Osama Bin Laden is Dead

S.A.M. said:
You said: We didn't give a rat's ass about Afghanistan before the fact and Iraq is a different bag all together.

That is patently untrue. History did not begin on 9/11. Without American support the religious fundamentalists would never have gained power in Afghanistan - nor would Iraq be ruled by a puppet dictator.
Click to expand...

You mean American support to help them kick the soviet ass?

Insurgents were not reacting to what the US had done before, they were reacting to troops on the ground at the time. Remember the Taliban was asked to give up Osama and refused. The actions against Afghanistan was a direct outcome to their support of terrorist groups. All you mention including the puppet leader is a result of the Taliban allowing terrorist training camps. When did we ever feel the need to go in and take out the Taliban before 9/11?
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
You mean American support to help them kick the soviet ass?

Insurgents were not reacting to what the US had done before, they were reacting to troops on the ground at the time. Remember the Taliban was asked to give up Osama and refused. The actions against Afghanistan was a direct outcome to their support of terrorist groups. All you mention including the puppet leader is a result of the Taliban allowing terrorist training camps. When did we ever feel the need to go in and take out the Taliban before 9/11?
Click to expand...

It is highly ironic that the US was on the other side of the war on terror when it was the Soviets fighting extremists in Afghanistan.

But who knows - perhaps it may be better to let the killers kill each other. Natural selection.
 
S.A.M. said:
It is highly ironic that the US was on the other side of the war on terror when it was the Soviets fighting extremists in Afghanistan.

But who knows - perhaps it may be better to let the killers kill each other. Natural selection.
Click to expand...

Life's full of ironies. I'm not sure what they thought Bin Laden was all about before the fact, nor what they expected of him after. I do agree with you that all this behind the scenes manipulation can blow-up if one doesn't know who they are supporting which is why I disagree with supporting the rebels in Libya. I mean who are they? What would they represent if they won? etc. Its a tricky tricky business which is why I don't believe you go into war lightly nor support it without great consideration.
 
@Sam

Interesting. I don't doubt her experience. And I'm sure she's still reeling from the incompetence she encountered. There is so much bureaucratic nonsense in the field not to mention actual sabotage within the ranks, its not always because they don't care about the situation, sometimes its a matter of:

1. An attempt to seem competent in ones position in order to move up the ranks, therefore not allowing 'underlings' to highlight their competence.

2. Failure to communicate! Sibel could have been thwarted by her inability to get the right information into the right hands, not from any incompetence on her part but because she was stuck in bureaucratic system failure.

I don't dismiss her experience at all.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
No sorry I have never heard of Edmonds but I will go through them now, thanks.
Click to expand...

Sorry I linked the wrong page, I meant to link this:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7332
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript).

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.

As Sibel has previously described, and as she reiterates in this latest interview, this process involved using Turkey (with assistance from 'actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia') as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army.
Click to expand...
Sibel Edmonds: As I have done for the past 7 or 8 years, I have basically stuck with what I know, first-hand, directly, my own knowledge, based on my own experience, based on what I obtained, which is not a lot, but it is extremely important.

And to answer a question like "Was it an inside job?" would be, first of all, preposterous for me to make that call. But what I can tell you is, based on what we know already - and these are the confirmed cases, like Colleen Rowley - look at her and her case - and look at the Phoenix Memo with the other FBI agents in the Phoenix field office, and then look at FBI agent Wright in Chicago, look at that case...

And if you read James Bamford's latest book, what the NSA obtained from Yemen before September 11, because we were following two of these hijackers in Yemen... Well, if you put all those things, all this information that has come from various agencies, in one place, and you look at it, and you say "Wow!"

You know, it is very easy to write off things when you have one or two slip-ups, and you attribute certain things to bureaucratic bungling - but it goes beyond that... Now, what is that? As I said, I wont be able to answer the question, but what I can answer is, yes, we had this 911 Commission that was formed (laughs) and first we had Henry Kissinger appointed to be the Chairman, this tells you what kind of Commission they had in mind, which was going to be cosmetic. It was pretty obvious. Then we had the final Commission, with a bunch of people with conflicts of interest, and we didn't get anything.

As you see, people have been gagged, a lot of things have been classified... And you think 'Why would they go so far to cover up bureaucratic bungling?' Again, that doesn't mean that this was an inside job, but what it tells you is that there are a lot of things that we don't know, there are a lot of things that our government doesn’t want us to know.

I mean, the recent thing just came out a few days ago with the case against Saudi Arabia, with the 9/11 family members. Well yesterday it made it to the front page of the New York Times with Eric Lichtblau, OK. So now the Justice Department under Obama is saying 'No you can't get this information because we want to protect Saudi Arabia.' Well, protect them against what? So those are the questions that have not been answered. And those questions that have been answered, nothing has been done about it, and no explanation has been given to us. So we have all these issues, and there is no simple answer, but one simple answer is that, yes, we are facing a lot of cover-up. And I want to know why, and I'm sure you want to know why too.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the media was so silent on her depositions
 
Believe said:
? So is the wiki wrong in this case? It says here that she was hired Sept 20 2001, but yet she said the incidents took place in April 2001 so either the wiki is messed up or she lied.
Click to expand...

The credibility of Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who claimed that evidence gathered before 11 September revealed al-Qa'ida was planning to attack America, was boosted yesterday by a report issued by the US Justice Department.

The credibility of Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who claimed that evidence gathered before 11 September revealed al-Qa'ida was planning to attack America, was boosted yesterday by a report issued by the US Justice Department.

A report by the department's senior oversight official, Glenn Fine, said that other accusations made by Mrs Edmonds relating to poor standards in the FBI's translation department and possible espionage, were supported by witnesses and other evidence. The official said even today the FBI had not properly investigated the claims. "We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the [espionage allegation] were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds," the report said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...er-intelligence-services-failings-486691.html

Sibel is not a flake.
 
S.A.M. said:
Sorry I linked the wrong page, I meant to link this:


I'm surprised the media was so silent on her depositions
Click to expand...

But Sam we already know there were connections and dialogue between the US intelligence community and Bin Laden. She does go on to say "that doesn't mean that this was an inside job"
 
S.A.M. said:
I'm surprised the media was so silent on her depositions
Click to expand...

I'm not. S.A.M. you must understand. When it comes to the large mainstream media giants, truly free press is nearly a joke, save for a few occasional miracle workers. Most of the trustworthy media will not be found on the prime television channels.

I have meant to do more research into Sibel Edmonds, but for some reason I always seem to forget.:eek: I know enough to say we need more people like that.


Also, Indira Singh and the P-Tech operation might interest you.

Good evening.


Be wary of Wikipedia on topics like this, to the person who mentioned it. It has been documented that controversial subjects are the target of sometimes malicious one-sided editing. Sometimes topics are even locked in a state that only relays a biased narrative.
There was a William M. Connolley who was notorious for editing and censoring global warming related articles. Some remarked that he seemed to be on watch around the clock there, wondering if maybe it was his fulltime job.
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Yeah I read about his indictment too

He never stood trial though - but I believe he confessed to the bombings

Now if we could only sort out which Osama bin Laden it was

bin_laden_videos_small3.jpg




The burden of proof does not lie with the defendant.
Click to expand...

So the only pic here that looks any different is number 3, and that only really looks like he put on some weight. You should get your eyes checked.
 
Giambattista said:
I'm not. S.A.M. you must understand. When it comes to the large mainstream media giants, truly free press is nearly a joke, save for a few occasional miracle workers. Most of the trustworthy media will not be found on the prime television channels.

I have meant to do more research into Sibel Edmonds, but for some reason I always seem to forget.:eek: I know enough to say we need more people like that.


Also, Indira Singh and the P-Tech operation might interest you.

Good evening.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. She was in the UK Independent, CBS, LA Times, Dallas News, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Timesonline among others. Know how I know? It was the first thing I checked after reading Sam's links.

But as she herself said "As you see, people have been gagged, a lot of things have been classified... And you think 'Why would they go so far to cover up bureaucratic bungling?' Again, that doesn't mean that this was an inside job"
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
But Sam we already know there were connections and dialogue between the US intelligence community and Bin Laden. She does go on to say "that doesn't mean that this was an inside job"
Click to expand...

I like her, she draws no conclusions that are not supported by facts. What she does is look at the facts and note where they do not support the conclusions.
 
spidergoat said:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Quida in Iraq was there before we invaded. He was already part of a jihadi insurgent group.

Intelligence reports indicated he was in Baghdad and - according to Mr Powell - this was a sure sign that Saddam Hussein was courting al-Qaeda, which, in turn, justified an attack on Iraq.

-------------

To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make ...unsafe assumption.... The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish.

Christopher Hitchens
Click to expand...


There is a significant chance that the real Zarqawi was dead before any of us in the USA ever heard of him and that the US government was aware of that and used the fake Zarqawi stories as a psyops tool.

The real Zarqawi was in Iraq once in Ansar Al Islam's territory and under their protection. Ansar Al Islam was an enemy of Saddam's. The many stories in the American media that tried to pretend that Saddam supported Zarqawi or Al Qaeda were all stores that were shown to be false and were probably deliberate disinformation spread to try to strengthen domestic American support for the neoconservative foreign policy.

Hitchens's talent is his style not his substance. My impression of Hitchens is that whether on the left 30 years ago or whatever he was 7 years ago or whatever he is now Hitchens's has had incorrect facts and incorrect analysis.


On the fakeness of Zarqawi and to some degree the fakeness even of Al Qaeda http://rt.com/news/al-qaeda-phantom-iraq/

I sort of remember the Zarqawi beheading controversy. Was it ever resolved whether the guys in the beheading video playing Zarqawi and his crew were indeed Americans? What happened to the allegation that the Zarqawi in the video that the US government and media insisted was Zarqawi had the wrong body and wrong accent? Was it just left hanging? Was it one more time the US government allegedly gets caught lying but nothing comes of it because the government's media allies just dismiss the conspiracy theorists as delusional and move onto other stories without actually debunking the conspiracy theorists with any real facts.
 
S.A.M. said:
I like her, she draws no conclusions that are not supported by facts. What she does is look at the facts and note where they do not support the conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yes but still it doesn't mean she knows everything Sam, certainly she would not have had security clearance for everything because she hadn't worked for them long enough. There are different levels of security clearance within government and the military. Did you know that my husband for example lost his military security clearance when he married me? Yes indeedy! Why? Because I'm a UK national.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Yes but still it doesn't mean she knows everything Sam, certainly she would not have had security clearance for everything because she hadn't worked for them long enough. There are different levels of security clearance within government and the military. Did you know that my husband for example lost his military security clearance when he married me? Yes indeedy! Why? Because I'm a UK national.
Click to expand...

Ouch!

Agreed. And it is at her relatively low level of security clearance that she herself has been gagged. Which can only mean that what we know is the tip of the iceberg
 
S.A.M. said:
Ouch!

Agreed. And it is at her relatively low level of security clearance that she herself has been gagged. Which can only mean that what we know is the tip of the iceberg
Click to expand...

That's right. He had to inform them and then I was vetted. Has she written any books? I think you're right about her. Clued on without any hysteria! I wouldn't mind reading more of what she has to say.
 
I don't know yet, I only came across her while googling Osama's US connections.

But yeah I am curious too, protecting the Saudis from what?
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Rubbish. She was in the UK Independent, CBS, LA Times, Dallas News, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Timesonline among others. Know how I know? It was the first thing I checked after reading Sam's links.
Click to expand...

Rubbish schmubbish. I didn't say such stories always get ignored. Plenty get reported on, but often fade or don't leave a lasting mark.
There's also a trick of what type of media reports it (television, radio, print) and how it is reported. A story can indeed appear in a newspaper or magazine, but almost more as a side feature or buried somewhere.

Colleen Rowley made the cover of either Newsweek or Time, not sure which at the moment...

I apologize if I didn't make clear.

The P-Tech story was reported as well, but those things seem to be missed by the public.

And in that instance, Ms. Singh was told by her contact in the FBI that his superior had told him to lay off the investigation of the suspicious software company, because they were assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top