Wag The Dog - Three reasons why the official OBL story stinks to high heaven

reply to post by Blaine91555



It bothers me too Blaine, and I'll tell ya, Im not a huge fan of Alex Jones but what he was saying about the government having killed OBL back in 2003 and keeping his body on ice in order to use as an ace card for political gain....I gotta believe that makes a lot of sense.

He said Bush W had planned to break out the "we killed Bin Laden" card back when the elections were in doubt in 2004 but decided against it.

I can see this administration being desperate enough to pull something that ridiculous. And the sad part is it could easily be done right under everyone's nose and most would never believe it even if you drew them a map.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

It bothers me too Blaine, and I'll tell ya, Im not a huge fan of Alex Jones but what he was saying about the government having killed OBL back in 2003 and keeping his body on ice in order to use as an ace card for political gain....I gotta believe that makes a lot of sense.

He said Bush W had planned to break out the "we killed Bin Laden" card back when the elections were in doubt in 2004 but decided against it.

I can see this administration being desperate enough to pull something that ridiculous. And the sad part is it could easily be done right under everyone's nose and most would never believe it even if you drew them a map.

Serious question: If the two parties don't matter--R & D--why would it matter who gets elected? If, as most here would claim, it doesn't matter which party is elected, then what difference would it make if they used this "frozen Osama" card to get re-elected? What purpose would it serve? Why would they play that card? Now I'm seriously lost... or is this guy and Alex Jones seriously lost?

Originally posted by ChooChoo

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

It bothers me too Blaine, and I'll tell ya, Im not a huge fan of Alex Jones but what he was saying about the government having killed OBL back in 2003 and keeping his body on ice in order to use as an ace card for political gain....I gotta believe that makes a lot of sense.

He said Bush W had planned to break out the "we killed Bin Laden" card back when the elections were in doubt in 2004 but decided against it.

I can see this administration being desperate enough to pull something that ridiculous. And the sad part is it could easily be done right under everyone's nose and most would never believe it even if you drew them a map.

Serious question: If the two parties don't matter--R & D--why would it matter who gets elected? If, as most here would claim, it doesn't matter which party is elected, then what difference would it make if they used this "frozen Osama" card to get re-elected? What purpose would it serve? Why would they play that card? Now I'm seriously lost... or is this guy and Alex Jones seriously lost?

Its a political ace in the hole, a get out of jail free card.

The economy is spiraling down the toilet, Americans have been wiped out by foreclosures, exploding hedge funds and defaults, the unpopular wars for oil raging on, the insanely high jobless rate, the pressing of the debt ceiling and the ungodly foreign debt that has been incurred, the hated banker bailouts, the birth certificate mayhem, natural disasters, oil spills, out of control illegal immigration, just when a tidal wave of kaka is about to smash down upon this administration......suprise. "We just killed Osama Bin Laden ya'll!"

From zero to hero in the blink of an eye.

Divert. Distract. Subjugate. Rinse. Repeat.

Originally posted by ChooChoo
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Off topic, but I would like to make this point concerning Bradley Manning: he's not in trouble for speaking out against the U.S. or its policies; what he did was reveal classified information. Information that could jeopardize troops abroad and American citizens back home. That, I believe, is considered treason.

If he is convicted, then yes.

However, he will have a jury at his treason trial. And whether or not the evidence shows he committed treason, the jury can still decide whether or not to convict. If they see that even though evidence supports the charge of treason, they still get to decide if the treasonous act is actually deserving of punishment.

So even if evidence showed he did everything, they could still decide he is not guilty.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

law2.umkc.edu...

reply to post by BlackOps719


You're missing my point, I think. If George W. (a republican) could have used it to stay in office, and now Obama (a democrat) could have used it - why use it for re-elections at all? If either party is in power, the elite are still in power - a common thought pattern in the ATS community. So what if the polls shift or not.... so what if Obama is replaced - by another one of the elite guys. What difference would it make, and why would they play that card fro political purposes if, in fact, politics don't matter?

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by ChooChoo
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Off topic, but I would like to make this point concerning Bradley Manning: he's not in trouble for speaking out against the U.S. or its policies; what he did was reveal classified information. Information that could jeopardize troops abroad and American citizens back home. That, I believe, is considered treason.

If he is convicted, then yes.

However, he will have a jury at his treason trial. And whether or not the evidence shows he committed treason, the jury can still decide whether or not to convict. If they see that even though evidence supports the charge of treason, they still get to decide if the treasonous act is actually deserving of punishment.

So even if evidence showed he did everything, they could still decide he is not guilty.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

law2.umkc.edu...

edit on 5-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: Because i can

I think you are missing my point too, I'm sorry....

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by lance_covel
reply to post by katamaro

 

It wouldnt bother me too much if they gave Bradley Manning a double-tap-free-ticket also.

Say whatever you want to about Bradley Manning but that kid had the guts to try and get the truth out when he saw something wrong being done. To stand up for your own convictions in the face of the great United States military monster takes a level of balls that the average person wouldnt know anything about.

Would you risk ending up in a cell in Leavenworth in order to do what you thought was right?

I didn't think so.

He might have risked more than an extended stay in Quantico

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 4-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: (no reason given)

I could definitely see the government executing Bradley Manning in order to make an example of him and to put the fear of God into other military personell who may want to come forward as a whistle blower.

The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you.

"The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you."

That is not the message at all. He didn't speak out about anyone in particular, the government, or its policies. I doubt Mr. Manning even knew what was in all those cables - and neither do we, since they've not all been released. What Manning did was reckless - not courageous. There are courageous men and women who stand up for what they believe in, but he didn't even know WTF he was passing on.

Originally posted by ChooChoo

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by ChooChoo
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Off topic, but I would like to make this point concerning Bradley Manning: he's not in trouble for speaking out against the U.S. or its policies; what he did was reveal classified information. Information that could jeopardize troops abroad and American citizens back home. That, I believe, is considered treason.

If he is convicted, then yes.

However, he will have a jury at his treason trial. And whether or not the evidence shows he committed treason, the jury can still decide whether or not to convict. If they see that even though evidence supports the charge of treason, they still get to decide if the treasonous act is actually deserving of punishment.

So even if evidence showed he did everything, they could still decide he is not guilty.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

law2.umkc.edu...

edit on 5-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: Because i can

I think you are missing my point too, I'm sorry....

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by lance_covel
reply to post by katamaro

 

It wouldnt bother me too much if they gave Bradley Manning a double-tap-free-ticket also.

Say whatever you want to about Bradley Manning but that kid had the guts to try and get the truth out when he saw something wrong being done. To stand up for your own convictions in the face of the great United States military monster takes a level of balls that the average person wouldnt know anything about.

Would you risk ending up in a cell in Leavenworth in order to do what you thought was right?

I didn't think so.

He might have risked more than an extended stay in Quantico

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 4-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: (no reason given)

I could definitely see the government executing Bradley Manning in order to make an example of him and to put the fear of God into other military personell who may want to come forward as a whistle blower.

The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you.

"The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you."

That is not the message at all. He didn't speak out about anyone in particular, the government, or its policies. I doubt Mr. Manning even knew what was in all those cables - and neither do we, since they've not all been released. What Manning did was reckless - not courageous. There are courageous men and women who stand up for what they believe in, but he didn't even know WTF he was passing on.

"The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you."

I understand your argument, but i never made this statement.

Off topic, but I would like to make this point concerning Bradley Manning: he's not in trouble for speaking out against the U.S. or its policies; what he did was reveal classified information. Information that could jeopardize troops abroad and American citizens back home. That, I believe, is considered treason

This is what i was responding to, in case you missed my point.

He didn't speak out about anyone in particular, the government, or its policies. I doubt Mr. Manning even knew what was in all those cables - and neither do we, since they've not all been released. What Manning did was reckless - not courageous. There are courageous men and women who stand up for what they believe in, but he didn't even know WTF he was passing on.

I believe all of that is for the jury to decide. As i outlined in my previous post.

reply to post by HawkMan11


I did miss that point, sorry.

reply to post by ChooChoo


And never said you made that statement, but I apologize again. But, I guess you'll totally ignore the rest. All good.

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by ChooChoo

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by ChooChoo
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Off topic, but I would like to make this point concerning Bradley Manning: he's not in trouble for speaking out against the U.S. or its policies; what he did was reveal classified information. Information that could jeopardize troops abroad and American citizens back home. That, I believe, is considered treason.

If he is convicted, then yes.

However, he will have a jury at his treason trial. And whether or not the evidence shows he committed treason, the jury can still decide whether or not to convict. If they see that even though evidence supports the charge of treason, they still get to decide if the treasonous act is actually deserving of punishment.

So even if evidence showed he did everything, they could still decide he is not guilty.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

law2.umkc.edu...

edit on 5-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: Because i can

I think you are missing my point too, I'm sorry....

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by HawkMan11

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by lance_covel

This is what i was responding to, in case you missed my point.

He didn't speak out about anyone in particular, the government, or its policies. I doubt Mr. Manning even knew what was in all those cables - and neither do we, since they've not all been released. What Manning did was reckless - not courageous. There are courageous men and women who stand up for what they believe in, but he didn't even know WTF he was passing on.

I believe all of that is for the jury to decide. As i outlined in my previous post.

edit on 5-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by HawkMan11 because: Double because i can

What's funny is, you never responded to that, but I love your quotes!!!!

reply to post by ChooChoo


If I'm understanding what you think i have apparently ignored, then i believe my response was

I believe all of that is for the jury to decide. As i outlined in my previous post.

My opinion on the subject of his guilt, courageousness (or lack there of), and determination of his sentence are all irrelevant unless I am chosen as a juror for his trial. Which is why I choose keep those opinions to myself.

It would be easier if I asked you simple questions. Lets play the jury for a moment, Okay?

- Was Manning speaking out against a particular, cause, person, or policy?

- Did Manning know what was on those cables?

- Could the release of those cable put lives in jeopardy?

- Did Manning, with malice of forethought, put people lives in jeopardy?
* I would argue no, since Manning is obviously mentally impaired. Who would send 250,000+ diplomatic cables to wikiLeaks, without knowing WTF was on them?

- Did Manning do right by his country?

reply to post by ChooChoo


You don't have to answer, I was typing my reply as you left yours.

But the original statement I was responding to was:

""The message is loud and clear.....speak out against us and we will kill you." "

And my response is the same. The message is not quite ^^.

Don't hate your government just to hate it. Actually have a basis for it.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

It bothers me too Blaine, and I'll tell ya, Im not a huge fan of Alex Jones but what he was saying about the government having killed OBL back in 2003 and keeping his body on ice in order to use as an ace card for political gain....I gotta believe that makes a lot of sense.

He said Bush W had planned to break out the "we killed Bin Laden" card back when the elections were in doubt in 2004 but decided against it.

I can see this administration being desperate enough to pull something that ridiculous. And the sad part is it could easily be done right under everyone's nose and most would never believe it even if you drew them a map.

If the body was being preserved they would have released photos, they would not have said they dumped the body in the ocean.

All of this shows that they never had his body, because they would not be reluctant to release evidence. They probably have fake photographic evidence they are considering releasing.

reply to post by ChooChoo



And just how do you have any conceivable idea what Manning knew and didn't know? Were you there at the time? How do you insist that he released those cable blindly if you have no first hand proof of such claims?

How do we know if Manning had already seen at least portions of the material in question? Who's to say that he didn't at the very least see enough to know that something seriously wrong was happening, that vile and criminal acts were being commited behind the curtain of war?

Maybe Manning had something that most military personell seem to be lacking.....a guilty conscience? I seriously doubt that he just one day up and decided he would betray his country for no good reason, the very idea is idiotic. Keep in mind large portions of those cables are still in possession and have not been brought to light, so who truly knows what could be on there?

Hopefully Assange or someone will release the remaining information before they are all hunted down and killed.

And all of this is starting to stray way off topic, so if you have feelings about the Manning case start a thread on it or add to one of the many that are going already. Derailing this thread is not necessary.

Originally posted by ChooChoo
It would be easier if I asked you simple questions. Lets play the jury for a moment, Okay?

- Was Manning speaking out against a particular, cause, person, or policy?

- Did Manning know what was on those cables?

- Could the release of those cable put lives in jeopardy?

- Did Manning, with malice of forethought, put people lives in jeopardy?
* I would argue no, since Manning is obviously mentally impaired. Who would send 250,000+ diplomatic cables to wikiLeaks, without knowing WTF was on them?

- Did Manning do right by his country?

My answers, which would be opinions, are irrelevant as I have not been deemed responsible for determining so as a juror assigned to his case.

That is all I have to add on the off-topic topic of Manning.

Originally posted by Broll
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

I don't think your #2 reason holds much water. Unless you can find one of those college kids from those crowds and have them admit they were instructed to be there, you're really taking an uber-leap into paranoia.

My question is, why not bring in some outsiders to witness the body before dumping it. They could have flown in some members of the press... CNN, al Jazeera , BBC, etc and let them see and then report confirmation of the story. Surely there was enough time to accomplish this before they dumped it. Why was the body burning such a hole in their pocket.

Also, the mere fact that there is an admission that photos exist will mean that this story will never die. If Obama thought the birth certificate debate was a distraction, this will surely "trump" that. The public cannot not be expected to "unlearn" of the knowledge that these photos exist. You can't get that cat back in the bag.

edit on 4-5-2011 by Broll because: (no reason given)

they didnt have to fly anyone in. they flew the body back to afghanistan then down to the carl vincent, they could have had a whole press setup in afghanistan when they had to refuel the heli

Originally posted by okiecowboy

***snip***
And according to reports he wasn't armed

So we Shot and Killed a unarmed man after we broke into his home in another country..because we said we could...

alot of people have gone to jail over the years for killing unarmed folks....

now I for one, If Osama had anything to do with 9/11, I do hope he is dead and rotting...but by doing what we did in that way...we have become what we hated about him

Honestly I see no other cause of action than to kill him like a rabid dog.

He is - or was as some claim the number one top terrorist of the world. I don't suppose we can disagree on that.
Just imagine what woul dhappen if we took him alive. There would be a large number of hostage takings in the attempt to get him freed.
How many innocent people would we sacrifice in order to bring him to justice?

No - he placed himself beyond the borders of human society and as such also beyond the laws of human society.

Great post, all the same feelings/questions I had upon learning of obl's death. Dumped him in the ocean...... really??????? Not to go to much off topic, does anyone have any thoughts on Defense Sec. Gates retirement and CIA head Ponettas position swap, as well as the wikileaks information on the hidden nukes being detonated if obl was captured or killed. Something sure seems to be going down and fast. Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums........

reply to post by BlackOps719


Let me get this straight.... They landed two copters in this compound, the seals rushed out and entered this compound, there was not a fire fight except for the seals plugging everyone in sight, they loaded the bodies they were after and took off. There was a problem with one of the copters and they ended up detonating it.... did they have another one on stand by or did they all leave with the bodies in tow in the one that was left?