Who Says it Was Al Qaida?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Leveller, learn how to think for yourself. Then MAYBE you can offer some kind of opinion or conclusion. Or maybe even a shred of information to support whatever it is you think you're saying. I don't think I've ever seen you post anything other than your pathetically programmed nonsense.
I'll help you out and give you something to read. And just so ya know, the only way you'll ever learn anything, is to read from the full spectrum of thought. Staying inside your own little comfort bubble will get you nowhere fast, as is clearly apparent by your nothing-filled posts.

Hijackers?


What makes you think you actually KNOW what happened on those planes? All four were obliterated, along with everyone on board, remember? No crime scene, no direct evidence, no recognizable remains, no witnesses whatsoever -- it's a blank canvas. How convenient for any party intent on launching a new era of global imperialism, and willing to spin this tragedy into a viable excuse. Indeed, all of the attack's consequences are far better explained by this agenda than by Bin Laden's purported death wish. Those presuming to examine this matter, i.e. ALL OF US, need to recognize that such trickery is a timeless specialty of governments.

And yet from that very day we have allowed the government-media complex to focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: Crazy Arabs did it! George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most arrogant terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities -- an edict most Americans, in their desperation to believe in this man, seem to have embraced. The Bush Administration even withholds its "proof" of Al Qa'eda's guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to require full explanations, and once again, we're just rolling over and taking it.

The phrases 'spiritually broken' and 'morally adrift' come to mind...

Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review, we have absolutely no assurance that this "proof" isn't exactly like the "proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -- i.e., a big fat lie from top to bottom. On these terms, wholesale acceptance of the hijacker scenario will continue to be what it has always been: a pathetic display of blind faith in this administration's utterances, and in those of its media accomplices. At present, it is astonishing that anyone places faith of any kind in either party: by means of the "WMD" debacle, both have proven themselves amoral, duplicitous, and utterly devoid of humanity. Indeed, why do we give them so much as a moment of our attention? No one with a lick of sense would do this.

A rigorous civilian investigation of 9-11 would help resolve such doubts. If Bush and the rest were standing on firm ground, they would fully support such a thing. Instead, they have worked to thwart both its formation and its progress, using every resource within their reach. Some time last year, they seem to have realized they were only fueling suspicions this way, so Bush grudgingly approved an "independent" investigation. The arrogance of this bunch is so disabling, however, that they actually damaged their credibility even further by naming Henry Kissinger to lead it. This is a man whose dedication to "US interests" verges on homicidal psychosis (see his treatment of Cambodians 1970, Chileans 1973, East Timorese and Kurds 1975, MUCH more). He could only be expected to skew this investigation accordingly, i. e., to omit and cover up any issue not conducive to empire building. Ironically, even Henry had the sense to admit he was an inappropriate choice, thus resigning from this duty, whereupon Bush immediately returned to his original tactic of stonewalling (1). Could the man possibly have something to hide?
nyc.indymedia.org...




posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Bam... I just thought about something... and this makes a hell of a lot of sense now.. Don't know why I have not thought about this. You know why they Bin laden is signing his death wish...... he is dead and they are creating this illusion of himself being the next attacker so that this one can be a big attack and then they will move on to the next terriorist Organization... When was the last time you have seen much on Osama... not too much recently.. America is tired of him. So what to do, what to do.. It is like a movie. When the audience gets tired of one character, they kill him and replace him with another.. Bin laden is not going to attack the US, but the US sure as hell going to attack ourself and blame him... No body will question it.. I mean we have not seen any videos from him in a long time, but we sure as hell have heard tapes, which could be anyone.. remember, the US is the ones saying where it is his voice or not... It is all like the songs we use to sing when we were younger and we saw Johny and kim kissing... First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Osama blowing the whole #ing country up... I will tell you this, if the US was doing the whole "homeland Security" blaa blaa, I have not see anything done around here.. I live 20 mins from the largest Fuel Depot on the East coast... All they have protecting it is a thin fence... and it is only 10 feet off Hwy 40 which is the nations most traveled highway...



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dravenn
Bam... I just thought about something... and this makes a hell of a lot of sense now.. Don't know why I have not thought about this. You know why they Bin laden is signing his death wish...... he is dead and they are creating this illusion of himself being the next attacker so that this one can be a big attack and then they will move on to the next terriorist Organization... When was the last time you have seen much on Osama... not too much recently.. America is tired of him. So what to do, what to do.. It is like a movie. When the audience gets tired of one character, they kill him and replace him with another.. Bin laden is not going to attack the US, but the US sure as hell going to attack ourself and blame him... No body will question it.. I mean we have not seen any videos from him in a long time, but we sure as hell have heard tapes, which could be anyone.. remember, the US is the ones saying where it is his voice or not... It is all like the songs we use to sing when we were younger and we saw Johny and kim kissing... First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Osama blowing the whole #ing country up... I will tell you this, if the US was doing the whole "homeland Security" blaa blaa, I have not see anything done around here.. I live 20 mins from the largest Fuel Depot on the East coast... All they have protecting it is a thin fence... and it is only 10 feet off Hwy 40 which is the nations most traveled highway...


Yeah, same situation with the power plants and ports. It's a bunch of prime USDA BU#. Osama? Don't know if he's dead or not, but you can be sure he's what they call a super-asset. He's probably back in the west somewhere going by his old name Tim Osman. Remember that? Back when the U.S. government loved him so much they took him on tours of military facilities your average American citizens could never get into. Rest assured, they're using his carefully-created image to the fullest extent.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You also seem to forget these are AMERICANS you are talking about. You must know too, that there was NOT another possible selling point in invading Iraq. This is not britian. Unless Americans are convinced that it is a direct threat to thier safety, that they are being attacked, they will not send people overseas.



Exactly. America.
You kinda invalidate your own point by mentioning those other countries.
The US has never shirked from taking military action away from home. It's armed forces have been more active in foreign countries than any other nations.
The US admins always managed to sell their wars before. You reckon one more would have made such a big difference?

And although I disagree with your analysis of the Saudi military, what makes you think Iraqi forces were any better? In fact, from the way they the US just walked straight into Baghdad I woulda said that the Saudis were on pretty safe ground.

SirSyco - You're as boring as ECK.


Leveler,

Youre wrong. Simply because America marched wherever they wanted, you seem to not be seperating the US govornment from the US people. Ill give you a little list of wars publically known:

World War 1: Unpopular until the sinking of the lusitania, then everyone was happy to enter, because propoganda told them the germans were out to get them.

World War 2: No desire to enter another silly European conflict, until pearl harbor, then public support skyrocketed.

Korea: residual paranoia of communists and the russians made public support pretty much good.

Vietnam: Nothing, vastly unpopular. VERY unpopular. Why? Americans simply did not see the point in it. The vietnamese werent bothering us, and communist paranoia pretty much had died.

Grenada: Apathy. People pretty much saw no point, scratched thier heads, thought it stupid.

Lebenon: Same as grenada.

Air Strike in Libyia: Khadafi was directly attacking Americans

Panama: Apathy. Curisosity. Why were we going after Noriega? Dont we have better things to do?

Desert Storm: popular. why? Because Saddam took American hostages. He was considered a threat. The cold war had ended, and we were rather nervous about the rise of new enemies.

Somolia: Apathy, unpopular. No point. Who cared?

Haiti/Rwanda: apathy, annoyance. general public sentiment: we are tired of sending tropps to stupid little countries.

Bosnia: very unpopular. Americans now pretty much fed up with troops getting deployed everywhere. isolationismn getting alot more popular. At least militarily. The general consensus: why are we wasting time, money, and people on idiots who cant police themselves? # them.

There you have it leveler. You are very wrong. the US govornment, umnless it could convince totally the American people, that they were under serious threat, would never be able to sell a war. Hell, before 9/11 there was alot of popular support for pulling our forces out from all over the world. There was popular apathy, everyone pretty much forgot about saddam. people wanted us to pull our troops out of the middle east.

The only way they were gonna get popular public support for another invasion , not just iraq, but several other nations, was to make americans sky high paranoid and fearful. An attack.

That was the only way, leveler. Im not sure where you get our govornment being able to sell us thier wars. Simply because our govornment sumped troops here and there, does not mean the public was thrilled, or in many cases, was even aware of it.

Americans have no real taste for war unless they think and feel the enemy is out to get them. To make them think this, Americans must be attacked. Even attacking our troops overseas isnt enough. Khobar and the USS cole was greeted here with a shake of the head, and a "well, why are we still there anyway" mentality.

9/11, it is clear to see, was a govornment/Israel/al qaeda effort to push that fear and paranoia to new levels to make Americans want to go to war and take out any country they suspect might be going to attack them. Attacking our troops and embassys isnt enough. There had to be something MORE, something that would be so horrifically buried into our heads forever, something horrific.

9/11 was just that. Hell, I live 3000 miles on the opposite side of the country, and I still have nightmares from that day. It did the trick. Even govornment haters like myself cannot shake the after effects of that day.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:46 PM
link   
ECK and Skadi, you 2 are my best friends now...lol.. but seriously, this is what I have been talking about and Skadi, you hit the nail on the head.. perfect.. ECK awesome points and halarious post about leveller also... Gotta say, i love ATS... Home away from home... Or should i say home away from reality =)

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Dravenn]



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:46 PM
link   
It seems to me, its an easy guess to assume who, what, and mayby where next........one thing thats missing in this disscussion is a well worn TV word....Modis..Operandi......and Al Queda's method of operation fits into these latest attacks.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dravenn
ECK and Skadi, you 2 are my best friends now...lol.. but seriously, this is what I have been talking about and Skadi, you hit the nail on the head.. perfect.. ECK awesome points and halarious post about leveller also... Gotta say, i love ATS... Home away from home... Or should i say home away from reality =)

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Dravenn]


Welcome home brotha!


Spear, Modus operendi? Look into who created Al Qaida. CIA, Pakistani ISI.. You'll see some Modus Operendi goin on. If you have eyes to see, that is.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:58 PM
link   
A quote from Michael Moore's latest book:

Michael Moore: Agent Provocateur

For example, Moore writes open letters to Bush to devastating effect. The first letter appears under the chapter title, “7 Questions for George of Arabia.” In it, Moore details, with meticulous documentation, the long, complex business relationships between the Bush and bin Laden families. (That’s right. I mean that bin Laden family.) He also outlines the “special relationship” between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family. He even reveals the labyrinthine connections between the Bush family and the Taliban. Moore also questions why the government delivered twenty-four members of the bin Laden family out of the country after 9/11 while all other non-military flights were grounded

“This is mind-boggling,” declares Moore. “Here you have two dozen bin Ladens on American soil, Mr. Bush, and you come up with some lame excuse that you were worried about ‘their safety.’ Might it have been possible that at least one of the twenty-four bin Ladens would have possibly known something? Or maybe one of them could have been ‘convinced’ to help track Osama down?”



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I have eyes......im just looking at this throught a wide angle lense with a heathy dose or realism



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 03:05 PM
link   
It's important to understand, we have all been conditioned from the earliest age to swallow hook, line and sinker the official line - regarding whatever situation, be it WW2 or the JFK assassination. In order to grasp what is really going on, we have to be able to let go of all the assumptions that were hard-wired into us growing up. The most important thing I learned in college was to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Never settle for taking someone else's word on something - especially if its coming from the establishment. And whatever you do, DON'T limit yourself to one-sided sources.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 03:27 PM
link   
And Leveller,

The Iraqi Army we encountered was the product of our actions in the Gulf War, 10 years of nonstop bombings, UN sanctions. That Army had been decimated to almost nothing, i was actually quite shocked when the second war started to learn that they even had people left!

But as to the saudi Army, even the decimated Iraqi army could have taken them out. The Saudis have always relied on foreigners for defense, they simply cannot defend themselves, such things are beneath them. Thier army was mostly a rag tag bunch of foreigners they brought to defend themselves, ill equipped, trained, ect.

The Saudis have to rely on thier whorish wealth and oil to get others to do thier dirty work. Thats they way they are, and will continue to be.

Dravenn, does this mean I can come over for thanksgiving with beer and pizza?



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 03:31 PM
link   
That's why, during the first Gulf War the Saudis had to suck up their azz our women NOT wearing the BU# veils and such. They needed our help desperately and we said, either the girls come and do their jobs as is, or you're on your own. They agreed without hesitation.

ps.. If there's Bud Light, I'm in..



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 03:54 PM
link   
we all know al-qaida aren't the only ones causing trouble out there.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SABOTWULF
we all know al-qaida aren't the only ones causing trouble out there.


But.. but.. That's what Peter jennings said!



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I know the article has been banded about all over the place, but the same author also wrote a great article about the istanbul bombings.

www.wwviews.com...

~messiah~



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Sad to say, but the article's right on target.



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I'm of the opinion that Osama bin Laden is dead.

He had kidney disease, and he needed a kidney dialysis machine to survive. I'm a little reluctant to believe that the caves of Tora Bora has any electrical outlets in them.

Even Musharraf of Pakistan said he thought he was dead,

www.cnn.com...

"I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Friday in an interview with CNN.

Musharraf said Pakistan knew bin Laden took two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. "One was specifically for his own personal use," he said.

"I don't know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak. ... I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan."

"He is using very reasonable deductive reasoning, (but) we don't know (bin Laden) is dead," said the official, who requested anonymity. "We don't have remains or evidence of his death. So it is a decent and reasonable conclusion -- a good guess but it is a guess."


Even Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN talking head doctor agreed.

www.cnn.com...

"GUPTA: You can look [at pictures from a December 2001 video] and notice that he has what some doctors refer to as sort of a frosting over of his features -- his sort of grayness of beard, his paleness of skin, very gaunt sort of features. A lot of times people associate this with chronic illness. Doctors can certainly look at that and determine some clinical features.

But even more than that, it's sometimes possible to differentiate the specific type of disease or illness that he may be suffering from. The sort of frosting of the appearance is something that people a lot of times associate with chronic kidney failure, renal failure, certainly someone who is requiring dialysis would have that.

He's also not moving his arms. I looked at this tape all the way through its entire length. He never moved his left arm at all. The reason that might be important is because people who have had a stroke -- and certainly people are at increased risk of stroke if they also have kidney failure -- he may have had a stroke and therefore is not moving his left side. And in the rest of the videotape, he does move his right side a little bit more than he does his left. So those are some of the things that are sort of "of note" here in this more recent videotape.

ZAHN: I think we need to remind the viewers once again that the president of Pakistan talked about [bin Laden] importing two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. Of course, no one other than the president of Pakistan right now is confirming that [bin Laden] in fact needed dialysis.

GUPTA: That's right. And again, renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.

The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most.

ZAHN: If he had all these things you're talking about to keep the dialysis machine running, how much help does he need around him to administer the treatment?

GUPTA: You certainly need someone who really knows how to run that dialysis machine. You have to have someone who's actually assessing his blood, Osama bin Laden's blood, to see what particular dialysate he would need, and to be able to change his dialysate as needed. So you'd need a kidney specialist, a technician -- quite a few people around him. "


And you know what, having an uncle with kidney problems, I tend to believe this, it makes a lot of sense.

But the US still needs a boogeyman, so he lives on in fake videotapes.


jako



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Interesting. You think the CIA has his body on ice somewhere, waiting to parade it before the world after the next 'terror attack?' Wouldn't that be perfect if they "caught" or "killed" Bin Laden in time for the '04 election....



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 12:03 PM
link   
ECK: I think that's giving them a little too much credit


But having him as a SINGLE focus was good for a while, until Iraq came along. For many months, the Administration didn't even MENTION Bin Laden.

He's a great bogeyman to have.

And, though it's a guess, I find it hilarious to ponder that the CIA makes a fake tape, then it's sent to THEM to be corroborated as bin Laden's voice.

I believe there IS an Al Qaeda, but it's a ragtag bunch of retards running around in Afghanistan shooting their guns in the air. The rest is fear-mongering propaganda.


jakomo



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
ECK: I think that's giving them a little too much credit


But having him as a SINGLE focus was good for a while, until Iraq came along. For many months, the Administration didn't even MENTION Bin Laden.

He's a great bogeyman to have.

And, though it's a guess, I find it hilarious to ponder that the CIA makes a fake tape, then it's sent to THEM to be corroborated as bin Laden's voice.

I believe there IS an Al Qaeda, but it's a ragtag bunch of retards running around in Afghanistan shooting their guns in the air. The rest is fear-mongering propaganda.


jakomo


Of course there's an Al Qaida. Just not in the sense that we have been led to believe. Not in the sense that they've been led to believe. What I mean is, Take "Ali," Ali works for Osama or Osama's man.. Ali truly believes that Osama hates the west and wants to destroy all vestiges of it. Osama tells Ali to train five mujahadeen fighters or a cell to detonate a bomb by an embassy. The thing dip# Ali doesn't know is that Osama's actually getting his money from a General in Pakistan's ISI, who may be getting his orders from a rogue element in the CIA, and then from a high level White House insider. It's the food chain. Everyone below the ISI truly believes they are in the Jihad. But the Jihad is as much bu# as the war on terror. It's manufactured.
Gotta have that external enemy to keep the empire of defense going.





 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join