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

There would be a lot of hangings if every provocateur of resistance against U.S. military intervention is addressed. For that is what bin Laden was. It has never been shown that bin Laden played a direct role in the operational planning of 9/11.

Bin Laden himself credited Atta as general of the operation on more than one occasion, himself denying responsibility and made a prediction as far back as 1998 that the U.S. would use him as the bogeyman with which to invade Afghanistan - he was right.

The evidence available suggests bin Laden did not know every specific of the attack. Heck, he tuned into his radio at around 9 a.m. New York time, missing the first WTC plane impact. Hardly the action of someone eagerly awaiting news on success of the attack he had allegedly masterminded for years. No, the evidence is that bin Laden did not know what time it was scheduled.

A legal case never was presented as to bin Laden’s involvement you know. What we have is a propaganda campaign; a politically driven witch hunt, the likes of which should not exist in a civilised world where the rule is “innocent until proven guilty”.

There are too many other points to mention in one post.

He didn't know every specific of the attack or so you say.. BUT HE KNEW ABOUT IT! You were there when he turned on his radio at around 9am? Or that's what you read some where ha ha ha. I'm assuming that only the pieces crap that actually committed this coward act knew the exact time. Even after hi-jacking the plane I'm sure the time of impact was unknown. If I handed you a knife and said go stab this person today... Would I know the exact moment you carried out the crime? When are you "propaganda campaign" people gonna get it? THESE PEOPLE HATE YOU! They would slice your head off if they had the chance. Don't think so? Fly over there and hang out with them. Its just propaganda they're probably friendly. Of course you have researched the internet for data and are probably well aware of how everything went down on 9/11 LMAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden's alleged voice claims responsibilities to carry out the attacks were given to 19 men and Moussaoui was not one of them.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the voice said. "
I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers
and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission.
"

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden continued.

Source

The audiotape is fraudulent.

How do we know?

Because it makes zero sense, that’s how...

Moussaoui stood trial for over four years, all that time accused of being the 20th hijacker. And, bin Laden spoke not a squeak for his innocence. Come on bin Laden, speak up, now is the time, Moussaoui needs help, where are you? Nothing…

On May 3rd 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after the jury decided there was insufficient evidence to pass a death penalty. The lack of evidence to Moussaoui’s guilt, and failure of the U.S. prosecution to prove it, was an embarrassment which drew considerable media attention at the time. If Moussaoui’s role cannot be upheld, what else cannot be proven?

A little over two weeks later, May 23rd 2006, ‘bin Laden’ comes riding to their aid: “No, you did the right thing, Moussaoui was not involved for I am the bogeyman!” Well that was jolly good of you… *cough*… ‘bin Laden’. It was no favour to Moussaoui to whom sentencing was already passed, but it sure vindicated the U.S. prosecution.

It is the same as previous ‘bin Laden’ tapes which intelligence analysts stated appeared to be designed to support the Bush administration. It is the same as previous tapes which independent verifiers stated did not appear to be the voice of bin Laden.

Add that bin Laden was under lockdown at the time – that was no ‘hideout’ in Abbottabad, it was a Pakistani safehouse; effectively a prison. Bin Laden was under control and through these fraudulent tapes, others were speaking for him.

However did you get so trusting, booNy?

When did you start defaulting to believe everything you hear?

You do know politicians will fabricate great untruths to drive their ideologies right?

The slightest of critical thinking and research reveals this.

He didn't know every specific of the attack or so you say.. BUT HE KNEW ABOUT IT!

Yes bin Laden certainly knew about it, someone had informed him. As he said, “We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day.” Note the distinction: someone told bin Laden when the attack would take place, bin Laden did not decide the date.

So what I would really like to know, is what detail of involvement in the operational planning, if any, bin Laden did have. That is where the evidence is lacking and the propaganda driven witch-hunt has taken over. Do you know it seems bin Laden wasn’t even aware how much his alleged own operation cost, until after the official U.S. report told him?

Bin Laden had foreknowledge but was not running the show.

The implications of that are potentially huge.

We need to look at those who were running the show, their background, circumstances, and to what end.

Bin Laden wasn’t shy admitting his direct involvement for past attacks. Listen to this from a 1997 interview where bin Laden admits to his involvement in Somalia: “… I had sent 250 Mujahidin. We got moral support from local Muslims. In one explosion one hundred Americans were killed, then 18 more were killed in fighting. One day our men shot down an American helicopter.”

Then it comes to 9/11 and we get: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”

And I wonder how many others knew of the coming attack? Certainly the CIA bin Laden unit who were aware of two of the Al Qaeda terrorists illegally inside the U.S. for months prior, that they were connected to previous attacks and were now training for plane hijacking operations… yet took sustained and deliberate action to prevent the FBI from acting on this information.

I also wonder if those like Bush and Cheney had foreknowledge of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who would be killed in their unnecessary wars based on a pretense. Perhaps they are in line for some justice, if the punishment you suggested for such crime is to be applied objectively across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

You are asking far too much of Boo and others. Skepticism and critical thinking are not part of their job description. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we do appear to have a pretty blatant confession from Usama bin Laden...

Bin Laden's alleged voice claims responsibilities to carry out the attacks were given to 19 men and Moussaoui was not one of them.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the voice said. "
I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers
and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission.
"

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden continued.

Source

The audiotape is fraudulent.

How do we know?

Because it makes zero sense, that’s how...

Moussaoui stood trial for over four years, all that time accused of being the 20th hijacker. And, bin Laden spoke not a squeak for his innocence. Come on bin Laden, speak up, now is the time, Moussaoui needs help, where are you? Nothing…

On May 3rd 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after the jury decided there was insufficient evidence to pass a death penalty. The lack of evidence to Moussaoui’s guilt, and failure of the U.S. prosecution to prove it, was an embarrassment which drew considerable media attention at the time. If Moussaoui’s role cannot be upheld, what else cannot be proven?

A little over two weeks later, May 23rd 2006, ‘bin Laden’ comes riding to their aid: “No, you did the right thing, Moussaoui was not involved for I am the bogeyman!” Well that was jolly good of you… *cough*… ‘bin Laden’. It was no favour to Moussaoui to whom sentencing was already passed, but it sure vindicated the U.S. prosecution.

It is the same as previous ‘bin Laden’ tapes which intelligence analysts stated appeared to be designed to support the Bush administration. It is the same as previous tapes which independent verifiers stated did not appear to be the voice of bin Laden.

Add that bin Laden was under lockdown at the time – that was no ‘hideout’ in Abbottabad, it was a Pakistani safehouse; effectively a prison. Bin Laden was under control and through these fraudulent tapes, others were speaking for him.

However did you get so trusting, booNy?

When did you start defaulting to believe everything you hear?

You do know politicians will fabricate great untruths to drive their ideologies right?

The slightest of critical thinking and research reveals this.

Is the following section of my original post some kind of proof for my psychic powers of premonition?

Of course most CTs will claim this tape wasn't genuine. There is always an out. :rolleyes:

Nah, just a sign of how predictable the likely response would be.

So your argument is that it makes zero sense?

What kind of sense does a controlled demolition of WTC 7 make?

Hrmmmm...

I want to destroy some documents so...

I'll light my building on fire and let it burn for over 7 hours... then I'll demolish it with unconventional explosives which I secretly implanted before the attacks... Because that is obviously the most efficient and effective way to get rid of documents that I don't want to be discovered by... who exactly?

That makes perfect sense... :unsure2:

Q

You are asking far too much of Boo and others. Skepticism and critical thinking are not part of their job description. :innocent:

On the contrary, I'm skeptical of everything originating from your keyboard. I'm critical of outlandish claims, and the claim that 9/11 was inside job is completely outlandish.

You have produced absolutely nothing to substantiate your biased opinions and outlandish claims. Nothing.

So yes, I'm highly critical and skeptical of everything you present.

Q24 at least makes an effort to substantiate his position. Unlike you, he has many compelling arguments. Unlike you, I respect that about him; even though I disagree with his interpretations of many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crock :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the following section of my original post some kind of proof for my psychic powers of premonition?

Nah, just a sign of how predictable the likely response would be.

Answers are not invalidated by their predictability.

Indeed the obvious answer, accounting for all evidence, is usually the best.

The answer 1+1=2 is predictable.

booNy: I guess you will say 1+1=2

Q: The answer is 2, and here is why…

booNy: Ahhh you are wrong because I predicted it!

Q: Eh??

Sorry, just a bit of fun :lol:

So your argument is that it makes zero sense?

Yes, for the reasons set out, in addition to the other points I mentioned.

And your counter-argument is an off-topic diversion to… WTC7? Apologies for saying, an ill-conceived view of it at that.

You guys are really struggling lately. Do you see the weak arguments you are forced to take up? That’s what happens when one chooses to defend propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo

I already knew that you don't believe a word I say. Copy that.

The funny part, fairly well irrational in my view, is that you believe EVERYTHING & ANYTHING the government said 10 years ago. You prefer to ignore things that have been discovered since. You take at face value the words of an outfit well known to be liars.

You see that behavior as rational, I see it as irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answers are not invalidated by their predictability.

Indeed the obvious answer, accounting for all evidence, is usually the best.

The answer 1+1=2 is predictable.

booNy: I guess you will say 1+1=2

Q: The answer is 2, and here is why…

booNy: Ahhh you are wrong because I predicted it!

Q: Eh??

Sorry, just a bit of fun :lol:

Ah, but I wasn't suggesting that your reasoning was invalid simply because I anticipated it. I was merely pointing out the predictable nature of your mindset when it comes to evidence which refutes your theories; If it doesn't agree with my theory, it must be fake.

Yes, for the reasons set out, in addition to the other points I mentioned.

And your counter-argument is an off-topic diversion to… WTC7? Apologies for saying, an ill-conceived view of it at that.

You guys are really struggling lately. Do you see the weak arguments you are forced to take up? That’s what happens when one chooses to defend propaganda.

Struggling? Need I actually respond to your reasoning with counter points? Your position is solely based on your personal opinion and personal interpretation of the motives behind the purported tape. You've invented a purpose for the tape in order to nullify its content within your mind. What if the purpose of the tape had nothing to do with what you suggest?

Why would bin Laden want to help Moussaoui? Could it not be that the tape is merely a response to the trial and sentencing and intended to embarrass the US justice system in the eyes of the world? Could it not be that he was intending to point out the errors of the trial in an effort to further fuel the terrorism apparatus? Bring down the infidels because of their unjust nature?

How about this... if it wasn't a genuine tape... why did he not release a statement denouncing the tape and denying it?

I guess that doesn't matter though, because your compelling argument that "it doesn't make sense" is all that really counts... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ya hate when you have to resort to ad hom. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ya hate when you have to resort to ad hom. :w00t:

I assume that you are accusing me of resorting to ad hom? Can you quote the relevant portion of my post which you believe to be ad hom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but I wasn't suggesting that your reasoning was invalid simply because I anticipated it. I was merely pointing out the predictable nature of your mindset when it comes to evidence which refutes your theories; If it doesn't agree with my theory, it must be fake.

Oh I see, you just misunderstood the logic.

I’ll say again, the audio tape is not determined to be fraudulent because, “it doesn't agree with my theory”.

The audio tape appears fraudulent because: -

  1. the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’.
  2. the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system.
  3. the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages.
  4. previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent.
  5. previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration.
  6. the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before.
  7. indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time.

Just brainstorming above, a number of the points require an essay of their own.

Knowing all this, it would be foolish to accept the audio tape as genuine without question.

What if the purpose of the tape had nothing to do with what you suggest?

Then I’d be absolutely amazed.

I await the evidence…

Why would bin Laden want to help Moussaoui? Could it not be that the tape is merely a response to the trial and sentencing and intended to embarrass the US justice system in the eyes of the world? Could it not be that he was intending to point out the errors of the trial in an effort to further fuel the terrorism apparatus? Bring down the infidels because of their unjust nature?

Moussaoui was one of those Al Qaeda boys, you know, bin Laden’s army of mind-controlled Jihadists. It seems to me that bin Laden would want to get his guy off the hook if he could. And if you are going to make a statement in Moussaoui’s defence, you do it before sentencing, not after.

Judging by what you have said, I’m not sure you understand what happened at the trial, have a read – Moussaoui was sent down on terrorism related charges but could not be found guilty for charges relating to 9/11. There was a huge media fuss about it. Fortunately the ‘bin Laden’ statement, less than three weeks after sentencing, completely vindicated the U.S. justice system – they got it right on, yeah, even bin Laden said so.

I’m sure you believe that was very good of bin Laden.

I think it’s bull****.

How about this... if it wasn't a genuine tape... why did he not release a statement denouncing the tape and denying it?

The answer to that, is something I’m surprised a lot more have not jumped on.

Do you really think bin Laden was living it up in his Abbottabad holiday home, free to release whatever he wanted?

Have you read about that place? Or the agreements reached beforehand?

It was a prison.

That is why bin Laden did not denounce anything after his two initial denials late 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see, you just misunderstood the logic.

I’ll say again, the audio tape is not determined to be fraudulent because, “it doesn't agree with my theory”.

The audio tape appears fraudulent because: -

  1. the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’.
  2. the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system.
  3. the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages.
  4. previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent.
  5. previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration.
  6. the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before.
  7. indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time.

Just brainstorming above, a number of the points require an essay of their own.

Knowing all this, it would be foolish to accept the audio tape as genuine without question.

Then I’d be absolutely amazed.

I await the evidence…

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.

  1. the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’. In your opinion.
  2. the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system. By your interpretation.
  3. the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages. Only his denial, which you appear to blindly accept as truth?
  4. previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent. This has no bearing on any given tape. Using the same logic we should unilaterally declare all of them as fraudulent, including his denials which you so blindly accept as truth.
  5. previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration. Completely irrelevant if your interest is in identifying the authenticity of this individual tape.
  6. the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before. Completely irrelevant if your interest is in identifying the authenticity of this individual tape.
  7. indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time. Assumption on your part, but for the sake of argument... What of the other tapes which were released after this one? Also fraudulent for the same reason?

Moussaoui was one of those Al Qaeda boys, you know, bin Laden’s army of mind-controlled Jihadists. It seems to me that bin Laden would want to get his guy off the hook if he could. And if you are going to make a statement in Moussaoui’s defence, you do it before sentencing, not after.

Judging by what you have said, I’m not sure you understand what happened at the trial, have a read – Moussaoui was sent down on terrorism related charges but could not be found guilty for charges relating to 9/11. There was a huge media fuss about it. Fortunately the ‘bin Laden’ statement, less than three weeks after sentencing, completely vindicated the U.S. justice system – they got it right on, yeah, even bin Laden said so.

I’m sure you believe that was very good of bin Laden.

I think it’s bull****.

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.

The answer to that, is something I’m surprised a lot more have not jumped on.

Do you really think bin Laden was living it up in his Abbottabad holiday home, free to release whatever he wanted?

Have you read about that place? Or the agreements reached beforehand?

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.

It was a prison.

That is why bin Laden did not denounce anything after his two initial denials late 2001.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OBL assassination story was a PR coup, meant to increase Obama's ratings, which it did. Also meant to distract from other more important issues, which it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OBL assassination story was a PR coup, meant to increase Obama's ratings, which it did. Also meant to distract from other more important issues, which it did.

Wasn't there some Draconian bill pushed through that day while everyone was looking somewhere else? Or am I thinking of another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right about that Wandering, but I'm not sure.

It seems that Obama's ratings were going down, and he was under fire for some other issues. I want to say that happened right after his incredible faux pas regarding Bradley Manning's guilt as he was embarassed at a very expensive campaign event in San Francisco, but again I'm not sure today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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."

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.

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...

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/news/world-south-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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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?

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

:P

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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.