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
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    That point was in response to this:
    Yes. You still have the wrong case. Reid was the shoe bomber.


  • Options
    #63
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I got a missile in mine.

    That must have hurt. I thought a cucumber was bad.


  • Options
    #64
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Poor lad, probably hadnt a clue what was happening. Thought it was a training excersize.

    Ah well..
    That's not what he says though.
    On October 12, 2011, Abdulmutallab, against the advice of Chambers, pleaded guilty to the eight charges against him, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and the attempted murder the 289 people on the plane. Both charges carry a mandatory life sentence.[156]
    "The Quran allows every Muslim to undertake jihad," Abdulmutallab told the court after changing his plea. "I carried the device to avenge the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters... Unfortunately, my actions make me guilty of a crime." Abdulmutallab called the failed explosives he had hidden in his underwear a "blessed weapon" and said he attempted to use it "because of the tyranny of the United States." Abdulmutallab had originally pleaded not guilty to the charges, but reportedly changed his mind after the prosecution completed its opening arguments.[156]

    Sentencing was initially scheduled for January 12, 2012, but was subsequently postponed to February 16, 2012 in order to give Abdulmutallab more time to review the presentence investigation report completed by the United States Probation Service.[157] On February 13, 2012, Chambers filed a motion arguing that sentencing his client to life in prison would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because no one other than his client suffered physical harm during the attempted attack.[158] The motion was rejected.

    On February 16, 2012, Judge Nancy Edmunds of Federal District Court in Detroit sentenced Abdulmutallab to four consecutive life sentences plus 50 years.[159][160] He shouted, “Allahu akbar” five times during his sentencing, and said that Muslims were “proud to kill in the name of God, and that is what God told us to do in the Quran.”[161]


  • Options
    #65
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    hooradiation wrote: »
    That doesn't change anything, if we were to accept that it was an "inside job" (and I don't before anyone gets any ideas) then the point still stands. Pre 9/11 security allowed people to hijack those planes.


    Not if for example the boxcutters were already on the plane.

    God man..

    Post 911 there are still underwear bombers on planes.

    How secure does it need to get until poor little you feels safe ?

    Perhaps an autopsy of all passengers pre boarding ? :pac:


  • Options
    #66
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That's not what he says though.


    Ha ha, gimmy a break. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Ha ha, gimmy a break. :pac:
    If it's an act, it's a very good one. Occam's Razor?


  • Options
    #68
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    If it's an act, it's a very good one. Occam's Razor?


    Ever looked into MK Ultra, mind control techniques ?

    It's quite impressive what they can do.

    Getting someone on a plane with a bomb is small fry. There are departments in certain agencies which specialise in mind control afaik.

    Would it be a huge surprise to find this kind of terrorism is their objective ? really like ?


  • Options
    #69
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Post 911 there are still underwear bombers on planes.

    Hence the heavy security needed.

    A few years back extremists tried an assassination with a bomb contained inside a man - the bomb functioned but did not kill the target.

    You can convince yourself that Al Qaeda, 911, extremists, plots, etc are all make-believe. However reality repeatedly contradicts that. In fact, it's shown us that the perpetrators will come up with increasingly more ingenious and inventive methods and attempts to circumvent security and safeguards..

    Hence the heavy security needed.


  • Options
    #70
    ectoraige
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    This goes to prove yet again that the US is has lost its dignity as a respectable western nation and has gone down the same route as those so called "terrorist nations" that it is trying to suppress.

    So all the propaganda and fearmongering over this plot was once again over nothing this was yet another staged incident just as the first underwear bomber event was a manufactured hoax from beginning to end.

    The al-Qaeda operative tasked with carrying a high-tech new "underpants" bomb onto a US-bound jet was in fact a double agent working for the CIA and Arab intelligence agencies, it has emerged.

    The agent penetrated al-Qaeda's deadly affiliate Yemen and tracked the bomb's movement for weeks before smuggling out the device out of the country and into the hands of American authorities.

    It's funny how you accuse the US of running a false flag operation, but haven't questioned the report itself. If you're going to go down the conspiracy route, surely it's just as plausable that there wasn't a double agent at all and that the report itself is misinformation and propaganda.

    Suppose the CIA/Saudis just got lucky, perhaps finding the device during a raid where the suspect died. With no workable intelligence on the supply chain, announcing to the world that it was actually compromised by a double agent would disrupt it for a while, and might even smoke out somebody.

    It seems unusual to reveal the use of double agents, unless the agencies have already taken out/picked up everybody the agent dealt with. The strike on Fahd al-Quso might be indicative of that I suppose.

    Now point me to the exit before I get trapped in this forum...


  • Options
    #71
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Not if for example the boxcutters were already on the plane.

    God man..

    Post 911 there are still underwear bombers on planes.

    How secure does it need to get until poor little you feels safe ?

    Perhaps an autopsy of all passengers pre boarding ? :pac:
    Microchipping individual is the agenda of the Elite powers behind all this.

    They have instant and undivided access to a personal records without the need to ask questions or show documentation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Ever looked into MK Ultra, mind control techniques ?

    It's quite impressive what they can do.
    There's never been a single shred of proof that they can do anything, and even if they could, I think Occam's Razor suggests he was a young guy that got radicalised, and remains radicalised. Have you read about him at all?


  • Options
    #73
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Hence the heavy security needed.

    A few years back extremists tried an assassination with a bomb contained inside a man - the bomb functioned but did not kill the target.

    You can convince yourself that Al Qaeda, 911, extremists, plots, etc are all make-believe. However reality repeatedly contradicts that. In fact, it's shown us that the perpetrators will come up with increasingly more ingenious and inventive methods and attempts to circumvent security and safeguards..

    Hence the heavy security needed.

    No, I believe some may be genuine terror plots. But genuine terrorists will always find a way to pull off a plot if they are hell bent on it. All this plane stuff is bullsh!t, there are plenty of other ways to kill lots of people.
    Authorities are using the fear of 911 to get people through these scanners and molest millions of children for whatever reason.
    They are trying to change the psyche of nations, not make them feel secure lol.
    The proof is in the pudding.


  • Options
    #74
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    There's never been a single shred of proof that they can do anything, and even if they could, I think Occam's Razor suggests he was a young guy that got radicalised, and remains radicalised. Have you read about him at all?

    Isnt that a form of mind control in itself ?

    If groups out in the deserts can radicalise individuals, cant they do it in certain agencies in America, for example ?


  • Options
    #75
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    ectoraige wrote: »

    Now point me to the exit before I get trapped in this forum...
    curved_arrow.gif&sa=X&ei=5kiqT9XQDOTe4QSd5bWXCQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFVecMKF_L19BhiahsqTDnrEtrDbQ

    Dont let the door hit you on the way out.


  • Options
    #76
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Not if for example the boxcutters were already on the plane.

    Which only belabours the point, if "someone" placed boxcutters on the plane then that is, by definition, a failure of security. One which led to the events of September 11, 2001.
    Therefore the notion that security was "fine" before that date is, again, shown to be dubious.

    And that's without having to descend further into the "well what if X happened" rabbit hole that defines these kinds of 'theories'.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    God man..

    Post 911 there are still underwear bombers on planes.

    I'm struggling to think of any successful hijackings after that date, let alone anything on the scale of the 9/11 attacks.
    Therefore, if we take the standard of evidence you've set, the security changes implemented after 9/11 have had a demonstrably positive effect.

    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    How secure does it need to get until poor little you feels safe ?

    Perhaps an autopsy of all passengers pre boarding ? :pac:

    Seeing as an autopsy is usually carried out on the dead, this sneering non-sequitur is making a fine attempt at crossing into the surreal.


  • Options
    #77
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    There's never been a single shred of proof that they can do anything,


    I wonders why...

    Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human experimentation program, run by the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continued at least through the late 1960s, and used U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects.[1][2][3][4]
    The published evidence indicates that Project MKULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, hypnosis,[5] sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.
    Project MKULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms' destruction order.[6]


  • Options
    #78
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Which only belabours the point, if "someone" placed boxcutters on the plane then that is, by definition, a failure of security. One which led to the events of September 11, 2001.
    Therefore the notion that security was "fine" before that date is, again, shown to be dubious.

    And that's without having to descend further into the "well what if X happened" rabbit hole that defines these kinds of 'theories'.



    I'm struggling to think of any successful hijackings after that date, let alone anything on the scale of the 9/11 attacks.
    Therefore, if we take the standard of evidence you've set, the security changes implemented after 9/11 have had a demonstrably positive effect.




    Seeing as an autopsy is usually carried out on the dead, this sneering non-sequitur is making a fine attempt at crossing into the surreal.

    So, you are in favor of more security then ?

    Come back in a few years and tell us when you feel safe.


  • Options
    #79
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    No, I believe some may be genuine terror plots. But genuine terrorists will always find a way to pull off a plot if they are hell bent on it. All this plane stuff is bullsh!t, there are plenty of other ways to kill lots of people.

    Like trains.. the underground.. buses.. nightclubs.. government buildings.. embassies.. military vessels.. hotels.. opera houses.. right?
    Authorities are using the fear of 911 to get people through these scanners and molest millions of children for whatever reason.

    Then why did security exist before 911? why does security exist in Spain? Russia? Northern Ireland?

    Or are you just thinking of several alarmist stories from the draconian TSA and applying that to yet another global fear conspiracy?


  • Options
    #80
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I wonders why...
    Right, but you seem convinced that this project was successful? When in all likelihood it was just very embarrassing.

    So we see a guy unapologetically trying to carry out a terrorist attack and explaining why, and instead of believing him, you think it's more likely he is being mind controlled?

    Doesn't make sense to me.


  • Options
    #81
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    They can only go so far.

    I believe Alqueda is a fabricated CIA organisation in the first place and never existed.

    you also believe obama is the antichrist so......
    yeah

    There is a massive percentage of the worlds security and intelligence community who don't believe Al Qeada exist. The evidence points to the FBI inventing al Qeada so they could try Bin Laden in his absence under RICO laws in the late nineties after the African embassy bombing and attack on a us navy ship off the coast of east Africa. The BBC even did a documentary with several high profile intelligence experts who all had the same belief.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Like trains.. the underground.. buses.. nightclubs.. government buildings.. embassies.. military vessels.. hotels.. opera houses.. right?



    Then why did security exist before 911? why does security exist in Spain? Russia? Northern Ireland?

    Or are you just thinking of several alarmist stories from the draconian TSA and applying that to yet another global fear conspiracy?


    Umm, you cut out the bit where I said.. "some threats may be genuine". :rolleyes:

    Some have CIA written all over them. Like the one we are discussing.


  • Options
    #83
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Right, but you seem convinced that this project was successful? When in all likelihood it was just very embarrassing.

    So we see a guy unapologetically trying to carry out a terrorist attack and explaining why, and instead of believing him, you think it's more likely he is being mind controlled?

    Doesn't make sense to me.


    I'm suggesting it's a possibility. And I believe mind control does work.
    Someone puts a bomb in their underwear and boards a plane with the intention of blowing it up. Someones been ****ing with their head.
    Wouldnt you agree ?

    Religion is a form of mind control, imo.

    And it works, doesnt it ?


  • Options
    #84
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Someones been ****ing with their head.
    Wouldnt you agree ?
    That's one way of looking at radicalisation, I guess. Remember that 9/11 wasn't the beginning of suicide attacks - they've been going on right back through history. Some people are happy to sacrifice their lives for a cause.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Religion is a form of mind control, imo.

    And it works, doesnt it ?
    Yes, agreed.


  • Options
    #85
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Some people are happy to sacrifice their lives for a cause.


    Yes, agreed.

    Thanks.

    Who's cause though. :)

    Back later !


  • Options
    #86
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    So, you are in favor of more security then ?

    It's certainly not bothered me up to now. A minor inconvenience at best.

    As for more, we'll see.
    Being "for" more security regardless is as stupid as being "against" it, regardless.

    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Come back in a few years and tell us when you feel safe.

    Yes, quite.
    I wonder if you'll ever stop trying to play that tired joke to the gallery.


  • Options
    #87
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Umm, you cut out the bit where I said.. "some threats may be genuine". :rolleyes:
    All this plane stuff is bullsh!t

    That's a contradiction in terms.
    Some have CIA written all over them. Like the one we are discussing.

    Of course it does, the CIA infiltrated this movement. Are you misinterpreting this?
    some threats may be genuine

    Most aren't? can you give us a list? there's several thousand you'll have to work through.


  • Options
    #88
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That's one way of looking at radicalisation, I guess. Remember that 9/11 wasn't the beginning of suicide attacks - they've been going on right back through history. Some people are happy to sacrifice their lives for a cause.
    Yes, agreed.

    Barack Obama took this to his advantage with his Islamic connections.

    He orchestrated suicide teams from within the United States and around the world to carry out his master plan of attacking the Twin Towers so that he could usher in his agenda of electronic enslavement through the patriot act and what ever else he comes up with which will ultimately lead to the implant which is his number 666.

    leauv.jpg


  • Options
    #89
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Barack Obama took this to his advantage with his Islamic connections.

    He orchestrated suicide teams from within the United States and around the world to carry out his master plan of attacking the Twin Towers so that he could usher in his agenda of electronic enslavement through the patriot act and what ever else he comes up with which will ultimately lead to the implant.

    leauv.jpg


    What year did he start planning this?


    How did he control the US President, House and Senate at the time to pass the Patriot act?


  • Options
    #90
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Barack Obama took this to his advantage with his Islamic connections.

    He orchestrated suicide teams from within the United States and around the world to carry out his master plan of attacking the Twin Towers so that he could usher in his agenda of electronic enslavement through the patriot act and what ever else he comes up with which will ultimately lead to the implant.

    leauv.jpg
    I think you have forgotten who was in power at the time, and who was behind the 'Patriot Act' that did so much damage to civil rights in America.

    george_bush_devil_horn_hand_sign.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    What year did he start planning this?


    How did he control the US President, House and Senate at the time to pass the Patriot act?
    It has been going back decades

    The only hold up was getting the correct man to join the dots and OBama fits the bill. (Pun intended :) )

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement