It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bin Laden May Die of Kidney Disease in 6 Months, Time Reports

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Yes my proof lies with the fact that he is NOT charged with the 9/11 attacks nor has he ever been charged with the attacks or any charges associating him with the attacks in anyway. The FBI is on record stating they have never found any evidence linking him to the attacks which is why it is not listed on his FBI Most Wanted poster. Is that proof enough? Just google and look at the most wanted poster for yourself. If you can show me any place that he is charged in connection to 9/11 I will put ketchup on my foot, eat it and post it on YouTube.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


www.washingtonpost.com...

Semantics anyone? Not being charged is completely different from your earlier claim that the FBI lacks evidence. And I still have yet to be offered proof of that claim by anyone. Streak still intact!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I am afraid your streak has come to a screeching halt. However I have no desire to do your research for you. If you want to kow the truth try google and in the search box put, "FBI says no evidence connecting OBL to 9/11" feel free to go through all 87,700 hits until you find one that you consider to be a reputable source.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by MrWendal
 


www.washingtonpost.com...

Semantics anyone? Not being charged is completely different from your earlier claim that the FBI lacks evidence. And I still have yet to be offered proof of that claim by anyone. Streak still intact!


Semantics nothing.... your theory is totally flawed. basic Law 101. If there is no evidence, you will not be charged. If there is evidence to make a case against you, you will be charged with that crime. Can you show me anyone in history who has NOT been charged with a crime when there is evidence that they committed that crime?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


As long as they can get through our unprotected borders for now. World healthcare will be the battle cry in 2016!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I believe most of the time someone is a suspect, then they are charged with a crime after questioning. Never mind the fact he has declared war on us and ideally would like to kill 1 million westerners. And calling his buddies to carry this out. But, ya we should probably wait until he does this, that way it's fair. Oh ya, i cant wait to pay for his attorney, yippeee.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


You know, I'm always amused when I get that same cookie cutter response time and again. I've often wondered how those like yourself feel when I offer this: www.fbi.gov... the FBI's congressional testimony on Osama bin laden in which Dale Watson, the FBI's Assistant Director of counterterrorism said this:


The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable


Clear and irrefutable hmmm...

Clear: free from obscurity or ambiguity, easily understood.
Irrefutable: impossible to refute

Sounds like hard evidence to me, but what do I know? I only have the traditional definitions of words on my side so maybe the word "hard" has some alternate meaning I'm unfamilliar with.

Oh, and when I do your little Google search I get lots of hits from sites mostly connected with Alex Jones-like mentalities. The entire claim of no evidence was made to one reporter from something called the Muckraker Report and then recycled across the web. One would think that such a claim would have been asked about and confirmed by independent sources, but I can't seem to find any of these investigations or confirmations so no dice.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


This theory would work if they were reporting his name and at the same time trying to scare us, but they're reporting his name saying that he's going to die. I don't know about you but I think to most people that would give them less of a reason to be in fear.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yea they would try to make me believe Bin Laden is dead lol. Just another tactic our Government uses.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by topsecretombomb
 


There saying he's still alive, is that a tactic too?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




HERE is a non Alex Jones like minded site where the claim is made.

Now the Muckraker Report is really Investigative Reporting and Political Commentary. They contacted Rex Tomb of the FBI and that is the response they were given. The link above actually is not conspiracy based and the author there wonders why if there was a video released in 2002 where Bin Laden and his buddies claim responsibility for the attacks, how that can not be considered evidence in the year 2006?

Please, besides Osama Bin Laden can you name just ONE person who authorities of any kind had evidence that they had committed a crime, and still refused to charge them with said crime? It just does not work that way.

As far as your link, has Congress not been lied to before? Even Barry Bonds lied to Congress. Bush lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD. Just cause someone from the FBI claimed that they had plenty of evidence (which is what they did with Iraq as well which later turned out to be fabricated) why would he not be charged with that crime? Why has this evidence not been released to the public? Can you show me this evidence or just someone saying that they have it? If they have it, why no charges?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Simple he DENIED the accusation that he was intially behind 9/11. Now if he was this big bad terrorist like everyone makes him out to be, he'd be creaming his shorts for the opportunity to brag about his accomplishment. No, it was only until LATER that he admitted to it, more than likely trying to ride the band wagon and procure a greater martyr base of followers...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Well, all this debate is admirable.

Just to add some fuel to the fire some suggested viewing.


Google Video Link


The Power of Nightmares (2004) - BBC Documentary.

I am not endorsing everything cited in this documentary. But, for those who are unfamiliar with it; it presents and expounds upon the theory that Bin Laden, and his cohorts (NOT Al Qaeda) represent a minuscule component in the affairs of the latest American enterprise in the projection of military power.

- enjoy, or if you have seen it already, you may want to address or rebut some of it's content.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by anotherdad
No not kidding i do hope we capture him before he passes away, if not it's kinda of like a game ending in a tie. I would like to see us reach our goal of bringing him to justice.


I'm not sure what that would accomplish at this point. I doubt we would hold him in Guantanamo, first of all, but you know there would be attempts to break into Gitmo to get him out even if he isn't there.

If he died in captivity we would have human rights groups and some bleeding heart countries accusing us of not taking better care of him while he was in our custody. God knows the U.S. doesn't need more fingers pointed at it right now.

If he survived a trial and made it to an execution, we would be martyring him.

Perhaps it is better to let him die out in the wild, scurrying around like a rat.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Yes my proof lies with the fact that he is NOT charged with the 9/11 attacks nor has he ever been charged with the attacks or any charges associating him with the attacks in anyway.


Why are you applying American law logic to this scenario when OBL and his followers do not abide by any law whatsoever?
You demonstrate the perfect example of why the rest of the world hates the US, because they claim we continually try to force our way of life and standards on everyone else.
Osama has already proudly claiimed responsibility for 911, so why continue to defend him?

We can google till we are blue in the fingertips, but your pals at google have an anti US agenda too.
Btw, if he is indeed already dead, you are doing nothing more than martyring him.
Hope you are proud of yourself.




[edit on 2-7-2008 by Alxandro]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Wrong!!! He intially DENIED that he was reponsible and said WTF are you trying to blame me for? It was only until later that he said he did it, probably to garner support from other terrorist groups. It's physcology 101...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread368199/pg2#

Please, besides Osama Bin Laden can you name just ONE person who authorities of any kind had evidence that they had committed a crime, and still refused to charge them with said crime? It just does not work that way.



Actually it's not at all uncommon for the law to withhold some charges until after an arrest has been made based on already existing charges. Bin Laden was already wanted for numerous crimes, so he would certainly fit this bill. Look at the report of anyone recently arrested, even the report of the Satanic ritual rape case listed right here in the breaking alternative news section and notice the comment in the OP about "Additional charges are expected to be filed." It is pretty much standard procedure to only present as much evidence as is needed to get an indictment, then bring further charges for which evidence will be presented during the actual trial.

If you're looking for specific names then start with Jose Padilla. He was held as a material witness with no charges even though the government had already stated he was directly involved with 9/11. It wasn't until the system pressured the government to actually seek an indictment that official charges were filed.

As for the Congress issue, I find it convenient that you believe the FBI that tells a reporter there isn't enough hard evidence, yet disbelieve the FBI that tells Congress bin Laden was clearly behind the attacks. If it suits your purpose and doesn't force you to change your beliefs, you defend it as truth, yet if it flies in the face of your conspiracy it's suddenly bogus. Convenient, but not in the least bit surprising.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


ya but you see, well if we, but not if.... Good point i guess it just gets down to i want us to get him. Maybe 2 days before he passes and all the other issues solve themself.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


Or fear of consequences, and buying some time to find a really good hidding place. Just like a child with a bad idea that only got worse once attempted, they usually wont own up until they know you know for sure.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


What's the point of this rumor? Are we supposed to be relieved?

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


He won't die in six months.
You'd have to resurrect him first.


Come on...he's probably already dead.
He had serious health issues long before this article.

- Lee




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join