Where's the evidence?!?!

Well other than those video tapes and audio tapes of osama saying that he was responsible for the attacks, we have absolutely no evidence....duhhhhhhhh.........

and i seriously doubt that those were made somewhere in the U.S since they were all aired on arab t.v's first and the reporters obtained them through members of the al Qaeda network

and that proves what??? Do we know that WAS OBL???

don't forget the Kennedy assassination was on the front page in an Austaralian paper before it happened.
The media in any country can be fed what is given them, just because it came from the "other side" proves little. There have been many wars fought that were the same people funded both sides.

All evidence points to the mossad and the whitehouse.

Originally posted by ashley
All evidence points to the mossad and the whitehouse.

Mossad = Rothschilds
Rothschilds= those who rule????????

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Seekerof
An indictment is issued based on evidence(s).

"An indictment is issued by a grand jury, which determines from evidence presented by a prosecutor that a crime was committed and the suspect should stand trial on the allegations."
www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov...

Yes, and the jury determines whether or not the accused is guilty...it seems you have forgotten, innocent until proven guilty. Simply indicting someone doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime..this "evidence" will have to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is in fact guilty...

Shoktek

Oh, no my misguided shadow....no, no....I have forgotten nothing....nada, not a dern thing. As such, the topic is "evidences"....and as with those "evidences", you seriously need to absorb and read the above again. What you have failed to understand or comprehend, as others have, is that an indictment is given based on "evidences"!
Yep, I will agree that the "man" or individual is "innocent", but let me assure you, an indictment is not served nor given unless there is sufficient "evidences" to support or constitute a conviction.....based on said "evidences".

Now you and others can roll it and smoke it how you like...but, with pun intended, the "evidences" speak for themselves.

The topic was "evidences"...sadly, for you and others, there seems to be sufficient "evidences"!
The US has had an indictment on Bin Laden since 1998, Mr. Clinton's time period, for committing acts of terrorism overseas on US facilites. Bin Laden has another on him for 9/11. Spain has one on Bin Laden, as mentioned above. If there was no "evidences" against Mr. Bin Laden, why was the Taliban issuing warnigs to the US over this?
"Taliban Cautions U.S. Regarding bin Ladin Indictment"
www.ict.org.il...

Some very interesting information here also, in regards to "evidences":
"The War on Terrorism: Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida"
www.lib.ecu.edu...

The UN has resolutions on and against Bin Laden based on "evidences".
The UK has proceedings and "evidences" of 9/11 and Mr. Bin Laden.
Again...."evidences" seem to be everywhere....even posted on the internet in a wide variety of word combinations....but again, as with anything, the people who defend such madness, cry "evidences"....

regards
seekerof

i think the real question is where is the evidence that links obl and saddam. i mean we are at war still in iraq. and there has been no real evidenve that would support us being there. me and my uncle where talking about this today. he was getting reasonably angry at the things i was telling him i believed and he seemed also upset i didnt believe and back bush 100%. i thought the oppsoite of him and wondered with all this lack of proof, which in a way this lack of proof is proof in itself, how he could believe all of this nonsense that is force fed him. i dont think there really needs to be proof anymore, it just is.

Proof? You want Proof? You Can't Handle the Proof!!!!
Proof

I know its not OBL but a funny side to things,
anyway

It seemed to me like a fairly quick judgement as to who was 'behind' the attacks. Like they knew all along......

Originally posted by silQ
Well other than those video tapes and audio tapes of osama saying that he was responsible for the attacks, we have absolutely no evidence....duhhhhhhhh.........

Howq do you know it was him?!?! Do you speak arabic!?!? I don't think so... Just go ahead and believe whatever you goverment tells you like a good old patroit

Originally posted by silQ
and i seriously doubt that those were made somewhere in the U.S since they were all aired on arab t.v's first and the reporters obtained them through members of the al Qaeda network

Once again how do you know this?!?! You don't understand that both sides are guilty. This is a big chess game to them. They could care less how many people die. This is a form of population control to them

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The last time an event prompted these kinds of questions was 11-22-63. We had the man who acted alone, who planned and executed the horror in Dallas. And he didn't do it.

Yes that is my point exactly. Open your eyes people. The occult organizations are leading us like sheep into nuclear Armageddon. I didn�t know that the Kennedy happened in November. What�s the deal with all the 11�s

Originally posted by Seekerof
Some very interesting information here also, in regards to "evidences":
"The War on Terrorism: Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida"
www.lib.ecu.edu...

This is from your website that you posted

The Taliban sets deadline for evidence against bin Ladin
The most the Taliban is willing to do is try bin Ladin under Islamic law in Afghanistan if provided with evidence of his involvement in terrorist activities. Several weeks ago a judicial inquiry was set up by the militia to investigate the allegations against him. According to Taliban spokesman Abdul Hai Muttmayan, "If anyone has any evidence of bin Ladin's involvement in cases of terrorism, subversion, sabotage or any other acts they should present it to the court before November 20. If by then there is nothing, we will close the case and in our eyes he will be acquitted."

The United States has dismissed the Taliban's ultimatum. "We believe that Osama bin Ladin should be brought to justice swiftly for his crimes," U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin said, adding, "there is no expiration date on terrorist acts of this kind." Rubin said that the United States is discussing the bin Ladin issue with the Taliban. However, he ruled out the possibility of a formal extradition request, because the U.S. does not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan.

Well why did they not bring any evidence forward. Because it's easier to just blow them up and build a pipe line in there country and put karmi in charge even though karmi has ties to oil companies

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by DaTruth]

Well, the fact that he is indicted doesn't show that he is guilty of anything...it is good that he was indicted, and he should be brought in front of an international tribunal--given a fair trial--then we will let the evidence decide his fate...I don't know if he will be alive for this to happen however...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Now you and others can roll it and smoke it how you like...

Really...?

If Osama is a false-flag operative working for Saudi/US/UK intelligence, then you'd expect to find evidence of his crimes. That doesn't prove anything at all. He'd be complicit in crimes, but that's the whole point in creating a personal cover. Agents require a 'legend' to give them credibility.

Now consider this; if Osama was a real terrorist would the media have made him a celebrity in the years prior to 9-11? Why would our establishment give him this kind of free advertising so that all Muslim malcontents know who to find for funding and logistical support. It doesn't make sense unless he was a false-flag operative trolling his 'legend' like bait.

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by Condorcet]

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by silQ
and i seriously doubt that those were made somewhere in the U.S since they were all aired on arab t.v's first and the reporters obtained them through members of the al Qaeda network

Once again how do you know this?!?! You don't understand that both sides are guilty. This is a big chess game to them. They could care less how many people die. This is a form of population control to them

This is exactly what I believe. It is the only thing about history and politics that makes sense to me. Believing these things has definitely cleared my eyes and my mind.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The last time an event prompted these kinds of questions was 11-22-63. We had the man who acted alone, who planned and executed the horror in Dallas. And he didn't do it.

Originally posted by DaTruth
Yes that is my point exactly. Open your eyes people. The occult organizations are leading us like sheep into nuclear Armageddon. I didn�t know that the Kennedy happened in November. What�s the deal with all the 11�s

I'm not aware of an "11" thing. I know very little about the number thing with these groups. I know they favor 3s and 13s.
The story goes that JFK was killed in the time and the place that was planned. Maybe someone else here can shed some light on this???


[Edited on 7-3-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'll ask again:

When a person, or individual, or group is "indicted", is it not with "evidence"?
If not, explain how 'they' would be indicted?
If there is no "real evidence", then an "indictment" would be useless?

People are indicted all the time without evidence. If an authority figure says you're guilty, that's evidence enough, in our country anyway. They don't need evidence. They only need more credibility than the person who's being indicted. And when you're indicted, it's pretty hard to be seen as someone with any credibility. You're already assumed guilty. The burden of proof is on the person being charged, in those cases. In other words, try telling a judge a cop is lying.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Damned]

There are many things that the good guys definately are hiding, but there are few things damn sure: ! airplanes were hijacked, driven by terrorists, and they all crashed.

After this, many things are still unanswered. How could they fly a plane after using only simulators? How could the entire secret service fail with all that evidence? I think, soon there will be answers ro all these questions, and the Pentagon videos will be on the net too, which were stolen from that gas station and hotel. I do not understand what was on that video that should not be seen???

Osama bin Laden was not behind the terrorist attacks. Members of the Al Qaeda planned the attacks, it was their fantasy and they went through all this. Bin Laden only gave way to the money supporting the attacks, and he talked to the attackers. That's all, of course Bin Laden gives courage to his terrorists to perform.

"OBL was not behind the terrorist attacks"

"He financed them and encourage the attackers"

Surely a major contradiction here?!

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
If anything, you would thing we would be less likely to believe what comes out of the officail mouth in Washington after 40 years of subterfuge.

I'm surprised people so easily have forgotten Vietnam, and continue to swallow everything "they" feed us.

Aw, come on Arnold. Why would you go to all the trouble to make up a fake name and then use your picture as an avatar? Fess up!

Who's forgotten about Vietnam?

Originally posted by DaTruth
Ok all I want to know is where's the evidence that osama was behind 9/11.

Osama bin Laden is a non-state actor. He could have had the idea of slamming hijacked jetliners into buildings, but he did nothing to achieve it. The entire Al Qaeda terrorist network was really behind the attacks, over 100 people were working hard to set up the attack.

It is proven that originally they were planning to crash ten jetliners into critical buildings, and they finally decided to eliminate five buildings. The fifth was meant to be the Empire State Building, but the pilot was caught in France and was jailed for different reason. The whole attack could have been prevented if his computer was checked, but for pity paperwork reasons the authorities didn't have right to do that.

Also, previously the Al Quaeda was planning to blow up twelve Boeing 747s above the Pacific Ocean, but the US authorities prevented the attacks days before its execution.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Vertu]