Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
fela fan said:
I post what i post tarannau, just like you do. But what is it with you that feels the need to be judging me eh? Is it your job? Is it your nature?

Incidentally if a post displays no substance whatsoever, then my reply can understandably not bother with any too.

Ah, here comes more airy-fairy bollocks.

The worrying thing, my little delusional numbnut, is that you seem to have no self-knowledge whatsoever.

Now, I might (deservedly) be taking the piss out of you and your favourite bibbling homespun catch phrases, but I'm upfront about it.

You, on the other hand, came up with the peachily patronising and reductive:
fela fan said:
INaive man, naive. It's forgiveable for youngsters..

Which seems far more sneerily judgemental and predictable than anything I've written. And the idea of you calling someone else naive is just utterly hilarious.
 
fela fan said:
I"ve not judged the man, i've observed exactly what he is, based on his very naive questions to me in that post of his.
No, you've judged him in a unpleasantly patronising and sneering manner.

You're probably too lost in your own little fantasy world to realise he comes over as a far more intelligent poster than you too.
 
fela fan said:
I"ve not judged the man, i've observed exactly what he is, based on his very naive questions to me in that post of his.

He is most certainly just into his adult years. That has become apparent from his comments aimed my way over the last few weeks. Just look at his byline...

And you sound like a pathetic dribble of a 40 year old, prone to inflating his own meagre achievements and incapable of assessing information dispassionately and in balanced manner.

This is most certainly true. I've read your posts and I know.

:D

Annoying and ridiculously patronising isn't it, you juicy hypocrite?
 
fela fan said:
I"ve not judged the man, i've observed exactly what he is, based on his very naive questions to me in that post of his.

Okay, no fela fan, show me evidence that the CIA/NWO/US government has operatives in Pakistian/Saudi Arabia, anything. I'm currently reading the excellent "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" and like everything else I've heard/read/discovered about US intelligence/the State department, is that there wasn't exactly a dirth of capable people with the cultural background/language skills to deal effectively with Arab/Muslim culture.

Now you can dismiss my background, incorrectly patronise me about my age, but you're wrong, I've just entered my 30s, and if anyone fancies IP checking this post it's being written from a desk in Al Jazeera where I freelance.

So again, Fela Fan you arrogant incoherant loser, how about you show some balls and show the evidence that you are basing your claims on.

Or are you just daydreaming again?

He is most certainly just into his adult years. That has become apparent from his comments aimed my way over the last few weeks. Just look at his byline...

You're the one screaming that I'm your "stalker" I'm just reacting to your pathetic attempts at wriggling away from posting anything of substance.
 
tarannau said:
Ah, here comes more airy-fairy bollocks.

The worrying thing, my little delusional numbnut, is that you seem to have no self-knowledge whatsoever.

Now, I might (deservedly) be taking the piss out of you and your favourite bibbling homespun catch phrases, but I'm upfront about it.

You, on the other hand, came up with the peachily patronising and reductive:


Which seems far more sneerily judgemental and predictable than anything I've written. And the idea of you calling someone else naive is just utterly hilarious.


The whole lot of this bullshit: :D :D :D
 
tarannau said:
And you sound like a pathetic dribble of a 40 year old, prone to inflating his own meagre achievements and incapable of assessing information dispassionately and in balanced manner.

This is most certainly true. I've read your posts and I know.

:D

Annoying and ridiculously patronising isn't it, you juicy hypocrite?

Here comes the language man.
 
8den said:
Okay, no fela fan, show me evidence that the CIA/NWO/US government has operatives in Pakistian/Saudi Arabia, anything.

You just don't get it do you mate? Mind you, you're in good company with that tarannau fucker.

Anyway, i'll leave you and your mate to get even more twisted up.

It's quite funny how you and your mate can get so red-faced and so serious over some wanker half way across the world on some internet forum.

Sad lives. Sad lives.
 
fela fan said:
You just don't get it do you mate? Mind you, you're in good company with that tarannau fucker.

Anyway, i'll leave you and your mate to get even more twisted up.
Ah he's chickening off, he's running away

It's quite funny how you and your mate can get so red-faced and so serious over some wanker half way across the world on some internet forum.

Sad lives. Sad lives.

Emphasis mine. Highlightly a rare moment of honesty and clarity from FF.
 
8den said:
Ah he's chickening off, he's running away



Emphasis mine. Highlightly a rare moment of honesty and clarity from FF.

Keep going den man. Keep at it mate. Just avoid bursting any blood vessels on my behalf.

And oh, welcome to your thirties, hope you're enjoying them. You don't act like one though.

As for your bolding of my words, yes, i can easily be a wanker, we all are.
 
Aw, 'ickle Fela's throwing his toys out of his pram again. Flouncing off with a load of ineffectual insults and calling everyong else 'sad' for laughing at him. He'd probably try and take his ball back and stomp his feet if he could.

And if you're really believe that I'm 'red faced' or 'twisted' over this then you're even more delusional than I first feared. You're a figure of fun, not someone to be worked up over. You're funny for a number of reasons, not least for your hypocrisy, sneery patronising pronoucements (see called 8den a stalker and a youngster) and entire lack of self knowledge. G'wan and give us one of your words of wisdom from Fela's big book of trite phrases again - something about filters perhaps, or something even more shallow and maningless than usual.

I like "He who smelt it, dwelt it' myself.

:D
 
editor said:
Of course, this isn't you being judgemental again in any way at all, is it?

Pwned again, fela.

No, not at all editor. Just making observations again.

Why are you butting in here? What's it to do with you? What's your angle?
 
tarannau said:
Aw, 'ickle Fela's throwing his toys out of his pram again. Flouncing off with a load of ineffectual insults and calling everyong else 'sad' for laughing at him. He'd probably try and take his ball back and stomp his feet if he could.

And if you're really believe that I'm 'red faced' or 'twisted' over this then you're even more delusional than I first feared. You're a figure of fun, not someone to be worked up over. You're funny for a number of reasons, not least for your hypocrisy, sneery patronising pronoucements (see called 8den a stalker and a youngster) and entire lack of self knowledge. G'wan and give us one of your words of wisdom from Fela's big book of trite phrases again - something about filters perhaps, or something even more shallow and maningless than usual.

I like "He who smelt it, dwelt it' myself.

:D

:D :D

Here is the language man again. Can't stop yourself reacting to me can you mate?

I take it as a compliment, spending so much time trying to describe me.

Like i said, you're a sad bastard tarannau. Mind you, everyone's entitled to be one.
 
fela fan said:
:D :D

Here is the language man again. Can't stop yourself reacting to me can you mate?

I take it as a compliment, spending so much time trying to describe me.

Like i said, you're a sad bastard tarannau. Mind you, everyone's entitled to be one.

Ah, believe me, it doesn't take long to describe you. And if you're reacting to me, especially after implying that you were leaving, doesn't that make you even sadder and more committed to nonsense than me.

You're one of the few posters that most could instantly recognise from a two word description - 'patronising conspiracock' should do nicely.

:D
 
tarannau said:
Ah, believe me, it doesn't take long to describe you. And if you're reacting to me, especially after implying that you were leaving, doesn't that make you even sadder and more committed to nonsense than me.

You're one of the few posters that most could instantly recognise from a two word description - 'patronising conspiracock' should do nicely.

:D

Sad fucker. Language man.
 
fela fan said:
Sad fucker. Language man.

Does diddums need the last word so to claw some pathetic semblance of dignity from this total pwnage? I think diddums does...
 
fela fan said:
Sad fucker. Language man.

pwned.jpg


Matey mate mate mate. Filters. Bibble. MIRRORS. Pah with your experts. Man. Mate matey mate mate <insert pontificating nonsense here>
 
8den said:
Okay, no fela fan, show me evidence that the CIA/NWO/US government has operatives in Pakistian/Saudi Arabia, anything.
Are you for real?

Try googling "Pakistan ISI CIA" and see what comes up.
 
Having a look at that google myself 8den, you might want to pay particular attention to this 2004 article by our MP conspiraloon Michael Meacher -

The Pakistan connection

There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?

Michael Meacher
Thursday July 22, 2004
The Guardian

Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

rest of article
 
tarannau said:
pwned.jpg


Matey mate mate mate. Filters. Bibble. MIRRORS. Pah with your experts. Man. Mate matey mate mate <insert pontificating nonsense here>
Nice pic.

Which one's you, tarannau?

;)
 
Jazzz said:
Are you for real?

Try googling "Pakistan ISI CIA" and see what comes up.

Firstly the entire substance of the 100k wired to Atta claim is based on a single article in the Times of India, which appeared days after Sept 11th. The article quotes an unamed source in the Indian Security Service. Thats the entire substance of that claim. Now the Indian Secret Service are an organisation with an axe to grind with the ISI, and in 5 1/2 years no further evidence of this money has ever materialised nor has the explanation of to what a man about to fly a plane into a building 24 hrs later was to do with 100k

So you get an "F" for effort there Jazzz.

Ahmed as head of the ISI had several meets with the CIA every year, so claiming that this particular meeting on Sept 11th is hardly relevant.

As to the ISI and the Taliban, there's little doubt there is some link between the organisations. They sympathise with each other. But in much the same way members of the British Security Forces coluded with Loyalist Paramilitaries, this does not mean the ISI worked with the Taliban
 
Jazzz said:
Well wikipedia doesn't agree with that at all 8den, citing CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and referencing senior government and FBI sources.

Beyond that there is simply the wider point that the Pakistani ISI is in complete cahoots with the CIA and one would be a fool to think otherwise.

If you want effort put it in yourself! I can't be bothered, not with you anyway, sorry. :D
Wikipedia, thanks for that Jazzz.

Are you going to look stupid again when it turns out that 8den is right and they all took the source from the Times of India? I'm putting money on yes.

Edit: Jesus christ! You must have read it this time! :eek: You're right, there are several unconfirmed reports of the ISI giving money to Atta, all different stories but hey, beggars can't be chosers.
 
Jazzz said:
Beyond that there is simply the wider point that the Pakistani ISI is in complete cahoots with the CIA and one would be a fool to think otherwise.

I think you'd be more foolish to believe that the ISI isn't a highly factionalised organisation, incapable of effectively being in 'cahoots' with anyone. I doubt you could even make the claim that Pakistan's govt. were fully in control of the ISI, let alone suggest that the CIA could effectively dictate their policies in reality.

There are certainly some links, but you're guilty of over-egging the pudding to a huge degree.
 
Jazzz said:
Well wikipedia doesn't agree with that at all 8den, citing CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and referencing senior government and FBI sources.

Beyond that there is simply the wider point that the Pakistani ISI is in complete cahoots with the CIA and one would be a fool to think otherwise.

If you want effort put it in yourself! I can't be bothered, not with you anyway, sorry. :D

Gosh wikipedia did you say;

First, the core claim that Sheikh wired anything at all to Atta is not the proven fact that some would have you believe. Sources involved here may have their own agendas, and there is contradictory information about the evidence involved. We still tend to believe that a transfer did occur, but this is only a marginal, balance of probabilities assessment, in no way a certainty.

Second, if there was a transfer, there’s far less confirmation of the idea that Mahmoud Ahmad was involved at all than is generally accepted. Many of the sources commonly cited are simply references to the original India Times story. There are other sources, but they often present new problems of their own.

Third, the stories that do say Ahmad was behind the transfer provide no clear explanation as to how they’ve done this. You can start with “Ahmad called Sheikh frequently around the time of the transfer”, but that’s not actually proof that “Ahmad ordered Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Atta”, and definitely not the occasional interpretation that “Ahmad was the money man behind the 9/11 attacks”.

Fourth, even if we accept the “Ahmad ordered Sheikh...” claim, there’s no evidence to show that the decision to do this was made by anyone other than Mahmoud Ahmad himself. And if it’s claimed that Ahmad is more than a “rogue general” then such evidence will be necessary, especially as there are alternative accounts suggesting he was sympathetic to Islamist causes.

Fifth, attempts to suggest that “close links” between the ISI and CIA mean that the US must, or even are likely to have known what Ahmad was doing beforehand, are little more than conjecture and guesswork.

And sixth, while most discussions of Ahmad’s dismissal might leave you thinking he was the only one to leave, it seems many other hardline Islamist officers were removed at the same time. And so it’s not necessary to devise any special explanation for his departure, for example to prevent investigations into his supposed 9/11 links.

The impression we get from all this is of a story that gets considerably less reliable, as you move away from wire transfer itself.

Did Sheikh transfer money to Atta, for instance? That’s a definite possibility.

But was he ordered to do so by General Ahmad? We have Indian sources saying he did, although there’s no evidence to back that up. Confirmation elsewhere is slim.

And as there are accounts saying General Ahmad had Islamist sympathies, can we be sure that, if he did order Sheikh to send the money, that he wasn’t simply doing that for his own reasons? Well, no.

Even if this funding was the official policy of the ISI, that doesn’t automatically imply a link to the CIA. India blame the ISI for funding and organising terrorism in Kashmir, for instance, but they don’t somehow assume that the CIA must be linked to that: they recognise that the ISI is an independent organisation. The argument that “the ISI and CIA have worked together therefore the CIA will probably have known what Ahmad was doing” is a stretch, to say the least.

And even if Sheikh funded Atta, and Ahmad ordered this, and he did so as a matter of ISI policy, and the US pressured Pakistan to have Ahmad removed, that still doesn’t show they were covering up a “CIA link”. In fact it can be argued it’s just as, if not more likely to be the US quietly trying to ensure that Pakistan was more likely to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. (Quietly being a necessity, as Musharraf being publicly told what to do wouldn’t gain him much support in Pakistan).

In our view we’re a long way from any “damning link” here, then, although you should read at least the links in the above “Balance” section to make your own mind up. As you do, though, keep in mind the various links in the chain that need to be proved here, and assess for yourself how well an author covers each one.

You'll also note Jazzz mentions the Wallstreet journal, in wikipedia clearly states "The Wall Street Journal, following on a times of India story". Furthermore your FBI and government sources, aren't named or disclosed.

Oooohhh smoking gun alright.

http://911myths.com/html/confirming_the_isi-atta_link.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom