Jump to content

Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination


Gary Buell
 Share

Recommended Posts

To Robert Charles-Dunne:

Well, it is always good to hear from you.

Are you a betting man? If so, let's have a little contest.

Let us poll ten random Americans from cities of various sizes and ask them the following question:

Is it more likely that the absence of any terrorist-deaths on American soil since 9-11-2001 is because of:

(a) the anti-terrorist legislation and activities of the Bush administration; or

(B) because a Canadian named Robert Charles-Dunne prays "very hard" to his pet rock which he considers "all powerful".

I'll give you great odds. You win if only three out of ten vote for your pet rock.

But I will say this: I do think we have been spared deaths by terrorists by prayers to a Higher Authority than your "pet rock", although I am sure it is a nice rock.

But you are absolutely wrong about your "no evidence" comment. There are people involved in the anti-terrorist campaign who have acknowledged that possible terrorist acts have been averted. You can question their veracity if you want but that is some evidence. I am not awareof ANY expert who has attributed the lack of terrorist attacks since 9-11 to your prayers to your "pet rock".

I reiterate I mean no disrespect to your pet rock and if you really believe your prayers to it are efficacious, by all means continue.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cliff wrote:

I do not ask you to give up your driving because it "might" possibly

lead to a car wreck with my relatives.

You haven't convinced me your fear of a nuke-terror attack justifies

the loss of rights hard won.

Cliff, it was you who POSTULATED that you would tolerate "multiple" 9-11s to get rid of the Patriot Act. You are therefore stipulating that IF the Patriot Act was eliminated there might be "multiple" 9-11s but that would be a price you would gladly bear. I asked you what amount of bloodshed would be too high a price to rid us of the Patriot Act and you failed to respond.

And again you have not yet answered my original question. Just what rights have YOU lost since passage of the Patriot Act? I suspect we can agree it is not likely you'd every be labeled an enemy combatant. So what are we talking about? Loss of secrecy of your library or medical records? Please be specific what liberty or freedom you have forfeited since 9-11-2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff wrote:

I do not ask you to give up your driving because it "might" possibly

lead to a car wreck with my relatives.

You haven't convinced me your fear of a nuke-terror attack justifies

the loss of rights hard won.

Cliff, it was you who POSTULATED that you would tolerate "multiple" 9-11s to get rid of the Patriot Act. You are therefore stipulating that IF the Patriot Act was eliminated there might be "multiple" 9-11s but that would be a price you would gladly bear. I asked you what amount of bloodshed would be too high a price to rid us of the Patriot Act and you failed to respond.

No, you failed to grasp my drift.

In my original statement I equated the price we pay for our freedom to

drive and freedom to bear arms with the price we might pay for the 1st,

4th and 6th Amendments.

You choose to hype the crack pot fear of nuclear annihilation

to a point of absurdity bordering on the egregious.

And again you have not yet answered my original question.

Tim, I've seen this tactic before. You won't answer a single point

I've made, and you choose to ignore the answers I've given.

We're done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff wrote:

I do not ask you to give up your driving because it "might" possibly

lead to a car wreck with my relatives.

We all know many if not most traffic accidents are alcohol-related.

In Key West police sometimes set up sobriety check-points where drivers are at random stopped and checked for sobriety.

Such a procedure is clearly an infringement on civil liberties, defined as the freedom to operate a motor vehicle without being stopped unless one has been observed violating a traffic law.

But should such procedures be banned because they represent a relatively modest infringement on our civil liberties? Just as with the Patriot Act, I suspect most Americans would tolerate sobriety check-points to prevent alcohol-caused traffic deaths.

That I suggest is a good analogy. The liberties involved are relatively minor compared with the possible tragic consequences if one takes the popsition that all "liberties" regardless of the seriousness thereof must be held inviolate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Robert Charles-Dunne:

Well, it is always good to hear from you.

Still as sincere as you've ever been, I see.

Are you a betting man? If so, let's have a little contest.

Let us poll ten random Americans from cities of various sizes and ask them the following question:

Is it more likely that the absence of any terrorist-deaths on American soil since 9-11-2001 is because of:

(a) the anti-terrorist legislation and activities of the Bush administration; or

(B) because a Canadian named Robert Charles-Dunne prays "very hard" to his pet rock which he considers "all powerful".

I'll give you great odds. You win if only three out of ten vote for your pet rock.

So now it is to be a popularity contest? Rather than address the fact that you've been exposed as slipshod in your assertions, you simply ignore this in a bid to save face with this most recent feint? Do continue....

But I will say this: I do think we have been spared deaths by terrorists by prayers to a Higher Authority than your "pet rock", although I am sure it is a nice rock.

What you think is of no value. What can you prove? Not in an American Idol-Survivor-whose-conjecture-gets-voted-off-the-island way; what evidence can you actually provide that supports your assertion?

But you are absolutely wrong about your "no evidence" comment. There are people involved in the anti-terrorist campaign who have acknowledged that possible terrorist acts have been averted. You can question their veracity if you want but that is some evidence. I am not awareof ANY expert who has attributed the lack of terrorist attacks since 9-11 to your prayers to your "pet rock".

"There are people [no names provided]... who have acknowledged [no citations provided].....possible terrorist attacks [no details provided]... have been averted [no details provided.]" You say that I can "question their veracity," but to whom is one to address these questions when you've left their identities a mystery, not provided the slightest hint of the specifics, and - most stunning of all - have no shame in using such grade school debating tactics. What next: your Dad can beat up my Dad?

If you have such evidence, don't beat around the Bush; just provide it. If you don't, simply admit it. However, since you posit that these unnamed "people" are "involved in the anti-terrorist campaign," would you not expect them to self-servingly say that no additional attacks have taken place because of the great job they're doing? If you have no such expectation, your naivete is stunning, or would be if I weren't already well familiar with it.

I reiterate I mean no disrespect to your pet rock and if you really believe your prayers to it are efficacious, by all means continue.

Please do get a grip, dear boy. When you can rebut my original statement, the one you so blithely claimed didn't exist - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture" - please let us know. I shall refrain from holding my breath whilst waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff wrote:

You choose to hype the crack pot fear of nuclear annihilation

to a point of absurdity bordering on the egregious.

Cliff, with all due respect, very few Americans (even few of your neighbors, I suspect) would characterize concern over a terrorist attack on an American city (not "nuclear annihilation, that is you putting words in my mouth, an improper debating tactic) as "crack pot".

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote that Richard Ben-Veniste claimed there was a memo warning of a terrorist using a plane to attack a building prior to 9-11. I suppose prior to 9-11 fear of such a happerning would have been easily dismissed as "crack pot".

Now again I never raised any point that there would be complete nuclear annihilation. So please advise why you consider concern (not just mine) over possible use of a nuclear weapon by a terrorist as "crack-pot"? The only ideas that come to my mind are that first, a terrorist would never be ruthless enough to use a nuclear weapon; or second, that a terrorist would never be able to get his or her hands on a nuclear weapon. I would not risk my safety, or yours, on either proposition.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Tim, I've seen this tactic before. You won't answer a single point

I've made, and you choose to ignore the answers I've given.

Yes, Cliff, you have seen this tactic before, because it is Tim's stock in trade. And when caught out making a fool of himself, as in this thread, he simply moves to another non-sequitur as if nothing ever happened.

We're done here.

Well, I'm certainly going to call it a night. The predictability of Tim's non-responses grows rather wearying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

Still as sincere as you've ever been, I see.

Robert, how dare you question my sincerity! Question my intelligence or even my verility if you must but never, never question my sincerity!

You wrote:

If you have such evidence, don't beat around the Bush; just provide it

That sentence alone demonstrates why my opening remark was sincere indeed. Many, not all, of your ripostes are elegant (but wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…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". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper)

Untrue. The whole purpose of this “transformation” was to maintain what is referred to in the document (p. 26) as “America’s status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability.” (Ha ha ha ha ha.) This requires “the presence of American forces in critical regions around the world.” In particular it requires “a substantial American force presence in the Gulf,” with the removal of Saddam Hussein as “the immediate justification” for that presence.

"A new Pearl Harbor” was needed to speed up this transformation for global hegemony, which called for establishing a military presence in the Gulf.

OK Ron let’s look at the quote without ellipsis or paraphrasing. Yes they called for taking steps for continuing the global hegemony, they are neo-cons after all, but there is nothing there about removing Saddam (not that the PNAC crew hadn’t done so elsewhere). Emphasis added:

In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. WHILE THE UNRESOLVED CONFLICT WITH IRAQ PROVIDES THE IMMEDIATE JUSTIFICATION, THE NEED FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE IN THE GULF TRANSCENDS THE ISSUE OF THE REGIME OF SADDAM HUSSEIN. In East Asia, the pattern of U.S. military operations is shifting to the south…

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf pg 26

The “new Pearl Harbor” wasn’t necessary for this goal. It wasn’t even mentioned in the same section of the paper as the above. It would merely speed up accomplishing ONE of those steps, the DoD adopting “new technologies… operational concepts, and … the emerging revolution in military affairs…[in particular] information technologies” (pg. 62). “Star Wars” type “interceptors” were one of the “new technologies” they touted.

I’ve seen no evidence that 9/11 or the Iraq disaster have done anything to further that goal it might even have set it back, sure military spending has gone way up but how much has gone into “information technologies” or SDI? Nor did they do much to attain the broader goal; outside of Iraq and Afghanistan the US is probably less able to project its military might than it would have otherwise.

No matter how you want to stretch it, slice it, dice it or skew it PNAC didn’t:

- call for or desire “a new Pearl Harbor”

- call for the removal of Saddam or a significant increase in the US presence in that region (in THAT paper)

- make any connection between the consequences of “a new Pearl Harbor” and the US’s Middle East policy.

The paper spoke of continuing not broadening the US presence in the Gulf region other than “a minor increase in strength [and] more permanent basing arrangements” (pg. 29). From context it’s clear they were proposing this should happen in Gulf state where the US already had bases. This is something the commander-in-chief could have achieved without 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I feel your pain.

Further, I've repeatedly experienced what I suspect is the conflict with which you must deal when the question arises, "Do I dignify with informed, impassioned responses what are at best the intellectual equivalents of nasal effluvia (or, if one prefers, "brain snot") and at worst intentionally disruptive provocations?".

I cannot offer any wisdom, but only a general guideline: Silence is unacceptable as a response to evil. But it sure works nicely against stupidity.

Alas, I have no citations in support of these observations. Who do I look like ... Fred Leuchter?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping ahead of Al-Qaida on video

NET-SAVVY PEOPLE AIM TO UNDERMINE TERROR NETWORK

By Joby Warrick

Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Early Tuesday morning, a South Carolina Web designer who works at home managed to scoop Al-Qaida by publicly unveiling its new video, a feat she has accomplished numerous times since 2002. Within hours, cable news stations were broadcasting images of Osama bin Laden commemorating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and crediting as the source the 50-year-old woman, who uses the pseudonym Laura Mansfield.

A similar event occurred Friday, when a Washington-based group beat Al-Qaida by nearly a full day with the release of the first video images of bin Laden to appear publicly since 2004. That group, known as the SITE Institute, provided the tape to government agencies and news organizations, at a time when many well-known jihadist Web sites were literally silenced, shut down in a powerful cyberattack by unknown hackers.

Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Al-Qaida is relying more than ever on 21st-century technology as a means of communicating its views to a global audience, using polished images and studio-quality sound.

Yet, when it comes to publishing its messages, the terrorist group is being upstaged by the woman using the name Mansfield and a small community of individuals and companies that routinely penetrates terrorists' computer networks - either as a livelihood, or as a personal obsession, or both.

Often, the groups compete to be the first to find and post a new video or message. Frequently, they accomplish their

goal several steps ahead of government agencies who turn to them for the material. Their motives are often political - but they are not supporters of the Islamists whose views they wind up publicizing. Instead, their aim is to undermine support for the cause by disseminating what they consider to be outrageous statements.

Since Friday, at least three high-profile video messages have been snatched from Al-Qaida-affiliated Web sites by groups using a combination of computer tricks, personal connections and ingenuity to find and download protected content. For some, it is a mission rife with contradictions: They are simultaneously seeking to serve their country while ensuring wide distribution of words and images from terrorists intent on America's destruction.

"It's not about bragging rights, it's about the mission," said Ben Venzke, founder of IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Va.-based firm that, like the one-woman South Carolina company, obtained Tuesday's new bin Laden video ahead of its official release and shared it with government agencies and news organizations. Venzke, who says he counts several government agencies among his clients, says there's a value in giving Americans early insight into Al-Qaida's plans and intentions.

The woman using the name Mansfield credited "persistence and tenacity" as the reason for her success in obtaining an early copy of Tuesday's second bin Laden tape. "You have to look constantly," said the self-described "computer geek" and Arabic speaker, who says she was motivated by the Sept. 11 attacks to apply her skills to ferreting out Al-Qaida's Internet secrets. "The video may be in an accessible place for only 15 minutes, and if you're not there at the right time, you miss it."

http://origin.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6869313

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

Still as sincere as you've ever been, I see.

Robert, how dare you question my sincerity! Question my intelligence or even my verility if you must but never, never question my sincerity!

You wrote:

If you have such evidence, don't beat around the Bush; just provide it

That sentence alone demonstrates why my opening remark was sincere indeed. Many, not all, of your ripostes are elegant (but wrong).

Is VERILITY a legal term? I can't find it in the dictionary. Maybe related to VERITY?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve seen no evidence that 9/11 or the Iraq disaster have done anything to further that goal it might even have set it back

On the contrary, new military technologies may have been used on 9/11. The collapse of the towers in particular remains unexplained IMO. New remote control systems for aircraft is also a possibility. I don't espouse such theories of 9/11, I say they are possibilities, given all the unanswered questions and the odiferous official story. If it did involve some new technology or technologies, it was done with smashing success.

No matter how you want to stretch it, slice it, dice it or skew it PNAC didn’t:

- call for or desire “a new Pearl Harbor”

Yes, I can tell from reading their document that these war-loving hegemonists had no desire for some event to quicken their "transformation of warfare." They just mentioned it because - because why? No need to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping ahead of Al-Qaida on video

NET-SAVVY PEOPLE AIM TO UNDERMINE TERROR NETWORK

By Joby Warrick

Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Early Tuesday morning, a South Carolina Web designer who works at home managed to scoop Al-Qaida by publicly unveiling its new video, a feat she has accomplished numerous times since 2002. Within hours, cable news stations were broadcasting images of Osama bin Laden commemorating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and crediting as the source the 50-year-old woman, who uses the pseudonym Laura Mansfield.

A similar event occurred Friday, when a Washington-based group beat Al-Qaida by nearly a full day with the release of the first video images of bin Laden to appear publicly since 2004. That group, known as the SITE Institute, provided the tape to government agencies and news organizations, at a time when many well-known jihadist Web sites were literally silenced, shut down in a powerful cyberattack by unknown hackers.

Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Al-Qaida is relying more than ever on 21st-century technology as a means of communicating its views to a global audience, using polished images and studio-quality sound.

Yet, when it comes to publishing its messages, the terrorist group is being upstaged by the woman using the name Mansfield and a small community of individuals and companies that routinely penetrates terrorists' computer networks - either as a livelihood, or as a personal obsession, or both.

Often, the groups compete to be the first to find and post a new video or message. Frequently, they accomplish their

goal several steps ahead of government agencies who turn to them for the material. Their motives are often political - but they are not supporters of the Islamists whose views they wind up publicizing. Instead, their aim is to undermine support for the cause by disseminating what they consider to be outrageous statements.

Since Friday, at least three high-profile video messages have been snatched from Al-Qaida-affiliated Web sites by groups using a combination of computer tricks, personal connections and ingenuity to find and download protected content. For some, it is a mission rife with contradictions: They are simultaneously seeking to serve their country while ensuring wide distribution of words and images from terrorists intent on America's destruction.

"It's not about bragging rights, it's about the mission," said Ben Venzke, founder of IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Va.-based firm that, like the one-woman South Carolina company, obtained Tuesday's new bin Laden video ahead of its official release and shared it with government agencies and news organizations. Venzke, who says he counts several government agencies among his clients, says there's a value in giving Americans early insight into Al-Qaida's plans and intentions.

The woman using the name Mansfield credited "persistence and tenacity" as the reason for her success in obtaining an early copy of Tuesday's second bin Laden tape. "You have to look constantly," said the self-described "computer geek" and Arabic speaker, who says she was motivated by the Sept. 11 attacks to apply her skills to ferreting out Al-Qaida's Internet secrets. "The video may be in an accessible place for only 15 minutes, and if you're not there at the right time, you miss it."

http://origin.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6869313

The bit about shutting down the Jihadist web sites is scary.

Nerds rule.

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...