From this link:
Have some in Japan subscribed to the “conspiracy” theories of 911 or is this an indication of some real questions that need to be answered about this event?
He might have a point about the lack of proof the Taliban was involved - I think Bush said something like “We don’t need to talk about guilt or innocence. We know he’s guilty” when Afghanistan challenged his claim. But I have to wonder: if it wasn’t a 757 that hit the Pentagon, then an entire airplane and all its passengers have mysteriously disappeared; where’d it go?
At most, this just demonstrates that stupidity knows no borders.
The compelling argument for me has always been: if it was a government conspiracy, surely they would have made George W Bush and Dick Cheney look like heroes, taking a strong stand, instead of running underground like scared rabbits.
However, the Japanese have always been attracted to conspiracy theories, so this is no surprise.
And what would the point be anyway? To facilitate an invasion against Iraq? Then why not blame Iraq? To make themselves look good? If it were me and that was my goal, I’d pick a domestic scapegoat, or a foreign scapegoat already in my custody.
It’s all really very silly.
Perhaps an invasion of Afghanistan? Perhaps to facilitate the passing of laws that curtail civil liberties? Perhaps to facilitate the subsequent invasion of Iraq based on phoney evidence of WMDs?
Those are arguably means; I’m curious what you think the ends were.
Is that the same site that’s hosting this article?
**FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact **
And even wierder stuff. Still, it had nice pictures of aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon.
So then why invade Iraq? And why not just make up stories about Afghani WMD’s?
Why? Most of the laws passed in the wake of Bush’s failure to maintain US security regard the violation of the rights of foreigners in any case. I doubt there are too many American citizens in Guantanamo Bay aside from the staff.
Then why bring up bin Laden at all? Just manufacture evidence that Iraq is a threat and go to town.
It makes little sense, even taking into accoun the fact this is the Bush Administration we’re talking about.
I don’t think anyone says the Taliban was involved in 9-11, except in the sense that they harbored, sheltered, and protected Al Qaeda, and were still willing to harbor, shelter and protect them on 9-12.
I’ve read they were willing to turn him over to a neutral party for trial on the condition the US showed he had planned the deed. It makes a sort of sense, because there’s nothing wrong with sheltering someone who didn’t plan to blow up four major US buildings.
I refer to this.
While the latter sentence is true enough, this was after the attack on Afghanistan had begun, supported by many nations who would later want nothing to do with Iraq. Disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe it.
All evidence pointed to bin Laden from day one; all evidence.
Isn’t Japan a First World country with a substantial intelligence service of its own (their equivalents of the CIA/NSA/DIA)? They need to rely on dubious conspiracy theory junk all over the internet rather than trot out reliable intelligence they gathered on their own? For their own government?
Color me unimpressed.
Oh, certainly. I’m not questioning it. But I can see how a conspiracy theorist might take Bush’s attitude towards the Taliban’s request.
For all the talk of “Japan” in this thread, it’s worth noting that the article only discusses the views of a single opposition Diet member.
I seem to recall that some major Japanese defense figure was just fired after claiming that Japan wasn’t responsible for starting hostilities with the U.S. in WW2. Is there any connection to the case at hand?
You know, I’ve always wanted to see some solid proof that Japan was actually responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Do we really know for sure that the U.S. government didn’t stage an attack on its own Pacific Fleet in order to justify war with Japan? There are lots of “anomalies”: Why were the warnings from the radar posts that detected the (allegedly Japanese) aircraft approaching ignored? Why were the aircraft carriers all conveniently out to sea, leaving only the battleships (which were less important by World War II)? Why were crucial oil storage facilities carefully spared? Why was it that a number of B-17s just happened to be flying in from the mainland right as the attack took place? Several of the B-17s were shot down by so-called “friendly fire”–how do we know the Navy didn’t shoot down the Army bombers because the Army bombers were the ones dropping bombs on them and sinking their battleships?
I mean, I’m just asking questions is all.
[/tinfoil-hat-wearing Internet conspiracy theorist]
That’s the great part: they never existed.