Taliban & Bin Laden Conspiracy

[truthlogic]

So I make reference to another user quoting himself 4 times, and having a 'conversation' with himself, and you jump to the conclusion that I'm referring to you and call me paranoid.

 

Priceless!

 

 

i ahd around 20 posts to read and reply too

 

however Quisquose i did ask you why you feel we are in Afghanistan?

 

or are you slightly afraid or embarrassed to say so?

[dosxuk]

and even after 9/11 taliban still said over and over again they would hand him over!

 

According to the sources that you posted, they were not offering to hand him over to the Americans. They were only offering to pass him to another non-American influenced country.

 

i am logged on 24 hours a day via my i phone!

 

Do you share your iPhone with your mum? You said you had to get off the computer the other day so she could use it?

[Karis]

i said the same sort of thing in a earlier post, but as you have proven before you are incapable of reading for your self and require pictures as evidence , dont you?

 

Isn't it funny how I've been here on SF for years and I've never had a cross word with anyone, yet you come along and antagonize and alienate people.

 

You've clearly got an agenda and it certainly isn't making friends and influencing people (well, not in a good way).

 

So really, well done with that.

[dosxuk]

thank you longcol for explain to these paranoid users ,

Mods can see all IP address being used and as such will terminate accounts which use multiple avatars,

 

In case you aren't aware, IP addresses are not unique to a computer, and there are numerous reasons why multiple users may appear to post from the same IP address. For starters, there are three people in my house, each with computers sharing the same internet connection, we all therefore have the same IP address as far as the Forum is concerned.

 

It's also trivial to change the IP as far as the Forum is concerned with a minor amount of technical knowledge in order to get past an IP ban (I'm not posting details, but you'll find them on Youtube), hence the (multiple) daily visits of the racist troll who get's his account banned on sight.

 

its funny how Rootsbooster and others AWALYS take a pop at us for using video evidence via youtube,

 

claiming it is not a proper source

 

Youtube is only a proper source when the videos are published by someone willing to divulge their sources or methodology and workings when they present original research.

 

The mainstream media very rarely publish original research, instead reporting what others have published, like many of the Youtube videos you link. However, they always name their sources*, and you can independantly verify their claims.

 

Example: The BBC post a report claiming that "43% of Brits support a mission to the Moon to mine cheese". Amongst the report will be details of the source, normally along the lines of "the results of a survey taken by Bob's Surveys for the BBC last week". You can then independantly approach Bob's Surveys and ask for details of the study, and their methodology.

 

If your Youtube links contained such verifiable information, from trusted / reputable sources, then they would not be ridiculed as worthless.

 

Nobody is claiming we should implicitly trust the mainstream media. Likewise, you shouldn't implicitly trust things that people upload to Youtube. The big difference, is that while the mainstream media can't get away with publishing complete nonsense and lies (without attracting a firestorm of criticism and rebuttals), people on Youtube can, therefore meaning the chances of something on there being baloney is much higher.

 

* except on very rare occaisons, where you're welcome to believe what they say or not.

[quisquose]

Any link to this woman's statement.

 

There was an inquest recently. During that time R4 had many interviews with survivors, one lady in particular I recall describing the behaviour of the bomber. There was a Newsnight special with many survivors, and family members of those murdered, on the programme. There was a series of programmes, called "Voices from 7/7" in which one of the survivors recalls being sat opposite Mohammad Sidique Khan. Did you listen to any of these programmes? Have you bothered to listen to any of the testimonies of the survivors?

 

In your fantasy world, these survivors are liars because they fail to mention that the bombers are not those identified in the inquest.

 

EDIT1. Here's a link to the "Voices From 7/7" programmes:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9477887.stm

 

At least 3 survivor's describe seeing the bombers, with 2 referring to them by name. The woman I heard on R4's Today programme described the bomber's appearance and behaviour in detail. None of them question the actual identities. Which must make them liars in your fantasy scenario.

 

EDIT2.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8255801/77-bomber-had-sweat-dripping-down-his-face.html

 

Anita Dybek-Echtermeyer saw Hasib Hussain board the number 91 bus at King’s Cross and noticed his bad manners in blocking fellow passengers with his rucksack.

 

She was giving evidence on the first day of hearings at the July inquest into the 13 victims of the bus bomb at Tavistock Square.

 

The inquest heard that Hussain left the underground at King’s Cross and went into WH Smith to buy a new battery for his bomb when the tube system ground to a halt because of the other three bombs.

 

Mrs Dybek-Echtermeyer, who was a Phd student, said she noticed Hussain as he stood at the front of the bus after boarding at the corner of Grays Inn Road.

 

“He looked very exhausted and he had sweat going onto his chin that looked very horrible,” she said. “He had dry white lips, he looked nervous and exhausted.”

 

In your fantasy world witnesses like Anita Dybek-Echtermeyer are liars as well.

[RootsBooster]

its funny how Rootsbooster and others AWALYS take a pop at us for using video evidence via youtube,

 

claiming it is not a proper source

 

however BBC , CNN and other media outlets have repeatably over and over again ALSO used youtube vids as their sources!

 

any comment on that?

 

 

( i bet the youtube discredit tactic will not be used from today onwards will they root )?

Once again jumping to conclusions.

I've never said that Youtube isn't a valid source.

Only that most of the vids YOU link to are rubbish.

 

EDIT: I used Youtube myself to give a more plausible explanation for the Cremation of Care ceremony.

[truthlogic]

According to the sources that you posted, they were not offering to hand him over to the Americans. They were only offering to pass him to another non-American influenced country.

 

 

 

Do you share your iPhone with your mum? You said you had to get off the computer the other day so she could use it?

 

I hope we can stick to this subject DOSXUK ,

If you have already listed to the enitre links and read all the material

 

Can I ask you again are you DOSXUK certain that YOU belive the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi ?

 

Are you sure they never offered him directly to USA On MORE than one occasion ,

 

 

( if you look at the evidence you will assertain that they tried to offer more than one solution , why not accept him being handed to Saudi , the regime there is very very close to the Bush administration !

[Frank Sidney]

Okay, it raises the question that if the reason for the invasion was that they wouldn't hand over bin laden, isn't that enough of a reason anyway?

 

Just asking like...

[dosxuk]

I hope we can stick to this subject DOSXUK ,

If you have already listed to the enitre links and read all the material

 

Can I ask you again are you DOSXUK certain that YOU belive the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi ?

 

This is:

1) the first time you've asked me this question.

2) the first time I've heard Saudi mentioned.

 

Am I certain that I believe the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi?

 

No. Because I don't believe the Taliban ONLY offered to hand bin laden over to Saudi. I don't think they offered to do that at all.

 

Are you sure they never offered him directly to USA On MORE than one occasion

 

No. I'm pretty sure they have offered him on several occaisions. Being in a position to do so is a different matter, one which you seem to be very keen on avoiding.

 

 

( if you look at the evidence you will assertain that they tried to offer more than one solution , why not accept him being handed to Saudi , the regime there is very very close to the Bush administration !

 

Which makes it an odd choice of destination considering the Taliban were not willing to hand him over to any where with close links to the US.

 

Your turn:

Are you, TRUTHLOGIC, CERTAIN that if the US had agreed to the handover, the Taliban were in a position to actually hand bin laden to the US immediately?

 

I don't believe for one moment that they were in such a position, and that their tactics were more about keeping themselves on the good side of the US than actually trying to help the US.

 

Furthermore:

Are you, TRUTHLOGIC, CERTAIN that if bin laden had been handed over, the US would not have invaded Afganistan? which is the complete premise of this thread.

[truthlogic]

Okay, it raises the question that if the reason for the invasion was that they wouldn't hand over bin laden, isn't that enough of a reason anyway?

 

Just asking like...

 

 

invading a sovereign nation for one man is a stupid , murderous action!

 

but the fact remains when the taliban tried to negotiate with the usa Pre and post 9/11 there were ignored.

 

no one in the administration even bothered to speak with them never mind discussing if they would or could hand him over.