| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leiff wrote: | | If the video was considered genuine by the FBI it would 'be' evidence! |
Perhaps the FBI does not consider a confession video to be "hard" evidence, they did not say there was no evidence.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bin Laden was a CIA asset. Remember Bin Laden family and Bush family are close BUSINESS PARTNERS.
Please do not confuse Osama with being a muslim nor confuse Bush with being a Christian. Neither believe in God.
They are cold blooded killers who believe in profits not prophets.
Forget the propaganda of Bin Laden being a bogeyman living in the batcave sending videos to Al Jazeera. One Al Qaeda website was actually hosted in Texas.
23 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the US on 12.09.2001 despite all flights being grounded.
And they expect us to take them seriously?
Karzai is a drug dealing 'former' employee of George Bush's UNICAL.
Please feel free to ask an Aghan of which there are many in the UK. The Taliban were set up to overthrow Afghanistan's communist government by the CIA. Today heroin production is at record levels.
Bin Laden is dead or in hospital in Saudi Arabia. He has need of kidney dialysis every few days, how is he going to do that in a batcave?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | | Bin Laden is dead or in hospital in Saudi Arabia. He has need of kidney dialysis every few days, how is he going to do that in a batcave? |
I think the misconception is that the batcave is actually a place where bats live and not Bruce Wayne.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | stelios69 wrote: | | Bin Laden is dead or in hospital in Saudi Arabia. He has need of kidney dialysis every few days, how is he going to do that in a batcave? |
I think the misconception is that the batcave is actually a place where bats live and not Bruce Wayne.
|
Clearly men living there could not plan and execute a complex operation like 9/11 - there is an appalling lack of disabled access, and a closure notice would be served on it immediately.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Clearly men living there could not plan and execute a complex operation like 9/11 - there is an appalling lack of disabled access, and a closure notice would be served on it immediately. |
I am unsure if your comment is meant tongue-in-cheek, however;
I must question the underlying sentiment in that I have often pondered exactly what this supposed 'planning' entailed?
The actual operation was not exactly highly detailed hinging on with split second timing with lots of multi-layered precision elements. Get on the plane/s, take over with a few knives, fly to targets and then crash.
If anything, the plan's simplicity makes it almost laughable in terms of the things that could go wrong that planely/plainly didn't (if the official version is to be believed). In fact, the entire operation was reliant on everyone who could have stopped it acting like complete numpties.
This to me points to it all being hardly a 'plan' - more a, let's get on the plane and see what happens. There were no hidden handguns planted by aircraft cleaners, or backup bombs in the luggage compartment, no intricate mission impossible style mosaic of events.
To cite 911 as a 'complex event' as far as the hijackers were concerned just doesn't fit. They had no control over the interception times of military aircraft, having their boxcutters removed prior to boarding, the aircraft taking off late due to an unforeseen malfunction - or any other of the myriad things that could have stopped it all in its tracks. To attribute anyone as being the mastermind behind the simple hijacking, is really a bit of a misnomer.
If there was any real planning, it was way way outside the sphere of simply getting on a plane, taking it over and flying it into a target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My tongue was very firmly in my cheek, because "it could not be planned by a man in a cave" is just one more of the silly comments conspiracists like to indulge in. There is nothing about being in a cave that makes planning an operation difficult, and anyway AQ was in an extensive camp before being chased into Tora Bora.
As you say, the operation was very simple, as all the best ones are. An intricate mosaic of actions is almost bound to go wrong on the other hand, and the complex plots that conspiracists dream up would never work. It was an operation that was expensive to finance, with people being sent to train at flight schools, but not difficult to organise.
I do have to take issue with the idea that nothing went wrong, I doubt it was planned to crash a plane into rural Pennsylvania, so that is only 75% successful. I think the reason for taking four planes at once was the hope of overwhelming and confusing the defences by the number. They probably never expected to evade the defences so successfully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | My tongue was very firmly in my cheek, because "it could not be planned by a man in a cave" is just one more of the silly comments conspiracists like to indulge in. There is nothing about being in a cave that makes planning an operation difficult, and anyway AQ was in an extensive camp before being chased into Tora Bora.
As you say, the operation was very simple, as all the best ones are. An intricate mosaic of actions is almost bound to go wrong on the other hand, and the complex plots that conspiracists dream up would never work. It was an operation that was expensive to finance, with people being sent to train at flight schools, but not difficult to organise.
I do have to take issue with the idea that nothing went wrong, I doubt it was planned to crash a plane into rural Pennsylvania, so that is only 75% successful. I think the reason for taking four planes at once was the hope of overwhelming and confusing the defences by the number. They probably never expected to evade the defences so successfully. |
So do you believe the 4th plane was shot down or the cabin was stormed by passengers?
I would agree with you about potentially confusing defences by weight of numbers if the aircraft were all roughly in the same area - but given three distinctly different locations, that tends to be a somewhat difficult to substantiate. In addition - I find it staggering that all four aircraft could be taken over with a few stanley knives. How could they know that there wasn't airline security on each plane carrying a gun?
Also, I don't consider the operation was 'expensive' to finance. Giving a few herberts some flying lessons and buying some aircraft tickets is not exactly Robbie William's last royalty payment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | My tongue was very firmly in my cheek, because "it could not be planned by a man in a cave" is just one more of the silly comments conspiracists like to indulge in. There is nothing about being in a cave that makes planning an operation difficult, and anyway AQ was in an extensive camp before being chased into Tora Bora.
As you say, the operation was very simple, as all the best ones are. An intricate mosaic of actions is almost bound to go wrong on the other hand, and the complex plots that conspiracists dream up would never work. It was an operation that was expensive to finance, with people being sent to train at flight schools, but not difficult to organise.
I do have to take issue with the idea that nothing went wrong, I doubt it was planned to crash a plane into rural Pennsylvania, so that is only 75% successful. I think the reason for taking four planes at once was the hope of overwhelming and confusing the defences by the number. They probably never expected to evade the defences so successfully. |
So do you believe the 4th plane was shot down or the cabin was stormed by passengers?
I would agree with you about potentially confusing defences by weight of numbers if the aircraft were all roughly in the same area - but given three distinctly different locations, that tends to be a somewhat difficult to substantiate. In addition - I find it staggering that all four aircraft could be taken over with a few stanley knives. How could they know that there wasn't airline security on each plane carrying a gun?
Also, I don't consider the operation was 'expensive' to finance. Giving a few herberts some flying lessons and buying some aircraft tickets is not exactly Robbie William's last royalty payment. |
As I have said before, the idea that the fourth plane was shot down is the only remotely plausible conspiracy theory, but there is very little to substantiate it, and no particular motive for hiding the only air defence success if there was one.
The aircraft were relatively close in flying terms, and although I have not looked it up, were there not only four interceptors available to NORAD in the NE USA? Quite apart from having to consider four hijacked planes, and fear more, rather than concentrating on one, for whoever was in control.
The security on US domestic flights was virtually non-existant before 9/11, as anyone who had flown there would know. The financing would have to cover the hijackers' living expenses in the US for some months as well, but certainly no real problem for a member of the bin Laden family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Also, I don't consider the operation was 'expensive' to finance. Giving a few herberts some flying lessons and buying some aircraft tickets is not exactly Robbie William's last royalty payment. |
Er... hang on a minute. For a start - and just for a start off, buying a bunch of CIA agents doesn't come cheap either.
As Mike Ruppert pointed out: "Michael Springmann, former State Department diplomat, testified that the CIA were running the Jeddah consulate, instructing officials to issue visas to terrorists for reasons of "national security." Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah".
We're talking at least another monkey.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker wrote: | Quote: | | The financing would have to cover the hijackers' living expenses in the US for some months as well, but certainly no real problem for a member of the bin Laden family. |
You're assuming that Bin Laden was involved in financing it. Ignoring the facts that he has denied all involvement and the FBI has no evidence linking him to the attacks.
| Quote: | | As I have said before, the idea that the fourth plane was shot down is the only remotely plausible conspiracy theory, but there is very little to substantiate it |
Donald Rumsfeld had a little Freudian slip and admitted that it was shot down....
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The security on US domestic flights was virtually non-existant before 9/11, as anyone who had flown there would know. |
Having travelled extensively all over America, I am completely stumped by what you have typed. How would you know if there was armed security amongst the passengers on a plane?
The whole point of plain clothes security is to not attract attention to the individual. You make it seem like they wear a badge or T-shirt or carry a shotgun in plain sight - can you elaborate how '..as anyone who had flown there would know' = would know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The security on US domestic flights was virtually non-existant before 9/11, as anyone who had flown there would know. |
Having travelled extensively all over America, I am completely stumped by what you have typed. How would you know if there was armed security amongst the passengers on a plane?
The whole point of plain clothes security is to not attract attention to the individual. You make it seem like they wear a badge or T-shirt or carry a shotgun in plain sight - can you elaborate how '..as anyone who had flown there would know' = would know? |
No, of course I am not referring to armed sky marshals, but to the regular routines of screening passengers which seemed very perfunctory in the US, it hardly seems likely that they would have armed guards on board if they cannot be bothered to do the elementary stuff, and so it proved. It was widely said that only El Al had armed guards on their planes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | Bushwacker wrote: | Quote: | | The financing would have to cover the hijackers' living expenses in the US for some months as well, but certainly no real problem for a member of the bin Laden family. |
You're assuming that Bin Laden was involved in financing it. Ignoring the facts that he has denied all involvement and the FBI has no evidence linking him to the attacks.
| Quote: | | As I have said before, the idea that the fourth plane was shot down is the only remotely plausible conspiracy theory, but there is very little to substantiate it |
Donald Rumsfeld had a little Freudian slip and admitted that it was shot down.... |
The whole point of the exchange was on the assumption that bin Laden was involved.
He initially denied any involvement and then admitted it, if indeed the films were genuine.
The assumption that Donald Rumsfeld's slip was Freudian is simply that, your assumption. It does very little to substantiate the theory that the plane was shot down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I made more than one point. You didn't answer them all. I'll be waiting. 
Here's a pic of him waving with his left hand, but like yours, it proves nothing. Anybody can wave or hold a microphone in either hand, writing is a lot trickier. |
Did the cane get there from his left hand?
And here's a right handed way to hold a rifle
Not as simple as it seems, eh?
p.s. I've addressed 2 points - the ring and the left-handedness.
p.p.s please go on defending the murderous b#stard, if that's what you're into. |
Hello ignatz,
Why would the british and american governments sponsor such a murdering b"stard?
Theres been so many dodgy Bin Laden films turning up these past years its hard to keep track of them all, from the over weight Bin Laden with the fattest dog in asia at he's feet, to the one where Colin Powell disclosed the details of the tape from Al Jazeera (Al JaCIAda?) 45 minutes before Al Jazeera recieved it? now thats some skyring and faking by any standards, perhaps we should all believe the honest truth telling Colin Powell and cronies, and all turn our other cheeks to the honourable Mr Kovacs, who knows about Colin Powell and his Viet Nam massacres?
perhaps if you are so outraged at Bin Laden you should contact your government to register your disconcern of their many years of sponsoring and funding him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Hello ignatz, etc |
First off, Ignatz has been banned so do not expect a response unless he is reinstated.
On the subject of Bin Laden; I have never held much stock in the whole left/right hand debate. However, Ignatz points out the cane and the gun photo as being examples of which is his dominant side - well, the cane could simply have been put there to keep the map flat and the picture below shows him firing a gun using his left hand. He may simply be posing in the photo Ignatz supplied, or it may have been reversed - we simply don't know.
We can of course debate this until Daisy is in the milking shed, but the fact above all else, is that the 'confession' tape shows a man who only vaguely resembles Bin Laden. The beard and clothes are right, but the face simply doesn't look like him.
It was quoted earlier that if you forward the video to 40 seconds or so - it starts to like just like him! This is like saying that there are brief moments in Eastenders when Phil Mitchell looks just like Mick Hucknall.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: |
Why would the british and american governments sponsor such a murdering b"stard?
perhaps if you are so outraged at Bin Laden you should contact your government to register your disconcern of their many years of sponsoring and funding him? |
Perhaps you would care to provide hard evidence that they have done so?
The CIA may well have funded Afghan mujahideen groups, but there is no evidence that did so with Arab volunteers, who received funds from the Saudis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
Why would the british and american governments sponsor such a murdering b"stard?
perhaps if you are so outraged at Bin Laden you should contact your government to register your disconcern of their many years of sponsoring and funding him? |
Perhaps you would care to provide hard evidence that they have done so?
The CIA may well have funded Afghan mujahideen groups, but there is no evidence that did so with Arab volunteers, who received funds from the Saudis. |
Hello Bushwacker,
I didant think there was any doubt that the CIA sponsored Afghan mujahideen groups, so your statement of MAY have sponsored seems you are in a little bit of denial about this, may have is deceptive, if you had clearly stated HAS sponsored does sponsor did sponsor takes away the deception factor.
With all the hard evidence readily available out there to show the CIA DID SPONSOR (not MAY have sponsored) mujahideen groups(al qaeda) i am not sure what 'hard evidence' you would accept as factual?
Didant David Shayler go through a long court case at the old bailey after having disclosed the british government were paying 'al qaeda' (the mujadiheen databasers)to carry out assassinations in Libya? the old bailey found shayler guiltyof disclosing national secrets, not of lying about the british governments plot to fund the mujahideen databasers (thats al qaeda to you and me).
i cannot find one site with any evidence to show the CIA has not did not sponsor al qaeda (mujahideen databasers) in afghanistan, so i cannot understand your obvious confusion/denial in your statement '' the cia may have sponsored the mujahideen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
Why would the british and american governments sponsor such a murdering b"stard?
perhaps if you are so outraged at Bin Laden you should contact your government to register your disconcern of their many years of sponsoring and funding him? |
Perhaps you would care to provide hard evidence that they have done so?
The CIA may well have funded Afghan mujahideen groups, but there is no evidence that did so with Arab volunteers, who received funds from the Saudis. |
Hello Bushwacker,
I didant think there was any doubt that the CIA sponsored Afghan mujahideen groups, so your statement of MAY have sponsored seems you are in a little bit of denial about this, may have is deceptive, if you had clearly stated HAS sponsored does sponsor did sponsor takes away the deception factor.
With all the hard evidence readily available out there to show the CIA DID SPONSOR (not MAY have sponsored) mujahideen groups(al qaeda) i am not sure what 'hard evidence' you would accept as factual?
Didant David Shayler go through a long court case at the old bailey after having disclosed the british government were paying 'al qaeda' (the mujadiheen databasers)to carry out assassinations in Libya? the old bailey found shayler guiltyof disclosing national secrets, not of lying about the british governments plot to fund the mujahideen databasers (thats al qaeda to you and me).
i cannot find one site with any evidence to show the CIA has not did not sponsor al qaeda (mujahideen databasers) in afghanistan, so i cannot understand your obvious confusion/denial in your statement '' the cia may have sponsored the mujahideen? |
I am sorry to have confused you Long Tooth. Let me make it entirely clear that I accept that the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen through the ISI. What I asked for was evidence that they bin Laden's group had been funded by them. Given his hatred of America, it seems very unlikely.
Jason Burke, a major contributor to the BBC programme "The Power of Nightmares", wrote a book about Al Qaeda in which he says, "It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency. The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
Why would the british and american governments sponsor such a murdering b"stard?
perhaps if you are so outraged at Bin Laden you should contact your government to register your disconcern of their many years of sponsoring and funding him? |
Perhaps you would care to provide hard evidence that they have done so?
The CIA may well have funded Afghan mujahideen groups, but there is no evidence that did so with Arab volunteers, who received funds from the Saudis. |
Hello Bushwacker,
I didant think there was any doubt that the CIA sponsored Afghan mujahideen groups, so your statement of MAY have sponsored seems you are in a little bit of denial about this, may have is deceptive, if you had clearly stated HAS sponsored does sponsor did sponsor takes away the deception factor.
With all the hard evidence readily available out there to show the CIA DID SPONSOR (not MAY have sponsored) mujahideen groups(al qaeda) i am not sure what 'hard evidence' you would accept as factual?
Didant David Shayler go through a long court case at the old bailey after having disclosed the british government were paying 'al qaeda' (the mujadiheen databasers)to carry out assassinations in Libya? the old bailey found shayler guiltyof disclosing national secrets, not of lying about the british governments plot to fund the mujahideen databasers (thats al qaeda to you and me).
i cannot find one site with any evidence to show the CIA has not did not sponsor al qaeda (mujahideen databasers) in afghanistan, so i cannot understand your obvious confusion/denial in your statement '' the cia may have sponsored the mujahideen? |
I am sorry to have confused you Long Tooth. Let me make it entirely clear that I accept that the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen through the ISI. What I asked for was evidence that they bin Laden's group had been funded by them. Given his hatred of America, it seems very unlikely.
Jason Burke, a major contributor to the BBC programme "The Power of Nightmares", wrote a book about Al Qaeda in which he says, "It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency. The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world." |
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2842us_alqaeda_kla.html
While the United States is relentlessly bombing Afghanistan with the official aim of getting Osama bin Laden, one of bin Laden's top collaborators is running a terrorist training camp in an area of Kosovo that is under U.S. control. The shocking revelation has been confirmed by multiple sources: Macedonian intelligence agencies, as reported by several Macedonian media, including the leading daily Dnevnik; Russian press agencies, including Novosti and ItarTass; and the London Independent.
If the Anglo-Americans are at "war" with bin Laden's terrorism, why are bin Laden operatives active in Kosovo in an area totally controlled by NATO? Furthermore, in the U.S. zone in Kosovo?
But who is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, whose brother Zaiman is running terrorist camps under NATO protection in the U.S. zone in Kosovo? As the London Guardian wrote recently, "Even to say he is bin Laden's right-hand man may understate his importance." He is considered by many to be the real head of what is known as the bin Laden group. "Some analysts believe that in his current role in Afghanistan, al-Zawahiri has taken over control of much of bin Laden's terrorist finances, operations, plans, and resources," wrote the Guardian. His known terrorist career started no later than 1981, with his involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat; it includes the massacre of 70 people on a tourist bus in 1997 Luxor, Egypt, and the assassination attempt against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995.
Strangely enough, according to an expert who testified before a U.S. Congressional committee in January 2000, al-Zawahiri was granted U.S. residence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service—something almost impossible for many legitimate immigrants to obtain. Should we be surprised that one of the centers of operation for al-Zawahiri was London, where one of his closest relatives resided? President Mubarak is believed to have referred to him when, after the Luxor massacre, he stated: "There are people who carried out crimes and who were sentenced [in Egypt] and live on British soil."
Just in case you missed it in my lasr reply, see david shaylers case at the old bailey where the case involved national security issues, ie MI5 funding al qaeda to carry out assassinations.
I am sorry to inform you that anyone appearing on the BBC peddling official fairy tales carries no influence with me at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
So your hard evidence that the CIA sponsored Al Qaeda is a Russian report that a brother of one of his aides was operating freely in Kosovo? Not exactly rock solid, is it?
A month after that report appeared in November 2001, the wife and three children of Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed in a US airstrike, so it seems relations may not actually be that close. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
So you're assuming the fact that they were killed in a US air strike is proof that relations "may not actually be that close". If that's the case then US ank UK relations aren't that good either because many British soldiers died in air strikes during the war.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | So you're assuming the fact that they were killed in a US air strike is proof that relations "may not actually be that close". If that's the case then US ank UK relations aren't that good either because many British soldiers died in air strikes during the war. |
The US were targetting Al Qaeda, if you have any information to indicate that the US deliberately targetted British troops at any time, you should reveal it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | So your hard evidence that the CIA sponsored Al Qaeda is a Russian report that a brother of one of his aides was operating freely in Kosovo? Not exactly rock solid, is it?
A month after that report appeared in November 2001, the wife and three children of Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed in a US airstrike, so it seems relations may not actually be that close. |
Bushwacker, I think your confusion on this subject comes from you not reading and absorbing things correctly, earlier you state the CIA 'may' have funded the mujahideen groups in afghanistan, after your error is highlighted to you, you concede the point that the CIA DID sponsor the mujahideen.
You now come back with a russian report!!!  as my only 'evidence'?!!!!!  Dont take this the wrong way buddy, but do you have some sort of word blindness? perhaps you didant see macedonian intellegence also corraborating the evidence for starters?
I have copied the reference for you again, perhaps your computer has blanked that part of the information out? if so i will paste it again for you directly below, if its blank i would have your computer tested and possibly book yourself in for an eye test? what other explanation could there be?
The shocking revelation has been confirmed by multiple sources: Macedonian intelligence agencies, as reported by several Macedonian media
It seems there's also mass confusion regarding Al Qaeda amongst us all, what is 'Al Qaeda'?. By the CIA's own admission 'Al Qaeda' was a name created by them to mean terrorists/suspects from their mujahideen database, encompassing suspects within mujahideen and groups fighting/supporting them. With that admission alone even the most dim amongst us can surely work out that if Al Qaeda means suspects from the mujahideen database held by USA intelligence agencies, then the CIA must have been sponsoring them? coupled with the high courts endorsement that indeed the british government were finacing the mujahideen databasers (Al Qaeda to the CIA!!!!?  ) you dont have to be an Einstein to put it together, or perhaps in limited cases it seems 'you' do?
We the people are still waiting for the reason why mujahideen databasers (Al Qaeda) were operating freely from a USA controlled camp? its not suprising the silence is deafening in the 7 years since these revelations were made is it?
I can post you hundreds of sources to back up that the CIA are/have funding/funded terrorists of all sorts of groups, but whats the point until you get your computer looked at or your eyes tested for word blindness? we'd only be wasting both our time wouldant we. Perhaps after an eye test we can resume where we are leaving off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How very amusing you are.
If you want to believe the strange myth that Al Qaeda is simply a CIA database, go ahead, just do not expect to be taken seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | How very amusing you are.
If you want to believe the strange myth that Al Qaeda is simply a CIA database, go ahead, just do not expect to be taken seriously. |
Or maybe it's you who is not taken seriously because you didn't respond to any of the points made by Long Tooth.
It may be quicker to just admit that you're wrong than avoid the questions Bushwacker.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth was asked to provide evidence that the CIA were funding Al Qaeda, and has failed to do so. It is as simple as that. Perhaps you can do better, ZUCO? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth was asked to provide evidence that the CIA were funding Al Qaeda, and has failed to do so. It is as simple as that. Perhaps you can do better, ZUCO? |
Failed to provide evidence? its plain for all open minded people to see where you are coming from, anything less than G.W. Bush stating on CNN that the CIA is sponsoring the mujahideen databasers (Al Qaeda to people in the know ) and you reject.
Some people have a blind spot, its clear for all to see where yours is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth was asked to provide evidence that the CIA were funding Al Qaeda, and has failed to do so. It is as simple as that. Perhaps you can do better, ZUCO? |
Failed to provide evidence? its plain for all open minded people to see where you are coming from, anything less than G.W. Bush stating on CNN that the CIA is sponsoring the mujahideen databasers (Al Qaeda to people in the know ) and you reject.
Some people have a blind spot, its clear for all to see where yours is. |
No, all I asked is for some evidence, you say you have lots, but somehow do not manage actually to produce any. Why would that be, I wonder?
Some evidence that to support your idea that Al Qaeda is only a CIA database would also be good. Can you manage that one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth was asked to provide evidence that the CIA were funding Al Qaeda, and has failed to do so. It is as simple as that. Perhaps you can do better, ZUCO? |
Failed to provide evidence? its plain for all open minded people to see where you are coming from, anything less than G.W. Bush stating on CNN that the CIA is sponsoring the mujahideen databasers (Al Qaeda to people in the know ) and you reject.
Some people have a blind spot, its clear for all to see where yours is. |
No, all I asked is for some evidence, you say you have lots, but somehow do not manage actually to produce any. Why would that be, I wonder?
Some evidence that to support your idea that Al Qaeda is only a CIA database would also be good. Can you manage that one? |
Not produced any evidence? another fumbling act of misdirection by you i would suggest, perhaps if you had stated evidence which you do not accept i could understand, but no evidence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies
Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/040906AlQaeda.htm
Al Qaeda,” formerly a Mujahideen database, began as a CIA-ISI.
contrivance.
to help you get up to speed, try typing the words, (Al Qaeda, mujahideen database) you can then take your choice of the tens of thousands of pages morphing the mujahideen databasers into Al Qaeda.
May i also enquire what constitutes evidence for you? mainstream media? politicians? alternative news agencies? or has it got to come from G W Bushs' mouth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | to help you get up to speed, try typing the words, (Al Qaeda, mujahideen database) you can then take your choice of the tens of thousands of pages morphing the mujahideen databasers into Al Qaeda.
|
I think this really captures the level of thought that goes into conspiracy theories. If random web pages say something is true, then it is true.
The Guardian link is to editorial. Editorial is not reporting. And infowars... sorry, was I supposed to take that seriously?
What really funny is that this is "the best of the best", suitable for the the tougher audience at critics corner, yet it is utter garbage. Wander beyond the critics corner and you'll be amazed how much dumber it gets.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
