What really happened Osama bin Laden

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

profitius wrote: »

How do you know for sure the Americans knew 100% that Bin Laden was dead? And its something that they could have been planning for year.

I think you just undermined your own argument.

33

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not only successor but major political opponent in terms of party.

It'd be akin to Sinn Féin giving credit to the DUP for their own successes.

Never heard of skull and bones so?, kerry and bush both members, both fought an election, yet their ultimate allegiance was to this secret society, not republicans or democrats, they are all the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E

This would be closer to the actual truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nt0Tf9rF0

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So Bush, instead of making himself a hero by staging exactly this coup, said to himself: "you know what, my reputation is in tatters and the US hates me. But I won't bother doing that thing where we pretend that we have killed (the already dead) bin Laden - I'll leave that to my successor instead".

What was it about Bush that convinces you that he is such an honourable, uncorruptible and selfless guy?

Bush's reputation was in such a mess that his handlers probably figured that no amount of spin or fabrications or publicity stunts would elevate his standing. Besides, they didn't care. His term was up, they weren't going to waste time shoring up a reputation that most people just wanted forgotten. Earlier in his presidency when people were talking about how much of a thick bastard he was, his PR people made these farcical announcements that he was embarking on a huge reading spree and that he was engaged in a reading contest with Karl Rove and was just ahead of him and had read 50+ books in a few months including lots of Shakespeare, blah, blah! Do you remember that crap? Like this dolt would even pick up a book. The only book this dumb bollocks ever had in his hand was My Pet Goat (and that was upside down).

Anyway this CIA guy seems to be quite certain that OBL has been dead for years and this article was from 3 years ago:

http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2008/071008Baer.htm

This also seems quite plausible:

http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-osama-bin-laden.htm

jackiebaron

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not only successor but major political opponent in terms of party.

It'd be akin to Sinn Féin giving credit to the DUP for their own successes.

Both parties in the US are controlled by the same corporations. Don't be so naive as to believe that they are actually authentic political adversaries. They exist purely to give the illusion of democracy and choice when in effect they are merely two cheeks of the same arse.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

jackiebaron wrote: »

Bush's reputation was in such a mess that his handlers probably figured that no amount of spin or fabrications or publicity stunts would elevate his standing. Besides, they didn't care. His term was up, they weren't going to waste time shoring up a reputation that most people just wanted forgotten.

So - just to get the story straight here - Bush wasn't really in control of his staff, and couldn't have told his people to organise a phoney raid like this?

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well there are multiple possibilities. Bin Laden has been a valuable tool for the US in scaring the bejaysus out of their people. Your average slob isn't even going to entertain the possibility that his government is not telling the truth, whole truth and nothing but truth. He'll just believe what they spit out and act accordingly.

There is a possibilty that Bin Laden was killed in late 2001. But the US continued to use recycled footage of him whenever the public was getting a little too complacent and needed to be jolted back to being constantly in fear so the neocons could further their agenda of stripping away civil liberties.
Anyway they couldn't keep him alive forever (even if he was dead). Humans have a shelf life. At some stage they were going to have to stop using him as a prop to frighten Americans whether they staged his death, whether they claimed they had "credible intelligence" that he had died or whether they simply just forgot about him.
And if they had him in this compound why couldn't they just have captured him and then paraded him in front of the cameras? They could have starved him out but killed him and quickly disposed of the body.

I'm beginning to wonder if this guy even exists in the form that they say. I mean who's to say that he's not being fed and protected by the US like he was in hospital in Kuwait in May 2001 when the CIA were visiting him as he underwent kidney treatment?

Correction: Dubai.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

jackiebaron wrote: »

Both parties in the US are controlled by the same corporations.

Could you please give me the names of these corporations? I have some money that I want to protect against inflation, and being a part-owner of these corporations sounds like a good move. I might have a say in the next assassination! :pac:

fulhamfanincork

I want proof.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I want proof.

Don't we all. What would satisfy you?

Actually, photos on slide film would be good - very difficult to fake. None of this digital malarkey.

33

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

I want proof.

Yesterday I was fishing in the Atlantic Ocean and caught the biggest fish ever caught in history, I just threw it back in the water, you gotta take my word for it I'm afraid.

fulhamfanincork

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't we all. What would satisfy you?

DNA? As you say, real photos.

33

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Don't we all. What would satisfy you?

Actually, photos on slide film would be good - very difficult to fake. None of this digital malarkey.

Slides are hard to manipulate, but a manipulated high definition photograph can simply be photographed onto slide film and nobody could tell the difference.

Dave!

I don't think the US government/military will give too much of a shít that a certain % of the population won't believe them. They'll release the digital images and hopefully videos, and most people will be satisfied. Conspiracy people will spend the next few years picking apart the pictures and trying to find anomalies, like they always do, but life will go on for the rest of us and nobody who matters will pay too much attention to them. The US government has better things to be doing than indulging every conspiracy theorist that likes to kick up a fuss.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

33 wrote: »

Slides are hard to manipulate, but a manipulated high definition photograph can simply be photographed onto slide film and nobody could tell the difference.

Good point. Photoshop has ruined everything.

Oracle

Dave! wrote: »

I don't think the US government/military will give too much of a shít that a certain % of the population won't believe them. They'll release the digital images and hopefully videos, and most people will be satisfied. Conspiracy people will spend the next few years picking apart the pictures and trying to find anomalies, like they always do, but life will go on for the rest of us and nobody who matters will pay too much attention to them. The US government has better things to be doing than indulging every conspiracy theorist that likes to kick up a fuss.

Thats true, they only have to fool most of the people, most of the time .....

jackiebaron

Dave! wrote: »

I don't think the US government/military will give too much of a shít that a certain % of the population won't believe them. They'll release the digital images and hopefully videos, and most people will be satisfied. Conspiracy people will spend the next few years picking apart the pictures and trying to find anomalies, like they always do, but life will go on for the rest of us and nobody who matters will pay too much attention to them. The US government has better things to be doing than indulging every conspiracy theorist that likes to kick up a fuss.

Did you not read my links? Bin Laden has been dead since 2001. But if you're perfectly happy to have the US tell you they killed him yesterday then that's your prerogative.

BlastedGlute

He is alive and well somewhere

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What was it about Bush that convinces you that he is such an honourable, uncorruptible and selfless guy?

Jesus you really have no concept of political theatrics do you?

It's called an ace in the hole. And it's something you hold onto. Bush was at the very end of his presidency and had no reason to try and get a clean slate. The Bush admin and Obama admin are birds of a feather. There is literally no difference in policy or day to day operations regardless of discussing their left/right differences which are a charade anyway. Nothing has changed the entire process is on the same path it has been since 2001 and back.

It would have been known that Obama would have struggled to retain public trust and the vote, so right when he needs support the most, it gets used up. It's a tactical move and blinding obvious.

nullzero

He is alive and well somewhere

This whole story is so strange.

No evidence has been put forward to support the calims that Bin Laden has been killed.
He's been buried at sea almost immediately and we're yet to see any pictures.

Skeptics on this forum constantly demand evidence to support CT's, surely we deserve evidence to back this claim up?

So far from what we know the US government may as well be claiming to have killed Santa Claus.

nullzero

He is alive and well somewhere

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Jesus you really have no concept of political theatrics do you?

It's called an ace in the hole. And it's something you hold onto. Bush was at the very end of his presidency and had no reason to try and get a clean slate. The Bush admin and Obama admin are birds of a feather. There is literally no difference in policy or day to day operations regardless of discussing their left/right differences which are a charade anyway. Nothing has changed the entire process is on the same path it has been since 2001 and back.

It would have been known that Obama would have struggled to retain public trust and the vote, so right when he needs support the most, it gets used up. It's a tactical move and blinding obvious.

That's a good point.
"Birth certificate? What birth certificate? We just killed Osama".

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Jesus you really have no concept of political theatrics do you?

I could say the same about your concept of realpolitik, but I'm trying very, very hard to be polite in spite of continuous insults from people like you, so I won't.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

nullzero wrote: »

Skeptics on this forum constantly demand evidence to support CT's, surely we deserve evidence to back this claim up?.

The point has been made: no evidence of any kind would satisfy the people who believe (with zero proof, mind you) that he is dead since 2001. So why should they bother?

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

jackiebaron wrote: »

Did you not read my links? Bin Laden has been dead since 2001. But if you're perfectly happy to have the US tell you they killed him yesterday then that's your prerogative.

Jackiebaron, I notice that you haven't produced any posts where I was sneering at people, and you haven't apologised for claiming that I was sneering at people.

Can we please have the proof, or the apology?

nullzero

He is alive and well somewhere

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The point has been made: no evidence of any kind would satisfy the people who believe (with zero proof, mind you) that he is dead since 2001. So why should they bother?

What point has been made? I'm struggling to see how the above relates to my post.
What has some argument you've been having on this forum got to do with real evidence to support the claims being made today?

There is yet to be anything other than the say so of the US government to support the claim that Bin Laden was killed yesterday.
Some real evidence would be useful.

I never claimed that Bin Laden died in 2001, and if you've got some beef with a poster who said that was the case you should have the common sense to not use it as an argument against real evidence bing put forward to support the claims of Bin Laden being killed yesterday.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

nullzero wrote: »

What point has been made? I'm struggling to see how the above relates to my post.

It relates to your post thusly:

You: Where is all the evidence!!?
Me: The people who are likely to believe the US government will accept their claims with or without photos. Those who are not likely to believe the US government will not believe even with photos, videos, DNA or a signed last will and testament from OBL. So why should the US government fall over themselves to provide proof within hours?

Do you see the connection now?

Having said that, I am waiting for the proof too, and will be interested to see what form it takes.

nullzero wrote: »

What has some argument you've been having on this forum got to do with real evidence to support the claims being made today?

I've no idea.

nullzero wrote: »

There is yet to be anything other than the say so of the US government to support the claim that Bin Laden was killed yesterday.
Some real evidence would be useful.

I agree 100%.

nullzero wrote: »

I never claimed that Bin Laden died in 2001, and if you've got some beef with a poster who said that was the case you should have the common sense to not use it as an argument against real evidence bing put forward to support the claims of Bin Laden being killed yesterday.

I never said you did claim that. Why do people here always assume that you are referring to them when you refer to 'some people' or some other general term?

nullzero

He is alive and well somewhere

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It relates to your post thusly:

You: Where is all the evidence!!?
Me: The people who are likely to believe the US government will accept their claims with or without photos. Those who are not likely to believe the US government will not believe even with photos, videos, DNA or a signed last will and testament from OBL. So why should the US government fall over themselves to provide proof within hours?

Do you see the connection now?

Having said that, I am waiting for the proof too, and will be interested to see what form it takes.


I've no idea.

I agree 100%.

I never said you did claim that. Why do people here always assume that you are referring to them when you refer to 'some people' or some other general term?

Are you suggesting that the US government should refrain from releasing any hard evidence to back these claims because no amount of evidence will satiate a tiny per centage of the population?

It's not only CT enthusiats who will be asking for evidence, most people will probably find it a bit strange that these claims should be made with no evidence to back them up.

Your earlier post seemed to suggest that no proof should be given; "why should they bother?", because some people believe Bin Laden died in 2001 and therefor they've ruined everyone elses chance to see the evidence in some way.

So can we clairify things a bit....

* Do you think real evidence should be given to back up the claim that Bin Laden was killed yesterday?

* Do the public at large have as much of an interest in this major event as CTers?

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the US government should refrain from releasing any hard evidence to back these claims because no amount of evidence will satiate a tiny per centage of the population?

It seems like you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I did not say that they should not provide the evidence. I have repeatedly stated that I want to see the evidence. I did say that I can understand why the are not in a rush to churn out proof within hours.

Seriously, I despair at the standard of reading comprehension in evidence on these boards.

nullzero wrote: »

So can we clairify things a bit....

* Do you think real evidence should be given to back up the claim that Bin Laden was killed yesterday?

Of course, as I have stated several times on this thread alone - I want to see the evidence, and I am curious what it will be.

nullzero wrote: »

* Do the public at large have as much of an interest in this major event as CTers?

I've no idea - I'm not the public at large, and don't pretend to speak for them.

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Jackiebaron, I notice that you haven't produced any posts where I was sneering at people, and you haven't apologised for claiming that I was sneering at people.

Can we please have the proof, or the apology?

Why should I apologise to you? Here's one of your previous posts:

This debate won't end at all. People will ultimately believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Especially people who enjoy having 'special' or 'hidden knowledge', or who see patterns in everything.

And some people still think Elvis lives.


That little Elvis dig qualifies as a sneer in my book.

nullzero

He is alive and well somewhere

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It seems like you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I did not say that they should not provide the evidence. I have repeatedly stated that I want to see the evidence. I did say that I can understand why the are not in a rush to churn out proof within hours.

Seriously, I despair at the standard of reading comprehension in evidence on these boards.


Of course, as I have stated several times on this thread alone - I want to see the evidence, and I am curious what it will be.

I've no idea - I'm not the public at large, and don't pretend to speak for them.

Here's the link to your above post...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71993094&postcount=142

I haven't read this whole thread, I posted and you quoted me, so I replied to that post.
If you said something I missed I apologise, but from what you said in the post where you quoted me, my questions were justified.

Monty Burnz

He died years ago

jackiebaron wrote: »

That little Elvis dig qualifies as a sneer in my book.

Ok, so you can't find any actual sneering, and you won't apologise for claiming that I did.

I'll let others here make up their own minds about you.

jackiebaron

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the US government should refrain from releasing any hard evidence to back these claims because no amount of evidence will satiate a tiny per centage of the population?

It's not only CT enthusiats who will be asking for evidence, most people will probably find it a bit strange that these claims should be made with no evidence to back them up.

Your earlier post seemed to suggest that no proof should be given; "why should they bother?", because some people believe Bin Laden died in 2001 and therefor they've ruined everyone elses chance to see the evidence in some way.

So can we clairify things a bit....

* Do you think real evidence should be given to back up the claim that Bin Laden was killed yesterday?

* Do the public at large have as much of an interest in this major event as CTers?

The US couldn't even provide proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 when the Taliban asked for evidence before handing him over, they're probably not going to provide any proof that he was killed at the weekend. It's bulsh!t.