Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Vice on 9/11, Osama, and the Middle East, refuting official story and conspiracy theories..

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   


The part i am eluding to starts at about 15 minutes. Listen as long as you want but im starting this thread about certain topics.

They met the top Taliban guy while filming their Kabul episode. Apparently child suicide is the weapon they use against the US. If that in itself doesn't give us reason enough to consider completely pulling out of the area then i don't know what will. He says he was in Pakistan and snuck out and is now in Kabul. Its almost as if they stumbled upon this guy. He was a senior commander of the Mujaheddin and became a senior leader of the Taliban. I'm sure thats well known information. I don't know this guys name. He alleges that this group is responsible for protecting Osama in Pakistan, so hes confirming the official narrative about the Osama raid in Pakistan, at least thats how he makes it seem.

Now hes saying we went into Afghanistan to get these guys out and we are losing, so the Taliban is negotiating with the US government on how much power they are going to have when we pull out. HOLY #. We are negotiating with terrorist because THEY ARE BEATING US.




They for sure lost the war in Afghanistan


This starts at about 23 minutes.

Here comes the issue on 9/11. Starts by saying that Iraq with 9/11 and it was 100% because of oil. This seems like opinion i dont know what hes basing these opinions on, other then the fact they have #loads of intel from the area. He said then we went into Afghanistan to get the people responsible for 9/11. So he obviously doesnt believe the 9/11 conspiracy.

So he implies that the Taliban is really responsible for 9/11. I don't know what to think because hes saying this based on his interviews with the leaders of the Taliban, and information gathered from Pakistan and Kabul.

I just dont know what to think, i mean, heres my position basically to sum it up.

He has more information then i do, this news source is Canadian, they have WAY more information then i do strait from the source. How do we tie this in to what we believe about 9/11? He isn't confirming conspiracy theory or the official record.

I dont know ATS, help me out here.




posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I try to stay away from 9/11 conspiracy theories because of the sensitivity associated with the topic. There are numerous issues from Building 7's collapse to notions that the US Gov't knew in advance it would happen, but that should not take anything away from the Taliban.

As with any militant group, the Taliban organization has humans behind it, with human needs and faces etc etc. Under the leadership of bin Laden I truly believe they were capable of vile acts, and with your report of using child soldiers, it seems as if they still are.

However, your thread is a little vague. There are so many ways to approach the subjects you are attempting to address. Firstly, the guy in the video definitely knows more than he is letting out publicly. If he went completely clean that would
a) give him no insurance policy against those trying to silence the truth
b) be giving out very sensitive information that not everyone would be willing to take on

Sometimes the saying "curiosity killed the cat" has merit but ultimately, there is just so much information out there it is becoming increasingly harder to separate opinion from historic fact.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
why are they talking about using a fleshlight



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


So based off what your saying, he probably does have more information.

Should we think he is making assumptions, or is he basing assumptions off of solid intel gained while in the area?

How do we factor that info into the equation?

Is he trustworthy? What about VICE as a news source? Are they trustworthy?
edit on 7-4-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


So based off what your saying, he probably does has more information.

Should we think he is making assumptions, or is he basing assumptions off of solid intel gained while in the area?

How do we factor that info into the equation?

Is he trustworthy? What about VICE as a news source? Are they trustworthy?


Most radio shows/podcasts have to maintain their audience through content or way the content is delivered. The term "shock jock" may not be appropriate for this particular host as this is merely one video, but combined with the sensitivity of the topic and the accredited profile of the interviewee, the saying "trust but verify" rings true. With that said, it becomes difficult to truly verify something that is likely on a need to know basis.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


I get what your saying and i appreciate the well thought out responses.

I still think there are profound implications considering the nature of what they are discussing. Basically we need to keep watching what hes talking about, and yeah i know its marketing. Even so, maybe we should pay closer attention to this news source and find out where they take this knowledge and if they confirm or deny.

Also this could be a CIA mind #. I say this because i did a little research on the owner of the company and where he came from. It seems a little suspicious.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my responses. Secondly, you are correct to ask questions. Is this guy legit? Was he planted? Does the timeline make sense? Does the story add up? Sometimes even the mainstream media gets things wrongs, is he privy to information they are not? Etc Etc.

Here are some videos related to the topic:



One is from PBS the other is from National Geographic. One has a political dimension the other has a cultural dimension. Note: I am aware these are long videos they are for further references only.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 




Apparently child suicide is the weapon they use against the US. If that in itself doesn't give us reason enough to consider completely pulling out of the area then i don't know what will.

So if a culture condones canibalism we should leave them alone as well?
I see it as all the more reason to give them an attitude adjustment/



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I'm saying that they are using kids to blow us up. If we aren't there try won't have anything to blow up but themselves.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join