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.

 

MP George Galloway Connected to "Bottle Bomb" Terrorists?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Man that is NOT a name worthy of ANY credibility with me. Wow, do some research into Dave Gaubatz and go from there...

To think the Old Money wouldn't male a sacrificial lamb of Galloway (not saying they DID but) is such a naive thought that I have to wonder if those who think it have ANY IDEA what the Federal Reserve, the single MOST powerful financial entity on this planet, is?

Do you think it's Government owned institution?

I look forward to the answer to this one, simple, question...


Springer...


Springer

Thanks alot for tip. I just found an article with video from June 23, 06. This is astounding if there is any validity to it. I wonder how he knows that the sites have yet to be searched and if they have not been why? BTW, are you one of the owners?

Man Says He Has Proof Of Possible WMD's In Iraq




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Is very interesting to see, when a very outspoken known figure like Mr. Galloway becomes too dangerous to be an attempt on his life to silence him, the next option is to get his credibility attacked with propaganda.

It is so calculated and obvious that we should not question the credibility of Mr. Galloway but should get deeper into the motives and the comments about the connection.

The question should be who make the connection and why.


Marg

Did I miss something here? How is this propaganda. How do you know the suspect's sister didn't say this? How do you know the suspect didn't meet Galloway?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by War_Monger
Marg

Did I miss something here? How is this propaganda. How do you know the suspect's sister didn't say this? How do you know the suspect didn't meet Galloway?


You missed a whole lot. Did you read the article?

Its propaganda because its an indirect slur. It may actually be totally false but it was printed in a Newspaper and even included its own disclaimer but some of the people who read it will believe it, whether its true or false.

Its the same line as Bush took when he tried to link Al-Quaeda to Saddam Hussein, and with the whole Iraq/WMD thing. Repat something often enough and people start believing it whether its true or not.

Blair did it over here with the "45 minute" claim and he got hung out to dry for it eventually.

As for my point earlier about Rumsfeld, there is documented video evidence of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Husseins hand and being warmly greeted by the former dictator. Therefore, by some of the "logic" people use Rumsfeld deals with dictators and terrorists and should be "fried" for it.

There is a thin line between fact and propaganda. Things are written deliberatley so that they can can be misread or interpreted in a number of ways.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore


You missed a whole lot. Did you read the article?

Its propaganda because its an indirect slur. It may actually be totally false but it was printed in a Newspaper and even included its own disclaimer but some of the people who read it will believe it, whether its true or false.

Its the same line as Bush took when he tried to link Al-Quaeda to Saddam Hussein, and with the whole Iraq/WMD thing. Repat something often enough and people start believing it whether its true or not.

As for my point earlier about Rumsfeld, there is documented video evidence of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Husseins hand and being warmly greeted by the former dictator. Therefore, by some of the "logic" people use Rumsfeld deals with dictators and terrorists and should be "fried" for it.

There is a thin line between fact and propaganda. Things are written deliberatley so that they can can be misread or interpreted in a number of ways.


neformore

Are we talking about the same article here? Of course I read it. I read it before I saw it posted on ATS. I originally read it on Drudge and was thinking about posting it earlier in the day...before someone else decided to. However, I do have to ask if you read the entire article? You may want to read it again. Here, I'll even help you:


A spokesman for MP Galloway, above, said: “Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level.” There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.


I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to drag Bush and/or Blair into this but you went beyond the beyond and had to include Rumsfled who has nothing to do with this article...just as Bush and Blair have nothing to do with it. Your liberal left wing bias and bigotry is blinding!

This article may be true or it may be as false "al reuters" photographs. I don't know and neither do you! The only reason you feel the need to play the propaganda card is because this article hits a little to close to home in in trying to damn another big mouth looney liberal.

Furthermore, who cares if he did meet one of those homicidal idiots. Galloway may be big mouth wacko and terrorist sympathiser but I doubt he is aiding terrorists himself. This is not propaganda.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   



A spokesman for MP Galloway, above, said: “Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level.” There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.



Well, George Galloway does have interesting friends...like Saddam and Castro
but the UK media has had Galloway in the sights for a while now and have been trying their hardest to bring him down. its a witchhunt by the media.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah whatever, without even think about it twice or looking into people are automatically willing to blame the "government" because they’re behind it all. It cant be a news source trying to gain headlines and viewers, no it’s the government, like they would give a… abut George Galloway now. Nothing but blind suspicion from both sides, sad.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by WestPoint23]


Westy, it's well known in the UK that Government and the Sun newspaper have a very interesting relationship. The Sun says jump and the Blair Government will usually ask how high and if they would like them to do it upside down too..

The Sun itself is as Tabloid as British Tabloids get, second only on my most hated list to the Daily Mail. It appeals to the lowest common denominator and then some, willingly making up crap rather than actually finding out any real facts.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
For non-UK members i will point out that Murdoch does not only own Sky, but alot of newspapers (The Sun is one of them i believe) in the UK aswell and Murdoch does have a good relationship with Blair. Blair even refused calls to break up the Murdoch media empire in the United Kingdom.

Plus, Galloway did take a huge swipe at Murdoch and his media outlets on an interview with Skynews. This news might be just revenge.


[edit on 12-8-2006 by infinite]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by War_Monger
Are we talking about the same article here? Of course I read it. I read it before I saw it posted on ATS. I originally read it on Drudge and was thinking about posting it earlier in the day...before someone else decided to. However, I do have to ask if you read the entire article? You may want to read it again. Here, I'll even help you:


A spokesman for MP Galloway, above, said: “Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level.” There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.

Perhaps you missed the subtlety? The whole article is based on nothing more than a she said she saw but could be nothing. Why does this warrant a news article in a major newspaper? Who asked a question to get such a response? Did the newspaper interviewer ask friends and family members of the accussed bombers, "Does your brother have anything to do with George Galloway by any chance?" or did the sister volunteer the fact that she recalls her brother shaking hands with George Galloway?

It's nothing but a flimsy hitpiece without the balls to make an accusation against George Galloway outright because they know he would sue them again.


Originally posted by War_Monger
I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to drag Bush and/or Blair into this but you went beyond the beyond and had to include Rumsfled who has nothing to do with this article...just as Bush and Blair have nothing to do with it. Your liberal left wing bias and bigotry is blinding!

The Rumsfeld incident has everything to do with this topic. It goes to show the hypocrisy of people condemning Galloway as some kind of traitor but Rumsfeld sits in the Pentagon when he did the same thing on camera no less. And you might want to refrain from the partisan rhetoric, it's a sure fire way of getting the attention of the staff - and not in the nice way.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Thank you Subz. I couldn't have put it better.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by War_Monger
Your liberal left wing bias and bigotry is blinding!


This is particularly insulting.

Show me where I am

- Left wing
- Bias
- A bigot.

Quote me. Put up or shut up. If you can't do it, post a retraction.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by War_Monger
Your liberal left wing bias and bigotry is blinding!


This is particularly insulting.

Show me where I am

- Left wing
- Bias
- A bigot.

Quote me. Put up or shut up. If you can't do it, post a retraction.


And I'm insulted by the incessant claim that Bush lied.


Its the same line as Bush took when he tried to link Al-Quaeda to Saddam Hussein, and with the whole Iraq/WMD thing. Repat something often enough and people start believing it whether its true or not.


I'm also insulted by your wish to see the United States Secretary of Defense executed.


As for my point earlier about Rumsfeld, there is documented video evidence of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Husseins hand and being warmly greeted by the former dictator. Therefore, by some of the "logic" people use Rumsfeld deals with dictators and terrorists and should be "fried" for it.


Bush and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with this topic until Bush/Rumsfeld haters brought it up.

When you retract your anti Bush rhetoric and your wish to see Rumsfeld executed (fried) I will retract calling you a biased left wing bigot.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Funny, I thought "leftist's" were against the death penalty, so I don't see how this particular label applies.

Also, Bush did lie...About alot of things. That is common knowledge. So did Blair. In fact, I thought everyone knew ALL politicians lied?

Why get your knickers in a twist over it?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by War_Monger

And I'm insulted by the incessant claim that Bush lied.



Well I'm sorry about your need to feel personally offended on behalf of the President of the United States of America. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. I'm sure he believed what he was told by certain sections of his staff. He sure as hell didn't believe the sections that told him that there was no connection, and kept repeating his belief that there were. Just to add though - the 9/11 commision also found no links, as shown here;

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

As for "incessant", I think you'll find I personally implied it once. Once is not incessant. I am but a single person. I do so humbly apologise on behalf of other people I don't know, will never meet and may not even care to meet who drew the same conclusion.



I'm also insulted by your wish to see the United States Secretary of Defense executed.


Not my wish at all I suggest you re-read the quote again - here - I'll post if for you. I'll even put in bold the relevant nuance that you missed.


As for my point earlier about Rumsfeld, there is documented video evidence of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Husseins hand and being warmly greeted by the former dictator. Therefore, by some of the "logic" people use Rumsfeld deals with dictators and terrorists and should be "fried" for it.


It was, in fact, a parrallel draw out from thermopolis's earlier post where he/she typed



If in fact Galloway is involved.........he should fry...........


As for



Bush and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with this topic until Bush/Rumsfeld haters brought it up.


In the context I've outlined I think you'll find the parallel is quite relevant, which is why I bought it up.



When you retract your anti Bush rhetoric and your wish to see Rumsfeld executed (fried) I will retract calling you a biased left wing bigot.


As you know nothing of my politics, or my beliefs with regard to people, religion and race, I'd say calling me a biased left wing bigot is uncalled for. I have no wish to see Rumsfeld "fry", I was drawing a parrallel. I hope you can see that now.

I await your retraction in due course.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Funny, I thought "leftist's" were against the death penalty, so I don't see how this particular label applies.

Also, Bush did lie...About alot of things. That is common knowledge. So did Blair. In fact, I thought everyone knew ALL politicians lied?

Why get your knickers in a twist over it?



stumason


You just hit the nail right on the head. All politicians lie all time. Virtually every liberal that I know wants to crucify Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld but they they exonorate John Kerry (who served in Vietanm), Ted Kennedy, Nancy Polosi, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and all the rest that said Saddam was a major threat, and had wmd, and was still seeking wmd. They were saying this stuff throughout the 90's and right clear up to the invasion or Iraq. Somehow conservatives (or the dreaded evil neocons) are liers and deceived the public with the wmd/threat claims but liberals who did the same exact thing are left off the hook. Then they come out and claim that they did not say these things despite the fact that it is on the record in newspapers, magazines, credible online sources, and even in House and Senate records that can be accessed at their websites.

As far as Bush lieing about wmd, Springer, in this very thread, clued me in on something I did not know about before. A man by the name of Dave Gaubatz claims he knows were the wmd could possibly be hidden! I've checked through ATS and found an awful lot of information on this story. Now, granted, we still don't know if the sites Gaubatz is concerned about really do contain wmd but certain people on this site have no interest in waiting to findout. That makes them biased and partisan. I've been accussed of partisanship but I am not partisan. I'm sick people giving Saddam Hussien the benefit of the doubt but not Bush.

And again, if they wanna hang Bush, hang the Democrats as well. Fair is Fair.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
neformore

Thank you, this is all I expect, which you just said:


Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't


Lets just see what happens with the Dave Gaubatz story and the wmd.



I'm sure he believed what he was told by certain sections of his staff. He sure as hell didn't believe the sections that told him that there was no connection, and kept repeating his belief that there were. Just to add though - the 9/11 commision also found no links, as shown here


I never said that there was a conection between 9/11 and Saddam...if thats what you are referring to.

I didn't mean you exclusively when I used the word "incessant". I mean everybody who is pushing the notion that Bush lied...including some of my own family.


quote: As for my point earlier about Rumsfeld, there is documented video evidence of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Husseins hand and being warmly greeted by the former dictator. Therefore, by some of the "logic" people use Rumsfeld deals with dictators and terrorists and should be "fried" for it.


The word "fried" is often used to describe execution by electric chair. Maybe you didn't mean it that way but it sure seemed like you were advocating his execution. As far as "frying" Galloway, I can't stand him but I don't believe he is stupid enough to aid terrorists. The man did nothing that deserves being fried.

As for the retraction, you have it.

Please accept my full and humble apology for calling you a biased left wing bigot



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Hang the lot of 'em I say. MP's/Congress persons, whatever, should be chosen by random lottery, but thats another thread.

Me, I don't care much for labelling, which is why I posted originally. Labels put people into brackets, when each person has their own views and beliefs. To label someone is to play the old divide and conquer game.

Everyone is different, remember that.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, does not automatically make them a liberal/neo-con/war perv of lefty commie pinko peadophile, or whatever.

You said you get called "partisan", just remember labelling goes both ways.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Hang the lot of 'em I say. MP's/Congress persons, whatever, should be chosen by random lottery, but thats another thread.

Me, I don't care much for labelling, which is why I posted originally. Labels put people into brackets, when each person has their own views and beliefs. To label someone is to play the old divide and conquer game.

Everyone is different, remember that.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, does not automatically make them a liberal/neo-con/war perv of lefty commie pinko peadophile, or whatever.

You said you get called "partisan", just remember labelling goes both ways.



Again, I agree with you. But you know something, this country is at war with itself. Some people call it a culture war. Thats pretty fitting. I've even called it a cold civil war...cold because nobody has fired the official first shot, yet. Up till early 2000 I did not even know this was going on. It wasn't until I was attacked, branded, and called all sorts of names because I am a conservative republican and I believe in Jesus. This is what I've been since I'm 13. Just the other night I was called a stupid neocon...for no reason. Today, when I see people attacking the values and the institutions and the people that I admire I feel like they are attacking me directly, and they are. Tell me something stumason. Why can't all of us "bracketed" people just get along and work together for a better and prosperous future for us all? This BS is tearing our country apart. My God, what is happening to us. United We Stand but Divided We Fall...


I want to apologize to the rest of the participants of this thread for the war of words that I was engaged in with neformore.

I need to stay away from this thread for a bit



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Galloway is a prat. He is not big and he's not clever. He is a prat. He is sort of round, sort of podgy, but that doesn't change anything. I find him to be arrogant and a knave. But what the Sun is doing is wrong. You can't make stuff up when you feel like it.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Thank you Springer, you have enlightened me to a final piece to my puzzle...



paraphrase: The Federal Reserve is a 100% private institution, owned by the old money families...


That is one bit of truth that eluded me by its obviousness...

Now it all fits, exactly as you said... the fix is in
... and Poor Galloway is merely a pawn to be played by bigger interests... and sacrificed as same...

It truly makes me doubt any moves on the board, when you doubt the motives of the players...



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I must admit i didnt knew that much about George Galloway until i saw the Sky interview with him earlier this week, i must say that man has some Big Kahunas to tell it how it really is.

So this linking George into terrorists is merely a smudge campaign from RM.

No one sane enough can not see that what he says in this interview is how it is. We have about the worlds most efficient army invading what ever country around them they see fit, and all we hear of i MSM is how the dangerours terroist blow them self up in civilian areas. Has anyone ever wondered how you would react if your country was under siege and you had to beg and scrape the dust to get the basic needs covered? Ofcourse such extreme situations will call for extreme meassurements, and the people under siege will fight with what ever they have at hand, that is called survival instincts and its deeply burried in each of us.....

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Loke.]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join