Jump to content

Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination


Gary Buell
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Bill, I just saw another article on the web saying it was written by Mossad agents....so the psyops have begun..... I haven't been able to find a full transcript. Here is the most complete I've seen on Al Jezeera [so the translation should be well done].

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B4D...D551838261C.htm

Actually Pearlman was at best a quarter Jewish and was raised more or less agnostic on a goat farm without running water or electricity by his hippie parents. His father who was the son of a member of the ADL converted to Christianity and was a Halal butcher. Under Jewish law religion is passed maternally in cases of mixed marriage so not even his father let alone Pearlman himself would be considered Jewish. Alex Jones’ Goebbels, Joseph Watson, claimed without offering any evidence that he was a “ Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as "bloodthirsty terrorists"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...07phonytape.htm

What he actually wrote in his essay “On Becoming Moslem” was (emphasis added)

“Having been around Muslims in my formative years, I knew well that they were NOT the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists that the news media and the televangelists paint them to be.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20060629223641/...ims/yahiye.html

So let see Pearlman, wasn’t Jewish, said the opposite of what Watson claimed he did and no evidence was presented to support the unlikely contention he was a Mossad agent

The problem with believing Jones and Watson and other disreputable liars of their ilk is well… that they are disreputable liars. It’s more than ironic that people who take them seriously decry the unreliability and bias of the MSM. I’m not saying the media isn’t at times and on certain issues unreliable and biased it’s just such problems are relative and are just as if not more pervasive in much of the alternate media.

More on Gadahm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn (well referenced)

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1...amp;IssueNum=66

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alex Jones’ Goebbels, Joseph Watson, claimed without offering any evidence that he was a “ Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as "bloodthirsty terrorists"

...................

The problem with believing Jones and Watson and other disreputable liars of their ilk is well… that they are disreputable liars..........

Between the "Nazi" epithets and "direputable liars" assertions, it seems Len finds it insufficient to rebut what offends him and must resort to less gentlemanly methods of discourse. That is his right, but it hardly elevates the debate above the very muck and mire he so decries.

For a somewhat more evenhanded evaluation of Jones' role in the mediasphere, one might try reading BBC report Greg Palast's thoughts on the topic, which can be found at: http://www.infowars.com/print_palast.htm

Alex Jones [is] the only major radio host concerned about my story for BBC about George Bush killing off the investigation of WAMY, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, prior to September 11.

The FBI said they were a "suspected terrorist organization," but Bush's intelligence chiefs called off the hunt of the US branch of the organization led by Abdullah bin Ladin. Now, the Somalian government has arrested Osama bin Ladin's messenger, the man who took his latest tape to Al Jazeera TV ... a staff member of WAMY.

Shortly thereafter, George Bush's buddy, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, invited WAMY to meet in his palace where he told them: "There is no extremism in religion." Really? Maybe the prince hasn't read the murder-promoting propaganda issued by WAMY found in the apartment of the World Trade Center bombers ... or seen their terror-cheering pep talks to Muslim teenagers at their summer camp in Florida... we at BBC London obtained the video tape (something the FBI can't seem to do).

Here's where you and I agree, Alex: there really are terrorists out there. But we won't find them or stop them by repealing the first, second and fifth amendments to the Bill of Rights. They will be caught (and would have been caught before September 11) if our President and his minions stop protecting the Saudi Arabian financiers of berserkers.

Thank you for your courage, Alex. Some consider BBC TV the "left wing" and your program the "right wing." The truth is neither left nor right ... and I applaud you for disseminating unpleasant realities.

A lot of my friends and colleagues may be surprised to read this: after all, BBC Television is considered "left wing" by Americans and the Alex Jones considered "right wing." But the truth is neither left nor right, and I applaud Alex Jones for standing alone among major syndicated radio hosts for broadcasting hard realities too unpleasant for the mainstream US media.

Jones is fearless and thoughtful. Do I agree with everything the man says? Heck, no. But then, he probably wouldn't accept all my views either. This isn't about opinions, this is about the dissemination of crucial news otherwise denied the American public by the mainstream media propaganda machinery.

Let me give you three examples from my experience. I've broadcast three stories for BBC Television Newsnight London which have received international attention, but have suffered a virtual blackout on US commercial radio and TV ... except the Alex Jones show. They are

1. The IMF/World Bank documents. In early 2000, BBC TV and the Guardian newspapers of London released sections of a large cache of confidential documents from inside these agencies, the financial arm of the new globalization order. They reveal secretive plans for a virtual financial coup d'etat in several nations, from Argentina to Tanzania. The documents reveal the IMF and World Bank's knowing destruction of economies and cruel hidden demands on these nations.

The information was top of the news in Europe, Latin American and page one in Turkey. Yet in the USA, editors ignored this damning information on the New World Order, in part because US news editors believe the information is far too sophisticated for Americans to understand. Not Jones, he explained the information, gave it a lengthy hearing for his listeners, showing a respect for their intellect not common to US commercial broadcasting.

2. The Bush Administration's hindering FBI and CIA investigations of the bin Ladin family and Saudi Arabian funding of terror prior to September 11, 2001.

US broadcasters were scared to death of airing this report shown on BBC Television's Newsnight on November 6, 2001. Dan Rather of CBS news, who appeared on Newsnight, said that to report stories asking such questions would get him lynched ... he was to fearful to do it. Not Jones. He gave the BBC and Guardian story (which won a California State University journalism award) a full airing. A year later, the US media is beginning to cover the story, timidly, where Jones took it on without hesitation.

3. Theft of the US presidential election. No one could accuse Alex Jones of being a Democratic Party partisan, yet he reported what other mainstream US media delayed reporting for six months: the BBC story that the Bush family and allies had fixed the vote in Florida by illegally removing tens of the thousands of legal Black voters from the state's voter rolls in the months before the November 2000 election. The Washington Post did run the story ... six months after Jones gave the information to his listeners.

You don't have to agree with everything Alex Jones says or reports to say, this guy is a national treasure, a light breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall of the US media establishment.

Greg Palast

London/ New York"

Palast, the author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Penguin Plume 2003), reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.

Len says "It’s more than ironic that people who take them seriously decry the unreliability and bias of the MSM." Here we have Greg Palast, just such a MSM reporter, illustrating the bias of the MSM in the most concrete terms, and calling Jones a "national treasure." Perhaps Len will care to liken Palast to Himmler or Goerring or employ some other broadbrush "anti-Semite" smear, and likewise assert that the BBC reporter, too, is a "disreputable xxxx."

Such coarse tactics cheapen the debate that might otherwise occur, and reflect more poorly upon the author than his intended victims. It is richly ironic that a radio host willing to trace the roots of radical anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism, while his fellows will not, is compared by Len Colby to Hitler.

As always, caveat emptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another common fingerprint in the JFK hit and 9/11 is the old lost luggage trick. One of Mohamed Atta's bags, with a suicide note therein, was conveniently left behind for discovery when he boarded American Flight 11. It was recently related on this forum that a bag belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination. However, as I recall this report was based entirely on a footnote in Dick Russell's book The Man Who Knew Too Much. Does anyone know which note on which page? I started to look for it, but as anyone knows who is familiar with that hefty tome it's an impossible task without some specific reference in the index. And perhaps Dick Russell, who is a member of the forum, could give us additional info as to his source etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another common fingerprint in the JFK hit and 9/11 is the old lost luggage trick. One of Mohamed Atta's bags, with a suicide note therein, was conveniently left behind for discovery when he boarded American Flight 11. It was recently related on this forum that a bag belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination. However, as I recall this report was based entirely on a footnote in Dick Russell's book The Man Who Knew Too Much. Does anyone know which note on which page? I started to look for it, but as anyone knows who is familiar with that hefty tome it's an impossible task without some specific reference in the index. And perhaps Dick Russell, who is a member of the forum, could give us additional info as to his source etc.

Ron, I am the guilty party on this one. You can find the relevant portion in the original edition on page 775, footnote # 17, which says: "The source who told the author about the tape recording of Oswald's voice being in [Win] Scott's possession requested anonymity. I can only add that this source was well positioned to know about this and had no reason to fabricate the story. The same source suggested there was something very odd about the CIA's awareness of Oswald's Mexico City trip. "It had to do with some luggage that was found at the airport," which indicates that Oswald may have flown into (or out of) Mexico at some point. The source believed that Oswald may in fact have flown to Havana and back to Mexico City."

It seems to me that if this "luggage" had been lost during some prior trip to or from Havana, it would have been more widely reported by CIA, since much of the cable traffic originating from there was devoted to depicting a relationship between Oswald and Castro and/or KGB. Such a discovery of LHO luggage would have sealed the deal, though it would raise obvious questions about how and when LHO made such a trip, given his demonstrable presence elsewhere throughout the time period. A more plausible possibility, to me at least, is that the luggage was designed to implicate Oswald in a trip to Havana immediately post-assassination, which is why all news of it seems to have been scuttled. How does his luggage get to Mexico City when Oswald is in police custody? Clearly, Russell's source prefers to think Oswald had previously been to Havana rather than entertain the notion this bit of evidence had been planted, presumably to be discovered after the assassination, leading to the inference that the assassin had sought refuge in Havana after committing the dastardly deed.

I tried repeatedly to get further information from Dick Russell on this tiny but salient detail, to no avail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Russell: Can anyone expand on the story that he was about to publish an explosive (don't forget to duck, John) history of CIA mind control operations, only to pull back at the eleventh hour because he couldn't nail down an all-important confirmation of the work's central thesis?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in Dick Russell knew no more, or declined to tell any more? 

At the time [2001?], Dick replied that it would require much time to explain details he'd largely shelved/forgotten, and his time was then occupied with writing or promoting [can't recall which] a new book, Eye Of The Whale. I didn't press him very hard, for two reasons. First, given that his source had insisted on anonymity, I knew it was cheeky of me to even ask for more details [though I'd have gladly settled for any info falling short of naming a name.] Second, I learned long ago that unwavering persistence in such matters makes one seem more an obsessive pest than a diligent researcher.

Russell is a first class investigator, as his mid-70s output in the Village Voice had already illustrated to me well prior to his writing "TMWKTM." Perhaps once his source on this luggage matter has died, Russell will no longer feel compelled to honour the source's request for anonymity. In the meantime, he has devoted much time and energy to environmental matters. Remarkably, though it often appears hopeless, saving the world from environmental disaster may prove far less quixotic than solving the Kennedy assassination mysteries. Godspeed to Dick, whatever his current endeavours.

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.

RCD,

It has been my contention, to many of my friends and others with whom I've discussed the events of 911 and related issues, that had I been in charge of follow-up terroist acts in the USA I could have succeeded in achieving OBL purportedly stated goals. If indeed he had wanted to secure an ongoing state of terror in the USA and do serious economic and pyschological damage it would have only taken a few easily implemented tactics. 1) kidnap and publicly execute via video several cultural icons i.e. entertainers, sports figures, politicians. If one considers the shock value of the public executions of total strangers we witnessed, then imagine the effect of the brurtal slaying of say Michael Jordan, katie Couric, Oprah or others would have on the public. And yes, I know they have bodyguards, but a well planned attack on an individual cannot be thwarted. 2) A systematic series of attacks across the USA on soft targets. Many people believe that the token security at sporting events has deterred any attacks at those venues. I belive that determined plotters could pull off a series of succeesful attacks at any number of professional or collegiate events. The morale of the American public would plummet if we felt like we lost our freedeom to attend sporting events. Likewise as you mentioned a slew of automatic weapon slaughters or suicide bomber attacks at shopping malls across the country would bring the economy to a near standstill in weeks, if not days. The attacks at high schools and fast food outlets through the years demonstrate the ease with which these types of attacks could be orchestrated. One only has to recall the stae of panic in the days of the DC slayings by a couple of snipers to understand the impact. People may boast that they wouldn't allow the terroists to win and that they would continue to go to sporting events and malls, but the hysteria following the sniper attacks and anthrax scares gives lie to that scenario.

The above mentioned plots could easliy be caried out by a few dozen highly motivated individuals. Does anyone believe there aren't that many people available to OBL? How many days would it take in illegal border crossiings for enough terrorists to infiltrate the country to carry out similar plans? Either OBL is a complete incompetent at terror tactics or....well fill in your own thoughts.

Herb

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.

RCD,

It has been my contention, to many of my friends and others with whom I've discussed the events of 911 and related issues, that had I been in charge of follow-up terrorist acts in the USA I could have succeeded in achieving OBL's purportedly stated goals. If indeed he had wanted to secure an ongoing state of terror in the USA and do serious economic and pyschological damage it would have only taken a few easily implemented tactics. 1) kidnap and publicly execute via video several cultural icons i.e. entertainers, sports figures, politicians. If one considers the shock value of the public executions of total strangers we witnessed, then imagine the effect of the brurtal slaying of say Michael Jordan, katie Couric, Oprah or others would have on the public. And yes, I know they have bodyguards, but a well planned attack on an individual cannot be thwarted. 2) A systematic series of attacks across the USA on soft targets. Many people believe that the token security at sporting events has deterred any attacks at those venues. I belive that determined plotters could pull off a series of succeesful attacks at any number of professional or collegiate events. The morale of the American public would plummet if we felt like we lost our freedeom to attend sporting events. Likewise, as you mentioned, a slew of automatic weapon slaughters or suicide bomber attacks at shopping malls across the country would bring the economy to a near standstill in weeks, if not days. The attacks at high schools and fast food outlets through the years demonstrate the ease with which these types of attacks could be orchestrated. One only has to recall the state of panic in the days of the DC slayings brought on by a couple of snipers to understand the impact. People may boast that they wouldn't allow the terrorists to win and that they would continue to go to sporting events and malls, but the hysteria following the sniper attacks and anthrax scares gives lie to that scenario.

The above mentioned plots could easliy be caried out by a few dozen highly motivated individuals. Does anyone believe there aren't that many people available to OBL? How many days would it take in illegal border crossiings for enough terrorists to infiltrate the country to carry out similar plans? Either OBL is a complete incompetent at terror tactics or....well fill in your own thoughts.

Herb

Edited by Herb White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees. This isn't a war of "let's see how many innocent people we can kill" or "let's see how much terror we can spread" it's a war to get the US out of the mid-east. Bin Laden is not stupid. He knows damn well that increasingly vicious attacks on US soil, against "innocent" entertainers respected world-wide, would DRASTICALLY increase support for US policies throughout the non-Arab world, and probably even backfire in the Arab world.

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy. It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community. Even worse, for Bush personally, it has cost his base, the Republican party, control of congress, and most probably the White House. It has also cost him his friends. One after another Bush's cronies have resigned in disgust and disgrace. Powell, Ashcroft, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Tenet, Card, Miers, Rove and now Gonzalez. Pretty much all that's left is Dick and Condi. Those still holding onto the pipedream that Bush, a man who recently called Australians "Austrians," is some sort of Sith Lord have got another think coming, IMO. History WILL show that Bush is a bonehead, and as bad as if not worse than our worst Presidents: Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover... The only thing that could change that is Bin Laden's attacking the US again, and giving Bush carte blanche to bomb the heck out of another Arab country.

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking that Bush is anything other than a B-movie hack butchering his lines is like thinking that Lambchop had her paw up Shari Lewis's tush.

(Apologies to U.K. readers whose childhoods were not haunted by one of America's least clever puppeteers.)

It's like Bugliosi's circular anti-conspiracy argument: Do you really believe that the CIA or the Mafia would have hired a nut like Oswald to kill Kennedy?

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between the "Nazi" epithets and "direputable liars" assertions, it seems Len finds it insufficient to rebut what offends him and must resort to less gentlemanly methods of discourse. That is his right, but it hardly elevates the debate above the very muck and mire he so decries.

[…]

Such coarse tactics cheapen the debate that might otherwise occur, and reflect more poorly upon the author than his intended victims.

Perhaps you can cite examples of when I “decried” ‘ungentlemanly’ language directed at public figures who aren’t members of this forum. Last time I checked Jones and Watson were NOT members here thus they are just as much fair game as: Bush, to whom similar epitaphs are directed at on a regular basis (including by me); or the Clintons who Ron refers to as a ‘criminal family’ (or words to that effect); or Cokie Roberts, Norman Mailer, Gus Russo and Joan Mellen who’ve all been called “whore” here etc but I don’t remember you objecting on those occasions. Nor do I remember you objecting when Jack accused several members of the forum of being “accessories after the fact” to the JFK assassination or when Peter without provocation insinuated that members of this forum were Nazi’s etc. Nothing from you about how those “coarse tactics cheapen(ed) the debate”. But you are right I should have been more diplomatic in my description of Jones and Watson.

Len says "It’s more than ironic that people who take them seriously decry the unreliability and bias of the MSM." Here we have Greg Palast, just such a MSM reporter, illustrating the bias of the MSM in the most concrete terms, and calling Jones a "national treasure." Perhaps Len will care to liken Palast to Himmler or Goerring or employ some other broadbrush "anti-Semite" smear, and likewise assert that the BBC reporter, too, is a "disreputable xxxx."

I find it highly unlikely that Palast is anti-Semitic since he’s Jewish. I highly respect him and think it’s unfortunate that his reporting doesn’t get wider distribution in the US. I don’t agree with everything he says though. I disagree with his opposition to gun control and disagree with his assessment of Jones. I imagine that Jones picking up on stories of his that other outlets didn’t would make him a bit partial. Jones and his sidekicks aren’t ‘courageous’ they will pick up on anything that fits his (their) worldview, sometimes they portray it accurately but all too frequently they distort it or lie as they did with the article about Gadahn. Palast recently said that “inside job” theories are nonsense I wonder if his assessment of Jones has changed.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9029

It is richly ironic that a radio host willing to trace the roots of radical anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism, while his fellows will not, is compared by Len Colby to Hitler.

Just when did Jones “trace the roots of radical anti-Semitism”? Speaking of anti-Semitism take a look at that article about Gadahn, the thrust of which was ‘the guy’s Jewish he must he a Mossad agent’. I’ve yet to hear your reaction to the distorted version of the truth which emanated from Jones’ site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat says...

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

Pat is out of touch.

Jack

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush and Cheney have cynically exploited Bin Laden's existence to expand Presidential power and reward their friends. But Bin Laden is undoubtedly a thorn in their side. Bush's failure to catch him has been a major embarrassment to his administration, and has hurt his party.

Now, if Bush were to somehow "catch" Bin Laden just in time for the next election... I have to admit my suspicions would skyrocket.

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...