"some would say" it's all bull , he's entertaining himself and pulling his torturer's chains;
Why KSM's Confession Rings False
By Robert Baer
TIME Magazine
Thursday 15 March 2007
It's hard to tell what the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. It certainly suggests the Administration is trying to blame KSM for al-Qaeda terrorism, leading us to believe we've caught the master terrorist and that al-Qaeda, and especially the ever-elusive bin Laden, is no longer a threat to the U.S.
( probably just a distraction from Rove to get people's mind off the US Attorney firings. I expect Rove to spread a rumor that the the US Attornyes who are talking are gay, his typical tactic. )
But there is a major flaw in that marketing strategy. On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated.
Just as importantly, there is an absence of collateral evidence that would support KSM's story. KSM claims he was "responsible for the 9/11 operation from A-Z." Yet he has omitted details that would support his role. For instance, one of the more intriguing mysteries is who recruited and vetted the fifteen Saudi hijackers, the so-called "muscle." The well-founded su ion is that Qaeda was running a cell inside the Kingdom that spotted these young men and forwarded them to al-Qaeda. KSM and al-Qaeda often appear bumbling, but they would never have accepted recruits they couldn't count on. KSM does not offer us an answer as to how this worked.
KSM has also not offered evidence of state support to al-Qaeda, though there is good evidence there was, even at a low level. KSM himself was harbored by a member of Qatar's royal family after he was indicted in the U.S. for the Bojinka plot — a plan to bomb twelve American airplanes over the Pacific. KSM and al-Qaeda also received aid from supporters in Pakistan, quite possibly from sympathizers in the Pakistani intelligence service. KSM provides no details that would suggest we are getting the full story from him.
Although he claims to have been al-Qaeda's foreign operations chief, he has offered no information about European networks. Today, dozens of investigations are going on in Great Britain surrounding the London tube bombings on July 7, 2005. Yet KSM apparently knew nothing about these networks or has not told his interrogators about them.
The fact is al-Qaeda is too smart to put all of its eggs in one basket. It has not and does not have a field commander, the role KSM has arrogated. It works on the basis of "weak links," mounting terrorist operations by bringing in people on an ad hoc basis, and immediately disbanding the group afterwards.
Until we hear more, the mystery of who KSM is and what he was responsible for is still a mystery.
--------
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
The guy is probably boasting and most likely didn't have as much involvement as he has claimed. However, who gives a ? He's obviously a fairly important player within terror cells and we have the fat bas . I don't really care if all he did was watch 9/11 on CNN, he's a ing terrorist and should be treated as such.
So if someone confesses to something after being tortured, it's always false? KTHX
People being tortured will either die or tell you what you want to hear. The VC and NVA got American POWs to confess to all KINDS of things. That's a fact. I'm surprised he didn't confess to the JFK assassination.
That's the reason most civilized countries shun torture. It's ghastly AND unreliable.
Mission Accomplished.
Again.
i'm pretty ing happy he is being "tortured." the only thing that could make me happier is if they killed him.
Isn't that the Saddam methodology? Didn't we overthrow him because he was a bad man and tortured people? At least that was the latest excuse for our invasion....
So now you're comparing Saddam's treatment of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens for having a different religion then his to the way we are treating a single terrorist that has had involvement (who knows to what level) in many terror attacks spanning the globe? That makes sense.
Had we only treated only one guy like that, your point may have made sense also.
That's also the reason civilized countries lose guerilla wars.
Sin, The British
If they want to fight guerilla warfare em.
When someone is fighting dirty you are an idiot if you fight conventionally....looks good in movies, doesn't apply in real life. Gets you wasted in real life. Our technology isn't that superior...
When they stop deliberately targeting women and children and non military targets, and fighting covertly...then I'll be against their torture.
But until then IMO, the rules of spying apply...spies get tortured, they get murdered, they disappear forever.
Get a uniform, fly a flag, and stick to military targets if they don't want to be tortured.
But of course they won't do that...because they'll lose.
So we're supposed to lose because they fight dirty?
I think that's pretty stupid logic...exspecially since they want the fight.
Last edited by whottt; 03-17-2007 at 03:52 PM.
Pigfeed
But since this thread is only about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and that is exactly what he was referring too, then yes, it does make sense.
For a mod, you sure like to change the subject of thread's a lot.
PM someone who cares.
I feel no pitty for this piece of .
Actually, no. I don't think we threw him off a building, severed any limbs or digits, raped his wife or children in front of him, or fed him through a plastics shredder so, no, I don't think we employed the Saddam "torture" model.
Second question. Yes, we did.
Actually, it isn't a new "excuse;" try reading the AUMF in Iraq.
Only boutons would advocate putting this guy on a ing shrine when he was responsible for the death of 3000 Americans.
I can always count on you to be a bigoted, dumbass little
I thought the point of the pro-torture side was that torture would get you the truth. If it's torture for torture's sake, then you have reached the level of Saddam and the terrorists.
thats a long name.
I think when he confessed to killing JFK, that was under duress.
Are you drunk, less twerp? What I wrote and what you said I wrote are totally unrelated.
Oh my God you're a huge nerd. Quick, get out your Magic the Gathering cards and use your third level Knight abilities to slay me. Oh great Nerd lord, please do not use your powers for evil, protect thy posters so that they may not have to fear being persecuted by moderators.
You're a ing dork and a chump, says so right there in your name.
Hey nerd, shouldn't you worry more about threads staying on track rather then always trying to change the subject of said threads?
Actually, there were several plots thwarted because of the actionable intelligence "tortured" from KSM.
"several plots"
Once again, Yoni is privy to secret information that even WH would love to spin and hype if it had the same info. Please forward to [email protected].
So you live in a white house now huh?
I also think that's a little of the pot calling the kettle black, if I had a nickel for everytime you or one of the other board liberals posted a bunch of info that you claim to be true without having any facts to back it up, then I'd have a load of nickels.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
