Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

William Cooper, national militia movement leader, killed in shootout with law officers
Arizona Republic/AP ^ | 11/6/01 | Mighty Mouse

Posted on 11/06/2001 9:00:49 PM PST by Mighty Mouse

Edited on 05/07/2004 5:20:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

EAGAR - A national leader of the militia movement has been killed and an Apache County sheriff's deputy wounded in a shootout, authorities said.

William Milton Cooper, 58, of Eager, had hosted a talk show broadcast on the Worldwide Christian Radio out of Nashville, which receives it via phone from his home in St. Johns. He had millions of listeners worldwide, including Timothy McVeigh.


(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: williamcooper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last
Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: DrLiberty
Here's a little something Bill Cooper wrote just a few weeks ago:

Who Benefits? - The question no one dares to ask!

by William Cooper, Veritas News Service - Exclusive
September 15, 2001

Who benefits from the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks? I can tell you that no Arab nation benefits. I can tell you that no Muslim benefits. So why would any of them mount an attack that even the most stupid idiot fanatic in the world would understand to be the instrument of the absolute condemnation and alienation of his cause by all humanity?

Like most Americans I looked to the Arab world for the source of the attack, Not because it was the most obvious solution, but because I have been programed by the media to look only in that direction. I did not look elswhere until stories appeared that set alarm bells ringing. Are we being deceived and manipulated? Who benefits from these attacks?

Questions that remain unanswered from the first World Trade Center Attack.

1. Who is Josie Hadas?

2. Where is Josie Hadas?

3. What was the cargo that Josie Hadas hired Mohammad Salameh to move?

4. Why have the police and the media not explicitly reported that bomb related wiring, instruction sheets and traces of explosives were found in the apartment of Josie Hadas and not in the apartment of Mohammad Salameh?

5. Why did Mohammad Salameh go to the police station twice to make a report of the theft of the van if he was a terrorist?

6. Why did Mohammad Salameh go to the Ryder van rental agency twice to collect a paltry $400.00 if he was a terrorist? Why did he rent the van in his own name if the use was to be a bombing?

7. Why did Mohammad Salameh not run away or try to hide if he was guilty?

8. Why was Mohammad Salameh's link to a given mosque so important while other criminals, such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Oliver North, Mike Milken, and most others were never linked to their religious affiliation or the church they attended.

9. What was the real role of the FBI in the bombing?

10. What was the role of the CIA in the lives of those accused?

Points to ponder about the second World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

1. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said, "There is such a taboo on suicide in Islam, it is completely prohibited in Islam, that we find it inconceivable that somebody would invoke the name of God and then commit some act that is totally opposed to the faith."

2. The video of Palistinians in the streets celebrating news of the attacks was made at around noon according to visible shadows. At the time the video was shot it had to have been near or after sunset in that part of the world. Therefore the video could not have been shot on the day or at the time claimed.

3. Devout Muslims who would be willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause do not frequent bars and do not ever drink alchoholic beverages.

4. A devout Muslim would not take a copy of his holy book the Quran to a bar and leave it behind when he left after spending an evening drinking, participating in lapdances, and bragging about pending bloodshed to take place the following day. Who is so stupid that they would believe this?

5. Men who have been so careful during 5 years of planning, training, and careful preparations that never allowed even one leak do not brag the night before their mission that they are going to cause violence and bloodshed the following day, using credit cards with their correct names, allowing drivers licenses with photos to be xeroxed, nor do they spread incriminating evidence around like popcorn.

6. A devout Muslim on the way to his death would not leave his holy Quran in a parked car. He would take it with him.

7. According to news accounts the perpetrators planned the attack as long ago as 5 years, trained to carry out the attack, pulled it off without a hitch, and no information regarding the attack was ever leaked to anyone.

8. Reference #7. Now someone wants us to believe that these were a bunch of drunken fools who shot pistols in their homes, braggarts, who spoke of impending violence and bloodshed to everyone they met and left incriminating evidence everywhere. We are supposed to believe that by some incredible miracle they escaped the notice of every law enforcement and intelligence agency in the entire world. Now read #7 again.

9. Why did the hi-jackers force passengers to call relatives?

10. They were able to hi-jack 4 large commercial jets full of passengers without any problem.

11. They were able to deviate from the flight plan and crash into their targets without any effort from law enforcement or the military to stop them.

12. The simultaneous hi-jackings of 4 large commercial jet aircraft did not alert anyone to the possibility of the impending attacks.

13. Despite the evidence of wreckage strewn over several miles in Pennsylvania and the testimony of eye witnesses the government still denies that Flt-93 was shot down by an F-16 fighter aircraft that was identified as having flown for many miles alongside and behind the hi-jacked plane. Reference the links to the CNN Transcript and the link F-16 Fighter below:

14. Within an hour of the attacks the FBI knew the names, addresses, flight schools they had attended, the aquaintences of the suspects, and had begun a nationwide roundup... yet they cannot find Chandra Levy nor can they say what happened to Jon Benet Ramsey. Pretty strange don't you think?

So who benefits? The answer is obvious and very disturbing. Everyone in the oil business will benefit, especially the Bush family and their business partners. Everyone in the defense industrial complex will benefit. The United Nations will benefit. The State of Israel will benefit bigtime. Tyranny in the name of security will benefit and rule over the American People.

And don’t be surprised if many Patriots and politically incorrect Americans begin to disappear overnight like the Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany.

And Bill Cooper has now "disappeared overnight," hasn't he?

{{{{{SHUDDER}}}}}

83 posted on 11/07/2001 12:28:55 AM PST by slym
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: Zadokite
A BUMP for the truth, if anyone out there cares...
85 posted on 11/07/2001 1:51:15 AM PST by slym
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Daughter
I was just thinking that in the last few months I know of 4 people who have died while the police are trying to serve some type of warrant. The 2 guys at the campground, Beck, now this.

All of them known to police to be armed. All of them had a problem with the way the government works. All of them out spoken about government abuse and unlawfull practices, All of them are now dead. All of them killed on their own property.

This is just the 4 I know about. There is something very wrong here.

86 posted on 11/07/2001 3:29:06 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Mouse
The fact that so many here jumped on an agenda instead of finding out the facts is telling. The jerk in question pulled a gun on his neighbor.
87 posted on 11/07/2001 3:35:48 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita
"Seems to be the only way to get rid of people who can't or won't afford government demands for payment of hard earned dollars, for services that some feel they neither want nor need. Of course there are two sides to every story, but I can guarantee we won't be hearing Mr Cooper's side."

Why do you believe you have to 'get rid' of people who disagree with you? Your post reads as though the event was staged by a Wiccan hit squad in which you participated.

88 posted on 11/07/2001 4:23:13 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Mouse
I generally regarded the Oklahoma City bombing and McVeigh to be an independent event.

With this article attempting to link Cooper with McVeigh as Cooper's most notable achievement now lends more credance to Cooper's bizarre conspiracy theories. Why would any pressman not report on Cooper's mother of all conspiracy theories relating US government ties to an underworld and extensive writings which sprang birth to the X-Files as much as Gene Rodenberry gave life to Star Trek? Instead their linkage is that McVeigh read Cooper's writings?

With Gene Rodenberry's demise, will his obituary read that the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh watched his TV shows and read some of his stories?

89 posted on 11/07/2001 4:41:06 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Mouse
Do as the government says or else!!!
90 posted on 11/07/2001 5:18:49 AM PST by mbb bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"America is founded on the RULE OF LAW"

And that Law is the CONSTITUTION. And most of the laws on the books are unconstitutional.

GET IT???

91 posted on 11/07/2001 5:32:59 AM PST by tberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
There are a particular group of statist religious fanatics who regularly use that quote out of context. I dont even generally bother to argue it with them any more. Their holy man told them what it said and that was good enough, dont bother actually reading that book.

Then there is the issue of "Ceasar". Generally they dont understand who Ceasar is in our form of government and no amount of remedial history will change their viewpoint. They have voluntarily become serfs in the cult of authoritarian Republicanism and like it.

92 posted on 11/07/2001 5:42:52 AM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Gee, you think after Waco and Ruby Ridge, law enforcement might have a clue.

Actually, my thought is that this is PRECISELY why it went down as it did! Given that the police were going to arrest him, and that he had resisted in the past, and the debacles at Waco and Ruby Ridge, they made it a point to do it away from his house, so that his family wouldn't get caught up in it. If it's a given that the guy needed to be arrested (warrants existed), and it's a given that they guy had threatened others with a gun (the purpose of the warrant), and it's a given that things like Waco and Ruby Ridge want to be avoided....what other routes were available to the sheriffs?

That's just what he tried to do. Unfortunately, the government would not allow him to do that by preventing him to adequately put on his case....

Perhaps you are correct. From what I gathered at his website, he collected information stating the unconstitutionality of taxes, and perhaps presented it to the government. But I didn't see any references to a trial. At a minimum, allowing your arrest to be tried on tax evasion gives the government no choice but to get your side heard. If the charge is tax evasion, a court can't not allow Constitutional evidence in their defence. The only way to avoid that being brought up in court is to drop the charges....then he's off the hook!

Maybe that happened, and I just couldn't find it on the website.

A license by definition, is the authority to do something whihc would be otherwise illegal. Now if youre talking about an 18-wheeler hauling commerce, thats one thing. But my own personal body, that's another.

I think you missed my point. I might even concede that there is a "right to travel"....but still, not sure that means you have the "right" to travel by any particular means. He was perfectly free to travel by foot, bus, train, airline, even horse for travel from house to town. So, as I see it, there was not any impingement on his travel, merely one mode of travel. Hell, he can also legaly travel in a car...as a passenger. In fact, given that he drove down to the sheriffs mess, it appears to me that even though he didn't have a drivers license, it didn't impact his driving at all (of course, if caught, he would be subject to fines, etc).

I guess I also have to ask....if you also believe that a drivers license is unconstitutional or otherwise infringes upon your rights...what's the full scoop if it's done away with? There are a number of purposes, reasons or certifications behind the drivers license. Do you then agree that there is no training required to operate a motor vehicle? If you don't need a license, do you believe that 3 year olds should be able to drive? How does this "right to travel" include the right to operate a motor vehicle? Should we do away with all controls on motor vehicles since they "limit travel"...no speed limits, no state inspections, etc?

I admit I don't have the sources handy. But there are many and they do apply to autos. Both the Declaration and Constitution don't mention "right to travel" because it was so well established in the English Common Law (which our system was based upon) that it was not needed to be stated. Look it up.

Here I'll defer back to you. I cannot look up something of which I don't know it's source. You seem to know the source, so if you can find it, I'd like to see it. And frankly, I can see no way in which elements of English Common Law that predate our constitution could possibly include references to the right to travel by auto, when the term automobile wasn't invented until 1889 (according the Merriam Webster dictionary online) and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Perhaps you meant the right to travel was from Common Law, but later US courts upheld (late 19th, early 20th century?) that this right applied to autos. At least point me towards what source and what I need to look for in order to look it up.
93 posted on 11/07/2001 5:56:30 AM PST by Justin Thyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
I love this response, differing ideas on Ceasar but still funny as hell...

"Render unto God what is God's. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If Ceasar is due an @ss kicking, so be it.

27 Posted on 12/12/2000 08:14:14 PST by tacticalogic

94 posted on 11/07/2001 5:59:44 AM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Justin Thyme
did you get to the 9th amendment yet?
95 posted on 11/07/2001 6:10:25 AM PST by agitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: agitator
Is this the real reason they went after him?

Garms said Cooper's radio show had been off the air for about a month because of a shortage of money. But in one of his last programs, Garms said, Cooper had accused the federal government of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.

LINK

96 posted on 11/07/2001 6:16:52 AM PST by Mighty Mouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: slym
>And Bill Cooper has now "disappeared overnight," hasn't he?

This is horrible. For the first time since the WTC attacks, I'm wondering just how wide-spread and just how pervasive the on-going "troubles" actually are.

Let's remember Cooper in at least two specific ways:

1) Cooper wrote Behold a Pale Horse, one of the best "conspiracy" books ever. Let's re-read the book and, for those who haven't read it, read it in tribute to a fine thinker and a passionate patriot.

2) Let's allow Cooper's own website to give us guidance:

"Remain Calm! This is in no way a cause for action, but all patriots should be on high alert at this time.

Do NOT listen to or spread undocumented and unconfirmed RUMORS! If it is not here it is not confirmed as fact. Updates will be posted here as they become available.

We MUST all remember his love of freedom, America, the Constitution and the values it is founded on.
"

Mark W.

97 posted on 11/07/2001 6:24:42 AM PST by MarkWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Attn JBTs:

The NWO stops here.

98 posted on 11/07/2001 6:26:07 AM PST by LadyJD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: agitator
did you get to the 9th amendment yet?

I've gotten to them all. The Constitution, Ammendments, Declaration of Independence, as well as other key docs are printed and by my desk, and also bookmarked.

From USConstitution.net:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The explanation, also from the same site:

The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.

Yes, this states individuals may have other rights which might be inviolable. Since they are not enumerated, it is left to Constitutional law to determine or verify these. That is why I asked DrLiberty for the sources that he seems to be aware of. Do you know the sources? If we are going to debate Constitutional Law, I can only afirm or refute those things that I have knowledge of. Show me the legal precedence that the "right to travel by car", and indeed actually be the driver, is an unalienable natural right, and I'll say "you're right" and the discussion is over.

BTW, I've pretty much agreed that there is a "right to travel" as part of personal freedoms and liberties, as long as this travel doesn't infring upon other limitations (private property, etc...). I just don't see anything that would even imply that a drivers license is unconstitutional.
99 posted on 11/07/2001 6:35:47 AM PST by Justin Thyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Mouse
It is always very distressing to read threads like this. People attempt to justify why it is okay to shoot (twice) a police officer in the head, but that doesn't mean they're right. What hypocrisy.
100 posted on 11/07/2001 6:50:45 AM PST by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson