Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Those 'martyrdom' videos, w/o audio w/Atta in them. The US gov't

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:09 AM
Original message
Those 'martyrdom' videos, w/o audio w/Atta in them. The US gov't
found 'em in 2001. Why are they just being released now?
Does no one wonder about this?
And a treasure trove of info :wtf: when there's not even audio?
I'm not getting the significance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. There is no audio because...
It would show that the two guys were NOT really who the government claims they were, and that they were laughing over the Sunday funnies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think
that the video AND the Foley thing are meant to distract from the Congress abandoning our constitution and declaring the US a military state.

The Foley thing could have come out at any time, as well.

As far as the video - Isn't this a Great :sarcasm: headline -> Hijackers smile and joke in 2000 video footage ?

It puts the "evil" focus on the "hijackers" instead of Bush & Co. What terrible people they must have been for smiling and joking, right?

Of course Bush & Co can write laws saying the Military has full control over whether they hold anyone accountable for raping people in the so-called process of interrogations. Also - they can laugh and joke all they want. They can laugh and joke about Iraq and all of the death and mayhem. Bush joked about the lost "weapons of mass destruction" and (some) people thought it was hilarious.

The new video is just nonsense - another smokescreen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Another smokescreen - that's it! I wish the media whores wouldn't
put so much emphasis on this nothing story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Because they were supposedly from 18 months before the attacks...
Who was president then? It's an attempt at saying "Hey, if Clinton had stopped this we wouldn't be living in a post 9/11 world."

It's a joke. A ridiculous joke that further makes us look like fools to the rest of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I missed Clinton's complicity. //Smacks head\\ I should have
realized. But it is a joke considering they've had this for 5 years, and suddenly they're rolling it out.
Is it just me, or do their attempts at terra spin seem weaker and weaker lately? Their lying must be pooping them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Much weaker... as more become immune to it.
As so many more realize how they have been had. The liquids on airplanes ban and then reinstatement was the silliest yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. It is amazing how little information there is on it
I am especially curious what Jarrah's family says - they had been insisting that Ziad Jarrah could not have been one of the terrorists and denied it was his voice on the Flight 93 recorder - does this convince them or do they say it's not him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. This was to be the opening salvo of Rover's "October Surprise"
Their whole spleef was to be to paint the dems as weak on security and to establish a line from the "Path to 9-11" and its false assertions about Clinton-which, even proven false, would be endlessly repeated by the goons and idiots--to the present day democratic candidates.

The Denial book and Foley's Follies have pretty well jumbled that argument, although I am sure they will still attempt to pull it off. Teeth gritting determination is a particularly strong point of Cheney's.

Step back a moment and the whole sorry scenario comes into focus. Ten weeks of Rove's Ridiculous riot could have hammered democratic hopes pretty well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. This story appeared in the London Sunday Times, a Rupert Murdoch paper...
So, Fox News in the U.S. reports on a Times (UK) exclusive -- thus, a Murdoch entity "reporting" on content in another Murdoch entity. Talk about wall-to-wall right-wing coverage!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2086,00.html
"The laughing 9/11 bombers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_ (UK)
<snip>
Rupert Murdoch's News International acquired the Times titles in 1981, but the Conservative government never referred the purchase to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, mainly because the previous owners, The Thomson Corporation, had threatened to close the papers down if they were not taken over by someone else within an allotted time, and it was feared that any legal delay to Murdoch's takeover might lead to the two titles' demise. This was despite the fact that the takeover gave Murdoch the control of four national newspapers; The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World. News Corp also owns the Fox Network. News International is the majority shareholder of BSkyB and James Murdoch is CEO.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC