Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Usama Bin Lain died in 2002"


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the explanation, Glenn. It's not my job to defend Jim or his work. That must stand or fall on its own merit. You seem to be claiming that Jim is guilty of committing a fallacy called Special Pleading, wherein the perpetrator of the fallacy only considers evidence consistent with his own conclusion while rejecting evidence to the contrary, as if he is exempt from considering all of the evidence even if there is no reasonable explanation as to the relevant difference between the value of the accepted evidence versus the value of the rejected evidence. I haven't seen him do that myself. I've seen him become brash towards those with dissenting views at times, and even jump the gun, but I haven't seen him reject evidence out of hand. So, you and I have differing opinions on that part.

On the other hand, it is difficult for some people (I think Jim is one of them) to accept criticism IF and when they are unconvinced that the critic even comprehends the scope of the assertion being argued. It is akin to an individual stating their distaste for a house that they have only seen from the outside or a so-called researcher rejecting a book that they have only skimmed, but not read--etc.

In my own experience with Jim, he has been quite open to criticism AFTER I have taken the time to demonstrate to him that I truly do understand his argument and that I "get" how it is that he reached his conclusion. I think that many times he doubts a person's bona fides because they haven't demonstrated even a desire to make sure that they "get it" to begin with before they then present their case against whatever it might be. That's just my take on it.

While I don't think you are alone in your not caring for Jim's views on many subjects--surely you must admit that there are a rather large number of people who do value his work. Having said that, still the popularity (or lack thereof) of a person is no argument as to the value of the work itself. After all, Galileo stood alone and was placed under house arrest, so unpopular were his views--yet he was right. Truth is not determined by a "show of hands" -- it falls or stands on its own merit.

I think it is of great value for the critical community to engage in honest debate about the ISSUES and NOT about the persons involved in the debate.

Speaking of Galileo:

...

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"In my own experience with Jim, he has been quite open to criticism AFTER I have taken the time to demonstrate to him that I truly do understand his argument and that I "get" how it is that he reached his conclusion. I think that many times he doubts a person's bona fides because they haven't demonstrated even a desire to make sure that they "get it" to begin with before they then present their case against whatever it might be. That's just my take on it."

Greg,

It's not how anyone is treating her friends that counts. It's how one treats her adversaries. I'm sure he's treating you the way he should learn to treat all members on this forum. But the basic assumption is that Fetzer is not interested to learn, or to listen to anything that others have to say. He obviously thinks everyone else is less qualified to discuss the subjects at hand. Which most of the time is utterly wrong and also a ridiculous statement, especially coming from Fetzer. He is no researcher, shows an amazing lack of judgment and is endlessly jumping to premature conclusions. No matter what the subject is.

To say that "he doubts a person's bona fides" is grossly misleading. Fetzer is, constantly, deeply insulting others. Just look at his posting above in this thread. Fetzer knows very little about my background, which by no means stopped him from spewing out a bunch of garbage. (FYI, I have 25 years experience of advanced research in the field of economics, in various positions up and down the ladder in private and public organisations. How much experience from serious research does Fetzer have?) I - like I'm sure many others who have likewise been insulted by Fetzer - have absolutely nothing to apologize for when it comes to qualifications.

Pick any of Fetzer's articles, postings or statements related to the JFK assassination. "The spiral nebula", number of shots fired at Dealey Plaza or that "JVB is the real deal" could all serve as relevant examples. It will take no more than a minute to quickly determine that you are not about to see anything balanced or well researched. You are, however, about to read or listen to something where the author is piling up arguments which are supposed to support his conclusions. College level - at best, I'd say.

That's a far cry from how serious research is done.

Greg, in case I've missed something - please show me something by Fetzer where:

- The hypothesis is clearly defined.

- The criterias are presented.

- All - i.e. not only those in favor of the well known conclusion - facts are presented.

- The process of evaluating those facts is defined and clearly demonstrated to reach a conclusion.

To mention a few basic steps. Does any of the above ring a bell? No? I agree, with Fetzer's work it certainly doesn't.

You know, a high level of noise is rarely a substitute for high quality research or well founded conclusions. This constant squibble about the motivations of others doesn't impress me much either. In short, Fetzer demonstrates very few abilities worth paying attention to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

Again you are demonstrating your predilection with criticizing Fetzer instead of presenting your own arguments. All of your posts in this thread are targeting Fezer and none of them are presenting your own research. If you actually have done the work, then I would prefer to see what you've done. If Fetzer is not worth anyone's time, as you suggest, then why should we spend another second on him? Let's see your research and work on the subjects you raised and leave Fetzer out of it. If you refuse to--or are incapable of--doing that, then perhaps you have made Fetzer's point for him, and done so much more effectively than he did it himself, namely, you demonstrate diminished capacity or perhaps poor judgment, but clearly your interest is not in the subject matter that you titled this thread upon. Instead, it would seem to be an ad hominem thread from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

Again you are demonstrating your predilection with criticizing Fetzer instead of presenting your own arguments. All of your posts in this thread are targeting Fezer and none of them are presenting your own research. If you actually have done the work, then I would prefer to see what you've done. If Fetzer is not worth anyone's time, as you suggest, then why should we spend another second on him? Let's see your research and work on the subjects you raised and leave Fetzer out of it. If you refuse to--or are incapable of--doing that, then perhaps you have made Fetzer's point for him, and done so much more effectively than he did it himself, namely, you demonstrate diminished capacity or perhaps poor judgment, but clearly your interest is not in the subject matter that you titled this thread upon. Instead, it would seem to be an ad hominem thread from the beginning.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

Again you are demonstrating your predilection with criticizing Fetzer instead of presenting your own arguments. All of your posts in this thread are targeting Fezer and none of them are presenting your own research. If you actually have done the work, then I would prefer to see what you've done. If Fetzer is not worth anyone's time, as you suggest, then why should we spend another second on him? Let's see your research and work on the subjects you raised and leave Fetzer out of it. If you refuse to--or are incapable of--doing that, then perhaps you have made Fetzer's point for him, and done so much more effectively than he did it himself, namely, you demonstrate diminished capacity or perhaps poor judgment, but clearly your interest is not in the subject matter that you titled this thread upon. Instead, it would seem to be an ad hominem thread from the beginning.

Once in awhile, the voice of reason speaks up on this forum.

How refreshing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in awhile, the voice of reason speaks up on this forum.

Fantastic!

In the midst of this celebration of reason, do you mind telling me what the problem is with those things I've posted above?

Thank you,

//GV

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

Your never ending self appointed role as a judge, never cease to amaze me. Neither does the fact that your criticisms always derive from the exception two things; friends of yours; and standpoints of yours.

You seem very eager to portray yourself as the independent voice of clarity in these forums?

Greg, let me tell you: you are not. You are quite transparent and easily read.

This is not, as far as I know, Dellarosas forum?

Had I seen you even once say the same thing to Fetzer - who deserves reprimands about a thousand times more than anyone else in this forum - or anyone else of your "buddies", you would surely have more credibility. As it is, you don't.

Len Colby is spot on - you don't have the credibility you apparently think you enjoy, to lecture others around here. "Irony"?? Give us a break, ehh?

Where, BTW, are your own contributions to the subject of this thread? I fail to see them? Strange, as you accuse me of this?

Healy, well has anyone seen this stalker make a serious posting about anything? I surely haven't over the past 18 months. Tragic fella, no doubt. Healy, I understand you can't help yourself, but unfortunately your postings - without exception - remind me of a bitter old mother in law.

Piss off - I don't care for your endless childish bullxxxx.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

I am not any judge or whatever on this forum. That's not the point. The point SHOULD be the topic of the thread YOU started, which is supposedly about reported evidence (i.e., even Al Queda says we recently killed Osama) that seems to run contrary to the claims of Fetzer and others. Correct? That was the topic of your thread. I'm just not sure why you don't present your research into the topic. That's all. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just pointing out the fact that I, for one, am much more interested in seeing your work on the subject than I am interested in discussing the short comings of any other forum member, including, but not limited to, Jim Fetzer.

I have not made this personal against you at all. I feel no animosity toward you at all. I'm am mystified by the level of your hostility toward me. I thought we were actually getting along pretty well considering the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, Greg. That makes two of us - I don't have any bad feelings towards you either. Just don't like being lectured to, that's all. Nothing personal.

But you're right, let's get back to the subject.

The questions I've raised about Bin Ladins death and those who do not believe he was killed this year, are quite simple and straight forward. The news about Bin Ladins wife and daughter acknowledge that the raid took place and that OBL was indeed killed could be seen in pretty much every news channel all over the world. As was the case with the taped statement from Ayman al Zawahiri, just a few weeks later (Al Qaida No2, today allegedly Al Qaidas new leader).

In other words, had I myself promoted the view that Bin Ladin was killed already back in 2002, I would seriously ask myself why these people - who surely should know the truth about his death - would lie about this? If I thought this was all somehow faked; well, then I would present the evidence to support this view.

Moreover, I would certainly feel the need to explain myself to those who have actually read my statements about Bin Ladin being killed in 2002. And I can assure you that if I found out that I'd been wrong all these years, I would have no problem at all in saying so publicly. To make a mistake is no problem as long as you acknowledge this and learn from it so that you don't make the same mistake twice. Bin Ladins death is a serious matter no matter what your perspective is and all of us should try to keep the record straight.

A fair view, would you not agree?

Personally, I believe there are far more important questions that should be discussed about the US raid in Pakistan, and that those questions are obscured by people (yes, there are indeed many more in addition to Fetzer) who claim OBL has been dead for years, a claim which I believe is completely counter productive.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I appreciate it. As I have said about several subjects, I'm still agnostic about some of this stuff due to having not conducted sufficient research. However, there are some individuals that I do respect highly who have done the research. I am not referring to Fetzer at this time. I'm referring, as one example, to Dr. Steve Pieczenik. Steve Pieczenik, MD, PhD (born December 7, 1943 in Havana, Cuba) is an American psychiatrist, former State Department official, author and publisher.

Just to give you a snap shot of his qualifications, from Wikipedia:

Pieczenik was deputy assistant secretary of state under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare. He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary. In 1974, Pieczenik joined the U.S. State Department as a consultant to restructure its Office for the Prevention of Terrorism. In 1976, Pieczenik was made deputy assistant secretary of state for management. At the State Department, he served as a "specialist on hostage taking." He has been credited with devising successful negotiating strategies and tactics used in several high profile hostage situations including the 1976 TWA Flight 355 hostage situation and the 1977 kidnapping of the son of Cyprus' president. He was involved in negotiations for the release of Aldo Moro after Moro was kidnapped. As a renowned psychiatrist, he was utilized as a press source for early information on the mental state of the hostages involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis after they were freed. In 1977, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Mary McGrory described Stephen Pieczenik as "one of the most 'brilliantly competent' men in the field of terrorism."[14] He worked "side by side" with Police Chief Maurice J. Cullinane in the Washington, D.C. command center of Mayor Walter Washington during the 1977 Hanafi Siege. In 1978, Pieczenik was known as "a psychiatrist and political scientist in the U.S. State Department whose credentials and experiences are probably unique among officials handling terrorist situations." On September 17, 1978 the Camp David Accords were signed. Pieczenik was at the secret Camp David negotiations leading up to the signing of the Accords. He worked out strategy and tactics based on psychopolitical dynamics. He correctly predicted that, given their common backgrounds, Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would get along. In 1979, he resigned as deputy assistant secretary of state over the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. In the early 1980s, Pieczenik wrote an article for The Washington Post in which he claims to have heard a senior U.S. official in the State Department Operations Center give permission for the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1979. Pieczenik got to know Syrian President Hafez Assad well during his 20 years in the US State Department. In 1982, Pieczenik was mentioned in a New York Times article as "a psychiatrist who has treated C.I.A. employees". In 2001, Pieczenik operated as chief executive officer of Strategic Intelligence Associates, a consulting firm. Dr. Pieczenik has been affiliated in a professional capacity as a psychiatrist with the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Pieczenik has previously consulted with both the United States Institute of Peace and the RAND Corporation. Dr. Pieczenik is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Pieczenik is known to be fluent in five languages including Russian, Spanish and French. Dr. Pieczenik has lectured at the National Defense University.

Suffice to say, this man is not one to dismiss out-of-hand.

He says, without equivocation, that Osama Bin Laden was dead long, long ago; that he (Pieczenik) saw the actual CIA documents confirming this and that he was briefed (perhaps inadvertently) on that fact. No matter what you may think of Alex Jones, in general, he has interesting guests from time to time. Here's a link to an interview with Dr. Pieczenik that you may find interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

Thanks for your posting. And this is an opinionated guy, no doubt about that. I was about to post a few thoughts about his views when I stumbled into an article in The New Yorker, written by Nicholas Schmidle (I believe it was published online today, the date is the 8th but I assume that's when the paper edition will be dated).

"Getting Bin Ladin" is an interesting piece, very detailed description of the whole operation.

A small excerpt:

"On May 6th, Al Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death and released a statement congratulating “the Islamic nation” on “the martyrdom of its good son Osama.” The authors promised Americans that “their joy will turn to sorrow and their tears will mix with blood.” That day, President Obama travelled to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where the 160th is based, to meet the DEVGRU unit and the pilots who pulled off the raid. The SEALs, who had returned home from Afghanistan earlier in the week, flew in from Virginia. Biden, Tom Donilon, and a dozen other national-security advisers came along."

The entire article is found here:

Getting Bin Ladin

And, at three o'clock eastern, tomorrow afternoon, the author will have a live chat about his article and the event:

Live Chat

I'll be listening in and will comment further about this later. And I am looking forward to your comments about this piece (and the chat, should you listen in..).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those details are accurate and I was a SEAL, I'd be very pissed off that our methods were revealed. It read like a Tom Clancy novel...only Jack Ryan and John Clark are missing. :D

In all honesty, Glenn, I find it a stretch to imagine that operational details of this magnitude would be made public particularly this soon after a mission was completed. I don't

understand the point of allowing the details to become known. If the argument is that they revealed the details so people would believe it really happened, they could have accomplished

that by providing a simple photograph and avoided revealing methods. I have know way of verifying the author's sources nor do I have any reason to believe this account. It could be

true, I suppose, but I don't find it as compelling as Dr. Pieczenik's account. Then again, I know Pieczenik's background and I trust him. I don't know the author of this piece. Thanks

for posting it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give you a snap shot of his qualifications, from Wikipedia:

Pieczenik was deputy assistant secretary of state under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.

In other words he last was a USG official in (or before) 1992

Pieczenik got to know Syrian President Hafez Assad well during his 20 years in the US State Department...Dr. Pieczenik is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Uga buga

He says, without equivocation, that Osama Bin Laden was dead long, long ago; that he (Pieczenik) saw the actual CIA documents confirming this and that he was briefed (perhaps inadvertently) on that fact.

This doesn't make any sense. Especially this would contradict officially endorsed lies it would only be divulged on a "need to know" basis. Many USG officials would be in the dark so why would a private consultant who had last served 20 years earlier been in the loop? The notion that he might have been "briefed" "inadvertently" of such a closely guarded secret is risible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those details are accurate and I was a SEAL, I'd be very pissed off that our methods were revealed. It read like a Tom Clancy novel...only Jack Ryan and John Clark are missing. :D

In all honesty, Glenn, I find it a stretch to imagine that operational details of this magnitude would be made public particularly this soon after a mission was completed. I don't understand the point of allowing the details to become known.

Perhaps CDR Monk Burnham would so kind as to tell us which "operational details" should not have been divulged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...