Just in the interests of discussion and all that mate
I think there would be paper trails too, but I do not think they woud have Usama on any one of them. I really do not think he woud be so careless. He was too rich and educated to do so. This is why I think the FBI said they have no hard evidence. I bet they have reams and reams of evidence that leads to purposeful dead ends. Behind the simple act of using box-cutters to hijack a plane was some deep planning. The way Usama keeps referring to Bush as sitting on his hands whist the carnage ensued seems like OBL is challenging him. I think there is much that was planned that did not go off, that died with the bombers and OBL.
That is fair enough, I agree, but remain with Skyeagle on that one. The taunting, the glee, the celebrations are all a kick in the teeth that they did this, mostly got away with it, wrote themselves into history and I am 100% of the opinion, and I realise that is personal, that all of this is like Usama thumbing his nose at the world over slaughtering and running. Don't get me wrong, many such crimes go unpunished because they conform to Western views, such as France's Nuclear testing. Someone should have been tarred and feathered over that, but they stand in line for the most part, so they avoid the full wrath they deserve. The Middle East does not, Shari'ah is against everything we stand for, and Shari'ah demands we die or become slaves. Al Qaeda makes no secret about this position. As such, the 1+1=2 seem pretty blatant to me, these people are rejoicing in what they deem their own victory. To decide the US is responsible is to me refusing an outright confession by way of action.
Fair enough, I admit it is probably a knee jerk reaction, but I do feel Shari'ah contravenes enough human rights for the UN to downgrade it's religious status to cult. And from there it could be disolved, which would be a service to humanity as a whole. I still think John Lennon had a point though
Hrmmzz, John O'Neil. Good call. Hard to say there, he does seem to have had enough experience to realise what was going on, and the FBI should have taken him more seriously, but I gather, much like myself he is blunt, and damn can that get you into trouble. People do not like one calling a spade a spade, they like you to be "Politically Correct". I personally have no patience for that BS. But that seems to be how he managed to cheese people of, who should have listened to him. I do not see it in any way as indicating the US was involved, rather that the FBI was arrogant, and those who did not listen to O'Neil ought to be questioned as to why, and if they could have prevented this, then they should be held responsible for that. And you and I know that is not going to happen in a billion years. There is graft and corruption, I realise that, one would have to be blind not to, but this does not indicate US responsibility it indicates a US bungle, which to me is far more plausible than the long winded ridiculous CT claims, and I am sure the reasons for wanting to cover such up do not even need mentioning.
I think Able Danger was way, way overdue. I think something like that should have implemented when all that nasty business that ruined the middle East when the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown happened. Iran was a nice place in the day of the Shah.
Regardless of what happened Yemen, I see none of these things happening for KSM and therefore believe that it would be the same for OBL.
There is a huge difference, the Taliban never killed a US citizen or solider (as far as I'm aware!) before the invasion of Afghanistan.
I see one in a million chance as unacceptable. Even if Usama way dying, I do not feel he had the right to ever see a blue sky again. Scotland Yard let Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi out to die on compassionate grounds. I do not agree with that. Who knows what influence he might have with such a barbaric mindset in that time. He should have rotted away in jail, and not even had his cell attended until a good decade after his death. Usama IMO deserved worse yet. Would you be willing to bet your child's life (if you have one I suppose!) on a certainty that Usama would never be freed, had he been taken alive? Would you be confident enough to stake that much?
Yes I agree, it is not the answer you want, but it is Sky's answer, and it does answer the question, if not directly.
It is not a moot point, because I accept the fact that he apparently confessed. It would be a moot point if the FBI had indicted him because it would irrelevant to his confession.
I agree that now he is dead, it is a moot point because the case has is closed. What is not moot is that even after his confession, before his death there was no indictment of him.
I honestly think it was a moot point from day one. Usama had covered his tracks well, we agree on that, regardless if covering or non-existant, it's not a direct link. He declared war in America, he is a public enemy. But he would be taunting America to arrest him on 911 so he can walk away legally. And that is what many of the general public think, that he is responsible for 911, regardless of the level of involvement, he is seen as the leader who made the attacks possible by the larger majority. So why give him what he wants? A court case, media, everything possible to help him contact more people for his cause, and look at this thread. American people turning on their own Government over the rubbish a terrorist mastermind killer has them believe. I think the FBI went the smart route, and let him rant rave and carry on as much as he wanted, and then the seals shot him dead over another atrocity that cost less lives, and had less of an impact on the US ublic. Like taking Al Capone for tax evasion. Except they shot Usama dead. I think they were smart.
Because the point is that when he was alive. there was no indictment.
This means that if he was captured, as it stood, he would have been charged for all his crimes with the exception of 9/11. Yes I am sure that they would have found the evidence to indict him.
Thank you, I try hard to make sure my posting is worthwhile and contributes to the discussion.
I guess this is why we agree on these points, I try to insist that facts lead a discussion. Fact is you are right. The FBI did not indict Usama for 911. But there is more to the story than that, and that is where good discussion comes in. This is the part I am sorry Sky misses, because with his world experience, he would be a more valuable contributor. I only ever had a problem with Sky's debating, as you do, outside of that, I respect him, and have for some time. We are just all different, and we have to find way to accomodate our nuances.
So what do you suggest I do? Shall I just let him carry on lying while ignore things which prove him wrong so he can carry on lying like he does on most other threads?
The thing is that I notice is that no one is challenging Skyeagle on his behaviour, mine is seen as unacceptable, yet he is beyond reproach and that we should accept it, just because it's Skyeagle, that is the way he is! Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. lol
If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. I have ignored him in the past but I'm afraid that is not happening any more because it doesn't work!
Ohh, I hear you, I managed to draw Saru's attention more often than I wished when I was debating Sky. I for one hope you do not get into trouble, I think you offer a good discussion.
I suggest we try to discuss aspects that do not rely on the papers and media sources? As I say, much like myself, Sky is old school, and more of a hands on person. I am sure he will offer excellent conversation if the discussion is focussed in that direction, With myself joining the discussion, I hope to be able to assist Sky in these matters, and rely on him when I need that experience factor. Ignoring wont work, and I can tell you from experience demanding will only get you into hot water.
Douglas Adams comes to mind when he said: You have the answer, you need to learn how to ask the question.
You see I prefer honest debate with people and would rather have points of agreement and focus on the other issues because there is plenty of them to discuss.
You are most welcome mate, I appreciate good manners and a technical approach. In fact I have to say I never envisaged this part of the forum being so civil and interesting. You are a good ambassador for the CT section Stundie! Thank you for your civility, good manners, and a fine conversation. I get along great with smart people! No matter if I agree with them or not. Anyone can see you are an astute poster mate.
I certainly will prefer an honest and open debate, because I do not want to win, I just want to see aholes like Jones and Berger exposed for the childish jerks they are and all their nincompoopery exposed for what it is. Tossers like that who refuse to get a real job and waste peoples times and lives by just doing their damnedest to upset others I see as parasites on society. I seriously hate people lying to, or trying to take advantage of me. CT's I see in this category, I have a personal reason for wanting to oust 911 as well, wich I do not wish to mention here in public. I have no time for a snake oil salesman.
Cause as we know....
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It is my hope that I can offer that which is missing from the debate, it is a big world, and it takes many types to go around. As I say, I understand your frustration, I can only say for me, with time, it did get better. To a point where I would be honoured to buy Sky a cold frosty beer, and listen to any story he might be willing to share. I think his wealth of experience is undervalued and not seen for what it is worth only because times are moving a bit quick from some of us to keep up with. But I admit, it took me some time to realise that.
Like I say you are 100% right, I cannot deny fact, and fact is OBL was not indicted for 911, but I think we both agree that in no way absolves nor clears him fro the atrocity, and by action and association, I think everyone in the world knows he was involved, he just planned himself out of it well. I still think he had some ploy to work for him if he was, and that might well be why the FBI decided to keep him just one the one charge they did have, that did stick. Like Jailing Al Capone for tax evasion I suppose. Sometimes, one has to make do with what ne has. Capone did not suffer as much as the average man in jai, far from it, but boy howdy was he angry at going to jail. He was busted, and in front of everyone. All of sudden he was not some high class businessman, he was a street thug. During his early months at Alcatraz, Capone made an enemy by showing his disregard for the prison social order when he cut in line while prisoners were waiting for a haircut. James Lucas, a Texas bank robber serving 30 years, reportedly confronted the former syndicate leader and told him to get back at the end of the line. When Capone asked if he knew who he was, Lucas reportedly grabbed a pair of the barber's scissors and, holding them to Capone's neck, answered "Yeah, I know who you are, greaseball. And if you don't get back to the end of that ******* line, I'm gonna know who you were."
Edited by psyche101, 21 February 2013 - 04:59 AM.