Bin Laden's role?

[Poi]

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

There you go again, making an untrue assumption. Makes little difference if I point your supposition out because you choose to believe no matter what anyone else says. You even appear to be emotional about it, though of course that is something I can't know for sure.

Once again, for your benefit, I do not believe OBL is a government proxy. I simply acknowledge that there are suspicious aspects of the entire story behind him so I try to keep an open mind, enough so that I understand what "the other side" is feeling, where they are getting their argument. Discernment has nothing to do with belief.

Just because I think you occasionally indulge yourself in the same thing that you argue against in others, you assume I've lied to you about my own view point about him. Everyone but you is outrageous. LOL Argue my side better, with just the real life facts.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by Poi

There you go again, making an untrue assumption.

Request <> Assumption

Originally Posted by Poi

Makes little difference if I point your supposition out because you choose to believe no matter what anyone else says.

I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to refuse to give me a reason to change my mind and then accuse me of not being willing to change my mind.

Originally Posted by Poi

You even appear to be emotional about it, though of course that is something I can't know for sure.

Then that IS a supposition! ["uncertain belief"]

Emotional? If I was, so what? Is that bad?

Originally Posted by Poi

Once again, for your benefit, I do not believe OBL is a government proxy.

I agree with you. I really didn't believe you had a good reason to think so, but it's nice to see you flat out say it.

I do appreciate you pointing out alleged ties between OBL's family and the Bush family, and attempting to cast doubt on whether OBL was to blame for a series of well-known al Queda attacks on U.S. citizens. These were sensible comments in the framework of your disbelief.

Originally Posted by Poi

I simply acknowledge that there are suspicious aspects of the entire story behind him so I try to keep an open mind, enough so that I understand what "the other side" is feeling, where they are getting their argument. Discernment has nothing to do with belief.

I don't understand some of this. If there are "suspicious aspects" of OBL's story that should cause me to keep my mind open about the possibility that he may be a U.S.-gov't proxy then by all means share them.

I have (what I think) are sound reasons for believing he is NOT. If there are sound reasons for thinking that he IS, I would like to hear them.

Originally Posted by Poi

Just because I think you occasionally indulge yourself in the same thing that you argue against in others, you assume I've lied to you about my own view point about him.

You lied to me? What in the world are you talking about? All that I wish from you is to tell me what you truly think and why. That is all.

I'm not sure what the "..same thing..." is that you are talking about, so I can't address it. (Gullibility?)

Originally Posted by Poi

Everyone but you is outrageous. LOL Argue my side better, with just the real life facts.

There is a lot of outrageous stuff in these forums but not everything is outrageous.

I don't really understand what you mean from the "LOL" onwards.

[Poi]

Assumption, presumption, etc. Gullibility? Just another assumption on your part? In fact, probably a projection, but that's okay. We all do it. Some of us will not admit it, however.

I've pointed out a flaw in some of your thinking, having never had to give up my belief that in the final analysis you are correct. I've also done so without engaging in your circular logic. If you don't understand, well, I'm satisfied anyway. Carry on.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by Poi

Assumption, presumption, etc. Gullibility? Just another assumption on your part? In fact, probably a projection, but that's okay. We all do it. Some of us will not admit it, however.

Ok, don't get upset or anything but this seems empty to me.

Originally Posted by Poi

I've pointed out a flaw in some of your thinking, having never had to give up my belief that in the final analysis you are correct. I've also done so without engaging in your circular logic. If you don't understand, well, I'm satisfied anyway. Carry on.

I'm correct but there's a flaw in my thinking?

Well...my basic "thinking" is: OBL has a long history of anti-Western and terrorist acts (and complementary rhetoric) that pre-date the 9/11 attacks. If OBL was acting as a U.S. gov't proxy on 9/11 then his earlier history must be reconciled with his actions on 9/11. Either that earlier history was *part* of the cover, or it was sincere and somehow the U.S. "converted" him prior to 9/11. The former possibility seems the only conclusion that is viable to me. Why? Because the latter possibility ("conversion") requires even more outrageous assumptions than the first possibility --- and that's saying a lot!

I don't see any "circular logic"...not right off hand anyway. At least not using the traditional definition of the term.

Perhaps you are saying that OBL's "history" is a false assumption...but I don't see any reason to doubt the history. It seems like a valid and reasonable assumption. The fact that other people have falsely confessed is irrelevant; OBL's personal confession is not the only supporting evidence for his guilt.

The only things you've "pointed out" are bin Laden ties to the Bush family and questioned OBL's guilt in some of the historical attacks ---- but even if there was some "gravity" in either of these distractions it wouldn't change anything. The "conspiracy" --- and OBL's "cover" would still need to extend well before the Bush administration.

Mohammed Atta was in the U.S. in June 2000, before Bush was even elected. Some of the terrorists were here in January 2000.

Why don't you just explain the flaw in my thinking, instead of just letting me flounder around? Would you be more comfortable talking via PM? I promise I will keep our talk private, assuming you do the same.

Other than time, you have nothing to lose.

[schticknz]

A few things:

(1) A number of the so-called "9/11 terrorists" are still alive. See here: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ and a bit more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

(2) OBL is probably dead and has been for some time: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

(3) Five Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen to be "dancing" when the WTC buildings were hit. They were later interviewed on Israeli TV saying they were there to 'document' the event:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

plus

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Hmmm ... no mention of 9/11 ... I wonder why???

schtick ... who thought he would just throw a few things in just to try to get over the fact (again) that the 9/11 event was not what it seemed to be, and was in fact a "false flag" operation jointly manufactured between the US and Israel

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by schticknz

A few things:
(1) A number of the so-called "9/11 terrorists" are still alive. See here: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ and a bit more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Of course this is a little silly. Everyone that was on any of the planes is dead.

And even if some of them were identified incorrectly, so what? (You realize that many humans share the same name.....?)

And it took about five minutes to find this:
BBC Confusion About Hijackers

Originally Posted by schticknz

(2) OBL is probably dead and has been for some time: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

OBL might be dead. But his most recent audiotape was May 18. He has certainly discussed the Iraq war so we know he was alive at least well into 2003.

Originally Posted by schticknz

(3) Five Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen to be "dancing" when the WTC buildings were hit. They were later interviewed on Israeli TV saying they were there to 'document' the event:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Well that makes perfect sense. Israel did it and sent some dancers! Whoo hoo!

Originally Posted by schticknz

plus

Well, thanks for sharing.

Because he's innocent and we don't want to offend him? What do you think? Maybe the vast government conspiracy just decided that associating him with 9/11 on a wanted poster was going too far?

Ok, thanks. I'm convinced.

__________________
"...the existence of twilight does not deter us from distinguishing between night and day -- nor should it..."

fitzbew88

View Public Profile

Send a private message to fitzbew88

Find all posts by fitzbew88

[thetruthisoutthere]

I am one of the people that believes that the bush administration was responsible for 9/11. Now as far as my fews on Bin Laden I think that he his/was just a freedom fighter and that he could not have organized an attack like the one on 9/11.

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I am one of the people that believes that the bush administration was responsible for 9/11. Now as far as my fews on Bin Laden I think that he his/was just a freedom fighter and that he could not have organized an attack like the one on 9/11.

So Bin Laden is just trying to take credit for what the Bush admin did?

[Gene Steinberg]

Since we're talking conspiracy here, Liberal commentator Lynn Samuels, on her Sirius radio show today, claimed (I hope not seriously), that Bin Laden's people were hacking the oil futures computer system to manipulate the price.

So that's why it's $140 a barrel, right? Yeah, sure.

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by Gene Steinberg

Since we're talking conspiracy here, Liberal commentator Lynn Samuels, on her Sirius radio show today, claimed (I hope not seriously), that Bin Laden's people were hacking the oil futures computer system to manipulate the price.

So that's why it's $140 a barrel, right? Yeah, sure.

I guess placing blame on the oil companies is too farfetched for Lynn.