good for the mental health of many American Muslims, who keep their tensions hidden.

Of course, fearful American Muslim organizations will not take these steps unless the mainstream media and political leaders permit a safe space for discussion about these issues without marginalizing doubters as “kooks” or investigating them. The mainstream needs to “legitimize” the discussion for it to occur.

So what would these discussions, facilitated by Muslim institutions, involve? The same thing that segments of the country have already been discussing since 9/11.

For one thing, American Muslims (like many other Americans) need a history lesson. Many American Muslims are not well informed about the history of al-Qaeda and various attacks and plots around the world before 9/11. They don’t know about statements issued by al-Qaeda listing its grievances regarding American foreign policy. Nor are they familiar with the violent history of “jihadis” like Ayman al-Zawahiri. Many American Muslims had never heard of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Ladin, or Zawahiri before 9/11. So it looked to many American Muslims like 9/11 came out of the blue, and it looked to many American Muslims like the US government had simply created a Muslim bogeyman. Second, American Muslims need forums where they can raise all their technical and logistical concerns about 9/11, and get their questions answered. How did fires high above the ground cause the massive World Trade Center Towers to collapse? Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall apparently so small, and why is there no clear video footage of a plane hitting the building? Why didn’t fighter jets intercept any of the hijacked planes? Of course, many Americans have been publicly discussing these issues since 9/11, but American Muslims and their institutions have stayed out of these public discussions thus far.

Bringing these discussions into mosques and Muslim conventions will not erase all doubts. But it’s certainly much healthier for all doubts to be expressed openly rather than for them to be hidden, so that American Muslims can be exposed to various perspectives and new information. Regardless of how many minds are ultimately changed, American Muslims will feel more comfortable knowing their country is willing to hear them out. These discussions will be a useful outlet for letting out steam. And American Muslims may become more willing to go to bat for America, here and in the Muslim world.

And questions raised by American Muslims may encourage the country to further investigate nagging questions about 9/11, to help get the country on the same page.

Many other Americans may dislike the idea of letting unpopular American Muslims air their concerns about an issue as emotion-laden as 9/11. But it’s in America’s interest to bridge the gap between American Muslims and the rest of the country.

NOTE: Most Muslims living in the Muslim world are not convinced that Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
_____________________

KAMRAN MEMON, a Chicago-based civil rights lawyer, is the founder of Muslims For A Safe America. Muslims For A Safe America encourages honest and informed discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He can be reached at kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org

This article was originally published by Islamica Magazine in 2007.

Anwar al-Awlaki: Murdered for telling the truth about false-flag terror?

Was Anwar al-Awlaki murdered for telling the truth?

Though never charged with any crime, al-Awlaki, an innocent US citizen and a gifted scholar, was murdered by terrorists posing as US government operatives. (We know they're terrorists, not the government, because by definition the US government is constrained to follow the Constitution; so if they kill US citizens without trial, they're not the government any more.)

Then al-Awlaki's equally innocent child was also murdered.

The cowardly terrorist scum who murder people with predator drones have got to be the sorriest excuses for human beings that ever existed.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a hero and a martyr, was supposedly killed for insisting that Muslims, like all other peoples, have the right to defend themselves against aggression.

But was that the real reason he was killed? Or could it be that he was murdered in part because he exposed the widespread use of false-flag terror by US forces?

Dr. Ghayur Ayub: "Osama's death" copter crash is another WTC-7

OBL’s Death: The Mystery Helicopter Crash

The helicopter crash at Abbottabad is akin to the fall of building 7 at New York.

By Dr. Ghayur Ayub, Opinion-Maker.org

The tail of US helicopter at Osama compound

The death of OBL added another layer of skepticism about the man whose whole life spiraled around dubious stories. Someone rightly said 'all information about bin Laden should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism'. Even President Obama gave it a skeptical touch when he used the term 'remains' instead of 'body' in his breaking news announcement when he said 'the military took custody of his remains'. Skepticism reached its peak on the night he was supposedly killed in a compound in Abbottabad. Enough has been written on the subject in a short span of time. But in the whole episode, the crash of the helicopter was not given its due importance. All we heard was that one helicopter had crashed giving no details except that there were no casualties.

Its relevance to this incident is as important as the relevance of Building 7 to the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. As the answer to the collapse of the Twin Towers lies in the answer to the collapse of Building 7, similarly the crux of May 2nd episode is in the crash of the helicopter. Before coming to this point, let us see what the Americans didn't find in the compound where OBL supposedly lived.

We are told that he suffered from the following infirmities;

1), Chronic Renal disease; there have been CIA reports along with other identical reports that bin Laden required dialysis because of kidney disease. It was corroborated by President Pervez Musharraf in 2002.

2), Marfan Syndrome; reports also mention that he suffered from Marfan Syndrome which affects the heart valves.

3), Cardiomegaly (Enlarged heart); this condition was mentioned in a CIA report. It was most probably caused by the torn or diseased heart valves.

4), Diabetes, Hypotension (low blood pressure); A biography, published in Egypt in 1991 reported that OBL suffered from low blood pressure and diabetes. The report also mentioned he received insulin shots for diabetes.

5), Injuries: Throughout his life he received injuries to his toes, back, chest and neck. A video tape released in December 2001 showed intelligence officers saying “he had suffered a severe chest wound”. According to Katzman, “he wasn't able to move his arm much” because of a shrapnel wound. Time Magazine (July 1, 2002) mentioned “he probably suffers from secondary osteoporosis” There had been other reports confirming the injuries. That could have been the reason he used a walking stick.

With this track record he had to keep the relevant medicines and dialysis machine at home, especially the latter, to avoid risking been tracked down. On May 2, 2011, he was ambushed and supposedly killed at his home. A few days later, we were shown blood stained floors, furniture and one or two dead bodies. Mary Anne Weaver, the author of Pakistan: Deep Inside the World's Most Frightening State stated,'according to the intelligence people I've talked to in Washington, there was no evidence of a dialysis machine in the compound.' The exclusive video obtained by ABC News inside the compound also did not show any evidence of dialysis equipment. All the video showed was medication bottles containing petroleum jelly, eye drops, olive oil, sunflower oil, an antiseptic and a nasal spray. There were no pain killers or medicines for kidney disease, low blood pressure, diabetes or the other conditions he suffered from.

Does it mean that the Navy Seals did not do their job properly and failed to search all the rooms? That is unlikely given the training they have for such jobs. Not finding the medicines and dialysis machine opens questions about the validity of the "Osama's death" story. Secondly, the whole episode was allegedly shown live in the White House to President Obama and his team. We were told OBL's dead body was not shown because of the disfigurement. But they could have shown him just before he was shot to confirm that they had got him in the compound. Not showing 'a dead or alive' Osama in the compound created yet another wave of skepticism and raised a genuine question about whether OBL was in the compound. If he wasn't there, then where was he?

In February, 2004, Iranian state radio claimed, “Osama bin Laden was arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election.” According to another report Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2002, the FBI’s top counter terrorism official, Dale Watson said, “I personally think he is probably not with us any more.” A Taliban leader told the Pakistan Observer on December 21, 2002, that Bin Laden died in mid-December in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honourably in his last abode and his grave was left unmarked as per his Wahhabi belief. The same story was reported by Fox News. Alex Jones was told live on the radio in 2002 by high-level Council on Foreign Relations members that Osama Bin Laden had died of kidney failure in early 2002. According to, Benazir Bhutto Osama bin Laden had been killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Another report stated that he died in an area near Tora Bora so remote that the best intelligence could not find him. Hundreds of reports from all over the world pointed towards his death. (See Dr. David Ray Griffin's book, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive.) Had he been living, it would have been impossible not to track him down because of his chronic diseases and dialysis procedures. This point was rightly raised by Adil Najam, professor of international relations at Boston University who stated that 'the need for medical treatment could have made it easier for the Americans to track him down'.

With this background, the crash of the American helicopter becomes important for the following reasons;

• The wreckage became a proof or a signature that it was an American operation confirming the death of already dead OBL.
• Without the wreckage the operation could have been taken as Pak army's.
• The wreckage distanced Pak army/ISI from the operation to degrade army/ISI and upgrade Navy Seals.
• The wreckage brought down the image of army/ISI (one of the objectives of CIA) in the eyes of the public.
• The wreckage must have had blood from injuries of the pilots and other occupants if it was a real crash.

The army experts who took away the wreckage must have found the cause of the crash and the evidence of blood etc using forensic techniques.

They must have found the evidence whether the helicopter was brought down deliberately by the Americans, as we know that except for its tail section the rest was destroyed by the Seals.

Finally, each of the two UH-60 Black Hawks used for the attack can carry 11 troops with equipment and lift 2,600 lb (1,170 kg) of cargo internally. How were the occupants of two helicopters evacuated by one helicopter unless the crashed helicopter was empty and the crash landing was part of the plan.

We saw that the Americans moved fast to collect the wreckage 'fearing' that Pakistan might let Chinese examine it and expose its stealth technology. But there could be other reason than technology falling in wrong hands. To me the helicopter crash at Abbottabad is akin to the fall of building 7 at New York.

Lamestream media rehashes The Onion's al-Qaeda parody

Watch The Onion's parody of "al-Qaeda" vs. 9/11 truth


Many years ago, the Onion staged a "debate" between al-Qaeda and 9/11 truth.

Now the Zionist-dominated media - a category that obviously includes "al-Qaeda's English-language magazine" - is ripping off the Onion, sort of like Cracked Magazine might rip off Mad Magazine.

Check out these lame re-hashes of the Onion's hilarious parody:

BBC: Al Qaeda chides Iran over 9/11 'conspiracy theories'

Fox News: Al Qaeda in Yemen Call Ahmadinejad a 9/11 Truther

New York Times: Stop the Conspiracy Theories, Al Qaeda Tells Iranian Leader

The Guardian: Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

Daily Mail: Now even Al Qaeda tells Iran's Ahmadinejad to stop the conspiracy theories blaming the U.S. for 9/11

ABC News: Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Has "Al-Qaeda" become just another reality TV show? And now that the Osama character has been killed off, will the new leader be the ADL's naughty stepchild, Adam Gadahn?

What evil clowns! Panicky Zionist media lashes out at Ahmadinejad for bringing 9/11 truth to UN

by Kevin Barrett, www.TruthJihad.com

The Zionist-dominated corporate media is in full panic mode after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again drawn applause from the majority of UN delegates for demanding an inquiry into the "mystery" of 9/11.

The evil clowns of the London Daily Mail, which like the vast majority of anglo-American big media outlets is owned by members or allies of the Zionist criminal syndicate implicated in the 9/11 attacks, lashed out at the Iranian President in abject fear: "What a clown! U.S. delegation walks out of UN speech by Iranian president Ahmadinejad as he comes to NY and calls 9/11 'a mystery' ." The unintentionally humorous headline appears to be calling the head of the US delegation a "clown" for walking out on a speech that was cheered by nearly all the other delegates.




















Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called on the UN to investigate 9/11, and has received standing ovations from the vast majority of UN delegates for doing so. International law experts including the UN's own Richard Falk agree that Ahmadinejad is right in demanding a new investigation of 9/11.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, he said: "The September 11 (attacks) were actually a planned game to provoke the human community's sentiments and find an excuse for launching attack on Muslim regions and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to the massacre of one million innocent people."

"Ode to an Unfortunate Mass Murder" by Karin Friedemann

Ode to an Unfortunate Mass Murder
Karin Friedemann
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2011/09/ode-to-mass-murder.html

Originally, I was not planning on writing a 9/11 article. Why not treat 9/11 the way Americans treat Hiroshima Day? Nobody cares that the US incinerated an entire city in Japan, it was not just one building. Let's be fair. On 9/11, between 2,000 and 3,000 people perished according to varying reports. Only God knows if they were innocent or not. Some of them probably beat their wives or bought lottery tickets. Anyway they were non-combatants, who are protected in war by moral standards. I knew someone who was working in the banking industry in the World Trade Center. He was a Muslim. But I never understood why he would work at a bank, let alone at America's Ribaa Center. I feel horribly for his family. No matter who bombed the World Trade Center in New York, Allah willed it though. He willed all of those people killed, the same way He willed you to lose your wallet one day. Maybe you underestimated your Zakat. Maybe your reaction of alhamdulillah will protect your future losses and gains.

Nobody who ever met Osama bin Laden ever said a bad word about him. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve ongoing news reports that he was connected to 9/11. Just before the Americans started bombing Afghanistan, the US told the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. The Taliban said if he had committed such a crime, they would be happy to hand him over since according to Islam, the targeting of non-combatants is illegal. What was the evidence that bin Laden had committed the crime, they asked? The US refused to answer. We just mass murdered thousands of starving people for no apparent reason. Same as Iraq. The US just decided that certain people shouldn't have food.

I'm sorry my fellow travelers, but that's just Satanic. An illiterate could see this. The Salafis held the American flag high totally clueless while Shias blamed the Salafis for 9/11, also waving the American flag. Hello? Can we just get something straight? Muslims don't fight like 9/11. The WTC attack was a made-for-TV event. It was seized by all the networks to promote an agenda. They said they knew who did it within 30 seconds of the first report and yet ten years later, they have not produced a shred of evidence. Muslims don't do one-time, glamorous, perfectly photographed at every angle events!

9/11 cannot be considered as part of any jihad right or wrong, for the simple reason that it was clearly a symbolic show of smoke and flames and not an act of an ongoing war. When Muslims fight a war, they don't mess around with one-time events. If there was an Islamic Jihad in America, people would be dying every day. If there was such thing as al-Qaeda declaring war on the US the way the Taliban declared war on the Soviet Union, five to six policemen would die a day. Civilians would rarely be targeted. But the death toll would be steady, small, and relentless. Not a week would go by when the Muslims didn't hurt you so deep by targeting your men in uniform on your own soil. Muslims fight to win.

If Muslims had declared war on the US and they had truly committed 9/11, don't you think they would have capitalized on that event? They would have followed that explosion with another explosion and another one after that, if they had that much money and power. Not. The Muslims' main claim to fame is the car bomb. How come there are no car bombs going off every few days in America like in most Muslim countries? How come I got some pizza at Sbarro's no problem? Why is Boston's World Trade Center still standing?

9/11 was not committed by any extremist Muslims on an anti-American Crusade. If they were, we'd have heard about follow up explosions on 9/12, 9/13, and every week including this week just like Palestine or Pakistan just between political parties. Look at every war involving Muslims. It just goes on and on and on with agonizing detail. One person at a time is targeted and the person who shot him may or may not get away unharmed. To say that 9/11 bears any characteristics of Islamic warfare is a JOKE. At no time in history have Muslims ever created one single successful attack staged for television that ruined a nation. They never ever got all TV stations to agree who did it within 30 seconds of their grandiose measure. This is absurdity! If the Muslims could do this, why are they not doing it every week? They would have their own station just for terrorizing skittish Americans with 9/11 footage around the clock. They don't.

9/11 was a mass murder for which no perpetrator has ever been convicted. No one has ever had a fair trial and answered our questions. It has never happened. There are people on Wall Street who know why.


Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based freelance writer.

Taliban commemorates 9/11 anniversary by calling 9/11 a "pretext" and calling for a new investigation - Western media scrubs the story

Western corporate media are imposing a near-blackout on the Taliban's official statement commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The reason: The Taliban are calling 9/11 a "pretext" and calling for a new investigation of the "dubious" events of that day.

CNN offered a very brief account, censoring the call for a new investigation: Taliban: U.S. using 9/11 attacks as pretext for Muslim violence. But most other Western media ignored the historic statement. Stories initially reporting the statement were quickly scrubbed from Western media websites. The print edition of the St. Paul (MN) Pioneer Press carried a reference to the Taliban call for a new 9/11 investigation, attributed to wire services, but it was removed from the on-line edition. It apparently can no longer be found on any US corporate media website.

Here is the story posted at Uruknet:

Taliban seek probe into 9/11 attacks [ 81301 ] -

by Javed Hamim Kakar

September 10, 2011

KABUL (PAN): On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the Taliban reiterated on Saturday their demand for an independent and impartial investigation into the incident.

About 3,000 people were killed in the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre in New York on the morning of September 11, 2001 when 19 hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Five hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Centre's North Tower and another five hit the South Tower with the United Airlines Flight 175.

Following resistance from passengers, several hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, with a fourth plane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

The US invaded Afghanistan a month later, blaming the Al Qaeda and Taliban for the assaults on the centres of its military and economic might. Ten years on, the war in the impoverished Central Asian continues.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said the movement had long been seeking a neutral probe into the incident. "But the US and its allies are responding to our logical demand with airstrikes and attacks."

The killing of tens of thousands of innocent Afghans on the pretext of avenging the 9/11 attacks would be a perpetual question mark over Western democracy, Mujahid said in a statement.

He urged the countries involved in the conflict to mount pressure on the US not to plunder Afghanistan's natural resources under the garb of the war on terrorism.