"Mastermind" behind major terrorist attacks

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
pilcrow
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:26 pm

Post by pilcrow » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:50 am

popslut wrote: I can tell you're just itching to denounce me as "Anti-American". Thats the thing with you "believers" - in the absence of hard evidence you start filling in the gaps and making shit up.
Relax, bud. I'm not looking to denounce you as anything. Certainly nothing quite that grand. I'm thinking more along the lines of goofball. And given your outlook (you don't trust any media) I don't see how you'd ever read or know enough about politics, etc., to be pro- or anti- anything.
popslut wrote: Faith is exactly the right word. Deciding to believe what you're told with no first hand evidence to support is an act of faith whichever way you cut it.
You're obviously not getting me on this one. Trust me, you believe all sorts of things on less than first-hand evidence. We all do, every day. And it's OK. It's reasonable to make judgements based on the preponderance of the evidence and past experience. Do you go to the bank every day to make sure your money's still there?:)
popslut wrote: See above.
See above.
popslut wrote: Your naivety would be quite touching were you aware of it.
What do you mean? Why would my naivete (note the spelling) be "touching" if I were aware of it? Touching to whom? Me? You? Khalid Sheik Muhammed? Why? Why is it not touching if I'm unaware of it, but suddenly it becomes touching if I am aware of it? I don't understand what you're talking about.
popslut wrote: Absorbing the output of the various news media will give you no greater understanding of the world than a hermit.
I disagree. We're living in the most media-rich era ever. You can learn quite a lot about the world in many different ways and through many different media outlets, many of them very thorough and employing scads of dedicated reporters and such, most of whom are quite uninterested in carrying water for Bush and company. Your outlook is weirdly narrow...and you're being disingenuous (sorry, you might need to look that one up, but it's just the word I want)--surely you believe SOME news from SOME source.

But your naivete is refreshing! :)

popslut
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:58 pm

Post by popslut » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:58 am

pilcrow wrote: Relax...
Nice to meet you and everything but chat over I'm afraid.

Nothing personal - I've just got lots to do.

:)

P.s. Note the spelling;

Naive or naïve adj (naiver, naivest) 1 simple, innocent or unsophisticated. 2 derog too trusting; credulous; not worldly enough. naively

Adverb. naivety or naïveté noun (naiveties or naivetés) 1 excessive trust or innocence. 2 an act, statement or behaviour that is naïve.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: French (naïve) feminine of naïf, from Latin nativus native.


[From Chambers Online Reference] http://tinyurl.com/yuxfqg

Nod
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:18 pm

Post by Nod » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:31 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: I understand what your saying here but; this clearly demonstrates why there cannot be a real trial. "Name Names! - Mr Terrorist, who was the actual person that XYZ?" leading to the death of a hundred operatives and the unraveling of a hundred other stings world wide via leaks like a broken dam.
No disrespect J&H but you're basing the above on the assumption that certain secret services actually have people inside these organisations. That in itself isn't actually that far off the mark given that the CIA has employed AQ/Taliban members in the past - and MI6 employed the likes of Haroon Aswat, suspected mastermind of the 7/7 London bombings, before actually hiding him from an American extradition warrant.

However the situation with KSM is very similar to the scenario brought about by the laughable show trial, and counterproductive hanging, of one Saddam Hussein (another former US tool of war). Unless the entire process is publicly visible, judicially & legally accountable (itself something of a joke when the US no longer even respects the role of habeus corpus) then it will result it yet more ammunition/motivation for those who would follow Khalid. Without attempting to invoke Godwin - even the Nazi's had their day in court and we, as a species, are collectively better for having witnessed it.

pilcrow
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:26 pm

Post by pilcrow » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:54 am

popslut wrote:
pilcrow wrote: Relax...
Nice to meet you and everything but chat over I'm afraid.

Nothing personal - I've just got lots to do.

:)

P.s. Note the spelling;

Naive or naïve adj (naiver, naivest) 1 simple, innocent or unsophisticated. 2 derog too trusting; credulous; not worldly enough. naively

Adverb. naivety or naïveté noun (naiveties or naivetés) 1 excessive trust or innocence. 2 an act, statement or behaviour that is naïve.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: French (naïve) feminine of naïf, from Latin nativus native.


[From Chambers Online Reference] http://tinyurl.com/yuxfqg
Ah, those pesky Brit spellings. Touche' :)

I enjoyed the discussion.

P

JACKAL & HYDE
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am

Post by JACKAL & HYDE » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:25 am

Nod wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote: I understand what your saying here but; this clearly demonstrates why there cannot be a real trial. "Name Names! - Mr Terrorist, who was the actual person that XYZ?" leading to the death of a hundred operatives and the unraveling of a hundred other stings world wide via leaks like a broken dam.
No disrespect J&H but you're basing the above on the assumption that certain secret services actually have people inside these organisations. That in itself isn't actually that far off the mark given that the CIA has employed AQ/Taliban members in the past - and MI6 employed the likes of Haroon Aswat, suspected mastermind of the 7/7 London bombings, before actually hiding him from an American extradition warrant.

However the situation with KSM is very similar to the scenario brought about by the laughable show trial, and counterproductive hanging, of one Saddam Hussein (another former US tool of war). Unless the entire process is publicly visible, judicially & legally accountable (itself something of a joke when the US no longer even respects the role of habeus corpus) then it will result it yet more ammunition/motivation for those who would follow Khalid. Without attempting to invoke Godwin - even the Nazi's had their day in court and we, as a species, are collectively better for having witnessed it.

Nothing you've just typed changes what I originally said, assumption or not. And the Nazis were tried when the war was over remember? Theres no way in hell anyone with half a brain would have tried those Nazis (if captured) in open court during the War. And thats true here as well. For the same obvious reasons. Its dangerous and irresponsible because theres an ongoing conflict... What part of that arent you getting?

Nod
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:18 pm

Post by Nod » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:53 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Nothing you've just typed changes what I originally said, assumption or not. And the Nazis were tried when the war was over remember? Theres no way in hell anyone with half a brain would have tried those Nazis (if captured) in open court during the War. And thats true here as well. For the same obvious reasons. Its dangerous and irresponsible because theres an ongoing conflict... What part of that arent you getting?
But this isn't a war in the terms we knew it last century, nevermind the fact that wars were typically conducted between countries, media was also far more controlled back then - now we're dealing with something far less malleable. How exactly can the US obtain a media win, let alone, victory against an enemy which it will subvert it's own legal & moral principles to defeat? You'll no doubt be aware that legal counsel were banned from the hearing in case the defendant divulged 'classified information'.

Given that virtually no one, barring a minority of it's own population, actually believes the US government any longer (due to Neocon Death Inc. pissing away every last drop of the plentiful international goodwill offered after Khalid's attacks) the only way to achieve this is by utter transparency. Anything other than that is a defeat. What do you think would happen in the unlikely event that Bin Laden was caught? I say unlikely because they've already let him get away...now why do you think they would do that? Just how classified is 'classified'? :wink:

JACKAL & HYDE
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am

Post by JACKAL & HYDE » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:57 am

Nod wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Nothing you've just typed changes what I originally said, assumption or not. And the Nazis were tried when the war was over remember? Theres no way in hell anyone with half a brain would have tried those Nazis (if captured) in open court during the War. And thats true here as well. For the same obvious reasons. Its dangerous and irresponsible because theres an ongoing conflict... What part of that arent you getting?
But this isn't a war in the terms we knew it last century, nevermind the fact that wars were typically conducted between countries, media was also far more controlled back then - now we're dealing with something far less malleable.

^ Your making my point. :wink:


Even more of a reason not to have an open trial now. Yes the US is not fighting another "country" like WWII as you've stated, instead its an ongoing conflict with free lance Global terrorists... Global terrorists that can possibly use information from a trial to kill thousands of people around the world. Or use the information to get an upper hand somewhere (which they already have but I'm sure its going to get worse).
Last edited by JACKAL & HYDE on Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Nod
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:18 pm

Post by Nod » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:08 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Your making my point. :wink:
Perhaps some - but most definitely not all :) Clearly it's the extremists, on either side, who desire & benefit from the 'war without end'/'generational conflict' scenario...as for your second point - re info from a proper trial - I'd imagine a simple afternoon googling could provide more than enough info to achieve the most horrible aims in the so inclined.

JACKAL & HYDE
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am

Post by JACKAL & HYDE » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:47 am

Nod wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Your making my point. :wink:
I'd imagine a simple afternoon googling could provide more than enough info to achieve the most horrible aims in the so inclined.

And now your "assuming". :?

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:11 pm

Wow confessions everywhere!

news- just in..

Pentagon: Gitmo detainee confesses in Cole bombing

Waleed bin Attash says he helped buy explosives, boat for USS Cole attack
• Bin Attash says he was with Osama bin Laden when Cole was attacked in Yemen
• Authorities say he helped choose 9/11 hijackers, was supposed to be one of them
• A bin Laden bodyguard and al Qaeda planner, bin Attash lost leg in 1997 accident

originally from AP

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/19/terror ... index.html
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

Sales Dude McBoob
Posts: 2842
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC. USA
Contact:

Post by Sales Dude McBoob » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:19 pm

Kinda freaks me out. Makes me think that these confessions have been coodrinated- almost like it's a signal of another eminent attack. Makes sense, have detainees confess after a certain point in time- to make us feel a bit more safe & secure- and then bam!

Y'know?

JACKAL & HYDE
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am

Post by JACKAL & HYDE » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:38 pm

Sales Dude McBoob wrote:Kinda freaks me out. Makes me think that these confessions have been coodrinated- almost like it's a signal of another eminent attack. Makes sense, have detainees confess after a certain point in time- to make us feel a bit more safe & secure- and then bam!

Y'know?


I think were all guilty of getting too paranoid these days. Whenever the next terrorist attack happens, everyone will again come out of the woodwork to "show" how the "USA bombed itself again". If I was Bin Laden, I'd be laughing my ass off with these conspiracies. He must be asking his staff "Arent they watching the tapes we're sending in taking credit for this shit on Al Jazeera?" followed with "Yes your highness, but their still so paranoid that they believe its their own leaders"... Followed with (I can imagine) much laughter.

fortycoats
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by fortycoats » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:22 am

you should watch this video, made by a guy who got angry with all the conspiracy stuff about 9/11

he decided to prove them wrong by making his own documentary

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= ... 1483512003

Post Reply