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.

 

Osama Bin Laden and September 11

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Of course it was hence you got nothing to counter that his voice. Are you doubting it. You think the so called CIA agent would be talking about Amercia's cherished freedom is the reason for terror and not about American presence in ME or support for Israel. Ain't that something.
Not to mention calling Bush a liar.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
english.aljazeera.net...


Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Of course it was


And the tooth fairy did the lighting for the video, and the easter bunny was the sound guy.

Some people will believe ANYTHING




So far the people you have been making snyde remarks at have been posting proof, whether it is on ther internet or whatever. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing. You claim to have a copy of the Hans Blix report, obtained under the FOIA. Why should we believe you? Prove it. Show us a picture of it. Post it online. You demand others show proof, so I say the same to you. Show us your proof.


MODERATOR-EDIT due to T&C Violation (Vulgarity & Insult).

Please review this link

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


But shrub IS a liar - wmd's, torture, illegal detention, killing civilians, saddams links to "al qaeda" - he's lied about it all.

the man is a pathological liar, who went into iraq for oil and to impress daddy, not to mention helping out his friends in the big oil companies.

You can post as much fake badly translated aljazeera stuff as you want - still doesn't make it true.
In fact it wouldn't surprise me if bush had got daddy to use his CIA connections to fake the whole speech.



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I have posted it - and it doesn't need me to post an original - the document is online for all to see - it proved bush is a liar and a fraud.

And I'll thank you to keep the name-calling to yourself - it's against the T&C - you should try reading them.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by sos37
 


I have posted it - and it doesn't need me to post an original - the document is online for all to see - it proved bush is a liar and a fraud.

And I'll thank you to keep the name-calling to yourself - it's against the T&C - you should try reading them.


I don't believe you. Post a link to the original you SAY you posted. You say Bush is a liar and a fraud. I say you are until you show us some kind of proof.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
please someone show me facts thats OBL did this horrendous act.. you cant and neither can anyone show he didnt do it.. why keep arguin for the sake of arguing.. budski you are somethin else



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I didn't say I posted the original document - but I did post a transcript of the document - the document is freely available, you don't even need a FOIA request to get hold of it, that was just the easiest and cheapest way for me to do it.

Again, there's no need for name calling - please try to remain civil even if you disagree.

I'm not hiding behind the T&C - just trying to help you avoid getting into trouble.



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by sos37
 


I didn't say I posted the original document - but I did post a transcript of the document - the document is freely available, you don't even need a FOIA request to get hold of it, that was just the easiest and cheapest way for me to do it.

Again, there's no need for name calling - please try to remain civil even if you disagree.

I'm not hiding behind the T&C - just trying to help you avoid getting into trouble.



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]


Okay, name calling aside and demands of proof aside. Can you see the logical argument that's being made here? If you chalk up every bit of evidence presented on the same medium by which you are reading these posts as "untrustworthy" then how is it you can believe anything you read on the internet, or see on TV or hear on the radio for that matter?

By your arguments, you would need physical proof in your hand, and I'm not sure that would even satisfy you. You might say they were falsified. If a UFO landed in your yard and little green men came out would you also say the ship was a fake, a terrestrial craft and the aliens were genetically altered people? Where do you draw that line where you see supposed evidence and then actually make the decision to believe, the 'leap of faith'?

I understand not taking that, myself, regarding UFOs. I want to believe in them, and in cover ups and conspiracies but there is so much doubt. But then again, doubt itself is not completely conclusive or decisive, which is what brings many of us back here time and again. I dunno - suppose I'm rambling now. Time for a beer.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Well, if it's good enough for those who implicitly deny everything bad that bush does, then it's good enough for me.

You see, I have posted plenty of proof about torture of innocent civilians held without legal recourse, the WMD lies, the targetting of innocents by armed forces, the use of cluster munitions in civilian area's and many other subjects.

The deniers fall back position is to is to bluster, deny everything and pretend that proof doesn't exist even when it comes from the mouth of a man who served 3 tours in Iraq as it was in one article.

Like I said - if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

I'm always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments - but not when someone won't reciprocate.

when the boots on the other foot - they don't like it very much.



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Actually, I DO have a copy of Hans Blix report, obtained under the FOIA.

Umm...that is NOT an original document right? You did not receive it in the mail directly from the government did you? So again, by using your faulty logic, whatever you think you have is useless because its not the original. What you have could just as easily have been altered.

Plus, you are not addressing the point that what Blix has to say means nothing. Again, all he did was look in a particlular location and said there were no weapons. So what?
You are not addressing the point that the weapons were moved which is why the retarded UN inspector could not find any. He couldn't find his way out of a paper bag.



You have nothing, nada, zip - only badly photoshopped "documents" from a dub shrub website.

You mean except all the official documents and sources stating the opposite of your view. BTW, where is your proof that it is photoshopped? Right, you have none. It's nothing but a lame attempt by you to discredit obvious evidence. Secondly, I linked to about 5 or 6 different sources, so why are you only focusing on one.

Another slap in the face with truth and logic I guess.



Of course as usual you start crying about everyone hating the US when they are opposed to what the liar-decider has done.

Again you are wrong because I just laugh at the stupidity.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
But shrub IS a liar - wmd's

Again, he had them but moved them out of the country before the war.


torture

So what? Besides, waterboarding is not really torture despite what others might say. Secondly, sometimes a little pressure is called for to obtain info.


illegal detention

Sorry, but terrorists or combatants being detained during wartime is not illegal.


killing civilians

Where is your proof that the U.S. is intentionally killing civilians?


So really, he lied about nothing.

Boy, do you need to get your head out of the sand.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Of course you do - after all, only shrubs people know the truth eh?

Your evidence was non-existant - it was a blatant attempt to hide the lies promulgated by the shrubbery.

Read the report - over 400 locations, and no WMD's from a well respected investigator.
But then shrub has quite a record when it comes to ignoring evidence that doesn't suit his agenda.

Your "logic" is the same as shrubs - non-existant, just like the WMDs and irans nuclear weapons programme.

As for syria, HAH! more rubbish.

If you want to be blind to the truth, that's your affair, but I have my eyes open and see the liar-decider for what he is.

Deliberate targetting of civilians

Part Transcript of hearing where FORMER SGT. JASON LEMIEUX, U.S. Marine Corps gave his evidence.

Illegal detention and torture of civilians:

Reports have revealed acts by Coalition guards and interrogators that included vicious beating, strangulation and suffocation, forced nudity and other forms of humiliation, threats with dogs, and prolonged exposure to intense heat or cold. [11] Reports have also detailed hooding, sleep deprivation, hanging by the arms, near-drowning, sexual abuse, restricted food and water, burns, use of sharp and blunt instruments, exposure to intolerable noise, threats of murder, beating with clubs and wire, prolonged “stress” positions, electric shocks and more. [12] Even Pentagon reports have described torture in clear, unambiguous and agonizing detail. [13]

The abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison on the outskirts of Baghdad – controlled by US forces – are known worldwide. But Coalition personnel have abused and tortured prisoners at numerous other sites, including:

* Central prisons such as Camp Cropper , Camp Bucca and Camp Shu'aiba near Basra (a UK facility)
* Secret interrogation sites such as Camp Nama near Baghdad , [14] and Camp Diamondback at the Mosul Airport . [15]
* Makeshift prison camps
* Divisional and brigade level military detention centers
* Forward operating bases such as Tiger in al-Qaim [16] and Mercury in Falluja, [17]
* Points of capture. [18]

H undreds of US personnel have abused and tortured prisoners in Iraq . [19]UK forces have also been clearly involved and the Dutch contingent has also been implicated. [20] Regular military forces and units of military police guards have most often appeared in press stories, official reports and court martials. Virtually all of those in the spotlight during the Abu Ghraib scandal were US army reservists, members of the 800 th Military Police Brigade. But this focus was seriously misleading.

Less visible, but far more systematically involved in abusive practices, are:

* Military Intelligence personnel
* Special Operations personnel (US Army Rangers, US Navy Seals, British Special Air Services, etc.)
* CIA and other intelligence and police service personnel (in particular, staff of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI and the British Secret Intelligence Service, sometimes known as MI6). [21]

At Abu Ghraib, Military Intelligence (and the CIA) controlled Cellblocks 1A and 1B, the prison buildings where torture was taking place. [22] Military Intelligence put pressure on the Military Police guards to “set the conditions” (i.e. abusively prepare detainees) for interrogation. [23] The notorious Camp Nama , another major interrogation site, included among its key personnel: special operations, military intelligence, and CIA. [24] Others involved in the torture and abuse are:

* Military medical personnel, including doctors, who have helped design, approve and monitor abusive interrogation, as well as filing false medical reports, including false death certificates. [25]
* Private military contractors, including employees of Titan and CACI International, who were hired to perform guard duty, translation or interrogation services. [26]CACI alone employed almost half of all interrogators and analysts at Abu Ghraib during the scandal period. [27] Some of these contract personnel previously worked in US domestic prisons, where they already had records of criminal abuse of prisoners. [28]


sources for material:

[11] The first reports to detail torture methods were: Bucca Report, ICRC Report, and Taguba Report. We have studied seven military reports and twelve reports from human rights organizations where these methods are described in detail. Much additional evidence is available in the press and in military court martial trails, as referenced below.

[12]Ibid.

[13] See Bucca Report, Taguba Report; and reports by General Donald Ryder, Colonel Stuart Herrington, General Paul Mikolashek, and General George Fay, among others.

[14] Human Rights Watch, No Blood, No Foul (July 2006) pp. 6-25. See also Eric Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall, “ In Secret Unit's 'Black Room,' a Grim Portrait of US Abuse ” New York Times ( March 19, 2006 )

[15] Human Rights Watch, op.cit . pp. 38-47

[16]Ibid. , pp. 25-38

[17] Human Rights Watch, Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army's 82 nd Airborne Division (September, 2005) A “forward operating base” is a temporary base located close to a theater of operations.

[18] The Mikolashek Report mentions that in the period to June 2004, nearly half of the alleged cases of abuse occurred at the “point of capture,” – that is, before persons had been brought to any detention facility at all. And of 20 cases of detainee deaths examined, 10 occurred in prisons, five at forward collection points and five at points of capture. See Josh White and Scott Higham, “Army Calls Abuses ‘Aberrations'” Washington Post ( July 23, 2004 )

[19] See Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project (Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and the New York University School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, By the Numbers (April, 2006) and American Civil Liberty Union, Enduring Abuse (April 2006)

[20]As additional evidence emerges of UK abusive detention practices, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern and asked for explanations about the “use of inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques.” Robert Verkaik, “Kidnap and Torture: New Claims of Army War Crimes in Iraq ” Independent (May 18, 2007); Robert Verkaik, “Human Rights in Iraq : a Case to Answer” Independent (May 29, 2007) “Dutch Military in Iraq Abuse Row” BBC (November 17, 2006)

[21] See for example Schmitt and Marshall , op.cit. ; Human Rights First, Command's Responsibility (February, 2006) pp. 7 and 9; Peter Beaumont, Martin Bright, Paul Harris, “British Quizzed Iraqis at Torture Jail” Observer ( May 9, 2004 ); David Johnston, “US Inquiry Falters on Civilians Accused of Detainee Abuse” International Herald Tribune ( December 19, 2006 ). Human Rights Watch's information on Camp Nama , an extremely abusive secret site for prisoner interrogation, quotes a participant who says that most of those at the camp were CIA and special forces personnel. “No Blood, No Foul” p. 8. The FBI has also reportedly been involved in interrogation in Camp Nama and elsewhere in Iraq (Schmitt and Marshall, op. cit .).

[22] Taguba Report, op. cit. pp. 18-19

[23]Ibid ., p. 18. See also “ICRC Report”, op. cit. p. 13. There has been extreme underreporting of the actual interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

[24] Human Rights Watch, No Blood, No Foul (July 2006) pp. 6-25

[25] Steven H. Miles, “Abu Graib: its legacy for military medicine” The Lancet , Vol 364 ( August 21, 2004 ) pp. 725-729

[26] Taguba Report. The report mentions by name four persons from the two contractor firms who were involved in torture. Contractors have been immune from military law and none have been prosecuted under US law for these crimes.

[27] Peter Beaumont, “Abu Ghraib Abuse Firms are Rewarded” Observer ( January 16, 2005 )

[28] Avery Gordon, “D'où viennent les tortionnaires d'Abu Ghraib?” Le Monde Diplomatique (November, 2006) pp. 20-21

Source

Any other questions - or are you going to stick to the party line and deny everything.

[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Of course you do - after all, only shrubs people know the truth eh?

Your evidence was non-existant - it was a blatant attempt to hide the lies promulgated by the shrubbery.

Read the report - over 400 locations, and no WMD's from a well respected investigator.
But then shrub has quite a record when it comes to ignoring evidence that doesn't suit his agenda.

Your "logic" is the same as shrubs - non-existant, just like the WMDs and irans nuclear weapons programme.

As for syria, HAH! more rubbish.

If you want to be blind to the truth, that's your affair, but I have my eyes open and see the liar-decider for what he is.


Ok, for starters, you need to start quoting what you are responding about because its hard to understand which statements you are refering to.

Secondly, you basically just proved my point by ignoring evidence right before your eyes because it does not fit into your views. The evidence just punched you in the face. You are not willing to change your mind. In fact, I bet there is nothing that could change your mind regardless of how much evidence is against your twisted view of reality. Sad, just sad.

BTW, don't link to any more sources because they are useless since I will start applying your logic. Any link is no good since I will not have the actual documents in my hand.


[edit on 29-5-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


That's your choice and is a standard response from the deniers - which is why I use it against them.

You got there too late and have shown before that your only interest is defending shrub at all costs and trying to smear those who don't like his lies and hypocrisy as somehow "anti american"

I can post hundreds of pages of documented evidence like my previous post which contained excerts from high ranking officers.
But then according to you, they're probably liars as well because they don't agree with shrub&co - from now on known as the shrubbery.

BTW - I don't need to quote, unlike your cherry picked out of context quotes in order to phrase something to your liking.

This is why I use the REPLY function - I address a whole post, and don't pick parts and use them out of context.

Now would you care to contradict the pentagon reports and those of high ranking officers as posted above?

[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
That's your choice and is a standard response from the deniers - which is why I use it against them.

Ok, don't know what you are talking about since you refuse to quote which statement you are refering to.


You got there too late and have shown before that your only interest is defending shrub at all costs and trying to smear those who don't like his lies and hypocrisy as somehow "anti american"

Again, you are wrong because there are lots of things I don't agree with. However, when I see obvious propaganda, I must say something.


I can post hundreds of pages of documented evidence like my previous post which contained excerts from high ranking officers.

You mean just like I did if you would have read the links. But again, I will use your logic and not believe it because I don't have the original documents in my hand.


BTW - I don't need to quote

I did not say you have to but it would be nice and easier to see what actually you are saying.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Dude - if you just hit the blue name in my post it will take you to the post I am answering - that's why I don't need to quote.

I address a post as a whole, instead of trying to put together out of context parts of a post.

It's not a very good tactic and is very transparent.

Now are you going to address the post detailing the torture of civilians and the killing of civilians?



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Dude - if you just hit the blue name in my post it will take you to the post I am answering - that's why I don't need to quote.

Duuude, I am not talking about the entire post. I am talking about the individual statements, sentences or paragraphs.


Now are you going to address the post detailing the torture of civilians and the killing of civilians?

I will answer your point once you answer mine instead of dismissing it because you don't believe the links since you don't have the actual documents in your hand.

Let's start over and stop the bickering.
I will ask again in a different way.
My point is that there is a good reason why Blix did not find weapons. And the point is that the weapons were moved to Syria. Wouldn't you say this is at least a possibility? There are just way to many sources to just dismiss it out of hand.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Very Interesting debate going on here!!!

Unless your there first hand, you can't reley on any outside source. Everyone has an agenda, good, bad or to what degree who really knows.

What everyone should do is put aside your partisans, and look from outside the circle in! Their, will you see what you're looking for.

Something is wrong with 9/11, all you have to do is look at building 7. I did everything to denie the many theories of 9/11, but to no pervail I knew something was wrong. All the fine details, the purpose and their projected out come is as good as anyones guess. That's why we debate this issue so much.

Every denier has alittle edge in the fact of, how can a government or people of there own do this to themselves? No one computes the carnage other countries have done or are doing. Why can't our governments do similiar? Just smarter and more cunning, to the point that the people they are attacking are still on there side to fight there agenda. They will attack us again to make our enemies (or simply people who disagree with our ways) our deadly enemies who we must kill.

How many people on this site knows what it is like to wake up with bombs and bullets going off around you? Your house or a family members house being blown up, killing them? War is not pretty and alot of innocents die. Let them be the ones to attack us, and we will stand up and fight. We do not like to be attacked at home. (oh wait they did that with 9/11) Iraq was no threat to anyone, unless the country felt suicidal. I guess Iran is feeling alittle depressed maybe they'll commit suicide by attacking us. Come on people think outside the box. Every nation wants to advance there culture into the future, unfortunatly as they grow they become a threat to the top nations. The ones who don't agree with the top nations views will be destroyed, but the people of these "good" nations people won't agree to that. So maybe they'll be stupid and be aggressive towards us, if not we can certainly make it look like that.

They are guinesses and my hat is off to them! They have herded the sheep very well, and keep the wolves(truthers) away from the herd with public ridicule. People are so brain washed since the world wars that we are the good people of the world and can never do bad. Guess what were not perfect and need to take a better look at our political parties and start thinking about changing them and not just the leaders of them.

Love and Light



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join