To begin, I feel compelled to point out that I don't seek to put forth any conspiratorial implications or to point fingers, but simply to state a few facts and ask a question. It goes without saying that it is our right and our duty as American citizens to point out such discrepancies as the one I'm about to address, and to follow such observations with questions, though not necessarily accusations.
That having been said...
As of the present time, the FBI explicitly states that Osama Bin Laden is wanted for his participation in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Sufficient evidence for this has been uncovered, and the Bureau is actively seeking his capture and conviction for those particular crimes.Mention of his involvement with the 9/11 atrocities, however, are nowhere to be found in official FBI statements. When Ed Haas, journalist and editor for the Muckraker Report, inquired about this curious fact, he was told by an FBI official that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connective [him] to 9/11."
Keeping that in mind, let's go back a bit, specifically to December 2001, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a press release alongside the airing of the video in which Bin Laden is supposed to have claimed credit for the orchestration of 9/11, says "There was no doubt of Bin Laden's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered." In spite of this statement and the federal government's assertion that it was invading Afghanistan in order to root out Bin Laden for his crimes associated with 9/11, there is neither an official government authentication of the tape nor any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks.
This is interesting at least, and disconcerting at most. Nearly seven years have passed since the Middle East invasions, and there is still no real, tangible evidence; the media has blacklisted any guest that could potentially speak of any sort of cover-up. Perhaps most glaring, however, about the entire situation is that an administration that has gone to extreme, illicit, and amoral lengths to sell this war to the American people would withhold any sort of information that justifies their actions in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But isn't it true that the perpetrators of the attack were linked with Al-Qaeda? And isn't it true that Al-Qaeda is Bin Laden's outfit? That seems a strong enough connection.
... so what do you think, Josh? Do you think bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Even Obama, when speaking about the "war on terror", states that Afghanistan should have been the focus of the US assault. Is this because he believes the Taliban should have been unilaterally removed or because he thinks bin Laden was there and should have been targetted for some reason?
Peace.
My intention in posting this fact was not to accuse anybody of anything, or to in fact suggest that Osama Bin Laden did NOT have anything to do with the attacks. What I am saying, however, is that, when facts like this come up, it should make us more than a bit suspicious.
It may seem like a "strong enough connection," but it apparently is not strong enough for the FBI to use as evidence against him. Judging the situation by the seemingly overwhelming evidence against the man, it seems to me more than a bit odd that this nation's highest-ranking investigative organization has yet to officially declare that there is sufficient evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.
Responding specifically to the latest comment, your guess is as good as mine. It's pretty clear by now, however, that if we were going to focus an extended war effort on any country, it should be Afghanistan. The connections to Iraq were completely fabricated, a fact that has been exhaustively documented by both more and less able persons than myself.
Post a Comment