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.

 

Bombshell from London

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
To most of us I would have thought that far from being news, this is old hat which is shamefuly only being addressed properly now , rather than before the whole debacle began.
I have always said that any genuinely cell based warband, would be better dealt with by clandestine forces, than open warfare. Detonating large quantities of civilians, slamming enourmous anti armour rounds, at hundreds of rounds per minuite through villages and towns full of kids and so on, is not acceptable under the premise of destroying a disperate, tiny band of warriors, scattered all over, and with no discernable permanent presence.
I mean sure, if the terrorists were packing tanks and armour, and charging up on the borders and making a mess of the neighbors rose garden, then you have an excuse for a fully armoured assault on a target, but there has NEVER been such a thing in Afghanistan. That is not, as the saying goes, how they roll .

This report however worded, must by its meaning and content, be vindicating for the anti war movement. They have toiled long and hard to stand against battle addicts and wartechnicians in the name of peace, and it must be a relief to have some support with clout. One can only hope that the suits organise an appropriate response to this report (i.e. get the troops out, eliminate those responsbile for the lies which started this war).




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Look believe whatever you want to believe. My issue is with bad journalism, which what you posted is. The former head of MI5 was misquoted and the report cited is a mix and match of quotes.

Listen to the testimony and you might get a more rounded understanding of how damning her words were.

My facts are sound, the commentary you posted us to isn't.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 



First of all, I'm not referring to a blog, I am referring to an article by journalist Andy Smith, in the Independent, on 21 July. I also have heard the original interview. I believe her comments about Blair and the war are incredibly damning. She used to be the head of MI5, she isn't a rabble rouser, she made a lot of statements and some of her comments about Blair are extremely damning.

Rather than go to the trouble of transcribing the relevant comments myself, I'll quote from the article to save time.

Here's a transcript of parts of her statement, and parts of Blair's stement, as quoted in the Independent article.

Quote

Evidence: What he said – and what she said

False claims of links between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein

Tony Blair claimed on 21 Jan 2003:

"There is some intelligence evidence about loose links between al-Qa'ida and various people in Iraq... It would not be correct to say there is no evidence whatever of linkages between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

Foreign Office spokesman claimed on 29 Jan 2003:

"We believe that there have been, and still are, some al-Qa'ida operatives in parts of Iraq controlled by Baghdad. It is hard to imagine that they are there without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Iraqi government."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, yesterday:

"There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA."

Hand-picking flimsy 'intelligence'

Blair, to the Commons 24 Sept 2002:

"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

Blair, to the Commons 25 Feb 2003:

"The intelligence is clear: He [Saddam] continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death."

Manningham-Buller, yesterday:

"The nature of intelligence – it is a source of information, it is rarely complete, it needs to be assessed, it is fragmentary... We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it [the September 2002 dossier] and we refused because we didn't think it was reliable."

Iraq posed no risk to Britain

Blair, to the Commons 10 April 2002:

"Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also."

Manningham-Buller, yesterday:

"We regarded the direct threat from Iraq as low... we didn't believe he had the capability to do anything in the UK."

End of quote from the article.

link to article:
www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I'm not really arguing the point. I am trying to isolate the sources. Personally, I think the Afghan thing *is* a giant fiasco.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


He doesn’t have facts, just a misplaced hunch. I mean he even said Bin Laden is not on the FBI's List, And I showed him that Bin Laden is. See the thing is Truthers see what they want to see, anything else is propaganda. You want to argue that the government let it happen, well you want get an argument hear, its more plausible and logistically possible that they let it happen. Not that many people see Eyes only top secret information. BUT Hundreds if not thousands of people would have had to have seen or helped plan a Federal Government attack on its own country.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Look believe whatever you want to believe. My issue is with bad journalism, which what you posted is. The former head of MI5 was misquoted and the report cited is a mix and match of quotes.

Listen to the testimony and you might get a more rounded understanding of how damning her words were.

My facts are sound, the commentary you posted us to isn't.


I have listened to the testimony. I disagree with you. In fact, the OP isn't about the testimony at all, it's about the IISS report, which you have commented on and criticised as unreliable, without reading it. You said it was unreliable based on a Press Release which you saw on their website, and not on the report itself, because you have to purchase the report in order to read it.

You criticise Canadian journalist referred to in the OP as unreliable based on no knowledge of the report itself, which she actually does have. You couldn't find the quote in the press release, so you dissed it, seemingly unaware that you weren't actually reading the Report itself, which is the verifiable source of the quote you couldn't find in the Press Release, because it wasn't there.

I don't like irresponsible reporting either.

People who have been referring to a wrong source are telling me I need to check my sources.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by LarryLove
 


He doesn’t have facts, just a misplaced hunch. I mean he even said Bin Laden is not on the FBI's List, And I showed him that Bin Laden is. See the thing is Truthers see what they want to see, anything else is propaganda. You want to argue that the government let it happen, well you want get an argument hear, its more plausible and logistically possible that they let it happen. Not that many people see Eyes only top secret information. BUT Hundreds if not thousands of people would have had to have seen or helped plan a Federal Government attack on its own country.


USAMA BIN LADEN The OP's point is that 9/11 is not mentioned anywhere on that Wanted poster.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Me too, and I believe that the Iraq war was a crime.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


You started the post in reference to the blog and I provided background information including: The Independent article as well as the transcript.

The opening post linked us to a very inaccurate commentary with unverifiable sources.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Dude, give up. You are going round in circles chasing what I don't know.

See you in another thread.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
www.nsa.gov...




Today, the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) are making publicly available declassified intelligence documents relating to the UKUSA (pronounced "Eu-Koo-SA") Agreement made between Great Britain and the United States. These declassified documents cover the period 1940–1956 and are available on the NSA website and the UK National Archives website.

The UKUSA agreement, first called the BRUSA Agreement, was signed in March 1946 and continues to serve as the foundation for cooperation in signals intelligence between the two nations. The agreement was later extended to encompass former British Dominions: Canada (1948), Australia and New Zealand (1956). Collaboration in various areas of critical intelligence between each of the five partner-nations continues to the present day.


Do you really think the intelligence reports from the US, UK, Canada, Australia or New Zealand are any different when they share all the intelligence between each other. Welcome to the Cold War Allies intelligence sharing program No it did not stop. "Collaboration in various areas of critical intelligence between each of the five partner-nations continues to the present day."



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


No The OP said he wasnt on the FBI's List, and the FBI stated that there was no hard evidence to try bin laden on the 9-11 attacks. KSM was the mastermind behind the attacks, not bin laden. Keep up. Bin Laden is wanted because he was behind the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing.... Keep Up.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by LarryLove
 


He doesn’t have facts, just a misplaced hunch. I mean he even said Bin Laden is not on the FBI's List, And I showed him that Bin Laden is. See the thing is Truthers see what they want to see, anything else is propaganda. You want to argue that the government let it happen, well you want get an argument hear, its more plausible and logistically possible that they let it happen. Not that many people see Eyes only top secret information. BUT Hundreds if not thousands of people would have had to have seen or helped plan a Federal Government attack on its own country.


USAMA BIN LADEN The OP's point is that 9/11 is not mentioned anywhere on that Wanted poster.



Look, you criticise me for not going to the source, but actually I have checked this out thoroughly. Go to the FBI website, there is a section on Wanted. in there there's a subsection on Terrorists. You'll see Bin Laden's name on there. You'll see some specific crimes he is wanted for, then you'll see a statement that he is under suspicion for other crimes. The FBI has been questioned about why they don't explicitly state that he is wanted for 9/11, as he is for other bombings. The FBI official reply to this question is that they don't have enough evidence to link him.

Therefore, the FBI only have grounds to suspect him of involvement with 9/11, this must mean that there is NO reliable intel which links Bin Laden to 9/11.

Now, go tell that to the Afghan people who are still being bombed and killed on the pretext of finding Bin Laden, even though the FBI havie no reliable intel that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, and therefore did not have any evidence of his guilt before the invasion of Afghanistan took place.

Remember Bush's ridiculous jingoism about Bin Laden - 'Wanted Dead or Alive' - ? Another lie from this criminal gang of mass murderers.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Oh, and by the way, please check something out before accusing me of just speaking on a hunch, when in fact it is factual information.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Look, you made a wrong statement. You hadn't realised you were looking at a Press Release rather than the actual report. On that basis you assumed I was misconstruing the report.

Your bad, not mine.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


No The OP said he wasnt on the FBI's List, and the FBI stated that there was no hard evidence to try bin laden on the 9-11 attacks. KSM was the mastermind behind the attacks, not bin laden. Keep up. Bin Laden is wanted because he was behind the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing.... Keep Up.


Keep up yourself.. the op said...



Alongside the fact that the FBI does not have Bin Laden on its wanted list ** for 9/11 ** because it doesn't have enough evidence for that, these two alone serve to strengthen the case for an illegal war and war crimes on a massive scale.

(Emphasis mine)

Afghanistan had nothign to do with KSM.



edit on 9-16-2010 by rogerstigers because: more emphasis



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 



OK, I got the answer. apologies!



edit on 16-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

Originally posted by wcitizen
Alongside the fact that the FBI does not have Bin Laden on its wanted list for 9/11 because it doesn't have enough evidence for that, these two alone serve to strengthen the case for an illegal war and war crimes on a massive scale.


Hmmm you say fact that the FBI does not have him on their wanted list? I say where do you get your facts? Straight from the horse’s mouth www.fbi.gov... I give you OSAMA BIN LADEN. And to add a nail in the Coffin here is the FBI 's Top Ten List www.fbi.gov...
I mean for real? Those assclowns attacked America via planes, when are you fools going to understand that If this was done by the US government Then hundreds of people had to be involved. Fools all of you truthers. Now if the government let happen that’s a different story and there is evidence that the government did in fact let it happen.
The only thhin illegal here (or should be illegal) is you spreading lies about.


You might be really, really interested to note that on the FBI website that you cited...they DON"T mention Bin Laden in the context of 9/11!


USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. www.fbi.gov...
(Caps theirs)

A curious omission, Kinda makes you think...
As an aside, Eric Margolis is a might to the right of me by I respect both his commentary and his reportage. It's actually the only breath of fresh air emerging from Canada's Sun chain of fish wrap.

Ok, the point was made but I'll leave my comment up because it can't be made enough. Bin Laden was clearly made our 'Goldstein' in our 'war without end'. (ref 1984)


edit on 16-9-2010 by JohnnyCanuck because: got beat to it



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Thanks Johnny Cannuck



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


ummm KSM was in Afghanistan, before 9-11 as was most of bin laden's thugs. Also KSM may have been the Mastermind but Bin Laden Gave his blessings.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join