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.

 

TA-THREATS: New bin Laden Tape Aired Offering Truce With European Countries

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
She did not specifically refute this "Let's roll" nonsense, but she did lead me to believe that HER husband LED THE MOVE against "the terrorists" not anyone else.


Who are you? Do you work for a news agency?

And your exact words were


]Originally posted by mepatriotWell, I actually spoke to Deanna Burnett TWICE about her cell phone conversations with her husband Tom who was the guy who supposedly said "Let's roll" before they attacked the "terrorists" and supposedly brought FL 93 down.

Seems somebody is backtacking to cover up his mistakes.




posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
There are differing accounts of who (if anybody) used those words. Deanna never mentioned those words, but was livid that the families were not given the opportunity to listen to the voice recordings until months later.

I personally believe her when she said there was a plan to make a move against the "terrorists." But, I do not buy for a minute the cover story that the government put out (with this dramatic "Let's roll" nonsense) that the passengers were responsible for bringing that plane down. It was shot down, as the majority of evidence and eyewitness testimony from Western Pa. clearly will indicate if you will bother to do a little research.

My bio was posted when I joined...I believe you have access to it.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
FF: Conveniently forgot to mention whether or not you are a government employee?? You responded (amateurishly, per usual) to everything else in my post but that. Hmmm...


I fail to see what one's employment has to do with this topic, but I am a professional musician.



..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
I personally believe her when she said there was a plan to make a move against the "terrorists."


Correct me if I am wrong, but according to you, the the planes were remote controlled? Then who was he planning to move against? The electronic control system flying the plane?? Or were three of the planes remote controlled and not that one? Seems to be a little too convienient.


..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
There are differing accounts of who (if anybody) used those words.

No ,there aren't. Show me an account where somebody says anyone toher than Todd Beamer supposedly said those words.


Deanna never mentioned those words, but was livid that the families were not given the opportunity to listen to the voice recordings until months later.

It still proves nothing. Those families heard the voices. If they were faked, you would think that at least one of them would have noticed something amiss. None of them stated that anything seemed out of place.


I personally believe her when she said there was a plan to make a move against the "terrorists." But, I do not buy for a minute the cover story that the government put out (with this dramatic "Let's roll" nonsense) that the passengers were responsible for bringing that plane down. It was shot down, as the majority of evidence and eyewitness testimony from Western Pa. clearly will indicate if you will bother to do a little research.

There is one witness who claims he saw it fall out of the sky in smoke and flame: Lee Purbagh. Every other witness to the crash says there was no smoke or fire, it only fell to the ground.

Anyway, as FF said, don't you believe they were remote controlled? Or was flight 93 the only one that wasn't?



My bio was posted when I joined...I believe you have access to it.

Read it. Anyone with journalistic experience would understand the concept of preponderance of evidence.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Seems somebody is backtacking to cover up his mistakes.


Don't bother. He won't look into certain areas of possible data, because it would be a "waste" of his time. In other words, he already makes up his mind on certain things without investigating them. Which logicaly points to someone only using info that supports their opinions.

That is a seriously flawed investigative stance, therefore putting deduction results in a highly suspiscious light.

There is no defense for that.


..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

It still proves nothing. Those families heard the voices. If they were faked, you would think that at least one of them would have noticed something amiss. None of them stated that anything seemed out of place.

Read it. Anyone with journalistic experience would understand the concept of preponderance of evidence.



Agreed. I think the families would recognize their own family member's voices. Where were they calling from? The basement of CIA headquarters?

Why would Solicitor General Olson lie about talk to his wife? Doesn't make any sense.

Where was she calling from?



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Michel Chossudovsky comments:

globalresearch.ca...

The "War on Terrorism"

At this critical juncture, the Bush administration desperately needs the "war on terrorism" as a justification for the killings of civilians in Iraq, which it describes as "collateral damage".

In recent weeks, a barrage of media reports have surfaced on Al Qaeda links to the Iraqi resistance movement. The insurgents are described as Islamic extremists and fundamentalists: "hard-line Sunnis, foreign extremists, and, now, Sadr and his disenfranchised Shiite followers" (US News and World Report, 19 April 2004).

The secular character of the resistance movement is denied. In an utterly twisted logic, Al Qaeda is said to constitute a significant force behind the Iraqi insurgents. According to official statements, Al Qaeda mastermind Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is in Fallujah, which has become a so-called "hotbed for foreign fighters". In the words of Newsweek, "Saddam may not have had direct ties to Al Qaeda, but the jihadists are eager to fill his shoes." (Newsweek, 19 April 2004)

Meanwhile, perfect timing, the 9/11 Commission has declassified the controversial presidential PDB memo of August 6 2001 pertaining to Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 plan "to attack the American homeland."

The disinformation campaign ultimately consists in convincing the US public that the "defense of the Homeland" and the occupation of Iraq are part same process, involving the same enemy. In the words of former CIA Director James Woolsey in a CNN interview:

"the Iraqi intelligence, trained al Qaeda in "poison gases and conventional explosives" And had senior-level contacts going back a decade. And the Islamists from the Sunni side, from the al Qaeda, work with people like Hezbollah. They're perfectly happy to work together against us. It's sort of like three Mafia families, but they insult each other, but can still cooperate... I think it's Islamists totalitarian masquerading as part of a religion. Certainly if anybody in the intelligence community is surprised by this, the really surprising thing would be that they are really surprised. Some of them have had a idea fix for a long time, that al Qaeda would never work with the Ba'athist and the Shiite Islamist would never work with the Sunni. It's just nuts. They work together on important things. It's not that one necessarily controls the other. It's not sort of like state sponsorship, but cooperation, support here and there against us, sure, they've been doing it for years and years and years.(CNNFN, Lou Dobbs, Tonight, 15 April 2004)

The Osama Tape

Meanwhile, another mysterious Osama tape has emerged

globalresearch.ca...

In the tape, Osama acknowledges responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the 3/11 (2004) train bombing in Madrid:

"I [Osama] am offering a truce to European countries, and its core is our commitment to cease operations against any country which does not carry out an onslaught against Muslims or interfere in their affairs as part of the big American conspiracy against the Islamic world.... The truce will begin when the last soldier leaves our countries. [Iraq]... Whoever wants reconciliation and the right (way), then we are the ones who initiated it, so stop spilling our blood so we can stop spilling your blood.... What happened on September 11 and March 11 was your goods delivered back to you." (Ibid)

In other words, Osama bin Laden offers "a truce" if the various European countries involved in Iraq accept to withdraw their troops. In return, Al Qaeda will declare a moratorium on terrorist attacks in Europe.

Without further investigation, the Western media have described the tape as an attempt by "Enemy Number One" to create a rift between America and its European allies.

The tape in all likelihood is a hoax of US intelligence. The propaganda ploy consists not only in upholding the US led-occupation of Iraq as part of the broader "war on terrorism", it also provides a pretext to Western governments, pressured by citizens movements across Europe, to remain in Iraq. In the words of president Jacques Chirac, "nothing can justify terrorism and, on that basis, nothing can allow any discussion with terrorists."

Underlying the Osama tape is the presumption that the "extremists" in Iraq are the same people responsible for the 9/11 and 3/11 terrorist attacks. It follows, that the "anti-war zealots", by opposing the US led occupation, are in fact providing ammunition to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda:

"bin Laden's deranged fantasies are frighteningly similar to those many anti-war zealots harbor both here and abroad... He also apparently tries to justify the attacks of 9/11 as retaliation for U.S. support for Jews in Palestine, and U.S. invasions in the Gulf War and Somalia. "Our actions are reactions to your actions," he said.

This is gibberish, but it is typical of a megalomaniacal mind. Even Hitler, after all, insisted his attack on Poland was in self-defense. Evil often comes cloaked in the counterfeit robes of virtue.

But it's also easy to see how such arguments can gain traction among impoverished Arabs who long have been repressed by their own governments and are searching for answers.

The United States should be grateful for this latest tape. It puts a lot of things in perspective. Europe and the United States are at war together, and the enemy is someone of flesh and blood who can be frightened -- enough so that he feels it necessary to propose a truce. (Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake city, 15 April 2004)

Amply documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. This is a known fact to the governments and intelligence services of America's European allies. It is corroborated by US Congressional documents. Al Qaeda is a US sponsored intelligence asset.


And more than ever, in the face of mounting resentment, the Bush Administration and its European allies desperately "need Osama" to justify their military presence in Iraq.

The Iraq war is presented as a "Just War". The latter is predicated on the existence of an "outside enemy" (Al Qaeda).

Under this criterion and with the full support of Western public opinion, the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, whose Taliban rulers had "provided a safe haven for Osama bin-Laden".

Before the war, Osama was said to be supporting Saddam. In the wake of the war, the propaganda ploy now consists in presenting Osama as a spokesman for the Iraqi resistance.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and author of War and Globalization the Truth behind September 11 ,

globalresearch.ca...



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I cast a very suspicious eye towards this Ottawa professor....

The killings were ordered by the US military. Tens of thousands of refugees have fled the city. The various member states of the occupying forces including Italy and Japan, are responsible alongside the US-UK coalition, for these massacres, in accordance with international law and the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. (See www.globalresearch.ca... ).

What proof does he have that the US military ordered it's troops to fire on ambulances and civilians? He does not provide any.

The Al-Jazeera article he linked read like a 1940's propaganda piece

Coalition forces, using their own snipers equipped with precision rifles on rooftops, are targeting women and children. Ambulances carrying the wounded are being targeted by the US Marines:

"The most horrible brutality was the targeting of ambulances which carried pregnant women who were about to give birth. There were tens of bodies which are still under debris and we could not arrive at the places as US snipers prevented people from getting them out." (quoted in Al Jazeera, press conference of Dr Abd al-Salam al-Kubaisi, 16 April 2004, english.aljazeera.net... )

I would like to hear from some of the armed forces members(current&discharged) here at ATS for their takes on this.

Again, I take everything I read on the net with a wheelbarrow of salt.... this professor is no different.





.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Snipers targetting women and children?

You're right, this reads exactly like a WWII-era propaganda pice. Dehumanize the enemy.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Snipers targetting women and children?

You're right, this reads exactly like a WWII-era propaganda pice. Dehumanize the enemy.


I have alot of problems with Fox and CNN, but Al-Jazeera is the most blatantly biased news source I have ever seen. I shake my head in dis-belief when I read their articles.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

I have alot of problems with Fox and CNN, but Al-Jazeera is the most blatantly biased news source I have ever seen. I shake my head in dis-belief when I read their articles.


I consider A-J reliable on events, but not the facts of those events.

You can trust them when they say there have been civilian casualties. But you can't trust them when they say American troops were biting off people's heads and shooting fireballs from their eyes.

The US has nothing to gain and everything to lose from taking part in heinous acts such as these. That's what you have to ask yourself- what would the accused party have to gain from such actions?



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The point here is this audiotape unites Europe and America in the fight on terrorism and suddenly now, Osama is the spokesman for the Iraqi resistance.

The occupation of Iraq and this war is clearly now the "war on terrorism" and the war against public enemy no. 1 - Osama bin Laden. Quite convenient.

Cui Bono?



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'm amazed at how all you people just go right ahead and automatically believe that these tapes come from Bin Laden when not one of you can honestly say that you "KNOW" that it is from him. Believing in something does not make it true. Wake up!! You're all being led down the primrose path to the status of morons. Here is something you can contemplate; there is only one people on this planet that can and do benefit from keeping the western world at odds with the Muslim world. Think about it. The greatest obstacle to a conniving Jew is an enlightened Gentile. Read the Talmud and be enlightened. You owe it to yourselves to know the "TRUTH" about what the Jews believe about us.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join