OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[Pazuzu]

@Teapot: I was trolling before, and by now, even I've given up on this thread.

[Garion]

The majority of this thread is absurd. From Garion's unsubstantiated claims to Meisseli's attacks on Garion's character, rather than his claims, and all in between.

Frankly, everyone who contributed to this mess should be ashamed of themselves.

You didn't understood the point of my ''unsubtantiated claims'' then. And I said it, I was just giving the info about Osama Bin Laden's real death because it has became a real hot topic since the fake announcement of his death. Therefore, it is really easy to find all the informations concerning Osama Bin Laden's true death on google, if you know what key words to enter.

[Teapot]

And here you are being all superior and shit 

My only contribution to this thread has been to call it absurd. By not saying anything that deals with Garion's claims, I'm as bad as you guys.

[janev]

And here you are being all superior and shit 

My only contribution to this thread has been to call it absurd. By not saying anything that deals with Garion's claims, I'm as bad as you guys.

Welcome to the dark side brother
...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(

[Garion]

I'd like to say that when my source says they kept Bin Laden on ice, it might be an expression to say that they kept him ''alive'' to the public so they could use him as a menace or a victim.

Also, I find it quite funny that some people reveals they were never serious, because it confirms what I was saying about you guys being lazy and unserious.

[Pazuzu]

Au contraire, sir, it confirms that you're taking yourself waaaaay too seriously.

[janev]

To be fair to the rest of us you never did present a convincing case and this is a semi-anonymous forum. Chillax dude it's not srs biznes. Just because you bleat the loudest doesn't make you right.

You are right about one thing though, I am lazy and unserious.

[Nux]

Is English your first language?

Providing links to French videos? Spelling Bin Laden the French way? Using many words the way French people would?

I would guess it isn't.

Which was my guess too, but I wanted him to confirm it since it was the reason I was forgiving the ways in which his sentence structure/meaning failed rather than just spelling.

There are Chossudovsky and Brzezinski who talks about the CIA's lies on Al Qaeda and/or Ben Laden. It's in the interest of the politics that is going on to take the heat off the elites. Osama Bin Laden's fake videos proves something vague, and orients to some extent.

You misunderstand. This (or the statements this article itself misinterprets) isn't saying al-Qaeda is imaginary. This is refering to the involvement of the CIA in aid to Afghanistan so as to oppose the soviet union. It is alleged that this aid was instrumental, or at least somehow was influencing, in the creation of al-Qaeda. For better (well documented) examples of 'blowback' and other negative involvement of US involvement in other countries I suggest you browse through the links of the related wikipedia articles under 'References' which are cited throughout. I am not suggesting that everything on wikipedia is undeniably true- though I do believe it has a good record -just that if you strive to be unbiased, you might want to read these sources too.

[Garion]

You misunderstand. This (or the statements this article itself misinterprets) isn't saying al-Qaeda is imaginary. This is refering to the involvement of the CIA in aid to Afghanistan so as to oppose the soviet union. It is alleged that this aid was instrumental, or at least somehow was influencing, in the creation of al-Qaeda. For better (well documented) examples of 'blowback' and other negative involvement of US involvement in other countries I suggest you browse through the links of the related wikipedia articles under 'References' which are cited throughout. I am not suggesting that everything on wikipedia is undeniably true- though I do believe it has a good record -just that if you strive to be unbiased, you might want to read these sources too.

First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''

[CorSair]

For those who don't see the ultimate truth:

This topic, and its subject, Osama bin Laden, is one biggest troll ever created and such.

And those who want still to reply in here, grinding more bin Laden bullshit, are USA government officials.

Good day.

PS: i'm f****n tired of this.

[Garion]

For those who don't see the ultimate truth:

This topic, and its subject, Osama bin Laden, is one biggest troll ever created and such.

And those who want still to reply in here, grinding more bin Laden bullshit, are USA government officials.

Good day.

PS: i'm f****n tired of this.

They might be government officials, they're just asking me to put in more proofs anyway, so they fail. Also, if you're tired of this shit, stop coming. As long as someone wishes to have an intelligent discussion, I am willing to keep talking.

[CreatureofHell]

Also, if you're tired of this shit, stop coming.

Words of wisdom.

[Nux]

First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''

That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.

I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.

[Pazuzu]

They might be government officials,

I KNEW IT. Tremulous is full of G-men. I bet Stannum is some sort of elite black-ops guy.

[Garion]

That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.

We could say I'm trying moderatly because I repeat myself a lot and basically read the articles for most of you. I'd also like to point that what I quoted was from this article's introduction: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718

I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.

According to what I sent you (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718), the U.S had interest in keeping the war against an enemy after the cold war ended. I will quote some texts of the article that gives good reasons to the government to chose the path of war:

1. the economic reasons, we could also investigate that the bandits organisation and beneficial and possibly work with or for the gorvernment, therefore it's a double reason :

''Researcher Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand." (Ibid)

    "CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. … (Ibid)

Afghanistan is a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on China’s Western frontier and on the former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea, it is also strategic for its opium production, which today, according to UN sources, supplies more than 90 % of the World’s heroin market, representing multi-billion dollar revenues for business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)''

-----------------------

''The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.  ''

-----------------------

These are some reasons, but if you go back to the article and read the paragraphs ''war in Chenya'' to atleast ''Yougoslavia'', you will see that it allows Washington to act inside the different countries of this world. It's really strategic for the United-States to take place in the world, by the exterior with their military or whatever, and by the interior with their agents, party, movements, etc. Anyway, there's a lot more to say on the subject, and I don't know everything, but I think with the article I gave you, if you read it, it should be a good start to discover more about this.

[janev]

First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''

That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.

I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.

The parts in bold are plagiarized. He is not making an effort to be coherent he is trolling by throwing out copy-pasted gibberish which has nothing to do with the death of Osama Bin Laden. 

[Garion]

The parts in bold are plagiarized. He is not making an effort to be coherent he is trolling by throwing out copy-pasted gibberish which has nothing to do with the death of Osama Bin Laden.  

I said they were in the introduction before quoting them, and I reaffirmed, in one or two posts after, that it was from the introduction of this article : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718

I told Meisseli to read the first two paragraph of it (therefore it counts the introduction) because it proved what I wanted to prove him. But, Nux then asked me a similar question as Meisseli concerning Al Qaeda or something, so I sent him the info directly, thinking he knew what article I was talking about.

[Nux]

Best not to assume and instead make it clear you're quoting in the future. Everything I've said so far has not been based on the links you provided but what you have said yourself.

I'll read through the article you've provided.

[Garion]

Best not to assume and instead make it clear you're quoting in the future. Everything I've said so far has not been based on the links you provided but what you have said yourself.

I'll read through the article you've provided.

We were talking about the article, so it seems logical that you knew what I was talking about... Plus I mentioned that it was in the introduction...

[Nux]

I don't doubt that you thought I read it, and you find what you've said to be clear. To me you weren't clear.

I've read it now (although I skimmed through some of the history that I either knew about or found didn't add to the point he was making).

The 9500 word plus document you linked to on globalresearch.ca (which is an anti-war highly biased source) by Michel_Chossudovsky interviewing Zbigniew_Brzezinski has nothing to do with when Osama Bin Laden died. It's a piece about the link between US intelligence and Islamic factions during the cold war. These links were known and widely acknowledged but have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I can confirm that this document says nothing about the early death of Osama Bin Laden. I don't quite agree that it only refers to links between US intelligence and Islamic factions during the cold war, it also refers to alleged ongoing involvement in several areas and makes wild claims on top of it. The article, in summary, gives many examples of the US funding radical minority groups to destabilise key areas. This part seems fair enough and is a case well made by many people.

It also mentions that when afghanistan was dirupted, it's drug trade increased dramtically and then suggests that this is because the CIA want it that way because they're profiting from the drug money (rather than because afghanistan's ability to stop the drug trade is, you know, disrupted). It interprets every case as a perfectly executed part of a master plan to not only destabilise the enemy but to also cause attacks on America to scare the US public. That last part is where I start to disagree. I don't think the US needs to create it's own enemies, I don't think they would actively encourage threats to thier own safety and I don't think they're able to execute a plan so flawlessly. I believe that the plan to destabilise enemy territory by funding extremist groups is unethical enough as it is and I find the idea that the strategy 'blewback' in thier face to be more plausible.

I'm not saying that the US isn't using attacks against it as a sad excuse to do terrible things. I'm not even saying that US officials would never entertain the idea of attacking it's own citizens as a way of promoting agression. I just think plans fail at the best of times and that to directly/indirectly encourage a minority faction of extremists to knock down your own largest building as a way of scaring your populous enough to gain support to invade the wrong nation is unreliable, highly costly and slightly nonsensical as a perfected plan. It doesn't seem so far-fetched to believe that America disrupts a foreign country and members of that country get angry and decide to disrupt America back with a simple and effective act of violence.

[Garion]

I gave this document to prove that Bin Laden isn't the one we think he is, nor is the CIA, and to prove the relation between Al Qaeda and the CIA. I disagree with you that, after the cold war, America had a good enemy for their project of extending their power (economic, control...). The Chinese weren't strong enough back then, nor the russian (obviously), nor Brasil...I don't see anyone after the cold war who could be america's new enemy and one that would benefit the US, for some reasons. Also, I wouldn't be ready to say the US government encouraged minorities to crash in their building, there are a lot of people talking about an interior job, by israel or the CIA, and they say that bombs were planted in the WTC, they also provide more proofs, such as physics analysis, video analysis, facts concerning the people working there*, who made the investigation and how the investigation was made, etc... which makes the real version of 9/11 quite strange, to say the least. Anyway, these subjects might be related, depending on how you see everything, but I think we're stretching a bit on different plans now.

*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...

[Tremulant]

*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...

Feel free to link to that reputable source.

[vcxzet]

Good job wikipedia...

[Nux]

I gave this document to prove that Bin Laden isn't the one we think he is, nor is the CIA, and to prove the relation between Al Qaeda and the CIA. I disagree with you that, after the cold war, America had a good enemy for their project of extending their power (economic, control...). The Chinese weren't strong enough back then, nor the russian (obviously), nor Brasil...I don't see anyone after the cold war who could be america's new enemy and one that would benefit the US, for some reasons.

Can't think of enemies? Iraq was already on the agenda, picking up where the presidency of Bush the Elder left off. This is why the US ended up attacking Iraq anyway. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks but that didn't stop them using it as a poor excuse to deal with unfinished business. WMDs in the hands of foreign nations were very much still the 'Big Bad' before the WTC was hit. The agenda was focused on bolstering missile defense and sanctioning offending nations before some notably successful terrorists terrified the world.

Also, I wouldn't be ready to say the US government encouraged minorities to crash in their building, there are a lot of people talking about an interior job, by israel or the CIA, and they say that bombs were planted in the WTC, they also provide more proofs, such as physics analysis, video analysis, facts concerning the people working there*, who made the investigation and how the investigation was made, etc... which makes the real version of 9/11 quite strange, to say the least. Anyway, these subjects might be related, depending on how you see everything, but I think we're stretching a bit on different plans now.

And why is it so unbelievable that a plane crashing into each of two skyscrapers is ENOUGH. Why woud they risk being caught installing bombs when even if the towers didn't fall, I would imagine they would have been extremely unsafe possibly making them a blight on the city which would have caused a great amount of disruption as it is! How can you say that such an unprecedented building collapse would definitely have happened one way or the other? I doubt even the terrorists knew what would happen, they just knew that it would probably be bad for the people inside those buildings.

[Garion]

*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...

Feel free to link to that reputable source.

A little research on the subject wouldn't harm you. Try searching for ''the truthers'', you might find interesting things.

@Nux:

''Can't think of enemies? Iraq was already on the agenda, picking up where the presidency of Bush the Elder left off. This is why the US ended up attacking Iraq anyway. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks but that didn't stop them using it as a poor excuse to deal with unfinished business. WMDs in the hands of foreign nations were very much still the 'Big Bad' before the WTC was hit. The agenda was focused on bolstering missile defense and sanctioning offending nations before some notably successful terrorists terrified the world.''

I'm talking about a real enemy, like the URSS, the germans and the french as they once were. A strong empire or nation that could truely overcome the United-States (so it implies this empire or nation wants to act against the US), wether it's by military power, economically, scientifically or anything that would give them the edge. This wasn't the case of Iraq, nor of any other group at that time.

The terrorist alert gave a concrete reason to put money in war, to attack the other countries, to lower the rights of civilians, etc...Since then, the extreme riches kept gaining money and the balance of ressources in our country kept lowering. Thus, we can see how these war aren't benefiting the poorer people of our countries. This mean we can also say that bolstering missile defense ans sactioning offending nation wasn't the only thing in the agenda. Anyway, I'm just pointing that one out, but it might not fit you.

''And why is it so unbelievable that a plane crashing into each of two skyscrapers is ENOUGH. Why woud they risk being caught installing bombs when even if the towers didn't fall, I would imagine they would have been extremely unsafe possibly making them a blight on the city which would have caused a great amount of disruption as it is! How can you say that such an unprecedented building collapse would definitely have happened one way or the other? I doubt even the terrorists knew what would happen, they just knew that it would probably be bad for the people inside those buildings.''

Same as for Tremulant...There are enough documentary on the subject. And, with everything I told you, you should be able to guess why I think they'd risk intalling bombs...I suggest you visit this webpage : http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 it's a quick top 40 of why you should believe in 911, it should be a good start to understand the general idea people have developped on the question. It's not complete, but it takes a good look at what has been investigated. You will have to find the many and free documentaries or articles on internet if you wish to develop more your knowledge.

[Teapot]

I have no intention of getting involved in this thread but I will point out some links that people can use to educate themselves on why at least some of the many conspiracies are ridiculous given a little thought.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

[Nux]

I'm talking about a real enemy...

Why is it that when I give you an example of an external threat, it's not 'real' enough? I will grant you that the threat of Nukes and other WMDs was becoming an old hat at the time, but the threat of 'terrorism' has been around for much longer. So what you're actually saying is that the US had enemies already but they weren't good enough and decided to fly planes into itself as if it didn't have enough trouble as it was.

I have no intention of getting involved in this thread but I will point out some links that people can use to educate themselves on why at least some of the many conspiracies are ridiculous given a little thought.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Only just started watching the second screw loose change video and already it's making blind assertions in the complete other direction. It's saying that Operation Northwoods never involved any plan to hurt anyone, which isn't true. Operation Northwoods was a collection of proposals all aimed at giving the impression of a credible threat through a false-flag operation. Some of those proposals did indeed suggest harming US civilians.

The plan was considered but rejected. It's important to understand that the only reason it would be considered is if there was support for it by some officials and that it's thanks to those who opposed it (such as JFK) that it didn't get put into action.

[Teapot]

It's been a long time since I watched Screw Loose Change and I don't remember much of it. I just provided it in the hope that it would be useful. But I do recall that it made some good points (even if it is amongst a lot of rubbish).

[Garion]

Why is it that when I give you an example of an external threat, it's not 'real' enough? I will grant you that the threat of Nukes and other WMDs was becoming an old hat at the time, but the threat of 'terrorism' has been around for much longer. So what you're actually saying is that the US had enemies already but they weren't good enough and decided to fly planes into itself as if it didn't have enough trouble as it was.

How was Iraq an external threat to the United-States? They had a nuke? No. They were up with the terrorists? No, this is, as I said, the war on terrorism phenomenon. Iraq is and was, to the United-States, an actor that interfers with U.S. external politcs, had ressources the united-states wanted, and other things that doesn't make Iraq a true opponent to U.S. hegemony. Iraq was more a good prey...And I said the US governments created war on terrorism as they had no more real enemies to make war with... An enemy as the USSR was seen...The blowback theory is also related to the war on terrorism. I don't think the US government crashed planes into the WTC, but I think there was something done by the interior that wasn't right, to the least. And, the more you study the case, the more you'll see how the 9/11's mysterious. Anyway, I think we should either get back to our old subject or stop this discussion, because you misunderstand me a lot, which is understandable, and this causes me to develop newer ideas forever, and I can't even finish explaining one that I have to explain two others...

[kharnov]

You've just heard someone say a scummy politician has done something scummy and/or shady! What will you do?

GOOD IDEA: Examine many sources and compare them with each other, even from the dreaded and poorly defined "main stream media" that is absolutely loathed and reviled. Reach your own conclusions through your own research. Employ the scientific method. Use skepticism even on your own cherished sources. Don't label the other side as incompetent. Don't assume you are right. Begin with the least convoluted explanation for things, not some massive conspiracy. Give the most concise summaries possible of your viewpoints and debate with the other side directly instead of attacking their method of debating or labeling them as stupid. Go for the points, provide your counter-points and provide ample evidence. Pull your head out of your ass.

BAD IDEA: Post links to fringe sources that anyone besides yourself would find ridiculous. Tell people to Google it, because it's clearly so painfully obvious. Claim that you're the only one who knows anything about the subject in question and that the other side is blind. Make sure to use the word "sheeple" a lot. They're all wrong, only you are right, because you have seen the truth. Don't you ever change your opinion. You possess the hidden truth and the world must know about this through rambling, incoherent forum posts. The more you type, the more "right" you are. Ask for "just one piece of evidence" because everything can obviously be disproved by a single article.

P.S.: Y'all are posting in a troll thread. Garion is either very persistent or very deluded. Find something more productive to do with your life. Play Tremulous, or go outside. That wonderful feeling of convincing the other side that they're wrong? It's not going to come.