HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bin Laden ‘would have to ...

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:45 AM

Bin Laden ‘would have to have been naked and on the ground’

THIS is the sort of story which should be dominating the headlines right now, not the "shiny red-herring" semantic argument nonsense generated by Turdblossom.

Bin Laden ‘would have to have been naked and on the ground’

Mark Bowden, journalist and author of Black Hawk Down, the blockbuster book and film about America’s debacle in Somalia, has just written The Finish: The Killing of Osama bin Laden. In researching his subject Bowden had unprecedented access to one incomparable source – the man who ordered the attack, President Barack Obama.

Christiane Amanpour asked Bowden what many have wondered ever since the raid in Abbottabad: Were the president’s orders “shoot to kill” or was there ever the possibility of capturing Bin Laden and bringing him to trial?

“He (Obama) said that he assumed that they would probably kill him,” said Bowden. “And as he put it to me, he (bin Laden) would have to have been naked and on the ground for him to even have the possibility of surrendering.”

=snip=

Given the political stakes this year, Bowden was asked if President Obama deserves credit for making bin Laden a priority or if it was really the CIA that drove the mission.

“Here’s the deal,” Bowden quotes President Obama as telling his inner circle soon after he came into office. “I want this hunt for Osama bin Laden…to come to the front of the line. I worry the trail has gone cold. This has to be our top priority.”

Full article: http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/19/bin-laden-would-have-to-have-been-naked-and-on-the-ground/

This episode of Amanpour with the transcript available to watch and read here: http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/category/latest-episode/

33 replies, 3834 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bin Laden ‘would have to have been naked and on the ground’ (Original post)
Turborama Oct 2012 OP
skeewee08 Oct 2012 #1
bluestate10 Oct 2012 #2
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #3
Turborama Oct 2012 #7
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #12
Bolo Boffin Oct 2012 #13
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #14
Bolo Boffin Oct 2012 #15
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #19
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #28
PavePusher Oct 2012 #16
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #18
PavePusher Oct 2012 #21
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #22
PavePusher Oct 2012 #23
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #24
Whiskeytide Oct 2012 #26
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #27
cpwm17 Oct 2012 #29
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #30
cpwm17 Oct 2012 #31
The Doctor. Oct 2012 #32
cpwm17 Oct 2012 #33
speedoo Oct 2012 #4
Comrade Grumpy Oct 2012 #5
Turborama Oct 2012 #6
UnseenUndergrad Oct 2012 #8
oswaldactedalone Oct 2012 #9
redgreenandblue Oct 2012 #25
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #20
backscatter712 Oct 2012 #10
Volaris Oct 2012 #17
Turborama Oct 2012 #11

Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:57 AM

1. Can't wait till the movie comes out next month

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:04 PM

2. I don't care how he died. Bin laden is dead and one murderous fuck was removed from the

face of the earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:13 PM

3. There could never have been a trial.

 


It would have revealed that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, and that would have sucked for many people.

But the murderous SOB is dead, and the world is a little safer for civilized people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:55 PM

7. A trial "would have revealed that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11"

How?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 05:13 AM

12. According to the FBI, There was no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.

 


Also, bin Laden denied involvement immediately after the attacks. The US could have proven links to the Cole and the other bombings, but we would have had a very hard time proving he was responsible for 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 05:28 AM

13. I invite you to take this line of discussion to Creative Speculation where it belongs. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 12:17 PM

14. It's not 'Creative Speculation'. It's a simple fact.

 


I understand that some facts are uncomfortable sometimes.

Many people are made uncomfortable by the fact that climate change is occuring and humans are the catalyst that caused it. So they stick their heads up their ass and pretend it's not real.

Many people are uncomfortable with the fact that the Earth is billions, not thousands, of years old. So they send their children to schools that teach them fairy-tales and make them unable to excell in higher education.

Still others are uncomfortable with the fact that no evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11 exists. So they tell people who point out that fact to 'shut up and go elsewhere'.


Given that this is a thread about bin Laden it is not inappropriate to point out such a thing.... just uncomfortable for those who like the worldview they've been given by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:11 PM

15. There is plenty of evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. So your assertion is a conspiracy theory.

And as such, your assertion can only be discussed here at DU in the Creative Speculation forum. I invite you to discuss it there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:09 PM

19. Since no hard evidence of bin Laden's involvement has been posted

 

In any group at all, I invite you to post it here.

But you won't, of course.... because you know damn well it doesn't exist.

That would truly be "Creative Speculation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 12:08 PM

28. Not according to the FBI.

 


There wasn't enough to indict, so there certainly wasn't enough to convict. That's not a 'theory', it's just reality.


Naturally, there are some realities you'd like relegated elsewhere. I don't blame you.


I can believe he is guilty, but there simply isn't enough evidence to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:18 PM

16. We await your citations. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:07 PM

18. Sure thing.

 


Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.


This has been Widely proliferated with absolutely no refutation. Tomb did, according to many follow-up pieces, try to 'clarify' what this meant, but neither he, nor any authority of the FBI state that they had hard evidence with which to indict bin Laden for 9/11.

Now, here's how I know you're a troll (and the best part is that you'll alert on me, have 6 random DUer's get an education, and then risk that those 6 random DUer's might be intellectually rigorous enough to delve into the disinformation you plant in response to this post, and all for the accusation that you are a troll): You're about to 'question the sources'. And you will, because shooting the messenger, rather than doing the impossible work of finding out if the FBI retracted Tomb's statements, is so much easier for people who aren't interested in things like "How Humans are responsible for climate change". No, doing diligence is hard.


So much easier to just believe the OV.

The Official Version where perfectly preseved and un-singed passports fall out of burning wreckage.

Yeah, that's a much simpler world, for sure. Wish I could turn off my reasoning circuity to live there.

Unfortunately, I don't believe in fairy-tales that either Creationists OR the Government come up with.

I wish I could, I truly do.

Now please alert on this post, or you risk 6 random people not learning something today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:16 PM

21. Why should I alert? For what?

 

It would be useful to have a link to go along with your quote. It seems interesting; I have not seen it before. Is there more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:29 PM

22. I may not exercise class, but that doesn't mean I'm not in possession of it.

 

So I'll take your querie at face value.

http://whatreallyhappened.wikia.com/wiki/FBI_Has_16_No_Hard_Evidence_Connecting_Bin_Laden_to_9/11

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

Same article, but you're going to do what trolls always do: reject the source based on the content without researching the content.

If you're not a troll, you'll learn something.

If you don't want to know uncomfortable things, you'll be a troll.

Like I said, please alert. There are at least 6 people out there who might learn something. Not the least of which will be the ridiculous videos of the obviously fake bin Laden.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 09:02 PM

23. Ummm... I think you mean

 

"...reject the content based on the source...", and no, I don't usually do that if I can help it. Happens too often to me when debating in the Gun Control and RKBA forum.

I'll look it over when I get home, time to get out of this office-cave.

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 08:32 AM

24. That's more than fair.

 


No one ever alerts when I ask them to.

Mr. Tomb did try, as I said, to walk back the statement, but he never claimed there was any hard evidence to go on. Thus why bin-Laden was never wanted by the FBI in connection to 9/11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to believe he was responsible, but there are just too many foul-smelling things about that day to simply accept the apparently contrived OV the Bush administration gave us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:59 AM

26. I've never seen this take away...

... on Bin Laden's lack of involvement.

I have not researched this very thoroughly, but how do you explain the confession tape? Was the interpreter faking the translation? Was it a Bin Laden impostor?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

The FBI statements sound more like technical blabber about deficiencies in the investigation process than a statement pronouncing that Bin Laden was not involved, so I can't square your initial post claiming that a trial would have revealed he wasn't. An un-coerced confession is more than enough evidence to convict, even when there is little or no physical evidence linking someone to a crime - and there wouldn't be in this case since no one claims Bin Laden was driving one of the planes.

I think you are running down a rabbit hole by mistaking the phrase "no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 911" as a deduction that he wasn't involved. He certainly appears to have been boasting of his involvement in planning and sponsoring the attacks afterwards. That's enough for me.

Am I missing something?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whiskeytide (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 12:00 PM

27. They simply didn't have enough evidence to indict him.

 

It really is that simple.

A trial, if he decided to fight the charges of masterminding 9/11, would have been quite a spectacle. Without enough evidence to indict, how on Earth do you think they could get a conviction? Given that indictment is a lower hurdle than a conviction, it's more than reasonable to presume that a trial would wind up seeing him acquitted of any charges dealing with 9/11.

I've read the timeline, there's virtually nothing they could have used to convict.

It's true that he could still have masterminded the attack and I'm willing to accept that he did, but there just isn't enough evidence.

As for the tapes that the CIA 'acquired', the first one with a man who was unquestionably bin Laden shows him stating that he had nothing to do with the attacks.

The second one, featuring a fellow with a differently shaped face, different skin tone, different voice, and wearing gold which bin Laden was religiously forbidden from wearing, is the one where he 'admits' to the attacks.

This obviously begs the the screaming question: [font size=4]WHY wasn't THAT VIDEO considered 'hard evidence' to the FBI???[/font]

I'm no stranger to cognitive science, and I've been running some very simple tests that show something fascinating about how the mind works. If someone believes the OV (official version), they are likely uncomfortable with many of the implications the evidence reveals. They will therefore not see the evidence. In the case of the separate videos, those who do not wish to face the implications will see the same person, while those who are open to the possibilities will see the glaring differences between the two images.

Here they are:




What do you see?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 03:50 PM

29. The picture on the left doesn't properly represent Osama in the video.

 

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

The aspect ratio has been altered. The fat Osama seems to have been caused by a deliberate "Truther" fraud and a poor editing process that altered the video while converting formats or adding subtitles.

I've searched through the "Confession Video" and that picture on the left was nowhere to be found. There are excellent frames in the unaltered video that match Osama perfectly. It is Osama in the "Confession Video." Osama admits to foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks in the video.

The video doesn't indicate that Osama was the mastermind, but he clearly knew what was happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:01 PM

30. You know what also alters 'aspect ratio'?

 

Having a different face than the person one is attempting to portray.

The, 'It's a fake!" (A faked fake) kinda smacks of desperation, but I'll entertain the notion. It might be, but why? Why would the skeptics make it look fake when translation experts unequivocally agree that even in that video, he doesn't confess to anything?

So if what you're saying is true, then there is an original video out there that can be compared side-by-side to the 'fake'.

Here's the one the pic is from:

Right at about 18 seconds, you can lay that picture right over his face and get a perfect match.

Now, since you've reviewed a different 'confession' video wherein you could not find a match for the pic, I'd appreciate having some kind of link to it so I can see for myself that there are two different ones. That would be enlightening and I would be able to drop the notion that the CIA faked the video, but there is one thing that even that won't change:

If the video is real, then WHY DOESN'T THE FBI CONSIDER IT PROOF of his involvement?


Again I'll say: I have no problem believing that bin Laden had a hand in 9/11, but there just isn't any proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:10 AM

31. I started a thread in Creative Speculation with evidence that the video is genuine.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11353759

Osama discusses his foreknowledge of 9-11 in the video. I show a frame from the same video that matches Osama perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:24 AM

32. Okay, I'll go there.

 

The CIA 'translation', however, has been roundly debunked by Arabic language scholars.

Again, you and the OV adherents refuse to answer the question: If it's so authentic, then why isn't it good enough to get an indictment? Why doesn't the FBI consider it hard evidence?

If it's a confession, that's about as hard as it gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:29 PM

33. Osama publicly accepted responsibility for 9-11 in 2004

 

It appears that the FBI already had an indictment against Osama, so they didn't feel that they needed to add another one for 9-11.

This 2004 tape played on Al Jazeera's Arabic language stations where Osama talks about his involvement in 9-11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also wanted credit for 9-11. This interview with an al-Jazeera reporter was before he was captured and tortured :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism

This site covers Osama's guilt: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:21 PM

4. A telling quote from Bowden:

“I do give President Obama a lot of credit because I think that when you have the man at the top asking for monthly progress reports, nobody wants to file a monthly progress report with no progress in it.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:41 PM

5. Our death squads did their job.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 01:15 PM

6. Remorse?

Or just dismissive about the whole thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:06 PM

8. Don't know...

All I know that Comrade up there was no fan of the Libya intervention and is still portraying the post Gaddafi polity as some sort of Western-puppet-terrorist-thugocracy-kinda-thing.

Make of that in this context what you will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnseenUndergrad (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:19 PM

9. That MFer

Bin Laden needed to go down and I'm proud as hell of President Obama for taking him down. I don't give a rat's ass about any snide remarks about death squads. America has to protect it's interests in certain situations and taking down murderous SOBs is one way it does it.

I trust President Obama to make these kinds of calls. I wouldn't trust Romnesia as far as I could throw that rat-bastard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnseenUndergrad (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:06 AM

25. I suppose that means Comrade believes in the constitution and international law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:13 PM

20. Piss off. OBL killed almost 3000 people on 9/11 in the US. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:30 PM

10. In war, one kills one's enemies.

Bin Laden was an enemy of the United States, and of basic humanity, so no, I'm not the least bit sorry he got shot in the face.

Osama Bin Laden sleeps with the fishes, on Obama's orders. And the world's a better place for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:22 PM

17. Let's not forget, that man was also one of the greatest enemies of ISLAM the world has ever known.

I would have preferred a Trial, but death by Jury Decision is the same RESULT as death by Navy Seal. I get that the PROCESS is the important thing, but Results are Results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:37 PM

11. Just found this interesting article by Bowden in the WaPo...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread