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.

 

If in place of Obama was Ron Paul,would have been a fair trial against Bin Laden?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


" Bin Laden never had any Kidney problems short of a few kidney stones at best, he did not have Marfans syndrome however it has been claimed he may have suffered from Addisons disease. It is also important to remember that yes he did give the go ahead for the 9/11 attacks and was instrumental in funding the attacks and selecting targets however KSM was the mastermind who initially had some 10 plus targets and on Bin Laden’s orders had to reduce this number. It is also worth keeping in mind that long before 9/11 America had been in a secret war with Bin Laden he was well known even before 9/11. "


The above comments are in my view , Unsubstanciated . Do you have Links to Documents that Support these Claims ? I would have to Totally Disregard them having any Basis in Fact without some form of Documented Proof stating Otherwise.....




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   


Textwe will now never know the answer to
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 
This is the tragedy,never know the answer but lives will be paid with because of that.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


I apologise for taking so long to respond to you, I am sure it has been a busy few days for us both.

With regards to your question, if you just hit Google looking for information about Bin Laden’s medical history you can find that they Kidney story has been debunked as have many of the other myths about his health. In relation to what I said about his role in the 9/11 attacks the 9/11 commission report does describe KSM as the mastermind of the attacks and Bin Laden’s role is documented in several books about Al-Qa’ida and Bin Laden. As for the secret war going on between Al-Qa’ida and America before 9/11 I would direct you to read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll or really any book by Michal Scheure (I may be misspelling his name).

I hope that helps, but really if you look you will probably find that just about everything I have said in that post can be referenced. Sorry for my laziness but I really don’t want to go looking for references I know what I have said is factually and historically correct and I have advised you where to go to check this information out for yourself. However I am not going to go and read over all these books again to find the direct quotes.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 

Yeah since there was no proof of Bin Laden doing 911 he wouldn't be acquitted..Really??



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The military controlled all the information about Bin Laden. Ron Paul, like Obama, would have been led to believe they were going after OBL, and that he was "killed in a firefight". The military controlled everything the president saw and knew, and spoon-fed him information to produce the responses they wanted from him.

There's a reason they dumped his body in the sea so quickly, and it sure wasn't to spare our sensitivities of seeing brutal images or to appease Muslims. (Especially since the MSM had no compunction against showing a bloody Gaddafi on TV).

To the OP, the question is moot, in either situation - Ron Paul or Obama - the president was just a puppet on a string. The military could easily have staged a phony raid and let him watch it on CCTV while the real OBL had been rotting in the ground for the last 10 years. Remember Pakistan's Bhutto admitted it and got assassinated for it.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
If Ron paul was the president during/before 9/11, you most likely would not even know who osama bin laden was, since you would have no reason to, since he would have no reason to attack U.S or even assume responsibility for it. Same with alot of other issues. He would not interfere with other countries so they would have no reason to hate the U.S, thereby preventing alot of crap to even happen in the first place, which you are forced to contend with today. Like the patriot act, airport naked scanners etc.


Seeing as how 9/11 came at the end of over a decade of already knowing exactly who OBL was and what he wanted and had already done, what do you Paulers think? He would have been president from 1963-2016?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Backbiter
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 

Yeah since there was no proof of Bin Laden doing 911 he wouldn't be acquitted..Really??



The fact that he was wanted before 9/11 is just that one little detail eluding all the paul.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join