Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The straight answer is that I haven't seen any evidence to convince me of the above

And no he was not on the wanted list for 911. I believe a grand jury indicted him for the 1998 US embassy bombing, but he never stood trial for it.

So you doubt his involvement in Al-qaeda or just 9/11? Just look at this Interpol link and see what they list as his offenses.

http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.as

You behave as if Bin Laden never committed a crime in his life.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I saw that it's what I quoted All I want is an answer to the question,
Do you consider him a traitor because he doesn't believe/behave as the majority of the ummah?

How am I supposed to know what every muslim thinks or behaves like, there are nearly 2 billion muslims I havent met even quater of them. My answer is I don't know.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not that I, for a moment, believe that you could possibly set aside your weird conspiracy-o-philia to consider the obvious reality, but here's a short reading list for you:

"The Looming Tower" - Lawrence Wright, for starters. (Pulitzer Prize Winner)
"Inside the Jihad" - Omar Nasiri
"Taliban: Militant Islam" - Ahmed Rashid
"Ghost Wars" - Steve Coll
"Jawbreaker" - Ralph Pazzullo
"Al Qaeda in Its Own Words" (which, like, actually uses its members OWN WORDS) - Professor Gilles Kepel, Jean-Pierre Milelli, Pascale Ghazaleh and Omar Saghi​

What's interesting is that this is but the tip of the iceberg. Numerous--as in THOUSANDS--of reporters have dug into this (probably one of the most investigated events in history) and all roads have always pointed to Rome. . . er. . . Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

~String

Opinions are like arseholes. I prefer to go by those that matter - like this one:

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

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.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

I assume that the US DOJ is qualified for its work.

 

[Sock puppet path]

How am I supposed to know what ever muslim thinks or behaves like, there are nearly 2 billion muslims I havent met even quater of them. My answer is I don't know.

So your claim that he is a traitor to the ummah is based in ignorance?

 

[Enmos]

So you doubt his involvement in Al-qaeda or just 9/11? Just look at this Interpol link and see what they list as his offenses.

http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.as

You behave as if Bin Laden never committed a crime in his life.

You forgot a 'p' at the end of the link. The working url is:
http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You forgot a 'p' at the end of the link. The working url is:
http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp

Ah thanks Enmos

 

[S.A.M.]

So you doubt his involvement in Al-qaeda or just 9/11? Just look at this Interpol link and see what they list as his offenses.

http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.as

You behave as if Bin Laden never committed a crime in his life.

Like I said, these are competing narratives of two groups of vigilantes - and I am actually using the judicial system of one group of vigilantes in support of the lack of evidence for the other group of vigilantes. Has the US DOJ indicted al Qaeda as a group for any crime?

Meanwhile, you might want to forward the interpol report to the DOJ.

 

[superstring01]

The straight answer is that I haven't seen any evidence to convince me of the above

You also left out the part that you are both incapable and unwilling to acknowledge the evidence that is available, but prefer the conspiracy option on what amounts to a fraction of the evidence that shows that OBL and AQ masterminded 9/11.

And no he was not on the wanted list for 911.

OBL was on the most wanted list for MANY reasons, but the FBI chose to list those reasons that were already brought up in court documents. Typically only standing indictments are listed on the most wanted posters. Because the files on OBL and the information obtained on him by thy intelligence community was on lockdown, there was no real reason to reveal any of it.

I believe a grand jury indicted him for the 1998 US embassy bombing, but he never stood trial for it so I don't know what the evidence is.

OHHHH, you didn't get to see the evidence! I didn't realize we were operating on a "proof" standard (which, I admit is sorta ridiculous coming from a theist, but that issue for another time). There is always the glaring evidence that he admitted to planning and financing the attacks on video.

~String

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

So your claim that he is a traitor to the ummah is based in ignorance?

No based on the reasons I stated.

 

[Michael]

I think it's funny how SAM was sooo soooo sure that THAT nose, ..... that flat pinched nose, was well, you know, the nose knows

 

[S.A.M.]

You also left out the part that you are both incapable and unwilling to acknowledge the evidence that is available, but prefer the conspiracy option on what amounts to a fraction of the evidence that shows that OBL and AQ masterminded 9/11.



OBL was on the most wanted list for MANY reasons, but the FBI chose to list those reasons that were already brought up in court documents. Typically only standing indictments are listed on the most wanted posters. Because the files on OBL and the information obtained on him by thy intelligence community was on lockdown, there was no real reason to reveal any of it.



OHHHH, you didn't get to see the evidence! I didn't realize we were operating on a "proof" standard (which, I admit is sorta ridiculous coming from a theist, but that issue for another time). There is always the glaring evidence that he admitted to planning and financing the attacks on video.

~String

So the DOJ is the conspiracy option and your reading list is the accredited source? The problem I see with that is that the US never exercised the option to put him on trial when given the choice and chose to kill rather than submit him to due process

So regardless of whatever evidence there is or isn't against him, the official record shows that the available evidence was insufficient to legally indict him.

This is YOUR legal system.

 

[superstring01]

Opinions are like arseholes. I prefer to go by those that matter - like this one:.

Then you're definitely the asshole for not reading a single page of any of the books before rendering verdicts. Each of them were listed for you because of their usage of original source material, which is sited and provided for reference along with photos and original interviews of people involved.

But, then again, you'd know that if you actually read one. But sure, stick to the stuff that parrots your worldview. Nothing screams "intelligent" like someone who pre-selects reading material that supports their worldview.

~String

 

[superstring01]

So the DOJ is the conspiracy option and your reading list is the accredited source?

The material I provided you have been peer reviewed by people in most countries and have come out shining. I know it may not parrot what you want to believe (though, you have no way of knowing what the books contain because you refuse to read them).

It's telling, watching conspiracy nuts try to eliminate options without ever touching them.

~String

 

[Michael]

I heard an "expert" today suggesting Zawahiri really never had much support. Not like Bin Laden. He just isn't "Leader" material. More like a good planner. Or a secretary.


While I personally would have liked to see Bin Laden taken alive. I imagine that such an endeavor would have put more American lives at risk. Image the lone nut taking a classroom of kindergarten kids hostage unless Bin Laden is released. They did this exact thing to Russia. So, the preference is for quick death.

 

[S.A.M.]

@string

Peer reviewed by whom? Can you show me a recognised legal authority which considers the evidence as sufficient to indict him?

 

[superstring01]

So regardless of whatever evidence there is or isn't against him, the official record shows that the available evidence was insufficient to legally indict him.

This is YOUR legal system.

No SAM. Read slowly. . . It'll help.

The FBI didn't need to bug the CIA or NSA to release all their pesky files, there was enough to hang him for the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings. But, suffice it to say, OBL's confession on video and the numerous works that investigated him (some, in which the authors actually MET AND TALKED WITH OBL) show clearly that OBL was the leader and fund supplier of 9/11.

~String

 

[Sock puppet path]

No based on the reasons I stated.

And I asked, Do you consider him a traitor because he doesn't believe/behave as the majority of the ummah? To which your answer was

How am I supposed to know what every muslim thinks or behaves like, there are nearly 2 billion muslims I havent met even quater of them. My answer is I don't know.

So ignorance seems the answer since you can't even give an opinion as to whether, you consider him a traitor because he doesn't believe/behave as the majority of the ummah?

 

[superstring01]

Peer reviewed by whom? Can you show me a legal opinion which considers the evidence as sufficient to indict him?

Right. Then I'm assuming that you have that same standard when you read the nonsense that supports your idiotic theory? You have--I'm sure--vetted all the sources, met the authors, checked the source material for veracity? Right?

I think not.

See. SAM, we both know it's not about evidence with you. It's all about that which supports your world view. Nothing else matters. So why even pretend. It's not like you're actually going to read any contrasting viewpoints. That. . . well, we all know. . . that would be a little too painful.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

No SAM. Read slowly. . . It'll help.

The FBI didn't need to bug the CIA or NSA to release all their pesky files, there was enough to hang him for the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings. But, suffice it to say, OBL's confession on video and the numerous works that investigated him show clearly that OBL was the leader and fund supplier of 9/11.

~String

Is that how the US legal system works? So when the FBI said:

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.”

Were they lying?

(some, in which the authors actually MET AND TALKED WITH OBL)

Who hasn't? Oh wait, so your evidence is based on Osama's confessions which are only exclusively given to reporters who wrote about him?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Like I said, these are competing narratives of two groups of vigilantes - and I am actually using the judicial system of one group of vigilantes in support of the lack of evidence for the other group of vigilantes. Has the US DOJ indicted al Qaeda as a group for any crime?

Meanwhile, you might want to forward the interpol report to the DOJ.

Oh for pete's sake Sam go and check the DOJ's bloody website and type in Bin Laden and you will find a bloody warrant for his arrest! Here's the link:

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/sear...heet=default_frontend&site=default_collection

I mean its full of juicy bits like:

"Al Bakri’s plea states that while all the defendants named in the indictment and other individuals were at al Farooq, bin Laden appeared there and spoke about the alliance of al Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and threatened America and Israel. Al-Bakri also admitted meeting personally with bin Laden while both were at the camp, and that trainers at the camp spoke about the Tanzania Embassy bombing, the intention of al Qaeda to attack the United States, and the request of trainees to volunteer for suicide missions."

"Al-Bakri was one of six defendants charged in a two-count indictment with providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, based on their attendance at an al Qaeda-affiliated training camp. Al-Bakri pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339B, and admitted that he provided material support to al Qaeda by traveling to the al Farooq training camp near Kandahar, Afghanistan, receiving weapons, explosives, tactical, and other training, and by providing guard duty while at the training camp. He also admitted obtaining a uniform and meeting with USAMA BIN LADEN while at the al Farooq camp."