Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: How come Osama's actions always end up helping Bush?
Now this is something that has been puzzling me a bit.
There were already plans to take out Afghanistan before 9/11 - then 9/11 happens, gets blamed on Osama Bin Laden - who becomes official public enemy #1, and Bush and co get to go into Afghanistan.
Then four days before the '04 presidential re-election, Osama pops up on a video saying 'don't re-elect Bush'. Well that is Psyc 101 - public enemy #1 tells you what to do? What are you going to do then? The exact opposite is what.
Then just before a decision is about to be made on whether to pull troops out of Iraq, old Osama pops up again. This time he is basically appealing to all the leftists. Well, what does that do? It makes the leftists feel like their thoughts are aligned with public enemy #1, thus creating a situation that may make them feel like polarizing against their own positions, and legitimizing talk of such leftists being somehow complicit with terrorism.
ALL of the above has a large scale psychological effect that supports rather than weakens Bush - and all at very timely intervals.
Joined: 30 Apr 2004 Posts: 28709 Location: Kentucky , USA
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject:
A visit from rasputin/Pericles ..................
It's mutual , bin laden owes alot to the boob-in-chief . The invasion of Iraq no doupt brought all kinds of money and recruits to bin laden's cause . Also the half-ass way little georgey is fighting the Afganistan war has let bin laden have what amounts to his own litle country in the hills giving us the finger with his survival .
Best of all is the upcoming war with Iran bush wants and is trying to get going . That will be a bonanza for bin laden . He'll have America tied down in 3 countrys leading to even more support for him and the weakening of America.
Bad for us since it won't be much longer before the one time town drunk of Crawford is gone ( ) but bin laden will still be around , maybe walking around some cave chanting '" Thank you little georgey , thank you little georgey " ..........................
Last edited by Lena on Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Also, within this link there is a refutation of knowledge of the 9/11 events by (the original?) Bin Laden that was published by the BBC.
What I find really interesting is the video on the page of the Israeli guys being interviewed (second video on the page). There is an American voice over and I don't speak their language, so I can't confirm whether the voice over is accurate, but this Israeli guy was basically saying they were there to film the events because Israel had experienced so much of this themselves. BIG QUESTION - how did they know the events were going to happen eh? Apparently no one in America knew, but these guys did?
As to the pre-existing attack plans for Afghanistan?
In which you find 'Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002).'
Below, you will find details of the attack plan against the Taliban having been agreed upon the day before 9/11.
AND THEN, Osama keeps popping up and saying just the right stuff to get the American people polarized against him in favour of what Bush wants, precisely at times when Bush needs that support. Come on, these people couldn't be more obvious! And if we just take everything hook, line and sinker then we deserve to be the serfs of the 'elite' that we are. And when I say serf, that includes you too matey. We are talking about an elite with riches beyond comprehension here. So I would include you as a serf unless you have seriously misrepresented yourself.
You know what Myron - I am starting to find you a most curious fellow - you often raise issues that were not otherwise raised that exposes substantial doubt rather than refutes it. You often end up driving me to learning about even more incriminating knowledge. So do you pretned to be a neo-con, who is actually in sheep's clothing?
I doubt that you are unaware that you have left me much room for come-back, but I regret to say that this will have to wait a little while due to my other commitments . A response will be forthcoming.
Conjecture, speculation, suspicion, rumor and gossip are not a "come-back" to evidence.
I am relying on facts based on an unambiguous public admission of guilt that was never disavowed and that is consistent with and confirmed by mountains of evidence.
Unless and until you can at the very least provide evidence that bin Laden has disavowed his unambiguous public admission of guilt, any "come-back" you post will only be adding to the pile of bullshit you have posted thus far.
Let's see irrefutable proof that the person in these series of videos is Bin Laden - cos just looking like him and sounding like him is not proof. What methods did they use to establish the continuity of this persona across videos released?
You would think that if the evidence was so mountainous and tight, that the FBI might have included 9/11 on their most wanted description of him - but they don't because they lack hard evidence - and that is even with this video you are referring to - so does that mean the FBI don't see it as hard evidence? If so, why do you?
Anyway, that is by the by - there is hard evidence against him for many other acts - particularly back in 1998 - and there would be good reason to believe, given that background that he was involved in 9/11. My major point is whether it has been the same person in videos across time and how well the Osama character has ended up working out for Bush.
Now it could all just be a freak coincidence that what Osama does aids Bush's plans, but if it is not a coincidence then I would question what the possibility was of a. Osama and Bush somehow having common goals and some kind of understanding, b. they found the Osama character effective for galvanising people so started to 'manipulate' things, with fake Osamas.
Just found this too - outlines the series of videos:
Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents.[81] On September 16, 2001, bin Laden denied any involvement with the attacks by reading a statement which was broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."[82] This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide.
Ok - so that was the initial denial.
In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.[83] The tape was broadcast on various news networks from December 13, 2001.
This was an unscathed video tape found BY American troops in a destroyed house
On December 27, 2001, a second bin Laden video was released. In the video, he stated "Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people," but he stopped short of admitting responsibility for the attacks.
So - third video, but no admission.
Shortly before the U.S. presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because, "We are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."
Yeah, shortly before the presidential election - how TIMELY to admit responsibility directly to the public for the first time - 3 years after the initial events of 9/11.
Also, in a videotape aired on Al Jazeera, on October 30, 2004, bin Laden said he had personally directed the 19 hijackers. Another video obtained by Al Jazeera in September 2006 shows Osama bin Laden with Ramzi Binalshibh, as well as two hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they make preparations for the attacks.
More on the hijackers:
Within hours of the attacks, the FBI was able to determine the names and in many cases details such as dates of birth, known and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identity of the suspected pilots and hijackers. Few had made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records, and they were some of the few people of Arabic descent on the flights. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make the connection from his Portland flight onto American Airlines Flight 11, contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, and other important clues about their plans, motives, and backgrounds'.
How fortuitous about the luggage and its contents being so readily available to sew it all up nice and tidy for us.
As the FBI said - In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
So that brings me to the point Myron how does this fit with your statement We know the names of the 19 men who hijacked those airplanes. We know the details of how, where and when they planned, prepared and trained. And we know that all 19 are dead. Or is there a link you can provide me with that clears this up? Or will you change your tune on this as quickly as you did about the pre-established plans for Afghanistan and give me some kind of a variation on that is perfectly understandable?
If we have sufficient direct evidence, why is the FBI not listing 9/11 on 'crimes' portfolio, under his most wanted listing?
We have not seen this much evidence about the Revolutionary Guards but yet they have now been listed as a terrorist organization - if we can do that for the Guards, why pussy foot with Bin Laden?
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
) but bin laden will still be around , maybe walking around some cave chanting '" Thank you little georgey , thank you little georgey " .......................... 
