It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeremy Corbyn says 9/11 was 'manipulated' so West could blame Bin Laden

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
So I am not saying i agree with these comments but i am sure many on ATS will find Corbyns comments interesting.

For those of you who don't know Jeremy Corbyn is now the leader of the Labour part in the UK, he has the potential to become the next Prime Minister, basically is now the leader of Tony Blairs old party. So with that said his comments are really quite interesting.

Some quotes;



Speaking in an interview with the Morning Star he said: “Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.

“After September 11, the claims that Bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”


The article goes on to discuss how Corbyn is on record advocating theories around the New World Order reporting that he is on record saying:



The radical comments came just 12 years after the Labour leader wrote of a "totalitarian world government", which is regularly cited by conspiracy theorists as the secret ruling elite.

Mentioning what is also known as the "illuminati" or "New World Order" in an article for Labour Briefing in 1991, he said the Gulf War was a "curtain-raiser for the rich and powerful, white and western" to be able to "maintain the present economic order with free use of all the weapons they wish for


Link

Quite interesting that this comes form the man who could very well end up running our country, would be interesting to here what other comments my fellow members have on this about possible ramifications.




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I hope Britain can survive this guy becoming prime minister. That idea is not to far fetched.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I can see where he is coming from. Let's be honest the narrative turned immediately to Al Qaeda as soon as the first plane hit the first tower. We were constantly being told they were behind it, from experts in terrorism, as the day played out.

And the resulting actions of the U.S supported by the likes of the U.K, certainly indicates that it was a case of not letting a good opportunity go to waste.

What I always questioned about the all axis of evil argument is the fact that Bush claimed Iraq and Iran were part of it. Iraq and Iran? The very best of enemies, working together to bring down the mighty U.S?

Bush wanted to finish the job his Father started and bring about regime change in Iraq, even his Father advised him to let it lie, as no doubt he had been briefed on what that would mean for the country. The result is fully clear for all to see now.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I will be voting for him, i don't think i can survive another five years of tory rule, if i don't vote i will only slap myself for not at least trying to make a difference that doesn't involve violence or protest.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeeAndrewCox
I will be voting for him, i don't think i can survive another five years of tory rule, if i don't vote i will only slap myself for not at least trying to make a difference that doesn't involve violence or protest.


I must say even though i disagree with his conspiracy views i think i will too, this country needs someone to shake up the political establishment and i think he could be the guy



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
For those of you who don't know Jeremy Corbyn is now the leader of the Labour part in the UK, he has the potential to become the next Prime Minister, basically is now the leader of Tony Blairs old party. .


It should be pointed out that although he leads Blair's old party he is very far from being a Blairite, he thinks Blair should be tried for war crimes (which is probably why Blair didn't want him getting the job).

The SNP getting all but 2 seats in Scotland started shaking up the British political system but Corbyn getting the leader job means The Tories really have opposition now (The SNP were doing what they could but they're still a relatively small party.) Maybe he will stop them from being the Red Tories...
edit on 27/9/15 by djz3ro because: I had to fix punctuation and add a bit...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What conspiracies are those then?

9/11 was manipulated to bring about regime change in Afghanistan?

That there is an agenda to bring about a New World Order?

Well, we had regime change in Afghanistan and the New World Order agenda has been spouted by nearly all top politicians over the last 25 years.




edit on 27/9/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: To add YouTube vid



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Overall...wasnt this already understood by the majority of 9-11 conspiracy theorists? Of course it goes deeper and in a hundred different directions and details, but I know most of us has accepted the fact that it wasnt planned nor executed by Bin Laden, and he was a scapegoat for nefarious purposes by TPTB.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Considering how the U.S. was also connecting Saddam Hussein with 9/11 was clearly a way of getting public support to attack and occupy Iraq. I never bought the connection and couldn't believe how they tried selling it to the public.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger




but I know most of us has accepted the fact that it wasnt planned nor executed by Bin Laden, and he was a scapegoat for nefarious purposes by TPTB.

Without proof you might want to add.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
It is interesting indeed but he isn't the first politician of elevated status to come forward and acts little of substance however that a British politician would say that is quite significant. And also curious why he would do that as he must know that failing this particular Litmus test comes with significant repercussions. Already his sanity is being questioned in the boulevard press. It would be interesting to know why he acted. Is he seeking vengeance because in terms of his political career he was not delivered what was promised? Does he feel that failing this particular Litmus test does not carry the gravitas it once did with the establishment and that being rendered more visible by putting himself in the spotlight would outweigh any negative consequences?

Seen as like I said he did not seem to add anything in content, who said it is what makes it significant and therefore it would be valuable to know more about this person.

Also if he believes that the attackers were manipulated by somebody other than Bin Laden he does not feel confident in expressing his opinion on who it was (in his opinion).

In the end I suspect he is like any other politician who will say what he things will resonate well with the voting public and once elected tow the party line as in accordance with his political and financial backers unless it turns out he had a motive to go "rogue" as I laid out that concept earlier.
edit on 27-9-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The following was taken from om your link



“After September 11, the claims that Bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”


Intelligence warnings prior to 9/11 was issued by a number of countries around the world that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would carry out an large scale terrorist attack on the United States and that they would use hijacked airliners to carry out their terrorist attack.

Let's take a look at two of the many countries that warned the United States aboutr Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and their preparation of their attack upon the United States.



BRITAIN


BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [Sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is the "final stages" of a very serious attack on a Western country

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency," which cooperate with the British. "The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed." The report states there is "an acute awareness" that the attack is "a very serious threat." [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001: Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]


AFGHANISTAN

Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Remember, the United States had warned Afghanistan to turn over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, or else. The Taliban chose to ignore the warning of the United States and the rest is history.

Had the Taliban complied with U.S. demands, there would not have been a war.

edit on 27-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Everyone knows why the Taliban did not turn over Bin Laden, it was because the US government had no proof Bin Laden had committed 911 attacks.

The Taliban promise to turn over OBL, if government officials could prove he was behind the attacks.

The government couldn't prove that OBL was behind the 911 attacks so the Taliban let him go. The fact is the OS supporters will not tell the truth when it comes to this matter.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Everyone knows why the Taliban did not turn over Bin Laden, it was because the US government had no proof Bin Laden had committed 911 attacks.


Because the Talban already had the proof. Remember, ti was the Taliban that issued a warning to the United States that Osama bin Laden would attack America.

In case you missed it the first time around, here it is again.



AFGHANISTAN

Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Taliban Issues Warning to the United States

In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America.

The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.”

Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

www.historycommons.org...


In other words, the Taliban issued a warning that was one of a number of intelligence reports that warned the United States of Osama bin Laden's imminent attack on America, which simply means the Taliban had the proof of bin Laden's involvement even before the United States demanded the Taliban turn over bin Laden.

Let's not forget al-Qaeda's martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.



Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

9/11 Hijackers 1

9/11 Hijackers 2









edit on 27-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

It was also all over the news in India a couple of weeks before 9/11 that several Al Quaida camps in Pakistan were abandoned, and that AQ probably was up to something "big".



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

Yes indeed, the warnings were all there before 9/11. In fact, even Bush received this document.

Document: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

We can take a visit to the FBI website.



FBI Website: Most Wanted Terrorist Dead

Bin Laden Killed in ‘Targeted Operation’

05/02/11
The mastermind of the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children has been killed.

Intelligence agencies quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by bin Laden’s terrorist organization, and in October 2001, his name was added to the U.S. Department of State’s Most Wanted Terrorists List

www.fbi.gov...

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The government couldn't prove that OBL was behind the 911 attacks so the Taliban let him go. The fact is the OS supporters will not tell the truth when it comes to this matter.


I think that Osama bin Laden would disagree with you.



Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.


Bin Laden warns of attacks on the U.S.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Breaking more than a year's silence, Osama bin Laden warned Americans in an audiotape released on Thursday that Al Qaeda was planning more attacks on the United States, but he offered a "long truce" on undefined terms.


In addition to the many intelligence warnings issued to the United States from around the world prior to 9/11, we can add the following report as well.



Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11

U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks. But, the official said the threat of a hijacking by bin Laden's al Qaeda organization was general in nature, did not mention a specific time or place and was similar to the variety of different terrorist threats U.S. intelligence monitors frequently.

abcnews.go.com...

edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The US had geopolitical interests to get involved in Afghanistan same as the Russians and same as the British before them. Not going once the opportunity presented itself was never an option.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Merinda



The US had geopolitical interests to get involved in Afghanistan same as the Russians and same as the British before them. Not going once the opportunity presented itself was never an option.


The United States had warned the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, or else. The Taliban refused and the rest is history. The United States wasn't fooled by the Taliban's excuse for evidence that bin Laden was responsible when in fact, it was the Taliban that warned the United States of bin Laden's intentions before 9/11.

Had the Taliban complied with U.S. demands to turn over bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a war.
edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Hmmm...well. As an American who doesn't really follow foreign stuff too much I really had no idea who this guy is. I had to go look him up.

Frankly, the first things I saw on his Wikipedia page made me deeply suspicious of him and/or his possible motives right off the bat. Socialism and a link to some Palestine group. I have no idea what to think about what he's said but I have enough of a sense of what socialists are all about to know they'll say just about anything if it gets them somewhere they need to be. And I just don't trust them. They're devious and they're manipulative and they creep me out.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join