763 replies to this topic

[Mike 215]

I am still waiting for an answer to the three questions I asked recently"\:

1. Why didn't the grand jury indict him for 911?

2. Why didn't the FBI "most wanted" poster on him did not state he was wanted for 911?

3. Why was there any records or videos taken from his home proving he was resposible for 911?

  Three simple questions. I would be happy if any you can even answer one of them.

[Czero 101]

Mike 215, on 22 October 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

I am still waiting for an answer to the three questions I asked recently"\:

1. Why didn't the grand jury indict him for 911?

2. Why didn't the FBI "most wanted" poster on him did not state he was wanted for 911?

3. Why was there any records or videos taken from his home proving he was resposible for 911?

  Three simple questions. I would be happy if any you can even answer one of them.

So what...?

You've been reluctant to answer questions posed of you in the past, to the point of ignoring them, seemingly abandoning certain threads to avoid having to answer questions, or when your ludicrous theories have been shown for what they are - ludicrous - or when it has become painfully obvious that your observations have no basis in reality whatsoever.  

And you now have the cojones to demand answers..??



I think you'll find there are very few people here who give a rhino's rump what you want, and the only person to blame for that is you.




Cz

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

No, I didn't say anything about a jury either.

So you are refusing to be drawn on how a neutral trial would sentence bin Laden?

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Simple.  Understand that bin Laden's words speak for themselves and they speak for bin Laden.

It is apparent that the words of bin Laden are not allowed to speak for themselves - we have demonstrated between us how different interpretations of the same words can lead to quite dissimilar conclusions.

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

If by "you have already made your mind up" you mean that based on the evidence I've looked at I've arrived at a conclusion, then yes.  Are you claiming that you have not also come to a conclusion based on the evidence you've reviewed?  Or are you just saying that my conclusion is wrong because it doesn't agree with yours?


Accusing me of confirmation bias, ignorance, and blind devotion to faith does nothing for your position.  All it shows is that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you.

You are the one making assumptions of guilt and calling bin Laden a liar, no?

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

I just love the way that you add to or subtract from bin Laden's statements in an effort to bolster your arguments.  He says nothing about collateral damage here.  He is very clear.

kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it

And later...

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Specifically which "later statement" are you referring to where he backpedals away from this declaration of intent?

I evaluate the full body of statements - there is no addition over what exists.  I am not emphasising this one line, in one statement, away from the wider context in which bin Laden had put it.

What do you think the intent of that line really is?  Does it show bin Laden was an uncontrolled and bloodthirsty psychopath who would go out of his way to kill any and every American civilian possible?  Is that what you would like it to be?

First consider that nothing bin Laden advocated was without reason but always for the purpose of liberating Muslim land.  We should also consider that bin Laden said, “nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act.”  Was he lying or, although bin Laden did not find it an appreciable act, did he reach the point where he knew killing of innocents and civilians was unavoidable if the United States was to be fought on its own terms?

There are many occasions bin Laden spoke about the killing of these people, always pointing out that it would be reciprocation to like American killing of innocents.  Amongst more recent examples, he referred to Hiroshima and Nagasaki numerous times… bin Laden justified killing of civilians in the same way American leaders justified the use of nuclear weapons.

Here is one instance in direct relation to the 1998 fatwa: -

John Miller: Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?

Osama bin Ladin: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

http://www.meforum.o...re-paper-tigers

Also look out for this line in the interview, “At the same time, our primary targets are military ones, plus those in the military's employment. Our religion forbids us to kill innocents-children and women who are not combatants.”

Bin Laden was not lying above.  He only became desperate over time.  The point is, it was never about killing for the sake of it or because bin Laden liked a bit of “terrorism”… he was at war and supported only action to that end.

I would ask how you might justify the killing of innocents during the United States’ military actions in the Middle East… they bomb TV stations, office buildings, kill with intent to destroy the infrastructure and support network of the opponent… that includes killing of the old, women and children.  Then apply whatever justification you come up with to bin Laden also.

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Defending real justice?  Is that what you think you are doing here?  Interesting.

Yes, justice is entitlement to trial on the basis of innocent until proven guilty.  When a man is assumed guilty on the basis of a propaganda campaign with no trial and then assassinated, that is injustice.  I see many celebrating the latter and do not understand it, other than to put it down to ignorance.

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Exactly what liars, murderers and war do you think I am defending?  Exactly how am I singling out those who react to it?  Where exactly have I said “oh why does everyone pick on poor old us.. It’s big bad bin Laden who is the root cause of the problem”?

Do you not single out bin Laden and prefer to overlook real cause of the conflict?

booNyzarC, on 22 October 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

I've never said that bin Laden didn't have his justifications for what he has done.  I have no doubt that from his point of view he was completely justified in waging Jihad on the American infidels.  That doesn't mean I agree with him or his chosen methods of response, but I can sympathize with the fact that he comes from a region of the world that is rife with the kind of conflicts and ideologies that not only inspire terrorism but also breeds and trains such combatants.

How do you think bin Laden’s reasons compare next to American justifications for what they have done?

I mean, those non-existent WMDs and ‘Al Qaeda’ in Afghanistan… they were great justifications for a few hundred thousand civilian deaths, weren’t they?  Or if you prefer the real justification, control of energy resources, that makes it ok too.  Is this better than defending ones own lands?

I’m just pointing all this out because you seemed in some disbelief that bin Laden might not be accepted as the manipulator, benefactor and leading wrongdoer of events.

[Scott G]

Q24, on 23 October 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

I mean, those non-existent WMDs and ‘Al Qaeda’ in Afghanistan… they were great justifications for a few hundred thousand civilian deaths, weren’t they?  Or if you prefer the real justification, control of energy resources, that makes it ok too.  Is this better than defending ones own lands?

I’m just pointing all this out because you seemed in some disbelief that bin Laden might not be accepted as the manipulator, benefactor and leading wrongdoer of events.

Well said. Bin Laden, in my view, was way too anti american. But I've never seen any persuasive evidence that he orchestrated or was in any way part of 9/11; I also remember hearing him making a statement denying involvement.

[Mike 215]

Did it ever occur to anybody that this video of Bin Laden was not him but some actor? Over the past few years the videos of him differ in many ways such as the color of his hair and facial features. One of them shows a young Bin Laden.
  So who could the actors be working for? The White House, FBI, CIA. The Bush administration had to keep those hundreds of billions flowing into the way and these videos were great inspiration for the politicaly dead members of congress.
  Good News!  According to a poll, 65% of the people on this site believe that aliens are running around this planet. It is nice to know that there are sane and rational people who actually view this site.

[Sakari]

Mike 215, on 28 October 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

  Good News!  According to a poll, 65% of the people on this site believe that aliens are running around this planet. It is nice to know that there are sane and rational people who actually view this site.

And 99.9% disagree with, or do not understand your posts and replies


And where did you get that number anyway?


Oh, I was the Actor playing Bin Laden, even his dead body that was really not dead........Shhhhhhh

[Wandering]

Quote

Oh, I was the Actor playing Bin Laden, even his dead body that was really not dead........Shhhhhhh

How do you eve know he's dead? I do believe he is dead...But that burial at sea **** was the strangest I've heard in awhile. Gaddafi is the same religion yet they had his body in the streets and not buried for alot longer.

I can't think of any reason why you would want to kill Bin Laden, worlds most wanted terrorist and then drop him in the ocean. o.O  It's ok they took a DNA sample! Which could have come from him at any point in time. -.-


Burial at sea. pah.

[Czero 101]

Wandering, on 28 October 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

How do you eve know he's dead? I do believe he is dead...But that burial at sea **** was the strangest I've heard in awhile. Gaddafi is the same religion yet they had his body in the streets and not buried for alot longer.

I can't think of any reason why you would want to kill Bin Laden, worlds most wanted terrorist and then drop him in the ocean. o.O  It's ok they took a DNA sample! Which could have come from him at any point in time. -.-


Burial at sea. pah.

They buried him at sea so that there would be nowhere for his followers to create a shrine, which would most likely inspire more people to follow in his footsteps.

They did it within 24 hours since that is in keeping with Muslim tradition / law and shows that they are not disrespecting the religion, which would cause even more turmoil.

I haven't kept up with the Gaddafi situation, so I can't speak to why they treated him differently, but I'd suspect that the rebels or other people of Lybia want to have some revenge on the tyrant. If the Lybian Muslims want to be ticked off at the other Lybian Muslims, well, that's their prerogative. Regardless, its a different situation than what happened with Bin Laden.





Cz

[Wandering]

Quote

They buried him at sea so that there would be nowhere for his followers to create a shrine, which would most likely inspire more people to follow in his footsteps.

They did it within 24 hours since that is in keeping with Muslim tradition / law and shows that they are not disrespecting the religion, which would cause even more turmoil.

I haven't kept up with the Gaddafi situation, so I can't speak to why they treated him differently, but I'd suspect that the rebels or other people of Lybia want to have some revenge on the tyrant. If the Lybian Muslims want to be ticked off at the other Lybian Muslims, well, that's their prerogative. Regardless, its a different situation than what happened with Bin Laden.

Yeah I got that and it would make sense to me, if they hadn't just turned him into a martyr anyway. They could have quietly buried him anywhere without creating a shrine, perhaps releasing a few stills or a video of his body.

The 24 hr thing is such a poor excuse in my opinion, after all we are talking about America and not to judge but...Do you really think they cared whether or not Bin Laden was buried within 24 hrs? Hell, even if they did it so they didn't 'disrespect' the religion once again why not take some videos/photos & release them?  I think according to a fair bit of news we've seen over here, most Pakistanis did not like Bin Laden and were happy to see him go. I don't know whether or not they would have worried about a bit of disrespect.

It's one of those things that seems like a really strange thing to do to me. Even Husseins death video made it out onto the net.

[Q24]

Czero 101, on 28 October 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

They buried him at sea so that there would be nowhere for his followers to create a shrine, which would most likely inspire more people to follow in his footsteps.

They did it within 24 hours since that is in keeping with Muslim tradition / law and shows that they are not disrespecting the religion, which would cause even more turmoil.

I’m not sure a shrine would have much impact next to provocation from the West and Israel.  Isn’t it respectful to return a body to the family or country of origin?  No offer was made so far as I’m aware.  Neither am I sure that keeping with Muslim tradition would placate anyone who took issue with the killing.  If the U.S. had kept the body for longer would the issue really be, “My God, they haven’t buried him in 24 hours!” over and above the killing itself?  They are possible reasons but I think quite weak.

I have another theory - bin Laden was blasted in the back of the head, and the evidence this was a premeditated assassination was best disposed of quickly.

[Czero 101]

Wandering, on 28 October 2011 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yeah I got that and it would make sense to me, if they hadn't just turned him into a martyr anyway. They could have quietly buried him anywhere without creating a shrine, perhaps releasing a few stills or a video of his body.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... and I agree somewhat that they martyred him. I still think, though, that the burial at sea was the better option.

Quote

The 24 hr thing is such a poor excuse in my opinion, after all we are talking about America and not to judge but...Do you really think they cared whether or not Bin Laden was buried within 24 hrs? Hell, even if they did it so they didn't 'disrespect' the religion once again why not take some videos/photos & release them?  I think according to a fair bit of news we've seen over here, most Pakistanis did not like Bin Laden and were happy to see him go. I don't know whether or not they would have worried about a bit of disrespect.

It's one of those things that seems like a really strange thing to do to me. Even Husseins death video made it out onto the net.

I would imagine that there was some video taken of the burial. Just look back to the CIA's attempted recovery of the Soviet sub K-129. The funeral services for the Soviet sailors held aboard the Glomar Explorer was filmed / video taped and was eventually released, albeit many years later due to the highly classified nature of Project Azorian. Maybe someday any pictures and videos taken of Bin Laden at the time will be released...



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 28 October 2011 - 04:26 AM.

[Czero 101]

Q24, on 28 October 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

I’m not sure a shrine would have much impact next to provocation from the West and Israel.  Isn’t it respectful to return a body to the family or country of origin?  No offer was made so far as I’m aware.  Neither am I sure that keeping with Muslim tradition would placate anyone who took issue with the killing.  If the U.S. had kept the body for longer would the issue really be, “My God, they haven’t buried him in 24 hours!” over and above the killing itself?  They are possible reasons but I think quite weak.

In my eyes, and I fully admit that I"m, no expert, it comes down to the difference between offending the Al Qaeda, who are already p.o.'d at America, and offending all Muslim people. Which is the lesser of the two evils...?

Again, though... just my opinion...

Quote

I have another theory - bin Laden was blasted in the back of the head, and the evidence this was a premeditated assassination was best disposed of quickly.

Yeah, you could be right.



Cz

[bee]

Wandering, on 28 October 2011 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yeah I got that and it would make sense to me, if they hadn't just turned him into a martyr anyway. They could have quietly buried him anywhere without creating a shrine, perhaps releasing a few stills or a video of his body.

The 24 hr thing is such a poor excuse in my opinion, after all we are talking about America and not to judge but...Do you really think they cared whether or not Bin Laden was buried within 24 hrs? Hell, even if they did it so they didn't 'disrespect' the religion once again why not take some videos/photos & release them?  I think according to a fair bit of news we've seen over here, most Pakistanis did not like Bin Laden and were happy to see him go. I don't know whether or not they would have worried about a bit of disrespect.

It's one of those things that seems like a really strange thing to do to me. Even Husseins death video made it out onto the net.

I've just read these comments about BL....and a thought has struck me

BL would be the ultimate 'prize' to have and interrogate in secret and at leisure.

Would the US really just literally chuck that opportunity away? The opportunity to interrogate enemy number one?

To maybe try and get information about enemy operations and plans?


A 'burial' at sea would mean there would no remains, now or ever.

It could never be admitted that BL had been captured and kept prisioner (if he was)because all hell would break loose

with his supporters and terrorism would increase.


How easy would it have been to smuggle him away secretly? Probably fairly easy I would suspect.


I'm not saying he is alive + in captivity...I don't suppose anyone will ever know...just speculating on the logic of it all.

[Little Fish]

why was bin laden never apprehended on 911?
on the day before 911 he was in a pakistani military hospital in rawalpindi.
is it conceivable that the US or pakistan authorities could not apprehend him within hours of 911?
http://www.globalres...es/CHO311A.html

[Wandering]

Quote

I've just read these comments about BL....and a thought has struck me

BL would be the ultimate 'prize' to have and interrogate in secret and at leisure.

Would the US really just literally chuck that opportunity away? The opportunity to interrogate enemy number one?

To maybe try and get information about enemy operations and plans?


A 'burial' at sea would mean there would no remains, now or ever.

It could never be admitted that BL had been captured and kept prisioner (if he was)because all hell would break loose

with his supporters and terrorism would increase.


How easy would it have been to smuggle him away secretly? Probably fairly easy I would suspect.


I'm not saying he is alive + in captivity...I don't suppose anyone will ever know...just speculating on the logic of it all.

That would make alot of sense if he truly wasn't a CIA operative or whatever the argument for him being tied to America is.