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.

 

Charged with plotting to assassinate G W Bush

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
This just goes to show how there is an enemy within.

I think it is time that these people were hunted down. They want to assassinate a President, well, isn't it about time that we started to assassinate them?

What i find disturbing is that they allowed 100 of this mans supporters into the court room... surley, if he was such a well connected threat, was there not a risk that they may of tried to use force to release him??

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050222/ap_on_re_us/saudi_detainee_bush_plot

[edit on 22-2-2005 by MadGrimbo]




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Funny, how close can you get to the lord and saviour bush?

Really?



They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."


Humm I bet he had it all planned after all.


Give me a brake.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Further evidence that the war on terrorism should have focused its targets on Saudi Arabia, and NOT! spread terrorism into Iraq..

Smoke a big phatty cohiba lately Sir Bandar Bush?..



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Further evidence that the war on terrorism should have focused its targets on Saudi Arabia, and NOT! spread terrorism into Iraq..

Are you honestly saying you'd support invasion occupation and regime change in saudi arabia or not?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Well it is good to see that the seed has been planted. Hopefully some day soon one of these people will succeed and the US can go back to being a democracy and a world leader as it used to be after ww2.

Besides, it isnt as though Bush is really the legitimate president.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Are you honestly saying you'd support invasion occupation and regime change in saudi arabia or not?


My comments never implied that i would directly support military invasion/occupation or regime change regarding Saudi Arabia. If America truly cared in squashing international terrorism, I believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should have been thee primary target, oh and along with most of Africa.

17 hijackers and not even a single sanction to date... Makes ya wonder huh?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Fair play to the guy for trying.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer

Originally posted by Nygdan
Are you honestly saying you'd support invasion occupation and regime change in saudi arabia or not?


My comments never implied that i would directly support military invasion/occupation or regime change regarding Saudi Arabia. If America truly cared in squashing international terrorism, I believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should have been thee primary target, oh and along with most of Africa.

17 hijackers and not even a single sanction to date... Makes ya wonder huh?


The USA government is too involved with Saudi Arabia to do anything to stop the spreading of anti-american terrorism over there.

Saudi Arabia should really be the main target but with our politicians in Washington having their hands still dirty with Arab oil, it is not likely to happen.
Saudi Arabia has been for decades a cove for terrorists and above all a constant source of funds through the so-called "charity organizations".
In 1996 Sudan sent an official request to the Saudi government to turn over Osama bin Laden; the request was refused based on "Osama being too popular in Saudi Arabia".

Most o the schools in SA are religious school, where the primary subject being taught is islamic fundamentalism; add to it that - although the Royal family moves arouind the world in top yachts and private jets - the majority of people are poor and without jobs and you have the perfect mix, the perfect fertile ground to plant the seed of terrorism.

But too many have gotten and are getting rich in Washington thanks to deals with SA in order for this to be stopped.

September 11 was the result of our government letting down the American people. And until most of Americans will keep sleeping and thinking we "had" to invade Iraq to defend ourselves, there will not be many chances of things to change soon.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer

Originally posted by Nygdan
Are you honestly saying you'd support invasion occupation and regime change in saudi arabia or not?


My comments never implied that i would directly support military invasion/occupation or regime change regarding Saudi Arabia.

So you do or do not support invasion?


If America truly cared in squashing international terrorism, I believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should have been thee primary target,

Why? the Saud house controls the public there and is a better tool to effect change than the american military no? As for pakistan, why invade? Musharaff is dictator there, but not the one sponsoring the international terror, better to leave a cooperative dictator like musharraf in power than invade no?


oh and along with most of Africa.

Outside of the horn, how involved is african in internationalist jihadi terrorism, and how is invasion a good solution to any states that are?


17 hijackers and not even a single sanction to date... Makes ya wonder huh?

Not really. A closed door deal was obviously made.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So you do or do not support invasion?


I do not support any preemptive military invasion resulting in loss of human life on both sides. Although in retrospect, I do support the implementation of strict sanctions on this Islamic fundalmentalist driven state (saudi arabia) which saw 17 of the 19 hijackers murder 3000+ Americans. I believe James Baker III should be brought to trial and convicted for treason. His lawfirm "baker botts" defended the "very" foreign Saudi Royal family against the "very" American families/victims of 911.



Why? the Saud house controls the public there and is a better tool to effect change than the american military no? As for pakistan, why invade? Musharaff is dictator there, but not the one sponsoring the international terror, better to leave a cooperative dictator like musharraf in power than invade no?


When Islamic terrorists purchase rogue Pakistani dirty nuke technology and shove it up America's you know what.. I'll get back to you on how significant it is to fight "the true war on terror" within the countries in question. Face it Nygdan, the Bush admin/media has stapled the new war on terrorism in your head, implying it has something to do with invading/killing/conquering..



Outside of the horn, how involved is african in internationalist jihadi terrorism, and how is invasion a good solution to any states that are?


Would you be more concerned if Africa's internationalist jihadi terrorism were to significantly spread outside of the horn? Would it not be in America's best interest to stop the anti-American jihad? To stop the resentment from spreading across the continent while it's still at premature status?.. Effective stratagies if we truly were fighting a war on terrorism..


Not really. A closed door deal was obviously made.


Are you sure justice was served Nygdan?.. Have we seen any fallout? a single shred of evidence to convince us that justice for the families/victims/dead souls of sept 11th was served?

To prevent this thead from going off topic please feel free to U2U if you wish to continue this debate

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Let see the Royal Bush-Saud family,

The president's family has long been closely tied through a complex web of oil, money and power to the royal family of Saudi Arabia, which has maintained its despotic grip on the petroleum-rich kingdom through an alliance with the most militant strain of Islamic fundamentalism.

Meet, Prince Bandar, Ambassador to the US, he is known as the Arab Gatsby, he loves sipping brandy and smoking choiba cigars. He is a very good follower of the Dallas Cowboys, and seen by his people in Saudi as a follower ot the western’s infidel civilization.

With all his playboy guise, he is still a islamic fundamentalist. The truth is that money from the Saud family has found his way into financing Islamic fundamentalist groups.

Follow the money trail and the business deal and you will see that the present administration only goes after the countries that do not want business with bush.



If you go by any of the various definitions of terrorism - Pakistan ranks as its top supporter. No matter what the current dictator General Musharraf says, his actions are clear - forward the agenda of radical Islam. He has done so in the past and continues to do so with no indication of changing with his now famous token public statements for western consumption. As long as he continues to get US taxpayer and Worldbank/IMF money and a pat on the back, he is happy to keep things just the way they are in 1. Pakistan. Please read the articles listed and check the site below for more detailed info on the menace that is Pakistan.


Yes, US bush administration sure knows against who and where to fight Its war on terror and tyranny with.

terrorism.reallybites.com...




[edit on 22-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
Well it is good to see that the seed has been planted. Hopefully some day soon one of these people will succeed and the US can go back to being a democracy and a world leader as it used to be after ww2.

Besides, it isnt as though Bush is really the legitimate president.

Statements like these show you for the ignorant, pathetic loser you are. Regardless of your personal feelings for President Bush, publicly endorsing his murder is just plain stupid.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Jsobecky, easy......you pick on the ladies with sexy avatars...Just wait till you get a woman president in 2008.... Better start practicing now...

By the way has anyone fed you yet?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
I believe James Baker III should be brought to trial and convicted for treason. His lawfirm "baker botts" defended the "very" foreign Saudi Royal family against the "very" American families/victims of 911.


Amendment VI states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This right is not confined to citizens. Would you have denied the Saudis legal counsel and a) invalidate the trial or b) convict them anyway and have the US sink to the level of a totalitarian state or dictatorship?




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Dang they caught my agent oooppppsssss this the the part where I am supposed to disavow knowledge




But seriously , why is it the president is out of the country when this all went down why would this guy have been caught just at the time the president was out of reach.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
Well it is good to see that the seed has been planted. Hopefully some day soon one of these people will succeed and the US can go back to being a democracy and a world leader as it used to be after ww2.

Besides, it isnt as though Bush is really the legitimate president.

Statements like these show you for the ignorant, pathetic loser you are. Regardless of your personal feelings for President Bush, publicly endorsing his murder is just plain stupid.


Speak for yourself ignorant one!



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Well,me being against Bush and his agenda,I won't really care if someone tried to assasinate him to justify their cause.Apparently Bush going into Iraq and killing Iraqi resistance soldiers and some civilians can be considered assasination too.

Assasination is just another glamourous word for murder.If a guy shot a drunk on a street,it'll be called a murder.However,if the Saudi were to shot/explode in front of Bush,it'll be called an assasination and assasination usually involves someone of recognition and distinction.Therefore,assasination equals to murder.

What can we conclude?

Bush murders he gets away with it.

Someone planning to assasinate(murder) Bush,that someone got charged.

What is happening to the world today...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Sounds like another false flag operation to demonize those dark skinned people that have our oil. Either that or it's the dumbest assassination attempt I've ever heard of. Do Not attempt to take out the president. It wouldn't do any good anyway. If you have to assassinate someone take out some of those bankers that are raping the nations of the planet in the guise of the IMF and other such agencies. Leave poor Bush alone. He's doing a fantastic job playing the role he has. I don't think I would have what it takes to piss the world off, invade 2 countries then go have dinner with the French president. But he pulls it off without even choking on a croissant.

[edit on 2-23-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Assasination of Bush will only make him one of those things most fear in the world right now a martyr of an ill gotten cause. The Vice president will just rally to the support of his causes because if he was killed for them then mentality would assume that he was killed because he was doing the right thing. But
wait I forgot a twist in my theory is the vice president still discussion vacating position over health concerns , well then the senario changes two new supporters of the martyrs cause comes in and start a fresh and really screw the world up breaking down relations over lack of information in the peace progression , worstening wars by getting over zelious to keep their new office after the emergency election if their is such a thing in this country but atleast trying to be gung ho in order to win a election during the next standard election,
the assasins would just make things worse for themselves by introducing an unpredictable element into the chaos pot.





The whole thing is tactically unsound,






[edit on 23/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Jsobecky, easy......you pick on the ladies with sexy avatars...Just wait till you get a woman president in 2008.... Better start practicing now...

By the way has anyone fed you yet?

Hey dg, I don't know too many ladies by the name of James.
But if they look like your avatar, well then, there's always an exception...

Condi Rice in 2008? So you'd support her, eh? I don't know if the US is ready for a woman president yet.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join