Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Not at all. In March of 2002 Bush said he didn't even think that much about

bin Laden, and the gop won big in 2002.

The Bush family and the bin Laden family are long-time business partners.

Black markets thrive in chaos.

Mission accomplished.

[Cliff Varnell]

duped post...on a thread showing people duped!

Edited September 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Perhaps you can cite examples of when I “decried” ‘ungentlemanly’ language directed at public figures who aren’t members of this forum.

You're missing the point, or avoiding it. We all engage in degrees of literary hyperbole for dramatic effect. Invocations of Hitler, however, carry a special resonance, a fact that is not lost on you, I'm sure. When you disparage the messenger in such a fashion, rather than rebut whatever silliness you think they have concocted in their message, you dilute your own intent. That is the point I tried to make, irrespective of whether that messenger is or isn't a member 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”.

I don't read all the posts here [would that I had that amount of free time.] I also deliberately avoid threads where I suspect the vitriol will be more caustic than enlightening, which is my right. Life is short; I don't intend to spend mine reading juvenile taunts and name-calling. Also, I am not a Forum moderator and am under no obligation to slap the wrists of all those who offend the rules.

But you are right I should have been more diplomatic in my description of Jones and Watson.

Thank you. It is a gracious admission on your part.

I find it highly unlikely that Palast is anti-Semitic since he’s Jewish.

The one doesn't negate the possibility of the other, as the recent arrests of neo-Nazis Israeli citizens seems to bear out.

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've yet to meet a person with whom I agree on all things. Despite your differences with Palast on a few issues, you discern in him a genuine effort to spread vital information to those who most need it. I'm sure he is pleased with anyone who helps him do that, Jones included, despite Palast's own reservations about some of Jones' material. [Just for full disclosure, I have had limited exposure to Jones' output. Whatever the merits of his content may or may not be, I've been largely unimpressed, primarily due to a hyperbolic zeal that, to me at least, lessens the intended effect.]

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.

And you are free to call them on anything specious, as you've done here. References to Jones' sidekick as "Goebbels" weren't really necessary to make the point, as you've now graciously acknowledged.

Palast recently said that “inside job” theories are nonsense I wonder if his assessment of Jones has changed.

Email him. I'd be equally interested in his opinion.

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”?

If you refer back to my prior post, it's in the first few paragraphs of Palast's article/endorsement.

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’.

Too often, the Jonathan Pollards of this world make such a presumption all too easy to sell to the credulous. AIPAC and similar agencies of semi-covert influence over the governments of other nations likewise bolster such presumptions. Mossad operatives have at least twice been caught using multiple false Canadian identities, including passports. While we in Canada rather frown upon such things, for it now makes Canadians instantly suspect as possible Mossad agents to unfriendly nations while travelling in the Middle East, such ill-considered tradecraft also creates the suspicion that just about anyone might be a Mossad apparatchik. While such a ruse might be effective [who would feign being a Canadian, of all things - other than Yanks in Europe with Maple Leaf flags on their backbacks, I mean?], it becomes a liability in the longer term, inciting the very paranoia you describe - ‘the guy’s Jewish he must he a Mossad agent,’ even if he is Canadian.

I’ve yet to hear your reaction to the distorted version of the truth which emanated from Jones’ site.

As noted above, I don't seek out Jones, but encounter his output fairly often in my cyber-travels. However, when time permits, I'll happily examine whatever distortions may be on offer at the links you have provided.

[Jack White]

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

Jack

[Jack White]

Administrations and political parties are expendable props, managed so as to project the illusion of choice.

Exactly. And so are so-called "terrorists". And any target country of choice. Or expendable skyscrapers

that are heavily insured.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

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.

Jack wrote:

Pat is out of touch.

One can only assume then that Jack believes that the POTUS subscribes to the Oliver Stone view of the JFK assassination as now endorsed by Mr. Bin Laden.

[Jack White]

Pat wrote:

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.

Jack wrote:

Pat is out of touch.

One can only assume then that Jack believes that the POTUS subscribes to the Oliver Stone view of the JFK assassination as now endorsed by Mr. Bin Laden.

What a bizarre comment. Makes no sense at all.

I believe OBL is a fictional character at this point whose words are scripted by the PCG.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Well Jack does the PCG then now believe that it killed JFK because he was going to pull out of Vietnam? If it does it seems bizarre that it will have the mythical Bin Laden accuse it of the assassination. THAT is what I think is bizarre.

Do you follow?

[Tim Gratz]

Jack, do you have a list of the current members of the PCG?

I assume the members some time have policy differences. Do they decide such disputes by a democratic vote of the group?

How does one become a member of the PCG? Are there ex officio members?

Has any member of the PCG ever "talked"?

Edited September 11, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

For the record, what's the consensus on ABL?

Is the video a fake or he is still alive?

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

I still find it hard to believe Bush's PR firms would write some of that text....but anything is possible.

The whole Forum could be retitled the "Anything is Possible" Forum.

Did Greer shot JFK in front of Jackie and for some reason she never said anything about it?

Was the moon landing "faked"?

Did a Bush PR firm write Bin Laden's speech?

Well, all of these propositions might be pretty hard for most to swallow, but what the heck, anything is possible. Why waste time thinking and writing only about ideas that make sense?

[Guest David Guyatt]

I finally saw the entire text and talk...its long...and covers an interesting range of topics. I still find it hard to believe Bush's PR firms would write some of that text....but anything is possible. Someone find the full text and post..it is very interesting in many places! Stranger than that is that the video actually freezes [OBL doesn't move] in large portions, but the voice continues and then his image moves again....showing something not 'kosher' is up!....

microscopic and blurry full text here: [help find a better version!]

http://anthologyoi.com/blogish/asides/osam...l#CleanedImages

Peter,

On the UBL tape, one has to concede the possibility of it being a morphed production.

The fact is that the US military looked at this technological possiblity long ago. The July 1994 US Army War College/Strategic Studies Institute publication: "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War" is merely 32 pages long, but is packed with strategies for the future (and highlky reccomended reading, in my view). Included is morphing.

Sigificantly, the authors note that the main "constraint" to the full use of emerging technologies are "American values and attitudes" and that "...overcoming these constrains to make RMS [Revolution in Military Affairs].." feasible, would "require fundamental changes in the United States - an ehtical and political revolution may be necessary to make a military revolution". Key components of RMA were psychotechnologies - of which morphing techniques were a part. In fact, the authors project a future hypothetical scenario, dated 2010, where morphing technology forms part of the whole psychotechnology strategy.

Also significant, I think, is the comment that "...external manipulation of the American public psychology was defined as a security threat", which begs the observation that domestic manipulation of the publicis not a security threat - but rather a security requirement.

Lastly, the authors in their hypothetical situation discuss "US strike forces" attacking "neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented 'recreations.' "

from the horses mouth so to speak...

David

[Len Colby]

Normal text = my original post

blue = Robert

red bold = my reply

I find it highly unlikely that Palast is anti-Semitic since he’s Jewish.

The one doesn't negate the possibility of the other, as the recent arrests of neo-Nazis Israeli citizens seems to bear out.

True which is why I said "highly unlikely" the leader of the Nazi march in Skokie IL (home to America's largest Holocaust survivor community) was not only Jewish but the son of a Holocaust survivor, Mark Lane has long been associated with Willis Carto one of America's “leading” neo-Nazi’s. But I don't think the Israeli case is a good example, from what I’ve read most/all of them like “Pearlman” only had one Jewish grandparent.

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've yet to meet a person with whom I agree on all things. Despite your differences with Palast on a few issues, you discern in him a genuine effort to spread vital information to those who most need it. I'm sure he is pleased with anyone who helps him do that, Jones included, despite Palast's own reservations about some of Jones' material. [Just for full disclosure, I have had limited exposure to Jones' output. Whatever the merits of his content may or may not be, I've been largely unimpressed, primarily due to a hyperbolic zeal that, to me at least, lessens the intended effect.]

Then we largely agree on Jones but I hold the inaccuracy of his offerings against him more than his demagoguery.

I think I was wrong about Palast’s position on gun control he said was opposed to “repealing the first, second and fifth amendments to the Bill of Rights” the 2nd is the one that guarantees the right to “bear arms” but he also wrote an article condemning congress for passing a law that protected gun manufacturers from being sued by the victims og gun violence and their next of kin.

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”?

If you refer back to my prior post, it's in the first few paragraphs of Palast's article/endorsement.

Then I must be a bit slow unless you were referring to radical Islam

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’.

Too often, the Jonathan Pollards of this world make such a presumption all too easy to sell to the credulous. AIPAC and similar agencies of semi-covert influence over the governments of other nations likewise bolster such presumptions. Mossad operatives have at least twice been caught using multiple false Canadian identities, including passports. While we in Canada rather frown upon such things, for it now makes Canadians instantly suspect as possible Mossad agents to unfriendly nations while travelling in the Middle East, such ill-considered tradecraft also creates the suspicion that just about anyone might be a Mossad apparatchik. While such a ruse might be effective [who would feign being a Canadian, of all things - other than Yanks in Europe with Maple Leaf flags on their backbacks, I mean?], it becomes a liability in the longer term, inciting the very paranoia you describe - ‘the guy’s Jewish he must he a Mossad agent,’ even if he is Canadian.

By the same logic couldn’t one say ‘the guy’s black he must be a criminal’? In any case Gadahm isn’t and never was Jewish

I’ve yet to hear your reaction to the distorted version of the truth which emanated from Jones’ site.

As noted above, I don't seek out Jones, but encounter his output fairly often in my cyber-travels. However, when time permits, I'll happily examine whatever distortions may be on offer at the links you have provided.

I’d be interested in hearing your reply you strike me as one of the wiser members of this forum (How brown is my nose now? LOL)

[Charles Drago]

Well Jack does the PCG then now believe that it killed JFK because he was going to pull out of Vietnam? If it does it seems bizarre that it will have the mythical Bin Laden accuse it of the assassination. THAT is what I think is bizarre.

Do you follow?

Have we learned nothing?

What better way to discredit the truth than to have the likes of bin Laden speak it?

Charles

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Pat, I think Herb sees quite clearly a critical detail that seems to have escaped many others. How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been? Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him. Can we really be certain, at this date and with so much official obfuscation in the interim, that what we've been told about the second attack is genuine? To the contrary, I would argue that we know what we've been told to date is untrue; we are simply uncertain about what actually is true. Again, it is not so different from the Kennedy assassination, is it?

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled. Those who don't subscribe to conspiracy in the PNAC achieving its stated goals must rely upon "coincidence theory" to rationalize how it transpired that a purported enemy - albeit one with longstanding ties to both Bush the Elder's CIA and his private business interersts - provided precisely the provocation PNAC thought necessary to achieve its goals. It is not Herb White's eyes that deceive him.

This grotesquely provocative act has been described as a war on "American freedoms" and a clash of civilizations and much else. But since those who first envisioned "a new Pearl Harbour" - and got it - are now prosecuting the desired war on terror made possible by that provocation, where is the adversary that should be fighting back on US soil? Having launched the sneak attack that PNAC thought necessary, where is the followup? It is as though the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, but had made no plans whatsoever to thereafter continue fighting against the US.

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.

So, you're saying that Nine-One-One was designed to kill innocent civilians, just as a greeting card or a mission statement, but that any subsequent acts by him against other US civilians would somehow undermine his popularity? It is a distinction with no discernible difference, in my view.

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.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event? 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? It's an odd war in which innocents and enemy combatants found half a world away are sequestered in Gitmo, while the putative figurehead they serve is provided safe sanctuary by those who allegedly seek him. When's the last time OBL's name actually passed Bush's lips? Yes, Bush adopted a very aggressive public posture of going after OBL; in reality, Bush has shown OBL nothing but solicitude. What an odd way to seek out an enemy, "dead or alive." Apparently "alive" is Bush's preference. Why?

It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community.

But it has also fattened the bottom lines of corporate interests controlled by the Bush family and its retainers. Why only keep your eye on the debit side of the ledger? If you do not view the asset side of the ledger, how will you ever know who profits most from these events?

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.

Precisely. So why hasn't that happened? Because Bin Laden's lost interest? Because he's too busy trying to arrange a date for himself with Whitney Houston? Or because he wasn't the one who orchestrated the first attack? And those who did orchestrate it realize they cannot stage another such event without being caught? Which do you truly find more persuasive?

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.

You posit an adversarial relationship where none exists. Bush the Elder certainly played a role in creating the original Bin Laden, the one who helped triumph over the Soviets in Afghanistan. And let's not forget that the Bushes and Bin Ladens have both seen great profits - via Carlyle - as a direct result of the key event six years back. Seventy five billion and counting isn't exactly chump change. Comparisons to Clinton and Starr - neither of whom saw any true benefit from their adversarial relationship - are well wide of the mark, as I'm sure Herb White could illustrate in a heartbeat.