Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Al-Qaeda 'underpants' bomber was working for CIA

Options
12357…10

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Torakx wrote: »
    ps, i mean seriously.....an underpants bomber! somebody is having a laugh at the worlds expense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab


  • Options
    #123
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

    ok i only took about 10 mins looking around.
    the school in yemen that guy went to before was lead by one Anwar al-Awlaki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    Anwar al-Awlaki was an American[8] and Yemeni imam who was an engineer and educator by training.[9][10] According to U.S. government officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda
    Ok so he was an american O.o wth? An american extremist living in yemen,supposedly educating terrorists and extremists, also some involved in the 9/11 attacks?

    So the underpants bomber was educated and possibly trained by an american engineer and educator who recently died along with his american son and i think nephew in a drone strike.....hmmmm

    Sounds like a CIA job to me.
    But then i only took 10 mins to look.
    Might be alot more to it i have yet to understand..or i should be the next Sherlock Holmes and recruited by the CIA lol
    Somehow i think they wont need my help with regards hunting terrorists ..how do i do that sarcastic smiley face haha is it ;/ or ;] ??


  • Options
    #124
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Well if the terrorists have a new 'bomb pants' that's so technologically advanced, shouldn't they tighten up airport security measures? :confused:

    So these Al-Qaeda dudes who the US have claimed a 1000 times are defeated/disbanded/irrelevant/"dead enders" have labs that can create invisible bombs in their fcuking toggs?

    MM it's another hoax to ramp up warrantless surveillance at home. But if you continuously (and in denial) want to keep believing this crap then I've got a great deal on a bridge to sell you.


  • Options
    #125
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    lol.. its like the old version of me back my Chomsky years :)

    Sadly terrorist attacks and plots happen all over the world, I've yet to see someone with an agenda in here carefully splitting all the "fake" Chechnyan bomb plots into a neat pile to apportion blame.



    The worst type of injustice.. American hypocrisy!

    Yup, heard it all before, I used to preach it myself. I mean they dragged a net through Afghanistan, picked up taxi drivers, etc threw them into Gitmo - couldn't create a more perfect recruitment poster for extremists - yet its done and now these people now have to be dealt with.


    I would expect that even diehard apologists for America's farcical War on Terra would by now admit to their (America's) laughable and clumsy attempts at insulting the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature but I guess I was wrong.

    There are some people who will swallow it even if the Pentagon came out and claimed that the "terrorists" have invented an underwater tea-maker with a built-in hay-shed that doubles up as a coat hanger.

    Truly, TRULY laughable.


  • Options
    #126
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    superluck wrote: »
    I agree. What is the big surprise? Double agents work in terrorist organisations all the time. That he carried a bomb on board a plane and tried to detonate it with the full knowledge of security services isn't all that shocking.

    Atleast our airports are now much safer with security scanners in place, thanks to the underwear bomber and CIA.

    So if the airports are so "safe" then it can be assumed that "al qaeda" knows this. If they are so determined to kill murcans and have such advanced technology why would they go to all the trouble of trying to develop fictitious knickerbocker bombs? Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to just detonate multiple crude rucksack bombs made out of fertiliser on subways, buses and trains? Hell a simple hand grenade could derail a speeding Amtrak killing hundreds and wrecking the place. Why don't they do this?
    Answer: There is NO threat. It's a hoax to sell useless scanners and have the taxpayer shell out for it. It's also to keep people in fear as well as to institute warrantless surveillance to capture and detain anti-war protesters, Wall St demonstrators, whistleblowers, Eliot Spitzer, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    hooradiation wrote: »
    So - lapses security allowed four planes to be hijacked and three of them used as improvised weapons to attack buildings therefore security was "fine".


    Explain that line of thought some more, because there is no possible way how I'm reading that sentence makes sense.

    Lock the cockpit door. Problem solved. Planes can no longer be commandeered. 9/11 had nothing to do with bombs. Why are you bringing it up?


  • Options
    #128
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Lock the cockpit door. Problem solved. Planes can no longer be commandeered. 9/11 had nothing to do with bombs. Why are you bringing it up?

    Because there was a claim made that security pre 9/11 was 'fine'
    Something which is patently false.


  • Options
    #129
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    So if the airports are so "safe" then it can be assumed that "al qaeda" knows this. If they are so determined to kill murcans and have such advanced technology why would they go to all the trouble of trying to develop fictitious knickerbocker bombs?

    The bomb existed and he tried to set it off mid-flight. A large amount of explosives is not needed to de-pressurise and endanger a whole plane.
    Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to just detonate multiple crude rucksack bombs made out of fertiliser on subways, buses and trains?

    July 7/7 London, Moscow subway bombing, Madrid train bombing.
    Why don't they do this?
    Answer: There is NO threat. It's a hoax to sell useless scanners and have the taxpayer shell out for it.

    Seems to be a worldwide issue then, the GSG-9 in Germany alone has been on over 1,500 missions.
    It's also to keep people in fear as well as to institute warrantless surveillance to capture and detain anti-war protesters, Wall St demonstrators, whistleblowers, Eliot Spitzer, etc.

    "Mr President, there are 16 protesters on Wall St, permission to secretly rig the two largest buildings in the world with explosives and fly remote controlled planes into them to kill several thousand people so that we can inflict fear on society and create special powers to arrest those pesky protesters.."


  • Options
    #130
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    This is just a small part of the fruits of Barack Obama's international false flag terrorist campaign.

    "The girl’s shocked parents demanded an explanation when they were ordered off a JetBlue flight only to be told their 18-month-old daughter, named Riyanna, had been placed on a no-fly list.

    The bizarre situation unfolded in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as the family attempted to return home to New Jersey.

    The youngster's mother described being asked to disembark, saying: “I said, ’For what?' He said, ‘Well, it’s not you or your husband. Your daughter was flagged as no-fly.'

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4310944/Toddler-on-no-fly-list-hauled-off-aircraft-in-security-bungle.html


  • Options
    #131
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    This is just a small part of the fruits of Barack Obama's international false flag terrorist campaign.
    More total horsesh!t from you - have you forgotten that the 'War on Terror' was a Rebublican/Bush Cabal/Fox News invention? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    This is just a small part of the fruits of Barack Obama's international false flag terrorist campaign.

    "The girl’s shocked parents demanded an explanation when they were ordered off a JetBlue flight only to be told their 18-month-old daughter, named Riyanna, had been placed on a no-fly list.

    The bizarre situation unfolded in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as the family attempted to return home to New Jersey.

    The youngster's mother described being asked to disembark, saying: “I said, ’For what?' He said, ‘Well, it’s not you or your husband. Your daughter was flagged as no-fly.'

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4310944/Toddler-on-no-fly-list-hauled-off-aircraft-in-security-bungle.html

    Chances it was an error - 100%

    Chances they thought the toddler was actually a member of a dangerous group and were tracking the baby - 0%


  • Options
    #133
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The bomb existed and he tried to set it off mid-flight. A large amount of explosives is not needed to de-pressurise and endanger a whole plane.



    July 7/7 London, Moscow subway bombing, Madrid train bombing.



    Seems to be a worldwide issue then, the GSG-9 in Germany alone has been on over 1,500 missions.



    "Mr President, there are 16 protesters on Wall St, permission to secretly rig the two largest buildings in the world with explosives and fly remote controlled planes into them to kill several thousand people so that we can inflict fear on society and create special powers to arrest those pesky protesters.."

    And are there scanners at London bus-stops? I didn't see any when I was there last month. Or in Madrid train stations when I was there in August. Never been to Moscow, sadly, but my friend didn't see any in the Metro.

    I have my doubts about the veracity of the London and Madrid bombings. London certainly achieved its objective in silencing any "war on terra" opposition that was beginning to creep in to the British mindset. Now with regard to the Madrid bombing which occured 3 days before an election, why did the ruling Prime Minister (who would have had access to the highest levels of intelligence) come out and blame ETA? A statement that would have improved his chances of reelection? Surely whilst the debris was still in the air his security chiefs would have told him exactly who the perpetrators were OR they would have told him that they didn't yet know. Either way he came out and told a bald faced lie to get reelected. But that's probably besides the point.

    Why, throughout the 70's and 80's were there no scanners/detectors/friskers in every pub in England even though one had a higher chance of being caught up in an IRA bomb than being blown to atoms over the Atlantic on your way to Disney World?

    You see there are 2 types of terrorist scenaria.....real ones and fake ones. The real ones succeed because they are real, i.e. the perpetrators know what they are doing. They take the easiest path and don't try to be all cloak and dagger like people seem to envision this whole Al Qaeda circus. They don't go for theatre or dress shiftily or attempt to attack the most difficult target, e.g. an airliner. They bomb pubs, discos, restaurants, trains, buses, etc.
    If this Al-Qaeda threat is so real and dangerous then why are they only going for ailiners. It makes absolutely ZERO sense.
    A simple question for you is this: If YOU wanted to kill a few hundred people, how would you go about it? Would you try to foil airport security and risk almost certain detection and at best kill 2 hundred people of would you take your time and plant multiple bombs in train stations, rock concerts, book signings, Macy's Day Parade, etc., etc? Better still why not just poison the water supply and then slink off and watch from a distance as tens of thousands died?

    The Al-Qaeda terrorist threat is a farce. Plain and simple. It was invented and exploited when the equally farcical Communist "threat" evaporated. And if you can't see that then you're beyond help.


  • Options
    #134
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Because there was a claim made that security pre 9/11 was 'fine'
    Something which is patently false.

    Well since the US was warned for months prior to the attacks that they were an imminent danger then I would have to counter that security was just fine.
    The US simply chose to ignore those warnings. Perhaps vetting recipients of such warnings would be smarter than scanning passengers, no?


  • Options
    #135
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

    America is now the official false flag capital of the world.

    Who decides this? You?


  • Options
    #136
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Chances it was an error - 100%

    Chances they thought the toddler was actually a member of a dangerous group and were tracking the baby - 0%

    Chances the clown who saw that the no-fly perpetrator was an infant and proceeded with his/her cretinous remit was a moron - 100%

    But hey rules are rules, right?


  • Options
    #137
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    And are there scanners at London bus-stops? I didn't see any when I was there last month. Or in Madrid train stations when I was there in August. Never been to Moscow, sadly, but my friend didn't see any in the Metro.

    No, because it isn't practical.
    I have my doubts about the veracity of the London and Madrid bombings. London certainly achieved its objective in silencing any "war on terra" opposition that was beginning to creep in to the British mindset. Now with regard to the Madrid bombing which occured 3 days before an election, why did the ruling Prime Minister (who would have had access to the highest levels of intelligence) come out and blame ETA? A statement that would have improved his chances of reelection? Surely whilst the debris was still in the air his security chiefs would have told him exactly who the perpetrators were OR they would have told him that they didn't yet know. Either way he came out and told a bald faced lie to get reelected. But that's probably besides the point.

    I'm not defending any politician for taking advantage, but no one instantly knew who was responsible for the attacks.
    Why, throughout the 70's and 80's were there no scanners/detectors/friskers in every pub in England even though one had a higher chance of being caught up in an IRA bomb than being blown to atoms over the Atlantic on your way to Disney World?

    Because it's not practical.
    If this Al-Qaeda threat is so real and dangerous then why are they only going for ailiners. It makes absolutely ZERO sense.

    The minority of Al Qaeda threats, plots and attacks are against airliners.
    A simple question for you is this: If YOU wanted to kill a few hundred people, how would you go about it? Would you try to foil airport security and risk almost certain detection and at best kill 2 hundred people of would you take your time and plant multiple bombs in train stations, rock concerts, book signings, Macy's Day Parade, etc., etc? Better still why not just poison the water supply and then slink off and watch from a distance as tens of thousands died?

    Individuals can do as they please - as far as I know Al Qaeda don't have "board meetings" and decide all attacks, if someone wants to be stupid enough to ram Glasgow airport with propane tanks, off they go.
    The Al-Qaeda terrorist threat is a farce. Plain and simple. It was invented and exploited when the equally farcical Communist "threat" evaporated. And if you can't see that then you're beyond help.

    Thousands of dead people from New York to Pakistan may disagree.


  • Options
    #138
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No, because it isn't practical.



    I'm not defending any politician for taking advantage, but no one instantly knew who was responsible for the attacks.



    Because it's not practical.



    The minority of Al Qaeda threats, plots and attacks are against airliners.



    Individuals can do as they please - as far as I know Al Qaeda don't have "board meetings" and decide all attacks, if someone wants to be stupid enough to ram Glasgow airport with propane tanks, off they go.



    Thousands of dead people from New York to Pakistan may disagree.

    Or maybe it isn't profitable

    But since when did practicality trump saving lives?

    If this "threat" is so real then why aren't there scanners and detectors EVERYWHERE? After all if the threat is real then would not the perpetrators be targetting places where it's not "practical" to place detection measures? If Al-Qaeda are so ruthless and evil and bloodthirsty who will stop at nothing to kill Americans then why aren't hospitals and schools and daycare centres and shopping malls and trains and buses and factories and beach parties and football matches and opera houses and music festivals and queues to buy cinema tickets and pleasure cruises, etc. being blown to bits every five minutes?


  • Options
    #139
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    al28283 wrote: »
    Who decides this? You?
    It doesn't take too much to figure.


  • Options
    #140
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No, because it isn't practical.



    I'm not defending any politician for taking advantage, but no one instantly knew who was responsible for the attacks.



    Because it's not practical.



    The minority of Al Qaeda threats, plots and attacks are against airliners.



    Individuals can do as they please - as far as I know Al Qaeda don't have "board meetings" and decide all attacks, if someone wants to be stupid enough to ram Glasgow airport with propane tanks, off they go.



    Thousands of dead people from New York to Pakistan may disagree.


    If noone knew who was responsible then why lie? Would you come out and state who was responsible if you didn't know? This is off topic but it's certainly another cosnspiracy that you really can't deny.


  • Options
    #141
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    It doesn't take too much to figure.
    A bit of numerology and bob's your uncle...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Chances it was an error - 100%

    Chances they thought the toddler was actually a member of a dangerous group and were tracking the baby - 0%

    And If it was the same error involving an adult...............


  • Options
    #143
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    And If it was the same error involving an adult...............

    It would prove that OBAMA SANK THE TITANIC!!


  • Options
    #144
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    And If it was the same error involving an adult...............

    Or a crippled kid with leg braces?
    Or a pensioner with a colostomy bag?
    Or some poor misfortunate with a prosthetic limb?
    Or a breast cancer victim with a scarf over her bald head?


  • Options
    #145
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Or a crippled kid with leg braces?
    Or a pensioner with a colostomy bag?
    Or some poor misfortunate with a prosthetic limb?
    Or a breast cancer victim with a scarf over her bald head?
    Or an Indian doctor with bladder trouble wanting to take a pi** on board a flight.


  • Options
    #146
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Or maybe it isn't profitable

    But since when did practicality trump saving lives?

    If this "threat" is so real then why aren't there scanners and detectors EVERYWHERE? After all if the threat is real then would not the perpetrators be targetting places where it's not "practical" to place detection measures? If Al-Qaeda are so ruthless and evil and bloodthirsty who will stop at nothing to kill Americans then why aren't hospitals and schools and daycare centres and shopping malls and trains and buses and factories and beach parties and football matches and opera houses and music festivals and queues to buy cinema tickets and pleasure cruises, etc. being blown to bits every five minutes?

    After 911 no one had a problem with heavy security in airports and long queues. We're only just moaning about it now.

    They didn't manufacture the deaths of thousands of people to sell some airport scaners


  • Options
    #147
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    If noone knew who was responsible then why lie? Would you come out and state who was responsible if you didn't know? This is off topic but it's certainly another cosnspiracy that you really can't deny.

    I am shocked.. SHOCKED to hear that a politician lied or was misinformed or made a mistake :)


  • Options
    #148
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Because there was a claim made that security pre 9/11 was 'fine'
    Something which is patently false.

    Wasn't it ?


  • Options
    #149
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Wasn't it ?
    Well apparently it wasn't because it didn't cover the possibility of a bunch of guys booking onto the same flight with small weapons that could be used to threaten to cut throats.


  • Options
    #150
    outtagetme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I am shocked.. SHOCKED to hear that a politician lied or was misinformed or made a mistake :)

    Lose the smiley face. It makes you look and sound like that scumbag from the News Of The World who expressed (weak and fake) shock that Hugh Grant exposed him over his phone hacking shennanigans:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Lose the smiley face. It makes you look and sound like that scumbag from the News Of The World who expressed (weak and fake) shock that Hugh Grant exposed him over his phone hacking shennanigans:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690

    Hmm a bit off topic.. why didn't the newspaper just lie?

    Interesting dilema huh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement