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.

 

"Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
No, I do not. You would pee pee on my pants and tell me its raining. Am I right people?

Oh for god sake I just said I agreed with what you where saying!
I was saying that the article posted MIGHT be biased...thats why I was asking the question! Look I even clarify it later on!



Originally posted by devilwasp

Day in day out? Wth?
Dude..I didnt say that..I said the article makes you think it...I'm pointing out that the part that was qouted MAKES you think that the US did it..
Understand..?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]





Originally posted by 27jd

I'm gonna help DW out on this one, what he was saying, was that the article MAKES you think that, because that is what it is trying to do. That is the purpose of the article. He was pointing out the article is biased, and is designed to MAKE you think a certain way. DW is not anti-American. Geez.


Thank you 27jd!

geez...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Dronetek
No, I do not. You would pee pee on my pants and tell me its raining. Am I right people?

Oh for god sake I just said I agreed with what you where saying!
I was saying that the article posted MIGHT be biased...thats why I was asking the question! Look I even clarify it later on!



Originally posted by devilwasp

Day in day out? Wth?
Dude..I didnt say that..I said the article makes you think it...I'm pointing out that the part that was qouted MAKES you think that the US did it..
Understand..?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




I understand where you were coming from. My misunderstanding.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   


That's all info to take into consideration, but until there was more in depth investigating done, it was still irresponsible to name suspects immediately. It gives me the impression that they were just pissing in the wind, or that they had prior knowledge of the upcoming attack and let it happen.


So, let me get this straight. It is jumping to conculsions when
1) you have someone report to the world that you are to become a target.
2)The way the attacks occur just happens to coincide with the way that same person has operated in the past.
3) the bomber at the wedding party speaks with an Iraqi accent
4) one of the vehicles that are being chased is from Iraq

Boy, this will set the cops back 100's of years in knowing that working with such "facts" is just jumping to conclusions. Note, I am not attacking, I am just trying to point out to you that with all the known facts the number one suspect would have to have been Al-Queda. It does not mean that they were the only suspects, as another pointed out there are Palestinian militants in Jordan so they would also have been suspected although the way the attecks occured was not the way that the PLO normally operates.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

Originally posted by skippytjc
Its about time people of this region place the blame where it belongs: On the terrorists.


I just wish that now people not of that religion would place the blame where it belongs: On the terrorists.

Terrorist scum need to be taken out.
It is sad innocent people are being blamed for the actions of others. It's nice to see that you are reporting these stories




Could not agree with you more, but the sad truth is the terrorist use their version of Islam to justify the attacks. From the very beginning the terrorist have claimed that they are doing Allah's will and this is a Jihad. This is why
the Islamic religion is getting run through the ringers. If the terrorist seperated themselves from Islam this wouldn't be happening. It is virtually impossible to talk about the terrorist without mentioning religion. It is their whole premise for being.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
1. Al'qieda likes to hit places that they failed at before.
2. These are just like the attacks we see in Iraq, which is right next door.
3. Al'qieda has said they would attack Jordan.

Those are the most obvious reasons I can think of.


And those are all points to definitely keep in mind when starting the investigation, but none of those points were proof that they were behind this attack immediately after it occured. None of us are keen on ALL the beef in the ME, we don't know if another organization had their own motives for an attack, and all the facts on the particular attack should have been gathered before laying blame. Not just specualtion based on past actions. If somebody else were responsible, they would get away free as a bird, because everybody immediately decided who they wanted to be responsible.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Dronetek
1. Al'qieda likes to hit places that they failed at before.
2. These are just like the attacks we see in Iraq, which is right next door.
3. Al'qieda has said they would attack Jordan.

Those are the most obvious reasons I can think of.


And those are all points to definitely keep in mind when starting the investigation, but none of those points were proof that they were behind this attack immediately after it occured. None of us are keen on ALL the beef in the ME, we don't know if another organization had their own motives for an attack, and all the facts on the particular attack should have been gathered before laying blame. Not just specualtion based on past actions. If somebody else were responsible, they would get away free as a bird, because everybody immediately decided who they wanted to be responsible.



Correct me if I am wrong but AQ took responsiblity very soon after the attacks by posting on a website that is known for running these sort
of messages. So, it is obvious why the media jumped on AQ.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
So, let me get this straight. It is jumping to conculsions when
1) you have someone report to the world that you are to become a target.


Is it impossible that since it was world known, somebody else may not have seen an opportunity to attack to serve some other agenda, knowing where the blame would immediately fall?



2)The way the attacks occur just happens to coincide with the way that same person has operated in the past.


There are always copycats. Again, just maybe those responsible didn't want to get caught. It's not likely, but it's possible, wouldn't you say?



3) the bomber at the wedding party speaks with an Iraqi accent


I guess I wouldn't know the difference, but what exactly did he say and to whom? And not all Iraqis are in league with Zarqawi, there are other factions.



4) one of the vehicles that are being chased is from Iraq


What about the other two? Where were they from?



Boy, this will set the cops back 100's of years in knowing that working with such "facts" is just jumping to conclusions. Note, I am not attacking, I am just trying to point out to you that with all the known facts the number one suspect would have to have been Al-Queda. It does not mean that they were the only suspects, as another pointed out there are Palestinian militants in Jordan so they would also have been suspected although the way the attecks occured was not the way that the PLO normally operates.


Cops don't come out immediately after an incident and name a suspect, even if they have one. They gather as many facts as they can first.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Correct me if I am wrong but AQ took responsiblity very soon after the attacks by posting on a website that is known for running these sort
of messages. So, it is obvious why the media jumped on AQ.


No, Zarqawi was blamed long before the website claimed responsibility. Right after the attacks they said that nobody had claimed responsibility yet, but Zarqawi was the main suspect. And I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but that it was irresponsible to name a suspect so soon before an investigation.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Yorga
Correct me if I am wrong but AQ took responsiblity very soon after the attacks by posting on a website that is known for running these sort
of messages. So, it is obvious why the media jumped on AQ.


No, Zarqawi was blamed long before the website claimed responsibility. Right after the attacks they said that nobody had claimed responsibility yet, but Zarqawi was the main suspect. And I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but that it was irresponsible to name a suspect so soon before an investigation.


So, at worst that only means the media guessed right.

Doesn't mean Zarqawi wasn't responsible - as you seem to keep trying to claim. He said he did it - end of story.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, at worst that only means the media guessed right.

Doesn't mean Zarqawi wasn't responsible - as you seem to keep trying to claim. He said he did it - end of story.


Where did I ever "seem to keep trying to claim" he wasn't responsible? I think I made it clear in the very post above yours I wasn't saying he didn't do it. I'm just saying, it seems that Zarqawi is immediately blamed for everything these days, and had they been wrong, it would have damaged their credibility. Whatever happened to Bin Laden, anyway? Also, when did he say he did it? There's a posting on a website, but I heard no recorded claims by Zarqawi. Do you believe everything you read on the internet is 100% fact? Or just when it fits what you believe, so you can say you're rght - end of story?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

I'm just saying, it seems that Zarqawi is immediately blamed for everything these days, and had they been wrong, it would have damaged their credibility.


credibility??? he seems to dont care if his organization is targeting Shiites Muslims, which he views as worse than the Crusaders and Jews. Zarqawi can justify that the attacks on the hotels was attacks against the Americans and Jews for the hotels are American owned. and not to mention anibody killed he would say its collateral damage. u dink he listens to critics?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
credibility??? he seems to dont care if his organization is targeting Shiites Muslims, which he views as worse than the Crusaders and Jews. Zarqawi can justify that the attacks on the hotels was attacks against the Americans and Jews for the hotels are American owned. and not to mention anibody killed he would say its collateral damage. u dink he listens to critics?


I'm talking about the credibility of the media who named the suspect within minutes of the attack, before any investigaton, not Zarqawi.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
link


CAIRO, Egypt - In an apparent response to Jordanians who took to the streets to call for its leader to "burn in hell," al-Qaida in Iraq took the rare step Thursday of trying to justify the triple suicide bombings that killed 56 people, mostly Arabs.

Earlier Thursday, the group posted a Web statement claiming responsibility for Wednesday's attacks. Then a second al-Qaida statement appeared on the Internet "to explain for Muslims part of the reason holy warriors targeted these dens." That statement appeared after Arab-wide expressions of outrage.

"Let all know that we have struck only after becoming confident that they are centers for launching war on Islam and support the crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine," the group said.

The statement said the hotels that were hit were "favorite places for the work of the intelligence organs, especially those of the Americans, the Israelis and some western European countries" for what the group called "invisible battles in the so-called war on terrorism."

The statement also said the hotels, the Grand Hyatt, the Radisson SAS and the Days Inn, were used by NATO as a rear base "from which the convoys of the crusaders and the renegades head back and forth to the land of Iraq where Muslims are killed and their blood is shed."

Striking a moral tone, the al-Qaida manifesto said the hotels were a "secure place for the filthy Israeli and Western tourists to spread corruption and adultery at the expense and suffering of the Muslims in these countries."


figures. justifying he attacks on the hotels by saying its operated by American and Israeli forces...blah blah blah. why am i not surprise. also dat the hotels are used as a base for logistics is pretty much ridiculous. they would say anithing even if pretty much out of wack to say they attacked the hotels for dis or dat reason.


"Let everyone know that we will never hesitate in targeting these places wherever they are... . By God, we have never noticed them caring when they shed the blood of Muslims and rape the honor of the decent women," the statement said.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

How are you so sure, that he is THE ENEMY today?

Maybe they are still Good Friends, and Orchestrate this entire War on Terrorism togather?

Maybe Al-Qaeda is the "Black Ops Child" of the CIA-Mossad Agencies, installed to create Fear and Terror, in order to JUSTIFY war on terrorism?



I most certainly would not dismiss this as true

dgtempe's link back to the other thread concerning Nick berg is evident of why I think that this may be true .



[edit on 10-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
First and foremost my condolences go out to all those in Jordan.

I wonder if this attack will finally awaken the "arab street" as to what Bin Laden and Zarqawi are really all about. They don't care who gets killed in their path. It seems like more and more Al Qaeda and their cohorts are trying to take on the whole world, while alienating much of their base of supposed support. They are losing the battle for the hearts and minds IMO.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
After the US backed Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet army in Afghanistan a lot of the arab fighters, believing it to be a triumph of Allah returned to their homelands to try and inspire Islamic fundamentalist uprisings there.

First they attacked the politicians and military leaders, hoping that the general public would see how un-Islamic they were and thus turn against them. However, the Islamic revolutions failed to materialise.

Puzzled, the fundamentalists then decided the problem must lie with the heretical public at large and so they started killing innocent men, women and children indiscriminately.

This tactic backfired spectaularly as the general public turned against the fundamentalist groups and drove them into the sand. It turns out, your average human being be he Christian, Jew, Muslim or Atheist just wants to live a peaceful life.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, at worst that only means the media guessed right.

Doesn't mean Zarqawi wasn't responsible - as you seem to keep trying to claim. He said he did it - end of story.


Where did I ever "seem to keep trying to claim" he wasn't responsible? I think I made it clear in the very post above yours I wasn't saying he didn't do it. I'm just saying, it seems that Zarqawi is immediately blamed for everything these days, and had they been wrong, it would have damaged their credibility. Whatever happened to Bin Laden, anyway? Also, when did he say he did it? There's a posting on a website, but I heard no recorded claims by Zarqawi. Do you believe everything you read on the internet is 100% fact? Or just when it fits what you believe, so you can say you're rght - end of story?


What, zarqawi has to send you a personally engraved explanation before you'll place the blame on him? Again, all you seem to be doing is trying to deflect responsibility for these heinous crimes from zarqawi onto the media.

Whether you're doing this out of personal choice or naive foolishness, the result is still that you are nothing but a shill for the terrorists.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
What, zarqawi has to send you a personally engraved explanation before you'll place the blame on him? Again, all you seem to be doing is trying to deflect responsibility for these heinous crimes from zarqawi onto the media.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, the media carried out the bombings!


ONCE AGAIN, I'm sure it WAS Zarqawi, I NEVER said it wasn't. I just said it was wreckless to come out immediately after an incident, before any REAL investigation, and place blame. NOT because I feel Zarqawi was wronged, but because in the slight chance it was carried out by another terrorist organization of some sort, there would be a chance they would have gotten away with it, because YOU and many others wanted so badly for it to be this newly crowned public enemy #1, who has replaced Bin Laden. I guess it doesn't matter to you if there's even a slight chance somebody else is responsible, and if they get away, because you really could care less about the Jordanians killed and care more about blind "patriot fuel" against Zarqawi, as if any more is even needed. All it takes for you is an internet claim of responsibility, and it's set in stone? I hope you're not really that simple minded.

To the critical thinker, it seems strange that Zarqawi would attack his homeland and blow whatever support he may have there. Of course it's not impossible, but it seems strange.



Whether you're doing this out of personal choice or naive foolishness, the result is still that you are nothing but a shill for the terrorists.


I didn't realize my "personal choice or naive foolishness" is so important that it has any bearing whatsoever on this particular incident. And it's funny how wanting to actually verify a suspicion of guilt and not just make immediate assumptions as to who is behind a crime makes me naive, and a "shill" for terrorists. That really was quite an ignorant statement.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

To the critical thinker, it seems strange that Zarqawi would attack his homeland and blow whatever support he may have there. Of course it's not impossible, but it seems strange.



i understand yer reasoning dat its best to investigate before pointing fingers. but so far we have seen on the Islamic websites dat posted up up Zarqawi's organization dat is proudly displaying and bragging about wat they did and why they did it in justification. dont need to investigate ani further than dat. however as to the question about why Zarqawi wants to attack his own homeland u need to research Zarqawi's history with the Jordanian govt.


[edit on 11-11-2005 by deltaboy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join