And Loyd Jowers has been dead since 1998. Kinda easy to win a case against a dead man and "unknown co-conspirators".
Thanks. Frankly I'm not terribly surprised, as there are four or five thousand Saudi princes and princesses. Any time you get a group of that many rich Arab Muslims, some will be supporters of Islamic terror. One of their private jets was a frequent visitor to the training camp that Clinton bombed. As to the cover up, the Bush family have long been tight with the Saudi royal family, and Saudi Arabia is supposedly one of our best allies in the region - although except for granting basing rights and money when we're defending them from a threat, the relationship seems to be pretty darned one-sided. Admittedly, Bush could go to them and get a small production increase to drop oil prices, but they were usually instrumental in driving up the prices in the first place.I think the cliffs are sufficient enough unless you are into details. The devil is in the details so they say. Personally the fact that there is a money trail leading to Saudi princes and our government purposefully redacts that information, encourages courts to not hear arguments based on this tells me theres something fishy going on. Why are we not following logic here? IIRC 19 of the hijackers were Saudi? Several Saudi people were confirmed to be in contact with al Qaeda recruits immediately after visiting the Saudi Embassy. To have followed them through their training and whereabouts before 9/11 and absolutely ignore the issue? You be the judge.
You mean this guy?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6xAhydcbQg
June 28 2001 radio broadcast. Radio host questions how easy it was for news anchors to gain access to bin laden when he was wanted by the cia and others. Predicts major 9-11 type of event that will be blamed on bin laden.
It seems that he was later killed as well.
What is done in a civil case for proof is less than a crimminal case.
See OJ for instance.
All it takes is a good emotional push to win.
What one claims to be does not constitute proof. It is a theory of a person; not facts.
Government involvment in observing does not mean government involment in the actual deed w/ respect to King.
Thanks. Frankly I'm not terribly surprised, as there are four or five thousand Saudi princes and princesses. Any time you get a group of that many rich Arab Muslims, some will be supporters of Islamic terror. One of their private jets was a frequent visitor to the training camp that Clinton bombed. As to the cover up, the Bush family have long been tight with the Saudi royal family, and Saudi Arabia is supposedly one of our best allies in the region - although except for granting basing rights and money when we're defending them from a threat, the relationship seems to be pretty darned one-sided. Admittedly, Bush could go to them and get a small production increase to drop oil prices, but they were usually instrumental in driving up the prices in the first place.
According to wiki, there are over 7,000 Saudi princes and princesses at the moment, most busy intermarrying and creating more little princes and princesses. There are a couple hundred in the line of succession, and perhaps a dozen to a score that can really be considered as part of the Saudi government at a policy-making level. As to a conspiracy, I don't think it's so much a conspiracy as it is business as usual. We consider those princes funding such people more as part of al Qaeda than as part of Saudi Arabia.Wasn't aware there were that many princes in Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
It seems you would agree there is a conspiracy here. One that deserves an in depth non-biased investigation. However I don't see anyone up in arms about it. Biggest terrorist attack in US history which changed us fundamentally from foreign policy to domestic policy. Homeland Security to NSA, pre-emptive war to unjustified invasions, Patriot act to retroactive immunity, suspension of habeas corpus to Guantanamo bay and then, theres also that thing called torture. An event that makes this many sweeping changes, points to the direct financial involvement from one of our "allies" and we look the other way? The old saying "With friends like these who needs enemies" cannot be emphasized enough.
They won a verdict in a civil trial against a guy named Loyd Jowers and "unknown co-conspirators". It doesn't surprise me a bit that a truther would try to inflate this into "victorious against the us government for conspiracy". You conspiracy idiots really boggle the mind.
The Truth About Memphis
And Loyd Jowers has been dead since 1998. Kinda easy to win a case against a dead man and "unknown co-conspirators".
OUCH!:thumbsdown:
This post is not an opinion on who killed MLK, it's a correction of your errors.
The proof for a civil case is generally a "preponderance of the evidence", over 50%. It's not an "emotional push". That's not what it takes.
You undermine your own point with OJ; while he fits the issue of not convicted criminally but found liable civilly, he was guilty, which undermines your point.
Your statement about 'it is a theory of a person; not facts' is gobbledygook having nothing to do with the issue; that's not a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
I haven't followed that case closely so don't know what you are referring to 'observing'.
What helps is looking at the evidence; your post doesn't do that.
According to wiki, there are over 7,000 Saudi princes and princesses at the moment, most busy intermarrying and creating more little princes and princesses. There are a couple hundred in the line of succession, and perhaps a dozen to a score that can really be considered as part of the Saudi government at a policy-making level. As to a conspiracy, I don't think it's so much a conspiracy as it is business as usual. We consider those princes funding such people more as part of al Qaeda than as part of Saudi Arabia.
As far as friends go, I think everyone knows that the House of Saud is our friend for exactly as long as it serves their own purposes. They are advocates of salafi; Islam must rule everyone, and they pursue this to one degree or another. (Or at least to the extent that it does not affect their own material comfort.) That's not necessarily such a bad thing; every nation's allegiances are bound by its own perceived interests, and every nation should be loyal first to its own people.
Good points.You have all stripes in Royal Family. Some party like rock stars in Monaco banging two at time, some are fundis. Same goes for all Muslims, it's the "tiny minority of extremists" you gotta worry about and they are the ones funding and executing what you describe. King Faisal, a modernizer, was killed by his own fundi nephew for example.
On balance we get a good deal with Al Saud. They buy our stuff and services and we get oil, on demand, and they cheat when we ask. For that we protect them from much more powerful forces around them.
They have been modernizing tremendously since we have been friends, causing great conflict with the other major power broker, Mutawwa'în, who would take over if Al Saud were deposed. If they left it would be 100x worse. More fundamentalist, more cost for oil, no lucrative trade. That's why our support is so unwavering.
BTW there is actually about 25,000 royals wiki is wrong.
don't expect a response from common courtesy.
there's no proof or evidence ray was the shooter anyhow. basic science and ballistics ftw.
http://articles.cnn.com/1997-07-11/...es-earl-ray-rifle-judge-joseph-brown?_s=PM:US
According to wiki, there are over 7,000 Saudi princes and princesses at the moment, most busy intermarrying and creating more little princes and princesses. There are a couple hundred in the line of succession, and perhaps a dozen to a score that can really be considered as part of the Saudi government at a policy-making level. As to a conspiracy, I don't think it's so much a conspiracy as it is business as usual. We consider those princes funding such people more as part of al Qaeda than as part of Saudi Arabia.
As far as friends go, I think everyone knows that the House of Saud is our friend for exactly as long as it serves their own purposes. They are advocates of salafi; Islam must rule everyone, and they pursue this to one degree or another. (Or at least to the extent that it does not affect their own material comfort.) That's not necessarily such a bad thing; every nation's allegiances are bound by its own perceived interests, and every nation should be loyal first to its own people.
You have all stripes in Royal Family. Some party like rock stars in Monaco banging two at time, some are fundis. Same goes for all Muslims, it's the "tiny minority of extremists" you gotta worry about and they are the ones funding and executing what you describe. King Faisal, a modernizer, was killed by his own fundi nephew for example.
On balance we get a good deal with Al Saud. They buy our stuff and services and we get oil, on demand, and they cheat when we ask. For that we protect them from much more powerful forces around them.
They have been modernizing tremendously since we have been friends, causing great conflict with the other major power broker, Mutawwa'în, who would take over if Al Saud were deposed. If they left it would be 100x worse. More fundamentalist, more cost for oil, no lucrative trade. That's why our support is so unwavering.
BTW there is actually about 25,000 royals wiki is wrong.
I think the point is more that the Saudi Royal Family is not a homogeneous polity; the ruling parts of it are reasonably good allies, as bounded by their own interests. The other parts are already being investigated, as part of al Qaeda.Without rehashing what I've already stated, the feeling I get from you guys is " ho hum its the price we pay for cheap oil". Am I correct?
LoL what? you two liars can't even get the simplest facts straight. jowers died in 2000, after the trial, and was claiming he was the shooter to dexter king, MLK's son. LoL @ you fail liars.
OUCH! :thumbsup:
Ok, he died 11 years ago, not 13. Blame the NY Times for that one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/23/u...claimed-a-role-in-the-killing-of-dr-king.html
You are not worth talking to fool. You continue to dodge my question.
Where is even one person from the thousand+ involved in the 9/11 conspiracy you believe in?
Interesting find :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwrYveeF1Y
Posting disclaimer : I am simply reposting because I find it interesting. I have not posted any kind of conspiracy theories I personally believe in or endorse. If you intend to quote post this or any other of my posts, please read my entire post and make sure you comprehend all words and context before replying.
Just go away. You rely on half baked theories but fail to grasp the simple concept of how many people would have had to be involved to pull off faking 9/11 and the fact that not a single one of them has come forward or one single recruitment document or email has ever been found.
Interesting find :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwrYveeF1Y
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/02-06.pdf
Posting disclaimer : I am simply reposting because I find it interesting. I have not posted any kind of conspiracy theories I personally believe in or endorse. If you intend to quote post this or any other of my posts, please read my entire post and make sure you comprehend all words and context before replying.
Thanks for proving my point about people not reading posts when replying.
At no time have I declared belief in any stated conspiracy, or anything.
I simply find interest in historical anomalies. If this was the 1950's and we had no access to information, it would be all good and well to ask no questions and just move along.
JFK for example, I'm sure in that time people didn't over react to the magic bullet being found completely intact on a stretcher in the hospital. People today are smart enough to second guess such improbable bs.