reply to post by Conundrum04
I disagree. Instead what they will do is come on here and type:
"Where's the proof?"
No actual discrediting, no facts, no reasoning. Just a stupid phrase that they use to drag out arguments in every other thread that discusses a
whistleblower.
Wait for it...
Waiiiiit for it...
Someone will say it.
|
reply to post by Sublime620
If someone is going to make nothing but opinonated statements, why should they not be requested to substantiate their opinions? Those so voraciously
clinging to the "official" reports make the same redundant requests, for proof, in every discussion. It does not matter if substantiation has been
offered at least once. It still continues to be redundantly requested, as if ignored, every time it is presented.
Double standards are not acceptable to many people. I am one of those many people.
|
reply to post by Nemithesis
When people are up against the head winds of power and corruption, the general public is the place to take one's valid case. Not everyone is
apathetic and/or lacks compassion. Those with compassion place themselves in the other person's place. They also think that if it can happen to
Sybil Edmonds, it can also happen to them under any other circumstances.
Compassion is what links humanity together, rather than completely turning the entire world into nothing but cold and ruthless predator vs. prey.
|
Originally posted by Karlhungis
I just wonder how a linguist would be in on SO MUCH incriminating information. Seems kind of odd to me.
I know linguists who work for the feds. Isn't it quite obvious why they, of all people, would be in on SO MUCH incriminating info? They are relied
upon to explain recorded phone calls that their white-bred superiors can't understand due to the languages involved.
|
reply to post by OrionStars
Why would you not take what she says as possible and investigate it further. She has laid out the foundation, it is not her responsibility nor would
it be possible for her to validate her claims at this point.
If people want to find the truth, then they need to look for it. She, along with many others, have played their part.
Is she leing? Maybe. You have no grounds to say she is. She is a reliable witness and stands to gain nothing. She is an expert in her field and
privy to sensitive information.
How could you, or anyone, possibly discredit her without further investigation?
|
Edmonds' case is only tangential to 9/11, from what has been revealed so far in the London Times and elsewhere, but it came to light due to 9/11.
She is natively fluent in Farsi and arabic and was approached by the FBI after 9/11 to go through a huge backlog of intercepts. She uncovered the plot
reported in the Times--high USG officials bribed to facilitate the placing of Turkish moles in sensitive positions to allow them to pillage US nuclear
secrets, which were sold on the black market by Turkey, Israel and Pakistan, and the resulting stonewalling of these revelations by the FBI.
She also uncovered the most important mover of all this, the American Turkish Council, or ATC, which is ostensibly a Turkish lobby but on whose board
sit reps of many major American military contractors--Boeing, Northrop, etc. She was approached to join the org. by co-workers already there, and
realized the FBI was infiltrated. She reported this, too, to her superiors, all the way to AG Ashcroft, and was fired as a result.
The essence of her claims were contested in a wrongful dismissal suit she initiated, and this is when she was slapped with the State Secrets gag,
which is so rarely used most people don't even know it exists.
The most interesting recent revelation is the connection between Edmond's case and that of Valerie Plame, the CIA operative outed by the Cheney
cabal, whose front company Brewster Jennings was working on nuclear arms proliferation in the Near and Middle East, and also had the ATC in its
sights.
Of course, ostensibly, to fight the GWOT, nuclear proliferation intelligence is of the highest importance, yet in both cases you see the exec. branch
undermining the work of the FBI and CIA, destroying extremely important assets that in the case of Plame took decades to set in place.
This case is horrifying.
|
Originally posted by OrionStars
I copied the number and will call tomorrow. I know she is telling the truth. Because part of to what she is referring dates back to the Reagan
administration - the Iran-Contra scandal aka drugs for guns.
And right close to home here on ATS we even have a contact for the "celebrities" involved in all of that...
Hansson Affidavit
Iran-Contra was only one of the CIA's greatest hits.
October Surprise- and once again Nazis in the mix, Marcos of the Phillipines... It's easy to forget the complex and deep rogues' gallery of
unsavoury people, some of whom have then become emperor- um I mean President.
|
I always suspected that the war on terror was a scam. What Sibel Edmonds has to say, more or less confirms it. Here's another interesting article.
www.thepeoplesvoice.org...
The CIA certainly have alot to answer for.
|
I have been following Sibel's case for years. She is 100% legit and will make ZERO dollars....she has spent over 50k of her own on lawyers just to
stay out of some secret prison...The first Atty. Gen. to slam an Official Secrets order on her was CHERTOFF, the guy who sent the 5 Dancing Israeli's
home to the MOSSAD without any charges.
Then, the scum Ashcroft did the same thing. The FBI internal investigation found that Sibel was truthful, and that she had been fired for telling
the truth. What more is needed? The Senate is hiding the facts, because it would blow up an election year into a huge international criminal scandal
that would touch on so many Neocon perps that the Repub. party would never lift it's head again for a 100 years.
The crimes that Sibel has CONFIRMED with documentation are wide reaching, from Washington major players to the White House itself. If Sibel manages
not to get murdered by the US government, she can make mincemeat out of the entire corrupt Bush cabal. She is, again, 100% true and a real patriot.
|
