I'm not assuming anything, all I am doing is pointing to the fact the FBI never indicted him and if they had evidence of his guilt, then there would have been one.
I am afraid it has much to do with it. The paper trail just vanished. So did having to prove an action to bring a killer to justice who has used every resource at his disposal to evade such so he ay continue brainwashing people and sending them to their deaths. You know why he was not indicted, the FBI have no hard evidence. That is not to say they have no evidence, they simply have evidence that might result in decades of court battles giving people in the Jihad an opportunity to eventually free him, and do something even worse. One thing, OBL had no conscience, no humanity, he was going to kill again, and again. Until he was stopped, that is the sort if person he was. This shortcut curtailed slaughter and brought one man to justice.
Same ones that were mentioned in Q24's clip regarding mafia. That heads of these organisation who fund and control them distance themselves from any direct action, so they can continue to wage wars on any legal system that may disagree with their personal views. OBL took full advantage of this system, so the FBI had to acto on an older order to remove him from existence for public safety. It's not a new system, Mafia, Triads, even KGB have used these methods for centuries. This goes all the way back to Thomas Becket who exposed this system and paid for it with his life, but made the world a better place as a result.
Where are you from? You do not post it, why may I ask? Or do you not post your origin because it might expose an Agenda?
I am not seeing dishonesty, I am seeing a man answer to the best of his ability, and you should be happy with that, it is all one can do. It's like your poking and prodding Sky with a stick. He gave you his answer, asking for what you want to hear time and again is not going to produce it is it?
Ad it would be much easier if you just spoke your mind instead of doing a dance yourself. You asked repeatedly, he answered repeatedly. If the point is not getting across, I suggest you bridge that gap so we can move on and stop the song and dance.
He is not ignoring a point, Because he is an experienced man who has seen the world trough wars, he can smell a rat too, and probably had a better nose than you and I put together in these matters. This is what he does - defend the country, he works for the pople you are accusing, and if antyhing, Sky is not biased. He will expose his superiors at the drop if a hat if they do not follow procedure that benefits everyone, in fact, ,he is hanging out with the Red Tails right now. Do you know who they are, and what they were up against? If you do now know who the Red Tails are, may I please request that you have a look into that chapter of history, then when you understand Sky as part of such history you will see his is nobody's puppet. You are just asking too much in the wrong way is all. Like Douglas Adams said, the answer is no good if you do not know how to ask the question.
Guilty of what? 911? Do you really and honestly believe from one second that the most prominent man in a terrorist organisation that carried out 911 is completely innocent of the entire event? It was a war on terror, not a war on OBL, OBL was just a major target, as all superior people are.
What about the bombings, the Fatwa against America? That makes him guilty until proven innocent, The man declared war on America, and his merry band of followers carried out his wishes in return for a mythical afterlife. Declaring war on a country would be considered quite a bad thing, wouldn't you say?
He was guilty of the 1998 bombing, he was guilty of funding the organisation that carried out 911. The man is a murderer, and wants American people dead. All he did was cover his tracks well, and for that I think he deserves no pardon, and yes, in this case I do not have a problem with considering this person guilty before being proven so. His rejoicing in 911 was enough for that. Like I say, the FBI have no hard evidence. that does not mean no evidence, it just means it will take a long, long time to sift through the legal system.
You know your second line makes it clearer if anything. Do you pursue a line when there is no hard evidence? Nope, you just act. That is what the US did before more people could be slaughtered under this madman's belief system and frankly, I thank goodness that they did. That is why people vote. So the public can decide if they have some wishy washy hippy who cannot make a decision, or someone who will just call a spade a spade and act when they have to act. The world is a better placer today because the US did act, instead of pushing this back and forth for decades to come.