[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida - Basic Knowledge-Part 1 *** In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed …. I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapsethe area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.” " *** Prize Question: We can we see from this statement alone that the Pentagon confession video is a fake? Anyone? No matter. Let us begin our journey to truth. *** Early CIA connections Bin Laden is Tim Osman, a CIA asset. Remember the saying? Once in the company, always in the company... Tim Osman (Ossman) has recently become better known as Osama Bin Ladin. "Tim Osman" was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. [...] There is some evidence that Tim Osman ... visited the White House. There is certainty that Tim Osman toured some U.S. military bases, even receiving special demonstrations of the latest equipment. Why hasn't this been reported in the major media? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_cia.html *** He studied in Jeddah (Jidda), where, according to Michael Springman, the US visa bureau that provided false visas for terrorist was located, too. Some says that's the place where he was recruited. Just another coincidence? Jeddah is also the location where most of the alleged 911 "hijackers" got their visas from under suspicious circumstances. *** http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Docum...aninterview.htm According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [BBC, 11/6/2001; Associated Press, 7/17/2002; Fox News, 7/18/2002] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....i_arabia_office *** The youngest son of a wealthy Yemeni-born businessman, bin Laden was trained as a civil engineer (grad. 1979, King Abdul Aziz Univ., Jidda), but following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (see Afghanistan War) he went to Pakistan where he helped to finance the mujahidin and to found Makhtab al Khadimat [services office] (MAK), which recruited and trained non-Afghani Muslims to fight in the war. http://www.answers.com/topic/osama-bin-laden *** This was a CIA/ISI/Saudi Arabia operation from the beginning. The date 1979 is suspicious enough. Listen to Brzezinski: Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? - 1998 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html *** The 90'ties Bin Laden does not broke with the US ties in 1991, as everywhere told. And certainly not earlier, as sometimes mentioned. He broke- never. Why should he? US forces in Saudi Arabia, the holy land? Come on! They worked excellent together before this date and afterwards: *** You unequivocally state that Osama bin Laden received a passport from Bosnian government. Media seems to discount that. Who's correct? That Osama Bin Laden got a passport was documented in 1999 by DANI, a Muslim weekly from Sarajevo. Later in 2001, Zurich "Wochenzeitung" got "more and more evidence" from Interpol that bin Laden had a Bosnian passport, in spite of Sarajevo denying it. You state "Bin Laden himself discussed the details with the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic". What's the evidence of this personal friendship? Not friendship, but alliance of interest. Renate Flottau, Spiegel-correspondent for the Balkans, saw Bin Laden 1993/94 at least two times WITH HER OWN EYES in Izetbegovic's palace and even spoke with him. She confirmed it to me personally. She said Izetbegovic didn't like Bin Laden, but needed him. We see Turkey being used to deliver arms, Iran for buying them, al-Qaeda for providing fighters and Saudis for funding this via its "charitable" organizations. What got these Muslim countries, professing at times antagonism for one another, to come together on Bosnia? It was not formal alliance, more improvisation. Sudan/Sudan did most of the smuggling 1992, 1994 Iran took over. Turkey helped with infrastructure, airports in Cyprus and in Anatolia were important as basis for the smuggling. Yossef Bodansky, an Anti-Terrorist-expert at the US Senate, found evidence that Sudanese leader Al Turabi, ObL's host, built close ties between Teheran's secret service and Bin Laden, despite his religious differences between them. After Dayton in 1995, we see Chechnya war start, then Kosovo, then Macedonia then 9/11. What's common to all 5 of these events is Islamic militants and al-Qaeda. Is there a global coordination of these events and if so what's the goal? The spider in the net is MPRI, a subcontractor of the Pentagon. They took over the Arab/Iranian weapons-smuggling in 1995, helped the Mujahadeen to "liberate" Sarajevo in September 1995, took the best Mujahadeen fighters after Dayton on their own payroll, trained them with the help of Turkish army and sent them to Kosovo and later to Macedonia. I could not fin a link between Chechnya and MPRI, but Aukai Collins, an American Mujahadeen, who fought in Chechnya and had contacts with some of the 9/11 bombers, was at least on the payroll of FBI and CIA. Not Al Qaeda is in the center of all these events, but American secret services, which used Al Qaeda. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were veteran jihadists in Bosnia. What did they do in Bosnia that made them so exceptionally qualified to kill Americans? Not two, but five: Al Hazmi and Al Midhar (Plane Nr.3/Pentagon), Mohammed Atta (Plane Nr. 1/WTC) and the "Masterminds" Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. Al Hazmi and Al Midhar were from Jan. 2000 until 9/11 under surveillance of US-Secret Services as was Atta's flat in Hamburg-Harburg. Bosnia and the Islamic Jihad in Europe http://www.juergen-elsaesser.de/html/template_en.php *** Building up the fall guy Is bin Laden a terrorist mastermind -- or a fall guy? SALON | Aug. 27, 1998 For while there is little doubt that bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the United States with the financial means to put some teeth in that enmity, his exact role in anti-American terrorism is unclear. The administration's claims are based more on conjecture -- mostly bin Laden's own braggadocio and the bad company he apparently keeps -- than hard and convincing evidence. Clinton and his security staff have now blamed bin Laden for being behind almost every terrorist act in the past decade -- from plotting the assassinations of the pope and the president of Egypt to the planned bombing of six U.S. jumbo jets over the Pacific, with massacres of German tourists at Luxor and the killings of U.S. troops in Somalia, fatal car bombings of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and this month's truck bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam thrown in. Not since the '70s heyday of the terrorist Carlos has there been such a Prince of Darkness, if the allegations are to be believed. But so far, for all of the accusations, no government, not even that of the United States, has established enough credible evidence against bin Laden to conclusively prove his direct participation in, much less leadership of, any of the ugly plots and acts he stands accused of. To date no formal request for his extradition has ever been made, either to the Sudanese government that once housed him or to his current hosts, Afghanistan's Taliban leaders. ... Unless the Clinton administration can come up with some hard evidence that bin Laden is in fact calling the shots of a vast new anti-American terrorist network, all the present allegations and faceless intelligence-source leaks claiming facts too secret and explosive to be revealed should be taken with a grain of salt. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/27news.html *** "The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html John O'Neill, FBI Osama Bin Laden "chief hunter", quits his job in summer 2001. *** O'Neill had a falling-out with the Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had trouble digesting - that O'Neill had resigned from a thirty-year career in the FBI "under a cloud" over an incident in Tampa - and then left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks before!). The seam that shows... For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John O'Neill was largely unknown to the public at large - respected in his circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media - beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism. Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O'Neill was now suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies - the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe for misplacing a briefcase of classified documents during an FBI convention in Tampa. ... Virtually the first "smoking gun" was presented the day after 9/11, when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, "received information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against American interests" only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the article reported that Atwan "was convinced that Islamic fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were 'almost certainly' behind the attacks." Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 - among the very few to do so. As reported by Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan "is trusted by bin Laden." Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major "point men" used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden "legend", as they say in intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998, Atwan informs us that bin Laden "is a humble man who lives simply, eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with sand. He hates America." No flash in the pan, this interviewer. Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan's business card tucked away in his toga pocket. "Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday," Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25, 1998. We'll come back to ABC News shortly. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html *** Clinton: 'I Tried and Failed' to Get Osama Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al-Qaida leader before the September 11 attacks. In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden. "But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed." The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001. "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," Clinton said. He added he had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the attack on the Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/23/114330.shtml *** Of course he had to fail, a CIA assets is "hands off", like the blind sheik a few years earlier in NY: http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/1990s/...oice033093.html To order the CIA to get him is silly beyond all imagination... *** On 911 The first accusation against Osama came at 8.50am that fateful day came from George Tenet, then CIA president: QUOTE "You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it" http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...=a850tenetboren *** Then Fox news weighs in: QUOTE “We just saw on live television as the second plane flew into the second tower of the World Trade Center. Now given what has been going on around the world, some of the key suspects come to mind: OSAMA BIN LADEN.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1W2tW7eWvw *** But the undisputed best one that day was this: QUOTE "2:40(pm) Resume Statement: Best info fast judge whether good enough Hit S.H@ same time - Not just UBL Tasks Jim Haynes to talk w/ PW for additional support v/v Usis & connection w/ UBL [REDACTED (N.R. stands for Not Relevant)] - Hard to get a good case - Need to move swiftly - Near term target needs - - go massive - sweep it all up - Things related & not [ARROW] Need to do so to get anything useful" http://www.flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/100545349/ http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/d...1-obtained.html Around 9:00 p.m., Bush met with his full National Security Council, followed roughly half an hour later by a meeting with a smaller group of key advisors. Bush and his advisors had already decided bin Laden was behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet told Bush that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan were essentially one and the same. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Before going to sleep around 11:30 p.m., Bush wrote in his diary, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.... We think it's Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 1/27/02] http://www.citizinemag.com/politics/politi...erestingday.htm *** Nobody can deny that they could not knew on this day that it was Bin Laden. There were no political statements, no confession, no nothing. *** Early statement Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT) DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ *** Thank God we have the evidence to made a hard case against OBL. The "case" QUOTE Evidence against bin Laden promised Powell says U.S. will present a convincing case Monday, September 24, 2001 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said yesterday that it would release evidence that Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks Sept. 11 on the United States, part of an effort to convince the world that a military response is justified. ... The administration did not specify when the evidence would be made public. ... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/40035_main24.shtml *** Äh, good for them, to deliver no specific time, as we wait till today for this evidence. *** Also: QUOTE 9/22/01 Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef appealed for restraint from Washington before it attacked the impoverished and war-ravaged country. "The Americans should show control, conduct an investigation and show us proof before they attack. The United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Conference should also investigate," he said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/22/wtal22.xml QUOTE 9/21/01 Taliban leaders want evidence “Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence,” Zaeef said. Asked if the Taliban were ready to hand bin Laden over, he snapped “No” but his translator said, “No, not without evidence.” http://www.wndu.com/news/092001/news_9849.php *** QUOTE You said the U.S invaded only because the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden, that is not entirely true. The Talibans said show us the evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 before we will hand him over. I think that is a very reasonable response. The U.S never produced any evidence but insisted that the talibans hand over Bin laden unconditionally. Would the U.S submit itself to an extradition request not backed up by any evidence? Now you can argue "hypothetically' that the Talibans were not sincere and they were just playing games. That might very well be true. But this still doesn't change the fact that they did make a conditional offer which I think was reasonable. It was up to the U.S to produce incriminating evidence against Bin Laden and the U.S failed to do that. If the Taliban still refused to hand over bin Laden after convincing evidence has been provided then you may conclude that the Talibans were indeed playing games. http://counterspin.tv/comments.pl?sid=342&cid=5928 *** The Ummat interview I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm *** The Tony Blair paper The document presented to Britain’s parliament on October 4 by Prime Minister Tony Blair has been hailed by the media as proof that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network planned and carried out the September 11 hijack-bombings in New York and Washington. In fact, Blair’s dossier is a clumsy patchwork of assertions that provides no actual evidence establishing the guilt of bin Laden or the complicity of his Taliban protectors. The dossier begins with the following caveat: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.” This acknowledgment is rationalized on the grounds that “Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources.” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/binn-o06.shtml *** The "confession" tape 12/13/01 QUOTE "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered," said Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b...1_bt630-01.html *** Was not? *** Bush: Tape a 'devastating declaration of guilt' December 14, 2001 Posted: 9:17 PM EST (0217 GMT) (CNN) -- President Bush scoffed Friday at any suggestion that the videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the September 11 terrorist attacks might not be authentic. "It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," he said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." Bush acknowledged he had mixed emotions about releasing it to the public. "I was hesitant to allow there to be a vivid reminder of their loss and tragedy displaced on our TVs," he said. "On the other hand, I knew that the tape would be a devastating declaration of guilt for this evil person." Bin Laden brags in the videotape, released Thursday by the Pentagon, that he knew about the attacks on the United States beforehand and says the destruction went beyond his hopes. He says the attacks "benefited Islam greatly." The tape, which television networks aired repeatedly Thursday and Friday, elicited strong reaction across the globe. "It seemed to me that what I was listening to and watching was one of the most detailed descriptions of a premeditated mass murder that I had ever heard," said New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who recalled his days as a prosecutor. Retired New York firefighter Robert Thompson called the tape riveting, especially for firefighters who lost hundreds of their colleagues in the collapse of the World Trade Center. "It was just sickening to watch him smiling -- bin Laden -- and basically the man just showed how evil he is," Thompson said. "And I'm glad the tape went on so everybody can see what kind of person he is." Barry Pollack, an attorney, said the tape could be a key piece of evidence if bin Laden is captured and brought to trial. Pollack pointed to one sentence in the transcript in which bin Laden said of the hijackers: "We asked each of them to go to America." Testimony would be needed from experts to say that it had not been doctored, he added. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, said in a written release that the tape "displays the cruel and inhumane face of a murderous criminal who has no respect for the sanctity of human life or the principles of his faith." He adds, "Bin Laden and those he mentions in his tape are deviants and renegades who do not represent the Islamic faith or the Saudi people. Some remain skeptical On the streets of Cairo, Egypt, the reaction was different. "There is still no proof in America, so they come up with this tape," one man said. Amr Hegazi, an Egyptian economist, offered similar comments. "I really don't think that Osama bin Laden did anything from the beginning," Hegazi said. Mohamed Kamal, a professor at the University of Cairo in Egypt, called the release of the tape a positive development that would help win the hearts and minds of many Arab and Muslim people, but he warned that it would not convince everyone. "People will continue to be suspect of anything that is American," he said. The United States should release more information about how it got the tape, Kamal said. Officials said the approximately hour-long tape, dated November 9 and made in Kandahar, was found in a private residence in Jalalabad, although they haven't explained details of its discovery. Asked Friday whether he preferred bin Laden's capture dead or alive, Bush said it "doesn't matter to me," but vowed that he would not escape. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/14/ret.b...ex.html?related *** Was it? Authentification beyond the lying president words? *** Doubts Professor Gernot Rotter, scholar of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Asia-Africa Institute, University of Hamburg: "Regardless of the question if bin Laden personally was actively involved in the organisation of the attacks or not: This tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can't use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places. Things that can't be heard - never mind how often you listen to it." Guilty or not guilty? If the US government wants to find bin Laden guilty of the deed, they have to come up with better evidence. Klaus Bednarz: "In war truth is the first victim. That's true for all sides." http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/monitor122001.html *** Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11? The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.) Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush’s insistence that the tape is authentic, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts. “It’s bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program. Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” http://gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead. *** Osama not wanted for 911 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.” It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitate to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.” In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you? The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI? Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse? Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93? …No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it. http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html *** Now, what do you think?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Who foreigner write this did? Where study the English he?
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||