Talk:Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This information comes from the 911 Commission Report.I believe it when it says this Saudi is being held somewhere by the US at an undisclosed location. This means the information was just relayed to the Commission by US intelligence. There is no way to check it. When suspected terrorists are held at undisclosed locations it is a fairly reliable assumption that they are being tortured. So even if al-Nashiri did admit these things, they were said while being tortured which is unreliable at best. For instance, the statement that bin Laden financed the USS Cole Bombing is what the US wanted to hear.
There was another al-Qaeda 'mastermind'(there are so many) associated with the USS Cole bombing. After 911 and the invasion of Afghanistan I read of a Predator unmanned airplane which fired a Hellfire missile destroying a car carrying 6 people in a desert of Yemen. 3 of them were claimed to be in the top 25 of the Al-Aqaeda organiztion. How does anybody know if it was actually terrorists in the car? I make mistakes. I have been falsely arrested. Kurt Nimmo in Counterpunch says Kamal Derwish, a US citizen, was killed in Yemen by a CIA-launched Hellfire missile for the crime of riding in a car with Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi. Al-Harethi supposedly was the "mastermind" behind the alleged al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Who was the judge, jury, and executioner who knew for sure who was in the car and they were guilty? Who were the other 3, assuming there were 3 from the top 25 of al-Qaeda? What crime did they commit that deserved death as the penalty? I was in the right place, must of been the wrong time... Dr John
Gepay
Per your comment "This information comes from the 911 Commission Report ... This means the information was just relayed to the Commission by US intelligence. There is no way to check it."
If there's no way to check the information, how do you know it's false? You state that there's no way to check these facts, yet you somehow already know they are inaccurate, fabricated, etc. If you can't subsantiate that the information is indeed accurate, then you can't make the assertion that it is indeed inaccurate.
Second, It appears your assertion is tied to a preconception of US intel. You assume because they have erred in the past, they will always err and so, therefore, are not to be trusted. Yet, you admit you "make mistakes." Am I to assume that because you make mistakes you always make mistakes and so I shouldn't put any stock in your comments? The premise upon which your case is built is internally inconsistent and therefore not worthy of belief. You'll have to do better if you want clear thinkers to buy into your theory.
Chad
