Has Osama Bin Laden Been Dead For Seven Years.

The U.S.A,Israel & Britain Covering It Up To Continue War On Terror?

  The world’s most notorious terrorist outsmarted America by releasing a menacing message as Air Force One touched                   down on Saudi Arabian soil at the start of Barack Obama’s first and much vaunted Middle East tour
Even before the new President alighted at Riyadh airport to shake hands with Prince Abdullah, Bin Laden’s words were being aired on TV, radio and the internet across every continent.

Image     

It was yet another propaganda coup for the 52-year-old Al Qaeda leader. In the audiotape delivered to the Arab news network Al Jazeera, Bin Laden said that America and her Western allies were sowing seeds of hatred in the Muslim world and deserved dire consequences.

It was the kind of rant we have heard from him before, and the response from British and U.S. intelligence services was equally predictable.

They insisted that the details on the tape, of the President’s visit and other contemporary events, proved that the mastermind of 9/11, America’s worst ever terrorist atrocity, was still alive – and that the hunt for him must go on.

 

Image      

Bin Laden has always been blamed for orchestrating the horrific attack – in which nearly 3,000 people perished – eight years ago this week. President George W. Bush made his capture a national priority, infamously promising with a Wild West flourish to take him ‘dead or alive’.

The U.S. State Department offered a reward of $50 million for his whereabouts. The FBI named him one of their ten ‘most wanted’ fugitives, telling the public to watch out for a left-handed, grey-bearded gentleman who walks with a stick.

Yet this master terrorist remains elusive. He has escaped the most extensive and expensive man-hunt in history, stretching across Waziristan, the 1,500 miles of mountainous badlands on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Undeterred, Barack Obama has launched a fresh operation to find him. Working with the Pakistani Army, elite squads of U.S. and British special forces were sent into Waziristan this summer to ‘hunt and kill’ the shadowy figure intelligence officers still call ‘the principal target’ of the war on terror.

This new offensive is, of course, based on the premise that the 9/11 terrorist is alive. After all, there are the plethora of ‘Bin Laden tapes’ to prove it.

Yet what if he isn’t? What if he has been dead for years, and the British and U.S. intelligence services are actually playing a game of double bluff?

What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?

Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.

Of course, there have been any number of conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, and it could be this is just another one.

But the weight of opinion now swinging behind the possibility that Bin Laden is dead – and the accumulating evidence that supports it – makes the notion, at the very least, worthy of examination.

The theory first received an airing in the American Spectator magazine earlier this year when former U.S. foreign intelligence officer and senior editor Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, stated bluntly: ‘All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden.

Image       

9/11: Bin Laden originally insisted in official press statements that he had played no role in the atrocity.

Prof Codevilla pointed to inconsistencies in the videos and claimed there have been no reputable sightings of Bin Laden for years (for instance, all interceptions by the West of communications made by the Al Qaeda leader suddenly ceased in late 2001).

Prof Codevilla asserted: ‘The video and audio tapes alleged to be Osama’s never convince the impartial observer,’ he asserted. ‘The guy just does not look like Osama. Some videos show him with a Semitic, aquiline nose, while others show him with a shorter, broader one. Next to that, differences between the colours and styles of his beard are small stuff.’

There are other doubters, too. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s religious studies’ department and the foremost Bin Laden expert, argues that the increasingly secular language in the video and audio tapes of Osama (his earliest ones are littered with references to God and the Prophet Mohammed) are inconsistent with his strict Islamic religion, Wahhabism. 

He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.

It’s NOT Too Late to Try Bush, Cheney and Obama for War Crimes.

U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or — if a single prisoner dies due to torture — death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

Image                                  War Crimes By The Bush Administration.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limited the applicability of the War Crimes Act, but still made the following unlawful: torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse.

Image                            Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was released in December 2002, it was met with considerable scepticism. That skepticism grew for a period of time but then was reduced to speculation about what was contained in the 28 pages that had been redacted by the Bush White House. Various U.S. government leaders have since suggested that the missing 28 pages point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/11 crimes. However such musings fail to discuss other important issues, like the links between the Saudi regime and the Western deep state, or the fact that, from the start, even the Saudis were calling for the 28 pages to be released. Discussion of the missing 28 pages also omits mention of the highly suspicious nature of the Inquiry’s investigation and its leaders.

Image     

DON’T MISS The untold story of Israeli paradise in Iran.

So, I really have to apologize for interfering in the Sushi war (Sunnis-Shiite) in the Middle East, which is, to a large extent, the product of Iranian policy. But if the Iranians do it to their Muslim brothers outside of Iran, as well as doing it to religious and other minorities inside Iran (gays, for example…remember President Ahmadinejad’s “Iran have no gay people”…), why won’t I believe that they mean business about Israel as well? And all this is absent from the article of my esteemed colleague, Kourosh Ziabari.

It is definitely not serious to ignore, as Mr. Ziabari did, the fact that Israel’s concerns about the Iranian nuclear program are shared by many Arab countries, not least among them Saudi Arabia. Are they also in the ”Zionist” pocket?

Saudi Arabia’s veteran Foreign Minister, Saud Al Faysal, warned on 25 May 2013 against the danger of Iran’s nuclear program to the region’s security and said that Iran should not threaten its neighbors. Another Saudi Prince, Al Waleed Bin Talal, NO friend of Israel and the Jews (he is the Prince whose 10 million donation to New York City after 9/11 was rebuffed by then Mayor Giuliani because of the Prince’s outrageous statements), told Jeffrey Goldberg, on 22 November 2013, in Bloomberg TV, that ”publicly”, Arab states will condemn an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program, but ”privately, they would love it”.

So, what is NOT in the article is enough to render it irrelevant, but what about what de facto IS there?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image     Image                 

The Jewish shriek against Putin is at fever pitch.

Leading the crusade are Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times.

Friedman wants to raise gas pump taxes thinking this will lower global oil demand.

Who cares if Americans suffer at the pump? This will “punish Putin,” says Friedman, and that’s all that matters.

Wolf says the IMF can punish Putin by making Ukraine an economic powerhouse and less dependent on Russian gas and trade.

But the first 3 billion of an IMF loan goes straight to Moscow via Russia’s bailout deal Ukraine signed with Putin last December.

Wolf’s scheme is a con and Yatsenyuk is his patsy.

Everyone knows that loans from the IMF will not “improve” Ukraine’s economy but will make Kiev the slave of Jewish bankers.

How about sanctions? Obama says Russia must “pay the cost” for “grabbing” Crimea:

[Clip: “Today, I’m announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on Russia.

“First, as authorized by the executive order I signed two weeks ago, we are imposing sanctions on specific individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity and government of Ukraine. We’re making it clear that there are consequences for their actions.

“Second, I have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. As an initial step, I’m authorizing sanctions on Russian officials.”]

The Russians are laughing.

Russia’s deputy prime minister, Dmitry Rogozin—one of the ‘evil eleven’ on Obama’s ‘freeze-their-assets’ list—tweeted back, “Hey Comrade Obama! I don’t own a single asset in the USA.”

Victoria Nuland (born “Nudelman”) of the US State Department tried to stop Putin by ‘regime-changing’ Yats the Yid as Ukraine’s prime minister.

Instead, it sent Crimea, home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, flying into the arms of Vladimir Putin.

It’s a super deal for Vlad whose Black Sea Fleet lease with Kiev to the tune of 90 million a year will soon be rent free.

AND it looks like neocon Jews Jeffrey Goldberg and William Kristol along with AIPAC’s shill McCain are drumming up war against Putin with the same old lies just like they did against Saddam:

[Clip: “There’s a broad array of options that we have. Why do we care? Because this is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.”

“Putin looks at the West and I think he sees it as weak and certainly not willing to put its money where its mouth is.”

“What can we do?”

“Well we can do a lot short of sending troops there, we can indeed remind people that we have a NATO relationship which is a security guarantee…”

“People like Vladimir Putin take note when you draw a line in the sand and it is crossed…”

“…The guy used chemical weapons, let’s not forget, weapons of mass destruction. I think one thing that would help would be if Americans and government especially didn’t say the first thing they say; ‘well God forbid we can’t do anything militarily, I mean oooh troops that would be just out of the question.’ If Americans said; ‘look, all options are on the table, Russia will pay a price for this, Putin will pay a price for this.’”]

The only ones who will “pay a price” are American Gentile boys who will be shipped back from Ukraine in coffins. Jews don’t send their own to die in their wars.

Can the Jews stop Putin? Yes they can.

When all else fails send in the nukes and bomb Russia to kingdom come…and wipe out the entire human race along with them.

If Jews can’t get their way, the Sampson Option comes into play.

     

Image

Image      

ALARMED BY THE THREAT of Torricelli’s call for an open & independent investigation of the 9/11 events, on January 29 2002, Bush held a private meeting with congressional leaders requesting his own agenda for the investigation.

Bush asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees, (whose hearings are generally secret), conduct the investigation, and narrow the inquiry to only “intelligence failures.” Bush wanted the inquiry to be limited so as not to “unduly burden the defense & intelligence communities charged with waging a war on terrorism.”

Senate Majority Leader, Thomas Daschle (D-SD), told reporters that he “agreed” with the demand by Bush to “to limit the scope of what happened.” On May 2002, the fix was fully in, when the White House affirmed its opposition to an independent & open commission, contending that, “the most of what we need to talk about should not be discussed in open hearings.”

The Democrats, beginning with Daschle, had now succumbed to pressure from the Bush administration, agreeing that there was no need to challenge the “official” version of the 911 tragedy.

THE JEWISH-RUN NEW YORK TIMES, (owned by the Zionist Jew, Arthur Sulzberger), launched a series of “smears” against Senator Torricelli, beginning in the winter of 2002.

The “pick” of the New York Times for the upcoming November 2002 New Jersey elections was Torricelli’s Democrat opponent, the Zionist Jew, Frank Lautenberg. Only praises for Lautenberg came forth from the pens of journalists of the New York Times — while Senator Torricelli was continually dragged through the mud.

In the book, 9-11 Synthetic Terrorism, the author, Webster Tarpley, of Rense.com, wrote that Torricelli became the target of “corruption” charges regarding his campaign finances. Torricelli supporters hailed US Attorney Mary Jo White’s 2002 decision not to pursue prosecution of Torricelli for “accepting illegal gifts.”

But even on that occasion, Tarpley wrote, the New York Times kept up the pressure on Torricelli, arguing that “the allegations against Mr Torricelli cry out for a prompt investigation and resolution.”

Then, on September 21 2002, (due to Zionist-Jewish media lawsuits against Torricelli), a Federal Judge ordered a letter to be released to the press, which suggested that Torricelli was guilty of more than talking gifts. (Federal prosecutors have never brought any charges against Torricelli.)

By the beginning of October 2002, Torricelli’s position in the polls collapsed, and he dropped out of the race. The Zionist Jew, Frank Lautenberg, went on to win the seat.

Is it not obvious that Zionist Jews in the media, (as evidenced in their smear campaign against Senator Torricelli), are complicit in the “cover-up” of the truth surrounding the events of 9/11? But no surprise. For it was the Jews who crucified The Truth Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago…

Image         Image            Image

Image           In an interview with Osama bin Laden, published in the Pakistani Newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September Attacks In the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, Nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.”

In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN due to CNN’s broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002. In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying:

“If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists … We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.” 

Image

Image

 

Image

Image

 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the President of the United States has
challenged the Nation to commit an additional $120 billion in resources
for our Armed Forces. Indeed, when the Nation is attacked, that is as
it should be. The President has asked us to commit $40 billion to deal
with internal security in our country. With the loss of life we have
suffered and all of our apprehension about terrorism, that is as it
should be. It is, however, an extraordinary request.
While our willingness to commit resources is endless to guarantee the
security of our country, our national curiosity about these
circumstances and how our country was so vulnerable seems to be very
limited indeed.
It has been 5 months since the lives of our people were taken in the
most devastating attack on America in history. There have been words of
rage and revenge, vows to strengthen our security and to commit endless
resources. There has been everything except a voice of inquiry.
On September 10, this Nation was not without resources, with a $320
billion defense establishment larger than a dozen other industrial
nations combined; a massive internal law enforcement apparatus; and, by
press accounts, a $30 billion intelligence establishment.
The terrorist attack on September 11 apparently was waged with the
combined financial resources of $250,000. It was implemented by 19
people. Why is it I believe that probably financial resources were not
determinative in the success of this evil attack? Why is it that I
suspect it was probably not the numbers of personnel available? The
country was not without resources on September 10. But something went
terribly wrong. The allocation of resources, quality of leadership,
strategy–I don’t know. The real point is neither does anybody else,
including the President of the United States and Members of the Senate.
At some point, 260 million Americans, with all the rage they feel
against our enemy, with all the anger they feel, and with all the
sympathy they feel for the victims, are going to want to know what
happened and why.
There is no limit to the resources that I will vote to make available
to the Commander in Chief to defend this Nation. But there is no limit
to the efforts I will make to get accountability in this Government for
our people.
In my State, there are hundreds–indeed, there are several
thousands–of widows and orphans. As much as any American, as much as
history itself, these people are going to demand answers in the course
of their lives.
The President has suggested his preference is that we hold private
hearings in the intelligence community. That is not how we conduct this
Government. There was not an attack on the intelligence committee, nor
is it their responsibility alone. Our accountability is to the people
of the country. Yet the administration claims that such hearings or
inquiries would be a distraction from the war on terrorism. That is not
our history or how we conduct our Government.
Ten days after Pearl Harbor, with half of the American fleet in ruins
and with fears of an attack on California by the Imperial Japanese
Navy, FDR ordered an inquiry into how indeed we were so undefended. The
Challenger lay in ruins with all of our ambitions for a space program,
and Ronald Reagan did the same for NASA. This instance deserves no
less. Accountability is at the core of any representative government.

On behalf of the people of my State and the victims–their wives,
husbands, parents, and children–I demand it now. This Nation needs a
board of inquiry to determine the events of September 11–how it
occurred and why; where we succeeded and why we failed–not for the
sake of revenge, not to cast blame, but to ensure that it never happens
again. Armed only with that knowledge–more than any funding or any new
weapon–can we genuinely assure our people that those events will not
be repeated.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the conferences we have had, it has
been determined we could have a voice vote on the Bunning amendment. So
I ask unanimous consent that after the Chair reports the bill, we move
to the Bunning amendment, followed by the Reid for Baucus amendment. It
is not a Reid amendment; I just offered it for Senator Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s