http://reformation.org/frank-marshall-davis-obama.html
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859
http://www.usasurvival.org/obama.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff216.htm
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-frank-marshall-davis-cover-up-is-over/
18 comments:
Thank you for your views. People should look at both your link and others and make their own decisions.
It's ironic that you support Barack Obama when he supports similar status quo policies that you supposedly rail against.
What policies do I supposedly rail against?
You probably rail against the Iraq War, yet you support Obama. Barack Obama wants to continue the war on terror in Afghanistan and possibly have military strikes in Pakistan under certain circumstances. I personally don't agree with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
Also, Barack Obama is pro-Patriot Act, pro-federal bailout, pro-FISA Law, and pro-war on terror like George W. Bush is. Many of his cabinet members are CFR members. Therefore, Obama's team is the Dream Team of the establishment just like the previous administration.
I did not rail against any of that. All candidates represent a bundle of policies that individual voters may or may not find acceptable. The decision boils down to selecting the bundle that is most attractive, even though individual policies may be unacceptable.
IMHO, the invasion of Iraq was wrongfully done under false pretenses, but the invasion of Afghanistan was a proper reaction to the Al Qaeda threat. The conduct of each campaign is a separate issue from the justification for each invasion.
Certain elements of the "War on Terror" could be improved, but we must fight Al Qaeda. The issue becomes: Should they be allowed safe harbor in Pakistan?
Al Qaeda has declared that ALL Americans are suitable targets. Compliance with original demands, such as withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, reveals the futility of any attempts at negotiation. In their eyes infidels must be converted or exterminated.
Many of their supporters want to become martyrs. We should give them the opportunity.
Certainly, there is nothing immoral about railing against legitimate evils in society. I want to make that perfectly clear. You certainly have a right to vote for in what you deem as the person with the most acceptable bundle in your mind.
The Iraq War was a bad war and it was wrongful. You are right on that point. I disagree with your assumption that the attack in Afghanistan was proper. Afghanistan is no direct threat to America neither did the people of Afghanistan collectively have any role in the attacks on 9/11 at all. Using your logic, many nations should be attacked since al-Qaeda is present in those countries as well.
Al Qaeada is a Western contrived entity that's utilized to promote not only the war on terror, but use means to violate our civil liberties. Safe harbor? Pakistan is an American ally. Its present leader is much more moderate than Musarraff. If we attack a nuclear state like Pakistan in a more aggressive fashion, they could retialate against us.
That would make Iraq since like kindergarten. Not to mention that Pakistan is no direct threat to American soil at all. Anyone can declare war on America. White supremacists declare war on America, yet it's the respond to these claims that matter. Negiotation, real self defense, building ties, etc. are the answers to these issues. Preemptive strikes against nations that pose no direct threat to our land is not a real prescription at all to solve our complications.
The vast majority of those in the Middle East want real freedom like we do. The many radicals are readily explioted by many Western elites as documentated by Peter Goodgame's research. My point is that we don't need a war on terror that has caused the lowering of our civil liberties, death, illegal wars, and hatred. We need more cooperation, help, and other constructive ways to improve our world.
Al Qaeda is a "Western-contrived entity"? Osama Bin Laden, and countless jihadists, would likely disagree with you.
True, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban were a direct threat to America. They presented an indirect threat, in that they harbored Osama Bin Laden and refused to turn him over upon demand after 9/11.
The United States was willing to tolerate the Taliban's domestic human rights abuses, but when the Taliban became an accessory to Al Qaeda's crimes, they became fair game.
Do you also believe that Al-Qaeda was NOT responsible for the 9/11 attacks? I believe Osama has claimed responsibility.
The CIA, the ISI, and other intelligence agencies aided the Muhajedeen and other radicals in the late 1970's to fight in Afghanistan. The West wanted Russia to leave Afghanistan and the Muhajedeen was an easy tool for that be accomphlished. Later, Osama was aided by the West in the 1980's. Reagan gave Osama's network billions of dollars. Osama MAK network evolved into al-Qaeda. If that's not contrived, I don't know what contrived is.
Afghanistan was never a direct or indirect threat to the USA, because they don't have the instructural nor military strength to attack America. Obama bin Laden was harbored in Afghanistan. Yet, Osama in his Ummat interview early on denied any involvement in 9/11.
The Taliban is involved in many crimes. Yet, they are no accesory to 9/11. There is no evidence that Taliban members are complicit in 9/11 at all.
Do I believe al-Qaeda can make NORAD stand down, make Building Number Seven fall, make record put options, create a wire of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, leak a FBI document, 199I WF213589, which was a Bush administration directive that succeeded in blocking anti-terrorism investigations related to the bin Laden family and Saudi charities that were front groups for Al-Qaeda, and other events?
The answer is no. Even real scholars have pointed out the errors of the 9/11 Commission. There should be an independent investigation of 9/11 to find more of the truth.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306fearofmuslims.htm
http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/BritIslam.htm
are links about this issue.
The answer may be implicit in your post, but please be explicit in answering this question:
Do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Al Qaeda? If not, then who is responsible?
My explicit answer is that I don't believe al-Qaeda carried out every aspect of 9/11.
There is nothing wrong with denying al-Qaeda having involvement in 9/11 anyway. Inside jobs been occuring for thousands of years historically from Nero to Operation Gladio.
1. Do You believe al-Qaeda carried out ANY aspect of the 9/11 attacks?
2. Who else was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
3. Did al-Qaeda coordinate their involvement in these attacks with anyone else?
1. I believe al-Qaeda members were on the planes.
2. Since NORAD used wargames that prevent aircraft to really respond to the aircraft (along with put options, the government training some of the "hijackers" etc), I believe certain elements of the government were involved in 9/11.
3. I believe certain elements of the intelligence community worked with al-Qaeda (whose founder had CIA/ISI ties) to get 9/11 accomplished. That's my view. You don't have to agree with me or not. Here's links about this view:
http://www.911truth.org/
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm
It appears that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has already admitted being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is ready to formally confess:
[QUOTE]
9/11 suspects ask to make 'confessions' at Gitmo
Dec 8, 2:07 PM (ET)
By ANDREW O. SELSKY
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four co-defendants told a military judge Monday they want to immediately confess at their war-crimes tribunal, setting up likely guilty pleas and their possible executions.
The five said they decided on Nov. 4, the day President-elect Barack Obama was elected to the White House, to abandon all defenses against the capital charges. It was as if they wanted to rush toward convictions before the inauguration of Obama, who has vowed to end the war-crimes trials and close Guantanamo.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two others said they would postpone entering pleas until the military determines their two co-defendants are mentally competent. "We want everyone to plead together," he said.
Mohammed and another defendant have said they would welcome execution as a path to martyrdom, but the announcement came as a shock to some of the victims' families.
A select group of relatives of the 2,973 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001 were able to see the proceedings in person. Maureen Santora, of Long Island City, N.Y., whose son Christopher died responding to the World Trade Center attacks, wore a black top and black pants and clutched a photo of him in his firefighter uniform.
Alice Hoagland, of Redwood Estates, California, was there for her son Mark Bingham, who is believed to be one of the passengers who fought hijackers on United Flight 93 before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania. She said the defendants' announcement was "like a real bombshell to me."
She told reporters during a break that she hoped Obama, "an even-minded and just man," would ensure the five alleged mass murderers are punished. She did not elaborate. She said she welcomed the opportunity to see the trial because it was a "historic" moment. But she said it did not heal the loss of her son.
"I do not seek closure in my life," she said as she blinked back tears.
Nine family members came to Guantanamo for the pretrial hearing but it was not immediately clear if all attended.
In a letter the judge read aloud in court, the five defendants said they "request an immediate hearing session to announce our confessions."
The judge, Army Col. Stephen Henley, asked all five if they were prepared to enter a plea, and all five said yes. But Henley said competency hearings for two of the detainees precluded them from immediately filing pleas.
The letter implies they want to plead guilty, but does not specify whether they will admit to any specific charges. It also says they wish to drop all previous defense motions.
Mohammed, who has already told interrogators he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, also said Monday that he has no faith in the judge, his Pentagon-appointed lawyers or President George W. Bush.
Sporting a chest-length gray beard, Mohammed said in English: "I don't trust you."
(AP) A courtoom drawing by artist Janet Hamlin, reviewed by the US military, shows victim family members...
Full Image
He also dismissed one of his standby military attorneys because he had served in Iraq.
The five defendants calmly passed notes between each other and consulted laptops at their individual defense tables. One observer who lost his parents in Sept. 11 told reporters he supports the military commissions, and criticized the defendants for not taking it seriously.
"The U.S. is doing its best to prove to the world that this is a fair proceeding," said Hamilton Peterson of Bethesda, Md., whose parents Donald and Jean were on United Flight 93. "It was stunning to see today how not only do the defendants comprehend their extensive rights ... they are explicitly asking the court to hurry up because they are bored with the due process they are receiving."
The first U.S. war-crimes trials since World War II are teetering on the edge of extinction. Obama opposes the military commissions - as the Guantanamo trials are called - and has pledged to close the detention center holding some 250 men soon after taking office next month.
Even if a trial were held, it is all but certain none would begin before Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Still, the U.S. military is pressing forward with the case until it receives orders to the contrary.
"We serve the sitting president and will continue to do so until President-elect Obama takes office," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch also observed the hearing. She urged Obama to try terror suspects in federal court "where attention will focus on the defendants' alleged crimes rather than the unfairness of the commissions."
The military commissions have netted three convictions, but have been widely criticized for allowing statements obtained through harsh interrogations and hearsay to be admitted as evidence.
The victims' family members watched from a gallery at the rear of the cavernous, high-security courtroom on the U.S. Navy base, and were not allowed to address the defendants.
[END QUOTE]
(Complete story at http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20081208/D94UN2RG0.html
Khalid was tortured:
From http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/150307ultimatepatsy.htm
KSM: The Ultimate Patsy "Confesses"
Go back to sleep, you can trust a press release from a heavily redacted secret military tribunal of a tortured detainee conducted by individuals representative of an oligarchy whose every deception, gross violation of U.S. law, and act of imperial bloodletting over the last six years rests on maintaining the orthodoxy of the official 9/11 myth
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged "Al-Qaeda mastermind," has confessed to direct involvement in a myriad of terrorist attacks and assassination plots around the world, including 9/11 "from A to Z," but some are likely to be disappointed that after 5 years of torture he stopped short of accepting responsibility for killing Kennedy, creating AIDS and being the real Santa Claus.
The Pentagon's press release was subject to editing on behalf of the U.S. Defense Department to remove any sensitive material that Khalid might have unwittingly revealed between his water boarding sessions, but I'm sure we can trust this same gaggle of criminals that lectured us on WMD and "accidentally" misplaced over 2 trillion dollars.
In the document, KSM confesses to almost every nasty thing that's happened in the world over the past twenty years, as well as formulating plots to assassinate Clinton, Carter and the Pope. It's just a shame that the torture masters were not given more time to really put the screws to Khalid, because then we may have found out that he was also responsible for the Challenger disaster and the O.J. Simpson murders.
"It is not clear why Mohammed would have wished to confess to such a wide-ranging number of outrages," reports the Guardian, "The alleged confession is likely, however, to stiffen the resolve of the Bush administration in pursuing its controversial policy of putting the biggest cases of suspected terrorism through the closed military hearings."
It would be very clear why the establishment would be interested in hanging out the Ron Jeremy of terrorism to dry as the scapegoat for an official 9/11 story that holds about as much weight as a Milan cat-walk model. By invoking the "but he admitted it" line, any debate about the mountain of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 is effectively silenced.
But this cuts both ways.
In his first interview following 9/11, Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the attacks.
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle," Bin Laden told the Pakistani based Ummat newspaper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 then KSM's "confession" is rendered obsolete.
It all boils down to whether you trust a Pakistani newspaper or a press release from a heavily redacted secret military tribunal of a tortured detainee conducted by individuals representative of an oligarchy whose every deception, gross violation of U.S. law, and act of imperial bloodletting over the last six years rests on maintaining the orthodoxy of the official 9/11 myth.
But since Khalid has squealed on the "A to Z" of 9/11, perhaps he can provide some answers to a few troubling little questions that still have us 9/11 "conspiracy nuts" running around in circles;
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the FBI ordering the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to go ahead? In his confession, KSM says he ran the attack but fails to explain why it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant.
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for NORAD completely reversing its standard operating procedure on the day of 9/11?
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the collapse of three steel buildings, one that was not hit by a plane, from fire damage alone for the first and only time in history?
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for warning, according to Newsweek, a group of top Pentagon officials to cancel their flights on the evening of September 10th due to security concerns?
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, that were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th? This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for blocking FBI anti-terrorism investigations before 9/11 related to the bin Laden family and Saudi charities that were front groups for Al-Qaeda?
- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for advising the Secret Service not to remove President Bush from a completely unsecured Florida elementary school by letting them know he wasn't a target on 9/11?
I remain confident that that next time KSM spills the beans, he will be able to fill in these gaps and further enlighten us as to the real culprits behind some of history's enduring mysteries, including the disappearance of planes and ships in the Bermuda triangle, the Chernobyl disaster and why Britney Spears went insane.
Comments (124)| Trackback
I don't believe in Khalid's testimony after he was waterboarded in over 100 occasions.
By Timothy
Post a Comment