Why in the hell isn't anyone questioning that damn Atta tape?

[cynatnite]

It surfaced right after the Foley scandal broke and it's muted. It was found in 2001.

:wtf:

[Marie26]

1. Cause we all know it's fake! nt

[Avalux]

2. It's so hokey, isn't it?

No sound, but yet a transcript was provided for TV news readers to narrate. They could be saying anything. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

3. I did, I swear!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2859155&mesg_id=2859155

:hide:

[cynatnite]

7. I meant in the media...

:hug:

sorry I didn't clarify.

[babylonsister]

15. I don't want to hear about it on the news. It's another distraction w/o

any merit. The gov't has had that tape since 01 and are just releasing it now? As another poster said in the thread I referenced, perhaps to blame it on Clinton, or start up an October surprise.

[C_U_L8R]

4. He's dead Jim

W.G.A.F.F. :-)

[greyl]

5. That was mentioned in this weeks Top Ten Conservative Idiots. nt

[robinlynne]

6. who cares?

[endarkenment]

8. I called bullshit instantly.

The bullshit media system ignored me. What a coincidence, a tape of 9-11 conspirators, held by our own government suddenly surfaces just before the critical mid term election. The Bullshit Media System does not even ask anything resembling the obvious question here. Forget about 'is the tape real'? the question is 'who leaked this tape now and why'?

[butterfly77]

9. They are dead so why should it matter to us what they said ...

five years ago, the bush administration is taking care of everything and protecting us (sarcasm)isn't that some classified information.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. I personally don't think it looks like Atta

the Atta pictures we've seen surely show a much different man. Lidded eyes...almost drugged.

[schmuls]

12. I didn't think so, either. Didn't it surface somewhere that there were

in fact two Attas?

[karlrschneider]

I thought the same thing.

...

[leftchick]

13. I agree

does not look like him at all.

[cynatnite]

14. I thought I was nuts for thinking that when I first saw it...

Glad I wasn't the only one who wondered if those were the actual guys.

[VOX]

11. Which 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 the content of another Murdoch entity. Coincidence? Hardly! :grr:

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>

[warrens]

16. Why? It wasn't found in 2001, it was made about then

Not everything is a conspiracy. The world doesn't work on one and only one piece of news happening per day.

[Bluebear]

17. Becasue Foley is drowning out eveything else!

And that's fine, whatever it takes to being these assholes down.