If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
It seems that he does accept responsibility.
It also seems that he has denied responsibility,
I'll bet he was being untruthful.
call the FBI, this must be new to them, now they will have some hard proof, wait has it not been almost 4 years since that tape came out. they must know about it. if it's not proof to the FBI, it's not proof to me.
call the FBI, this must be new to them, now they will have some hard proof, wait has it not been almost 4 years since that tape came out. they must know about it. if it's not proof to the FBI, it's not proof to me.
Once again, who cares if they can tie it to OBL. They can tie to people within the Al-Qaeda and that validates that 19 terrorist operatives hijacked these planes in the name of Islamic extremism.
Once again, who cares if they can tie it to OBL. They can tie to people within the Al-Qaeda and that validates that 19 terrorist operatives hijacked these planes in the name of Islamic extremism.
my point is why don't they just come out and say that. why run the lie and keep it going for so long?
okay, it was just red tape.
and why is there red tape in the first place, so that crap isn't used as proof.
Your linky purports that OBL is on the Ten Most wanted list for the embassy bombings -- no mention of 9/11. Evidence of a conspiracy? Hardly.
Likely, the Justice Department believes it can build a stronger case against him for the embassy bombings than for 9/11, simply because they have a more robust trail of evidence for those crimes. If someday OBL is captured and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, he may only be charged with the embassy bombings for just that reason.
There is ample precedence for this. For example, when Seattle's notorious Green River Killer, whose victims numbered around 50, was finally captured, the prosecutors planned to charge him with only 2 or 3 of the killings. These were the ones for which they felt they could build the strongest case against him, based on the evidence, and thus were most likely to secure a conviction. Remember, any case must be able to stand up to juridical scrutiny.
All reports of OBL being dead have been shown to be false.
have they now, because of new "tapes" most don't even show his face. like the report writes, a man like OBL won't say quite long. he would show his people how powerful he is. but not the case. the man is most likely dead, i can't prove, but you can't prove he is alive.
have they now, because of new "tapes" most don't even show his face. like the report writes, a man like OBL won't say quite long. he would show his people how powerful he is. but not the case. the man is most likely dead, i can't prove, but you can't prove he is alive.
Exactly. You can't prove. Reputable sources claim he is still alive. I'll go with that.
Your linky purports that OBL is on the Ten Most wanted list for the embassy bombings -- no mention of 9/11. Evidence of a conspiracy? Hardly.
Likely, the Justice Department believes it can build a stronger case against him for the embassy bombings than for 9/11, simply because they have a more robust trail of evidence for those crimes. If someday OBL is captured and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, he may only be charged with the embassy bombings for just that reason.
There is ample precedence for this. For example, when Seattle's notorious Green River Killer, whose victims numbered around 50, was finally captured, the prosecutors planned to charge him with only 2 or 3 of the killings. These were the ones for which they felt they could build the strongest case against him, based on the evidence, and thus were most likely to secure a conviction. Remember, any case must be able to stand up to juridical scrutiny.
Is there anything else I can deconstruct for you?
good point, but when the man is saying he had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is no "real" proof that he did it, we should not be saying he was behind it, but we are.
the man is most likely dead, i can't prove, but you can't prove he is alive.
Just as I thought. If I may self-quote:
Originally posted by Verbal
Conspiracy theorists dodge the burden of proof by shifting the burden of disproof over to the rest of us. They will use the tiniest shred of "evidence" -- a tiny blip on a screen, a reflection of light in a photograph, an interview with a self-proclaimed expert, etc. -- as basis for their outlandish ideas. When confronted, their attitude is, "Prove me wrong."
good point, but when the man is saying he had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is no "real" proof that he did it, we should not be saying he was behind it, but we are.
Heavens, do you suppose it's possible that not only is bin Laden a mass murderer, he is also a liar?
good point, but when the man is saying he had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is no "real" proof that he did it, we should not be saying he was behind it, but we are.
Now you've gone beyond common sense for the sake of proving a point. If I say something, and then later say something to the contradictory, one can assume the latter is truth. He took responsibility, albeit 3 years after the attack, but he did so nonetheless.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment