Usama Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 attacks

[obsidian]

The most wanted terrorist on the FBI's wanted list is Usama Bin Laden. However, he is not facing any charges relating to the September 11th attacks. The FBI is charging Usama Bin Laden with MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH. This is quite odd considering that Usama Bin Laden is the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks. It was the justification for invading Afghanistan that spewed out of CNN and Fox which was overwhelmingly accepted by the public. We were told he had extensive cave and tunnel networks that could survive aerial bombing, could hide tanks, and sustain them hidden for months at a time. He was portrayed as the mastermind of an extremely capable terrorist network. If any of those lies were true he would be facing the CONSPIRACY TO KILL U.S. CITZENS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, MURDER OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH THE UNITED STATES (~3000 COUNTS), among several other charges. The fact that Bin Laden is not facing charges is proof that we were blatantly lied too.

CAUTION

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

I wonder what people are going to say to debunk this.

-___-

Edited June 14, 2008 by obsidian

[DogOnPorch]

So, in your opinion, who did 9-11?

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

It is more profitable for your congressman to support the tobacco industry than your life.

---Jackie Mason

[noahbody]

It's because the FBI doesn't have hard evidence against him. It was news two years ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact that Bin Laden is not facing charges is proof that we were blatantly lied too.

Nope....Read your own posting again:

....IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

I wonder what people are going to say to debunk this.

You are not the FBI Director, correct? Debunk that.

[myata]

Creative terminology aside, everybody must have noticed how the interest of Bush's administration in apprehension of OBL has so dramatically diminished of late.

Edited June 14, 2008 by myata

[buffycat]

Creative terminology aside, everybody must have noticed how the interest of Bush's administration in apprehension of OBL has so dramatically diminished of late.

Perhaps because Bin Convenient isn't so much any more.

Keep in mind they have invaded Iraq who had sweet dick all to do with 911.

Keep in mind they are now threatening Iran who also has sweet dick all to do with 911.

Also, keep in mind that we all are occupying Afghanistan - who really had sweet dick all to do with 911.

Those that perpetrated that mess are ALOT closer to home...but for how much longer?

What a sham.

[Drea]

They don't care Buffy.

They just want an enemy, any enemy.

All the better if they are of a different culture (booga booga!) and religious belief.

[obsidian]

The fact that Bin Laden is not facing charges is proof that we were blatantly lied too.

Nope....Read your own posting again:

....IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

QUOTE

I wonder what people are going to say to debunk this.

You are not the FBI Director, correct? Debunk that.

My car was stolen in lets say Winnipeg by a 14 year old. However, I suspect it was my neighbour. So I go into my neighbours garage and hotwire the car and stole it before contacting the police about my car. When I got arrested I was shocked, like come one, I suspected him.... Doesn't make much sense does it?

You are not human if you are not empathetic to what we are doing to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan...they are not culpable for any of the charges they faced justifying the invasion. What they go through on a daily basis is directly coorelated and exasterbated by our imperial conquest. The bottom line is, BushCheney, you need proof to back up your actions: We need proof Osama perpetrated 9/11 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, we need proof that Bin Laden controlled Afghanistan(the only justifiable way to onvade) we need proof that Iraq had WMD's to justify that invasion, and we sure as hell need proof to justify the invasion of Iran. But we now know that all of these lies with HUGE IMPLICATIONS were utterly untrue. The fact that you see no problems with this method is disgusting, I would assume you are one of its most vehement supporters. I bet you would even support depleted uranium candy with new faster IM absorbtion. Let me guess, McCain all the way! 100 more years! LOL, your philosophy will eventually crumble from within, we can't live like scared, starved, caged dogs for much longer.

Edited June 15, 2008 by obsidian

[bush_cheney2004]

My car was stolen in lets say Winnipeg by a 14 year old. However, I suspect it was my neighbour. So I go into my neighbours garage and hotwire the car and stole it before contacting the police about my car. When I got arrested I was shocked, like come one, I suspected him.... Doesn't make much sense does it?

It is your example that doesn't make any sense. You can't steal your own property. Besides, NATO and coalition actions are not based on property crimes.

You are not human if you are not empathetic to what we are doing to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan...they are not culpable for any of the charges they faced justifying the invasion. What they go through on a daily basis is directly coorelated and exasterbated by our imperial conquest.

OK....we agree that life in Iraq and Afghanistan are decidely different, but not necessarily in a bad way.

The bottom line is, BushCheney, you need proof to back up your actions: We need proof Osama perpetrated 9/11 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, we need proof that Bin Laden controlled Afghanistan(the only justifiable way to onvade) we need proof that Iraq had WMD's to justify that invasion, and we sure as hell need proof to justify the invasion of Iran.

No, we only need proof for a conviction in court. Invasions do not require proof of any kind.

But we now know that all of these lies with HUGE IMPLICATIONS were utterly untrue. The fact that you see no problems with this method is disgusting, I would assume you are one of its most vehement supporters. I bet you would even support depleted uranium candy with new faster IM absorbtion.

It doesn't matter if I see this as a problem or not, nor does it matter what you think. Do you know where America's depleted uranium comes from?

Let me guess, McCain all the way! 100 more years! LOL, your philosophy will eventually crumble from within, we can't live like scared, starved, caged dogs for much longer.

What's does "we" mean"? Who is scared? Who is starving? Who is caged? The best defense is a strong offense.

[Topaz]

It is your example that doesn't make any sense. You can't steal your own property. Besides, NATO and coalition actions are not based on property crimes.

OK....we agree that life in Iraq and Afghanistan are decidely different, but not necessarily in a bad way.

No, we only need proof for a conviction in court. Invasions do not require proof of any kind.

It doesn't matter if I see this as a problem or not, nor does it matter what you think. Do you know where America's depleted uranium comes from?

What's does "we" mean"? Who is scared? Who is starving? Who is caged? The best defense is a strong offense.

US's depleted uranium probabably comes from the left overs of highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium that are removed for use as nuclear fuel or weapons. Your statement about life in the two countries being different. How about comparing it to 4x as bad as the people of New O'rleans, the mid-west states now that are flooding and people without home, food etc. and Europe during the ww2!!

[bush_cheney2004]

US's depleted uranium probabably comes from the left overs of highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium that are removed for use as nuclear fuel or weapons.

Please Topaz....we are accustomed to you not knowing what you are talking about, but this is really bass ackwards.

Your statement about life in the two countries being different. How about comparing it to 4x as bad as the people of New O'rleans, the mid-west states now that are flooding and people without home, food etc. and Europe during the ww2!!

Only 4x?....then it is better for most by a great margin, eh?

Edited June 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

BC

It is your example that doesn't make any sense. You can't steal your own property. Besides, NATO and coalition actions are not based on property crimes.

No it does not make sense, because you cannot make sense of it. He said, he suspected his neighbour of stealing it, so he stole his neighbours car. But in fact someone else has stolen it. Whew,,, that was hard. Hope this clears things up for you BC.

Like invading Iraq when none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Most were Saudi's.

Still, I know this will never make any sense to you.

It doesn't matter if I see this as a problem or not, nor does it matter what you think. Do you know where America's depleted uranium comes from?

OH let's play this game again. BUT BUT BUT BUT... waaaaahhhh. FFS BC, get yourself a real scapegoat. I wonder where Saddam's chemical weapons came from?

Edited June 15, 2008 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

BC

No it does not make sense, because you cannot make sense of it. He said, he suspected his neighbour of stealing it, so he stole his neighbours car. But in fact someone else has stolen it. Whew,,, that was hard. Hope this clears things up for you

It's still just a property crime....please rework the analogy to include first degree homicide.

Like invading Iraq when none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Most were Saudi's.

Still, I know this will never make any sense to you.

What is this continuing obesssion with Saudi's....the Americans were strangling Iraq for years...not Saudis. Do you think the PNAC got it wrong? Hell, the Panamanians and Haitians didn't hijack anything!

Stop working with a premise that you know is bogus to begin with.

OH let's play this game again. BUT BUT BUT BUT... waaaaahhhh. FFS BC, get yourself a real scapegoat. I wonder where Saddam's chemical weapons came from?

They came from all over the world. I don't wonder where Gerald Bull came from.

Edited June 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Still, I know this will never make any sense to you.

OH let's play this game again. BUT BUT BUT BUT... waaaaahhhh. FFS BC, get yourself a real scapegoat. I wonder where Saddam's chemical weapons came from?

An Arab company in Singapore provided the bulk of Saddam's chemical weapons presursors. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm. They provided 4500 tons of precursor for VX which was never found. Granted, Saddam used some up on Iranians and Kurds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_sup...e_Iran-Iraq_war

The US did provide Saddam some precursors...but that wasn't their intended use (chemical weapons)...they were intended for insecticide and herbicide production.

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

The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad... Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected. Iraqis are heroes.

---Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf

[DogOnPorch]

Depleted Uranium (majority U238) is a minor radiological hazard. It's dangerous if inhaled or if you held a chunk of it against bare skin for a very extended period of time (clothes and even paper can block the alpha particles which travel only a few inches, anyways). Inhalation is generally unlikely unless in combat as the DU dust settles out almost instantly (heavy). Uranium 238 dust can be created from a shell shattering on a very hard surface like DU reinforced armor or hardened cement. Generally, though, DU shells can be found intact in most cases. Most everything else is softer so it just punches right through and keeps on going.

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

He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man.

---General Norman Schwarzkopf

[GostHacked]

It's still just a property crime....please rework the analogy to include first degree homicide.

What is this continuing obesssion with Saudi's....the Americans were strangling Iraq for years...not Saudis. Do you think the PNAC got it wrong? Hell, the Panamanians and Haitians didn't hijack anything!

Stop working with a premise that you know is bogus to begin with.

They came from all over the world. I don't wonder where Gerald Bull came from.

What is Bush's obsession with 'freedom' ? Is it bogus that none of the hijackers were Iraqi?? Or is it bogus I keep pointing out those facts to you? Or am I bogus. Who even uses the term bogus anymore? The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. I was wrong to include Pakistanis in that list. OH NO I WAS WRONG!!!!! But yet

Ira(q) and al(q)eda was the only link Bush could have ever made.

They came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Hmmm...

OK, what about Gerald Bull. Please tell me all about him. No, not googlin him, you tell me BC, you tell me everything I want to know. Go ahead, the thread is all yours now.

It was a crime in how the investigations of 9/11 happened. Plain and simple.

One lie on another lie on another lie... this is where we get a person like BC. Sure he wants to tell us the PNAC is underway. So we know for sure that there was never any link, and the US invaded for resources and to be in control of the area. I beleive they call it FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. But that FSD comes under the ruse and the lie that is the War on Terror. And the idiotic population eats it all up, because they do not know the truth.

No one can possibly take anything you say at face value anymore BC. You support the lies to the means end. You support more deceit and lies but say 'that is just the way it's always been... oh and blame canada while you are at it.' Because we know you cannot stand up for yourself, you are so apologetic to the status quo it makes other posters nauseated. Again, you represent what is wrong with America.

Yes the FBI director knows more than all of us, and this is the reason why you don't find on the FBI most wanted list the 9/11 reasons for wanting Bin Laden. Maybe it is because they have no definate proof, and to this day they do not have any definate proof against Bin Laden in regards to 9/11. If they did, it would be presented already and shown to the world, and blasted from the rooftops. But we don't see that happening.

Bush before 9/11 said he never really thought about Bin Laden. Can't blame the Clinton's for that if good ol unCurious George did not really care about it untill it was too late.

So sad.

[DogOnPorch]

Most folks are familiar with Gerald Bull. At least somewhat, anyways...

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

We were trying to measure everything to the top of the atmosphere, which we labeled as a nominal two hundred kilometers.

---Dr Gerald Bull

[bush_cheney2004]

What is Bush's obsession with 'freedom' ? Is it bogus that none of the hijackers were Iraqi?? Or is it bogus I keep pointing out those facts to you? Or am I bogus. Who even uses the term bogus anymore? The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. I was wrong to include Pakistanis in that list. OH NO I WAS WRONG!!!!! But yet

That's OK..you are often wrong. That's why the rest of us are here to pick up the slack.

Ira(q) and al(q)eda was the only link Bush could have ever made.

They came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Hmmm...

So what? It was Saddam's tits that needed sqeezin' regardless of 9/11.

OK, what about Gerald Bull. Please tell me all about him. No, not googlin him, you tell me BC, you tell me everything I want to know. Go ahead, the thread is all yours now.

You don't want to know anything about Bull, except why I would invoke his legacy to illustrate the contributions to Saddam from many different nationals. So should the US attack Canada too (using your logic)?

G. Bull has already been covered in previous threads. And yes....he was...gulp...Canadian.

It was a crime in how the investigations of 9/11 happened. Plain and simple.

Then please call the RCMP and FBI at once with your evidence. They would love to hear about it

One lie on another lie on another lie... this is where we get a person like BC. Sure he wants to tell us the PNAC is underway. So we know for sure that there was never any link, and the US invaded for resources and to be in control of the area. I beleive they call it FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. But that FSD comes under the ruse and the lie that is the War on Terror. And the idiotic population eats it all up, because they do not know the truth.

Actually the deal with Iraq was many years in the making...you remember...don't you? Even Canada participated in the beat down.

No one can possibly take anything you say at face value anymore BC. You support the lies to the means end. You support more deceit and lies but say 'that is just the way it's always been... oh and blame canada while you are at it.' Because we know you cannot stand up for yourself, you are so apologetic to the status quo it makes other posters nauseated. Again, you represent what is wrong with America.

No, I represent that which has made the United States lone economic and military superpower. You empire has fallen.

Yes the FBI director knows more than all of us, and this is the reason why you don't find on the FBI most wanted list the 9/11 reasons for wanting Bin Laden. Maybe it is because they have no definate proof, and to this day they do not have any definate proof against Bin Laden in regards to 9/11. If they did, it would be presented already and shown to the world, and blasted from the rooftops. But we don't see that happening.

Now you are chasing your tail...why would any "evidence" be presented if not accepted by the "world" anyway? That's why navel gazers like you are irrelevant in the end. Reality has passed your moral sanctimony by, and will continue to do so.

Bush before 9/11 said he never really thought about Bin Laden. Can't blame the Clinton's for that if good ol unCurious George did not really care about it untill it was too late.

So sad.

So sad? Did you know that they put cute puppies in decompression chambers too?

[Guest American Woman]

The US did provide Saddam some precursors...but that wasn't their intended use (chemical weapons)...they were intended for insecticide and herbicide production.

I'm guessing the only thing they were intended for was a profit for the corporations doing the selling.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm guessing the only thing they were intended for was a profit for the corporations doing the selling.

Nothing wrong with that....whether it be herbicides or Napalm, eh!

[DogOnPorch]

I'm guessing the only thing they were intended for was a profit for the corporations doing the selling.

Pretty much. As their intended use was domestic...and apparently peaceful...they wouldn't have violated any sanctions, either is my guess.

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

Many crops have key pests, the control of which is essential for the production of the crop. Controls employed for such key pests form the foundation for the crop's management system around which all other control decisions must be coordinated.

---Roy van Dreisch and Thomas Bellows

[M.Dancer]

This thread contains aluminium, which studies link to dementia....

[segnosaur]

The most wanted terrorist on the FBI's wanted list is Usama Bin Laden. However, he is not facing any charges relating to the September 11th attacks.

And what exactly is your point?

There are a number of issues at work here...

First of all, you are assuming that the FBI list is both correct and comprehensive with regards to who is 'dangerous' and what they are under suspicion for (as well as the exact evidence against them.) There have been many statements by the FBI that indicate that they believe that bin Laden was involved in 9/11, but until there are actual legal charges, they don't want to update the poster. Not charging someone doesn't mean they don't have evidence.. they just don't want to (or need to) charge him for it at this point in time.

Secondly, Bin Laden was already wanted for other terrorist attacks... what exactly would be the need to charge him for the 9/11 attacks until they actually have him in custody? Not like its going to change his status and/or the way he's looked at. (This would rather be like digging up the corpse of Ted Bundy just to electrocute him again...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6082700687.html

Really... what exactly do you think is the relevance of your opening post? Do you think there is a conspiracy, and/or that bin Laden is innocent? Don't you think that if there was some sort of vast powerful conspiracy to falsely blame bin Laden that it would be strange that they'd overlook some little detail like updating the FBI most wanted list?

[segnosaur]

Creative terminology aside, everybody must have noticed how the interest of Bush's administration in apprehension of OBL has so dramatically diminished of late.

Perhaps because Bin Convenient isn't so much any more.

Or a much more likely scenario... the failure to capture Bin Laden is viewed by the public as a failure. (The failure to capture him is understandable, given the lack of U.S. influence in that area as well as the region's topology... however, perception is important.) Because they failed to capture him, they want to downplay their failure, regardless of how guilty he really is.

Keep in mind they have invaded Iraq who had sweet dick all to do with 911.

True. Never mind the fact that Iraq had been involved with other terrorist organizations other than al-Qaeda.

However, please point to me where the Bush administration has stated that Saddam was involved (at least once al Qaeda was properly identified as the culprit.) Granted, many in the U.S. mistakenly assume Saddam was involved with 9/11 (and the government may have made use of people's misconceptions), but where exactly did they say "Saddam did 9/11"?

Keep in mind they are now threatening Iran who also has sweet dick all to do with 911.

And where did they say they did have something to do with 9/11?

Really, there are other problems and threats in the world other than al Qaeda. Many people don't like the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocratic dictatorship who has declared open hostility to Israel, regardless of their involvement with one particular terrorist group.

Also, keep in mind that we all are occupying Afghanistan - who really had sweet dick all to do with 911.

Uhhh... no.

The Taliban (you know, the previous rulers of Afghanistan) allowed al Qaeda (you know, the group that has actually admitted to being behind 9/11) to establish bases in the area. Sounds to me that they Afghanistan certainly did have something to do with 9/11.

[Guest American Woman]

...Bin Laden was already wanted for other terrorist attacks... what exactly would be the need to charge him for the 9/11 attacks until they actually have him in custody? Not like its going to change his status and/or the way he's looked at. (This would rather be like digging up the corpse of Ted Bundy just to electrocute him again...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6082700687.html

Really... what exactly do you think is the relevance of your opening post? Do you think there is a conspiracy, and/or that bin Laden is innocent? Don't you think that if there was some sort of vast powerful conspiracy to falsely blame bin Laden that it would be strange that they'd overlook some little detail like updating the FBI most wanted list?

They didn't "overlook" updating the FBI most wanted list. The FBI says there's not enough hard evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11. Yet we went to war in order to "smoke him out of his cave" and get him "dead or alive" because of 9-11. As you pointed out, he was already wanted for other terrorist attacks, yet we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan in order to get him.

So there is a lot of relevance to the opening post-- we started a war in Afghanistan to get bin Laden for 9-11 when there isn't even enough hard evidence to charge him for the crime. Don't you think there's something wrong with the idea that there was enough evidence to go to war but not enough to charge him with the crime we were going to war over?