KSM confessed his guilt before being arrested. 'Confessed' is probably the wrong word to use here; he told an al-Jazeera reporter of his involvement in 'Holy Tuesday' back in April of 2002. source I'll take him at his word, until evidence proves differently.
KSM said he never had that interview.. So you'll trust some things he says but not others?!!? This reporter works for Al Jazeera at the time right? So why didn't he take it to Al Jazeera? Did Al Jazeera do a piece about this? No. Why not? Maybe because they have actual standards? Why does nobody else mention this "confession" other than this little Spanish paper anyway? Why weren't the Americans told except by ONE paper?!!?
Can you provide a source that KSM claims to have not had that interview? The Guardian is not a 'little Spanish paper'. Edited to add: al-Jazeera (and their actual standards) did indeed report on this confession/ admission and interview. Source
LOL... I come in these threads to loff at the 9/11 Denier silliness, and you guys never fail to deliver.
Selective prosecution? I could care less, either way all you have are allegations. ‎"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. " ~ Isaac Asimov
Of course I do.. My proof he was innocent is that he hasn't been convicted. It's called innocent until proven guilty not the other way around... Do you think he's really a murderer? Is that why the prosecution dropped the case? The fact remains you've accused KSM of a very serious crime yet never provided any evidence.. You've now accused another guy of being a pedo and AGAIN, you haven't a SHRED of evidence. Demands others prove them innocent aren't going to fly; that's called shifting the burden of proof. I don't go around accusing people of crimes if I've not got convincing evidence to prove it.
A couple things I need to clarify.. Thank you for the aljazeera link but I don't think you got the point with what I was saying. Why didn't Fouda take THE story to AJ and why didn't AJ break the story at all? What I mean is, the story goes, he was blindfolded and led in to have a top secret interview with AQ big wigs and he is the ONLY guy they EVER confess 9/11 to! So he leaves, now with the biggest story of his career, a major scoop, and what does he do? He does NOT take it to AJ nor does AJ do a story about KSM confessing about 9/11.. Instead, he takes the story to El Mundo, which was a local paper in Spain, that's the one I was actually talking about.. They published his little excerpt, and a British tabloid which you cited also caught wind and forwarded the info, and I believe one other local American paper as well who also did a carbon copy of this. Otherwise, the biggest story, a guy confessing to 9/11 only like a year later while it's still fresh, and otherwise the rest of the world's media doesn't break the story. Now back to AJ... They didn't break the story.. The link you posted wasn't a news article, it was a movie review for In Plain Site written a good SIX years after this interview happened.. It's clearly an editorial piece clearly as it tries to point out U.S. complicity based on this movie.. That's not THE news story of the confession from when it happened. So why didn't AJ break that story? The guy was apparently a very senior journalist working for AJ, why did he not go to them with the story and why did they not publish anything about it? Where was the CNN, FOX, BBC etc. coverage of the story? Does this not raise a red flag at all? For such an UNdocumented interview? As for KSM, he didn't deny the interview.. If anything he acknowledges the interview took place, as he asked for a witness who was there and could clear up the fact that he didn't say what was attributed to him saying in that meeting. I remember he acknowledges nothing that he said from that meeting, and crossed that with not acknowledging the meeting itself, but I was wrong about that. The prosecution used the meeting as an exhibit against him to try to show him as an enemy combatant and guilty of 9/11.. Interestingly, his alleged comments from that interview were about him being some AQ military leader guy, but NOT him being responsible for 9/11.. In fact the prosecution did NOT present this 02 confession for 9/11.. The ONLY comment they used from this meeting was about him being an AQ military leader guy, and KSM therefore disputed this, said he didn't say it and asked for a witness who was there at the meeting and could confirm this, a request which was denied by the judge. So really at NO POINT do you have KSM ever acknowledging he confessed to 9/11 in 02 nor do we have documentation of it.. His only documented confessions were after he was subjected to the CIA enhanced torture program. At which point they are no longer necessarily genuine confessions for obvious reasons. So you're not actually taking KSM's words for it, you're taking some journalist guy's words for it.. And KSM denies claims made by that journalist about what he said, so one of them HAS to be lying. And also, I'm wondering, is this the EXTENT of evidence you have? Having read your signature line I'm quite curious.. Such allegations as masterminding the most heinous attack for a long time I would think would require lots of evidence per your signature quote.. But am I correct in saying you don't have actual, physical proof, and simply taking people's words for things is enough to satisfy you? Or do you have other proof. Also note that the type of things they say KSM and gang are confessing and telling them about these various plots, there SHOULD be outside evidence confirming these plots, IF these things they are saying is true. It appears the oppositte, they are NOT finding these things, and discover certain plots that KSM "confessed" to didn't even exist!
Thanks for that but I don't think it makes a difference.. Open it close it open it again later, until they pony up some proof it means little.
Al-jazeera did run the interview. The world press did pick up on it and report on it. So we do have the interview on tape, and broadcast by Al-jazeera. Documented.
Really? You've got video of KSM confessing to 9/11.. I'd like to see that! What was in your links was a documentary video made by Fouda.. Again second hand story told off Fouda, THAT's the video.. You don't have taped video of KSM confessing. Your belief he confessed is second hand taking the journalist's word for it.. Is this the extent of what you've based your belief about KSM's guilt for 9/11 on?
Where did I ever state this? Why are you pulling up straw men now? Your question was: I provided you a link of al-jazeera 'breaking the story', and CNN covering it, just as requested. If you'll do a bit of research, you'll find that KSM did not send Fouda's video to him. He only released the audio portion. This audio portion was played on al-jazeera, which you initially claimed had not happened. The (audio) taped confession was good enough for al-jazeera (which you have stated is a good source) so yes, until presented with other evidence I'll take KSM at his word.
You're saying KSM sent an audiotape of himself confessing to 9/11 to Al Jazeera? And they played this recording of his confession on the documentary? Where can I hear this recording? Have you heard this recording? I'm not sure where you got this information.. The link you supplied from Al Jazeera clearly said the documentary video provided by Fouda and narrated by Fouda contained "accounts and quotes" about what KSM said, in other words second hand info, but an actual recorded confession? I want to hear!
Your question was: I provided you a link of al-jazeera 'breaking the story', and CNN covering it, just as requested. So now you move the goalposts. Naturally. I supplied the evidence that AJ broke the story, and that it was picked up by the global press. No, I haven't heard the tape, nor seen the documentary. I'm showing that AJ did report on it. Do you now consider AJ to be an unreliable source of information?
I'm not shifting the goalposts, but no doubt I underestimated the press coverage of Fouda's claims. But there's no recording.. You've not heard KSM's confession have you? So the original point is still the same.. Is this recording which I'm assuming you haven't heard, the only thing you base your unequivocal judgement of his guilt? You've not answered that question really. As far as whether or not AJ is a reliable source; they are the news basically.. Not everything is true that the paper says.. But they do a good job of telling you where they got their information so you can judge for yourself.. In this case a journalist with no record except his recounting, so you're not placing your trust in a media outlet so much as this journalist. No doubt you wouldn't be the only one. I'm not saying he's lying but there's no outside confirmation he's telling the truth exactly as it happened, and KSM again denies the only recounting of Fouda's that the prosecution used against him, and gave no subsequent or previous acknowledgement of anything else Fouda says that he allegedly said.
I will if you will. You sure you want to stick with that Hooper, I mean Hann? Proving otherwise would make you a liar, correct?
