Bin Laden's role?

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by schticknz

Interesting ... since the CIA/FBI/whoever stopped looking for him quite a while ago ... and since he's been dead since around late 2001, it will be pretty hard for them to look for him ... if indeed they manage to find his skeleton.

They haven't stopped looking for him, although most of the search is now conducted aerially. He might be dead today, but he was alive as of his last video message.

The federal government still very much wants him: Wanted.

It is true that many search assets were re-focused on Iraq in 2003, but by no means did the search stop. Many of his cadre killed remotely in Pakistan since 2001 would attest that the search is ongoing, if they were still capable of scraping together a response.

Originally Posted by schticknz

The recent Bin Laden videos have been coming out of that madly Arabic centre of the world, California, by a guy called Adam Pearlman who has links to the ADL (anti-defamation league of Bnai Brith), the CIA and also most probably Mossad.

Ok. I guess this just a theory? Or something that you just hope is true?

Originally Posted by schticknz

All you need to know is ... it weren't them Ay-rabs that attacked the US on 9/11 ... it was the US in conjunction with Israel ... and my god I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the arse ... sorry ... face

Well, this is just crazy. And you can say it a million times but it's not sensible, nor is there any credible reason to believe it is true.

Ayman al-Zawahiri (OBL's second-in-command) has expressed resentment at this myth:

"Zawahiri even had to defend himself for helping to spread the myth that the Israelis carried out the attacks of 9/11. He placed the blame for this rumor on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite organization, which aired the notion on its television station, Al Manar. Zawahiri said indignantly, “The objective behind this lie is to deny that the Sunnis have heroes who harm America as no one has harmed it throughout its history.”

Read the full (long!) article in the New Yorker: The Rebellion Within

Of course, you could try to make the case that Ayman al-Zawahiri is under the control of western governments but he has been on his current course since the 1960's (much longer than OBL!). So that would be a tough case to make.

[Poi]

Fitzbew88 said:

If OBL is a CIA proxy (a prospect that I think is laughable, given his history), then his "employ" must have stretched back at least to the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Indeed, this relationship would have been founded in the Reagan administration!

While I'm not sold on Bin Ladin's being a CIA dupe, I think your supposition is pretty wild there, Fitzbew.

Do you have his complete history? If so, what is it and how do you substantiate his "must" having been employed since the Soviet war (not occupation, btw) in Afghanistan? Why would his relationship have to have been founded in the Reagan admin?

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by Poi

Fitzbew88 said:

While I'm not sold on Bin Ladin's being a CIA dupe, I think your supposition is pretty wild there, Fitzbew.

Do you have his complete history? If so, what is it and how do you substantiate his "must" having been employed since the Soviet war (not occupation, btw) in Afghanistan? Why would his relationship have to have been founded in the Reagan admin?

Just to make sure: you realize I do not believe OBL is a CIA proxy? The statement you quoted was a reason why I believe any such theory is fallacious.

My basic logic is: OBL didn't come out of thin air and attack us on 9/11. He had already instigated a decade-long series of attacks on us around the world. For him to be doing the "work" of the US government on 9/11 would mean that all of these were "cover", to provide context for 9/11.

He actively "fought" the Soviets during their war in Afghanistan (it seems most of his contribution was financial or logistical). So, if you assume that OBL's history is a part of his "cover" then you must take into account his history fighting the Soviets which goes back into the Reagan administration.

Of course I'm sure you can see this is a ridiculous supposition.

As far as OBL's history, there are many web sites and books about him. His involvement in the resistance during the Soviet war in Afghanistan is well-known. (Indeed, it seems he joined the resistance in 1979 which even predates Reagan!)

(I'm curious why you want to use the word "war" instead of "occupation".)

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by CapnG

Not at all, quite the opposite. By threatening to destroy that which Bush claims to protect, Bush's position is reinforced because he can rally sympathy from his supporters (who are clearly, morons). Real or fake, Bush has clearly benefitted from playing the fear card over and over. It seems counter-intuitive but it actually makes sense on a meta-level.

Although he has played the "fear card" many times, I am not sure he has benefitted.

It doesn't seem plausible to me that a professional politician would ever do anything to *discourage* people from voting for him.

Also keep in mind that he has not run for office since 2004.

This would also be an "easy" item to spin by his competition: "See....OBL is still threatening you and GWB has not captured him! So vote Democrat instead!" Something like that.

Nothing OBL has ever done has been in the best interest of the U.S., at least since the Soviets left Afghanistan.

[Poi]

Hmmm. I've read about attacks upon us in previous history, but not all could actually be tied to Bin Ladin. There was supposition there rather than a "history." Still, yes, we do have a history that does incompass the time frame for the Clinton administration and a colored past in Saudi Arabia. Beyond that, we have his family, financially tied to the Bushes in a big way. I can't blame anyone for that fact giving one pause.

There are aspects of conspiracy theories that do give one pause if he isn't dismissing all aspects outright which is what you seem to do. I don't personally support many of them, but my powers of discernment are no longer colored by my politics. I'm wondering if you can say the same. Your tendency at supposition isn't really different from the other side of the theorists arguments.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by Poi

Hmmm. I've read about attacks upon us in previous history, but not all could actually be tied to Bin Ladin.

Of course this depends on what you mean by "tied to". Would he or his lieutenants bragging about the attacks sufficiently "tie" him to the attacks?

Are there other attacks you would like to link him to? Or has he committed no attacks at all? He's just a poor victim of a western conspiracy? Strange, he is not claiming innocence.

I'm sorry, my brain says this is just nonsense.

Originally Posted by Poi

There was supposition there rather than a "history."

I'm not sure I follow you here. I'm certain OBL was "tied to" these attacks (I've already qualified the first WTC bombing). I don't think this is a "supposition".

Originally Posted by Poi

Still, yes, we do have a history that does incompass the time frame for the Clinton administration and a colored past in Saudi Arabia. Beyond that, we have his family, financially tied to the Bushes in a big way. I can't blame anyone for that fact giving one pause.

Yes...that's how Presidents execute international super-secret operations: they recruit family friends with terrorist affiliations.

I'm sorry, it's a ridiculous theory.

Originally Posted by Poi

There are aspects of conspiracy theories that do give one pause if he isn't dismissing all aspects outright which is what you seem to do.

Again, I don't understand what you mean. In my own mind, I am only dismissing anything that seems to be nonsense. If OBL was a CIA proxy, then it most certainly had to be part of a plan that extended decades prior to 9/11.

Originally Posted by Poi

I don't personally support many of them, but my powers of discernment are no longer colored by my politics. I'm wondering if you can say the same.

Yes, I can say the same.

Originally Posted by Poi

Your tendency at supposition isn't really different from the other side of the theorists arguments.

Real-life facts effectively cast doubt on an outrageous theory: OBL as a U.S. government proxy in the 9/11 attacks. If anyone has a good reason to believe this theory has validity, they are keeping it to themselves.

[Poi]

Would he or his lieutenants bragging about the attacks sufficiently "tie" him to the attacks?

No. But I'm sure you'd like to think so. People make outrageous claims for their having instituted attacks when we have found them to be untrue. People admit to committing murders they never committed too. Terrorists who want notoriety certainly do so all the time. Doesn't make it so because you wish it to be so.

I'm just sayin' ... supposition, on your part, isn't real life fact. If you're going to argue, do it from real life facts instead of what you assume is true. You throw honest to goodness facts out there, sure, but then you hope everyone will assume everything you've said is true. You don't want anyone else doing that. ... stand to reason you follow your own advice.

[CapnG]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Also keep in mind that he has not run for office since 2004.

This would also be an "easy" item to spin by his competition: "See....OBL is still threatening you and GWB has not captured him! So vote Democrat instead!" Something like that.

Nothing OBL has ever done has been in the best interest of the U.S., at least since the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Well this all depnds on how far down New World Order lane you wish to stroll. If you take it as writ that the illuminati pulls ALL the strings, then it works no matter what. It works to move forward the Bush presidency in 01 (which was prior to then looking like a one term, lame duck affair). It works again to re-elect Bush in 04 and it works again to elect his replacement in 08 (whomever that may be).

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by Poi

No. But I'm sure you'd like to think so. People make outrageous claims for their having instituted attacks when we have found them to be untrue. People admit to committing murders they never committed too. Terrorists who want notoriety certainly do so all the time. Doesn't make it so because you wish it to be so.

Yes that's logical: people occasionally confess to capital crimes so we cannot accept al Queda's statements of responsibility for 9/11.

OBL is an innocent victim of western conspiracies, who has happily taken responsibility for 9/11 because he wishes to have the notoriety. I'm sure the notoriety provided him a great sense of satisfaction when the 500lb bombs were slamming into his bunker at Tora Bora. (I assume the 80% of his cadre that was killed in 2001-2 also kept mum for the same reason.)

Please, give me a good reason to believe OBL is an U.S. government proxy. Don't say: "Someone falsely confessed one time so it can't be true."

What exactly am wishing to be true that is not? Do you have a reason to believe al Queda is lying or are you simply wishing that to be true?

Originally Posted by Poi

I'm just sayin' ... supposition, on your part, isn't real life fact. If you're going to argue, do it from real life facts instead of what you assume is true. You throw honest to goodness facts out there, sure, but then you hope everyone will assume everything you've said is true. You don't want anyone else doing that. ... stand to reason you follow your own advice.

What am I *assuming* is true that is not really true? In fact, what am I assuming at all? What reasons do you have to believe that OBL was a U.S.-gov't proxy? What supposition [uncertain beliefs] are in play on my part?

If you have a reason to believe that OBL is a U.S. government proxy, then share it with the group please.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by CapnG

Well this all depnds on how far down New World Order lane you wish to stroll. If you take it as writ that the illuminati pulls ALL the strings, then it works no matter what. It works to move forward the Bush presidency in 01 (which was prior to then looking like a one term, lame duck affair). It works again to re-elect Bush in 04 and it works again to elect his replacement in 08 (whomever that may be).

Well, I have not seen any reasonable evidence that NWO exists. (But I have not been looking around for it either.)

For purposes of this thread, my personal interest is whether OBL is a U.S.-gov't proxy.