Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[Je suis Omar]

And Harper didn't order the gunning, either.

What does this even mean? Harper didn't order the attack on Parliament hill?

That attack would never have happened if Harper had had the intestinal fortitude to tell the USA to stop its terrorist actions against poor people around the globe.

Have you ever heard Harper tell the USA to end its terrorism against Cuba? And yet for the past 23 some years, Canada has voted, with the vast majority of the world, to have the rogue USA end its terrorism.

The General Assembly today adopted a resolution which for the twenty-third year in a row called for an end to the United States economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba.

Exposing an intractable demarcation of the international community, 188 Member States voted in favour and, as in previous years, the United States and Israel voted against. Three small island States Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau abstained from the vote.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11574.doc.htm

But the coward, Harper, remains silent.

Did your buddy Osama fly the planes into the building himself, ...

This, above, illustrates one of the major problems that has caused so many of these world problems. People just wallow in ignorance, the non pejorative kind, of course.

There is no proof that OBL was responsible for 9-11.

http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/

Does the USA have proof that binLaden was responsible for the 911 attacks?

Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commissions report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.

Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said he expected in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.8 But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Ladens responsibility, most of it is classified.9 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a lack of solid information.10

That same week, Bush had demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Taliban, reported CNN, refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last weeks attacks on the United States. The Bush administration, saying [t]here is already an indictment of Osama bin Laden [for the attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere], rejected the demand for evidence with regard to 9/11.11

The task of providing such evidence was taken up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who on October 4 made public a document entitled Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States. Listing clear conclusions reached by the government, it stated: Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.12

Blairs report, however, began by saying: This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. This weakness was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial.13

After the US had attacked Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said: We have asked for proof of Osamas involvement, but they have refused. Why?14 The answer to this question may be suggested by the fact that, to this day, the FBIs Most Wanted Terrorist webpage on bin Laden, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11.15

When the FBIs chief of investigative publicity was asked why not, he replied: The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.16

It is often claimed that bin Ladens guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to report having planned the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this confession video, have called it a fake.17 General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistans ISI, said: I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike.18 Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand.19 The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Ladens responsibility for 9/11.

What about the 9/11 Commission? I mentioned earlier that it gave the impression of having had solid evidence of bin Ladens guilt. But Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Commissions co-chairs, undermined this impression in their follow-up book subtitled the inside story of the 9/11 Commission.20

Whenever the Commission had cited evidence for bin Ladins responsibility, the note in the back of the book always referred to CIA-provided information that had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), described as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:

Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Attawhom Bin Ladin chose to lead the groupmet with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.21

The note for each of these statements says interrogation of KSM.22

Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.23 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, they were not permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or even to talk to the interrogators.24 Therefore, they complained: We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?25

An NBC deep background report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report, this NBC report pointed out, have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being tortured.' NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect.26

Accordingly, neither the White House, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission has provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

There is no proof that OBL was responsible for 9-11.

There is, however, incontrovertible proof that explosives were used in WTC 1, 2 & 7.

And the highly gullible people/sheeple just keep on ruminating.

[Scotty]

There is, however, incontrovertible proof that explosives were used in WTC 1, 2 & 7.

That's a flat out lie.

[Je suis Omar]

That's a flat out lie.

Where have you been lurking, Scotty? No, I'm afraid it's the truth. Many people are just deathly afraid to look at the evidence.

See,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24372-why-are-so-few-willing-to-discuss-the-science/page-40#entry1055887

[Michael Hardner]

There is, however, incontrovertible proof that explosives were used in WTC 1, 2 & 7.

I don't think you should be able to say that until a solid weight of posters here agree with you. The thread on that died with you not convincing anybody.

[eyeball]

I'd go a lot farther and say the weight of a vast VAST majority of scientists and scientific institutions, not posters - in some cases even the weight of that isn't enough to convince.

[Je suis Omar]

I don't think you should be able to say that until a solid weight of posters here agree with you. The thread on that died with you not convincing anybody.

That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard, Michael. How can you even consider advancing such a preposterous notion? You are pulling everyone's leg, are you not?

There never was anybody who could be convinced by the science because the anybodies who showed up did everything they could to avoid a discussion of science.

Cue OGFT, ..., TimG, ..., BlackDog, ..., Derek, ..., ..., ..., and finally Scotty.

In addition to studiously avoiding the science, these same folks engaged in the same fear tactics used in society at large, ie. scare people into thinking that there's something wrong/evil/sinister/... about discussing 911.

And this, in societies that aren't totalitarian, that purport to welcome free and open discussion.

Do you know anybody like that, Michael?

[bush_cheney2004]

Off topic...please worship America in the appropriate thread.

[Je suis Omar]

I'd go a lot farther and say the weight of a vast VAST majority of scientists and scientific institutions, not posters - in some cases even the weight of that isn't enough to convince.

Oops, I forgot to mention one of the "science" guys.

A paraphrase: You believe the official story, Eyeball, because you don't know the official story.

[cybercoma]

It sounds like they do want to know though. At least 'Big Guy' does. Why not let this out, is my question ?

Because his family doesn't need to be exposed to public broadcasts over and over again of their son's body riddled with bullets bleeding to death on the floor of Parliament?

[Michael Hardner]

That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard, Michael. How can you even consider advancing such a preposterous notion? You are pulling everyone's leg, are you not?

There never was anybody who could be convinced by the science because the anybodies who showed up did everything they could to avoid a discussion of science.

That's really beside the point, and as far off the thread as I'm willing to drift. That discussion ended, and anybody interested in why can go there to see it.

The point here is that you're posting things about undisputed proof, when there are many that dispute it.

[Michael Hardner]

Because his family doesn't need to be exposed to public broadcasts over and over again of their son's body riddled with bullets bleeding to death on the floor of Parliament?

That's a good reason. I think there may be a way to respect his family's wishes and still engender some kinds of debate. I don't think everybody will be satisfied with the answers. There is always what are called 'tinfoil hat types', whom I don' trust to be honest in their enquiries. But I think a reasonable dialogue will answer the questions of most citizens.

[cybercoma]

That's a good reason. I think there may be a way to respect his family's wishes and still engender some kinds of debate. I don't think everybody will be satisfied with the answers. There is always what are called 'tinfoil hat types', whom I don' trust to be honest in their enquiries. But I think a reasonable dialogue will answer the questions of most citizens.

I'm not sure about all of that, but I think the reason they don't release the video to the public is that it would unduly traumatize the gunman's family who are innocent in all of this.

[cybercoma]

And I know some people are going to say, "Well just don't watch." But that means they would have to avoid the news and all of the media. First, it's practically impossible. But more importantly, they would have to see it, realize what it is, then change the station or surf away from the website. They have to process it before being able to react to it. It's just not fair to them, especially not to satisfy the bloodlust of extreme rightwing conservatives.

[Je suis Omar]

MOVED TO,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24372-why-are-so-few-willing-to-discuss-the-science/page-40#entry1056690

Edited May 24, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Because his family doesn't need to be exposed to public broadcasts over and over again of their son's body riddled with bullets bleeding to death on the floor of Parliament?

I don't find that a compelling argument at all, Cyber. Families are exposed to these things all the time in the murder, rape, ... cases that go on daily.

What was sickening was the gross propaganda, using the bodies and families of that tragedy to whip up support for Harper and his bunch.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Scotty]

Where have you been lurking, Scotty? No, I'm afraid it's the truth. Many people are just deathly afraid to look at the evidence.

Everyone has already looked at the evidence and overwhelmingly they have decided that the WTC was destroyed by aircraft not by controlled devices. As far as I'm aware no one of any stature or reputation believes otherwise. And most of those who do seem to believe in this theory, if you look at them, turn out to have more than a few screws loose.

[Je suis Omar]

Scotty, my reply to your post, quoted below, can be found at,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24372-why-are-so-few-willing-to-discuss-the-science/page-41#entry1056780

Everyone has already looked at the evidence and overwhelmingly they have decided that the WTC was destroyed by aircraft not by controlled devices. As far as I'm aware no one of any stature or reputation believes otherwise. And most of those who do seem to believe in this theory, if you look at them, turn out to have more than a few screws loose.

[Je suis Omar]

Scotty, my reply to your post, quoted below, can be found at,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24372-why-are-so-few-willing-to-discuss-the-science/page-41#entry1056780

Helllllloooooo, Scotty, calling Scotty!!!

[Civis Romanus sum]

What was sickening was the gross propaganda, using the bodies and families of that tragedy to whip up support for Harper and his bunch.

None of which happened.

[Big Guy]

The RCMP has decided to release 18 seconds of a video that the shooter had made during the assault. It is still sitting on a video coverage of what happened in the commons - who shot who, who said what, etc. It has just recently been revealed that an OPP officer "emptied his gun" at the (dead or wounded or armed or disarmed or giving up or trying to kill again or ???) shooter.

If there is no security issue then why is this video being withheld?

Every day we see video of people being shot, killed, maimed etc. How is this takedown so different?

I do not trust this government or the RCMP to make decisions on what we should or should not be privy to. Video is the most honest, objective and revealing method of describing a shooting. If it is being suppressed than there is a reason - a reason our government and RCMP choose to not share with us.

Something smells bad here.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Big Guy

[Civis Romanus sum]

The RCMP has decided to release 18 seconds of a video that the shooter had made during the assault. It is still sitting on a video coverage of what happened in the commons - who shot who, who said what, etc. It has just recently been revealed that an OPP officer "emptied his gun" at the (dead or wounded or armed or disarmed or giving up or trying to kill again or ???) shooter.

If there is no security issue then why is this video being withheld?

Because it would be indecent, and no western government ever releases such video. What is it you want to see, his head exploding into pieces and blood splashing all over the floor?

Every day we see video of people being shot, killed, maimed etc.

I don't know what the hell you're looking at but I certainly don't see that every day, nor do I want to.

I understand, however, that there are places on the internet that cater to your particular fetish. I suggest you go visit them.

I do not trust this government or the RCMP to make decisions on what we should or should not be privy to. Video is the most honest, objective and revealing method of describing a shooting. If it is being suppressed than there is a reason - a reason our government and RCMP choose to not share with us.

Another nutty conspiracy theory! This place is full of kooks!

[poochy]

Another nutty conspiracy theory! This place is full of kooks!

Careful, your freedom to point out the obvious may not be equal to other freedoms, such as just making shit up.

[PIK]

Nothing smells bad, is that the best you can do. Showing videos of a shoot out on PH ,is stupid except for the police. We the public do not need to see it. So really lets not try and start another harper conspiracy here, enough is enough.

[Big Guy]

I assumed that in a free country I would be the one making a decision as to what I can see and what I cannot. Those who are prepared to leave that decision to others then good for them. What you think is indecent I may find informative. If we never see it then how would we know? Please do not apply your sensibilities to me and I will not impose mine on you. If you trust your government, bureaucrats and RCMP to decide for you what information you SHOULD see, information that is readily available, then you must be pleased with the current approach. I am not.

No one (I certainly) is implying some kind of conspiracy by Harper or anybody else. When some bureaucrat tells me I cannot get information on this or that or if I cannot see this or that then I small a rat. That is why we have a Freedom of Information Act. Just what national security issue is in danger here?