Glenn Viklund Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Well, Is Bin Ladin dead?! Jim Fetzer has for years promoted all kinds of alternate outcomes. A few weeks ago he was still promoting the notion that "the US government lied". Anyone who has read anything Fetzer, would know that this is default value Fetzer; "I don't beleive it - and I will prove it!" So let's sum it up, over the past few weeks, this is what we've got: *The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". As I have not the least doubt that Fetzer will do his usual antics; "fakes", "disinformation", "liars" and all the rest of the usual Jim Fetzer hooplas, this will still be somewhat convincing.. Or not?.....let me know? Edited June 20, 2011 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 This topic must be part of the "let's all pick on Jim Fetzer" agenda, here on the Education Forum, otherwise known as the Evan Burton Forum of Disinformation. As a proud American it's always been difficult for me to acknowledge the fact that Project Apollo did not happen as advertised, but was instead just another propaganda publicity stunt in a long list of propanganda publicity stunts perpetrated by the US government. As a Democrat it's now difficult for me to admit that Barack Obama is no better than the Republican scum who spent eight long years destroying America on every level possible. "In an address to the nation, Obama said he ordered the strike that allegedly killed Osama. The remainder of his speech followed the standard war on terror propaganda script." "Obama said the military took custody of his remains. It remains to be seen if the government will attempt to provide evidence that the remains are indeed those of Osama bin Laden." "In February, 2004, Iranian state radio claimed Osama bin Laden had been captured in Pakistan’s border region with Afghanistan “a long time ago.” Pentagon and Pakistani officials denied the report. “Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election,” the radio report said." "Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks. In 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said bin Laden had kidney disease, and that he had required a dialysis machine when he lived in Afghanistan. That same year, the FBI’s top counterterrorism official, Dale Watson, said, “I personally think he is probably not with us anymore.” "A Taliban leader told the Pakistan Observer on December 21, 2002, that Bin Laden was suffering from a serious lung complication and died in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief, according to Fox News." "Alex Jones was told live on the radio in 2002 by high-level Council on Foreign Relations members that Osama Bin Laden had died of kidney failure in early 2002." “I have it from high level [sources] from inside the Bush administration…that bin Laden died of natural causes and that his family has given the body to the CIA, that they’re gonna roll him out right before the election, that he’s on ice right now. They will claim they killed him right before the election,” Alex said at the time. “Jones gave a caution that the intelligence could be disinformation but claimed that his base in Austin was extremely close to the Bush administration and similar information received in the past had been credible,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote in August of 2002. "During the 2004 election, CNN reported that Democratic insiders had been told that George W. Bush was going to use the Bin Laden body as an ace-in-the-hole if he thought he was in danger of losing the 2004 election. This confirmed the evidence that Jones had been given by the CFR and others." "In 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke she suspected Bush knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and was waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture." "Obama’s announcement follows the release of a highly suspicious birth certificate last week. Both events represent psychological operations that possibly portend more significant events in the days ahead as the U.S. dollar continues to lose its reserve status, the economy fails to recover as promised, and wars expand in Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." "Obama’s propaganda stunt arrives as the Democrats kick off their leader’s presidential reelection bid against a number of Republicans contenders who have been highly critical of not only his perceived handling of the economy, but also his management of the manufactured war on terror." http://www.infowars.com/red-alert-government-had-osama-bin-laden-frozen-for-years/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 My practice has been to largely ignore Glenn Viklund, whom I have found has almost nothing of significance to contribute. This post is no exception. I must have put up six or eight informative posts confirming (1) that Osama died on or about 15 December 2001 of bodily deterioration principally due to his kidney problems and (2) that the "second killing' of Osama was a staged event for political purposes, including getting Obama's birth certificate issue off the front page, vindicating Guantanamo and the presence of American troops in Pakistan, while boosting his prospects for reelection in 2012. There are another six or eight posts on my facebook page that explain how we know that this latest event was also faked. That Viklund understands none of this reflects his diminished capacity for research on serious questions. I suggest that he to back to the Lifton thread attacking me and take another look at what I posted there, which he clearly has not understood. Well, Is Bin Ladin dead?! Jim Fetzer has for years promoted all kinds of alternate outcomes. A few weeks ago he was still promoting the notion that "the US government lied". Anyone who has read anything Fetzer, would know that this is default value Fetzer; "I don't beleive it - and I will prove it!" So let's sum it up, over the past few weeks, this is what we've got: *The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". As I have not the least doubt that Fetzer will do his usual antics; "fakes", "disinformation", "liars" and all the rest of the usual Jim Fetzer hooplas, this will still be somewhat convincing.. Or not?.....let me know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 My practice has been to largely ignore Glenn Viklund, whom I have found has almost nothing of significance to contribute. This post is no exception. I must have put up six or eight informative posts confirming (1) that Osama died on or about 15 December 2001 of bodily deterioration principally due to his kidney problems and (2) that the "second killing' of Osama was a staged event for political purposes, including getting Obama's birth certificate issue off the front page, vindicating Guantanamo and the presence of American troops in Pakistan, while boosting his prospects for reelection in 2012. There are another six or eight posts on my facebook page that explain how we know that this latest event was also faked. That Viklund understands none of this reflects his diminished capacity for research on serious questions. I suggest that he to back to the Lifton thread attacking me and take another look at what I posted there, which he clearly has not understood. Well, Is Bin Ladin dead?! Jim Fetzer has for years promoted all kinds of alternate outcomes. A few weeks ago he was still promoting the notion that "the US government lied". Anyone who has read anything Fetzer, would know that this is default value Fetzer; "I don't beleive it - and I will prove it!" So let's sum it up, over the past few weeks, this is what we've got: *The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". As I have not the least doubt that Fetzer will do his usual antics; "fakes", "disinformation", "liars" and all the rest of the usual Jim Fetzer hooplas, this will still be somewhat convincing.. Or not?.....let me know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 My practice has been to largely ignore Glenn Viklund, whom I have found has almost nothing of significance to contribute. This post is no exception. I must have put up six or eight informative posts confirming (1) that Osama died on or about 15 December 2001 of bodily deterioration principally due to his kidney problems and (2) that the "second killing' of Osama was a staged event for political purposes, including getting Obama's birth certificate issue off the front page, vindicating Guantanamo and the presence of American troops in Pakistan, while boosting his prospects for reelection in 2012. There are another six or eight posts on my facebook page that explain how we know that this latest event was also faked. That Viklund understands none of this reflects his diminished capacity for research on serious questions. I suggest that he to back to the Lifton thread attacking me and take another look at what I posted there, which he clearly has not understood. Well, Is Bin Ladin dead?! Jim Fetzer has for years promoted all kinds of alternate outcomes. A few weeks ago he was still promoting the notion that "the US government lied". Anyone who has read anything Fetzer, would know that this is default value Fetzer; "I don't beleive it - and I will prove it!" So let's sum it up, over the past few weeks, this is what we've got: *The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". As I have not the least doubt that Fetzer will do his usual antics; "fakes", "disinformation", "liars" and all the rest of the usual Jim Fetzer hooplas, this will still be somewhat convincing.. Or not?.....let me know? Jim Fetzer is doing the normal "Fetzer view"; "I have largely ignored...". Yes, you did ignore the Swedish Court decisions who made Judyth Baker a xxxx. You did also ignore my question of whether this affected her credibility, you dodged that bullet, alright. ***Any other professor or scholar that I came across during my University years would have - no doubt - said: interesting, send this info over and we'll see if this is verifiable". Not so with Fetzer "You are an unrelaible source". You are the confirmation of the fact that mistakes happen when appointing scholars. Period. Your behavior when discussing any issue is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have the brain to realize that, tragically. What you did not do, however was to ignore my postings; you declared the info I had as "drivel". You were then, in 2010, as you still are, the most sorry excuse for a scholar that I have ever had the unfortunate displeasure of having to deal with. "A man with an anger problem" as someone said - does by no means cover your shortcomings. You are a joke, period. As per usual, you don't answer my questions, but instead - as per usual - come up with your tiresome and worn out tacticts of refering to what you (and other crackpot allied of yours) have said for years: "Bin ladin died in 2002" One thing I've learned about you, Fetzer, is that you never know when to quit. You will not in this instance, precisely as you have never done in any other subject. You may have the ability to organize - David Lifton may have a point about that - but you most definetely have never learned the noble art of realising and apologising for your own mistakes. That's a shortcoming that will haunt you for ever, I have no doubt. Now, about Bin Ladin. Several close relatives of Osama Bin ladin [wife, daughter, brother in London, etc] are lying, are misrepresented or are somehow beyond their senses? Al Qaida number two - in a taped statement - is wrong and lying when he declares all kinds of horrors that is going to happen in the western world as a result of the killing of Bin Ladin? Is this what you are still insisting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Once again, Professor Fetzer is ignoring well founded questions. As expected. "Osama Bin Ladin died in 2002". Bollocks. Edited July 21, 2011 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I must have put up six or eight informative posts confirming (1) that Osama died on or about 15 December 2001 of bodily deterioration principally due to his kidney problems and ( So Fetzer what don't you repost that info or provide links to it? Why would OBL's own family and associates lie about when he died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The subject title of this topic is: "Usama Bin Lain died in 2002" "The Taliban and others said so" Glenn, You more properly could have titled it: "Let's see if we can draw Fetzer into a pissing match..." instead. You are now OFF-TOPIC in your own thread! I suggest that you stick with presenting your own research that would assumedly be rife with evidence refuting the claims with which you take exception. That you start a thread for the sole purpose of engaging Fetzer in an ad hominem assault is inappropriate. Present your evidence and leave it at that. I'm disappointed that Jim has taken your bait again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) The subject title of this topic is: "Usama Bin Lain died in 2002" "The Taliban and others said so" Glenn, You more properly could have titled it: "Let's see if we can draw Fetzer into a pissing match..." instead. You are now OFF-TOPIC in your own thread! I suggest that you stick with presenting your own research that would assumedly be rife with evidence refuting the claims with which you take exception. That you start a thread for the sole purpose of engaging Fetzer in an ad hominem assault is inappropriate. Present your evidence and leave it at that. I'm disappointed that Jim has taken your bait again. Well Greg, I know - as you always remind us - Fetzer is a friend of yours. I disagree, the bait as you chose to call it, was not swallowed by Fetzer. I'll be happy to remind you: 1) Did JVB lie about her asylum adventures in Sweden? 2) If so, does this have any bearing on the rest of her story? These are the questions that I asked Fetzer back in the spring of 2010. To no avail. Not only has he not answered them. But he has moreover painted med as a "highly unreliable source" for bringing those facts forward. That's the issue, Greg. Beside an apology, I think I'm entitled to an answer from Fetzer. *** This thread is along the same lines, what is Fetzer's comment (no, I'm not accepting those tiresome old answers, they're way beyond best use..) to these facts: *The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". Hard facts, simply. Fetzer is left with his old, premature BS conclusions. Edited July 23, 2011 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Glenn, That Fetzer is a friend of mine has absolutely NO BEARING on this discussion. It has had a bearing on other discussions, where I have indicated same, but not this one. My post had nothing to do with that friendship at all. Simply put, I think that your inquiry is fair, namely: Glenn said:*The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". I think those are good questions. I don't know if you have reviewed Jim's answers to them or not. I haven't. However, "targeting" Fetzer--or anyone else--is not conducive to discovering the truth, in my view. Targeting arguments, theories, postulations, and the like seem to be fair game. Targeting any individual is juvenile and ill advised, as it only serves to instigate a pissing match. It's better to stick with arguing the facts and/or presenting alternate arguments and conclusions. People are sensitive to their own ideas and sometimes defensive. That is enough of a challenge, let alone, expecting people to behave in a civil manner when they are being attacked personally... I am in no position to dictate "rules of engagement" on the Education Forum. These are just my own opinions. ... Edited July 23, 2011 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 [...] Simply put, I think that your inquiry is fair, namely: Glenn said:*The Taliban have publicly recognized that Bin Ladin was killed by the Americans - and demanded revenge. *Bin Ladins wife, and Bin Ladins daugther, have both confirmed the killing of UBL. *The Al qaida No 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri has, in a taped statement, confirmed that "they will require revenge" for the killing of "the sheijk, Osama Bin Ladin". I think those are good questions. I don't know if you have reviewed Jim's answers to them or not. Fetzer has not replied to these points, he has a habit of ducking out on data that contadict his pet theories, so do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Len, it's your prerogative to dismiss a person's work if you believe that they "duck" answering questions about it. You do not have the right to attack anyone personally, though. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive to bait someone with whom you disagree into bickering about personality traits and/or personality flaws, as the case may be. There is a difference between arguing ideas and arguing personalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Len, it's your prerogative to dismiss a person's work if you believe that they "duck" answering questions about it. You do not have the right to attack anyone personally, though. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive to bait someone with whom you disagree into bickering about personality traits and/or personality flaws, as the case may be. There is a difference between arguing ideas and arguing personalities. This coming for the guy who gave the following reply to a polite request for additional details about something he claimed to have seen: You can wait until hell freezes over...and them some more. I am not required to answer your pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious (ask Tink what that one means), meandering, mindless inquiry...or I'd have to "make a report" to YOUR superiors--and then you'd be sorry! I've been in Hawaii with my bride for our anniversary for the past 10 days and will be here for several more. When I get back...perhaps hell will have frozen over. If not? Go piss up a rope. Sorry but you simply don’t have moral authority to lecture Glenn or me about polite conduct. It is an undeniable fact that Fetzer has failed to reply to Glenn’s points on this thread and it would hard for any remotely objective person to deny that you and especially Fetzer have a habit of ducking reasonable questions about your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I thought that was a rather humorous come back, Len. You failed to see the irony in the response? It sure made me giggle when I wrote it. Maybe my humor wasn't as obvious to others as it was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 In my opinion Greg, there's a very explainable reason for Fetzer's lack of answers, not only about this issue, but generally. Having read quite a lot of Fetzer's work, and yes, seen his indeed questionable behavior vs those with other opinions, it was quite some time ago that I realised he's not looking for answers. That's not the reason for his involvement in any discussions, live or online. The reason is of course that Fetzer believes he already has all the answers. Fetzer's participation in various debates is not because of him 'searching for the truth' - it is simply because he is looking to lecture others about the answers. That's where anyone who starts in the wrong end - i.e, when researching only looking for support of your already cemented answers and neglecting anything to the contrary - will inevitably end up. I'm not expecting an apology, nor am I expecting Fetzer to change his mind. Surely hell would freeze over a long time before that happens. And frankly, this is of little concern to me. I - like most others - don't care much about Fetzer's opinions. But I find it reasonable to once in a while be a part of debunking his fantasies, as this serves purposes way beyond Fetzer's views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now