Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

R.Mackey said:
"Bombshell" apparently is Truth Movement for "unsubstantiated wild claim."

She provides no evidence, and there is no plausible way for her to have learned this information.
Click to expand...

Good point! But they don care... :jaw-dropp
 
Senenmut said:
Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks."
http://www.timesonline.co[/QUOTE] ...the US and bin Laden were buddies as of 2001?
Click to expand...
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'll lead the worshipers of the Goddess of Legaltainment. Perhaps she'll favor me with a Latin-sounding title, like "Legaltainus Rex."

(Note to lurkers who I happen to be married to: I'm kidding. Really I am).
Click to expand...

I didn't know you were mormon or muslim. YOu are married to more than one lurker here? Wow...

you might want to put down the shovel.. you are almost in china.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i hope they remove the gag order so we can find out she never had anything to talk about in the first place
Click to expand...

Yes because gag orders are always placed on people who have nothing to say, nothing to reveal. Makes sense in a JREF kind of way doesn't it!!
 
jacque said:
FYI gunderson was interested in my case, a child abuse case, and he wormed his way into my life. It is a long story but he ended up working out of my house and because of illness, I quit my job and answered phone calls, sent out mail (whatever it was he was doing) and did research for him for a while.
Cheri Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael. She has a very fertile imagination. I still don't know what her reason was for writing what she did. Some is true some is not. I didn't know everything that was going on-thank God.
I threw gunderson out in 1993 and moved. He took us for almost every dime we (my 2 children and I) had, so I was unable to follow up on anything for years.
I had all of the files at my place-we were putting them together for Michael's defense.
I don't know why gunderson would have his webmaster (Chris Jones) now in prison for molesting little boys) would post that particular paper...but then you can never expect to figure out why a psycho does anything..
Click to expand...


what a story! do you still have his documents?
 
SteveAustin said:
Yes because gag orders are always placed on people who have nothing to say, nothing to reveal. Makes sense in a JREF kind of way doesn't it!!
Click to expand...

Never any proof of a gag order.

Do you have a link?
 
SteveAustin said:
Yes because gag orders are always placed on people who have nothing to say, nothing to reveal. Makes sense in a JREF kind of way doesn't it!!
Click to expand...

So, what sort of gag order allows her to be off rambling on at any given publicly aired opportunity?
 
If the supposed "gag order" is actually an NDA, then that puts a different light on things.

And NDA is a form of contract (the "A" = "agreement" = "contract"). One of the fundamental principles of contract law in the U.S. is that a contract is not enforceable (that is to say, is meaningless) unless the things the parties agree to do are legal.

Thus, if Don Julio puts out a "contract" on Sammy the Snitch, and Tony the Torpedo agrees to whack Sammy the Snitch for 100 grand, and Don Julio pays the money but Tony doesn't whack Sammy the Snitch, Don Julio cannot take legal action against Tony for breach of contract. Nor can Tony sue Don Julio if he whacks Sammy and Don Julio doesn't pay. This is not only because it would be silly for either one to admit in court to having made the contract in the firstplace. There's a more fundamental legal principle involved, that still applies even if Tony or the Don or both were willing to go to jail to get the terms of the contract enforced. Since neither whacking a snitch, nor paying a guy to whack the snitch, are legal, the contract has no legal standing.

An NDA is simply an agreement to protect certain privileged information (which includes not revealing the information, but is not limited to that; it can also include exercising due diligence to protect the physical security of documents in one's possession, for instance). Like any contract, it ceases to be an enforceable contract if and when holding to its terms becomes an illegal act, such as when doing so would constitute conspiracy, obstruction of justice, or spoliation of evidence.

So, any statement to the effect of "I have documents that someone has done/is doing something illegal, but I can't reveal them due to being gagged by an NDA" is not credible.

When it's not an issue of documentary evidence but of simple first-hand knowledge, things aren't quite so simple, because in most circumstances withholding knowledge from investigators (as opposed to lying to them), by exercising one's right to remain silent or taking the Fifth when subpoenaed, is not illegal. However, a civil contract (e.g. an NDA) seems to be a flimsy pretext for refusing to reveal material evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It's basically saying, I won't reveal the wrongdoing because I'd prefer to honor my civil contract with the criminal. Not at all a morally commendable stance, though it may be personally expedient.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding
 
Senenmut said:
interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding
Click to expand...

It's unsourced and doesn't state that ObL knew where his aid come from. Pakistan insisted that all aid to Afghanistan go through it's ISI.

It's also thin because one thing ObL was known for was getting construction equipment and his own funding into Afghanistan/Pakistan and building stuff.

It's possible some of our aid went to ObL.

So What?
 
Klimax said:
Not good. At least part of ISI is supportive of extremists.
Click to expand...

really? this was right before 911....

"Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001] Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban. [Center for Public Integrity, 9/13/2001] "

http://www.historycommons.org/searc...ects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on
 
Senenmut said:
interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding
Click to expand...
UBL worked on his own. But you can spread lies and false information it is self critiquing. Wait, your article says UBL used the facility which the US helped to build. Wowzer, where is the Pulitzer Prize for this?

And your point? UBL is the son of a major person in Saudi Arabia, gee even I had a car for use from a Saudi Prince; SO WHAT?!~

Oops, I have links to the Saudi Royal Family. Got to love those gas coupons...
 
Senenmut said:
really? this was right before 911....

"Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.”
Click to expand...
Yup. All US aid to the Muj was supposed to go went through the ISI. Most of it did. The ISI decided which of the warlords to give it to.
He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001]
Click to expand...
He can claim anything he wants to.

Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban. [Center for Public Integrity, 9/13/2001] "
Click to expand...

"A roll" is really vague. I'm sure you know what "blowback" means. It might not be direct or planned in advance. I've read lots of Rashid. The link to that citation is broken. I wander what Rashid really said.

http://www.historycommons.org/searc...ects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom