We have given up looking for BinLaden

[Northgate]

It's a sad sad day. The mastermind of 9/11, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and bombing of the embassy in Africa is a free man. Why? Because we've stopped "smoking him out" and finding him "dead or alive".

How is it we've become so incompetent? We used to be the greatest nation on the planet. We had access to the very best surveillance equipment. We had the best trained shadow ops.

And now we can't find a six foot Muslim tethered to a dialysis machine.

Sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's a sad sad day. The mastermind of 9/11, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and bombing of the embassy in Africa is a free man. Why? Because we've stopped "smoking him out" and finding him "dead or alive".

How is it we've become so incompetent? We used to be the greatest nation on the planet. We had access to the very best surveillance equipment. We had the best trained shadow ops.

And now we can't find a six foot Muslim tethered to a dialysis machine.

Sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Could it be Bush!

Well that and capturing BL was low on his priorities list.;)


Saddam was much more important!:lol:

[Aurora]

Bush said he would get this guy, anyone surprised? He wanted Saddam and the administration spun Saddam as = to Bin Laden. So here we are in Iraq:rolleyes: and Bin Laden is free. Bush's policys all suck but it took a few yrs of a blind republican congress for me to figure this out. I have disowned the republican party.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Aurora
Bush said he would get this guy, anyone surprised? He wanted Saddam and the administration spun Saddam as = to Bin Laden. So here we are in Iraq:rolleyes: and Bin Laden is free. Bush's policys all suck but it took a few yrs of a blind republican congress for me to figure this out. I have disowned the republican party.

Well it's all unfolding like I thought it would it's just taking longer.

I am surprised it took so long for people to wise up to this guy.

That's why I say I don't hate the republicans ( I have friends who do however ) but we must wipe the slate clean this time. The only viable way right now is democrats.
Much as the conservatives say that can't happen. It can!

I have all the confidence in the world that Dubbya will continue to embarass the republican party ( at our expense unfortunately ).

Even then it's going to take a long time to undo the damage that Bush has done.

[Placebo]

It's entirely possible that this is a ploy to make al Qaida let its guard down.

[groverat]

Thread title, then...
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

Yeah... I think the thread title is a bit of an exaggeration.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Placebo
It's entirely possible that this is a ploy to make al Qaida let its guard down.


:lol:

[Placebo]

Originally posted by jimmac
:lol:
Nice counter-argument. I can see why you always win when you argue with SDW.

[sammi jo]

From a neocon source: (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601090808.asp)

From a federal law enforcement source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/17/attack/main515468.shtml)

Perhaps killed in an earthquake? (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4919.asp)

And from another conservative source: (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/17/64243.shtml?s=et)

and so on.....

Maybe the CIA knows something that we the public don't. Isn't that part of their mission anyway? Why waste all that money on hunting for a dead guy?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Placebo
It's entirely possible that this is a ploy to make al Qaida let its guard down. GOD DAMMIT Placebo! You're just as bad as the NY Times!

[giant]

Originally posted by Placebo
It's entirely possible that this is a ploy to make al Qaida let its guard down.
The FBI special agent in charge of one of the country's largest counter-terrorism units told me last summer that he believes the administration knows exactly where bin laden is and isn't going after him for political and strategic reasons. :\

[tonton]

Of course the government knows he's dead. But they need still need the Bogeyman to scare the people into protectionism, so they just don't tell anyone.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by giant
The FBI special agent in charge of one of the country\'s largest counter-terrorism units told me last summer that he believes the administration knows exactly where bin laden is and isn\'t going after him for political and strategic reasons. :\\


Al-Qaeda was created by the Pakistanis as a counterweight to the Islamic Iranian Revolution of Khomeini. There\'s an internal war within Shiite Islam, with the two contending forces being Najaf (Iraqi, traditional) the Qom (Iranian, heretical, theocratic). Tehran fears ideological enemies inspired either by democracy and by the Ayatollah Sistani’s (Najaf) view of the world, which is that civil society should be governed by politicians, not Mullahs. Iran is therefore cooperating with, and sheltering Al-Qaeda in Iran, in a common cause against the Shi\'a in Iraq.

My guess is that the second front (against Iran) will wait on four key things:
1) The strengthening of the Iraqi government.
2) The rebuild of intel and covert capabilities.
3) The elections in 2006 and 2008.
4) UN diplomacy to play itself towards its dead-end course.

[hardeeharhar]

You realize that makes no sense.

And is patently false (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm).

[thuh Freak]

Cut and run?

[Carson O'Genic]

I don't believe this, but since some of are in a conspiracy mode.

I give you...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060703/ap_on_re_eu/iraq_al_zarqawi

"The woman, identified by La Repubblica as al-Zarqawi's first wife, said al-Qaida's top leadership reached a deal with U.S. intelligence because al-Zarqawi had become too powerful...'I think a secret pact was struck whose immediate goal was his death," she told the newspaper. "In return, the American troops promised to ease, at least momentarily, their hunt for bin Laden.' "

Bon appetite

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You realize that makes no sense.

And is patently false (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm).


Al-Qaeda was created by the Pakistani Secret Service. The BBC is garbage.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Al-Qaeda was created by the Pakistani Secret Service. The BBC is garbage.

And you are a Soviet Spy caught behind American borders after the wall fell, so what?

[segovius]

There is no such thing as al-Qaeda.

The name refers to the institution that ran refugee camps in Afghanistan to which Arab fighters would come to train during the Soviet occupation. These were financed in part by the US jointly with Pakistan but they were not jihadi, terrorist or anything other than camps for mujahidin.

Some of the fighters passing through became radicalized - under the influence of foreign Arab Saudi extremists - and some joined bin Laden's outfit which was not called al-Qaeda but the "International Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders" or sometimes "the Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites".

However, bin Laden does seem to have started using the name after 911 - that is to say, the US started some fictitious propagandizing and instead of fighting it, bin Laden bought into it and let the US spread the fear which they could do far more effectively with their media resources than he could.

Similarly Zarqawi used the same tactic in Iraq when he accepted the 'al Qaeda' label. In reality his group did not have this name at all and had no affiliation with bin Laden.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
There is no such thing as al-Qaeda.

The name refers to the institution that ran refugee camps in Afghanistan to which Arab fighters would come to train during the Soviet occupation. These were financed in part by the US jointly with Pakistan but they were not jihadi, terrorist or anything other than camps for mujahidin.

Some of the fighters passing through became radicalized - under the influence of foreign Arab Saudi extremists - and some joined bin Laden\'s outfit which was not called al-Qaeda but the \"International Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders\" or sometimes \"the Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites\".

However, bin Laden does seem to have started using the name after 911 - that is to say, the US started some fictitious propagandizing and instead of fighting it, bin Laden bought into it and let the US spread the fear which they could do far more effectively with their media resources than he could.

Similarly Zarqawi used the same tactic in Iraq when he accepted the \'al Qaeda\' label. In reality his group did not have this name at all and had no affiliation with bin Laden.


Do you have a job, other than trying to bamboozle people on this forum?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Do you have a job, other than trying to bamboozle people on this forum?


Let's talk about if you have a job. Other than pulling people's chains on this forum?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Placebo
Nice counter-argument. I can see why you always win when you argue with SDW.


Surely you're not serious?

I thought you were kidding.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Let\'s talk about if you have a job. Other than pulling people\'s chains on this forum?

Hint: That\'s not all I pull. Now let\'s see if you can figure it out.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Hint: That\'s not all I pull. Now let\'s see if you can figure it out.

Not so difficult to figure what you're pulling - from the quality and quantity of your posts here you're clearly a mass-debater.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Hint: That\'s not all I pull. Now let\'s see if you can figure it out.


Well to be honest you sound really young.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Well to be honest you sound really young.

Hmm. I\'m old enough. :smokey:

[New]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Hint: That\'s not all I pull. Now let\'s see if you can figure it out.

uh-hu... That sounds really reassuring... :rolleyes:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Hmm. I\'m old enough. :smokey:

That's a matter of perspective.;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
That\'s a matter of perspective.;)

Don\'t be such an old pooch. :)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Don\'t be such an old pooch. :)


Then don't pretend to be more than you are.;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Then don\'t pretend to be more than you are.;)

By seeming to be a \"young jerk\"? ;)

[New]

write a sentence and end with a ;)

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Hint: That\'s not all I pull. Now let\'s see if you can figure it out.

A train? OMG, you're a bored prostituted who posts between gang bangs?

Wait....... during gang bangs!?

Of course! That explains your tone of jaded despair sublimated by into pointless contentiousness!

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
A train? OMG, you\'re a bored prostituted who posts between gang bangs?

Wait....... during gang bangs!?

Of course! That explains your tone of jaded despair sublimated by into pointless contentiousness!

.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius
Not so difficult to figure what you're pulling - from the quality and quantity of your posts here you're clearly a mass-debater.

LOL :lol:

You boys are something else

[Placebo]

Originally posted by jimmac
Surely you're not serious?

I thought you were kidding.
The CIA heads of previous administrations have drafted plans to blow an airliner up over Cuba as an excuse to start a war, for fuck's sake.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Placebo
The CIA heads of previous administrations have drafted plans to blow an airliner up over Cuba as an excuse to start a war, for fuck's sake. [/B]

This is the oldest trick in the book, as regards rogue governments, (or criminal elements within otherwise legitimate governments). Everyone should be aware of "false flag ops" especially these days, when so many attacks attributed to 'terrorists', when examined beyond the media-government soundbites and talking points, take on a radically different set of qualities.

Here's a few wellknown examples: They can either be actual attacks, plans for attacks, or reported attacks that never even took place.

*The attacks in Iran early 1950s (Operation Ajax, joint CIA/M.I.6) to blame and subsequently overthrow the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.

*The attack on the USS Liberty (by Israel) to blame Egypt.

*The plan to attack US airliners, and blame Cuba (Northwoods).

*The recent incident involving British troops in Basra, Iraq.

*The terror attacks in the 1970s in Italy, by rightwing groups collaborating with Italian Secret Service agency, in order to blame the left.

*The burning of the Reichstag (by Nazi elements) to blame the Communists.

*The "Guy Fawkes" gunpowder plot to destroy the British Parliament as a pretext for waging war against Spain.

*Gulf of Tonkin: a non-existent "attack", widely reported in the US media, used to justify full and continued US involvement in Vietnam.

*The 1999 Moscow bombings, used as a pretext for airstrikes and war against Chechnya (the jury is still out on this one, but the details look very suspicious).

*The shooting death of UK policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in 1984, to blame Libya.

*Possibly: Pearl Harbor: 80% of the US public were against entering WW2. The P.H. attack was known in advance, and a "let it happen on purpose" policy was adopted.

Both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks follow a similar pattern.

Next time there's a large terrorist attack that follows no logical pattern, or has no common precedent, people should examine the details very carefully, because there a good chance that it is of a radically different character than what is being sold.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
This is the oldest trick in the book, as regards rogue governments, (or criminal elements within otherwise legitimate governments). Everyone should be aware of \\\"false flag ops\\\" especially these days, when so many attacks attributed to \\\'terrorists\\\', when examined beyond the media-government soundbites and talking points, take on a radically different set of qualities.

Here\\\'s a few wellknown examples: They can either be actual attacks, plans for attacks, or reported attacks that never even took place.

*The attacks in Iran early 1950s (Operation Ajax, joint CIA/M.I.6) to blame and subsequently overthrow the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.

*The attack on the USS Liberty (by Israel) to blame Egypt.

*The plan to attack US airliners, and blame Cuba (Northwoods).

*The recent incident involving British troops in Basra, Iraq.

*The terror attacks in the 1970s in Italy, by rightwing groups collaborating with Italian Secret Service agency, in order to blame the left.

*The burning of the Reichstag (by Nazi elements) to blame the Communists.

*The \\\"Guy Fawkes\\\" gunpowder plot to destroy the British Parliament as a pretext for waging war against Spain.

*Gulf of Tonkin: a non-existent \\\"attack\\\", widely reported in the US media, used to justify full and continued US involvement in Vietnam.

*The 1999 Moscow bombings, used as a pretext for airstrikes and war against Chechnya (the jury is still out on this one, but the details look very suspicious).

*The shooting death of UK policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in 1984, to blame Libya.

*Possibly: Pearl Harbor: 80% of the US public were against entering WW2. The P.H. attack was known in advance, and a \\\"let it happen on purpose\\\" policy was adopted.

Both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks follow a similar pattern.

Next time there\\\'s a large terrorist attack that follows no logical pattern, or has no common precedent, people should examine the details very carefully, because there a good chance that it is of a radically different character than what is being sold.


You do realize that this post amounts to little more than blatant slander. Is that allowed here? Mods?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
[B]You do realize that this post amounts to little more than blatant slander. Is that allowed here? Mods?

Slander against whom? (Slander is a spoken slur/insult etc.. libel is the "written" word... and there have to be names mentioned).

que? :???:

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
*The attack on the USS Liberty (by Israel) to blame Egypt.


Why did you write that?

[occam whisker]

Don\'t ran away. Answer! :mad:

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why did you write that?

Because that is what it was.

These people didn't fall off the turnip truck (http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Because that is what it was.

These people didn\'t fall off the turnip truck (http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm)

No, you f@#$@^%$.

You wrote the attack on the USS Liberty was designed to be blamed on Egypt. I want to know how anyone can reach this conclusion, when the attack was carried out in clear daylight, using clearly marked Israeli fighter jets of the Mirage III type that Egypt did not posses, and when Israel never denied that it was her planes that mistakenly attacked that ship. :mad:

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
No, you f@#$@^%$.

You wrote the attack on the USS Liberty was designed to be blamed on Egypt. I want to know how anyone can reach this conclusion, when the attack was carried out in clear daylight, using clearly marked Israeli fighter jets of the Mirage III type that Egypt did not posses, and when Israel never denied that it was her planes that mistakenly attacked that ship. :mad:

You really don't have to blow fuses over this. Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. American survivors of the attack unanimously assert that the Israeli aircraft were unmarked. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Had that been t true, there would have been no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The most likely reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.

Retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know: he spent one year investigating this matter with an independent panel of huigh ranking military officials, and he agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf.

(Incidentally, did you not know that on the same day the USS Liberty was attacked, just thirteen miles away in El-Arish, the Israelis were murdering hundreds of Egyptian POWs.)

Something makes me think that you have bought into the popular notion (read wacky conspiracy theory) that all the world's villains and terrorists are Arabs/Muslims etc , while the Judeo-Christian world is by default lilywhite, haloed and incapable of hurting a fly.

It's really difficult to find a link that you won't slam as being "anti-Israel" etc. So here's the WIKI entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_USS_Liberty)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
You really don\\\\\\\'t have to blow fuses over this. Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel\\\\\\\'s story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Had that been t true, there would have been no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The most likely reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.

Retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know: he spent one year investigating this matter with an independent panel of huigh ranking military officials, and he agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel\\\\\\\'s behalf.

(Incidentally, did you not know that on the same day the USS Liberty was attacked, just thirteen miles away in El-Arish, the Israelis were murdering hundreds of Egyptian POWs.)


Israel used napalm and machine guns to attack the ship. Machine guns are used to force a ship\'s company into cover, keeping them from manning the deck stations, and to doing damage to controls topside. Machine guns are ineffective for doing real damage to a steel-hulled ship--other than starting fires in combustibles. Same with napalm.

Israeli aircraft were easily marked as Israeli by the fact that only they possesed them. Egypt did not have Mirage III fighters. And when the ship was confirmed to have been American 3 hours later, Israel informed the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv about the incident.

You know all of this, and you still wrote your slanderous crap. :mad:

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why did you write that?

Because it's true and people should know I'd hazard a guess.....

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Because it\'s true and people should know I\'d hazard a guess.....

No. It\'s demonstrably false. That\'s why the complaint of slander.

[addabox]

Well, anywho, your idea that "slandering" Israel is something that out to be prohibited or get modded is a non-starter.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
No. It\'s demonstrably false. That\'s why the complaint of slander. [/B]

Take it up with the crew of the USS Liberty and the bereaved family members who were killed.

Anyway, for what other reasons, (than to get the US into the war) would the Israeli Air Force attack a US Navy ship, an esaily identifable target, during the daytime, in plain sight, flying the US flag? That Israeli excuse about "misidentifying the ship as an Egyptian grain carrier" is completely implausible, especially when you look at pictures of the two vessels.

The fact that the NSA has yet to declassify large volumes of USS Liberty documentation suggests that some folk still want to keep the facts away from the US public. This was an American ship, for chrissakes, and American service people were killed for no reason. Who is in control here?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Take it up with the crew of the USS Liberty and the bereaved family members who were killed.

Anyway, for what other reasons, (than to get the US into the war) would the Israeli Air Force attack a US Navy ship, an esaily identifable target, during the daytime, in plain sight, flying the US flag? That Israeli excuse about \"misidentifying the ship as an Egyptian grain carrier\" is completely implausible, especially when you look at pictures of the two vessels.

The fact that the NSA has yet to declassify large volumes of USS Liberty documentation suggests that some folk still want to keep the facts away from the US public. This was an American ship, for chrissakes, and American service people were killed for no reason. Who is in control here?


Classified documentation on the USS Liberty has everything to do with the fact that it was a spy ship.

A fighter pilot wouldn\'t know one ship from another. If a ship is not one of yours and you\'re told that all other ships are out of the area, then it\'s reasonable to assume that the ship that is there is that of the enemy. The US assured the Israelis that there were no US ships in the area. That\'s what the Israeli pilots had to go by.

You know all of this, and you continue with your fictional narrative so you can malign Israel. :mad:

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
Well, anywho, your idea that \"slandering\" Israel is something that out to be prohibited or get modded is a non-starter.


The problem is that these characters know the facts very well, and continue to ignore the facts so they can spread their malicious fictional narratives and propaganda. This seems to me as a pretty slimy tactic to malign others, and they should be called on it.

This guy Segovius, calls a British political party he doesn\'t like Racist, and then when I ask him what is it about the policy of that political party that he finds Racist, he turns around and asks me what do I mean by the term Racist. It\'s a f$^%$ joke.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Classified documentation on the USS Liberty has everything to do with the fact that it was a spy ship.

So classified that you have seen and verified it? :rolleyes:

A fighter pilot wouldn\'t know one ship from another. If a ship is not one of yours and you\'re told that all other ships are out of the area, then it\'s reasonable to assume that the ship that is there is that of the enemy. The US assured the Israelis that there were no US ships in the area. That\'s what the Israeli pilots had to go by.

Oh really now? Fighter pilots are by nature pretty observant. They have to be (!). That ship was flying a US flag, and had its name painted in 18inch letters on its stern, in English (not Arabic). Americans claim the thirteen closer flybys of the previous two days should have been sufficient for identification. Israel itself acknowledged the ship had been identified as American and neutral the previous day. Not only was the USS Liberty in international waters, but also, being previously identified as a US Navy ship, she obviously posed no threat to Israel.

You know all of this, and you continue with your fictional narrative so you can malign Israel. :mad:

What is your problem with this? Virtually all the evidence points to some variety of false flag op on the part of Israel. This incident does have a precedent; despite happening during the British Mandate in Palestine (before Israel was formally recognized as a state), it does have significance:

From the wiki entry: Response from the British House of Commons:

"On 22 July 22 1946, one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history took place. We refer to the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters. The attack was made on 22 July at about 12 o'clock noon when offices are usually in full swing. The attackers, disguised as Arabs, carried the explosives in milk containers, placed them in the basement of the Hotel and ran away.

The terrorists who bombed the hotel, using 800lbs of high explosives, belonged to the Irgun (Zionist) group. Two of its former members David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin subsequently became Israeli prime ministers.

"Nice". :no: :(

[vinea]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why did you write that?

Because some folks are conspiracists that get a kick out of pissing people like you off. Or they are just plain loons which may amount to the same thing sans the premeditation.

I argue with nutjobs occasionally but never seriously. If you get annoyed, they win.

Regarding the USS Liberty, shit happens in a war zone. Blue on Blue or even Blue on Green. The Isreali's are competent so we assume that any attack on their part is premeditated. Likewise the US is competent so the Chinese assume that any attack is premeditated. But shit happens and people don't get the word or something slips through the cracks that in hindsight is glaringly obvious (like where an embassy might be).

Vinea

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
By seeming to be a \"young jerk\"? ;)


If the shoe fits.........:p

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You do realize that this post amounts to little more than blatant slander. Is that allowed here? Mods?


:lol:

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by vinea
Because some folks are conspiracists that get a kick out of pissing people like you off. Or they are just plain loons which may amount to the same thing sans the premeditation.

I argue with nutjobs occasionally but never seriously. If you get annoyed, they win.

There are nutjobs on both side of the fence. The people who posit explanations for events that violate the laws of nature are nutjobs, and the people who believe them are NUTJOBS

Regarding the USS Liberty, shit happens in a war zone. Blue on Blue or even Blue on Green. The Isreali's are competent so we assume that any attack on their part is premeditated. Likewise the US is competent so the Chinese assume that any attack is premeditated. But shit happens and people don't get the word or something slips through the cracks that in hindsight is glaringly obvious (like where an embassy might be).

Vinea

Of course shit happens in a war zone. Unfortunately, some parties are allowed to get away with making shit happen on a permanent basis, while others get bombed into the Stone Age on the basis of lies.

[vinea]

Originally posted by sammi jo
There are nutjobs on both side of the fence. The people who posit explanations for events that violate the laws of nature are nutjobs, and the people who believe them are [b]NUTJOBS


Riiight...because it doesn't violate the "laws of nature" that folks can wire TWO 110 story sky scrapers for demolition without anyone noticing and asking "why are you strapping explosives and cutting up structural members in my building?".

Each floor is 3.2 million pounds. Once the pancaking started in earnest you get pretty close to freefall in the latter stages. Pretty close to freefall is what you got but its relative. The struture was moving slower at the beginning stages of collapse and accelerated to near free-fall speed. The supportive elements of any single floor provides little enough resistance given the momentum of the upper floors since you're exceeding design loads by an order of magnitude or more. The time difference vs free fall is pretty close in absolute terms (i.e. measured in seconds) but percentage wise represents 20-30% of the time involved (9 seconds vs 14-16 seconds).

There are several computer models that show collapse at the observed speed and reviewed by actual engineers and scientists beyond the high school physics of "free fall speed" caculations found on nutjob conspiracy sites. And yes, there are peer-reviewed papers on the topic (the collapse).

If there IS some kind of conspiracy or cover up of something its nutjobs like you that obscures what it might be.

Vinea

[segovius]

Originally posted by vinea
If there IS some kind of conspiracy or cover up of something its nutjobs like you that obscures what it might be.

The point is that we don;t know what happened. It's just that some iof us are open-minded and some are bran-washed sheep.

This is not a normal state of affairs but we are not in normal times. We have 'leaders' who want to control and brainwash the populace for their own maniacal ends.

Some people welcome that.
Some people just swallow any BS they spew out.
Some see through it and believe our 'leaders' really are capable of any form of depravity.

It really is that simple.

[vinea]

Originally posted by segovius
The point is that we don;t know what happened. It's just that some iof us are open-minded and some are bran-washed sheep.

This is not a normal state of affairs but we are not in normal times. We have 'leaders' who want to control and brainwash the populace for their own maniacal ends.

Some people welcome that.
Some people just swallow any BS they spew out.
Some see through it and believe our 'leaders' really are capable of any form of depravity.

It really is that simple.

While one should never underestimate an "enemy" one should also not grant them God-like murphy proof powers. A conspiracy on the level that you are talking about dwarfs something as minor as Watergate.

If they were remotely capable of 1/10th the capability nutjobs credit the government with it would be the most efficent human endeavor ever.

And its attributed to the US Government.

Riiiight. And you want to call other people sheep?

While I do not agree with the Bush Administration or particularly like them as a whole to equate what they do to "depravity" and presume some "maniacal end" removes you from the "reasonable" realm and into the "nutjob" realm.

I have every expectation of a peaceful transfer of power in 2008. Possibly to a Democrat President. Possibly to a Republican one. Either way, neither likely to depraved or maniacal except to paranoid nutjobs.

Vinea

[segovius]

Originally posted by vinea
While I do not agree with the Bush Administration or particularly like them as a whole to equate what they do to "depravity" and presume some "maniacal end" removes you from the "reasonable" realm and into the "nutjob" realm.

Given my assessment of your own categorization in this area I can feel nothing but relief that you would say this.

:D

[Placebo]

Originally posted by sammi jo
This is the oldest trick in the book, as regards rogue governments, (or criminal elements within otherwise legitimate governments). Everyone should be aware of "false flag ops" especially these days, when so many attacks attributed to 'terrorists', when examined beyond the media-government soundbites and talking points, take on a radically different set of qualities.

Here's a few wellknown examples: They can either be actual attacks, plans for attacks, or reported attacks that never even took place.

*The attacks in Iran early 1950s (Operation Ajax, joint CIA/M.I.6) to blame and subsequently overthrow the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.

*The attack on the USS Liberty (by Israel) to blame Egypt.

*The plan to attack US airliners, and blame Cuba (Northwoods).

*The recent incident involving British troops in Basra, Iraq.

*The terror attacks in the 1970s in Italy, by rightwing groups collaborating with Italian Secret Service agency, in order to blame the left.

*The burning of the Reichstag (by Nazi elements) to blame the Communists.

*The "Guy Fawkes" gunpowder plot to destroy the British Parliament as a pretext for waging war against Spain.

*Gulf of Tonkin: a non-existent "attack", widely reported in the US media, used to justify full and continued US involvement in Vietnam.

*The 1999 Moscow bombings, used as a pretext for airstrikes and war against Chechnya (the jury is still out on this one, but the details look very suspicious).

*The shooting death of UK policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in 1984, to blame Libya.

*Possibly: Pearl Harbor: 80% of the US public were against entering WW2. The P.H. attack was known in advance, and a "let it happen on purpose" policy was adopted.

Both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks follow a similar pattern.

Next time there's a large terrorist attack that follows no logical pattern, or has no common precedent, people should examine the details very carefully, because there a good chance that it is of a radically different character than what is being sold.
So why does it seem so unbelievable to you that the administration might publically announce that they don't give a shit whether Bin Laden is captured (provided that they actually do want to capture him, and he isn't dead, etc) as a way of luring him out of hiding?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Placebo
So why does it seem so unbelievable to you that the administration might publically announce that they don't give a shit whether Bin Laden is captured (provided that they actually do want to capture him, and he isn't dead, etc) as a way of luring him out of hiding?

OBL, if he was in those locations in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in the weeks and months after 9-11, how come he "got away" no less than 4 times from the worlds most sophisticated military with the worlds most advanced tracking and surveillance technology?
What exactly *are* the links between 9-11 and Osama bin Laden anyway?
¶In the wake of the attacks, he twice denied responsibility for 9-11. It is also verboten in Islamic law to kill (civilian) women and children.
¶According to the CIA, there is no connection between the funding of the attacks and Osama bin Laden's personal wealth.
¶The videotape "found" by US Marines in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, used by the Bush Administration to pin the blame on Osama bin Laden for the 9-11 attacks showed "bin Laden" as a right-handed, thickset man with a broad face wearing gold jewelry, speaking in a dialect not spoken by OBL. The real OBL is a left-handed, skinny, narrow faced fundamentalist whose religion forbids him to wear jewelry.
¶In June 2001, OBL was in Dubai having kidney dialysis and was visited by CIA agents who arrived on a US Navy helicopter.He was neither arrested, nor detained, despite beiung n the FBI's most wanted list.
¶On the night before the 9-11 attacks, Osama bin Laden was receiving kidney dialysis treatment in a hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. This hispital is attached to a military facility housing US military and intelligence personnel and which [b]reports to Washington DC on a daily basis[/i]

The US government probably knows OBL's location, to the square foot. If he was on the FBI's most wanted list for the bombing of the USS Cole and two embassies in Africa, and he was in two known hospital locations hooked up to a kidney machine for hours why was he neither arrested, nor charged with any crime, nor taken into custody? He had (has?) been a longtern CIA asset, and it appears as though he is either already dead or being protected.

The story we are being sold is nice and easily digestible, but garbage. I don't buy any of it.

[Northgate]

I don't buy any of it either.

[jimmac]

I don't either.

OSBL has been a useful tool.

Intended or not.

[sammi jo]

And to add to the list in previous post, I forgot the most telling one: Just go to the FBI's website, where you will find
Osama (Usama) bin Laden's entry (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm) in the list of the top 10 most wanted fugitives. There is no mention of the September 11 attacks, despite the relentless promotion of OBL's "responsibility" for the attacks by the US Government and their mainstream weasel-media propaganda outlets.