Jump to content
The Education Forum

Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination


Gary Buell
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the transcript:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

"And so Kennedy was killed, and Al-Qaeda wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade."

Perhaps we should invite him to join the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From the transcript:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

"And so Kennedy was killed, and Al-Qaeda wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade."

Perhaps we should invite him to join the group.

Thanks for that Gary,

A convoluted but perceptive interpertation of contemporary history.

It's a shame he just didn't come out and say that JFK was killed by terrorists like him.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and, to this day, most brilliantly succinct summation of what happened on 11/22/63 must be credited to none other than Malcolm X:

"The chickens have come home to roost."

So what's the subtext of this latest faux communication from the dramatic character OBL?

Well, expect to be told by the propagandists who crafted the message that all who agrees with Chomsky and everyone else cited on the tape as having keen perceptions of the American empire is by definition agreeing with and supporting OBL.

And if you understand the JFK hit to be what it truly was ... well, grow a beard and head for the cave!

What a diabolically efficient psyop, wouldn't you say?

Osama Bin Laden my olive, pocked derriere!

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the transcript:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

"And so Kennedy was killed, and Al-Qaeda wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade."

Perhaps we should invite him to join the group.

Here's the group who obtained the video before it was meant to be released.

They seem to be taking seriously Paul Linebarger's theory on the study of propaganda.

http://www.siteinstitute.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the transcript:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. [...]

___________________________

Vietnam War. Rumsfield? Someone please enlighten me.

Thanks,

--Thomas

___________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the transcript:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. [...]

___________________________

Vietnam War. Rumsfield? Someone please enlighten me.

Thanks,

--Thomas

___________________________

One is free to infer what one wishes, but I think he refers to the Rumsfeld/Cheney era under Nixon/Ford. To paraphrase a catchy little ditty, they didn't start the fire, but they kept it burning well past the time it was thought "necessary and crucial." Due to the skewed chronology in the quote, by referencing Rumsfeld prior to Kennedy, OBL appears to be blaming Rumsfeld for the war's entirety, but I submit the interpretation I have provided is closer to his actual intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I'm suggesting that the reasons for inserting what I agree are "important truths" -- but by no means established-in-mainstream-thought-and-culture truths -- into the psyop are to taint that material and to discredit all who embrace it.

Can you think of more efficient ways to halt burgeoning truth movements in their tracks than by linking their messages to the Hitler of our time and labeling truth-speakers as Osama's messengers?

Osama bin Laden is a dramatic construct -- a character, if you prefer -- in a grand production.

We're extras.

As for Robert's keen-eyed catch of the Rumsfeld business: A clever psyop dramatist would work such a timeline error into the character's soliloquoy in order to add authenticity.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I miss your point, but highly regard your opinion, so can you expand on what you think.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?]

I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events.

A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members.

First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading.

Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL.

Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate?

Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison.

Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?"

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible?

Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.]

I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more parallels between 9-11 and 11-22 are noted:

Security stripping: The numerous exercises (Vigilant How's Your Father, et al) scheduled for that day in September effectively stripped/stood down air space and other relevant security measures routinely in place, thus rendering the New York and D.C. targets -- oh, how shall I put it -- uniquely insecure. Some 38 years before, what Vince Palamara and George Michael Evica, among others, have argued likely was a security stripping exercise was activated in Dealey Plaza in order to render fatally vunlerable a usually well protected target.

Either the Cat in the Cave and the Lone Nut were the luckiest loonies in history when they chose to strike on the very days that uncommon, top secret tests of protective measures guarding their respective targets were scheduled, or we're being lied to.

There are no other options on the table.

Control of the body: WTC wreckage that should have undergone post mortem examination within a larger criminal investigation was isolated, altered, and eventually sold for scrap. Ditto the earthly remains of JFK.

The storylines' respective villains: Both OBL and LHO are fictive constructs as well as flesh and blood. More duality for our little melodramas. More confusion.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading.

It was an eerie and uncomfortable sense of deja vu watching the major news networks announce OBL's responsibility within minutes of each other, and mere hours after the event.

Another perceptive post by Robert Charles-Dunne.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Robert, I miss your point, but highly regard your opinion, so can you expand on what you think.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?]

I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events.

A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members.

First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading.

Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL.

Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate?

Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison.

Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?"

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible?

Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.]

I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here.

Very informative, Charles.

I'm just a daft old Brit when it comes to 911 and the role UBL played in it.

And so I get easily confused.

Firstly, UBL is likened to Hitler - he was the key man responsible for the tragic event.

Some time later, no one in Uncle's official apparatus seems to care about him. UBL is apparently allowed to escape at Tora Bora as he is of no real consequence to US efforts in Afghanistan. Various people argue about this, but the CIA commander on the ground is categorical - UBL was basically allowed to "slip away".

UBL is also not listed on the FBI's most wanted top ten for anything related to 911. He is wanted by the FBI (and on the top ten list) for deaths caused to Americans outside of the continental United States. Remarkable.

The confusion seems to be that you don't get on the list unless you've been formally charged and Usama hasn't been formally charged with 911. Remarkable and confusing.

Does anybody know the year UBL stopped being a pawn of the US and became his own pawn (if he ever did?)? It's a genuine question. Was it shortly after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan or a long time after? I'm curious, because I have it on what I consider fairly good authority (although what that exactly is I don't really know) that UBL was connected to counterfeit US dollars as late as 1997, and that said dollars were traced back to a PO Box in Virginia. The implication, if I understand it correctly, is that UBL was being fed these dollars by you know who. Oh Lordy...

But whether you love him or hate him, UBL seems to be like a Jack-in-the-Box who leaps up for a star performance on television at the oddest times. Perhaps it's just me, but his latest guest appearance seemed to coincide with the news of the Brits pulling out of Basra Palace - and event that is regarded as the de facto retreat - and which it was reported caused fury to George Bush.

Yours in wickedness,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Robert, I miss your point, but highly regard your opinion, so can you expand on what you think.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?]

I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events.

A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members.

First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading.

Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL.

Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate?

Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison.

Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?"

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible?

Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.]

I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here.

Very informative, Charles.

I'm just a daft old Brit when it comes to 911 and the role UBL played in it.

And so I get easily confused.

Firstly, UBL is likened to Hitler - he was the key man responsible for the tragic event.

Some time later, no one in Uncle's official apparatus seems to care about him. UBL is apparently allowed to escape at Tora Bora as he is of no real consequence to US efforts in Afghanistan. Various people argue about this, but the CIA commander on the ground is categorical - UBL was basically allowed to "slip away".

UBL is also not listed on the FBI's most wanted top ten for anything related to 911. He is wanted by the FBI (and on the top ten list) for deaths caused to Americans outside of the continental United States. Remarkable.

The confusion seems to be that you don't get on the list unless you've been formally charged and Usama hasn't been formally charged with 911. Remarkable and confusing.

Does anybody know the year UBL stopped being a pawn of the US and became his own pawn (if he ever did?)? It's a genuine question. Was it shortly after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan or a long time after? I'm curious, because I have it on what I consider fairly good authority (although what that exactly is I don't really know) that UBL was connected to counterfeit US dollars as late as 1997, and that said dollars were traced back to a PO Box in Virginia. The implication, if I understand it correctly, is that UBL was being fed these dollars by you know who. Oh Lordy...

But whether you love him or hate him, UBL seems to be like a Jack-in-the-Box who leaps up for a star performance on television at the oddest times. Perhaps it's just me, but his latest guest appearance seemed to coincide with the news of the Brits pulling out of Basra Palace - and event that is regarded as the de facto retreat - and which it was reported caused fury to George Bush.

Yours in wickedness,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the similarities between 11/22 and 9/11, Peter Dale Scott brings out a number of significant ones in his talks, as transcribed on another thread.

Is there a complete transcript of OBL's latest speech?

As for the speech's content, American analysists have decided that it wasn't written in Arabic and translated to English, but written primarily by American Adam Gadahn (aka Adam Pearlman "Azzam the American" and translated to Arabic for OBL to read.

Adam Pearlman, a Jew from California, was a one time rock music critic with an affinity for heavy metal.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread!

Isn't it interesting that bin Laden always pops up when Bush needs him the most?

The Bush presidency was floundering in 2001, until 9/11.

In his 2004 video OLB may as well have been wearing a "Kerry for President" button

four days before the election, giving the Preznit a crucial boost.

Now he pops up just as the Bush Crime Family is rolling out it's fall war product,

Surge II.

I'm convinced there's a direct line between Dealey Plaza and the Green Zone

by way of the Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero -- false flag operations designed

to facilitate the black markets in weapons, oil, and narcotics.

Guns, Oil, Drugs -- the G.O.D. in which they trust.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_at..._coinciding.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I miss your point, but highly regard your opinion, so can you expand on what you think.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?]

I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events.

A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members.

First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading.

Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL.

Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate?

Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison.

Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?"

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible?

Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.]

I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here.

Great post, Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...