"Mastermind" behind major terrorist attacks

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:48 pm

i'm reading the transcript and you all understand that the point of this is to determine, simply, whether this guy counts as "an enemy combatant" which falls under military purview. Not what he did per se, guilty or innocent.

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:12 pm

popslut wrote:I asked a question - so far nobody has answered it.

popslut wrote: My question to you is how can you be so sure of the veracity of this report that you discount any other viewpoint?

Because they've known this guy is guilty of all kinds of shit since 1994... They had him tapped while talking to his maniac cousin Ramzi Yousef another Mass Murdering lunatic who was actually in a non-military normal trial while spouting lovely things like ""Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government." Ramzi Yousefs cousin, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whos in question here, has had so much evidence piled against him while on the run for almost 14 years its not even funny... They didnt pick him up a a donut shop, there was an International man hunt for this clown for many years.

And hes been in American custody since 2003 but hes only been down at Guantanamo for a few months. Not 5 years... The last 5 years hes been in a jail in D.C.

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:36 pm

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Because...

You *know* all this or you just heard it on the TV?

There is a huge difference.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:19 pm

Osama is a neocon terror-pimp ?

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:44 pm

popslut wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Because...
You *know* all this or you just heard it on the TV?

There is a huge difference.

Are you kidding? ... This guys picture (KSM) along with his story has been on the net/news you name it for years and years already...

The only thing new here is that he just supposedly confessed to all this new shit besides his involvment in 9/11 and Bali which were already known by authorities from Pakistan to the Philipenes.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:06 pm

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:
popslut wrote:I asked a question - so far nobody has answered it.

popslut wrote: My question to you is how can you be so sure of the veracity of this report that you discount any other viewpoint?

Because they've known this guy is guilty of all kinds of shit since 1994... They had him tapped while talking to his maniac cousin Ramzi Yousef another Mass Murdering lunatic who was actually in a non-military normal trial while spouting lovely things like ""Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government." Ramzi Yousefs cousin, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whos in question here, has had so much evidence piled against him while on the run for almost 14 years its not even funny... They didnt pick him up a a donut shop, there was an International man hunt for this clown for many years.

And hes been in American custody since 2003 but hes only been down at Guantanamo for a fews months. Not 5 years... The last 5 years hes been in a jail in D.C.

½
well if they had all this bleeding edge evidence, then why not try the bastard? Surely the US "intelligence" isn't so sucky that a full "Guantanamo-assisted"(tm) confession is neccesary? Or was the idea to just stick him in jail without even providing this purview? I'm confused here.

pilcrow · Post by **pilcrow** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:37 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:
popslut wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote: Because...
You *know* all this or you just heard it on the TV?

There is a huge difference.

Are you kidding? ... This guys picture (KSM) along with his story has been on the net/news you name it for years and years already...

The only thing new here is that he just supposedly confessed to all this new shit besides his involvment in 9/11 and Bali which were already known by authorities from Pakistan to the Philipenes.

right, well, then you don't know it, do you? You've merely read about it in papers and on news websites and heard about it on TV and radio for years, but you don't have personal knowledge of it! i.e., you didn't shadow this man and watch him plan and commit atrocities, did you?! Huh? Did you?? And if you did, did you bother to take any photos which would constitute proof? Or, rather, since photos can be faked, did you bother to collect DNA samples at each of your encounters with the Sheik? Because if you didn't--if at the time you simply couldn't be bothered ("Oh, I'm in a hurry, the photos will have to suffice, I don't have time to mess with DNA sampling")--then you're just pulling your so-called "facts" out of your behind, so please leave this discussion to those who know what they're talking about.

pilcrow · Post by **pilcrow** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:38 am

kiwipicker wrote:dont believe what you see on tv.....

propoganda

right.. Get your news from the Internet!

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:38 am

Machinate wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:
popslut wrote:I asked a question - so far nobody has answered it.

Because they've known this guy is guilty of all kinds of shit since 1994... They had him tapped while talking to his maniac cousin Ramzi Yousef another Mass Murdering lunatic who was actually in a non-military normal trial while spouting lovely things like ""Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government." Ramzi Yousefs cousin, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whos in question here, has had so much evidence piled against him while on the run for almost 14 years its not even funny... They didnt pick him up a a donut shop, there was an International man hunt for this clown for many years.

And hes been in American custody since 2003 but hes only been down at Guantanamo for a fews months. Not 5 years... The last 5 years hes been in a jail in D.C.
½
well if they had all this bleeding edge evidence, then why not try the bastard? Surely the US "intelligence" isn't so sucky that a full "Guantanamo-assisted"(tm) confession is neccesary? Or was the idea to just stick him in jail without even providing this purview? I'm confused here.

My guess would be that trying him in open court would lead to the deaths of many agents, spies and would expose all kinds of other sensitive material that shouldnt be exposed at this time. . . You couldnt try this guy without bringing up sources/spies/places etc especially by his defense. I mean the obvious would be the danger in putting a pro terrorist as connected as this guy on the stand in open public court. In mere seconds he could rattle off the names of secret agents hidden within Al Queda (for instance) and it wouldnt matter if the judge said "Disregaurd the last statement by Mr KSM"... Those spies in Afghanistan he just exposed on the witness stand in a public trial would be dead within 24 hours as he would obviously have supporters in the court room taking note of such information.

Thats one for instance among many I'm sure tip the scale of the bad-idea-ometer around 10 for trying him in open court.

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:48 am

pilcrow wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:
popslut wrote: You *know* all this or you just heard it on the TV?

There is a huge difference.

Are you kidding? ... This guys picture (KSM) along with his story has been on the net/news you name it for years and years already...

The only thing new here is that he just supposedly confessed to all this new shit besides his involvment in 9/11 and Bali which were already known by authorities from Pakistan to the Philipenes.
right, well, then you don't know it, do you? You've merely read about it in papers and on news websites and heard about it on TV and radio for years, but you don't have personal knowledge of it! i.e., you didn't shadow this man and watch him plan and commit atrocities, did you?! Huh? Did you?? And if you did, did you bother to take any photos which would constitute proof? Or, rather, since photos can be faked, did you bother to collect DNA samples at each of your encounters with the Sheik? Because if you didn't--if at the time you simply couldn't be bothered ("Oh, I'm in a hurry, the photos will have to suffice, I don't have time to mess with DNA sampling")--then you're just pulling your so-called "facts" out of your behind, so please leave this discussion to those who know what they're talking about.

So with your last sentence, your implying that you yourself have done all the things you just typed? lol So tell me about your travels "Shadowing the Sheik" and taking "DNA samples from him"... I'm all ears.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:49 am

I didn't say anything about trying anybody in an open court. For some sense of justice I'd just like to see the guy get a proper trial, not the military pseudo-fairness, nor "a jury of your peers" crap, I am talking proper tribunal type of stuff, closed to the public and cameras, but monitored by civil rights orgs and fair access to the evidence for the defending lawyers. This is all basic stuff, and surely something a great nation such as the USA can provide. If anything to appease the hippies in Europe.

..but thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate your high opinion

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:08 am

Machinate wrote:I didn't say anything about trying anybody in an open court. For some sense of justice I'd just like to see the guy get a proper trial, not the military pseudo-fairness, nor "a jury of your peers" crap, I am talking proper tribunal type of stuff, closed to the public and cameras, but monitored by civil rights orgs and fair access to the evidence for the defending lawyers. This is all basic stuff, and surely something a great nation such as the USA can provide. If anything to appease the hippies in Europe.

..but thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate your high opinion

I totally see what your saying, but here that just couldnt be done without risk. Even with only "Civil rights" organization/observers and only a few top press (New York Times etc) there, the chance of there being leaks is still too high. And I think if you had a close family member secretly embedded in Al Qaeda you'd agree with that statement 100% without argument.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:23 am

Then all that remains is a balance of priorities, really. We can, as the western world, decide to just hang the bloke already, because we can't try him properly, we won't even clear the circumstances pertaining to the apprehension for the defence, so why bother?

Or, we can make sure to keep clean, and obtain evidence that is admissable in a court of law, so that we can perpetuate the justice ideals that we are trying to force upon the rest of the world, through diplomatic pressure and/or brute strength.

I am fucking glad that I am not a politician dealing with these choices.

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:39 am

Machinate wrote:Then all that remains is a balance of priorities, really. We can, as the western world, decide to just hang the bloke already, because we can't try him properly, we won't even clear the circumstances pertaining to the apprehension for the defence, so why bother?

Or, we can make sure to keep clean, and obtain evidence that is admissable in a court of law, so that we can perpetuate the justice ideals that we are trying to force upon the rest of the world, through diplomatic pressure and/or brute strength.

I am fucking glad that I am not a politician dealing with these choices.

I am aswell, legally this is uncharted territory. Open spy trials didnt happen during the cold war but they're being asked for now. Can you imagine the repercussions back then if the USSR & USA were each parading around captured KGB and CIA operatives having "trials" with the press there? Would've been a dangerous cluster fuck to say the least. Only now, were in a much more dangerous situation with terrorist groups operating totally independant of a Gov with 400,000,000 citizens to
protect/answer too.

glu · Post by **glu** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:20 am

pilcrow wrote: right.. Get your news from the Internet!

There is no dispute- the internet offers more garbage.....AND more objective information than programmed television.

The internet requires the viewer to be more intelligent- with the ability to gauge the objectivity of the source, along with the capacity to question the information.

TV just requires you to "tune in" and take it up the goat-ass.