Anoiktos
10-12-2007, 3:35 PM
Fans of the Zeitgeist thread may get a kick out of this, though it doesn't actually have any solid correllation either way:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “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.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Now, this is sensationalist reporting, and certainly biased; gut judgments like "It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure." are placed in these articles to make one feel those same things. Nevertheless, the statement by an FBI publicity director that “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.” is interesting. As well many of us know, many of the hijackers (most, it is thought) came from Saudi Arabia, and not Afghanistan. The reason we attacked Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, and the reason we thought Bin Laden had anything to do with this was a grainy video the U.S. received admitting culpability for it. Tie this in to Bin Laden's family ties to Bushs', the Saudi oil ties to our country, etc, and you have a massive conspiracy theory that's already been written waiting for additional proof.
That, however, is not what I'm here to talk about. I don't care about conspiracy theories because they're difficult enough to prove and require enough speculation to tie together that they're like toothpick towers - they're really hard to pick up without the rest falling down, and I personally have had enough of picking up the remains of that sort of thing. So:
What are your opinions about the responsibility of a government to verify its facts before invading a country? To listen to its intelligence services? This can be a pointless thread debating the whys and hows or a conspiracy theory, but that's totally useless, and we already have Zeitgeist to do that in (and to show its uselessness). I'm asking for your opinion about how responsible a government should be in prosecuting and invading other countries for perceived, alleged, and confessed threats, and how the variable of terrorism should be seen in those respects (ex: should we trust a terrorist who tells us he's done something?).
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “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.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Now, this is sensationalist reporting, and certainly biased; gut judgments like "It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure." are placed in these articles to make one feel those same things. Nevertheless, the statement by an FBI publicity director that “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.” is interesting. As well many of us know, many of the hijackers (most, it is thought) came from Saudi Arabia, and not Afghanistan. The reason we attacked Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, and the reason we thought Bin Laden had anything to do with this was a grainy video the U.S. received admitting culpability for it. Tie this in to Bin Laden's family ties to Bushs', the Saudi oil ties to our country, etc, and you have a massive conspiracy theory that's already been written waiting for additional proof.
That, however, is not what I'm here to talk about. I don't care about conspiracy theories because they're difficult enough to prove and require enough speculation to tie together that they're like toothpick towers - they're really hard to pick up without the rest falling down, and I personally have had enough of picking up the remains of that sort of thing. So:
What are your opinions about the responsibility of a government to verify its facts before invading a country? To listen to its intelligence services? This can be a pointless thread debating the whys and hows or a conspiracy theory, but that's totally useless, and we already have Zeitgeist to do that in (and to show its uselessness). I'm asking for your opinion about how responsible a government should be in prosecuting and invading other countries for perceived, alleged, and confessed threats, and how the variable of terrorism should be seen in those respects (ex: should we trust a terrorist who tells us he's done something?).