Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

[gumboot]

First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer?

KSM himself stated he has not been abused since arriving at Guantanamo Bay. He claims he was mistreated prior to this, while in CIA custody.

Asserting that no one had access to the detainees is a lie. Both the Red Cross and Amnesty International have issued reports on conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

As for lawyers... they are POWs, at least until a status review hearing determines otherwise. Why would a POW need a lawyer? Is having a lawyer a right a POW has? No, it's not.

What do I think takes place in Guantanamo Bay? I think it's a Navy Base, and I think it is being used as a POW camp.

Are you aware that "interrogation" and "torture" are not the same thing?

On treatment of POWs, I'd like to quote an extract from a book I am reading at the moment:

John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, had been captured the week before at Qala-i-Jangi prison in northern Afghanistan. Now he was imprisoned in a metal container a few hundred yards from Espera's hole.
'And what do you think?' I asked Espera.
'Traitor. And the most vicious kind. He turned his back on the society that raised him, that gave him the freedom and idealism to follow his beliefs.'
'But what was his crime?' I goaded Espera, happy to play devil's advocate. 'Other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?'
'Joining the Taliban. Claiming to be a member of al Qaeda. ****, sir, if that ain't enough for you, his buddies killed a Marine!' Mike Spann, a CIA officer and former Marine captain, had been killed shortly after interrogating Lindh. 'If my grandma killed a Marine, she'd be on my ****list.'
Espera turned serious again. 'We're young Americans out here doing what our nation's democratically elected leaders told us to do. And he's fighting against us. Why's that so hard to figure out? And already the press is bitching about how he's being treated. He's warm. He's protected. He eats three meals each day and sleeps all night. Do I have that? Do my men have that?'
'Their freedom to voice stupid opinions is part of what we're fighting for,' I said. It was well after midnight, and I still had more positions to check on, so I climbed out of the hole as Espera and the other guys resumed their debate.

Fick, Nathaniel. One Bullet Away, pg 118

-Gumboot

 

[sleahead]

I don't think that the eventuality of him lying about the date or the content interview implicates Al J as a whole.

Did not Al Jazeera broadcast Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi? That would implicate Al Jazeera.

It even raises the question: was he the mastermind? Or whas it convenient for the US government to present him as the big mastermind?

Remember, they were kept in the dark for a long time, pressured by 9/11 families to come up with answers and clear culprits

.

I thought everybody was happy that Bin Laden was the culprit. From a conspiratorial point of view, adding KSM is an unnecessary complication.

 

[busherie]

Absolutely, 100% wrong busherie. KSM was the primary suspect to being the mastermind behind 9/11 and in Daniel Pearl's murder long before the al Jazeera interview. Once again, you're changing facts to fit your story, because you simply can't handle the truth.

Ok. I sumed it up for you:

News process: how KSM emerged in the media as the 9/11 mastermind.

• June 4-5 2002: Lumpkin key AP article, courtesy of the revelations of an anonymous "top U.S. counterterrorism official”

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]i.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Linked to Ramzi Youssef
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ii.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Linked to 93 and Bojinka

• At about the same time that Lumpkin's article was making the rounds, Robert Mueller was making a statement before the Senate-House Committee, narrating the full details of the money trail story (as set out in the Moussaoui indictment), but this time adding the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

• Details then start to come out:

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]i.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]According to CBS News, U.S. officials now had "evidence" that Khalid had met with "some of the 9/11 hijackers at their Hamburg, Germany apartment in 1999."
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ii.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]June 6, 2002 - further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta



The reality? i'm in the middle of it. I'm not saying i fully have it right now. rather i'm trying to find out by myself, instead of believng what officials say, or AP articles



You want another source?


June 4, 2002: 9/11 Mastermind KSM Publicly Identified

The photo of Mohammed on the right has been flipped to better compare it [Source: FBI]Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) is publicly identified as the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks. He is believed to have arranged the logistics while on the run in Germany, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In 1996, he had been secretly indicted in the US for his role in Operation Bojinka (see January 6, 1995), and the US began offering a $2 million reward for his capture in 1998, which increased to $25 million in December 2001. [Associated Press, 6/4/2002; New York Times, 6/5/2002] There are conflicting accounts on how much US investigators knew about Mohammed before 9/11. Mohammed is Pakistani (though born in Kuwait [CBS News, 6/5/2002] ) and a relative of Ramzi Yousef, the bomber of the WTC in 1993. [New York Times, 6/5/2002]
Entity Tags: Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline



All of his happens in any case after the interview, and it gets even more plausible if you you think the interview took place in april, as Fouda later claimed

Therefore how did the US "found out" KSM was the mastermind...

I'll let you think about it.

 

[busherie]

Did not Al Jazeera broadcast Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi? That would implicate Al Jazeera.

.

I thought everybody was happy that Bin Laden was the culprit. From a conspiratorial point of view, adding KSM is an unnecessary complication.

I don't agree.

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)

So KSM was convenient. A real bad guy, controlling everything.

 

[Big Les]

The trouble is Busherie, you've already made up your mind and are looking for discrepancies as confirmation of this (rather than hard evidence). That's not the way to investigate anything.

 

[sleahead]

I don't agree.

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)

So KSM was convenient. A real bad guy, controlling everything.

I think if you asked the public, twoofers excepted, who masterminded 9/11 the reply would be "Bin Laden". Most would have not heard of KSM. I see no need for alledged conspirators transferring the blame from OBL to KSM. Why would they do this? Just because they captured KSM?

 

[stateofgrace]

Busherie have you actually read anything from here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php

Just curious.

Try this..

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf

 

[gumboot]

yes OBL was the big guy, but not the "masterminf". No hard evidence was ever found, except the famous video. Add to that that OBL was never captured (but did they really wanna catch him?)

The US called off their intended operation against Tora Bora out of fear of casualties, because it wouldn't look good at home. They let the Afghani allies and Special Ops do it alone, and it was a miserable failure.

Afghanistan was the first war in which military objectives were put second to PR. Iraq is the second. It appears to be an effective strategy for ensuring failure. Let's hope they're the last. (I doubt it).

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Busherie have you actually read anything from here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php

Just curious.

Try this..

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf

I have skimmed through the "substitution for the testimony of KSM". It is quite dense.

However, as the world substitution shows clearly, what element proves that what is written was actually confessed by KSM?

What if this was simply written by other people than KSm just to fit in the story?

"none of the attorneys for either the prosecution or defense have allowed access to KSM, who is not allowed to testify in person or in video for national security reasons".

Could you tell me please why national security would be endangered by KSM appearing in person or in video, if what he's supposed to have said is true? What terrible things could he have said to the attorneys?

Give me one good reason.I would be forced to recognize that what he says is true.

Instead, question were passed on to Gitmo: I could have written the answers myself.

 

[busherie]

The US called off their intended operation against Tora Bora out of fear of casualties, because it wouldn't look good at home. They let the Afghani allies and Special Ops do it alone, and it was a miserable failure.

Afghanistan was the first war in which military objectives were put second to PR. Iraq is the second. It appears to be an effective strategy for ensuring failure. Let's hope they're the last. (I doubt it).

-Gumboot

The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.

Moreover, you remind me the generals during the Vietnam war, always saying "the politicians don't give us enough means, if only.. bla bla bla". The multiple surges (with a max 500 000 troops in 1972) ended up total failure anyway.

Same applies to IQ and AF: the problem is not the number of troops. Remember that the lack of troops in AF and the ongoing failure was first dur to the fact that the US wanted to attack IQ! Whereas I'm pretty sure that is these means had been concentrated in Af it would be an entirely different stituation.



What do you think about Fouda's repeated lies about his article? (shown in my previous post 296)

Busherie

 

[stateofgrace]

I have skimmed through the "substitution for the testimony of KSM". It is quite dense.

However, as the world substitution shows clearly, what element proves that what is written was actually confessed by KSM?

What if this was simply written by other people than KSm just to fit in the story?

"none of the attorneys for either the prosecution or defense have allowed access to KSM, who is not allowed to testify in person or in video for national security reasons".

Could you tell me please why national security would be endangered by KSM appearing in person or in video, if what he's supposed to have said is true? What terrible things could he have said to the attorneys?

Give me one good reason.I would be forced to recognize that what he says is true.

Instead, question were passed on to Gitmo: I could have written the answers myself.

Give me one reason why the jury who were given this advise “It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit", got it wrong.

Did the jury in this trial get it wrong?

Is an innocent man in jail?

Was this a miscarriage of justice?

 

[busherie]

Give me one reason why the jury who were given this advise “It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit", got it wrong.

Did the jury in this trial get it wrong?

Is an innocent man in jail?

Was this a miscarriage of justice?

You know, as I do, that you cannot answer a question with another question.

However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will have the intellectual honesty tn answer mine.

“It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit". This is a good rule.

But you can't deny that people tend to trust what they are given. I personnaly think Moussaoui played a part in the 9/11 attacks. I do not know to which extent he's crazy and/or overestimates his role to look glorious.

The trial was relatively fair. The so-called testimonies of people who are not there and who could have been fabricated to a certain extent diminish the fairness of this trial, even though the jury is free to give credit or not.

Busherie

 

[stateofgrace]

You know, as I do, that you cannot answer a question with another question.

However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will have the intellectual honesty tn answer mine.

“It is solely up to the jury to decide on how much, if any, of any witnesses testimony to credit". This is a good rule.

But you can't deny that people tend to trust what they are given. I personnaly think Moussaoui played a part in the 9/11 attacks. I do not know to which extent he's crazy and/or overestimates his role to look glorious.

The trial was relatively fair. The so-called testimonies of people who are not there and who could have been fabricated to a certain extent diminish the fairness of this trial, even though the jury is free to give credit or not.

Busherie

Busherie I can answer how I see fit. For your information had you even read some of the testimony your misconception about Moussaoui's role would have been cleared up. He had no role in 911; he was not part of the primary wave of attacks. He was due to take part in a second wave of attacks. Hence he was not charged with being part of the 911 conspiracy but actually charged with conspiracy to murder US citizens.

Busherie, you seem only to want to dismiss anything that does not fit into your version of events. There are clear and precise details given in the testimony. It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact. You are now challenging fact with the only thing you have. “It may have been fabricated".

No Busherie, it is testimony entered and accepted in a US court of law. It is accepted as fact.

You may want to read fully what is on this site before commenting further. May I suggest you start here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf

This is what Al Qaeda thinks of you Busherie.

 

[busherie]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Concerning Fouda's article, I think after a thorough analysis we can assume that he lied about the date of the interview to protect himself. Remember Ramzi (who was with KSM at the time of interview) was arrested soon after, in September.

Fouda was accused of being responsible for this by extremists. So he tried to protect himself. Read this:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]But to get back to Ramzi. Shortly after your documentary appeared around the anniversary of 9/11, Ramzi was caught by the Pakistanis and turned over to American intelligence officers. This capture was described by President Bush as a major boost in the war of terrorism but you found yourself initially denounced as "a pig and a traitor" on various Islamist websites and you told the Washington Post (which reported as did other media that the interview had taken place in Karachi last June) that you "couldn't blame people for thinking what they do" and that you yourself wondered at first if there could have been some unforeseeable link.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: Yeah. Well there were rumors going around at the time that American intelligence agents were secretly planting tracking devices on Al Jazeera correspondents likely to be in contact with Al-Qa'ida. But when you think about it, that doesn't make sense. If that were the case why would the intelligence apparatus wait for all that time to act? According to the official version, the interviews took place in June but they didn't get hold of Ramzi until early mid-September. Actually this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That's what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary-that I met them in June.

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: So?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: I lied.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: Really?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: Yeah.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: But you're going to come clean with TBS, right?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]
YF (laughter): Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]However, I have a little problem with this asummption, because he changed his version later on: (source is the article I posted a the begining)
[/SIZE][/FONT]
"Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid's eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian:

"It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye."​

That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates."

But the article goes on:

"Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh..."

I'm not sure we can go that far, but why change his version many times?

There is another problem: remember the jehad.net communiqué i put in blue above?

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.

Wow, problem here... then the communiqué lies as well? Is it just a mistake in the communiqué?

Honestly, is there any room for doubts here?

The "i lied to protect myself" theory is weakened by this double mistake.

What do you think?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Does anybody have more theories for the repeated lied about the date of article? Confusion? Attempt to protect himself? More?

B

 

[busherie]

Busherie I can answer how I see fit. For your information had you even read some of the testimony your misconception about Moussaoui's role would have been cleared up. He had no role in 911; he was not part of the primary wave of attacks. He was due to take part in a second wave of attacks. Hence he was not charged with being part of the 911 conspiracy but actually charged with conspiracy to murder US citizens.

Busherie, you seem only to want to dismiss anything that does not fit into your version of events. There are clear and precise details given in the testimony. It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact. You are now challenging fact with the only thing you have. “It may have been fabricated".

No Busherie, it is testimony entered and accepted in a US court of law. It is accepted as fact.

You may want to read fully what is on this site before commenting further. May I suggest you start here?

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-ZM005.pdf

This is what Al Qaeda thinks of you Busherie.

My mistake about Moussouai.

The man looks even more crazy than I though. Scary.

However, that does not answer the previous question, ie how getting KSM in the court, or on video, or anything that would look less "soviet-style" testimony, was against national security.

The only thing you have: the testimony may have been true.

I deeply respect the judicial system of the USA. However " It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact." Well I'm afraid, like human justice, there can be mistakes. Especially when it concerns trials that are politically important.

So: can you gimme the famous reason why national security was threaten?

And what about Fouda's changing versions about his article?

 

[busherie]

I'm disapointed. You did not answer.

I haven't lost my time, I skimmed throught both defender and prosecution exhibits. Moussaoui is definitly guilty. But he's crazy.

I'm still convinced that these substitution for testimonies cannot be taken for granted. In its legitimate fight against radical muslim terrorists, the US are a shame, they despised many basic rules of liberal democracies.

That's why I'm so skeptic about these "testimonies".

Anyway, since nobody wants to debate why Fouda changes his version twice concerning his interview (which is as I think the only real evidence that could prove KSM was the mastermind "from A to Z"), well the debate ends here.

You may think "what's the problem? why does he care wether he was the mastermind? the attacks occur, that's it."

You're right. I'm doing all this because the US is losing its soul in the process. And that's why they will loose everybody's confidence and sympathy in the end.

And that's sad.

Anyway, got some work to do.

Good day

Busherie

 

[stateofgrace]

My mistake about Moussouai.

The man looks even more crazy than I though. Scary.

However, that does not answer the previous question, ie how getting KSM in the court, or on video, or anything that would look less "soviet-style" testimony, was against national security.

The only thing you have: the testimony may have been true.

I deeply respect the judicial system of the USA. However " It was accepted in a court of law. In my mind this acceptance is one of making it fact." Well I'm afraid, like human justice, there can be mistakes. Especially when it concerns trials that are politically important.

So: can you gimme the famous reason why national security was threaten?

And what about Fouda's changing versions about his article?

I cannot and will not comment on why he is deemed a national security, simply because I do not know why. I could imagine that there are certain things this man knows including names and places of quiet sensitive intelligence gathering sources which could compromise those involved if voiced in an open court but again this is pure speculation. Equally so I can also imagine actually getting this guy to a public court would pose quite a security risk in itself. Also the fact that he a high ranking Al Qaeda terrorist may have something to do with it. he may actually be in danger himself , if expossed to the public, after all he did plan mass murder of US citizens.Again this is just pure speculation.

Having said that though, I have more than "maybe it is true" I have a US court of law saying it is true. I have a jury accepting it is true.

What do you have?

ETA Busherie , I was busy doing other things , hence the reason I did not reply.

 

[gumboot]

The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.

Yeah no problem. Easy.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you even know what sort of terrain they were working in?

Moreover, you remind me the generals during the Vietnam war, always saying "the politicians don't give us enough means, if only.. bla bla bla". The multiple surges (with a max 500 000 troops in 1972) ended up total failure anyway.

WTF are you talking about? They had the resources. It was all in place. And the politicians pulled it, for PR reasons. The politicians let them get away.

Same applies to IQ and AF: the problem is not the number of troops. Remember that the lack of troops in AF and the ongoing failure was first dur to the fact that the US wanted to attack IQ!

Garbage. Tora Bora was captured in December 2001, almost 2 years before Iraq. There wasn't a lack of troops in Afghanistan. They had Marines ready to go into Tora Bora. They were equipped, and ready. The mission was scrubbed.

-Gumboot

 

[Childlike Empress]

Know what's funny, busherie? In the transcript of KSM's hearing, when they present the evidence for him being an "enemy combatant", they state:

Paragraph c: In an interview with an al Jazeera reporter in June 2002, the Detainee stated he was the head of the al Quaida military committee.

Apparently these über investigators didn't notice or care that Fouda changed the date of his interview first to may and then to april.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The capture of OBL is a big issue in itself. However, note that all they had to do was to seal the area, and not (strange?) seal off all valleys EXCEPT the one leading to Pakistan.

Whhhooooaaaa... What dark recess of your brain pooted out the notion that this was even remotely possible?