413 replies to this topic

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I await the evidence as well.  You list out a bunch of assumptions, opinions, and interpretations.  You attempt to paint this as some kind of evidence in support of your claim that the tape is fraudulent, but it doesn't measure up to the question.

Let’s get it straight:  burden of proof is upon the accuser.  You need to prove the alleged confession is genuine.  As you correctly point out – assumptions, opinions and interpretations aren’t sufficient to reach a guilty verdict.

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Had Moussaoui been freed he would not have been as valuable to the terrorist cause.  Being locked up by the infidels makes him out to be a living martyr, wrongfully imprisoned by the great devil of the west.  That is a lot more juicy for inciting anger and hate among extremists than freeing him would be.  For this reason alone bin Laden may have had no interest in helping this "Al Queda boy" with the trial.

I see.  Your theory is that bin Laden refrained from comment in the hope his lackey would get sent down, so that he could then declare Moussaoui innocent, thus highlighting injustice of the Great Satan?

That would work… except Moussaoui was not convicted for any role in 9/11 thus negating bin Laden’s evil plan.  Had bin Laden the aim that you suggest, he would have done better to distance Al Qaeda from Moussaoui altogether (of course he couldn’t because the evidence was there).

Though again, in making the statement, all ‘bin Laden’ succeeded in was validating the trial verdict.

I have a hard time accepting bin Laden was really that stupid…

Especially knowing the U.S. intelligence apparatus really is that clever.

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I have read some about it, but most likely not all there is to read.  Is there a particular link that you think would help support this position?  I am particularly curious about the agreements you mention.

September 13th, 2001: -

AFGHANISTAN'S Taliban regime has confirmed that Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the attacks on America, is under house arrest.

The terrorist leader and America's most wanted fugitive was reported by Pakistani newspapers to be under house arrest in Kandahar in the south west of Afghanistan.

Today a spokesman for the Taliban embassy in Pakistan confirmed the reports, initially made in Pakistani newspapers, and told United Press International: "We have placed him under control after the attacks."

http://www.telegraph...use-arrest.html

October 4th, 2001: -

A high-level delegation led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pakistan's most important Islamic party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, met Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, in secret on Monday. Omar agreed that bin Laden should be taken to Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar.

The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal.

The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America. The secret deal was agreed after a meeting in Islamabad on Saturday at which Mulla Abdus Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's inter-service intelligence, and Qazi were present.
…
Gen Musharraf and Wendy Chamberlain, America's ambassador to Pakistan, were told of the mission beforehand and yesterday Qazi met the Pakistani president to relay the proposal.

"He was told that, while he backed the idea, the stumbling block was that he could not guarantee bin Laden's safety," said a source close to the delegation.

Under the proposal, Jamaat-i-Islami would have guarded bin Laden at a house in Peshawar that would have been equipped with a dialysis machine to treat his kidney condition.

http://www.telegraph...aden-trial.html

Then come December 2001, bin Laden was being smuggled through the Tora Bora mountains at the Afghanistan/Pakistan border (as per Omar's plan to take him to Pakistan).  CIA forces on the ground had hard intel of his presence and believed they could have captured him right there if U.S. Central Command had sent reinforcement as agents requested.  Rather it appears high-level officials facilitated the plan and instead bin Laden was allowed to escape.

U.S. Senate report: -

On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld...

http://www.foreign.s...Bora_Report.pdf

An Afghan Northern Alliance commander, who assisted the U.S. forces at Tora Bora, further added that the ceasefire between the Al Qaeda militants and U.S. led mission was in fact arranged by another commander working for the ISI, and this was done with specific intention of allowing bin Laden and his escort to escape safely into Pakistan.

To summarize: -

• bin Laden was placed under control/house arrest immediately after 9/11.
  
• high level Taliban, Pakistani and U.S. officials agreed that he should be detained in Pakistan.
  
• bin Laden was allowed to, and did, cross into Pakistan as arranged.

So now we know the arrangement, just where do we find bin Laden?

Of course in Pakistan.

A building in a military district, which the CIA concluded was “custom built to hide someone of significance”.

More specifically (read slowly and let it sink in): -

• a compound with security gates
  
• and 12ft high walls, topped with barbed-wire
  
• monitored by security cameras
  
• having no phone or internet connection
  
• where the rubbish is burnt rather than left for collection
  
• a courtyard for exercise
  
• and armed guards
  
• a building excluded from the official Pakistan census
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk...h-asia-13257330

The fact cannot be escaped that this description is perfect fit to a prison.

Inside the house, the Navy SEAL team had to blast through the wall to reach the upper floors – it was a jailbreak in reverse.

Media commentators caught on: -

The world’s most feared terrorist was entirely in their hands and at their mercy. The last years of his life must have been maddeningly claustrophobic. The Khans may have been his protectors, but they were also his prison guards.

Lt Col Ralph Peters, whilst praising the U.S. operation: -

“I think the reason bin Laden stayed there so long was very straightforward - he was a prisoner in a gilded cage. The Pakistani ISI had him there, he wasn't free to go. They were in my view keeping him there until they needed him. So it was a gentle imprisonment.

I worked with the Pakistanis at least briefly in the 90s, I have followed them for a long time. And there is no way the Inter Services Intelligence Agency, the Pakistani CIA plus equivalent, didn't know where this guy was, they had to know. There is no doubt that the ISI knew he was there and helped him. It is my supposition that he wasn’t free to go, the deal was he wasn’t free to go and they protected him.”

Raelynn Hillhouse, an American security analyst with contacts in the intelligence services: -

“My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under house arrest in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.”

Another security analyst, Juan Zarate: -

“One of the things that surprised me (in viewing the video) is, with bin Laden having been in this compound for about five, maybe six years, it's a little bit like he was under house arrest.  He was really a prisoner, in a sense, in this compound.  And so, what we may be looking at is a dimension of the prison that he was in for about five years there in Abbottabad.”

Funny thing, there is no ‘official story’ regarding circumstance of the compound.  In public, no tough questions were asked of the Pakistan government.  It was all swept under the carpet – who cares, bin Laden is dead.

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

So is it your position that all of the 24 additional tapes purportedly released by bin Laden after this were also fake because he could not have released them from his "prison?"  And of the tapes prior?  Which of these are authentic and which ones aren't?

Those up to the end of 2001 were authentic.

Bin Laden then crossed into Pakistan.

Any tapes after are circumspect – they can be genuine, fabrication, or a combination.

That is simple to vet and/or fabricate once bin Laden is under control.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 21 March 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Let’s get it straight:  burden of proof is upon the accuser.  You need to prove the alleged confession is genuine.  As you correctly point out – assumptions, opinions and interpretations aren’t sufficient to reach a guilty verdict.

Wait, I thought you were the one making a claim here...  you were claiming that the tape with the confession was fraudulent.  Why are you shifting the burden of proof now?  You can't prove that the tape was fraudulent?

Q24, on 21 March 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

I see.  Your theory is that bin Laden refrained from comment in the hope his lackey would get sent down, so that he could then declare Moussaoui innocent, thus highlighting injustice of the Great Satan?

That would work… except Moussaoui was not convicted for any role in 9/11 thus negating bin Laden’s evil plan.  Had bin Laden the aim that you suggest, he would have done better to distance Al Qaeda from Moussaoui altogether (of course he couldn’t because the evidence was there).

Though again, in making the statement, all ‘bin Laden’ succeeded in was validating the trial verdict.

I have a hard time accepting bin Laden was really that stupid…

Especially knowing the U.S. intelligence apparatus really is that clever.

No, I don't have a theory.  I was presenting an alternate possibility to the one that you claimed.  I see that you misunderstood the possibility though.  Either that or you intentionally twisted it into something that it wasn't.



Regarding the section that I didn't quote...  Thanks for the additional details.    So how is all of that any kind of proof that bin Laden couldn't have released a tape refuting the confession if it were not genuine?

Q24, on 21 March 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Those up to the end of 2001 were authentic.

Bin Laden then crossed into Pakistan.

Any tapes after are circumspect – they can be genuine, fabrication, or a combination.

That is simple to vet and/or fabricate once bin Laden is under control.

So you are saying that the specific tape in question actually could be genuine?  And that bin Laden actually could have released tapes despite being under house arrest?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Wait, I thought you were the one making a claim here...  you were claiming that the tape with the confession was fraudulent.  Why are you shifting the burden of proof now?  You can't prove that the tape was fraudulent?

No, mine was a counter-claim to your initial claim that we have a confession from bin Laden.  You raised the initial claim which we have seen is easily disputed.  So we await evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility.  In the modern justice system it is necessary to prove guilt; one does not need prove innocence, unless we are on a witch-hunt in the Dark Ages.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

So how is all of that any kind of proof that bin Laden couldn't have released a tape refuting the confession if it were not genuine?


So you are saying that the specific tape in question actually could be genuine?  And that bin Laden actually could have released tapes despite being under house arrest?

Don’t play daft – if bin Laden were under control, which the evidence presented strongly indicates he was, then authenticity of any tape released in that period is in question, i.e. we cannot blindly accept it as evidence.

The audio tape in question appears to be fabricated for the reasons previously discussed.  It is possible that genuine tapes were released though this would be through vetting of the ISI who had bin Laden in detention.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 22 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

No, mine was a counter-claim to your initial claim that we have a confession from bin Laden.  You raised the initial claim which we have seen is easily disputed.  So we await evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility.  In the modern justice system it is necessary to prove guilt; one does not need prove innocence, unless we are on a witch-hunt in the Dark Ages.

Your first assumption is that I was stating that the tape is definitely genuine.  I didn't make that claim.  All I stated was that we appear to have a pretty blatant confession on a tape purportedly from bin Laden.  And I quoted from the source, which indicated that "Bin Laden's alleged voice..." etc...  This was not a claim on my part.  This was a reporting of the facts as far as we know them.

Your response to this was an absolute claim:

Q24, on 17 March 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

The audiotape is fraudulent.

How do we know?

*etc with your reasoning...*

Once again, this is your burden of proof, not mine.

So I take it that you can't prove that it is fraudulent?

Q24, on 22 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Don’t play daft – if bin Laden were under control, which the evidence presented strongly indicates he was, then authenticity of any tape released in that period is in question, i.e. we cannot blindly accept it as evidence.

I'm not playing daft at all.  Either bin Laden had the capability of getting communications out or he didn't.  If he didn't have the capability, then by your accounting, all of the tapes after 2001 are fraudulent.  If he did have the capability, then by your accounting, any of the tapes after 2001 could potentially be genuine.

So which is it?

Q24, on 22 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

The audio tape in question appears to be fabricated for the reasons previously discussed.  It is possible that genuine tapes were released though this would be through vetting of the ISI who had bin Laden in detention.

So now you've adjusted your language a bit.  Should I take that to mean that you withdraw your previous absolute claim of it being fraudulent, and now you concede that it just appears to be fraudulent to you based on the reasons that you outlined previously?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Your first assumption is that I was stating that the tape is definitely genuine.  I didn't make that claim.

Then I’m done.

That is my whole point of contention proven – there is no evidence the ‘confession’ is genuine.

Just this one point to confirm…

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

I'm not playing daft at all.  Either bin Laden had the capability of getting communications out or he didn't.  If he didn't have the capability, then by your accounting, all of the tapes after 2001 are fraudulent.  If he did have the capability, then by your accounting, any of the tapes after 2001 could potentially be genuine.

So which is it?

Bin Laden did not have ability to release communications independently.  The messages were passed through couriers – who were the Khans?  CIA, ISI, Saudi?  Who knows.

The first rule to accepting recorded evidence is to know the chain of custody.

There is nothing currently available that would stand up in a trial.

Remember it is you calling a guilty verdict in lieu of the trial.

Not me, I’ll support a trial of any suspect all day.

[shaddow134]

Can you trust a government that lies to it's people,Bush started the process of dismantling the Constitution and Obama is just carrying on.For me this is lie amongst many and if i was American i would be a worried man.

[booNyzarC]

shaddow134, on 22 March 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Can you trust a government that lies to it's people,Bush started the process of dismantling the Constitution and Obama is just carrying on.For me this is lie amongst many and if i was American i would be a worried man.

Wow, this sure is some conspiracy.  Bush started it and now Obama is supposedly carrying the torch?  Bipartisanship at its most sinister!  Who would have thought that it would be so unifying?

[shaddow134]

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Wow, this sure is some conspiracy.  Bush started it and now Obama is supposedly carrying the torch?  Bipartisanship at its most sinister!  Who would have thought that it would be so unifying?

Public enemy number 1 got shot allegedly ,it took a team of navy seals to nail a man who by all accounts was on dialysis and chronically ill(that was ten years ago).After all that they just decided to bury his body at sea.


Who needs to create conspiracies,the US Government are very good at creating their own.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 22 March 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Then I’m done.

That is my whole point of contention proven – there is no evidence the ‘confession’ is genuine.

Except perhaps for the obvious question of...  Why wouldn't bin Laden have refuted this tape after it was released?

And I must ask again, because you've ignored it multiple times now...  Does this also mean that you officially rescind your absolute claim that the tape in question is fraudulent?

Q24, on 22 March 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Just this one point to confirm…

Bin Laden did not have ability to release communications independently.  The messages were passed through couriers – who were the Khans?  CIA, ISI, Saudi?  Who knows.

The first rule to accepting recorded evidence is to know the chain of custody.

There is nothing currently available that would stand up in a trial.

Remember it is you calling a guilty verdict in lieu of the trial.

Not me, I’ll support a trial of any suspect all day.

Of course the tapes were passed through couriers.  Nobody thinks that bin Laden walked up to Al Jazeera himself.  So who did deliver the tapes?

You pose the perfect question though; Who knows?

I certainly don't know.  I'm confident that you don't know either.  But ask yourself if anyone associated with the United States would be the courier...  The U.S. had been hunting down bin Laden for years, even before 9/11.  Who in the U.S. would protect him?  Someone associated with the Bush/Cheney administration?  And they just decided to let Obama take credit for finally nabbing bin Laden?  Or maybe someone who is independent and non-partisan?  It is so confusing.  All of the details of these conspiracy theories have my head spinning.  How can you keep it all straight?

And you mention chain of custody in regards to accepting evidence.  What was the chain of evidence for the tapes that you accept as genuine?

You don't have a chain of evidence do you?  You are accepting some tapes as genuine (like his denial, and accepting his word of denial too it would seem...) but you aren't following your own standards of evidence for their acceptance.  Why is that?

Trial?  What trial?  I'm not talking about a trial at all.  I'm not calling a guilty verdict either.  All I've ever intended to say regarding the guilt of bin Laden is that it is my opinion that he was directly involved with the planning of the attacks, that I believe it was his inspiration from the beginning, and that from my point of view his statements -- including the ones that you appear to accept as genuine -- support these conclusions.

You are free to disagree with me and offer your own opinion, but that doesn't negate my conclusions in any way.

[booNyzarC]

shaddow134, on 22 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Public enemy number 1 got shot allegedly ,it took a team of navy seals to nail a man who by all accounts was on dialysis and chronically ill(that was ten years ago).After all that they just decided to bury his body at sea.

You appear to have skirted my point...  was this a bipartisan deal of some kind?  And if so, how deep does this conspiracy go anyway?  It not only crosses party lines, it also apparently crosses presidential administrations...

Do you have any concept of how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

shaddow134, on 22 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Who needs to create conspiracies,the US Government are very good at creating their own.

No, actually -- from the looks of it -- the U.S. Government just doesn't care to entertain conspiracy theorists and typically refuses to cater to their unrealistic requirements.  Who can blame them?  Nothing is good enough for a conspiracy theorist.  They find some nonsensical gap, it gets filled and they either move on to the next nonsensical gap or ignore what filled the original gap; or both.

It really is tiresome I must say.  I'm not even employed by the U.S. government and I tire of the non-stop conspiracy theories that people come up with.  Don't you have better things to do with your time?

[Babe Ruth]

Oh, it's way more than bipartisan Boo.

If you really buy into that 2 party system stuff, then you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were.  Or, perhaps, just way more gullible.

Remember that it was the 'opposition party' Nancy Pelosi who turned back the Kucinich effort to impeach Dubya for his high crimes.  She took it 'off the table'  

The truth is, as Shaddow is suggesting, that Dubya and Obama serve the very same masters.  Obama has embraced the Unitary Executive and the Global War On Terror much more enthusiastically than Bush did, and he made that clear as a candidate, reference Pakistan.

The Bin Laden family and Bush family are business partners.  OBL was a creature of the US CIA.  He served us well, and the odds are very high that he died of medical complications about 10 years ago.

But hey--everybody loves illusion and simulation.  This country thrives on it.

[Stellar]

What I find interesting is that when the government says Bin Laden was killed and buried at sea, furthermore they outright refuse to show any evidence of it, people still believe them. On the other hand, when someone claims they found emails from Stanfor (which, have been released and anyone can find, given they take the time to look through all of them), people outright refuse to believe the claim.

[Babe Ruth]

Correct Stellar.

Americans in particular have been conditioned for years to believe the government in whatever it says, no matter how absurd the statement might be, or how it might conflict with evidence and reality.

And we have the E-6 who killed 16 in Afghanistan who will probably be acquitted by a military jury, and is almost praised by many, already forgiven because of his PTSD status.  I am utterly sympathetic to the PTSD thing, because I experienced a mild version of it myself decades ago.  I can relate, but I cannot forgive.

And Bradly Manning is the counterpoint.  He blew the whistle on government crimes, and was tortured for a year and pronounced guilty by his C-in-C even before a trial.

Things are crazy, no doubt.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Except perhaps for the obvious question of...  Why wouldn't bin Laden have refuted this tape after it was released?

And I must ask again, because you've ignored it multiple times now...  Does this also mean that you officially rescind your absolute claim that the tape in question is fraudulent?

booNy, honestly, are you reading anything I’m saying?  

I have all but spelt it out already…

If bin Laden were under house arrest, he was not free to release whatever statement he wanted.  Any message from him came through the intermediaries that were his imprisoners.  In Pakistan that would be elements of the ISI with deep-rooted links to elements of the CIA.  The messages could be vetted - released, withheld or adjusted as necessary - to suit the desired agenda.

That is why we get the CIA director stating of the 2004 tape, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."
That is why John McCain said, "Bin Laden May Have Just Given Us A Little Boost".
That is why we get ‘bin Laden’ validating the Iraq War (see below).
That is why we get ‘bin Laden’ vindicating the U.S. prosecution in the Moussaoui trial.

Because it ain’t bin Laden speaking!

It’s like if you had to pass all of your UM posts through me, i.e. you could not post directly to the boards, and wanted to get a message out.  If I didn’t want you to get that message out, I’d just delete the text.  I might even add my own text to have your message say what I want.

It would be the same for bin Laden but with audio editting.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Of course the tapes were passed through couriers.  Nobody thinks that bin Laden walked up to Al Jazeera himself.  So who did deliver the tapes?

You pose the perfect question though; Who knows?

Now you are asking questions like a real investigator – I never thought I’d see the day!

I’ll give a hint as to who might have delivered the tapes…

Where did we first hear about the February 12th, 2003 audio tape?  Surely Al Jazeera or some Al Qaeda website broke the news?  Well no, existence of the transcript was brought to the world by Colin Powell, in the U.S. Senate.  Yes, U.S. sources somehow had the full transcript before Al Jazeera even located the tape.

It appears the U.S. source jumped the gun.

Incidentally, that particular audio tape was another full of fabrication.  Check the date: one month prior the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Lo and behold, there is ‘bin Laden’ declaring allegiance with Saddam Hussein – what a gift!

The Bush administration could not have planned it better in their wildest dreams!

Look at the media reports: -

"This just reinforces that bad guys hang with other bad guys, that they swim in the same cesspool," the official said.

The tape surfaced at a time when the Bush administration is preparing for a possible war with Iraq and is trying to strengthen its argument that there is a link between al Qaeda and the Islamic nation led by Saddam Hussein.

How fortunate the tape surfaced at just the time to support Bush’s argument!

What an absolute pile of crap - there was nothing ‘fortunate’ about it.

It is now known the propaganda was shaped to draw a bin Laden/Hussein connection.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

The U.S. had been hunting down bin Laden for years, even before 9/11.  Who in the U.S. would protect him?  Someone associated with the Bush/Cheney administration?

Wahaaay!  You are getting good at this.

Yes of course the Neocon administration would want the figurehead for their ‘War on Terror’ to remain at large.

Read that excerpt from the U.S. Senate report again in my post #91… at the point bin Laden could have been captured, whose decision was it, “not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape”?  Why it’s one of our upper-tier Neocons - Donald Rumsfeld.

And don’t be fooled into thinking the same faction were, “hunting down bin Laden for years”.  

In September 2001, Bush said bin Laden was wanted, “Dead or Alive”.

But 6 months after, Bush stated, “I’m truly not that concerned about him” and, “He himself tries to hide… if in fact he’s hiding at all.  I don’t know where he is.  I just don’t spend that much time on him.  To be honest with you, I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong… ”

And days later, April 2002, Rumsfeld is reported describing bin Laden as “neutralized”.  However could he be so sure?  Oh yeah… it was Rumsfeld’s order that allowed bin Laden to cross into Pakistan unhindered.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

And they just decided to let Obama take credit for finally nabbing bin Laden?

No.  Let Obama?  Who says Operation Neptune Spear was not genuine?  Well ok, I know many do, but not me.  To me the operation appears entirely genuine and the suggested reason and logic put forward for ‘staging’ of the event is weak.

Let’s say some CIA agent picked up on bin Laden’s location and Obama took the necessary action – that’s the official story right?  I’m cool with that.  The apparent fact that bin Laden was in confinement by the ISI and U.S. forces went in on a kill mission is enough.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

It is so confusing.  All of the details of these conspiracy theories have my head spinning.  How can you keep it all straight?

That is a problem.

However, once all of the facts are collected and pieced together, the events are clear.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

You don't have a chain of evidence do you?  You are accepting some tapes as genuine (like his denial, and accepting his word of denial too it would seem...) but you aren't following your own standards of evidence for their acceptance.  Why is that?

I admit to not having the same level of concern prior to bin Laden’s December 2001 ISI internment in Pakistan.  After that it went quiet… so far as to lead many to believe bin Laden may already have been dead.  It is from that point that the tapes became suspicious…

The authenticity of the first tape after December 2001 was disputed by independent analysts who said it could not be confirmed as bin Laden.  The second tape after, was the one promoting the bin Laden/Hussein connection, providing fuel for the Iraq war, discussed above.  The third tape to follow was an undated piece of stock video footage.  And the fourth, the 2004 videotape reported as bin Laden’s first real ‘confession’, contradicting his two previous denials.

It is at the point when bin Laden effectively disappeared, with the messages becoming both suspicious and contradictory, and those held up as evidence of his guilt, which should come under greatest scrutiny.

booNyzarC, on 22 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

I'm not calling a guilty verdict either.

Ok  

[acidhead]

Babe Ruth, on 22 March 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Correct Stellar.

Americans in particular have been conditioned for years to believe the government in whatever it says, no matter how absurd the statement might be, or how it might conflict with evidence and reality.

And we have the E-6 who killed 16 in Afghanistan who will probably be acquitted by a military jury, and is almost praised by many, already forgiven because of his PTSD status.  I am utterly sympathetic to the PTSD thing, because I experienced a mild version of it myself decades ago.  I can relate, but I cannot forgive.

And Bradly Manning is the counterpoint.  He blew the whistle on government crimes, and was tortured for a year and pronounced guilty by his C-in-C even before a trial.

Things are crazy, no doubt.

Yes... a prime example, even here, is to provide a source or a link which 99% of the time is only believed if its a MSM link regardless if the source is an "unidentified white house official who declined to give his name because he's not authorized to speak to the media".

... and grown adults believe it and repeat the erroneous claims as fact.

The NYT newspaper's sources was used to propagate the build-up to the Iraq war just this way.  And we all know now that the Iraq invasion was an un-just invasion built on lies and faulty intelligence.  Yet was anybody fired  or tried in a court of law for their false testimonies?.... not yet!

Edited by acidhead, 25 March 2012 - 09:27 PM.