TERRORISM: Leaked Drone Video Shows Osama Bin Laden

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
U.S. Officials say a "highly classified" video showing what they believe to be Osama Bin Laden has been leaked. The vide, from the fall of 2000, showing a tall man dressed in a white robe, reveals the quality of intelligence technology used in the hunt for Bin Laden, before the "war on terrorism."
 
www.CNN.com The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.




posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
So how is this helpful to anyone lol?



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. You see a tall man. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
Its dynamite. Its putting together all of the pieces, and that doesnt happen every day.
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

I too wonder why a jet was scrambled to drop a bomb on this guy and the compound??? This was after the U.S. Cole bombing and the Embassies bombings...I mean they wanted him since then, why did we let him go????? I am sure the CIA is very upset about this leak.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
They did try to get him with tomahawk but he was gone by the time it reached the target



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
thanks watcher, I wonder how long it took for them to launch the tomahawk? I mean we had to have been monitoring the incident as it happened and we had to have been fairly close by...



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

as quoted by worldwatcher
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?



I guess someone needs to ask Clinton and the Clinton Administration, maybe? What you ask has been discussed here, brought up, and always pushed aside.
Perhaps those that continue to push 'denial' on this matter, of taking out or capturing Bin Ladin prior to 9/11, can best answer this?

BTW, just how many times did the prior administration reject, turn down, or not take opportunity to capture or take out Bin Laden, anyways?




seekerof

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Yeah the few reporters who are willing to look at this objectively and talk to experts state that it was impossible for them to hit him before he left. Apparently we had tried to do it a few months before and missed him (he left).

Apparently the drone that got the video was un-armed and it took several hours to get something in place.

I am also inclined to believe that prior to 9/11 attacking terrorist in another country was still seen as a major escalation and it would not be like today. Everyone knows that now we will hit and hit hard regardless of where you are, back then, the world would have freaked.

Doesn't this also show that the bush admin had to know quite a bit about Osama when they took office? Any threat they got before 9/11 should have been taken more seriously.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

As posted by nativeokie
I am also inclined to believe that prior to 9/11 attacking terrorist in another country was still seen as a major escalation and it would not be like today. Everyone knows that now we will hit and hit hard regardless of where you are, back then, the world would have freaked.


nativeokie, I, myself, have the opposite view. Bin Laden declared war against the US. A number of embassy bombing's with him and his organization taking claim, the USS Cole, claimed, etc......all under the prior Clinton Administration's watchful eyes. Besides cutting the 'nuts' off the US intelligence establishments/apparatus....HE, and those within his administration, should have acted.

Ultimately and objectively, whats the old saying: Hindsight is 20/20.........................or is it?



As posted by nativeokie
Doesn't this also show that the bush admin had to know quite a bit about Osama when they took office?


Sure it does nativeokie. The Bush Administration knew just what the prior, previous administration knew and left to them. A crippled and hampered US intelligence apparatus, all the intel reports that had and were documented, by a variety of government intel. agencies and foreign, as well. Despite this, is there any reason to think that 9/11 was going to happen, based on reports that "a terrorist act(s) may happen sometime in the future"? I didn't realize that the current administration had brought in, along with the staff of this current administration, sooth-sayers or Edgar Cayce translators...hmm?



As posted by nativeokie
Any threat they got before 9/11 should have been taken more seriously.


Agreed! Despite those proponents that argue that the Bush Administration brought with them a 'crystal ball' and was able to "know" of the 9/11 tragedy, the facts are that there was NO "crystal ball" and that the current administrations first priority was the re-allocation of sufficient funds to get the US intelligence apparatus back in full swing. Despite this, no one could have accurately predicted or forecasted that 9/11 would occur...no one!

Again, how many times did the previous administration reject, turn down, and not take opportunity to capture or take out Bin Ladin?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   



Thats Bin Laden alright. What an unmistakable fuzzy blob.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I agree with Seekerof, Pre 9/11 He wasnt wanted the way he is now.

The better question, Why where they watching in 2000?

If that is him, and it was that easy to see him, why cant they find him now?

Maybe because someone is telling a lie or two.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Yep! It looks just like him!



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
They were watching because of Bin Ladens connection and resposibility to Afrcican Embassy attacks, USS Cole, Somalia, World Center Bombing number #1, etc.. The problem was no military action or paramilitary action was taken because Clinton Admin had there own scandals to worry about and classified terrorism as a Police not military issue. As a result the CIA Drone was unable to shove a Hellfire up Osama's tail end. Big mistake.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
dreamrebel they have confirmed the drone was not armed, it was on survelliance. We did not start arming them until after 9/11...



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Roger that red leader.. I will adjust my attitude with updated facts!



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
They did try to get him with tomahawk but he was gone by the time it reached the target

Yep, I remember this. It always makes me wonder why people always said the Clinton admin didn't try and kill Osama. They did shoot a missile and he was gone by the time it got there. I also (vaguely) remember hearing something about they ended up hitting a wrong spot where he was believed to be.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
thanks watcher, I wonder how long it took for them to launch the tomahawk? I mean we had to have been monitoring the incident as it happened and we had to have been fairly close by...



There are a huge number of variables that go into the time it takes to launch a tomahawk. Suffice to say it is not a quick process.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Don't you think a tomahawk is a bit of an overkill to snipe one guy?



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Don't you think a tomahawk is a bit of an overkill to snipe one guy?


not compared to the 2 bombs US forces dropped on a residential area to try and kill saddam.

regarding the pictures, the evidence shows that this guy was tall, wearing white, had guards and people showed deference to him.
its clearly jesus.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Does anyone have Mac comp' link 4 the drone vid'? Wmv is ok.
S.



posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
You should realize one thing. If bin Laden had been killed prior to 9-11, the WTC attack would have been seen as retaliation by al Queda, and some (guess who) would be screaming that we brought it on ourselves by killing al Queda's leader. This could have changed the entire political landscape, as it did in Spain.

Spain has attempted to sacrifice the rest of Europe to temporarily save itself. I am reminded of Churchill's statement to Neville Chamberlain:

"You had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you shall have war."






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join