FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Bin Laden not indicted for 9/11; "no hard evidence"
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:43 am    Post subject: Bin Laden not indicted for 9/11; "no hard evidence" Reply with quote

I just noticed this article from Alex Jones/Paul Joseph Watson. If true, it's very interesting, and might deserve a place in 9/11 3i. I don't know who Ed Haas (Muckraker Report) is, but anyone can see that Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website makes no mention of 9/11, beyond saying that "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." For what it's worth, Ed Haas's original article, "FBI says, 'No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'" is here.

Quote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm
Washington Post Doesn't Answer Why No Bin Laden 9/11 Indictment
Whitewash piece seeks to dismiss questions about FBI most wanted page but doesn't address why embassy indictment took 3 months yet no 9/11 charge after 5 years

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 28 2006

A Washington Post article today attempts to refute and dismiss questions as to why the FBI's most wanted page for Osama bin Laden includes no apportion of blame for 9/11 - yet the Post fails to answer why there has been no formal indictment of bin Laden five years after 9/11 when it only took three months to charge him with the 1998 embassy bombings.

A key cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement's challenge that verifiable evidence proving the government's version of events be presented in court is the fact that bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website contains no reference to 9/11, only charging bin Laden with involvement in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.

In late September 2001, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI Rex Tomb told Wired News, "There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged."

"To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."

In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website.

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," he was told [by] Rex Tomb.

Five years later and bin Laden has not been charged as having any association with the 9/11 attacks. By the FBI's own guidelines, they have found or been provided with no evidence to connect bin Laden to the events of that day. This includes the alleged "confession tape" which was miraculously 'discovered' in a house in Jalalabad by US troops and features a bin Laden doppelganger with a rotund frame and absent the real bin Laden's slender nose. According to the FBI bin Laden is left-handed, yet the tape shows him writing a note with his right hand. In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn't like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop - terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?

The fact that the FBI does not consider the 'confession tape' as reliable evidence of involvement in 9/11 is completely dismissed by the Washington Post who say the tape proves that Al-Qaeda have, "proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings."

In July 2006, the New York Times reported that a CIA counterterror unit named Alec Station, a 10-year old subdivision tasked with finding bin Laden, had been closed down. In addition, former CIA director Buzzy Krongard told the London Times that bin Laden should stay free and it was better off for the world for him to remain at large.

On two separate occasions President Bush has publicly stated that he is no longer interested in catching bin Laden.

The Washington Post article is clearly an attempt to whitewash and dismiss further investigation into why there has been no formal indictment implicating bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks. At no point in the piece does the Post's senior journalist Dan Eggen address the question of why there has been no formal indictment - only stating that "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

The embassy bombings occurred on August 7th 1998 and bin Laden was indicted for them on November 4th of the same year - less than three months after the attack. Yet we are approaching five years since 9/11 and no indictment has taken place nor has any formal court hearing been scheduled or even considered.

The Washington Post whitewash fails to answer the question of why there has been no formal indictment.

The reason that there has been no indictment in the five years since the attack and why there will never be one is because the evidence connecting nineteen incompetent pilots acting at the behest of an ailing Sheik hobbling between a cave and a kidney dialysis machine with the most infamous terror attack in history is non-existent. Any further high-profile inquiry into what happened on 9/11, even if it is a cover-up job appointed by Bush like the 9/11 Commission, will only turn up more bizarre inconsistencies which render the official story impossible.

The criminals wish for no further scrutiny of their act of mass murder and the current counter-attack against the 9/11 truth movement being run through their propaganda organs like Popular Mechanics and the Washington Post is part of that resistance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
InsightQuest



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; A13

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

Others on the list include Colombian drug cartel leader Diego Leon Montoya Sanchez and fugitive Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger, charged with a role in "numerous murders" in the 1970s and 1980s.

The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

Staff writer Sari Horwitz contributed to this report.
©2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687_pf.html

Red Herring?

1.) The article promulgates the standard September 11th storyline by legitimizing al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack.

2.) A nice "conspiracy theorist" slam is tossed in for good measure.

3.) Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded that bin Laden did it -- yet they tell us all the time that he confessed to doing it, and we trashed Afghanistan because of bin Laden. What was exhaustive about the government and independent investigations?

4.) They could add the September 11th info on it [the FBI notice], but they apparently don't need to -- because we all know that bin Laden did it, he confessed to it and exhaustive government and independent investigations proved it. :roll:

5.) I have more, but the whole point of the Alex Jones story and the connected Washington Post story is intended to make us all look away from the ball.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IQ said:
Quote:
Red Herring? 1,2,3,4,5...

Yes - nice redux. This is quite an old story, and I think that you've nailed it in your comments.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

InsightQuest wrote:
5.) I have more, but the whole point of the Alex Jones story and the connected Washington Post story is intended to make us all look away from the ball


Good call. I get it now.

There seems to be a bit of 'information agriculture' going on below the topsoil here as well.

A few seedlings planted for the 'rogue' CIA/Drug dodge, starring the infamous Buzzy Krongard.

Quote:
In July 2006, the New York Times reported that a CIA counterterror unit named Alec Station, a 10-year old subdivision tasked with finding bin Laden, had been closed down. In addition, former CIA director Buzzy Krongard told the London Times that bin Laden should stay free and it was better off for the world for him to remain at large.


What the hell does 'better for the world' mean?

Better for the world of the almost ready for prime time players of Alec Station?

Closed down in July 2006? Handy.
Perhaps that's spy talk for "invented as convenient scapegoat".

*Addendum*

Upon further investigation, it appears the orchard was planted a few years ago, and has matured nicely.

Perhaps the recent references we are seeing are actually the young fruit beginning to ripen.

Quote:

Alec Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Alec Station (1996-2005) was the Central Intelligence Agency unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. Alec Station was first commanded by Michael Scheuer, and was a substation of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. It was named after Scheuer's son.

The unit was disbanded in 2005 by the incoming leader of the re-named Office of Terrorism Analysis, who posited that the threat posed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda was no longer the result of its ability to actualize plans selected by core leadership, but rather more likely to come about as the result of independent action. To have a dedicated team addressing the analysis and pursuit of central Al Qaeda leadership was therefore ineffective if the aim of the unit was to protect American citizens.

A CIA spokeswoman said “the efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever.”

From: Alec Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Station

Quote:

[...]

A former CIA official who once led the unit, Michael Scheuer, told the Times that its shutdown was a mistake.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against al-Qaida," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and al-Qaida appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

From: CIA Reportedly Disbands Bin Laden Unit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400375.html


Quote:
Two items come to mind. First is from Michael Sheuer, former Agency analyst, the celebrated author “Anonymous” and former head of the (Alec) Bin Laden Station. Sheuer has just written a colorful and occasionally brutal essay in the Washington Post “Book World” entitled Bad Intelligence: Two new books on the evolution of the CIA help explain the agency's current black eyes. Second, a recent WaPo article on the new Open Source initiative at the Office of the estwhile new Director of National Intelligence (OenDNI) highlights some of the points prompted by Scheuer's piece.



From: Stop The Spirit Of Zossen - Why Intelligence Is The “Enemy”?
http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker.php?itemid=32


Quote:

Top Guns

A critic of Washington's intelligence world turns his sights on the Iraq invasion.

Reviewed by Douglas Farah

Sunday, June 6, 2004; Page BW03

A PRETEXT FOR WAR

9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies

By James Bamford

Doubleday. 420 pp. $26.95

As debate continues to rage about the flaws in the American occupation of Iraq, James Bamford takes a fresh look at the run-up to the 2003 conflict, to examine how pre-war intelligence spurred the onset of war. Bamford, author of two earlier investigative studies of the National Security Agency, The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets, sets out in A Pretext for War to show that key figures in the Bush administration -- national security adviser Richard Perle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith -- locked in a plan to wage war in Iraq well before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He charges that these four leading hawks manipulated the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency in a desperate attempt to justify a regime change in Iraq that they had been strategizing to bring about for years. He suggests further that the administration's rush to war grew out of a key and chronic blind spot in American policy circles: the failure to recognize the central role of the Palestinian cause in igniting Arab rage against the United States.

Bamford makes this case largely in the last third of his book. He uses the first two-thirds to meticulously lay out how the Sept. 11 aircraft were hijacked, the numerous intelligence and logistical failures that led to al Qaeda's successful strike and the reaction to the attacks in official Washington. Highly readable and well-researched, this account offers new insights into how the Sept. 11 hijackings occurred, while also showing how terribly ill-equipped and unprepared our defense systems were to deal with these kinds of attacks.

Other writers have also chronicled the overall failures and some of the panic, but Bamford found much new information that underscores just how chaotic and dangerous things really were in Sept. 11's immediate aftermath. For example, Bamford notes that two Air National Guard jets were scramble-ready and perhaps could have intercepted at least one of the suicide airliners, yet were assigned that day to unarmed bomb practice. Even if they had scrambled earlier, however, the fighter jets had no weapons to shoot down the hijacked jets. In fact, Bamford says, "on September 11, 2001, the entire United States mainland was protected by just fourteen planes spread out over seven bases."

Bamford goes on to track the reactions to the attack inside the NSA and CIA and supplies a chronology detailing when various senior administration officials were notified. For example, CIA director George Tenet received no word until well after the second aircraft had crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. The top military commanders were just as out of touch. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry Shelton, was en route to Europe, and his deputy, Gen. Richard Myers, was on Capitol Hill. "Through it all, the general in charge of the country's military was completely ignorant of the fact that the United States was under its worst attack in nearly two centuries," Bamford writes. "Nor did he know that about forty minutes earlier, the President had decided to declare war."

[...]

In reviewing America's intelligence breakdowns, Bamford focuses mainly on material familiar to most readers from the Sept. 11 hearings: the lack of coordination among intelligence agencies, the lack of human intelligence on al Qaeda and a casual inattention to the al Qaeda threat despite CIA Director George Tenet's 1999 declaration of war on Osama bin Laden. But here, too, Bamford uncovers fresh material, in his scathing report on the workings of the Alec Station, the secret CIA unit dedicated solely to tracking bin Laden and al Qaeda. Bamford effectively makes the case that the group, constantly underfunded and understaffed, made little difference: "After four years and hundreds of millions of dollars, Alec Station had yet to recruit a single source within bin Laden's growing Afghanistan operation. It was more than embarrassing -- it was a scandal."

For Bamford, though, the crowning scandal was the long-incubating plan to force Saddam Hussein out of power by military force. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and other key members of this war faction -- nicknamed the Vulcans -- had long been laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq. Administration insiders such as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill have already made influential versions of this case in their recently published books, and Bamford relies on Clarke's own account of the immediate post-Sept. 11 security meetings to underline the depth of the administration's Iraq fixation.

Bamford traces the personal relations among the key players spanning several decades. Again he adds some interesting bits to the existing record: e.g., the Pentagon's distrust of the CIA's intelligence; internal turf wars among the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney over what kind of intelligence was used in planning for Iraq; and the Pentagon's establishment of separate intelligence shops to counter the CIA and DIA. Bamford also notes that it was the Vulcans Perle and Feith, together with senior State Department adviser David Wormser, who drafted the basic outlines of Bush's plan to oust Saddam, including the doctrine of preemption, back in the mid-1990s, when they were advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu rejected the plan, which gathered dust until Bush's election, when the group returned to the corridors of power. Bamford says that the new fortunes of Perle, Feith and Wormser, together with Bush's personal determination to repay Saddam for his attempt to kill Bush's father, were instrumental in America's decision to go to war.

[...]
From: Top Guns (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14202-2004Jun3.html

Quote:


Profile: John O'Neill

John O'Neill actively participated in the following events:

Early 1997: CIA Unit Determines bin Laden Is Serious Threat, But Cooperation Is Poor

By the start of 1997, Alec Station, the CIA unit created the year before to focus entirely on bin Laden (see February 1996), is certain that bin Laden is not just a financier but an organizer of terrorist activity. It is aware bin Laden is conducting an extensive effort to get and use a nuclear weapon (see Late 1996). It knows that al-Qaeda has a military committee planning operations against US interests worldwide. However, although this information is disseminated in many reports, the unit’s sense of alarm about bin Laden isn’t widely shared or understood within the intelligence and policy communities. Employees in the unit feel their zeal attracts ridicule from their peers. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] Some higher-ups begin to deride the unit as hysterical doomsayers, and refer to the unit as “The Manson Family.” Michael Scheuer, head of the unit until 1999, has an abrasive style. He and counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke do not get along and do not work well together. Scheuer also does not get along with John O’Neill, the FBI’s most knowledgeable agent regarding bin Laden. The FBI and Alec Station rarely share information, and at one point an FBI agent is caught stuffing some of the unit’s files under his shirt to take back to O’Neill. [Vanity Fair, 11/2004]

[...]


From: John O'Neill
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1817
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
Quote:
In July 2006, the New York Times reported that a CIA counterterror unit named Alec Station, a 10-year old subdivision tasked with finding bin Laden, had been closed down. In addition, former CIA director Buzzy Krongard told the London Times that bin Laden should stay free and it was better off for the world for him to remain at large.

What the hell does 'better for the world' mean?

Not to defend Krongard, but the London Times article explains precisely what he means:

Quote:
THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.

If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.

“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”

Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.

“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”

Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.

He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.

“I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communications are just too difficult.”

Several US officials have privately admitted that it may be better to keep Bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial. But Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html

Like with the fact that FBI hasn't indicted Bin Laden, Alex Jones (or Paul Joseph Watson) takes Krongard's statement out of context to make it seem like it proves his theory that Bin Laden is innocent with respect to 9/11 and the CIA (et al.) don't want to capture him. Bin Laden may be innocent with respect to 9/11, and the CIA (et al.) may not want to capture him, but these facts or insinuations don't prove it, and anyone who doesn't want to see a conspiracy will have no problem finding a plausible explanation for the FBI's non-indictment and Krongard's statement -- explanations which the likes of Alex Jones will steadfastly ignore or ridicule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just thought the story was that Krongard of the CIA was making up some ridiculously implausible excuse for the Bush admin not having caught that nasty devil. (Ahh, because as a matter of wisdom and policy, they decided they DIDN'T WANT to catch him and produce him.)

Or more to the point, covering his own ass and the establishment at the same time.

I got it from Ruppert originally, but it appeared there WAS insider trading, and while it was not DIRECTLY connected to Buzzy (cause no one looked), it certainly seemed plausible. Another good reason to shut it down.

I LIKE the story for mental shock effect, because Freeper types wouldn't believe that of all people it was Bush and the CIA Exec Dir that gave AMNESTY to OSAMA. (It was supposed to be "liberals" who were trying to "understand" him. Talk about mushy-soft on terror.) Which segues into "WHY?"
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There ya go, Continuity. That's a keeper.

Can't wait for anybody who told me that questioning 911 was "liberal brainwashing' or 'aiding the enemy' complains to me about getting cavity searched at an airport.

I'll say, "you got searched! My god! you're an Islamic terrorist! I'm calling the police!"

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”


Yeah - well, you can make that argument, but anybody with a brain will laugh at you, Buzz.

This argument is complete nonsense. Like there can be only one 'President of Terrorland?'

Tell me Buzz, what does it feel like to be showered by a vying terrorist's 'macho stream?'

Quote:
Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.


Huh. Well, I'm sure he forgot all about those 'Wall St. Ethics' and information management stuff once he started working in the interests of national security.

With an intelligence history as impressive as Buzzy's though, how can you question the man? He must understand this terrorism business inside and out, as he had been working for the agency for three whole years prior to the attacks.

Quote:

“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”

Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.

He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.


Jerry Fletcher said he viewed Krongard not as a former CIA leader, but more like a disposable shill with a forked tongue, no conscience, and an impeccable retard routine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another installment of Ideological Sham Theater. Reinforce the animosity between left and right, and no one will notice the data doesn't add up, or exactly who is doing the loudest shouting.

This is the same problem I run into trying to wake up the Liberals on the Air America board to the very basic elements of the 9/11 scam. They only want the truth if it involves exclusive criminal behavior by the Bush administration, and no one else, period.

All the govt shills have to do then, is beat the Democratic Party rallying drum, and they can sell them any old horseshit they want. Wrap it in flaming Liberalism and the DNC, scream the LIHOP mantra - along with the political liabilities and "dangers" of MIHOP - and it flies.

One of the few shows that really was starting to tackle some 9/11 nuts and bolts was Mike Malloy, who was unceremoniously fired yesterday.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
d0ub1eth1nk



Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, this guy needs some new speech writers ....

Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5318204.stm

It is so bizarre that they are ressurecting Bin Laden now.
As a Hitler no less. If they're going to BS everyone you'd
think they'd be a bit more creative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is so bizarre that they are ressurecting Bin Laden now.


It looks like they're gonna have to now.

France thinks he's dead! Wink
He seemed so healthy on video ...

Quote:
Today: September 23, 2006 at 5:45:13 PDT
France Looks Into Bin Laden Death Report
By ELAINE GANLEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

PARIS (AP) - President Jacques Chirac said Saturday that information contained in a leaked intelligence document raising the possibility that Osama bin Laden may have died of typhoid in Pakistan last month is "in no way whatsoever confirmed."
Chirac said he was "a bit surprised" at the leak and has asked Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie to probe how a document from a French foreign intelligence service was published in the French press.
The regional newspaper l'Est Republicain on Saturday printed what it described as a copy of a confidential document from the DGSE intelligence service citing an uncorroborated report from Saudi secret services that the leader of the al-Qaida terror network had died.

[...]

Full (hysterical) Story:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2006/sep/23/092305802.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.