Osama Dun Livin.

[Queen K]

And why would Osama be reported dead years ago?

To be the perfect cover up.

To continue to plot and plan his terror attacks and because certain factions would think of him as dead, not to worry of being "found."

Only someone knew something that he was not dead. And there in lies the rub. Who knew what when and how.

Just like the JFK mystery, books and theories will abound forever.

[TedD]

This is interesting:
BBC: Bin Laden sons protest to US over 'arbitrary killing'



Hmm, I've seen this guy somewhere before...



Somebody give Omar a rum and coke before he follows in his father's footsteps.

[peaceseeker]

And why would Osama be reported dead years ago?

To be the perfect cover up.

To continue to plot and plan his terror attacks and because certain factions would think of him as dead, not to worry of being "found."

Only someone knew something that he was not dead. And there in lies the rub. Who knew what when and how.

Just like the JFK mystery, books and theories will abound forever.

I understand my words tend to fall on deaf ears for many here at the Castanet forums but I'll respond as best I can...

Why would Osama be reported dead years ago? Perhaps this is because he did in fact die (News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral - December 2001) - or was his funeral staged as well? Osama bin Laden (OBL) was quite ill and it was reported in late 2001 that he received treatment for kidney disease while at an American hospital in Dubai in July, 2001.

Other than to perpetuate the Bush admn's 'official story' it can be argued that OBL had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Even the FBI stated it had 'no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11' ...hence his involvement in the attacks of 9/11 not being listed on its website's 'Most Wanted'...

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stor ... n-to-9-11/

How can a person be extra-judicially 'killed' for something they haven't been formally charged? This (9/11) was the primary reason Obama authorized 'the mission to kill or capture bin Laden', was it not?

The only cover-up going on here (and I know it's very hard for some people to accept) is that of the Bush admn's (and various intelligence agencies) direct involvement in the events of 9/11...a cover-up that continues with the support of a complicit msm and the 'look forward and not back' Obama admn.

Just like the JFK mystery, books and theories will abound forever.

While this may be true, QK, the two 'deep events' (JFK assassination and 9/11) share very striking similarities. Peter Dale Scott's, 'The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases' explains it best...


The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=9511
by Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, July 5, 2008

Global Research recently published my essay entitled 9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics In this article, I argue that 9/11 should be analyzed as a deep event (an event not fully aired or understood because of its intelligence connections) and above all as one of a series of deep events which from time to time have frustrated peace initiatives or become pretexts for war.

In support of this overall thesis I pointed to features of 9/11 which recalled similar deep events: the still not fully understood outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the JFK assassination, and the so-called Second Tonkin Gulf Incident of 1964 (an alleged attack on U.S. destroyers which we now know never happened).

The similarities between these deep events which have disturbed American history since World War Two suggest that they are not just a sequence of unrelated external accidents, but at least in part the product of some on-going deep indigenous force not yet adequately understood.

In this series of deep events, perhaps the most striking similarities are between the JFK assassination (henceforward referred to as "JFK") and 9/11. Earlier talks and articles I have delivered on this topic are developed even further in my forthcoming much expanded reissue of my early book, The War Conspiracy. As The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War, it is due to be published by the Mary Ferrell Foundation Press in August 2008.

The following essay is the concluding section of the new book, and has never hitherto been published.]


I wish to summarize again the first striking similarity between 11/22/63 and of 9/11/01: the dubious detective work on those two days. Less than fifteen minutes after the President’s assassination, the height and weight of Kennedy’s alleged killer was posted.1 Before the last of the hijacked planes crashed on 9/11, the FBI told Richard Clarke that they had a list of alleged hijackers.2

In the case of Oswald, within fifteen minutes of the assassination and long before Oswald was picked up in the Texas Theater, Inspector Sawyer of the Dallas police put out on the police radio network, and possibly other networks, a description of the killer – "About 30, 5’10", 165 pounds."3 As noted, this height and weight exactly matched the measurements attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald in Oswald’s FBI file, and also in CIA documents about him.4

The announced height and weight were however different from Oswald’s actual measurements, as recorded by the Dallas police after his arrest: 5’9 1/2", 131 pounds.5 More importantly, there is no credible source for the posted measurements from any witness in Dallas. (The witness said to have spotted him, Howard Brennan, failed to identify Oswald in a line-up.)6 This leaves the possibility that the measurements were taken from existing files on Oswald, rather than from any observations in Dallas on November 22. If so, someone with access to those files may have already designated Oswald as the culprit, before there was any evidence to connect him to the crime.

A similar situation pertains to the alleged hijackers on 9/11. For example, shortly afterwards men in Saudi Arabia complained that "the hijackers' `personal details’" released by the FBI -- "including name, place, date of birth and occupation -- matched their own."7 One of them, Saeed al-Ghamdi, claimed further that an alleged photograph shown on CNN (of an alleged Flight 93 hijacker with the same name) was in fact a photograph of himself. He speculated "that CNN had probably got the picture from the Flight Safety flying school he attended in Florida."8

If the above information is accurate, then the details posted by the FBI and CNN about the alleged hijackers cannot have derived from the events of 9/11, with which the survivors in Saudi Arabia would appear to have been uninvolved. Once again this leaves the strong possibility that the details were taken from existing files, rather than from empirical observations on September 11.9

And some of the hijackers, like Lee Harvey Oswald, may have been in CIA files for a special reason: because the CIA had an operational interest in them.

Internal CIA Evidence of Operational Interest in Oswald and the Hijackers

I have speculated that Oswald, like the al-Qaeda trainer Ali Mohamed, might have been a double agent reporting to the FBI about the terrorist group (Alpha 66) with which some law enforcement officers associated him.

I would like now to discuss more unequivocal evidence, from internal CIA records, about an operational CIA interest in first Oswald and later two of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers, Nawaz al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar. In 2001 as in 1963 the CIA inexplicably withheld information about the subjects from the FBI, which ought categorically to have received it. The anomalies are extreme.

This is now easy to show in the case of Oswald. On October 10, 1963, six weeks before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, CIA Headquarters sent out two messages about Oswald, a teletype to the FBI, State, and Navy, and a cable to the chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station. Both messages contained false and mutually contradictory statements, and also withheld known facts of great potential importance.10 The teletype to the FBI withheld the obviously significant information that Oswald had reportedly met in Mexico City with a Soviet Vice-Consul, Valeriy Kostikov, who was believed by CIA officers to be an officer of the KGB.11

One CIA officer, Jane Roman, helped draft both messages. In 1995 she was confronted by two interviewers with irrefutable evidence that she had signed off on erroneous information about Oswald in the CIA cable to Mexico City. After much questioning, she finally admitted, "I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true." One of the interviewers, John Newman, then asked her, "‘Is this indicative of some sort of operational interest in Oswald’s file?’ ‘Yes,’ Roman replied. ‘To me it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need-to-know basis.’" She later repeated, "I would think there was definitely some operational reason to withhold it [the information at CIA headquarters on Oswald], if it was not sheer administrative error, when you see all the people who signed off on it."12

Other CIA officers withheld important information from the FBI in January 2000, with respect to Khalid al-Mihdar, who would later be identified as one of the al-Qaeda hijackers on September 11, 2001. The NSA overheard on a Yemeni telephone about a meeting in Malaysia which al-Mihdar would attend, along with Tewfiq bin Attash, the mastermind of the fatal attack on the USS Cole.13 It notified the CIA but not the FBI. In consequence

[Khalid al-Mihdar’s] Saudi passport – which contained a visa for travel to the United States – was photocopied [in Qatar] and forwarded to CIA headquarters. The information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at the CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI Headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI.14

Lawrence Wright, reviewing this and other significant anomalies, reported in The Looming Tower the belief among FBI agents following bin Laden "that the agency was protecting Mihdar and [his companion, the alleged 9/11 hijacker Nawaz al-] Hazmi because it hoped to recruit them," or alternatively that "the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence" using al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi.15 Wright himself speculated in a companion essay he wrote for The New Yorker that "The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it."16

The Consequences of the CIA’s Withholding of Evidence

As just noted, the CIA, in its teletype to the FBI of October 10, 1963, withheld the information that Oswald had reportedly met with a KGB officer, Valeriy Kostikov. Former FBI Director Clarence Kelley in his memoir later complained that this failure to inform the FBI was the major reason why Oswald was not put under surveillance on November 22, 1963.17 In other words, the withholding enabled Oswald to play whatever role he played on that fateful day, even if it was only to become a designated patsy.

FBI officials are even more bitter about the consequences of the withholding of information about al-Mihdar:

They didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business – that’s why they didn’t tell the FBI….They purposely hid from the FBI, purposely refused to tell the bureau that they were following a man in Malaysia who had a visa to come to America….And that’s why September 11 happened. That is why it happened….They have blood on their hands. They have three thousand deaths on their hands.18

But the CIA withheld information from the FBI about bin Attash (already the subject of a criminal investigation) as well, even when asked by an FBI agent, Ali Soufan, about bin Attash and the Malaysia meeting. According to Wright,

The agency did not respond to his clearly stated request. The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amounted to obstruction of justice in the death of the seventeen American sailors."19

In late August 2001, only days before 9/11, FBI agent Steve Bongardt, complaining about the CIA’s withholding of information about al-Mihdar, correctly predicted in an angry email to the CIA’s bin Laden unit that "someday someone will die."20



The CIA’s Dishonest Efforts to Cover-Up

From the moment Congress, in the 1970s, began to evince an interest in the Kennedy assassination, former CIA officer David Phillips became a vigorous defender of the CIA’s performance. With respect to false information about Oswald in CIA cables both to and from Mexico City (where Phillips was in charge of Cuban affairs for the CIA station), Phillips’s first response was to dismiss Oswald as "a blip" of no interest.21

A similar defense of the CIA’s failure to act on al-Mihdar was offered to the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 by the Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, Cofer Black: "I think that month we watchlisted about 150 people."22 The same defense was offered by Dale Watson, the FBI’s former counterterrorism chief:

There were a lot of red flags prior to 9/11….So it’s a mass of information and it’s a sea of threats, and it’s like working against a maze. If you know where the end point of a maze is, it’s certainly easier to work your way back to the starting point than trying to go through the maze and sort out all the red flags.23

The problem with this excuse is that both Oswald and al-Mihdar were singled out for special CIA attention, not left floating in a sea of red flags. The cable to Mexico City which Jane Roman signed off on was not handled routinely, it was sent for signature to the CIA’s Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, Thomas Karamessines. And in the case of al-Mihdar in Malaysia, back in 2000

CIA leaders were so convinced about the potential significance of the al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, they not only set up surveillance of it, but provided regular updates to the FBI director [Louis Freeh], the head of the CIA [George Tenet], and the national security advisor [Samuel Berger].24

That Freeh and Berger were being notified at the top about the Malaysia meeting (at the same time that the regular FBI bureaucracy was being cut out) is confirmed in accounts by Terry McDermott and Philip Shenon.25

CIA officials testified falsely to congressional committees with respect to both Oswald and al-Mihdar. James Angleton was asked by the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations about a memoir written by the CIA’s station chief in Mexico City, Win Scott, and later personally retrieved for the Agency after Scott’s death by Angleton himself. Angleton testified that Scott’s "manuscript was fictional and did not include a chapter on Oswald." In fact, according to Jefferson Morley, "The only surviving manuscript is clearly nonfictional and does have a chapter on Oswald."26

Both George Tenet and Cofer Black testified before the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that the FBI had been granted access to the information linking al-Mihdar and Tewfiq bin Attash (alias Khallad), the mastermind of the Cole bombing. The 9/11 Commission, after a lengthy review of the matter, concluded "this was not the case."27

The CIA, Oswald, and Al-Mihdar: Suppression of Vital Records

That the CIA regards its relationship to the suspects Oswald and al-Mihdar as sensitive is further illustrated by its suppression of vital evidence with respect to both. Although in the 1990s all government agencies were required by law to submit their Oswald-related documents to the Assassination Records Review Board, the CIA has been vigorously resisting pressure to do this in the case of former CIA officer George Joannides. In 1963 Joannides was the case officer for AMSPELL, the CIA’s operation in support of the Cuban exile group DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil). In August 1963 the DRE was in contact with Oswald and participated with him in a radio broadcast which was later distributed with CIA help throughout Latin America.28

According to Jefferson Morley, "four decades after the fact, the most important AMSPELL records are missing from CIA archives – perhaps intentionally." Monthly reports on DRE activities were filed by CIA case officers Ross Crozier and William Kent, and these records were declassified by the ARRB for the periods September 1960-November 1962 and after May 1964.

But the board was unable to locate any monthly AMSPELL reports from December 1962 to April 1964. There was a seventeen-month gap in the AMSPELL records, which coincided exactly with the period in which George Joannides handled the group.29

With respect to 9/11, all that is known about suppression so far has to do with the public record. Here it is striking that the Report of the Joint Inquiry by Congress into 9/11 has one glaring redaction of twenty-eight pages, dealing with "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States." Press reports have specified that this refers to Saudi money which reached al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi in 2000 while they were in San Diego. According to committee cochair Senator Bob Graham,

The draft contained a twenty-eight page passage that detailed evidence that Saudis in the United States – Saudi government "spies," Graham called them – had provided financial and logistical support to [al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi] while they lived in Southern California.30

Similarly the 9/11 Commission failed to deal with the information on an FBI "hijacker timeline" that al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi were met at the airport on their first arrival in the United States by Omar al-Bayoumi, the transmitter of the Saudi funds, whom Graham claimed was obviously "a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent."31 The FBI findings were leaked in an early story in Newsweek:

At the airport, they were swept up by a gregarious fellow Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had been living in the United States for several years. Al-Bayoumi drove the two men to San Diego, threw a welcoming party and arranged for the visitors to get an apartment next to his. He guaranteed the lease, and plunked down $1,550 in cash to cover the first two months' rent.32

One month later, "In January 2003, Graham and the other members of the committee were …the focus of a criminal investigation by the FBI into whether someone on the panel had leaked classified information."33

The 9/11 Commission avoided this sensitive area. It cited the FBI Chronology a total of 52 times in its footnotes, for example at 493n55, concerning al-Mihdar’s travel from Yemen to the Malaysian meeting. But it suppressed the FBI’s report that al-Bayoumi met al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi on their arrival; and it substituted what Shenon calls an "improbable tale" supplied by al-Bayoumi himself: namely, that he had run into the two men two weeks later by accident "at a halal food restaurant" near Los Angeles.34

It is clear that two members of the 9/11 Commission staff who redacted this part of the report – Dietrich Snell and Philip Zelikow – were concerned to tone down what junior staffers considered to be "explosive material" on the Saudis.35 Shenon tells how this section of the 9/11 report was rewritten by Snell and Zelikow, until the text "removed all of the most serious allegations against the Saudis."36

But Snell and Zelikow may have been protecting the CIA as well as the Saudis. We have already noted how Lawrence Wright, looking at the extraordinary CIA record on withholding information about al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi, concluded, "It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence."37

Conclusion

It is clear, as everyone who has studied these matters closely and impartially concurs, that there have been cover-ups of the CIA’s relationships to first Oswald and later al-Mihdar – cover-ups which in both cases have not yet been adequately resolved.

A reasonable conclusion from the available evidence is that the cover-ups were in order to conceal prior CIA operational interest in the designated subjects, just as in the case of Ali Mohamed in the early 1990s. It could of course be a coincidence that people of operational interest to the CIA became designated subjects in the deep events of JFK and 9/11. Another, more disturbing possibility is that those responsible for these events knew of the CIA’s operational interest, and exploited it in such a way as to ensure that the government would be embarrassed into covering up what really happened on those days.

A lot of books about 9/11, including my own, have focused on the roles played by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on that day. But it is clear that 9/11 involved a USG connection to at least one figure (Ali Mohamed) so sensitive that it had been covered up from the time of the Nosair murder in 1990 and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. It is probable that Oswald’s covert USG connections also dated back to the time of his strange release from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1959, enabling him to travel to the Soviet Union.38

In short there is a substratum of covert operations underlying both events that antedates the presidencies in which they occurred. Thus one should not expect the cover-up of 9/11 in the G.W. Bush administration to dissipate simply because the Democrats take over the White House, just as the Johnson administration’s cover-up of the Kennedy assassination did not dissipate with the election of Richard Nixon.39

This is said not out of despair, but out of belief in the ultimate resilience and good sense of the American people. The analysis in this book is that America’s involvement in two disastrous wars – first Vietnam and later Iraq – was not an outcome of the people’s will, but rather in large part because of deep events that were used to manipulate that will. Thus this analysis is not an attack on America, but on that manipulative mindset that has twice succeeded in maneuvering America into war.

This dominant mindset is not restricted to intelligence agencies, though it is largely rooted there. Over time it has spread into other parts of government, and has also corrupted large sections of the media and even universities. That the mindset is widespread does not however make it either omnipotent or invincible.

It is important to identify the dominant mindset clearly, if we are ever going to displace it. It is important also to recognize that the dark topics discussed in this book are not representative of America as a whole. In the half century since the CIA’s first adventures in Burma and Laos, America has continued to be, as in the two centuries before it, a source of life-enhancing innovations, such as the computer and the internet.

As Amy Chua has written in her book Day of Empire,

If America can rediscover the path that has been the secret to its success since its founding and avoid the temptations of empire building, it could remain the world’s hyperpower in the decades to come – not a hyperpower of coercion and military force, but a hyperpower of opportunity, dynamism, and moral force.40

I have tried to suggest in this book that the key to this rediscovery is the identification and displacement of the manipulative forces that have maneuvered America, almost unsuspectingly, into two unnecessary and disastrous wars.

If there is any merit to my analysis, then, to isolate those forces, we must press for the truth about both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11.


Footnotes available here...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=9511

[Phoenix Within]

I understand my words tend to fall on deaf ears for many here ...

That's because your message is lost in half a page of stuff no one is interested in reading. Leave a link and let people read it if they want.

Even IF any of this stuff was remote true, nothing can or will be be done about it.

[peaceseeker]

I understand my words tend to fall on deaf ears for many here ...

That's because your message is lost in half a page of stuff no one is interested in reading. Leave a link and let people read it if they want.

Even IF any of this stuff was remote true, nothing can or will be be done about it.

That's about it...'nothing can or will be done about it' so why gripe about it, right? Unfortunately, at present day, this is a position carried by too many of us...we have become far too complacent. We've become more interested in meaningless electronic gizmos than paying attention to what's going on around us.

Btw, you may not be interested, Phoenix, but I doubt you're correct in stating that 'no one is interested'. I'm sure, actually I know, there are many people out there who are interested and read what I post. Over the past few years I have received numerous encouraging pms from various 'regulars' on Castanet. I can only assume their absence of posting in support publicly on some threads is due to a fear of being ridiculed. Today's society has the tendency to point fingers at people who stray too far from the flock...and we don't like having fingers pointed at us. Me, I could care less what people think of me or the stance I have on particular subjects...when posting I try to provide as much information as I can - no matter how hard it may be for some to digest.

[averagejoe]

I understand my words tend to fall on deaf ears for many here ...

That's because your message is lost in half a page of stuff no one is interested in reading. Leave a link and let people read it if they want.

Even IF any of this stuff was remote true, nothing can or will be be done about it.

That's about it...'nothing can or will be done about it' so why gripe about it, right? Unfortunately, at present day, this is a position carried by too many of us...we have become far too complacent. We've become more interested in meaningless electronic gizmos than paying attention to what's going on around us.

Btw, you may not be interested, Phoenix, but I doubt you're correct in stating that 'no one is interested'. I'm sure, actually I know, there are many people out there who are interested and read what I post. Over the past few years I have received numerous encouraging pms from various 'regulars' on Castanet. I can only assume their absence of posting in support publicly on some threads is due to a fear of being ridiculed. Today's society has the tendency to point fingers at people who stray too far from the flock...and we don't like having fingers pointed at us. Me, I could care less what people think of me or the stance I have on particular subjects...when posting I try to provide as much information as I can - no matter how hard it may be for some to digest.

Peaceseeker is the best poster on Castanet. Bar none! He supplies the best alternative information
to the mainstream media.

[Phoenix Within]

That's about it...'nothing can or will be done about it' so why gripe about it, right?

Well that's pretty much all this is right now is griping.

You go right ahead and charge through the gates of the White House with evidence in hand, and see how far it will get you.

[ILBT uh-huh]

peacey
Why are you wasting your time writing stuff on castanet that nobody reads? Why don't you write a book? That way, if anybody was actually interested in what you have to say, you could make some money. Maybe even meet Oprah. Just a thought.

[peaceseeker]

http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=31952&start=345#p985311

Peaceseeker is the best poster on Castanet. Bar none! He supplies the best alternative information
to the mainstream media.

Thank you for the continued support, averagejoe...much appreciated.

[peaceseeker]

That's about it...'nothing can or will be done about it' so why gripe about it, right?

Well that's pretty much all this is right now is griping.

You go right ahead and charge through the gates of the White House with evidence in hand, and see how far it will get you.

Not griping...just trying to expose some of the many lies told to us by our loving leaders...9/11 being the primary focus.

lol @ 'charging through the gates of the White House'...come on now, we both know that isn't going to happen.

Question regarding the guilt of OBL for the attacks of 9/11 - why does the following statement from the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity not matter to those who are still in support of the 'official story'?

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stor ... n-to-9-11/

peacey
Why are you wasting your time writing stuff on castanet that nobody reads? Why don't you write a book? That way, if anybody was actually interested in what you have to say, you could make some money. Maybe even meet Oprah. Just a thought.

Thanks, bushy, but it is not a goal of mine to experience fame or fortune from speaking the truth. The only goal of mine is to share the truth. Over the years I have given away countless pieces of information to those interested.

[aayoyoyo]

Peaceseeker, your avatar photo shows you "flipping the bird" (the "peace" gesture is similar but has the palm facing forward).

In your world of conspiracies, UFO's, crop circles and secret societies, this would be taken as a hidden way of communicating that you are not what you seem.

Are you illuminati? Am I exposing myself to covert surveillance through microphones in my dental fillings? Will my tinfoil hat protect me from the invisible brain-rays your shadowy masters will aim at me?

Just wondering.

[peaceseeker]

Peaceseeker, your avatar photo shows you "flipping the bird" (the "peace" gesture is similar but has the palm facing forward).

In your world of conspiracies, UFO's, crop circles and secret societies, this would be taken as a hidden way of communicating that you are not what you seem.

Are you illuminati? Am I exposing myself to covert surveillance through microphones in my dental fillings? Will my tinfoil hat protect me from the invisible brain-rays your shadowy masters will aim at me?

Just wondering.

LOL @ 'just wondering'...yeah, right. There's no reason for me to respond to comments made in jest, aayoyoyo. Just keep your head stuck firmly in the sand and you'll have nothing to worry about.

Btw, the person in the photo is not me...it's Liam Gallagher from the band Oasis - a band that had no problem speaking/sharing the truth with its fans. And while Liam may be showing the insulting version of the V sign (insulting to those overseas anyway) it is also used to signify defiance to authority.

The V sign, used with the palm inwards or outwards, is all the same here in North America. It represents PEACE.

[peaceseeker]

NEW VIDEO: Proof Bin Laden Death Another Gov’t Lie
http://www.infowars.com/55914/
Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes
TheAlexJonesChannel
May 12, 2011

Alex Jones debunks the legacy of lies that fill the pages of the phony War on Terror narrative– killing bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq, all of it– in a special video address. This “war” which has consumed our society is nothing more than a dramatized narrative meant to frighten the simple, captive public into accepting greater societal control.

Bin Laden was a strawman-villain concocted by the Western intelligence apparatus to take the blame for the orchestrated terror that is scripted and carried out by the globalist-allied factions. The Phantom Osama bin Laden was a skeleton key opening the door to foreign intervention in the middle east or anywhere al Qaeda might be. The motive is simple– ever-expanding wars for the military industrial complex, and the often more lucrative periods of reconstruction (i.e. you break it, you buy it). The occupation continues here at home with the creation of a police state supposedly meant to combat terrorism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ksatFd8 ... r_embedded

So rotten is the “big lie” of the War on Terror, that the most iconic events of the period are the most contrived. The official story about the killing of bin Laden disintegrated in mere days, as no one could keep the story straight. But it’s just the latest episode of a fairy tale that’s been sold to the public for nearly a decade; this story, told with a straight face, is not simply riddled with lies, but wholly subsists of them.

Everything has been lie– cooked-evidence about WMDs in Iraq, bogus claims about mobile weapons labs & yellow cake, the Hollywood-scripted Jessica Lynch-incident, the shameful murder of Pat Tillman, the false-flag attacks on 9/11, sticking it to the victims’ families & first responders, manufacturing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, false-flag scenarios in the Downing Street memos, planted flash mobs at the White House & Ground Zero cheering ‘We got him’ to boost appeal for Obama, phony bin Laden videos faked by assets at SITE and the Intel Center, Osama’s CIA identity Tim Osman, secret backing for the Taliban in 1979, fake terror alerts– all of it.

Alex appeals to the facts in the historical record and an instinctual rejection of the pure lies put out by the establishment. You don’t want to miss this video; hopefully you can use it to reach those who felt “renewed” by reports of bin Laden’s death and are accepting the big lies all over again for the thrill of celebrating “the kill.” It’s a shoddy hoax to bolster public support, but even that illusion is falling apart. The L.A. Times reports that Obama’s “bin Laden bump” has already fallen back to Earth with the rate of gravity.

After all, the system has no credibility, and cheap lies about bin Laden have minimal value. Such easily exposed lies can be dumped on Obama as political baggage just as easily as it can boost him in the polls. The persistence of the Left-Right paradigm allows Obama & Bush alike to be dumped on for the failures & frauds of the system, actually giving cover to the continuity of government agenda, which milks power from the perceived need for greater “safety” measures as well as failed leadership.

Sources available from the following link...
http://www.infowars.com/55914/

[TedD]

Bin Laden had porn!
Yahoo! News - Exclusive: Pornography found in bin Laden hideout: officials

And somewhere on one of those flash drives must be an illegally downloaded copy of The Expendables...

[peaceseeker]

As one reader put it in an email to me: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”

The Agendas Behind the Bin Laden News Event
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e28029.htm
By Paul Craig Roberts

May 04, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”

The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as ‘the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.” http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43817

Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?

The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?

According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, “the mastermind.” Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the “world’s only superpower” on 9/11.

When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged “discrepancies” that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.

There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.

As one reader put it in an email to me: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”

Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. “Remember the Maine,” the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “the Reichstag fire”--the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.

The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the “death of bin Laden” designed to further?

There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing
re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, “the glow of national pride” rose “above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent.”

In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.

Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually--an easy way to have a major spending cut.

If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate “homegrown violent extremists” into making terrorist attacks. “Homegrown violent extremists” is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like “suspect,” the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.

Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.

This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.