OBL Had "Intimate Relations" With Elements Of U.S. Up Until 9/11

To read about it, please go here.

Slim Pickings

Listening to Sibel Edmonds is a bit like going to hear the preacher in church: you gotta have blind faith.

Oh, I don't think so...

Given the fact that the FBI's very own Inspector General found that "the F.B.I. has failed to aggressively investigate accusations of espionage against a translator at the bureau and fired the translator's co-worker in large part for bringing the accusations," that Bush's DOJ invoked the "States Secrets Privilege" to shut her up, that she tesified before the 9/11 Commission for 3 1/2 hours, and received a footnote in the back of the book, that other people have corroborated some of what she is saying, that at one time Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley said she was credible, and that Dennis Hastert is now lobbying for Turkey. I don't think it's "blind faith" at all. If I didn't know any better, I would think that they were trying to cover-up what she knows.

I have every reason in the world to believe what she is saying. Unlike her detractors.

The fact that the controlled media in this country REFUSES to cover this news should speak VOLUMES about how credible she is.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Criterion of Credibility

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that the criterion of the credibility of an individual now lies in the extent to which that individual is being ignored, silenced, or given short shrift, and not in the sui generis merit of that person's claims.

On that account, many individuals holding unverifiable beliefs and making unreasonable claims would have to be credible. Given this consequence, I cannot countenance this sort of argument.

As of now, I remain totally unconvinced by Sibel Edmonds. In fact, I wonder why she bothers at all.

The issue of Al Qaeda - US interaction

..has been investigated by many others. Michel Chossudovsky for example. Sibel Edmunds is hardly the first to mention it, and she probably won't be the last.

Why should it be a surprise if Al Qaeda's main tactical officer, Ali Mohamed, was a triple agent who is now in protective custody?

I agree that the amount of obstruction by the government is not a good way to measure reliability. However, she is a former FBI employee and her story is corroborated by 9/11 researchers. It's not a topic that I spend an extraordinary amount of time on, but the issue of Ali Mohamed is so undeniable that not even wiCIApedia censored it. Look it up.

Now, does this relationship extend all the way up to Bin Laden? Who knows. I have no reason to discard this information out-of-hand.

Um... what?

So Leahy, Grassley, and the corroborating individuals don't matter? "being ignored, silenced, or given short shrift" is usually an indication that someone is trying to hide something. Especially when you take into account the lengths they went to silence her. I wonder why you are bothering at all.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Jon, How about a Mineta promo clip

for promoting NYC CAN....with Norman Mineta that is similar to this one with Sibel? These two individuals are prime examples of key eyewitnesses who were interviewed yet ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Let's promote them.... BIG TIME. I like the way you did this. Same ending style, "Mineta is just ONE example, etc." Good job.

The Club

I can see from the negative evaluations I am receiving that the authorities around here are not very happy with me.

I regret having inconvenienced you.

No, it just looks like

No, it just looks like you're being willfully ignorant. If you were going to be skeptical of anything 9/11 Truth related, Sibel should be one of the last on the list.

Justin A. Martell
www.formyourown.org
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

Yup...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

9/11 Truth, Love It or Leave It!

Why not write up and publish a little Catechism for Willful Ignorants, where all the articles of faith and heretic beliefs regarding the idol known as 9/11 Truth will be listed and numbered, for convenient future reference, and scolding and rewarding in this blog?

Am I to understand...

You don't believe seeking truth, accountability, and justice for the 9/11 attacks is an important cause since you referred to it as "the idol known as 9/11 Truth," trying to infer that this is some kind of church or cult?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Understand what you wish

I deem rational discussion with you and the other members of your church to be impossible.

Ok...

Remembering now that you didn't give me any legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't trust Sibel. Just that "you gotta have blind faith" to believe her, that you are "totally unconvinced by Sibel Edmonds," and questioned "why she bothers at all."

Those aren't rational disagreements. It's more like you are trying to convince us to have "blind faith" that our Government wouldn't lie, and that everything she has said, and everything that has been done to her is a figment of our imagination.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

A Few Words of Precision

For the sake of my own position, I will expand somewhat on my last two comments.

When I use the phrase 'your church', I mean a certain, rather small, constituency among the world-wide mass of people who are seeking a rational and publicly inspectable elucidation of the events of September 11, 2001 and their broader historical context. To give a few very visible examples, I consider Richard Gage, Dr. Steven Jones, and Dr. David Griffin to be models of rational speech, style of presentation, and attitude towards others (even though I do not agree with everything that Dr. Griffin has writen about 9/11). They have internalized the lessons of the Enlightenment. As such, they do not, qua inquirers into 9/11, belong to what I have described as a church. Naturally, there are many other people in that category; in fact, the majority seem to be.

There are differences among the people who are seeking to understand the events of 9/11, and people who exhibit quasi-religious attitudes in this forum and are bent on disciplining those who disagree with them by means of negative votes, have unfortunately not yet grasped that very simple truth.

In fact, disagreement and even polemics are necessary to the health of this movement, provided they remain civil (unfortunately, again, not always the case in this forum), as they help to sort out and assess the reasonable beliefs or hypotheses formulated about the matter at hand from all that is not reasonable and sober-minded..

As for your reiterations of some of my comments about Sibel Edmonds, you are turning in a circle, but that is your prerogative and your responsibility.

Gotcha...

CD or bust.

Edit: It seems like the individual you think we shouldn't trust, and should ignore has struck a nerve.

Edit: Does this bring any credibility to her in your eyes?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Cancellation

I have sent a request for cancellation of my membership in this community to the person in charge.

There are other forums that seem to be better suited to what I believe are proper criteria of evidence and logic.

This should be my last message.

Take...

Care...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Amen

The Church has spoken.