Kooks and some of their conspiracies

joebucks

Di0genes wrote: »

You missed the Al Jazeera interview in 2002 where he claimed responsibility.

Are you saying Al Jazeera waterboarded him?



Yes it was. And yes this is.

Still no physical evidence so?

See false confession

Di0genes

joebucks wrote: »

Still no physical evidence so?

What physical evidence would satisfy you that he organised the attack? Serious question.

See false confession

No one forced his confession or made him go on Al Jazeera and claim responsibility. Why are you ignoring that part?

joebucks

Di0genes wrote: »

What physical evidence would satisfy you that he organised the attack? Serious question.

Paper trail to show KSM provided suspected hijackers with funds, phone logs etc

Given the list of terrorist attacks KSM is alleged to have been involved in then intelligence agencies would have been tracking his every move and should have ample evidence.

No one forced his confession or made him go on Al Jazeera and claim responsibility. Why are you ignoring that part?

Coercion is not the only reason people will make false confessions.

So the only evidence they have are the claims he made on Al-Jazeera?

Here he claims that he made things up in Gitmo.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/nation/na-cia-detainee16
WASHINGTON — Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he had lied to the CIA after being abused, according to documents made public Monday. The claim is likely to intensify the debate over whether harsh interrogation techniques generated accurate information.
"I make up stories," Mohammed said, describing in broken English an interrogation probably administered by the CIA concerning the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "Where is he? I don't know. Then, he torture me," Mohammed said of his interrogator. "Then I said, 'Yes, he is in this area.' "

alastair

h2pogo wrote: »

I watched all the vid and have heard all the speech and its all in context..mentioning the secret society's and the global conspiracy and the way the press leaked the bay of pigs preparations is all in the context of the responsibility and obligations of the press..

Do post the transcript people should see it..

The video posted on this site that edited out all the obvious references to the soviets? Well - here's the unadulterated section of the speech, which doesn't leave much to the imagination - it's the soviets he's talking about:

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

h2pogo

alastair wrote: »

The video posted on this site that edited out all the obvious references to the soviets? Well - here's the unadulterated section of the speech, which doesn't leave much to the imagination - it's the soviets he's talking about:

He is certainly not just talking about the soviets but the responsibilities and obligations of the press..no one ever denied the soviets were not talked about in the speech..

heres the full text

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

kaiser sauze

Kennedy was talking about The Soviets, but more particularly, Communism.

Next.

Di0genes

joebucks wrote: »

Paper trail to show KSM provided suspected hijackers with funds, phone logs etc

Given the list of terrorist attacks KSM is alleged to have been involved in then intelligence agencies would have been tracking his every move and should have ample evidence.

Why should they reveal what they have in an open court and risk exposing their

Coercion is not the only reason people will make false confessions.

So why would he lie to Al Jazeera?

So the only evidence they have are the claims he made on Al-Jazeera?

Admitting his guilt in a television interview isn't enough? There's also the supporting evidence his nephew carried out the WTC bombing '93

joebucks

Di0genes wrote: »

Why should they reveal what they have in an open court and risk exposing their

So they have released no evidence and you are just taking them on their word?

When does the trial start again?

So why would he lie to Al Jazeera?

Why do any subversive groups make claims for actions they did not carry out? Maybe they offered him a pit sandwich with extra horseradish

Admitting his guilt in a television interview isn't enough? There's also the supporting evidence his nephew carried out the WTC bombing '93

Have you watched the video?Can you provide a transcript of what he has exactly said? Has the video been edited?

Di0genes

joebucks wrote: »

So they have released no evidence and you are just taking them on their word?

When does the trial start again?

18 months ago.

Why do any subversive groups make claims for actions they did not carry out? Maybe they offered him a pit sandwich with extra horseradish

Nice racist language.

Have you watched the video?Can you provide a transcript of what he has exactly said? Has the video been edited?

Yes. Yes. No.

And I used to work for Al Jazeera.

joebucks

Di0genes wrote: »

18 months ago.


Evidence of this??Where is this trial being held? I can find no record of this trial commencing.

Nice racist language.

Please explain how my comment is racist. If you consider please report the post as opposed to making such accusations.

Yes. Yes. No.

And I used to work for Al Jazeera.

Yes you have bragged about that before. Please provide transcript.

Di0genes

joebucks wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

18 months ago.


Evidence of this??Where is this trial being held? I can find no record of this trial commencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Trial_for_9.2F11

Please explain how my comment is racist. If you consider please report the post as opposed to making such accusations.

I did and it's akin to suggesting a Irishman would agree to committing terrorists acts for a pint of plain.

Yes you have bragged about that before. Please provide transcript.

It's not a bragging it's a statement of fact. And why don't you believe this interview occured?

joebucks

Di0genes wrote: »

joebucks wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Trial_for_9.2F11

Exactly thanks for clearing up this matter. The trail has yet to commence in a civilian court.

I did and it's akin to suggesting a Irishman would agree to committing terrorists acts for a pint of plain.

Nice one I look forward to dealing with the mods on this matter. You are obviously not familiar with the scene in The Wire where one of the characters confesses to murders he does not commit in exchange for a Pit sandwich with extra horse radish.

See Wee-Bay

And why don't you believe this interview occured?

I never said I did not believe it occurred. I am of the opinion that some of the things KSM may have said were taken out of context.

Do you believe that KSM is guilty of all the acts he has confessed to?

Brown Bomber

joebucks wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

joebucks wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Trial_for_9.2F11

Exactly thanks for clearing up this matter. The trail has yet to commence in a civilian court.




Nice one I look forward to dealing with the mods on this matter. You are obviously not familiar with the scene in The Wire where one of the characters confesses to murders he does not commit in exchange for a Pit sandwich with extra horse radish.

See Wee-Bay

I never said I did not believe it occurred. I am of the opinion that some of the things KSM may have said were taken out of context.

Do you believe that KSM is guilty of all the acts he has confessed to?

He wasn't only tortured. The Americans threatened to kill his childred. I'd confess to anything under those circumstances.

American interrogators threatened to kill the children of the self-confessed September 11 mastermind, a new declassified CIA report says.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/25/2665586.htm?section=world

Brown Bomber

You should have a quick look at this joe.
http://www.truthjihad.com/ksm.htm

joebucks

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You should have a quick look at this joe.
http://www.truthjihad.com/ksm.htm

Thanks BB i'll check that out.

What is also interesting is Fouda from Al Jazeera's opinion of KSM..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1529879.ece

So he seems to be taking responsibility for some outrages he might not have perpetrated, while keeping quiet about ones that suggest his hand. I think he has blurred the line between what he did and what he was hoping or plotting to do.

He wants to take the credit for high-profile attacks because he is a pragmatist, a power-hungry mastermind, and realises his time is up; he might as well gain sympathy as an ideological hero.

BoredGuy

Why is it that debunkers always seem to hold the view that conspiracy theories are just theories and anyone who researches them is a loon while never seeming to get that there is also such a thing as conspiracy fact?
certainly there's a lot of bull on the internet but to dismiss everything without enquiry is folly.
I mean people forming groups to gain advantage over other people just doesn't happen....

humanji

If there's no proof of a conspiracy then it's just a theory. Simple as that.

Just because a piece of evidence seems to confirm a theory to one person, doesn't mean that everyone will see it that way. That's where the arguments start.

Mahatma coat

Yes Humanji, but often there comes a point in the debate where BOTH sides are filling in the blanks with their own interpretations of 'Logic' that the fun starts.

SamHarris

joebucks wrote: »

The Taliban are considered by many to be complicit in the 9/11 attacks as they harbored Al Qaeda, as per The Bush Doctrine.

Any proof AL Qaeda carried out attacks?

So you dont think al Qaeda did 9/11 despite both the top people explicitly taking responsibility, the various hijackers all having spent time in Afghanistan prior to the attack, at the same time period and receiving flight training when returning to the West?

Who the hijackers were is not in question, some called flight control, others were descibed by family members who were on the plane which was forced to crash.

The paper trail is there, you just dont like it. I can prove to you your opinion on the matter is not made by analysing available evidence, but rather twisted to fit your politcal paradigm. What is your opinion concerning Western support for Israel? Or Iran's nuclear program? Or Western hegemony in general?

If you cant find support for a theory across the political spectrum when the facts are presented, red flags should definitly go up for you.

Also, the fact you have to do logical backflips for any other theory to even begin fitting into place is another dead give away for a silly theory.

There are plenty of crazy conspiracy theories, some more than others, this is one of the most ridiculous but then probably one of the most popular. Probably not the best example to use if you want to prove CTs are not all disproved/ kookie.

On Noam Chomsky, his reputation as a political analyst only comes from his extreme views, not how well thought out and certainly not on how unbiased they are. Nor is he a lawyer. He is a linguist. An intelligent man yes, but then I could point to many intelligent, more qualified people who disagree with him completly, on almost everything political.