Ok, I’m going to try to avoid the unevidenced rhetoric/delusions throughout your post – Al Jazeera reporters have “personal involvement” with bin Laden?? – and make this into something informative and hopefully interesting.
So let’s assume you are correct that a network who releases bin Laden messages has personal involvement with bin Laden, and let’s talk about the February 2003 audiotape. Who was first to release existence of that tape and details of the transcript to the world? It wasn’t Al Jazeera. It was the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in the U.S. Senate!
This means, according to your logic, that top tier of the Bush administration had “personal involvement” with bin Laden. Though I’m sure you will change your own rules and adopt the delusion to make the fact fit your worldview any which way. Al Jazeera were initially unaware of the audiotape and dismissed the claim as rumour, but later that day came into possession of the message which they broadcast in full.
Personally I think this shows only that U.S. intel were uncomfortably close to ‘Al Qaeda’ and bin Laden to get hold of that transcript so fast and beat Al Jazeera to the punch.
I could say the same to you, and it would be all the more true. You see, whist I would like to have seen bin Laden on trial and face punishment for crimes he is found guilty of, in addition to thorough investigation and understanding of the hijackers and their support network, along with a full enquiry into actions of the Bush administration and intelligence agencies... you defend involvement of those latter players to the hilt. I don’t defend anyone – I’ll throw the whole lot in a pot and apportion guilt where it’s due – you are the one who is selective and heavily biased about where we point the finger.
It’s not a cheap shot to point out that intelligent readers will hold more credence in sources such as the FBIS, BBC and Al Jazeera than in Annanova, the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster, as you do.
That is a problem – understanding of crimes requires that we get in the mind of the killer(s). And you don’t even seek to understand those you accuse, much less those latter players I mentioned involved. It’s a wilful ignorance on your part – never a good thing.
I can find some agreement with you here. Now all you have to realise is that agents of the CIA are not stupid or crazy, and find that section of the command where individuals did benefit. Once you realise that it makes a whole lot of sense and you won’t have to wonder anymore.
You constructed that question from me talking about a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent? Oh dear, I’ll have to spell it out. I’m saying that the CIA support ‘Al Qaeda’. No, more than that, I’m saying that in instances the CIA are ‘Al Qaeda’.
"had no connection at all with September 11... I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission...
Please note nuance of the apostrophes around a name, meant to indicate that I’m not being sincere when I reference ahem... ‘bin Laden’. When I say, “it’s a good job that ‘bin Laden’ came riding to the rescue”, I’m actually saying it’s bull****, the tape appears coerced/edited/fabricated to suit U.S. needs.
- That is why the 2003 audiotape was revealed to the world by Colin Powell in the U.S. Senate, with ‘bin Laden’ conveniently declaring his allegiance with Iraq one month before the U.S. invasion.
- That is why the 2004 ‘first confession’ was released shortly before Bush’s re-election, the ‘October Surprise’ which boosted his ratings, with the CIA director stating, “bin Laden certainly did a nice favour today for the President” and CIA consensus that the tape was “designed strategically to help President Bush win re-election”.
- That is why the 2006 audiotape absolved the U.S. of failure to prosecute Moussaoui on 9/11 related charges (despite his obvious involvement in the plot, which I agree) whilst having no benefit to bin Laden.
There is more, much more, but do you see the pattern? It all plays right into U.S. hands.
The reason being... ? Ah, you will never figure it out. The reason being, that releases are not coming from bin Laden. The tapes are coerced/edited/fabricated by those holding bin Laden in confinement – elements of the CIA/ISI in Pakistan.
I went to college with many trainee architects - not always the brightest of fellows when it comes to problem solving and logic it must be said. Even with those fully qualified architects, it was often about aesthetics (external appearance) and very little practicality (sense). I’d be more impressed if you were an engineer... even more, an unbiased person with no qualification at all...
The features are ideal fit for a prison, that is blatant. You could make the counter-argument that a prison design forms a good ‘strong house’ but that does not remove that the building design and features fit a prison.
The example you have provided of the Swiss ambassador building...
Is a terrible fit to bin Laden’s prison...
Please try again.
Hey, why do you think the ISI were so aggrieved with the man who helped the CIA find bin Laden? He should have been a hero, but instead the ISI tortured him and put him away for 33 years. Clearly the answer is that he disrupted their operation. There are even reports that the building was designed by an architect who worked for the ISI and that the compound was initially used by the ISI (I won’t bother you with link to those particular reports - coming from a Gulf news source I know you’d dismiss it out of hand). I’ll stick with this one for now: -
There’s another particular story you can lookup online which highlights the prison nature of the compound. When a child’s ball would be lost in the courtyard over the compound wall, the guards would never hand it back, but rather pay the child 2-3 times the money the ball was worth. Why? Did the guards like balls that much? Or is that a standard procedure to ensure no message can leave confines of the compound walls?
You know, I know... but can you accept it? I think not – a decade of bin Laden propaganda runs deep and I’m quite sure you have no will to overcome it. Fortunately others prefer to be enlightened.