What really happened Osama bin Laden

jackiebaron wrote: »

Because the Bush Administration gave up on Bin Laden years ago. Think about it......why are the US in Afghanistan....and don't give me the pathetic "to dismantle terrorist organisations" bullsh!t.

If the sole reason was to get Bin Laden then why an invasion? Why would you need bases established to conduct what amounts to a criminal search? The whole Bin Laden saga is a farce. Whether he had anything to do with 9/11 I don't know and don't really care tbh. He was used as a tool to scare people into going along with America's long-term occupation of Afghanistan. It's more plausible that he died in 2001 than survived until last Sunday.
Why in the name of blue fcuk would a nation launch a military mission similar to the D-Day landings and costing a BILLION dollars a week to catch one fcuking man?????
Are you serious?
I don't believe a thing the White House spits out anyway....not because I believe in alien abductions and crap like that. I don't. It's just that the White House live in fcuking cloud cuckoo land and the sh!t they come out with and expect people to believe in cringe-worthy

And what's so rock solid about this case? It's about as rock solid as Niger Yellowcake or a fcuking hijacker's passport being found in the damn rubble of the WTC. Please!

Actually..

In conjunction with the military industrial complex's severe concern over the fall of communism in exUSSR and the loss of their favorite bogeyman for controlling the masses.. they logically turned to Islamic extremism, however it was failing miserably to make a big enough mark.

This concern, coupled with the Neocon vision (Bush was a vehicle for Rove to get behind the scenes), coupled with several thinktanks created the perfect storm to which 911 was cooked up..but... they needed one face, one man - an organisation is too weak for the sheeple to grasp onto - they need one evil figure - nothing more perfect the Osama Bin Laden, ex-Muhajadeen, even ex-CIA - the perfect bogeyman

The change of the guard (relatively speaking) has meant that the buck has been passed to a new administration who have found a use for it - boost Obama's ratings - I mean what other use was Bin Laden? he served his usefulness for the previous regime - and hence it was so, watch Brennan's press conference closely, he's the worst liar of the bunch, he can barely handle it.

LOL just kidding... but you wanted to believe it didn't you.. admit it.. you'll swallow anything that isnt the plain boring old truth

Di0genes wrote: »

I've had dialysis. After a very serious infection.

I didn't need a transplant. And I don't need ongoing dialysis.



Worst secret weapons program ever.



It's difficult to find salient points in this rambling run on sentence.

It's quite a difficult matter to take someone alive in the middle of a fire fight. Someone trying to kill you and who isn't keen on staying alive themselves.



Well thats nice. Most people working in news would nearly kill to find out this was all a fake it would make their careers.

Dear Quote Miner,

Again with the insults, well if you can't read a long sentence then tough sh1t, I couldn't care less as unlike you I don't get paid to put out the establishment line of thought. I expect yet more internet nerd posturing silliness, that is what you do isn't it, aside from your other job?

The US secret weapons program is the best kept secret in the world, you're referring to disinfo, there is some accurate info but we can barely guess at the tech they have, but we do have glimpses and its way in advance of standard military technology. You can barely defend your position anyway, the worlds greatest superpower wouldn't be in their much vaunted position if they weren't competent at what they do, they only let other nations know what they want them to know in terms of weapon tech to put out the biggest chimp in the playground image on the international stage.

As for most people working in the news, fcking lol. You totally missed my point, most people in the news don't suspect a thing because they're indoctrinated not to suspect anything or they're too low down as footsoldiers for the establishment. Or if they do suspect anything they don't care, they're in agreement. And those are just some of the options. Ultimately it wouldn't make their career, it would mean they'd be murdered. There are powerful forces work in this world, to come out with actual news takes balls, balls that people in the media don't have, because without such balls they wouldn't take the insane risk to put their lives on the line, and those of their families. Its obvious, most people would choose safety for themselves and their families rather than getting bumped off by the CIA/FBI/KGB/FSB/MI6 or whatever secret agency you care to mention. The reprecussions for just leaking low level stuff is significant, going all the way would mean oblivion in the most significant sense of the word.

Ultimately there will be a war with Pakistan which will precipitate in a global conflict with China. There will be a world war 3 and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Remember the Georgia Guidestones everyone, the time is coming. The stage is set for 2012.

JackieBaron's posts are the only thing keeping this thread interesting

My 2 cents:

I believe he was killed by US forces almost immediately after 9/11.. between the event itself and December 2001. This was then kept secret obviously so that they could use the "boogeyman" scenarios to keep pushing the "war on terror" forward, for any number of reasons

The modern worlds most infamous wanted man, with an instantly recognisable face cant be used in this vein forever, and as such they have to announce that he is dead. Obviously, according to what I believe, they are safe to do this as they killed him back in 01, so there will be no new evidence to suggest he is alive.



That, as an outline, is what I believe.. there are issues with that too though as if he was killed in 2001, then there will be people that were involved, could something as big as this be kept under wraps for so long? I dont know

Talk E wrote: »

Dead Bin Laden photo is a fake.



Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake

Image of bloodied man picked up by British newspapers has been circulating online for two years

An image purporting to show Osama bin Laden's bloody corpse, right, is a composite of two separate images, left and centre. Photograph: twitpic

An image apparently showing a dead Osama bin Laden broadcast on Pakistani television and picked up by British newspaper websites is a fake.
The bloodied image of a man with matted hair and a blank, half-opened eye has been circulating on the internet for the past two years. It was used on the front pages of the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites, though swiftly removed after the fake was exposed on Twitter.
It appears the fake picture was initially published by the Middle East online newspaper themedialine.org on 29 April 2009, with a warning from the editor that it was "unable to ascertain whether the photo is genuine or not".
The Daily Mail was one of the newspaper websites to publish the fake picture of Osama bin Laden's body. Since then, however, the image has been claimed as genuine on a number of conspiracy forums and used to substantiate claims that the terrorist responsible for the 9/11 bombings had been killed.
The Guardian was one of the few sites to hold back from using the manipulated image on its front page, reporting the picture's existence in its live blog but questioning its legitimacy.
The image is based on a genuine photograph of Bin Laden taken in 1998 and used by the Reuters news agency.
On Twitter, a composite including the other photograph used to make the image was posted by @HannahMarbina and other users showed how easy it was to find the image already online with a simple search.

At least one mdidle eastern TV news outlet fell for it too

TrustNoOne wrote: »

Whitehouse Spokesman 10 minutes ago:

"Bin Laden Unarmed"

Yet...

"He did offer resistance"

and...

"Capture was preferable"

Good grief, can't these clowns get their bull**** stories straight?

Don't forget the part where the armed navy seal was charged by Bin Ladens' 19yr old wife, no indication she was armed either.