My Eulogy for osama

[Trouser Trout]

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea. On the other hand, no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it. <O></O>
*****************

STAY TUNED!!!!

I will be tuned in and tuned up.... I hope now, the US Navy Seals who did the deed get to share in the 25 million dollar bounty.

 

[AKSkim]

... the US Navy Seals who did the deed get to share in the 25 million dollar bounty.

NO.

It was their job.

PERIOD.

In a few months from now, some afternoon or early evening a group of men will
enter either the East or West Wing of the White House in business suits; and
there they will receive the thanks from our President himself.

 

[Simms]

I invite all of you to read the 911 commission report before I post, as I doubt ANY of you have... PLEASE, read the 911 commission....

 

[Trouser Trout]

the 911 attacks were a grand and successful hoax perpetrated by high government officials of America… and (perhaps) other countries.It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. While Bin Laden has caused pain ans suffering amongst 92 countries, so have members the American government...May they burn in hell too....<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

I invite all of you to read the 911 commission report before I post, as I doubt ANY of you have... PLEASE, read the 911 commission....

The 911 commission's findings will be of no help in defending your whacky views.

 

[Simms]

Ok, so you haven't read them...PLEASE refrain from commenting then... If you're so quick to judge, then give me some respect and just read the damn report....that's all I ask...

 

[gadfly]

Ok, so you haven't read them...PLEASE refrain from commenting then... If you're so quick to judge, then give me some respect and just read the damn report....that's all I ask...

That's all you ask?!?!?! That everyone read a 585 page document before they are allowed to disagree with you? That's a little steep Simms. Why don't you make your case, citing the portions of the report that you find to be relevant?

 

[Simms]

Well,

I would have thought all you conservatives would have read this? You consider yourself up to snuff, yet you haven't read one of the most important reports since the attacks, REGARDING THE ATTACKS!!!???? And you call my suggesting, STEEP!? Isn't is STEEP you feel you can judge me when you haven't read this report!?

NICE ONE!!!!! PITIFUL.

 

[emoussa]

You have been BRAINWASHED in College be Professors that were PROTESTIG The Viet Nam war and Smoking Pot and doing hits of Acid -- ie: THE LEFT WING LIBERALS -- Your a Smart Guy (So I thought) Look up the REAL FACTS for yourself -- Look Up George Soros -- The real Kingpin of the Democratic Left Wing Liberals -- Then you may change your views

I just have to come in and speak up for those of us in in college and say that you must not clump all of is in as a one group. Not does everyone feels the way simms does. College is liberal in the true sense of the word in that questioning, open-mindedness and progressiveness are goals here but liberal thinking an liberal politics are two different things in my opinion.

For all those going to sit ins and blaming there nation for the world's problems there are just as many sitting in class laughing at them. Those other "college kids" are going to be the ones that fix the mistakes the previous generation made. If I learned anything in college (today was officially my last day of classes, so I've been reflecting) is that I love the United States and everything it stands for.

 

[G Lech]

If I learned anything in college (today was officially my last day of classes, so I've been reflecting) is that I love the United States and everything it stands for.

Nicely put.

 

[Simms]

My rebuttal is complete and ready to be posted. However, I INVITE everyone to read the 911 Commission Report...I realize its long. Nonetheless, it is not fair to judge me when you have yet to read this segment. Please paruse this write up at your leisure and I will post my rebuttal in due time. Likely within the next few hours. Thank you for your attentivness and sincere feelings for this topic...

 

[gadfly]

Well,

I would have thought all you conservatives would have read this? You consider yourself up to snuff, yet you haven't read one of the most important reports since the attacks, REGARDING THE ATTACKS!!!???? And you call my suggesting, STEEP!? Isn't is STEEP you feel you can judge me when you haven't read this report!?

NICE ONE!!!!! PITIFUL.

Not really. First, I'm not in the least bit conservative, in the contemporary political sense of the word. Second, while I'd grant you that reading the 911 Commission Report would be a good step in becoming well versed in the events of 911 and the generally accepted explanation of those events, it is ridiculous for you to suggest that one has to have read that document to question your statement. If that report contains points that support your argument, you should cite them and allow others to reference the document to check your argument. It is you that made a claim about the events of 911, and you should back that statement up with evidence if you expect anyone to believe it.

I'd be as justified as you to claim that the first man sprang fully formed from an acorn, and that no one is qualified to doubt me unless they've read the Origin of the Species cover to cover.

 

[Trouser Trout]

Looking forward to it..... I have read the 911 report in it's entirety at least 5 years ago. NOTHING in it will substantiate your kooky claims, which are the following "the 911 attacks were a grand and successful hoax perpetrated by high government officials of America… and (perhaps) other countries.It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. While Bin Laden has caused pain ans suffering amongst 92 countries, so have members the American government...May they burn in hell too....<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[G Lech]

I'm really curious to read what simms has prepared for us.

 

[Simms]

*Pardon the spelling errors*

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea. <O</O
On the other hand, no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it. <O</O
Colin Powell’s Withdrawn Promise Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking bin Laden to this attack.<O</O
Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden's responsibility, "most of it is classified." According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information." <O</O
This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks. A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: "We have asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?" Hersh's answer was that they had no proof. Everyone have their beer in hand? This is going to get deep!

<O</O
The task of providing such proof, although to no avail, was taken up by Bush's chief ally in the "war on terror," British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law." Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war. I thought we relied on the saying, innocent until proven guilty? <O</O
The weakness in Blair's report, in any event, was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial." You are not allowed to use circumstantial evidence in the court of law, thus, the inability to prove Osama is guilty.<O</O
The FBI's Unpredicted Declaration- OH BOY DANME, ARE YOU READY!?<O</O
What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Osama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he was wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI's chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied with conviction: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." <O</O
After this story started flying around the Internet and was even covered by a TV station in Louisiana, Dan Eggen tried to downplay its significance in an August 2006 Washington Post article entitled "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?" with no success, complaining about "conspiracy theorists" who claimed that "the lack of a Sept. 11 reference on the FBI's "Most Wanted" webpage for bin Laden suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain," Eggen quoted the explanation offered by a former US attorney, who said that the FBI could not appropriately "put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed." <O</O
But that explanation, while true, simply pushes the issue back a step to this question: Why have such charges not been filed? Rex Tomb's fuller statement, which Eggen failed to mention, had answered this question the previous June, saying with firmness: <O</O
The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then 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 connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. The FBI is reliable, right DANME? <O</O
The 9/11 Commission- POP THE POPCORN GENTLEMEN!!!<O</O
What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt. But the Commission's co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission." <O</O
As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal(DID ANY OF YOU NEFFers READ THAT? I DOUBT IT, SO READ IT BEFORE YOU JUDGE FURTHER!), whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply "KSM," who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The 911 Commission, for example, wrote(and you would know IF you read it): <O</O
Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta - whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group - met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.<O</O
The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."<O</O
Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."1 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators. Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?" And you can not. <O</O
An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," such as torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. " At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," NBC pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.'" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."

The "Bin Laden Confession Tapes" HERE YA GO TOMFLY!<O</O
As we have seen, neither the 9/11 Commission, the Bush-Cheney White House, the FBI, the British government, nor the 9/11 Commission provided good evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. *GASP*!!!*** Many people, however, have assumed that the question of his responsibility was settled by the existence of videotapes and audiotapes in which he himself confessed to the attacks. RIGHT TOMFLY!!!!????? There are, however, good reasons to believe that these so-called confession tapes are fakes. I will illustrate this point in terms of the two best-known videotapes of this nature. <O</O
The "Jalalabad Video" Released December 13, 2001: The first and most famous of the "Osama bin Laden confession video tapes" was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them. Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden's guilt. OH NO! <O</O
Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape's authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself.<O</O
A BBC WORLD News report said: "Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun' that puts Bin Laden's guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake." This report was, in fact, entitled, "Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?"<O</O
This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had "suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi." <O</O
This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape." Reporting "growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film," writer Steven Morris said: <O</O
The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.” <O</O
Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added: <O</O
According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise(like me) that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike.<O</O
Morris then quoted one such opponent in Pakistan, who said: "This videotape is not authentic. The Americans made it up after failing to get any evidence against Osama." <O</O
Morris also cited Bob Crabtree, the editor of Computer Video magazine, who explained that it was impossible to determine whether the video was authentic without more details of its source, adding: "The US seems simply to have asked the world to trust them that it is genuine."<O</O
This skepticism about the authenticity of this "Jalalabad video" was based on sound reasons. For one thing, this video's bin Laden figure appeared too heavy and healthy, compared with the bin Laden who made the last of the undoubtedly authentic bin Laden videos, which was made sometime in 2001 between November 16 (on which occurred an event mentioned on the tape) and December 27 (the date on which the tape was released). In this post-November 16 video, bin Laden's beard was white, he had a "gaunt, frail appearance," and his "left arm hung limply by his side while he gesticulated with his right." This immobile left arm, Dr. Sanjay Gupta observed on CNN, suggested that bin Laden had suffered a stroke, adding that this plus a "frosting of the appearance" suggested that bin Laden was in the final stages of kidney failure.<O</O
But in the "Jalalabad video," which was reportedly made at about the same time (being dated November 9 and released December 13), the bin Laden figure was heavier and also darker, in both skin and beard color; his nose had a different shape; and his hands were shorter and heavier than those of Osama bin Laden as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos.<O</O
Still another problem is that, whereas bin Laden was left-handed, the man in the "Jalalabad video" wrote with his right hand. Although it might be thought that this was because his left arm was immobile, the bin Laden figure in this video was easily able to lift his left arm above his head. Hear that TOMFLY!?<O</O
If this video was made on November 9, as claimed, then it would have been made at most only a few weeks before the post-November 16 video. It is very hard to believe that the heavy, dark-skinned, healthy-looking man with a dark beard could have, within two or three weeks, turned into the pale, gaunt, white-bearded, man seen in the post-November 16 video. While there is no doctor testimony to back this up, it just is not believable. <O</O
If one accepts the Jalalabad video as authentic, one not only has to accept these radical changes in bin Laden's physical appearance; one must also accept a complete change in his statements about 9/11. In the previous weeks, he had repeatedly - on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 - stated that he had had nothing to do with the attacks. In the September 28 statement, he had even declared: <O</O
“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . We are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.”<O</O
Is it likely that he would have made such statements if he himself had authorized the attacks and thereby the killing of innocents? <O</O
Whatever be one's opinion about that, the bin Laden figure in the "Jalalabad video" made other statements that Osama bin Laden himself would surely not have made. For example, he said: <O</O
We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. . . . Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.<O</O
But in light of the real bin Laden's "experience in the field" as a building contractor, he would have known that high-rise buildings are framed with steel, not iron. Even more important, he would have known that the buildings' support columns - whether made of steel or iron - would not have been melted by the "fire from the gas in the plane." Why? Because he would have known, on the one hand, that a building fire, even if fed by jet-fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not, even under the most ideal conditions, have risen above 1,800 degrees F. And he would have known, on the other hand, that iron and steel do not begin to melt until they are heated to a temperature far higher than that: to almost 2,800 degrees F. The real bin Laden, therefore, would not have expected any iron or steel to melt. <O</O
A final reason to consider the "Jalalabad video" a fake is that bin Laden experts have declared it to such. When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country's leading academic bin Laden expert was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: "It's bogus." Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work "on the 24/7 bin Laden clock," he added, "also know it's bogus.”<O</O
General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's ISI, suggested that the man in the video was an "Osama bin Laden lookalike."<O</O
Former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla, after saying "the guy just does not look like Osama," added: "The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion."<O</O
A fourth expert opinion has been issued implicitly, it would seem, by the Department of Justice and its FBI. If they considered this "confession video" authentic, would they not consider it "hard evidence" of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11? They say, however, that they have no such evidence, so they must not consider this video authentic. YOU HEAR THAT TOM!? <O</O
The "October Surprise Video of 2004: The other most famous of the "bin Laden confession tapes" is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, thus being called "the October Surprise video." In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker's message, entitled its story: "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. Attacks." However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it. <O</O
A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush's reelection - an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts. The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush's lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared, and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush's victory. Given the fact that this video would quite predictably help Bush win reelection, it would seem to have been issued by his friends, not his enemies.<O</O
There are also substantive reasons to doubt this tape's authenticity, one of which is the speaker's language. The clearly authentic bin Laden messages were filled with religious language. A bin Laden video released October 7, 2001, for example, began thus: <O</O
Praise be to God and we beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge with the Lord of our bad and evildoing. He whom God guides is rightly guided . . . . I witness that there is no God but God and Mohammed is His slave and Prophet.<O</O
Even though this talk as a whole had only 725 words, bin Laden referred to God (Allah) 20 times and to the prophet Mohammed 3 times. Likewise, his message of November 3, 2001, which contained 2,333 words, referred to God 35 times and to the prophet Mohammed 8 times. By contrast, the 2004 October Surprise video, which had almost the same number of words as the November 3 video, referred to God only 12 times. The only "Mohammad" mentioned, moreover, was Mohamed Atta. <O</O
Another substantive difference involved the type of causal analysis provided. Bin Laden's clearly authentic messages had portrayed historical events as occurring only because they were caused, or at least allowed, by God. In his message of October 7, 2001, for example, he said: "God Almighty hit the United States. . . . He destroyed its greatest buildings." Human agents were involved, to be sure, but they were successful only because "Almighty God . . . allowed them to destroy the United States." In his message of November 3, likewise, bin Laden said that, if people are helped or harmed, it is always by "something that God has already preordained for them."<O</O
The message on the 2004 confession video, however, reflected a worldview in which events can be understood through a causal analysis based on secular rationalism. "One of the most important things rational people do when calamities occur," the lecturer asserted, "is to look for their causes so as to avoid them." He himself, in analyzing "the Iraq war(War on Terrorism), its causes and consequences," provided a causal analysis involving purely human actors: Bush, al-Qaeda, and the American people. Far from suggesting that everything is finally in the hands of God, he said to the American people: "Your security is in your own hands" - a statement that a devout Wahabi Muslim such as Osama bin Laden would surely have considered blasphemous. <O</O
Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of this 2004 video is that, although the speaker was addressing the American public, he spoke Arabic rather than English. This is strange, because Osama bin Laden was reportedly fluent in English, which he had started studying when he was 11 years old. A British journalist reported that, when he and bin Laden met in 1989, they conversed in English for 45 minutes. General Hamid Gul, speaking to United Press International in 2001, said: "I know bin Laden and his associates. They are graduates of the best universities and . . . speak impeccable English. If bin Laden spoke impeccable English, would he not have used it when speaking directly to the American people? <O</O
Accordingly, this video does not, any more than the "Jalalabad video," provide evidence that Osama bin Laden himself confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks. Like it or not, it is true. <O</O
CONCLUDING………………<O</O
I have shown that there is not even any good evidence for the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, insofar as the justification for the continuation of the Af/Pak war is based on the fact that bin Laden in the region both before and after the 9/11 attacks, that justification would seem to be doubly baseless. <O</O
Further……………<O</O
I invite all of you to read, or PARUSE(since some of you think reading is too hard) these books as a benefit to yourself, whether you agree with it or not….The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False. The New Pearl Harbor: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (which was named a "Pick of the Week" by Publishers Weekly) and Osama bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? <O</O
******************************************<O</O
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” –Robert Q. <O</O
Let us keep this to discussion, gentlemen… Throughout this long thread, I have received an array of deceitful, derogatory, and offensive comments due to my original post on this thread. Before you, I have provided you a write up of my rebuttal. While it is not 100% of my thoughts, it outlines what we NEFF-ers have been discussing for the last7 pages of this thread. If you are unable to respect what I wrote regarding the content, at least respect the fact I provided you all with my side and not coward out like many of you thought would happen. Again, let’s keep this conversation civil and not resort to name calling and immature responses…Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding my most recent post and let us not deviate from that. I kept my response professional and I would expect your comments mimic the same format. <O</O
If nothing else, let us agree to disagree. <O</O
<O</O<O</O

 

[LyNcH]

Wow, that's a nice paper that David Ray Griffin wrote.

Lebanonwire.com | Will the real Osama bin Laden step forward

After reading your posts on here and having read your posts on speypages before you were banned. I just question if you're point is just to try to rattle the cage, to be an AKSkim Jr (there is only one AK), or are you just that ignorant to make your comments have to defend them to the end. You are not doing it effectively without coming across as a d-bag (I know, I know, you don't care how you come across and what other people think, which is exactly my point). While I have tolerated your posts, the way you have come across on this one is completely unacceptable. Even if you eat the vomit you spew, your delivery in insensitive and offensive to the victims of 911, the heros of 911 and our armed forces. You and I will never be fish together, I honor my fishing buddy who served 2 duties Iraq too much to expose him to your BS. He was there, you were not. Do yourself a favor, sit with someone who has served overseas, listen to the stories, understand more than what you choose to read, try having real conversations(that means listening to others to hear their experiences, not talking to convince them yours are right).

You are an offensive, narcissistic person who needs to grow up and figure out how to communicate effectively. Good luck in law school, I'm sure you will do great as a public defender. I can't wait to hear your arguments how it really isn't sexual abuse if an 11 year old boy consents to giving oral sex to a 45 year old man.

Oh look, another interesting find..........your (well not really yours) original comments, originally stated by "Pakastani Chap". First comment under "other answers"

Osama Bin Laden - Good muslim or bad? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[WBDluver]

Interesting read. So it was the evil Bush admin that went after him and made him a scapegoat. So then why did the Obama admin go an kill a perfectly innocent man?????? After all, they are tapped into the FBI, CIA and other intel agencies around the world. They should have all the facts? Just asking? Simms, you are trying to be an attorney, I think you should suggest to your professors that President Obama should be charged with murder.

 

[gadfly]

A cut and paste job without attributing the work to the author? Really???

 

[Trouser Trout]

The problem with kooky conspiracy theories is two fold. The first being they are mostly fictional, so anytime the author needs to bolster his point he can always invent more evidence and selectively use real evidence and ignore the evidence he may find to be an "inconvenient truth". The larger piece that dispells most fictional conspiracy theories is when the conspiracy requires many people to perform the act yet none ever comes forward to detail their involvement or anyone elses. It is for this same reason that I also trust in the findings in large part of the Warren Commission.

 

[Future Fanatic]

This is NOT a court of law, and it seems that you have tried to raise "shadows of doubt". An "innocent" verdict in court does NOT mean the accused did not actually do the crime...

Do you think your "evidence" proves that he did not participate in the 9/11 events?

Do you think that your evidence proves your claim that:

"It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. "

Again this is NOT a court of law, but your claim seems part of a closing argument with nothing but "circumstantial evidence" to rely on.

Well, I'd like to know Simms, your thoughts on whether or not they actually killed Bin Laden?

 

[tomfly]

Simms.
You are not a stupid individual. In order to be effective at fly fishing you need to be able to think with a nonlinear thought pattern. All successful fly-fishermen possess this thinking matrix. It is a true sign of above average intelligence. We all agree you can do this. But In your original statement in this post you conveyed that.

“the 911 attacks were a grand and successful hoax perpetrated by high government officials of America… and (perhaps) other countries. It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. While Bin Laden has caused pain ans suffering amongst 92 countries, so have members the American government...May they burn in hell too....”

I have read northing in you discernment to support your argument. From what I read is that you claim that Bin Laden is a scapegoat. He never formally said this to any world press or government agency. We all know this. You can also make this argument for Manson but the make him less of a monster. You also claim have overwhelming evidence that that the US government along with other countries are solely responsible for the 9-11 attacks. By withholding this monumental information from the Victims Families, The American people, and The World Community, I find to be a bigger crime then the actual attacks.

 

[G Lech]

A cut and paste job without attributing the work to the author? Really???

Pretty sad.

 

[Trouser Trout]

This is NOT a court of law, and it seems that you have tried to raise "shadows of doubt". An "innocent" verdict in court does NOT mean the accused did not actually do the crime...

Do you think your "evidence" proves that he did not participate in the 9/11 events?

Do you think that your evidence proves your claim that:

"It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. "

Again this is NOT a court of law, but your claim seems part of a closing argument with nothing but "circumstantial evidence" to rely on.

Well, I'd like to know Simms, your thoughts on whether or not they actually killed Bin Laden?

No one is declared "innocent" in the American Judicial System, they are declared "not guilty". The purpose is that it is the obligation of the court to establish guilt not innocence. Also Simms like much of todays youth and the under thirty crowd dating back to the 1960's is part of the "blame America first" crowd. Many grow out of this pehnomenon when they reach their thirties and are able to experience things for themselves and on their own, I still have confidence in the lad.

 

[Pete]

Why are you guys bothering to argue with a conspiracy theorist?
Do you think he'll change his mind?
Do you think that he'll make some of us believers?
Neither is going to happen...no matter how many posts are made.

Imagine, if you'd just ignored the post, and continued the topic along the same lines that tomfly started....

 

[tomfly]

Pete,

You are right.

We need to come back down to earth.

We have all have essentially won the lottery being born into this great Nation. Our challenge is holding onto our winnings.

 

[Trout Nazi]

Well its a good thing that lawyers don't decide if we go to war, otherwise we'd all be speaken German or Japanese now.

There is so much wrong in this that I don't know where to begin, and frankly don't have time right now to rip this apart properly as I actually have to work. So many little things that add up, for example, thermodynamically, the temperature could have absolutely reached 2800. How ever did our ancestors melt steel in wood fired ovens?

Regardless, you failed to establish motive here counselor. You know, that little thing called motive?

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

Absolutely could not have been Bush behind this. For arguments sake, lets say you accept this pile of horse shit. Well, to orchestrate a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would have had to begun years earlier.....In ole Bubba's and Billerie's administration.

 

[AKSkim]

Saw this on another board.

A veteran - Whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who,
at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to the "United States of America",
for an amount of "up to and including my life." That is Honor, and there are way too many
people in this country who no longer understand it.

When SIMMS stated, "... so have members the American government...May they burn in hell too....<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "

There are a number of former US Military men on this board that take great homage to that fact we all served this country.

If you get your wish Simms; my portal to hell will be from my grave site at Arlington National Cemetery.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Lack of affirmative evidence that Bin Laden did it, does not show that the US Gov't did. Think about your burden of proof here. You've set out to demonstrate by way of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the government but the information you've provided at best raises reasonable doubts about whether Bin Laden was responsible.

 

[Trouser Trout]

Saw this on another board.

A veteran - Whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who,
at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to the "United States of America",
for an amount of "up to and including my life." That is Honor, and there are way too many
people in this country who no longer understand it.

When SIMMS stated, "... so have members the American government...May they burn in hell too....<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "

There are a number of former US Military men on this board that take great homage to that fact we all served this country.

If you get your wish Simms; my portal to hell will be from my grave site at Arlington National Cemetery.

What makes you think you will be planted in Arlington? Just asking....I don't think it that easy to do....

 

[golden beetle]

Pete, I think this is not fly fishing related.

My lord.

 

[sh4ne87]

Where is the oil we have robbed? last I checked it was about $112 per barrel and Islamic mid eastern countries were getting wealthier by the day from our use. when we liberated Kuwiat we didn't steal the oil, when went into Iraq we didn't steal the oil. And who gained politically as you claim? Are the other islamic terrorist attacks against the US and our interests all part of grand hoax as well? I thought you were a bright kid, not a gullible one. Frankly, the only ones who have profited from 9-11 are those who have made movies and wrote books proclaiming it to be a hoax, that kooks like yourself actually believed.

record profits for oil companies. i thought they benefited. indirectly of course.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

This is NOT a court of law, and it seems that you have tried to raise "shadows of doubt". An "innocent" verdict in court does NOT mean the accused did not actually do the crime...

Do you think your "evidence" proves that he did not participate in the 9/11 events?

Do you think that your evidence proves your claim that:

"It was a very well planned organised conspiracy against Islam – it was all for political gain – an excuse to bomb and rob the Arab world for the oil. "

Again this is NOT a court of law, but your claim seems part of a closing argument with nothing but "circumstantial evidence" to rely on.

Well, I'd like to know Simms, your thoughts on whether or not they actually killed Bin Laden?

chuck norris did.