• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Osama to Truthers: I Did It

pomeroo said:
The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and acted alone is overwhelming. Over the past forty-four years, absolutely nothing has emerged to challenge that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Oh crap, what a can of worms that opens. I can see the response now:

"Evidence? Show me that evidence!"

as if the last 44 years didn't happen...
 
He has not been charged for 9/11, in all likelihood because:

1. He was not the one who ran the planes into the buildings.
2. He is the ringleader of the organization that was responsible. An organization made up of loosely linked "cells" of jihadists.
3. KSM was the alleged "mastermind" behind 9/11.
4. It requires significant proof to prove that the ringleader is guilty of a crime committed by one (or more) of his followers.
4. They only have one chance to try and convict him (double jeopardy) so they have to make sure they have all they need to do so.
5. They want him for other crimes, as seen on his wanted poster, and these crimes would be enough to capture him, get him to the USA, and prosecute.

Do you not get the Al Capone comparison now? How is he any different than Al Capone, in this regard?

TAM:)
 
kageki said:
The thing is I don't think OBL is stupid enough to actually even do something like 9/11 in the first place that would guarantee the wraith of the US military. Embassy bombings and 9/11 just doesn't compare.
Click to expand...

And exactly what makes you think OBL gives a crap about that 'wraith' of the US military? :eye-poppi
 
kageki said:
The thing is I don't think OBL is stupid enough to actually even do something like 9/11 in the first place that would guarantee the wraith of the US military. Embassy bombings and 9/11 just doesn't compare.
Click to expand...


His assessment of America was that we simply lacked the will to fight back. He watched us retreat from Lebanon, turn tail and run from the Sudan, and offer no response to the attack on the USS Cole. Although my Democratic friends will argue with me on this point, I believe that if Al Gore had occupied the White House on 9/11/01, we would have been treated to weeks of empty bluster, a volley of cruise missiles directed at nebulous Taliban "targets," and endless wrangling in the U.N--followed by nothing. The immediate rise of the Orwellian-titled "peace" movement on campuses across the nation, combined with warnings about an Afghan "quagmire" from official Eastern liberal establishment voices such as R.W. Apple's and the incessant prattle about the Patriot Act, leads me to believe that a Democratic-led War on Jihadist Terror would have been indistinguishable from no war at all. But, I'll concede that my opinion belongs in the politics forum.
 
Last edited:
His assessment of America was that we simply lacked the will to fight back. He watched us retreat from Lebanon, turn tail and run from the Sudan, and offer no response to the attack on the USS Cole. Although my Democratic friends will argue with me on this point, I believe that if Al Gore had occupied the White House on 9/11/01, we would have been treated to weeks of empty bluster, a volley of cruise missiles directed at nebulous Taliban "targets," and endless wrangling in the U.N--followed by nothing. The immediate rise of the Orwellian-titled "peace" movement on campuses across the nation, combined with warnings about an Afghan "quagmire" from official Eastern liberal establishment voices such as R.W. Apple's and the incessant prattle about the Patriot Act, leads me to believe that a Democratic-led War on Jihadist Terror would have been indistinguishable from no war at all. But, I'll concede that my opinion belongs in the politics forum.
Click to expand...

As an aside, in my government studies class we examined an academic opinion that proposed bin Laden actually wanted to draw the U.S. into a protracted war not unlike the one we're in now. That's not to say I thought that military action was wrong - it's just that bin Laden might have figured that he was getting into a win-win option, with a lethargic response from the U.S. being the better one.
 
I would venture to guess the OBL is dead.

But since he is the boogey man for the WOT, these tapes will keep surfacing methinks.
 
I think its a crying shame what the CIA does to its assets...killing them and all...poor Tim Osman.

TAM:)
 
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
And exactly what makes you think OBL gives a crap about that 'wraith' of the US military?
No one likes to be invaded.
Click to expand...


Referencing my note about the government course earlier, being invaded was perhaps a part of Osama's alternative calculations.

-Sporanox
 
Last edited:
Sporanox said:
Referencing my note about the government course earlier, being invaded was perhaps a part of Osama's alternative calculations.

-Sporanox
Click to expand...

Right I think Osama made a speech to that degree where he says he's happy the Americans are over there so he can kill more or something like that. I have also heard that since US response was weak concerning the embassy bombings that OBL viewed the US as "paper tigers", but I doubt anyone would be deluded into thinking a military response wouldn't be coming from 9/11.

OBL's main goal was to get rid of US military presence. Prior terrorists attacks are all supposed to be in response to this. He has committed terrorists attacks before, but not anything to the degree of 9/11 which was sure to bring a swift response. It doesn't seem to make sense why he would go this far. Muslims are also forbidden to kill women and children even in battle.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm
http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm
http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html
 
kageki said:
No one likes to be invaded.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the people of Afghanistan didn't want to be invaded. Bin Laden wasn't one of them and is quite a different story. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade because he believed that the Mujahadeen(which he was a part of and partially funded in the '80's) had not only defeated the Soviets and forced their retreat from Afghanistan but almost single-handedly brought the Soviet Union to it's downfall. He believed that he could do the same with the US. Please note that it took nearly a decade to defeat the Soviets. Bin Laden was willing to be patient in order to bring down the US. He still is. He didn't expect to win right away. He expected to gain control of the country back after the US left, either by defeat or simply lack of will to keep fighting. It's only been six and a half years and the Taliban is already resurgent in many areas of Afghanistan. The Taliban could come out on top if the US doesn't have the will or means to stay and beat them back down. The winner of the war for Afghanistan has not been declared yet. That alone is a victory for Bin Laden, that they haven't been completely crushed into oblivion by the US yet. They are willing to take heavy losses in the pursuit of victory, as long as they recruit enough to replace the dead and they are willing to wait decades if necessary. We are far more impatient, that's a weakness in this situation.

As for the Muslims being forbidden from killing women and children, Bin Laden considers himself an Imam and thus capable of interpreting religious texts himself. In an interview with Al Jazeera in 2000, Bin Laden made it clear that, to him, civilians of all stripes, including women and children, were fair game since his organization was acting out of vengeance for acts supposedly perpetrated against Islam. In Jihad, revenge killing of women and children is permitted.
 
Last edited:
yodaluver28 said:
I'm sure the people of Afghanistan didn't want to be invaded. Bin Laden wasn't one of them and is quite a different story. Bin Laden wanted the US to invade because he believed that the Mujahadeen(which he was a part of and partially funded in the '80's) had not only defeated the Soviets and forced their retreat from Afghanistan but almost single-handedly brought the Soviet Union to it's downfall. He believed that he could do the same with the US. Please note that it took nearly a decade to defeat the Soviets. Bin Laden was willing to be patient in order to bring down the US. He still is. He didn't expect to win right away. He expected to gain control of the country back after the US left, either by defeat or simply lack of will to keep fighting. It's only been six and a half years and the Taliban is already resurgent in many areas of Afghanistan. The Taliban could come out on top if the US doesn't have the will or means to stay and beat them back down. The winner of the war for Afghanistan has not been declared yet. That alone is a victory for Bin Laden, that they haven't been completely crushed into oblivion by the US yet. They are willing to take heavy losses in the pursuit of victory, as long as they recruit enough to replace the dead and they are willing to wait decades if necessary. We are far more impatient, that's a weakness in this situation.

As for the Muslims being forbidden from killing women and children, Bin Laden considers himself an Imam and thus capable of interpreting religious texts himself. In an interview with Al Jazeera in 2000, Bin Laden made it clear that, to him, civilians of all stripes, including women and children, were fair game since his organization was acting out of vengeance for acts supposedly perpetrated against Islam. In Jihad, revenge killing of women and children is permitted.
Click to expand...

The problem is you never defeat an enemy by inviting them to your country. It is the other way around. In the case of the Afghan war they were defending themselves from the Soviets who were invading their country. That is to say it was unprovoked. There is nothing to indicate that OBL wanted to do the "same" with the US if that is to mean to take down the country. It is not the same comparison at all. As mentioned earlier, the primary goal has been to remove US military presence from the mideast such as the military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Are you basing this all on OBL's various interviews?

I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code. Even if this jihad thing is really true you can be sure such belief would be considered "extreme".
I'm really wondering how much of it is even true. How do we know what OBL is really saying? People still say "wipe off the map" when Ahmajenad never even uttered those exacts word.
 
I have split off a lot of bickering to AAH. The next step for this thread will be moderation. Please keep to topic, be civil, and do not personalise arguments.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
C'mon you guys. Chill's got her mod hat on. We better be good.

According to Truthers, if Osama is the head of al-Qaeda, and he says al-Qaeda did it, he's still not responsible. But Bush is the head of the US government, and he says the US didn't do it, but IT'S STILL AN INSIED JORB!!!!1111!!111!!eleventy!
 
kageki said:
I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code
Click to expand...

I don't think we need a lesson in Islam. We're not idiots. As a group, we probably know more about Islam than you do. We don't fall for the kind of misinformation you are talking about any more than the misinformation conspiracy theorists spew.

So, are you saying that Islamic extremists who have twisted the peaceful message Islam into hate and intolerance don't exist?
 
Last edited:
kageki said:
I like to see sources on the last statement about him being an Imam and all. I'm afraid there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Islamic faith. It is actually a very peaceful religion with a strict moral code.
Click to expand...
christianity is also a peaceful religion with a strict moral code, so i suppose the crusades were all false flags too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom