Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,

781 posts in this topic

Did you read the links?

I have actually, but I fail to see evidence. Maybe just post the pertanent parts so I know why you find these articles so persuasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Makes zero sense to dump his body in the ocean for his beliefs, im pretty sure 3000 persons plus didnt want to pass the way they did. I bet they caught him and were torturing the s*** out of him for what he did and didn't want public to know.

Or

He never really existed anyway.

Edited by hortie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have actually, but I fail to see evidence. Maybe just post the pertanent parts so I know why you find these articles so persuasive.

The links are straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought we were agreed he's finaly dead.

Just want to make sure because you wrote this.

As I've asked before... show me the results...

As if you had serious doubts.

...So this article will corroberate that.

Not only that, but corroborate other evidence as well.

.

We spent BILLIONS to get him and you don't want to spend a nickel to prove it?

Actually, I don't even need to spend a penny, and here is why.

Ayman al-Zawahir

Ayman al-Zawahiri, an eye surgeon who helped found the Egyptian militant group Islamic Jihad, was named as the new leader of al-Qaeda on 16 June 2011, a few weeks after Bin Laden's death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...h-asia-11489337

That, after al-Qaeda confirmed the death of Osamm bin Laden, which shows that the United States wasn't the only source confirming the death of Osama bin Laden.

It's all been a waste of money unless you're set up to profit off of the war.

The United States military is broke because of the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That hint was the recent announcement that air show performances of the Air Force Thunderbirds and of the Navy's Blue Angels have been cancelled. Now, it has been announced that 17 Air Force squadrons will be shut down. Actually,14 squadrons have already been shutdown with three more to go.

That doesn't sound like we benefited from those two wars, especially since the two wars will eventually cost the U.S. government trillions of dollars over the next three decades. Right now, many airmen are unable to replace their flight suits because the Air Force is broke. Question is, who spread the false stories that we would benefit from the wars?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all you armchair experts (BR) claiming helicopters can not be made stealthy, you should look into the RAH-66 Comanche project. Clearly it's believed among the military that there is merit to such a notion...

You're absolutely right that the Commanche incorporated stealth technology, but the rest of the story is that the Commanche product never came to market. 1 or 2 prototypes was all there was.

And the other part of the story is that The Legend Of Abbottabad says Blackhawks were used, not Commanches, which would have been only a gunship platform.

The other part of the story never discussed, a question never asked, is just why on earth would "stealth" helicopters be involved at Abbottabad at all? That suggests that AQ, or whoever the bad guy of the day is there in Pakistan, had radar facilities that the US had to avoid. Pure nonsense. The US "owns" the skies over there, and the bad guys have no radar, only shoulder-launched AA weapons which are visual and not radar controlled.

So, why did they even need a mythical stealth helicopter for success of the operation? They did not.

Sky clings to this story like he clings to the impossible story of 911. So it goes for a person who chooses to defend the indefensible. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that the Commanche incorporated stealth technology, but the rest of the story is that the Commanche product never came to market. 1 or 2 prototypes was all there was.

True, but it does show that the idea of stealth helicopters has merit and was in fact studied, and the methods and materials they discovered to make the commanche a stealth helicopter would not have been forgotten.

And the other part of the story is that The Legend Of Abbottabad says Blackhawks were used, not Commanches, which would have been only a gunship platform.

Indeed. I was not saying that commanches were used. I was merely saying that you and the government are in a major disagreement as to whether stealth helicopters are possible. You're insisting they are not possible, while the government seems to believe they are and has infact invested many millions of dollars in developing the technology already.

The other part of the story never discussed, a question never asked, is just why on earth would "stealth" helicopters be involved at Abbottabad at all? That suggests that AQ, or whoever the bad guy of the day is there in Pakistan, had radar facilities that the US had to avoid. Pure nonsense. The US "owns" the skies over there, and the bad guys have no radar, only shoulder-launched AA weapons which are visual and not radar controlled.

I'm quite certain the Pakistani military has radar facilities...

So, why did they even need a mythical stealth helicopter for success of the operation? They did not.

I'd say that the stealth helicopters were indeed necessary to infiltrate the country undetected... Are you saying they would not have been detected if they used normal non-stealth aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that the Commanche incorporated stealth technology, but the rest of the story is that the Commanche product never came to market. 1 or 2 prototypes was all there was.

And the other part of the story is that The Legend Of Abbottabad says Blackhawks were used, not Commanches, which would have been only a gunship platform.

The other part of the story never discussed, a question never asked, is just why on earth would "stealth" helicopters be involved at Abbottabad at all? That suggests that AQ, or whoever the bad guy of the day is there in Pakistan, had radar facilities that the US had to avoid. Pure nonsense. The US "owns" the skies over there, and the bad guys have no radar, only shoulder-launched AA weapons which are visual and not radar controlled.

So, why did they even need a mythical stealth helicopter for success of the operation? They did not.

Does Pakistan have radar? In what country is Abbottabad located? Where was Osama bin Laden?

Sky clings to this story like he clings to the impossible story of 911.

It has been more than 11 years since the 911 attacks and still no evidence in sight that refutes the official story. You say there is evidence, so where is that evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, maybe you didn't learn to read... but the DNA test only confirmed that whatever sample they had came from a brother of UBL's sister. They did not do a full and proper DNA test to actually confirm that it was UBL... Just a close relative of his sister... Not to mention again, what was the chain of evidence?

No chain of evidence = no reliable test.

Partial DNA match = could have been another family member..

Again, Al Qaeda could just be going with the story... Their claims are completely satire, not like they're his friends or anything...

(I could tell my family and friends to claim I am dead too, stop talking on um, not participate under this alias.. Would that mean I am dead?)

You told someone to prove he is alive, why don't you prove he is dead without using the word of his own family and friends... or completely unsound evidence. I'll wait

Oh he's dead. He had a kidney diease that killed him years before all this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Pakistan have radar? In what country is Abbottabad located? Where was Osama bin Laden?

It has been more than 11 years since the 911 attacks and still no evidence in sight that refutes the official story. You say there is evidence, so where is that evidence?

I wish I had a dollar for everytime you have used the words "no evidence". Watching buildings designed to take hits from commercial aircraft falling at near free fall speed, and finding vast amounts of military grade thermite alone looks like pretty good evidence to many of us. Lets not even get into the insider trading that went on minutes before the attack, or the mayor of San Fran saying he was warned to not fly to NY the day before ect et, clearly something aint right here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh he's dead. He had a kidney diease that killed him years before all this.

The fact that bin Laden named President Obama in his tapes proves beyond a doubt that you are incorrect at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Stellar

Please get your facts straight. You guys that post from an emotional perspective rather than a rational perspective make all sorts of crazy statements.

That is, 'stealth' is a relative term. It simply means that a 'stealth' design will offer a reduced radar signature. Remember that the type of radar being used is the other part of the equation. High quality military advanced radar is one thing, and then there is the other end of the spectrum.

While airplanes are fairly easy to make stealthy in these last few decades, helicopters not so much PRIMARILY because they have 2 sets of turning blades that must be turning for the machine to fly. You may or may not know that even the turning blades of a jet engine on a fixed wing platform can present a higher radar signature. Thus, they 'hide' both the front end and back end of the engine, and they pay a performance penalty for hiding it thusly. In the case of a helicopter, they cannot hide the blades lest the machine becomes nonfunctional.

So when I say a stealth helicopter is impossible, I mean within the context of fixed wing stealth capability. They cannot hide those turning blades, and depending upon the radar being used, the helicopter will be seen when a fixed wing might not be.

I'm saying we don't really care what the Pakistanis like or don't like. We pretty much do what we want over there, and there are helicopters in the air all the time. Yes, there is an appearance of independence for those governments like Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the 800 pound gorilla in the room has his way.

The helicopter piece at Abbottabad is just a stage prop meant to help deceive those easily deceived. The blades were not turning at impact, the rest of the helicopter is as invisible as "Osama's" dialysis machine, and it is a strange construct that fits on nothing in the US inventory.

I'm saying that stealth or not, as far as any Pakistani radar controller would have been concerned, the targets he saw, IF he could even see them because of the heavily mountainous terrain (it causes fits with radar coverage in case you didn't know), would have been just 2 more US helicopters going here and there. He might have been worried about high speed fixed wing inbound to Islamabad, but 2 more helicopters? Big deal.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Please get your facts straight. You guys that post from an emotional perspective rather than a rational perspective make all sorts of crazy statements.

You are incorrect.

That is, 'stealth' is a relative term. It simply means that a 'stealth' design will offer a reduced radar signature. Remember that the type of radar being used is the other part of the equation. High quality military advanced radar is one thing, and then there is the other end of the spectrum.

Question is: did Pakistan have radar? Yes it did. So, why the dancing routine?

While airplanes are fairly easy to make stealthy in these last few decades, helicopters not so much PRIMARILY because they have 2 sets of turning blades that must be turning for the machine to fly.

What is the purpose of an aircraft wing? What is the purpose of the main rotor of a helicopter? How are wings made stealthy? It is clearly evident that you are not up-to-speed on stealth technology and helicopters.

The helicopter piece at Abbottabad is just a stage prop meant to help deceive those easily deceived.

Another false comment on your part. Did you really think the Pakistan government would have allowed a Chinook to drop off that piece illegally? I don't t think so. Since then, other photos have been released which proved that you are incorrect.

The blades were not turning at impact, the rest of the helicopter ...

Consider that the tail rotor shaft was severed by the wall, it should have been no mystery to you if you knew anything about helicopters, which is becoming evident that you don't. That tail boom also house the bearings for the shaft. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the tail rotor wasn't rotating, but I guess that logic escaped you because of your lack of knowledge on helicopters, so stop pretending that you know anything about helicopters because you have already proven that you don't and the fact that you brought up a non-rotating tail rotor as an issue underlines my point about your lack of knowledge on helicopters.

I have to say that your comments make for good comic relief for those of us who know better.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wish I had a dollar for everytime you have used the words "no evidence".

Well, let's look at why! Let's take a few examples:

*Claim: United 93 did not crash near Shanksville because it landed at Cleveland Airport

*Fact: The aircraft 911 conspiracist had claimed was United 93, a B-757, was Delta 1989, which was a B-767

* Claim: Passengers of United 93 were seen as they were bused from Cleveland Airport

* Fact: The passengers were actually scientist who had disembarked from an KC-135

* Claim: The WTC towers fell at free fall speed

* Fact: At no time did those buildings fall at free fall speeds, which is indicated by dust plumes and deris outpacing the collapse of the buildings. Seismic monitors had shown that at no time, did the WTC towers collapse at free fall speed.

* Claim: Molten steel is seen flowing from WTC2

* Fact: The molten metal was molten aluminum, which is indicated by the silvery droplets seen as the aluminum had cooled

* Claim: Explosives are required to make the WTC buildings collapse the way they did.

* Fact: The Verinage demolition technique does not require explosives

* Claim: This photo was proof of molten steel at ground zerio

* Fact: The photo depicts a reflecton from a flashlight, not molten steel

[media=]

[/media]!

* Claim: A pod was attached to United 175

* Fact: No such pod was attached. 911 conspiracist mistakenly confused aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors as a pod.

fairings.jpg

One poster even confused the paint scheme as a pod on the bottom fuselage and forward of the wing.

* Claim: ACARS depicted 911 airliners airborne after their crash times.

* Fact: At no time did ACARS depict any 911 airliner airborne after their reported crash times. 911 conspiracist became confused over how the system actually works.

* Claim: United 93 was shot down

* Fact: United 93 was not shot down and in fact, no such order was issued before United 93 crashed.

The list goes on and on as to where 911 conspiracist have made claims that held as much water as a bottomless bucket..

Watching buildings designed to take hits from commercial aircraft falling at near free fall speed, ...

The buildings did not fall at free fall speed as indicated in this photo where dust plumes and debris are actually outpacing the collapse of the building itself, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the buildings did not collapse at free fall speed, and that is just another misconception on the part of 911 conspiracist not doing their homework properly.

...and finding vast amounts of military grade thermite alone looks like pretty good evidence to many of us.

How amusing since no evidence of planted thermite was ever found at ground zero. Ever wondered why demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish tall buildings? Ever wonder why the lack of barium Nitrate at ground zero demolished 911 conspiracist claims of thermate at ground zero?

Lets not even get into the insider trading that went on minutes before the attack, or the mayor of San Fran saying he was warned to not fly to NY the day before ect et, clearly something aint right here.

Where was Donald Rumsfeld when American 77 struck the Pentagon? Seems you spend too much time in the wrong places, like those 911 conspiracy websites that are notorious for getting the facts all wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOD Its Insaine In here ! What will it take to Educate these People ? If Even One C.T person could even show One signal bit a Fact that IT was anything but what it Was !

We Will All be waiting for a Very Long time ! For That Day !

Do we need to Draw a cartoon ? ITs All they seem to Understand ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth do you visit here Don? It seems to cause you so much anxiety, that I don't understand what part of it you enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stellar

Please get your facts straight. You guys that post from an emotional perspective rather than a rational perspective make all sorts of crazy statements.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Is it not possible that you are the one arguing from a biased emotional perspective?

That is, 'stealth' is a relative term. It simply means that a 'stealth' design will offer a reduced radar signature. Remember that the type of radar being used is the other part of the equation. High quality military advanced radar is one thing, and then there is the other end of the spectrum.

While airplanes are fairly easy to make stealthy in these last few decades, helicopters not so much PRIMARILY because they have 2 sets of turning blades that must be turning for the machine to fly. You may or may not know that even the turning blades of a jet engine on a fixed wing platform can present a higher radar signature. Thus, they 'hide' both the front end and back end of the engine, and they pay a performance penalty for hiding it thusly. In the case of a helicopter, they cannot hide the blades lest the machine becomes nonfunctional.

So when I say a stealth helicopter is impossible, I mean within the context of fixed wing stealth capability. They cannot hide those turning blades, and depending upon the radar being used, the helicopter will be seen when a fixed wing might not be.

Youre the one attributing a certain context to the word "stealth", not I, not sky, nor the government. We are simply saying that the helicopter that crashed was called a "stealth blackhawk". Nothing more, nothing less. I already showed you, when referencing the Comanche project, that such a notion has been entertained by the US military. The US military DID see it as something worthwhile to develop. This brings me to the one point I've been trying to make here: Your claim that stealth helicopters are impossible, therefore this was a staged event, does not have any logical consistency. The notion of stealth helicopters does infact exist, and it is quite possible that such a helicopter may have been used.

I'm saying we don't really care what the Pakistanis like or don't like. We pretty much do what we want over there, and there are helicopters in the air all the time. Yes, there is an appearance of independence for those governments like Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the 800 pound gorilla in the room has his way.

That does not answer my question. My question is this: Do you not think the helicopter would have been detected if it was a normal non-stealth blackhawk?

I'm not even going to get into anything further with you until we settle this point first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The helicopter piece at Abbottabad is just a stage prop meant to help deceive those easily deceived.

False!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...the rest of the helicopter is as invisible as "Osama's" dialysis machine,.. .

I wouldn't say that.

06helicopter-articleInline.jpg

heliwreckage-300x212.jpg

1304401750746_ORIGINAL.jpg

helicomponent2-300x270.jpg

...and it is a strange construct that fits on nothing in the US inventory

How many of these do we have in our inventory?

bird_of_prey_12_s.jpg

bird_of_prey_20_s.jpg

northrop-tact-blue-technology-demonstrator.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had a dollar for everytime you have used the words "no evidence".

Here's another hint that Osama bin Laden is no longer around.

New Al Qaeda Leader Calls for US Attacks

Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri urged Muslims to target the United States and avenge the killing of his predecessor Osama bin Laden In a video released three weeks before the 9/11 anniversary, new al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri urges followers to continue to target the United States.

Dressed in white, with his automatic weapon leaning against his left side, Zawahiri urges "Muslim brothers everywhere" to pursue America in the 12-minute video. "America today is staggering," said Zawahiri. "Hunt her down wherever you may encounter her. Hunt her down to cut what is left of her corruption's tail." Zawahiri took over leadership of al Qaeda following the May 2 U.S. raid which killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/911-message-al-qaeda-leader-calls-us-attacks/story?id=14308081#.UZrOaiqF9CY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

Edited by W Tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is arguing "that" other than you?

As always, you make the conversation as ridiculous as possible. Once the conversation wanders into the ridiculous, you post an official story and bam.... What you "feel" is instant credibility. Your lying and minipultion of the facts come back to bite you in the ass as long as there aren't enough new posters. Fortunate for you, that you wage war on a site called "Unexplained Mysteries". The same ole conversation carries you through years with all of the new fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just making a point because there are those who continue to claim that bin Laden was dead in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Is it not possible that you are the one arguing from a biased emotional perspective?

Youre the one attributing a certain context to the word "stealth", not I, not sky, nor the government. We are simply saying that the helicopter that crashed was called a "stealth blackhawk". Nothing more, nothing less. I already showed you, when referencing the Comanche project, that such a notion has been entertained by the US military. The US military DID see it as something worthwhile to develop. This brings me to the one point I've been trying to make here: Your claim that stealth helicopters are impossible, therefore this was a staged event, does not have any logical consistency. The notion of stealth helicopters does infact exist, and it is quite possible that such a helicopter may have been used.

That does not answer my question. My question is this: Do you not think the helicopter would have been detected if it was a normal non-stealth blackhawk?

I'm not even going to get into anything further with you until we settle this point first.

The answer to your question, if it is to be an accurate answer, would require more information than you have provided in your hypothetical question. We need to know the track the ships took, we need to know the placement of radar antennae near or along that route, we need to know even if those radar facilities were manned, of course we need to know the terrain features relative to track and radar locations. Depending upon those facts, no it was probably not detected, or yes, it probably was detected.

Feel better?

Yessir, I understand that both you and Sky have kept to the Official Story and specified that "stealth Blackhawks" were used. Copy that. Now if you, or Sky with all his magic photos and videos, could provide a picture of such a ship, we might actually have a substantive discussion, and you might actually make some positive contribution to the veracity of the official story. Alas, so far no such picture.

And the elephant in the room is that the piece shown at Abbottabad does not resemble in anyway a Blackhawk, and the blades were not turning as it touched the earth, strongly suggesting that it was placed there for effect, rather like the piece placed on the lawn at the Pentagon. Both those pieces, when closely scrutinized, appear to be nothing but stage props, as part of an outlandish story about killing a man already dead.

Now, just who is being so emotional that reason and analytical thinking are ignored? Who is admiring the Emperor's New Clothes when he is utterly naked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that the Commanche incorporated stealth technology, but the rest of the story is that the Commanche product never came to market. 1 or 2 prototypes was all there was.

And the other part of the story is that The Legend Of Abbottabad says Blackhawks were used, not Commanches, which would have been only a gunship platform.

The other part of the story never discussed, a question never asked, is just why on earth would "stealth" helicopters be involved at Abbottabad at all? That suggests that AQ, or whoever the bad guy of the day is there in Pakistan, had radar facilities that the US had to avoid. Pure nonsense. The US "owns" the skies over there, and the bad guys have no radar, only shoulder-launched AA weapons which are visual and not radar controlled.

So, why did they even need a mythical stealth helicopter for success of the operation? They did not.

Sky clings to this story like he clings to the impossible story of 911. So it goes for a person who chooses to defend the indefensible. :innocent:

Stealth helicopters were used because we believed that there was a possibility Pakistan knew he was there and may try to warn them considering he was located VERY close to a Pakistani military base. And yes, Pakistan does have radar. We do not "own" the skies over Pakistan. There are very strict border rules that the United States has to abide by when operating in Afghanistan. I know this because I spent years in Afghanistan.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yessir, I understand that both you and Sky have kept to the Official Story and specified that "stealth Blackhawks" were used. Copy that. Now if you, or Sky with all his magic photos and videos, could provide a picture of such a ship, we might actually have a substantive discussion, and you might actually make some positive contribution to the veracity of the official story. Alas, so far no such picture.

If the design of an aircraft is top secret and the aircraft is still operational, why would the military release photos of that top secret aircraft on the Internet? If you don't have the required security clearance you are not going to see it.

And the elephant in the room is that the piece shown at Abbottabad does not resemble in anyway a Blackhawk,...

In case you want to know, the helicopter was a modified MH-60.

...and the blades were not turning as it touched the earth,...

How could they rotate when the tail rotor drive shaft was severed by the wall?

Both those pieces, when closely scrutinized, appear to be nothing but stage props, as part of an outlandish story about killing a man already dead.

Consider yourself a victim of a hoax because:

Bin Laden Tape

October 29, 2004

Shortly before the U.S. presidential election on October 29, 2004, Arab television network al Jazeera broadcast an 18-minute video tape of Osama bin Laden, addressed to citizens of the United States. According to the English translation distributed by the BBC and other media outlets, he tells viewers he personally directed the 19 hijackers, and describes his motivation

http://www.nytimes.c...19cnd-tape.html

New Bin Laden Tape Blasts Obama

A new audio tape from Osama bin Laden criticizes President Barack Obama for planting seeds of "hatred and vengeance toward Americans" and warns of "new long wars."

http://www.cbsnews.c...62-5058482.html

January 19, 2006

- Al Jazeera broadcasted an audiotape of bin Laden addressing citizens of the United States again.

April 23, 2006

- Al Jazeera broadcasted parts of an audiotape. On this tape,bin Laden accuses the Western world of waging a Zionist crusade against Islam. He comments on Hamas, Darfur and the situation in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.c...tape/index.html

December 29, 2007

- In an audiotape Osama bin Laden warned Iraq's Sunni Arabs against fighting al-Qaeda and vowed to expand the group's Jihad to Israel, threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."

September 7, 2007

- Bin Laden appears in his first videotape for nearly three years, to mark the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. In a message to the American people, bin Laden says the United States is vulnerable despite its economic and military power.

November 29, 2007

- Bin Laden urges European countries in an audiotape to end their alliance with U.S. forces in the Afghan conflict.

March 19, 2008

- Bin Laden threatens the European Union in an audio recording with grave punishment over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

March 20, 2008

- Bin Laden urges Muslims to keep up the struggle against U.S. forces in Iraq as a path to "liberating Palestine."

May 16, 2008

- Bin Laden, in a new audio tape, urges the fight against Israel to continue and says the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the Muslim battle with the West. The speech was addressed to "Western peoples."

May 18, 2008

- Bin Laden urges Muslims to break the Israeli-led blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and fight Arab governments that deal with the Jewish state in an audio tape posted on the Internet.

January 14, 2009

- Bin Laden, in a new audio tape, calls for a new jihad over Gaza and says the global financial crisis has exposed waning U.S. influence in world affairs and that it will in turn weaken its ally Israel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.