Was Osama Bin Laden was framed? Clearing a Dead Man's name.

Lol no scapegoat ,they were willing participants in a much broader conspiracylook how they treated thier own people,Its just that the other conspirators Scared,turned on them first but time will reveal the others, remember no Honor amongst thieves

I have a question, if any one would kindly entertain with an answer, I'd appreciate it.

Prior to 9/11, what do you recall regarding terrorist, or terrorist threats? I will admit, I didn't always follow the news, or politics closely, but I do not remember a time when terrorist were a threat...that is until 9/11. Can any one shed some light as to what terrorist groups, reports, warnings were known prior to this event?

The IRA was active in England and Ireland. In Germany we had the RAF and in Italy le brirgate rosse, the red brigates carried out terrorist attacks against italians. But it later turned out, that The terrorist attacks of the red brigades were a false flag operation, to smear communism in Italy, which had strong roots at the time. Look up operation Gladio.

The first academic examination of Gladio was published in 2005 by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser. Mr. Ganser is currently a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. His book, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Gladio has been accused of trying to influence policies through the means of "false flag" operations: a 2000 Italian Parliamentary Commission report from the Olive Tree left-wing coalition concluded that the strategy of tension used by Gladio had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI (Italian Communist Party), and to a certain degree also the PSI (Italian Socialist Party), from reaching executive power in the country".

reply to post by summer5


First of, I would have to ask how old you were to have a frame of reference.

July 21, 1972 IRA attacks in Belfast, 11 killed, 120 injured
Sept 5, 1972 Munich Olympics 9 Israeli athletes, 5 terrorists killed
May 15, 1973 Palestinian terrorists took 115 hostaages, killing 28 in Ma'alot Israel.
Dec. 17, 1973 Attack and Hijacks at the Rome Airport 33 Americans/Italians/Moroccans killed
August 3, 1977 Puerto Rican terrorists bombed the offices of Mobil Oil and another building with US DoD personnel, one killed
Sept 8, 1974 TWA Flight 841 suspected bomb caused engine failure, killing 88 passengers and crew
1977 Lufthansa flight hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, flight ends up in Mogandishu, were GSG-9 takes the aircraft. 1 hostage killed
30 April-05 May 1980 Iranian Embassy taken by terrorists, two hostages killed, five of six terrorists killed when the SAS retakes the building.
Oct 1983 Truck bomb at Marine Barracks in Beriut, 241 Marines and Sailors killed
June 14, 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked by members of Hezbollah, Navy diver Robert Stetham was killed.
April 2, 1986 TWA Flight 840 bomb detonates in flight rupturing the fuselage causing several passengers to fall to their deaths.
Feb 26, 1993 Bomb in the parking garage under the North Tower of the WTC, kills 7, injures thousands. (First Al Qaeda attempt to bring down the towers).
April 19, 1995 Truck bomb outside Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 168 killed.

These are only a snapshot of terrorist attacks since the year I was born, 1970....there are MANY others......

Contrary to popular belief on ATS, terrorism did not start on Sept 11, 2011, nor did terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists start then or even Al Qaeda attacks started then.....

reply to post by randomname

it's also strange that he was never charged by the f.b.i for 9/11

The FBI does not charge people. The Department of Justice does, and had Osama been arrested, at his arraignment in court, THAT is when he would have been charged with complicity in the attacks. The grandstanding done in the 90s, when Osama was first indicted in a US courtroom for terrorism, was just that, grandstanding done by the Clinton Administration to appear "tough" on terrorism.

reply to post by Cassius666

In 1996 Bridas, an argentinian oil company, finalizes a deal with the Afghan goverment and the taliban. In August 1998 Alciada bombs the embassy in Nairobi and the us retaliates with missile strikes against afghanistan. In 2000 cole happend and we are again reassured that Alciada is very real and very dangerous. In early 2001 unocoal and us goverment officials try one last time to come to therms with the taliban, to finalize the pipeline project. Almost a year later, the WTC false flag operation is carried out.

Ah, a DRG acolyte. UNOCAL did not "try one last time" in early 2001. They gave up on Afghanistan in 1998. It was in 1999 that the US government backed a Caspian pipeline to avoid having to deal with the Taliban, it went into production several years ago.
news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


I knew osama denied the attacks, and it made me wonder at the time too.
Why would the head of al qaeda deny such an act, you would have thought that
he would be shouting it from the roof tops.

I think you make some very troubling accusations in your op.

well done

reply to post by SavedOne


Seems like this happens over and over again the last 100 years or so. Hitler was Time magazines man of the year. We were friends with Stalin when he was killing millions of his own people. Saddam, Bin Laden, Ghaddafi. Who's gonna be next?

Originally posted by markrob23
reply to post by SavedOne

 

Seems like this happens over and over again the last 100 years or so. Hitler was Time magazines man of the year. We were friends with Stalin when he was killing millions of his own people. Saddam, Bin Laden, Ghaddafi. Who's gonna be next?

Its kinda obvious who's gonna be next:

1) Ahmadinejad
2) Ahmadinejad
3) Ahmadinejad

And oh, did I forget to mention Ahmadinejad?

This thread does not “clear Bin Laden’s name”, it does not even cast further doubt of his involvement in 9/11. Speaking of which, just to be clear Bin Laden was never wanted in connection with 9/11 he was wanted in connection with the 1998 Embassy bombings it was KSM who was sought in connection with 9/11. KSM was a member of Bin Laden’s terrorist network and there lies the connection, there are some suggestions that Bin Laden probably had prior knowledge of the 9/11 plan but the cell had autonomy. So you don’t have to clear his name in connection with the 9/11 attacks because he was never wanted for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks he was wanted for the 1998 bombing and for being leader of the “Al’Qa’ida” terrorist network. With that in mind your thread kind of becomes entirely pointless, if you are trying to “clear his name” you should probably first start with what he was actually wanted for. For now however let’s move on from this monumental technicality error.

The first video linked to does have some grains of what I would call “truth”. I do believe that the monopoly of the press has degraded the integrity of the media and that the current status quo is no longer tenable. I do think that the power of the media is eroding the power of the democratic processes however I do not believe that Murdoch is directly appointing individuals to the highest public office in a range of states by trampling all over our democratic values. Nor do I believe that Murdoch is in reality working at the behest of some grandiose Zionist conspiracy that directly led to 9/11 as your thread has not provided any evidence pointing to the existence of such a conspiracy.

As for the claim that Bin Laden gave the “I had nothing to do with 9/11” interview that was suppressed by the government, that’s not much better than your video first video. Firstly I would again point to Bin Laden never actually being wanted for trial in connection with the 9/11 attacks but also that the interview probably never actually happened. In other words our good friend the internet has made this up or the news paper that is allegedly the source made it up. I say allegedly because it is impossible to find anything on that website that links back to the original source. In any case the interview is clearly a fabrication; according to the OP’s source this interview took place in October 2001. Does anybody really believe that the world’s most wanted man who had every man and his dog out looking for him would risk meeting up with a reporter like this, some small time paper to announce that “It wasn’t me”. If he really was going to do such a thing he would have went to a major media outlet such as Al-Jazeera (not owned by Murdoch) and realised a communiqué protesting his innocence.

It’s also important to know that the Daily Ummat is not the most reliable source, they never even bothered to identify who the interviewer, I have even read that the reporter never even met Bin Laden but rather he sent the questions to members of the Taliban Government he believed to be connected to Bin Laden. Therefore it would stand to reason that the Taliban would respond to these questions by impersonating him in writing denying “he” had any involvement with 9/11 as a desperate attempt to avoid the wrath of America. The whole interview is a fabrication, it’s just one big lie sorry, but at one point apparently Bin Laden talks about how he has no hate for America and various other rubbish, spend 5 minutes actually “denying ignorance” by reading one of those old book things and you will quickly realise just how full of BS this interview is. I can categorically tell you this interview was made up it never happened; Bin Laden never said or wrote those words, the tape does not exist. Even reading about it in the other conspiracy sites they make no mention about how of this phantom tape.

Sorry but I think your thread may have just been debunked

And that was the other side of the coin.

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze

Originally posted by markrob23
reply to post by SavedOne

 

Seems like this happens over and over again the last 100 years or so. Hitler was Time magazines man of the year. We were friends with Stalin when he was killing millions of his own people. Saddam, Bin Laden, Ghaddafi. Who's gonna be next?

Its kinda obvious who's gonna be next:

1) Ahmadinejad
2) Ahmadinejad
3) Ahmadinejad

And oh, did I forget to mention Ahmadinejad?

edit on 24-7-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .

Actually my money is on white terrorists and homegrown terror.

Did anybody read the works of the author which is a host in this show?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Not what Bush told people before he invaded Afghanistan for Opium .....I mean Osama Bin Laden.

reply to post by LightAssassin


Bush was a neoconservative nut job, he used 9/11 to further his foreign policy, and this does not mean he engineered the attack, but he did take advantage of the attack. Bin Laden was perhaps arguably responsible for 9/11 in the since that it was his organisation that provided training to the perpetrators and may have provided some logistical support, those who conducted the attack where members of his terrorist organisation. That being said however it was the members of his organisation who were responsible and not him directly as an individual, the cell was autonomous. KSM was the man who was wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks not Bin Laden.

Regardless of what Bush said, the FBI Officially wanted him in connection with the 1998 bombings and not 9/11 so all the points raised in my first post still stand.

Wake up people, OBL was working for the US government until 911

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OBL did not orchestrate or carry out 911. A part of the US government and a handful of military Ops carried out this False Flag and blamed their treasonous act on a boogie man that they created.

Originally posted by impressme

Wake up people, OBL was working for the US government until 911

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OBL did not orchestrate or carry out 911. A part of the US government and a handful of military Ops carried out this False Flag and blamed their treasonous act on a boogie man that they created.

And the award for fiction goes to.....

reply to post by impressme


Sorry I read your thread and it does appear to be a work of fiction.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Sorry I read your thread and it does appear to be a work of fiction.

Work of fiction? What is this work of fiction that you speak of?
Are you suggesting that FBI translator Sibel Edmonds interview never took place on the Mike Malloy radio show, if so please show evidence that this is the work of fiction?

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

Are you suggestion that Sibel Edmond is not telling the truth, if so please show credible evidence that this is all work of fiction?

The bombshell here is obviously that certain people in the US were using Bin Laden up to September 11, 2001.
It is important to understand why: the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years, promoting the Islamization of Central Asia in an attempt to personally profit off military sales as well as oil and gas concessions.
The silence by the US government on these matters is deafening. So, too, is the blowback.

www.bradblog.com...

reply to post by impressme


I see this myth all the time on ATS, “Bin Laden worked for the CIA up until 2001”. I am getting fed up of it and I have a few weeks of holiday coming up so I think I am going to write a thread debunking that little myth.

For now all I will do is remind you of some facts. Bin Laden hated America for their intervention in the first Gulf war in particularly their role in defending Saudi Arabia, there is little evidence to suggest he was recruited during Operation Cyclone, he was involved in the bombing of the USS Cole in 1996 and the 1998 embassy bombings and throughout the 1990’s his targets were American. The idea therefore that the Al’Qa’ida network was in fact a proxy army for America to attack other states is unfounded as the only state they attacked was the USA.

Your source is either lying or misinformed by suggesting that until 2001 the Al’Qa’ida network and the Taliban were proxy militia’s for America to use to attack other states. The only target Al’Qa’ida went for during the 1990’s was American and the Taliban never operated outside of Afghanistan so your sources claim is just wrong.

Why is that people on ATS cannot critically evaluate their sources before they go around quoting them like Gospel. If you had bothered to check out some history you would have seen the fallacy in the Miss Edmond’s claims.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans

The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".


*** 2 minutes research, maybe with more research we can get a clearer understanding of the issues and don't forget the ties between the ISI and CIA

source www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


I am not denying the existence of a link between ISI and American intelligence, that link in itself does not mean however that the CIA had a direct link to Bin Laden.

Like I said, I have some time on my hands coming up and I think I am going to attempt to debunk this “Osama CIA agent” myth.