It is certainly true that the computer can incriminate KSM in two possible ways.. Either KSM's possession of the computer, or evidence against KSM on the computer. You are actually right about that much, if the latter exists then in such an event proving possession would become unecessary. I asked for proof of possession because I've not seen the evidence against KSM on the computer. Now it's just a case of you telling me what evidence on that computer incriminates KSM as the plotter of the attack, I thought it pretty much just incriminates Mohammed Atta and the hijackers. What's the most damming bit do you think? Like if you were prosecutor, and you want to get the jury convinced as quickly as you can, what are you putting forth as exhibit A off that computer? Thank you for having civil tone in that post and thank you for answering that question. I'll explain where I'm going with it in another post to come. Please can you answer one of the other questions, was KSM lying when he denied it was his computer? I know he doesn't deny they found the computer during that particular arrest raid, I meant the part where he said it's the other guy's, for whatever reason he said it, was he lying?
You forgot the quotation marks. I wouldn't recommend copying and pasting your arguments off wikipedia. More and more I'm noticing that wikipedia isn't the best source for information, not the text at any rate, although the links at the bottom can be more than useful. At any rate, this is the list you gave.. Would most certainly incriminate the hijackers it seems. Many other things did as well. What is it that incriminates KSM?
Of course not. Lord only knows one should completely ignore a person's testimony along with all the supporting testimonies because of paranoid delusions from truthers that they are being tortured to make sure KSM admits guilt. How do truthers operate in society when they are afflicted by so much paranoia? And this proves what besides your rampant paranoia? Do you have any evidence to back up these claims that come from a reliable source?
The list isn't from wikipedia. It is from the transcripts from the CSR Tribunal Hearing. Have you read the transcripts? I am betting not. What incriminates KSM is he had this information at his residence when he was arrested and admits to being behind 9/11 along with numerous other crimes, some of which he was already tied to. It continues to amaze me how you can be in denial about the evidence and history of KSM as both a terrorist and a "mastermind" behind terrorist activities. It isn't like they picked KSM's name out of a hat after 9/11 and decided to blame him. Here is a timeline of KSM's activities. Read through it and tell me how KSM is innocent.
I don't understand why someone would torture KSM if his children are in custody. Like your ramblings about paranoia it doesn't make much sense. I also thought the claims I made were mainstream however most of the information about Mariam the American probably comes from Pakistani sources - so maybe she was never missing. Maybe the newspapers made it up. Maybe that's the point.
You mean like how the government couldn't keep the water boarding of KSM a secret, but a coverup the size of the entire 9/11 operation is totally feasible? Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all.
Feasible? Yes, but it requires extraordinary measures. Habeus corpus would need to come under military jurisdiction. Then build a secret prison on a military base with secret guards that can hold a mastermind secretly. Dress him like an Arab. Convict. Maybe that will work.
I don't know where the secret prison is or how the secret guards might even imprison the secret prisoners. I 'm not even informed how that might work.
It would not. It is funny, but a few years ago I was sent to a "secret" military base in the Middle East. Neither the US Government nor the Host Government officially aknowledge that the base exists. But it is essentially home to the command that runs all military operations in the Middle East. We were forbidden from ever mentioning the name of the base, or what country it is in. Yet, you can view a Wikipeida article all about it, and look at the base in Google Maps, including the runways with C-130, B-1, and other US aircraft visible on the runways. As well as US PATRIOT missile batteries (all pointing towards Iran). But officially we are not there.
I was way off. According to the papers Maryam went missing for 7 years and was returned to her family in 2010 when she was 12.
Right, but this information isn't available to me so I'm guessing it's Saudi Arabia. Just kidding, I don't really need to know. We don't have any bases in Saudi Arabia. Maybe it's Yemen. Although Qatar was command central for Iraq. That's probably it.
A bit of a fallacy there... You might be able to keep secret A even't if you couldn't keep secret B... And I'm sure truthers would think they've exposed the whole scheme ergo, not claiming a successful coverup.. The powers that be aren't going to start prosecuting themselves now. Same thing here.. You don't know how many secrets your government successfully kept, or how major those secrets were. There's no way for you to gauge the rate of successful secret keeping by virtue of the fact that they are secrets. For every exposed secret there can be 10 successfully kept ones you don't even know about.
Wherever it's from, it's obviously not your words, so you're missing some quote marks there, aren't you? You JUST got done telling me there was stuff on the computer that incriminates HIM, that confirms his confession as you put it. So you want to change that now? So we can safely assume that, on the computer you claim belongs to KSM, and that has that whole treasure trove of information and intel about the entire 9/11 op and the hijackers, there is no references to KSM, the guy you think is behind it from a to z, no ties to KSM and nothing that incriminates KSM specifically, AT ALL. We can go ahead and get that fact established, right? Good. Now that just means the only way to use the computer for you, is to prove KSM's possession of it.. This is where we were before you lied and claimed it doesn't matter because the content on it proves his guilt, we know that's not true so let's get back to possession. In this case you fell a bit short, in lying that it was seized from KSM's residence.. It was seized in someone else's residence. Strike one, try again. I'm not.. I specifically disputed the claim about his involvement in 9/11 at the highest level, specifically.. I never denied his involvement in any other plots or terrorist connections or anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if he were a minor role in 9/11.. And he hyped it up hoping to be a martyr. Or because he got to thinking it because his CIA buddies were telling him. Maybe he was involved on SOME of the things on that list of over thirty but not all. Who knows.. That's what judges and juries and all that are supposed to be for. This is just you just beating the usual straw dummy. As is this. Make up your opponent's stance because it's getting too hard for you. KSM due to his terrorist associations and anti-American sentiment, and already being on the most wanted list, is the perfect candidate for scapegoat, if that's what you're after. If you wanted to pin 9/11 on someone, here's your guy.. You're not going to say Mother Theresa did it. Nobody is saying KSM is innocent.. Again, READ THE THREAD. I CLEARLY said he should be tried. Then we can know for sure.. I'm not making factual claims about his involvement or lack thereof, unlike you who is. Now instead of admit your claim and belief is unsubstantiated and speculative (which is the same reason he's not convicted it looks like) you try to shift the burden of proof and pretend like I should explain to YOU "how KSM is innocent"? Give me a break. This is really very simple here. And so is what you gotta do.. You need to bring your BEST evidence forward.. Simple as that.. No need to spam links like all those truthers you attempt to argue with. Now we have, so far, the computer, and the "confession".. Two pieces of contradictory and mutually exclusive circumstantial evidence. Tell me at last which one you want to go with. Or are there any good ones on that link on that link you'd like to go with? It doesn't even matter anyway, as any idiot who flunked his bar exam could still tell you, you can't prove f- all with a SINGLE piece of circumstantial evidence. Additionally, you should go back and revisit post 57 and 58 on page 6 Which is where I've already handed you your arse in this very same debate.
Supporting testimonies? Great, let's hear! And you summarily brushed aside an important argument here. You actually have to, if you want to insist on perfect veracity of the KSM narrative in obvious absense of outside corraboration, rule out fear of his children's wellfare as a possible factor in impacting the narrative or extent of various elements of it. Also you are aware these detainees were indeed sleep deprived and tortured, right? THAT is not the delusion.. You acknowledge that much right? So the delusion must be in second guessing the motives of a torturer? To assume the motives of a torturer are to stop a ticking timebomb and nothing else than that is the only course, trust the torturer like you trust the terrorists to take their words as gospel truth? So Patriot911 it seems you want people to trust both terrorists AND torturers like you do?
Really? Bragging for the treason against their own country and participation in the murder of 3000 of their own countrymen? I'm sorry what atrocities in Iraq are you guys referring to that could be comprable to making the same sort of drunken boast about? Like "I killed some brown kid overseas" is like the same as "I helped kill thousands of your friends and neighbors".
Do you know what? I don't know.. I've not looked into it.. If it interests you, make a thread about it, how Al Capone got away with murder or whatever, and if you do, let me know and I promise to drop in and put in my two cents. Why couldn't they get him? Did they find DNA to prove it but only like 70 years later or something? If the prosecutors don't have the evidence to get someone for a crime, can the reason possibly for that be that they're not actually guilty of that particular crime? I mean is that not a possiblity in your world that could successfully account for such a lack of affirmative forensics evidence? I would assume, a lack of evidence for something would more likely lead to the conclusion there was no criminal wrongdoing there, whereas the conclusion that there was criminal wrongdoing would arise from a larger preponderance of evidence. Is that not the way things usually go? Or at least when you've had a ridiculously exhaustive and comprehensive criminal investigation that turned over every stone? Or did they have lots of evidence and the prosecutors were too stupid and didn't see it or it was inadmissable for some technicality or something? If you do make the thread, make sure to put forth some good, solid, evidence unlike what we got regarding KSM and his masterminding 911. Remember, you are after all accusing someone of a crime. As for this thread, I noticed you brushing off my questioning of KSM's ownership of the computer with flippant sarcastic type snide remarks.. So to you it appears, it's a foregone conclusion that KSM is indeed the owner, and you're stupid and should be ridiculed if you imagine the possiblity of otherwise. So... I'm just wondering, what has actually convinced you? How much information did you need to assimilate in order to establish this belief so firmly? I mean you don't know what kind of computer it is, I'm sure you don't know what fingerprint tests showed or anything else really about it... Registration, serial number, where in the house it actually was, etc. Which explains why it didn't click when I asked if it was a laptop or desktop, like that might make a difference if you're a visitor rather than the homeowner, and the only thing in the universe you actually do know about the computer is the list of documents your government told you is on it, none of which refer to the guy you say owns it, and the guy you say owns it denies it... SO how are you so sure of this? Don't say your government told you... Even though that's how it works for many of the beliefs held by the skeptics, it doesn't work here, because even the prosecutors didn't go so far as to call it, "the computer belonging to KSM", even though that would be SO MUCH more damming and effective of a heading for so many entries on the evidence list than the pathetically neutered version, "the hard drive seized during the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Unless you also aren't convinced it's his and I misinterpreted your sarcasm then sorry.
What is the worst crime EVER that someone turned themselves into the angry mob for due to a "crisis of consciousness".. Seriously.. Have a good think. You do realize there is a line where survival instinct for yourself and your family overides the wishes of that little angel on your shoulder telling you.. That's why if you have a good solid think about my question, I don't think you're going to find, confession of treason to your own countrymen to the scale of 3000 of those said innocents slaughtered, on that list. Look all over the world and all through the history of mankind while you have this ponder.
And you've determined the rate of "amost always" by comparing the number of foiled conspiracies that got found out vs. the number of successful conspiracies that you don't even know about? Incidentally, I don't ascribe to any theories involving thousands of government insiders, but I was actually responding to Patriot911's stupid argument about people admitting to such treason AFTER they've already bloodied up their hands with their own innocent countrymen.
If you actually bothered to read what I have to say, you would have realized I've been telling you over and over again for ages now that what I really want is the complete oppositte. I want you to drag him before a judge and proper marr his name for eternity, so his name can go down in the history books as convicted and sentenced terrorist.. The guy you caught and brought to justice for those horrific atrocities.. Wouldn't that be GREAT?!?! Do it before both he and all the witness die of old age please. Why not?!?!?!? Do the victim's families not usually get at least get some semblance of closure when that gavel finally slams? Of course they do! Only ONE conviction to date, and that is a bottom of the barrel, operative level wannabe player who didn't even get a chance to take part in the attack.. And that is good enough justice for 3000 of your countreymen slaughtered? So gather the evidence, put it forward and get your country to do something about it already. But no... All you can do is sit here on the internet and make excuses for why you can't or won't or don't even have to, despite your constitution saying otherwise, and instead insist that me and everyone else take your word for it while not even explaining why you can't or won't or don't even have to prove it. Let's get one thing clear and get you to cut it with the lies.. KSM didn't "freely" admit to anything.. He said NOTHING and only demanded a lawyer.. It wasn't until after you sleep deprived him for over a week and then poured water into his lungs 183 times that he "admitted' to anything, and then he gave you that fantastic list of over thirty different plots he was apprently involved in during his career as super-terrorist. How should I know? Do you think I have an open channel to the guy or something? Better question, how would YOU know? Maybe have a read of his latest twitter feed.. Or check to see if he's updated his facebook profile to not guilty.
That's a fallacy.. Existence of one truthful statement made by somebody doesn't somehow overturn the fact they lied about other things, nor change their status as liars, or somehow magically restore credibility. Pinnocio is not disproved as being a liar because you found him tell the truth on occasion as well, and I certainly wouldn't let an occasional truthful statement he might make preclude the necessity to fact check claims that he makes, independently. When I refer to the United States being liars I am typically referring to the executive administration and the Pentagon, although you can throw in most of congress too. Not so much the more trivial beuracratic entities like the Census. Sorry pal but if you think you can trust a liar if you've not seen any red flags with what they said on the surface then you are being naive and subject to being taken for a ride by certain types of predatory people. Someone lacking credibility is and of itself a reason to require verification for everything they say.. Are you saying if Pinnocio tells you he mailed you a check and it will get here tomorrow, you believe him because you can't see any reason why it shouldn't? Does that count for all of you guys throwing around generalizations like truthers this and truthers that? Or are you guys exempted from such broad and extreme generalizations charactherizing a compromised objectivity for yourselves?
It's the same thing.. If they have a history of telling lies, then they have always been liars. Therefore, there should be a degree of skepticism when approaching their claims. I haven't said they have told nothing but lies.. But even a liar can tell the truth sometimes too, just as a broken clock is right twice a day. This doesn't change the fact they're liars, and doesn't change the fact that you should check with outside corrobaration statements made by those who have told lies and therefore thrown their own credibility into question. Distrust, skepticism, call it what you want; the need for independent validation is always there, and SHOULD be there for anyone, at least anyone who claims to have a critical mind at any rate. Most governments?!?!? What on Earth government would you possibly exclude, who could be trusted automatically?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT44mis7qDg&feature=plcp&context=C392ff76UDOEgsToPDskJpyiFrCidXkhlf0UdFRQJL"]TESTIMONY OF A FORMER US ARMY RANGER Part-1/2 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYfrO5A48vQ&feature=plcp&context=C39d02b6UDOEgsToPDskLFWlk3Xy9t2vYr1-di9EO1"]TESTIMONY OF A FORMER US ARMY RANGER Part 2/2 - YouTube[/ame] Listen to the things that this person claims to have done on video. Mutilating bodies, purposefull killing of women and children, purposefully killing civilians and covering it up as bomb damage. Even making raids in houses and questioning them on the street, and torturing a random child to get information. This piece of garbage went on video and made confessions to taking part in horrible war crimes. By himself he claims to have murdeder over 200 people.
Nope. I'm listing what was found on the hard drive. It is a list of facts, not someone's quote. No. What part of the computer was siezed at the place he was staying and where he was arrested? If you're staying at a house and it is raided and a hard drive is discovered with terrorist information including details of a terrorist attack, do you think you are free and clear because you claim the hard drive belongs to another known terrorist you were arrested with and is a known associate of yours and is a member of the same terrorist organization? And again, if he is lying about the hard drive, there is enough information on there to convict him. If he is telling the truth, then you must also believe his confession right? Either way he is guilty. Where the hell do you get off pretending there was no references to KSM?!? That is the most retarded thing I think you have ever said. Do you have evidence there is no specific reference to KSM? No. We can't. It is an absurd claim. No, bad. You're making a really bad ASSumption based on your overwhelming need to prove KSM is innocent. Still haven't figured out WHY you love him so much you want to prove him innocent. He has a list of crimes against humanity a mile long. Start with bull(*)(*)(*)(*). End with bull(*)(*)(*)(*). So wait. Let me get this straight. It is YOUR claim that computers, especially computers belonging to terrorists hiding out, are NOT mobile and thus if they don't live there, the computer can't belong to them? ANOTHER retarded claim! KSM claims the hard drive belonged to Hawsawi, a fellow terrorist on the lamb with him. So it can belong to Hawsawi, but NOT KSM because it isn't his house. And how do you know the hard drive was not portable or from a laptop? I could find no information in that regard. Yes you are certainly striking out with extremely lame ASSumptions. So that is a whole lot of OPINION you are banking on. A known terrorist mastermind who was KNOWN as one of the leading masterminds behind Al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and you think he was just a minor player. In other words, you're basing your entire case on your opinion of what happened while ignoring the evidence. Thanks for admitting that. That is no way to talk about yourself! Cheer up HFD! It isn't getting too hard for me. Isn't that you making up my stance? You have to come up with seriously lame ASSumptions in order to make your case. I don't. Why would we need a scapegoat? Why wouldn't we just find who was the mastermind behind 9/11? It is only when one ASSumes the government is trying to hide something that they would need a scapegoat. I have. You are trying as hard as you can to claim KSM is innocent of being the mastermind behind 9/11. He claims he is the mastermind. You try and give him all kinds of excuses YOU make up in order to excuse his own confession along with the others he is being accused with. The thing about truthers is they NEVER believe anything they are against no matter what the evidence says. Moussaoui was convicted, yet truthers never believe that one. Sure you are. You're claiming I'm wrong. Truthers love to try and twist the truth of what they are doing, but everyone can see what you are doing. Why? All you do is deny it. KSM has admitted repeatedly he is the mastermind. He has a history of being involved. He was found with other members of Al Qaeda with a hard drive detailing the plot. All this still isn't good enough for you. If the man telling you straight up he is responsible isn't good enough for you, nothing else will be. No, all we have so far is a whole buttload of denial from you. I've presented you with far more, yet you always have a problem with it. How about a piece of evidence from BEFORE 9/11 with him actively working behind the scenes? Memo discussing an intercepted phone call prior to 9/11 discussing Moussaoui's role in 9/11 if they have the code words right. Regardless of whether you believe their interpretation of who Sally is, you can't miss the fact that KSM is orchestrating and masterminding this operation. This is just one more piece of the puzzle you still insist on ignoring. Why do you have to pretend only one matters? Why can't you look at the sum total so far? A confession isn't circumstantial evidence, is it. But your statement is very (*)(*)(*)(*)ing of your own tactics. You wish to only focus on one piece of evidence because you believe it is all circumstantial so you believe you can dismiss it. Wrong yet again. All you did is expose your own lunacy.
What you say and then turn around and do are two different things. I judge people by what they do, not what they say. You take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to clear KSM's name. You deny any and all evidence against him. Why would a person do that unless they are trying to get him off the hook? WRONG! Why do you insist on lying like this? I've shown you where he admitted to it and it wasn't under duress. It is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies like this that make me lose any and all respect for you. Funny how you can pretend his statement about the hard drive ownership is true and accurate, yet in the very same session KSM admits to his crimes, but those are only after torture and sleep deprivation. Of course you're trying to cover your ass by claiming his list of crimes is clearly made up. Where is your proof to back up this statement? It was a simple question. Has KSM recanted his admission of guilt? Here. Let me answer it for you. No. He has not recanted his admission. He still admits he did them. You know the answer is no, so you pretend nobody could possibly know that answer.
