|
The Arrivals: The Foundation of the Anti-Christ (pg. 67)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Great example of taking things completely out of context. The guy wasn't a seen as an extremist then, or even an Al-Qaida member. He was viewed as a moderate Muslim. From your own article, "The employee 'attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks. During his talk he was harassed by members of the audience and suffered it well,' reads one document."
Do you always distort the truth for your delusional beliefs? |
Anwar Al-Awlaki helped more then a few of the hijackers on multiple occasions before the 9/11 attacks. He was also already being checked out a few years before hand as having ties to the US fabricated Al-qaeda. Don't bother to check the 9/11 Commission Report though, they never followed these leads through nor did they want to. The 9/11 Commission was never a criminal investigation, just their story the way they wanted it told.
Anwar Al-Awlaki has now become the new Bin Laden puppet for the new generation of Potato Heads. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Anwar Al-Awlaki helped more then a few of the hijackers on multiple occasions before the 9/11 attacks. He was also already being checked out a few years before hand as having ties to the US fabricated Al-qaeda. Don't bother to check the 9/11 Commission Report though, they never followed these leads through nor did they want to. The 9/11 Commission was never a criminal investigation, just their story the way they wanted it told.
Anwar Al-Awlaki has now become the new Bin Laden puppet for the new generation of Potato Heads. |
What is utterly retarded is your insinuation that the government used Al-Qaeda as a front for 9/11, solely based on a DoD employee inviting the guy to have lunch at the Pentagon because she thought he was a moderate Muslim. Awesome leap to conclusion, one giant ing leap...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
What is utterly retarded is your insinuation that the government used Al-Qaeda as a front for 9/11, solely based on a DoD employee inviting the guy to have lunch at the Pentagon because she thought he was a moderate Muslim. Awesome leap to conclusion, one giant ing leap...:rolleyes: |
LOL, did you even read that properly? The DOD employee helped to arrange the meeting. Permission was granted from the highest level of military brass (AKA government), they approved and invited him into the Pentagon because they are the only ones who can. Besides do you really think that was the only connection between the government/criminal Bush family and the fabricated Al-qaeda?
Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail
london: america was itself to blame for the events of september 11 because the us administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down osama bin laden and "other fanatics linked to saudi arabia", a special bbc investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents bush and american foreign policy. the report, which the bbc claimed was based on a secret fbi document, numbered 199i wf213589 and emanating out of the fbi's washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the american establishment and "connections between the cia and saudi arabia and the bush men and bin ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the world trade centre attacks. the investigation.....
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes...t_id=1030259305
Greg Palast, BBC Transcript
In the eight weeks since the attacks, over 1,000 suspects and potential witnesses have been detained. Yet, just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin Laden's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House.
Their official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion - apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th.
This document is marked "Secret". Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589. 199 is FBI code for case type. 9 would be murder. 65 would be espionage. 199 means national security. WF indicates Washington field office special agents were investigating ABL - because of it's relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY - a suspected terrorist organisation. ABL is Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY.
I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said: "There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no-one else ought to know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
You should take time to read the 9/11 Commission Report and what they purposely felt was not important to tell the public in their 600 page comic book. If they would of told the public the truth and maybe had a real criminal investigation like they were supposed to they would have been hung by their balls instead of invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
The Bush family, Cheney et all have more blood on their hands then any fabricated terrorists combined. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | | LOL, did you even read that properly? The DOD employee helped to arrange the meeting. Permission was granted from the highest level of military brass (AKA government), they approved and invited him into the Pentagon because they are the only ones who can. Besides do you really think that was the only connection between the government/criminal Bush family and the fabricated Al-qaeda? |
So the guy mistakenly invited to lunch at the Pentagon equals the government did 9/11. Riiiiiight...another giant leap to conclusion.
That Bush/Bin Laden stuff is interesting and everything but still falls completely short of proving anything (just like this Al-Awlaki stuff), such as a crime, that can be prosecuted in a court of law. Seems to me like you're claiming Bush is guilty only by association of the murderer's family. You know that's what North Korea does right?
When you guys, Alex Jones, whoever, I don't care, can get someone convicted on any of the grandiose charges you have leveled at the government, then you will have won me over. Until then, you don't have any peer-reviewed research, no court cases, not even an indictment, and you don't have anything beyond amateur articles and videos, to prove your case. I'm sorry, but that is grossly inadequate. |
|
|
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
peer-reviewed research |
sometimes peer-reviewed means all. every year, eggs are deemed good for you and then, the following year, bad for you by researchers. same with moderate amount of alcohol, chocolate, aspirin and so on. so peer-review is not as concrete as one might want to believe. i do see the point in peer-review being important and everything to some extent but its not the end-all be-all type |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | Originally posted by thesauce23
sometimes peer-reviewed means all. every year, eggs are deemed good for you and then, the following year, bad for you by researchers. same with moderate amount of alcohol, chocolate, aspirin and so on. so peer-review is not as concrete as one might want to believe. i do see the point in peer-review being important and everything to some extent but its not the end-all be-all type |
It doesn't seem as if you understand what peer review is. You can have peer-reviewed studies that are mutually contradictory. That's science. Peer review is a procedure for ensuring at least a minimum quality standard to a publication... but this, of course, depends on the quality of the peers, the review process, the nature of the journal, etc. Plenty of research is "peer reviewed" without being any good. It's a heuristic, but a pretty good one. Still, simply saying that something is "peer reviewed" is not sufficient; it's just a starting point for discussion i.e. at least some supposedly qualified individuals have vetted the contents of the paper. It means all when it isn't properly vetted or the people doing the review are idiots. Enter the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and so on.
Don't forget that you are probably reading pop science articles about the original research... and if there is one thing in sad shape it's science journalism. Unqualified experts writing about stuff they don't understand to draw viewers... it's a ing mess, so watch out. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
Don't forget that you are probably reading pop science articles about the original research... and if there is one thing in sad shape it's science journalism. Unqualified experts writing about stuff they don't understand to draw viewers... it's a ing mess, so watch out. |
Let us not forget those contradictory studies are usually not contradictory at all. You may read a headline saying eggs are good for you and then another saying they bad for you, sure, but neither are accurate. If you actually read the studies you'll likely find that the scope is much more narrow then a sweeping good:bad... the good study may say that eggs are a good source of a particular nutrient which has beneficial properties; subsequently, eggs are good in a diet that is otherwise lacking in said nutrient; whereas, the bad likely states that eggs are high in a particular compound that has negative health consequences in concentrations above a certain threshold (ie. fat); subsequently, eggs are contra-indicated for people who have a particular diet. I've yet to read a study that makes blanket and unqualified endorsements or condemnations. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by thesauce23
sometimes peer-reviewed means all. every year, eggs are deemed good for you and then, the following year, bad for you by researchers. same with moderate amount of alcohol, chocolate, aspirin and so on. so peer-review is not as concrete as one might want to believe. i do see the point in peer-review being important and everything to some extent but its not the end-all be-all type |
Whatever you think about peer-reviewed research, it is the only acceptable standard of scientific truth, PERIOD. End of story. There is no debate on that. |
|
|
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
|
lol. no one is debating regarding peer-review and i don't need to THINK about peer-review, brah. take it easy, its really not that serious.... promise
and re-read the last sentence of my response. if you read it correctly, it should point out that i do agree about its relevance |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So the guy mistakenly invited to lunch at the Pentagon equals the government did 9/11. Riiiiiight...another giant leap to conclusion.
That Bush/Bin Laden stuff is interesting and everything but still falls completely short of proving anything (just like this Al-Awlaki stuff), such as a crime, that can be prosecuted in a court of law. Seems to me like you're claiming Bush is guilty only by association of the murderer's family. You know that's what North Korea does right?
When you guys, Alex Jones, whoever, I don't care, can get someone convicted on any of the grandiose charges you have leveled at the government, then you will have won me over. Until then, you don't have any peer-reviewed research, no court cases, not even an indictment, and you don't have anything beyond amateur articles and videos, to prove your case. I'm sorry, but that is grossly inadequate. |
An Al-qaeda suspect was mistakenly invited to the Pentagon for tea and biscuits? LOL
ing ignorance is great. Bush is not guilty for protecting the interests of the fabricated Al-qaeda terrorists yet everything is just fine and dandy when all is presented to the public to invade a country they had no right to invade. They killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and profited in the billions yet you're still using Alex Jones as a cop out.
Critical thinking. Got you. |
|
|
|
|
