Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Len Colby]

THE SUPPOSED DISINTEREST IN CATCHING OBL AND SOLVING 9/11

LEN: I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one.

RC-D: Just as the US military showed a "distinct disinterest" in intercepting hijacked planes even after it was apparent they

had

been hijacked and would be used as weapons.

Already discussed here in the PC forum. The only documented case, and according to 2 sources the only case, of an intercept of a plane over the continental US in the decade before 9/11 was Payne Stewart’s plane. It took fighters already in the air about 80 minutes to intercept a plane flying in a straight line with its transponder on in uncrowned airspace. None of the hijack planes had deviated from their paths anywhere near that long before crashing.

RC-D: Just as the Bush administration showed a "distinct disinterest" in launching an investigation into what transpired on that day, and a year later relented

only

because a failure to do so was inexplicable to even Bush's staunchest supporters.

I’m no Bush fan, considering what the 9/11 C. dug up (even though even I think it did go as deep as it sould have) it’s not surprising he didn’t want an investigation.

RC-D: Just as those who wish to embrace the easiest answers of that Commission's Report still display a "distinct disinterest" in tackling the multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report.

The report was far from perfect but many of the most serious “multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in” it exist only in the minds of Griffin et. al. Perhaps you should start a new thread in the PCs forum outlining what you think were the “failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report”.

RC-D: "Distinct disinterest" seems rather pervasive among some when dealing with this topic. One wonders why that might be. Surely it cannot be that those in a position of power have reason to fear a comprehensive official investigation and the revelations that might ensue? Of course not; that's just more groundless "conspiracy theory," isn't it?

I don’t totally disagree with you on that. There is a lot the 9/11 C didn’t deal with that the Bushies, military, CIA etc would prefer remained undelt with.

RC-D: For a shockingly revealing overview of just how poorly this event was investigated, one might benefit from reading an interview with Lee Hamilton, conducted by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talking head:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

I only skimmed it but didn’t see much there to boost your case. Perhaps you could highlight what you think that interview reveals the thread I suggested you start regarding the 9/11 C. Report (since this one is already too broad already).[EDIT - Mike started a thread about it on the PC forum]

LEN: - In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries.

- If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word.

- Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941

- Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points)

- In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack

Were the above “inside jobs”

RC-D: I have never suggested that imcompetence doesn't exist, or that it cannot explain some things. I have never suggested that nobody in world history has ever been wrong and lived to regret it. But if you are arguing that imcompetence and error are the

only

explanations that can rationalize what transpired in regard to Nine-One-One, I can only point out that your wilful refusal to consider other alternatives is matched only by your credulity in accepting what you've been told by a Commander In Chief who has been wrong about just about everything he's ever said. You may find his explanations credible, which is your right, but surely you can understand why not everyone is quite so sanguine about these things as you seem to be?

Bit of a strawman, the evidence indicating the towers collapsed because of the plane impacts; flight 77, a 757, hit the Pentagon; flight 93, another 757, crashed and wasn’t shot down, none of the planes were remote controlled etc etc has little if anything to do with the pronouncements of the Bush crowd.

RC-D: One should also point out that in none of the above-cited cases is it demonstrable that Chamberlain, Stalin, Hitler or Israel, or their courtiers, gained any personal, political or corporate profit as a result of their errors. To the contrary, these errors came at a grave cost to those who made them. The same cannot be said for Bush and his courtiers.

Not entirely true WW2 presumably allowed Stalin to consolidate his power in the USSR and definitely gave him control over Eastern Europe. You forgot France, two senior military commanders ended up becoming the head of state (Petain and DeGaulle) who probably wouldn’t have otherwise.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

THE PNAC REPORT

LEN: The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush.

See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region.

The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter”

RC-D: As already stated elsewhere in this thread, I read the document in precisely the way Ron Ecker has already interpreted. You are free to disagree, but it is not as though this point hasn't already been addressed.

Your reasoning to me sounds like this:

- In 1998 PNAC sent Clinton an open letter urging him to “turn [his] Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power”

-In 2000 shortly before the presidential election they release a paper outlining steps they think necessary to preserve America’s dominant position in the world. None of the steps mentioned included: invading Iraq or Afghanistan (or any other country), deposing Saddam or the Taliban (or any other regime) or significantly increasing the US’s military presence in the Middle East. In a chapter that advocates adopting modern weapons systems they said, “Furthurmore, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". Even Ron aditted that only sounded like desiring “a new Pearl Harbor" after 9/11.

- In 2001, with a PNAC dominated administration in power, the US suffers “a new Pearl Harbor". The administration uses this as a rational for invading Afganistan and part of its rational for invading Iraq. Despite there being no indications 9/11 allowed them to obtain the aims spelled out in the 2000 paper (let alone the new toys they called for in the chapter) you think that the above is evidence of PNAC complicity?

Sorry but the “logic” seems quite “fuzzy” to me. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

SAUDI/BIN-LADEN FLIGHTS

LEN: I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that.

RC-D: Since I've never stated otherwise, I am unsure what you expect to be provided. I suggested that Bush's solicitude toward the Bin Ladens was inexplicable, irrespective of

when

they were allowed to leave [assuming the 911 Commission is correct on this point, which is an unsafe assumption.]

My bad, since many people made such claims I thought that’s what you were driving at. I think most people would think it reasonable that if there was no evidence against members of his family and they agreed to be interviewed by the FBI and allowed their planes and baggage to be inspected there would be no problem in allowing them to leave. I don’t understand what you are proposing, is it that the US should have placed them under house arrest and/or water boarded them for information till OBL was captured? It’s not a crime to be the relative of a criminal and AFAIK a person can only be detained for 4 reasons in the US, if 1) there is sufficient evidence they committed a crime 2) they have been convicted of a crime 3) they are in need of protection 4) they are considered to be material witnesses. The only one that could reasonably have been applied to most of the bin Ladens was the forth but even that would have been very much of a stretch.

RC-D: Had the extended family of Hirohito been residing in the US at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor, would Roosevelt have granted them safe passage back to Japan? One cannot know with certainty, but it surely seems rather odd.

Poor analogy because they would have been “enemy aliens”, that is the charge the author of “Seven Years in Tibet” was arrested on. The US was not at war with Saudi Arabia or the bin Laden family. Also hopefully the US has advanced a bit from the days when people could be incarcerated for being of Japanese (and in some cases of German or Italian) decent. Since the US would need the cooperation of the Saudis it makes sense that they wouldn’t harass members of one of the nation’s most prominent families. And since Bush did have ties to the family it would not be surprising if he gave them preferential treatment just as he gives preferential treatment to his friends. Improper? Yes, but not evidence of collusion.

RC-D: 1) You provided the Commission's assurance that there was nothing unusual about allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country, despite the fact that all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about that event. 2) In order to demonstrate just how invalid the Commission's conclusions could be, I provided chapter and verse on a virtually identical event in which all interested parties - the White House, FBI, FAA, et al - likewise lied, only to have the Commission compound the lie by declaring it benign, which we know to be false.

You haven’t provided any evidence that “all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about” “allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country” as you correctly pointed out you “never stated” this was the case. The only evidence you provided in respect to the 2nd claim was an article by Hopsicker. The crux of Hopsicker’s case was an FBI memo which said US airspace was closed at the time. The problem is: the agent who wrote the memo, Hopsicker and you were wrong, because US airspace WAS open when the flight took place.

- According to all accounts the flight took place after 4pm on September 13.

- US airspace had reopened at 11 am that morning

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/...lays/index.html

- Private flights were allowed

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/new...test/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2001/sep/...r112001.usnews1

One critical factor in determining whether the flight was “kosher” was if the Saudi’s paid for their flight, which they presumably did. Apparently not only did Hopsicker miss the fact that US airspace was open at the time but missed this from a local paper as well:

The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.

"Whether such a (LearJet) flight would have been legal hinges on whether somebody paid for it," said FAA spokesman William Shumann. "That's the key."

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay...fies_flig.shtml

On September 14, 2001 the Chicago Tribune also reported that “charter flights operated by air carriers were included” in the “resumption of commercial air travel”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/col...0,6122464.story

Since it seems the flight was with a charter company called “Hop A Jet” presumably it was a charter and thus allowed.

According to the Guardian and St. Petersburg Times articles, flights were allowed on a “case by cases basis”. Were the Saudis given preferential treatment in getting permission to fly? Perhaps, but I haven’t seen any evidence. IF so one factor could have been that one of them was the son of the defense minister - a prince and thus presumably a prince himself. Might not such VIP’s from other countries have been give similar consideration? What if a member of the British royal family or son of the German defense minister wanted to fly that day, might not their flights have been among the various charters the FAA allowed?

So, the 9/11 C was right and Hopsicker was wrong. From the Report (as quoted by Hopsicker):

“there is nothing improper about it"[the flight] because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

And:

"At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

Did the White House really deny the flight took place? Perhaps they did but the only source cited is the ex-cop who was one of the bodyguards on the flight. According to the Tampa Tribune article cited by Hopsicker “The White House referred questions on the trip to the State Department, which denied involvement, and the National Security Council, which did not return messages.”

http://www.madcowprod.com/tampa_tribune_october_5.htm

Did the FAA lie? Perhaps they did or perhaps they were simply mistaken (the wrong tail number might have been a factor). Since the flight seems to have been proper why would they lie about it? Even if someone in the Atlanta office lied, that is irrelevant as to whether or not the bin-Ladens were questioned by the FBI.

Did the FBI lie about the flight? I don’t see any evidence to that effect. As with the FAA why would they lie about the flight if it were allowed? Did they ever say to anybody outside the Bureau that it didn’t take place? Hopsicker cited internal memos that he says were only released by court order last June. Instead of implicating the FBI the memos seem to indicate, they really thought the flight hadn’t taken place. The FBI wasn’t involved in the flight, the FBI Pentbom team that wrote the memos was based in Washington D.C. far from Tampa FL, Atlanta GA and Lexington KY.

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

But let’s say you and Hopsicker were right about the Tampa flight, that would only reinforce the notion that IF the BL family got any favors it wasn’t because the administration was in cahoots with OBL but rather that they wanted to butter up the Saudis either because of business ties or due to guarantee their cooperation in the planned “War on Terror”

LEN: You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing.

RC-D: I can assure you that the Canadian goverment would have been particularly proactive in this regard. Do recall that US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada [completely false], and intimated that such would have never happened were Canadian authorities not so lax [also false, for it is the responsiblility of US Customs to prevent the entry of such persons, not the responsibility of Canada Customs to prevent the exit of same.] Do you really think that after having been falsely branded as lax on terrorism [a recurring false charge against Canada, for those who care], Canadian authorities would have allowed the escape of anyone named Bin Laden, after OBL had been identified as the 911 culprit, with "no questions asked?"

Airspace opened in Canada September 13, the same day as in the US (see links above) when did “US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada”?

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

TORA BORA

LEN: He [Gary Bernsten head of the CIA’s OBL unit] had always gotten what he wanted from [Gen. Tommy] Franks? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans.

RC-D: Again, I find it troubling that the single greatest opportunity, in the extant record, to kill or capture OBL was foregone. You do not, as is your right. Forum members can discern for themselves which they find more persuasive.

Notice how your claim in this regard keeps changing. 1st it was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing” (and implied Bush was responsible for the order), then when I showed that to be in error it was that Franks eered in not complying with Berntsen’s request for ground troops (which he want to seal off escape routes not attack the caves). When I pointed out the Franks MIGHT have had good reason not to have done so you claimed that this was anomalous because Berntsen “always got what he wanted” from Franks till Tora Bora but even though you can’t back that claim you still think you’re right and you accuse me of being tied to a preconceived notion.

RC-D: Again, this insistence upon credentials is both inconsistent and spurious, because it certainly doesn't preclude

you

from offering

your

opinion on the topic, irrespective of your stated lack of experience.

Note that I never took a definite position I even qualified it 4 times. I said (emphasis added :

“Did he [Gen. Franks] make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t THINK so but I’m NOT SURE because I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION and I’M NOT QUALIFIED to make such a judgment,”

You are the one claiming that a decision by highly experienced general was so erroneous that we can presume he did so due pressure or orders from the Bush administration*. All I asked you for was backing from someone with comparable experience.

* [You never said this explicitly but it is implicit in your position you asked Pat: “Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?”]

RC-D: Were I to demonstrate my military background, you would say serving in the Canadian forces is not comparable to service in the US military. Were I to say that I had served in UN peacekeeping duties and was responsible for tracking enemy combatants in Bosnia, you would say that the terrain there was not comparable to that of Afghanistan, etc., etc. …[by the way, although my avatar photo is small and hard to discern, it does depict me in Canadian military uniform, from which you are free to draw whatever inferences you choose.

Very impressive and if subjects like “tracking enemy combatants” or “peacekeeping duties” come up I’ll have to admit your expertise but I asked for someone who had to make decisions about sending large numbers of troops into a dangerous situation. Did you ever have to do so? Are you qualified to conclude that we can infer from Franks’ refusal to comply with Berntsen’s request a disinterest by Bush in getting OBL? If Bush really didn’t want OBL caught why did they send Berntsen in and not a more by the book agent?

RC-D: It is as irrelevant as insisting that only professional assassins should be allowed to post their thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.] This is a red herring on your part, designed merely to deny others a right to state

their

opinion, while allowing you to state yours.

Very bad analogy if the subject of how “professional assassins” act came up I might ask for the opinion of a hitman OR someone who’d studied them. I never said that only experts should be able to post but rather that when technical questions come up someone who isn’t an expert should be able to cite someone who is.

LEN: You say this [berntsen not getting what he asked for] was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command.

Your insistence upon having expertise in order to justify an opinion clearly doesn't preclude

you

from having and stating an opinion, despite your own lack of same. See above.

See above regarding that question. You still haven’t backed your claim that Berntsen “always” got what he asked for but this “suddenly changed” are you abandoning it?

Nor have you produced any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks. Berntsen doesn’t seem to think so he said “I'm a loyal supporter of the president and I think the president is doing a good job in the fight on terrorism.” And in the same interview said that he had “requested the rangers directly from the commander of JSOC, who was on the ground out there. And of course, their decision was not to do that.” JSOC is the Joint Special Operation Command so it seems that a lower level officer also refused his request or at least had enough doubt to pass it up the chain of command to Franks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/

PALAST AND THE 9/11 C. REDUX

LEN: Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so?

RC-D: Without knowing the lengths to which Palast probed the issue, how can one

tell

what he has or hasn't sought?

Weren’t you the guy who 1st cited him?

RC-D: This is precisely why it is imperative that such matters be thoroughly and comprehensively probed by an impartial, independent investigative body.

It’s “imperative” to do so because we don’t know “the lengths to which Palast probed the issue”?

RC-D: That has not been done. Those who think otherwise are welcome to read about the impediments placed in the way of the 911 Commission by those responsible for testifying before it and the various errors and omissions its Report contained. It may be instructive to note that the Commission itself discussed laying criminal charges against some of those who did testify, an example of which can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html

This would seem to undermine the theory that they completely kowtowed to Bush.

I will try and reply to the posts about Rodriguez tomorrow

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine that only applies to witnesses who support your version of events. Truthers frequently try to discredit witnesses whose accounts contradict what they believe happened. Alex Jones has even gone so far as to accuse the FDNY (who lost hundreds of men including their chief that day) of being complicit in the destruction of 7 WTC. Do you despise that as well?

I replied to the rest of the Rodriguez stuff here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120487

[Cliff Varnell]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine

Yes, sorting through your fevered imagination is unnecessary.

There is something about the word "massive" that eludes you.

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

[Len Colby]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine

Yes, sorting through your fevered imagination is unnecessary.

There is something about the word "massive" that eludes you.

Replied to on the appropriate thread* where you evasion of various contadiction in his accounts was noted. Evasion also noted as to the question I asked you about Jones and the other truthers who "bash" witnessess whose version of events they don't like. Why are "double threading"?

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120487

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

As for the column that was probably cut during cleanup

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120630

Edited September 30, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Tim Howells, BA, MS, PhD – Computer science. Medical researcher.

Essay 11/10/03: "In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest and most responsible military officers, proposed to commit acts of terrorism aimed against U.S. citizens, designed to look as though they had been the work of operatives of Fidel Castro. The object was to provide a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. Among many imaginative proposals, the Chiefs suggested:

[...]

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Peter the forum's very own "King of Spam"

[Michael Hogan]

An interesting timeline on Osama bin Laden: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...osama_bin_laden

[Cliff Varnell]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine

Yes, sorting through your fevered imagination is unnecessary.

There is something about the word "massive" that eludes you.

Replied to on the appropriate thread* where you evasion of various contadiction in his accounts was noted.

There are no contradictions in his account.

You simply cannot process the meaning of the word "massive."

No dictionary handy?

Evasion also noted as to the question I asked you about Jones and the other truthers who "bash" witnessess whose version of events they don't like. Why are "double threading"?

When you see me bash a witness, take up the subject.

I don't have any connection with, or control over, Alex Jones.

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120487

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

As for the column that was probably cut during cleanup

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120630

Probably cut during clean-up?

But you don't know for sure, do you?

Those cuts are consistent with a controlled demolition.

Please produce the evidence that standing steel beams were cut in that manner

during clean-up.

[Len Colby]

Replied to on the appropriate thread* where you evasion of various contadiction in his accounts was noted.

There are no contradictions in his account.

You simply cannot process the meaning of the word "massive."

No dictionary handy?

Perhaps you have trouble understanding the word "other" as in "But you choose to ignore other discrepancies in his story such as..." I listed 9, there are others in the paper

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120487 (post 31)

Evasion also noted as to the question I asked you about Jones and the other truthers who "bash" witnessess whose version of events they don't like. Why are "double threading"?

When you see me bash a witness, take up the subject.

I don't have any connection with, or control over, Alex Jones.

Fair enough, but still imagine you only object to "witnesses bashing" when the witness supports your view. If someone finds evidence that a witness is lying should they remain silent or say something?

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

As for the column that was probably cut during cleanup

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120630

Probably cut during clean-up?

But you don't know for sure, do you?

Those cuts are consistent with a controlled demolition.

Please produce the evidence that standing steel beams were cut in that manner

during clean-up.

I provided evidence of such in the linked thread, pay attention. IF you have any evidence "those cuts are consistent with a controlled demolition" post it there as well.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len Colby post #34 on thread “318-slide powerpoint presentation by architect, on WTC building collapses” said:

‘Funny you accuse me of engaging in personal attacks, your hypocrisy is stunning’

Len Colby post#209 on thread “Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination” said:

‘Peter [Lemkin] the forum's very own "King of Spam" ‘

David

Edited October 1, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Len Colby]

Len Colby post #34 on thread “318-slide powerpoint presentation by architect, on WTC building collapses” said:

‘Funny you accuse me of engaging in personal attacks, your hypocrisy is stunning’

That was in response to Peter calling me “Benedict Arnold” (synonymous for someone who betrays their country in the American lexicon) and insinuating I am not who I say I am but rather someone paid to disrupt the forum. He has repeatedly made similar accusations going so far as to address me as “who or what parades as Len Colby, presence on this Forum” and “poison of the Langely/Cameron variety”. After calling other members Nazis simply for disagreeing with him he suggested I form a group called “Black Rose” in contrast to White Rose an anti-Nazi group. He frequently calls me a “borg” and has labeled me “a joke”, one of the “clowns for the oligrarchy 'Borg’”, “deluded”, “underhanded”, “dydactic pseudo-intellecutal / arrogant”, “ego-mainiac” etc etc. He also said that "“About 90% of your {i.e. my} posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations" but declined my invitation to substantiate that false claim.

Len Colby post#209 on thread “Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination” said:

‘Peter [Lemkin] the forum's very own "King of Spam" ‘

He makes a point cutting and pasting long texts entirely irrelevant to the subject of the thread, such as posting the comments of:

- someone who was an air traffic controller decades before 9/11 saying the planes should have been intercepted on a thread about a presentation by an architect about the WTC collapses

- a former air force colonel concerning the constitution and war in Iraq on another thread about the same architect

- another former air force colonel complaining that the serial numbers of the 757 parts found at the Pentagon were not disclosed

this constitutes spamming. So I fail to seem how calling him the “king of Spam” is a personnel attack especially in light of his past comments to me.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

2x post

Edited October 22, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I know of several cases of "anti-semitic" Jews. Some people put ethics above race.

So Jack, are you saying that being anti-Semitic is ethical and (by extension) that not being anti-Semitic is unethical?

Jack now that you’re “back” I was wondering if you could clarify what exactly you meant.

Peter wroye:

This post of yours here is just more of the same...provocation and naysaying

Quite telling that he defines being called on insulting others "provocation"