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.
Mark Bowden, journalist and author of Black Hawk Down, the blockbuster book and film about Americas 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 presidents 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.
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.
Heres 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/
face of the earth.
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.
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.
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.
And as such, your assertion can only be discussed here at DU in the Creative Speculation forum. I invite you to discuss it there.
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".
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.
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.
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?
So I'll take your querie at face value.
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.
"...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.
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.
... 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?
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?
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?
Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:48 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.
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.
Osama discusses his foreknowledge of 9-11 in the video. I show a frame from the same video that matches Osama perfectly.
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.
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:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also wanted credit for 9-11. This interview with an al-Jazeera reporter was before he was captured and tortured :
This site covers Osama's guilt: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.