This is an excellent video:
This is an excellent video:
Great. I'll forward it on to the U.S. government. Maybe they'll finally provide some real, credible evidence that they killed Osama bin Laden in a raid in Pakistan last year.
Is there any real, credible evidence that would make you doubt the claim?
Any evidence at all- credible or otherwise?
There hasn't been even a whiff of denial from anyone in a position to expose the lie- not the Pakistanis, not his wives, not Zawhiri (sp?)- no one...nothing but admittance from his fellow jidahists and vows for revenge.
Again, here's an example where it seems like the risks of being found to be lying vastly outweigh the benefits of the lie.
You can't prove that Bin Laden was killed in that raid. But there seems no strong reason to doubt the official story (other than having a general tendency to doubt all official stories).
Thats a great point- people often pointed to the fact that they hadn't found him as evidence that AQ was just a smokescreen...so, why would they want to clear that smoke? Why not leave him and his spectre out there to menace the psyche of the masses and continue with the supposed charade of the "war on terror"?
Pakistanis - militant, authoritarian government, have received billions for supporting our phony War on Terror, desperate to avoid open warfare with the United States, etc...
Osama bin Laden's wives - either they married a murderous, terrorist mastermind or a patsy/dupe/intelligence asset of the CIA. How smart can they be?
Zawahiri - How credible can this guy be? Either you believe he is a murderous, terrorist mastermind, or he is a patsy/dupe/intelligence asset of the CIA. Either way, lying like a rug would probably come easy to this guy.
Fellow jihadists - Since when did supposed terrorists become paragons of virtue and honesty?
So because all those hundreds of people people are either corrupt, stupid, and/or evil dishonest liars, the secret is safe?
^The claim that the US captured and killed OBL
Is there any real, credible evidence that would make you doubt the claim...that the US captured and killed OBL?
but why do doubt it? Simply because you do not believe in government? You said earlier (somewhere) the government does tell the truth at times...
How do you know this is not one of them?
Or is your bias so strong that you simply cannot believe it even though there is no evidence to suggest that it is a fabricated story?
Bin Laden reported dead by Fox News (December 26, 2001).
From about 5 years ago (2007): Benazir Bhutto says Osama Bin has been dead since 2001 (At about 2:10 in the video).
To be convinced, I'd like to see the photos. But a federal judge blocked the release of bin Laden death photos (April 27, 2012).
Last edited by PCWilliams; April 27th, 2012 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Forgot some info
Why not doubt it? What credible evidence supports the U.S. government's claim?
I see no good reason to believe anything the government has said with regard to Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or 9/11.
It is also true that photos and videos can be faked.
That Osama bin Laden video released by the U.S. government in, I think, October 2001 is highly suspect.
Except, in this case the US govt actually claims to have done it themselves...and there is substantial corroborating evidence that at the very least a covert military raid took place in Pakistan.
The precedent of other AQ targets that have been claimed to have been eliminated that were met with staunch denial by AQ voices makes the fact that this claim has been met with admittance to be quite interesting.
...and yet what evidence would you accept? All videos and photos would be suspect by you...so, other than viewing the body personally...what would make you believe?
As an aside, I have personal hearsay evidence that makes me quite convinced...but you no doubt would not believe me either.
Juror is quite invested in his beliefs.
If one of them crumbled, the rest might slip away in a tsunami of dissonance.
The depth of the hole he has fallen into is an abyss most of us can't plumb.
There is little hope of change for this person, until he becomes more honest with himself.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Again, so? Evidence suggesting that a military raid took place does not necessarily constitute evidence that the raid had anything to do with a real, living, and breathing Osama bin Laden. Anything could have happened in that so-called "raid"....and there is substantial corroborating evidence that at the very least a covert military raid took place in Pakistan.
Maybe all our government accomplished was killing an Osama bin Laden lookalike.
Is that what you are basing your belief on? What Al-Qaeda supposedly confirms or denies?The precedent of other AQ targets that have been claimed to have been eliminated that were met with staunch denial by AQ voices makes the fact that this claim has been met with admittance to be quite interesting.
Let me ask you something. How do you really know when Al-Qaeda confirms or denies something? Usually the corporate media will report this, right? And how do they know Al-Qaeda has confirmed or denied something? How do they know the people who are pretending to be Al-Qaeda are really Al-Qaeda? Anybody can go online and put up a website claiming to be a representative of Al-Qaeda.
How do you know you're not getting the run around?
I'm not sure. Our government and the media are so transparently dishonest, that it would take a lot to make me believe Osama bin Laden was in that compound and killed that day....and yet what evidence would you accept? All videos and photos would be suspect by you...so, other than viewing the body personally...what would make you believe?
You're right, I wouldn't. Anybody can go on the internet and claim to have "hearsay evidence", which in my mind isn't even real evidence. It's just words.As an aside, I have personal hearsay evidence that makes me quite convinced...but you no doubt would not believe me either.
What makes you so sure the U.S. government has been honest about Al-Qaeda, 9/11, and Osama bin Laden?
It might be well to know that this person sprayed glyphosate and planted gmo corn on his 'organic' farm - then got very upset when I pointed out that glyphosate and gmo corn wasn't considered organic by all reasonable measures. This person also sneered at the fact, when presented to him, that NASA had been populated with a number of (ex?)Nazis; apparently ignorant of the fact that Werner von Braun was an SS Major. This person also stated, apparently without irony, that he believes the US to be 'the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world'. This was followed up with comments like: 'You can't have what we have' and 'There's more of us than you'.
Anyway, what does 'Juror is quite invested in his beliefs' mean? I'd say that his/her comments have been quite reasonable. Some people have the ability to look into the official narratives of the time and question them. An example: Lots of people saw beyond the official narrative of Iraq's imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction', a lie, and went out into the streets to say so. As it turned out they were right while governments, media and military presented a false reality to the public.
Here is an article by a proper journalist called John Pilger:
Content from external source
Flying the flag, faking the news
2 September 2010
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger traces the history of propaganda to Edward Bernays, the American nephew of Sigmund Freud, who invented the term "public relations". Bernays believed in "engineering public consent" and creating "false realties" as news. Here are examples of how this works today.
Edward Bernays, the American nephew of Sigmund Freud, is said to have invented modern propaganda. During the first world war, he was one of a group of influential liberals who mounted a secret government campaign to persuade reluctant Americans to send an army to the bloodbath in Europe. In his book, Propaganda, published in 1928, Bernays wrote that the “intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses was an important element in democratic society” and that the manipulators “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country”. Instead of propaganda, he coined the euphemism “public relations”.
The American tobacco industry hired Bernays to convince women they should smoke in public. By associating smoking with women’s liberation, he made cigarettes “torches of freedom”. In 1954, he conjured a communist menace in Guatemala as an excuse for overthrowing the democratically-elected government, whose social reforms were threatening the United Fruit company’s monopoly of the banana trade. He called it a “liberation”.
Bernays was no rabid right-winger. He was an elitist liberal who believed that “engineering public consent” was for the greater good. This was achieved by the creation of “false realities” which then became “news events”. Here are examples of how it is done these days:
False reality The last US combat troops have left Iraq “as promised, on schedule”, according to President Barack Obama. TV screens have filled with cinematic images of the “last US soldiers” silhouetted against the dawn light, crossing the border into Kuwait.
Fact They are still there. At least 50,000 troops will continue to operate from 94 bases. American air assaults are unchanged, as are special forces’ assassinations. The number of “military contractors” is currently 100,000 and rising. Most Iraqi oil is now under direct foreign control.
False reality BBC presenters and reporters have described the departing US troops as a “sort of victorious army” that has achieved “a remarkable change in [Iraq’s] fortunes”. Their commander, General David Petraeus, is a “celebrity”, “charming”, “savvy” and “remarkable”.
Fact There is no victory of any sort. There is a catastrophic disaster; and attempts to present it as otherwise are a model of Bernays’ campaign to “re-brand” the slaughter of the first world war as “necessary” and “noble”. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, running for president, re-branded the invasion of Vietnam, in which up to three million people died, as a “noble cause”, a theme taken up enthusiastically by Hollywood. Today’s Iraq war movies have a similar purging theme: the invader as both idealist and victim.
False reality It is not known how many Iraqis have died. They are “countless” or maybe “in the tens of thousands”.
Fact As a direct consequence of the Anglo-American led invasion, a million Iraqis have died. This figure from Opinion Research Business is based on peer-reviewed research led by Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC, whose methods were secretly affirmed as “best practice” and “robust” by the Blair government’s chief scientific adviser, as revealed in a Freedom of Information search. This figure is rarely reported or presented to “charming” and “savvy” American generals. Neither is the dispossession of four million Iraqis, the malnourishment of most Iraqi children, the epidemic of mental illness and the poisoning of the environment.
False reality The British economy has a deficit of billions which must be reduced with cuts in public services and regressive taxation, in a spirit of “we’re all in this together”.
Fact We are not in this together. What is remarkable about this public relations triumph is that only 18 months ago the diametric opposite filled TV screens and front pages. Then, in a state of shock, truth was unavoidable, if briefly. The Wall Street and City of London financiers’ trough was on full view for the first time, along with the venality of once celebrated snouts. Billions in public money went to inept and crooked organisations known as banks, which were spared debt liability by their Labour government sponsors.
Within a year, record profits and personal bonuses were posted, and state and media propaganda had recovered its equilibrium. Suddenly, the “black hole” was no longer the responsibility of the banks, whose debt is to be paid by those not in any way responsible: the public. The received media wisdom of this “necessity” is now a chorus, from the BBC to the Sun. A masterstroke, Bernays would surely say.
False reality The former government minister Ed Miliband offers a “genuine alternative” as leader of the British Labour Party.
Fact Miliband, like his brother David, the former foreign secretary, and almost all those standing for the Labour leadership, is immersed in the effluent of New Labour. As a New Labour MP and minister, he did not refuse to serve under Blair or speak out against Labour’s persistent warmongering. He now calls the invasion of Iraq a “profound mistake”. Calling it a mistake insults the memory and the dead. It was a crime, of which the evidence is voluminous. He has nothing new to say about the other colonial wars, none of them mistakes. Neither has he demanded basic social justice: that those who caused the recession clear up the mess and that Britain’s fabulously rich corporate minority be seriously taxed, starting with Rupert Murdoch.
Of course, the good news is that false realities often fail when the public trusts its own critical intelligence, not the media. Two classified documents recently released by Wikileaks express the CIA’s concern that the populations of European countries, which oppose their governments’ war policies, are not succumbing to the usual propaganda spun through the media. For the rulers of the world, this is a conundrum, because their unaccountable power rests on the false reality that no popular resistance works. And it does.
The fact is that people like Jay Reynolds are so deeply sunk in the effluent of all things official that there is little hope of encouraging another look at other possibilities; in that scenario the dissonance he speaks of would be all his, and the psychological effort required to 'go there' is all but beyond him.
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 28th, 2012 at 04:12 AM.
Your response:Originally Posted by lee h oswald
Actually you're forgetting some important details of (the) crime: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You support the official theory, which is that 19 arab hi-jackers directly commanded by Osama bin Laden and under the auspices of an organization by the name of 'al-qaeda' took control of four civil aircraft and the rest is history. They have effectively been prosecuted by pronouncement; but where is the evidence for that? This scenario was announced within hours of the attacks - an astounding bit of detective work - and it has been adhered to religiously ever since, often by people like you. But where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Where is the full and proper investigation? Please point me to it.
Why didn't they test for explosives? Do you agree with your mate that his video shows conclusively 'no' explosives? Despite the obvious problem inherent in that statement? Probably.
Then:There was no need to test for explosives as there wasn't any reason to believe explosives were involved. We've been down this path before - why not check for earthquakes, flooding, robot cats, etc.?
If you want to compare this to a crime think of it this way: the official version is the decision by the court. If you wish to appeal, it is your responsibility to initiate the appeal and introduce any additional evidence not considered in the original decision.
Have fun, professor.
Instead of answering the question you run over here and come up with this clap-trap! Staggering. Put up or shut up, I'd saylee h oswald
No-one reported flooding as far as I am aware; no-one reported robot cats, I'm almost 100 per cent on that; no-one reported an earthquake - although it may have been used as a simile. Lots of people present reported explosions, lots. There was definitely an attack of some kind happening, terrorists apparently - don't they sometimes use....explosives? I know it's controversial.
If you want to compare this to a crime
What?! It is a crime. How is it not a crime?
the official version is the decision by the court
What?! What court? There was no court. If there was, please show me what I missed. Thank you.
...at the very least a covert military raid took place in Pakistan. You say? You're right there - trouble is it's happening on a daily basis - where have you been? Where do you get your information? Are you not aware of the covert war being conducted in Pakistan? Obama's drones are incinerating people on the ground on a regular basis. What was Obama's promise? Wasn't it 'Change'? Another triumph of public relations. If it wasn't such a tragedy it might be funny.
lee has been banned for two weeks for continually insisting I support torture.
DO you find it difficult to go through life assuming everything is a lie?
Referring to "the official version (is akin to) a decision by a court" is what most people would call a metaphor. Literally. A metaphor.
I still ask, why not check for earthquakes, flooding and robot cats? You allege no one reported these things, but you can't prove nobody reported these things. So check we must.
Come to think of it, how do you know all those people who reported hearing something sounding similar to explosions aren't in on some kind of conspiracy? Can you prove they're not in on some kind of conspiracy?
If I make a statement to you that is a lie, but you believe it to be true, and then other people come along who you believe are unaffiliated with me and verify what I said, which was a lie you believed to be true, does my lie become truth? Since it was verified and not refuted by supposedly independent sources?That being said - they could still be lying...but when comments, statements and claims have been proven to be accurate over time, some sources become more reliable than others...
How do you know these "jihadist communities" are organic and real? How do you know they aren't just websites set up by the CIA to make it appear as if the raid was successful?The reaction from Jidahist communities has been unprecedented in their expression of sorrow and calls for revenge.
You are assuming the "they" isn't in on it, or is in a position to know the real truth about what happened.If OBL was not killed...why would they go a long with the farce. There would be somebody, somewhere claiming it was a lie....and yet not peep.
What are you basing any of this on?
What's the essential difference between us if I go through life assuming everything is a lie while you go through life assuming everything is the truth?DO you find it difficult to go through life assuming everything is a lie?
Oops, wrong thread.
Last edited by Trigger Hippie; April 28th, 2012 at 05:34 PM.
Maybe we should try to define torture. According to Wikipedia, torture is:
We do know thousands of people are put in cages as a punishment for failing to pay the income tax the U.S. government demands of them. That sounds an awful lot like torture to me.... the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty.
Isn't this what you support, Mick?