http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Why isn't bin Laden charged with any crime related to 9/11? Simple question. Do you have an answer?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bush Lost the War in Afghanistan and We now need to accept that
- Thread starter alatide
- Start date
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Why isn't bin Laden charged with any crime related to 9/11? Simple question. Do you have an answer?
I think I can answer this. The reason he has not been charged is because he has not been captured. I don't know if you are aware of the legal system, but there are all sorts of rules when you charge someone with a crime(s).
I don't know about you, but I watch these Cold Case shows on TV, I find them very interesting. Often the Police and authorities will know for years, or at least have very strong evidence for years that someone committed a crime. But that is not enough, you have to have proof that will stand up in court. You can only detain a person so long. You also risk giving away how you are going to procede if you charge a person too early.
Often times the authorities will wait many years before actually charging someone with a crime until they believe they have convincing evidence that will stand up in court.
If you knew anything about our justice system this would not be such a big mystery to you.
And they are not going to give away their case before they have him in custody. Think about it for a moment, if you charge him, then bin Laden and everyone associated with him is tipped off. Accomplices will flee, witnesses killed, evidence destroyed, all sort of things. So you never give this information away until you have the evidence you need, and the suspect in custody.
Last edited by a moderator:
That doesn't hold water. If your theory were true why was he charged in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people.
Many famous criminals have been charged with crimes before they were caught. What about Jesse James? The Zodiac Killer? David Berkowitz (Son of Sam)? You're trying to avoid the truth. We don't have enough evidence to charge bin Laden with crimes related to 9/11.
He doesn't want to see a reasonable explanation. He wants to hold on to his conspiracy theory. He has been spouting this through three different user names, when he gets banned he comes right back under a new name like a roach.
The FBI admits No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 911
07/25/09
Ed Haas / Muckraker Report
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3...5/no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-11
Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.
On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.
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.”
Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You simply won't accept the truth. Here we have a quote from the FBI saying bin Laden hasn't been charged with 9/11 crimes because they is no evidence to support doing so. How clear can this be?
We invaded two countries because of the lie by President Bush that bin Laden carried out the 9/11 bombing. Provide us with a quote from the CIA, FBI, or any other respected international security organization saying something different. All you can do is to keep dragging out that same of government conspiracy theory. It simply is not true.
This is not the same as saying they have no evidence at all. You equate "no hard evidence" as meaning "no evidence". That is an assumption on your part.
And this very statement answers your question. They admit they do not have enough hard or concrete evidence against him. If they were to capture him they would be able to interrogate him and perhaps they could come up with more concrete proof. Perhaps not. But having no hard evidence is not the same as saying no evidence, even if that's what you want to believe.
And what about organized crime? They are very difficult to prosecute. Does that mean they are not committing crime?
And bin Laden would fall into this catagory. He is no dummy, he is the boss. He is Al Capone. They are not going to tap his phone line and hear him telling people to carry out terrorist attacks. He is way too smart for that. He is going to tell a a subordinate, who tells another subordinate, who tells another subordinate, who tells the folks who actually carry out the attacks.
You are detached from reality. Terrorists groups, like organized crime are very careful to cover their tracks and avoid prosecution. That doesn't mean people aren't aware of their actions, they just can't prove it in a court of law.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL... I was close. It started with a L and ended with an E :laugh:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Okay so we've spent a few thousand lives (not counting Iraqis and afghanis) and several hundred billion dollars occupying two countries and spent unold amounts of tax dollars chasing him (Usama Bin Lazarus) and his magical disappearing donkey all over the middle east without having any hard or concrete evidence he was even involved in the 9/11 plot.
So, in other words "trust us we're the government" is all we got to go on?
Take at good hard look at this government do you really trust it to tell us the truth about anything? Honestly, do you?
All we have is the govenment's word he's even still alive . . . which I doubt very much. If he is it's a miracle that a man dying form kidney failure in 2001 could escape on a donkey that not only had to carry the dying man himself but his entire attending medical staff while dragging a dialysis machine through the rugged moutains while dodging bombs, bullets and daisy cutters to evade the world's most technologically advanced military in history of mankind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it's one I've posted many times...you either can't read, or ignore it and pretend it hasn't been refuted.
Tell me the crimes that the Japanese were charged with in our courts for Pearl Harbor.
(that's a pretty simple reading test. Wonder if whatshisnametoday will pass it)
Why is the State Department still offering a $25 million reward for his death or capture?
This isn't a relevant question. bin Laden is classified by the FBI as a terrorist not an enemy combatant. He is charged with other crimes against the United States.
FBI Charges
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Why isn't he charged with the terrorist activity on 9/11? The article I posted tells you why. The FBI says he hasn't been charged because there isn't any hard evidence.
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.”
I would say that the FBI's answer is very clear on this. Wouldn't you?
Last edited by a moderator:
never mind...why argue with someone who isn't grounded in reality?
Last edited:
Well, as I explained to Alatide, saying we don't have hard evidence against bin Laden does not mean we don't have evidence against him. As I have explained with the example of organized crime, it is not always easy to pin someone with hard evidence in organizations like this. These people are very intelligent and work through networks.
And I personally don't think it is all about bin Laden anyway. If we killed bin Laden today, there are thousands just waiting to take his place. So it is far more than one man.
Why did Bush invade Iraq? I have my own theory on this, I could be wrong. Could it be he wanted to kill Saddam Hussein for his father? Possibly. But I think Bush invaded Iraq to frighten all the countries in the Middle East who are supporting terrorism. Most of the terrorists who participated in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi's, who are allies. The Saudi's were allowing terrorists to operate on their soil, they were raising money on TV to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Nearly all of the Arab countries are allowing terrorists to operate and organize on their soil. And this is why I think Bush invaded Iraq.
First, everybody hated Saddam, even all the muslim countries surrounding him. So he made a terrific villian.
Second, by invading Iraq you literally split the muslim world in two. We are right in the middle and can respond north, south, east, or west to any other muslim nation that supports terrorism. It is a ground base.
Third, it terrifies all the muslim nations. If terrorists that were operating on their soil were to attack the U.S., then they feared that we would come rolling into their country with tanks. So now they are going to get rid of these groups operating in their country.
And I do think oil was part of it. If all the middle-eastern countries cut off the oil supply, it would destabilize the whole world. So that was a concern. I think it important to remember that most of these oil refineries were built by U.S. companies years ago. These folks were riding around on camels looking for an oasis before we came along, now they are super wealthy and enjoy a comfortable way of life.
And there are other reasons. Russia and China have their eyes on this area of the world you can be sure. So Bush wanted to establish a presence there.
Oh, and I am sure greedy businessmen have something to do with it. They have always been around and always will. They live in every country, not just the U.S.
Anyway, that is my theory, I could be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Ah hem, if these "terrorists" are so smart why is it that when we hear of a big terror bust in the media 9 1/2 times out of ten they turn out to be a low IQ internet chatterer who eagerly accepts gifts of fake bombs and or rockets from the FBI then turns around and gets busted for carrying out the FBI's own terror plot?
Besides, if the FBI hasn't got enough evidence to even indict Bin Lazarus after all the years our intell community has been after him I doubt very much there is any evidence at all linking him to 9/11.
The only evidence I've seen is a crude fake video tape of a fat Bin Lazarus bragging abut his involvment. Most experts who do not work for the government or corporate media agree this is a fake video and a poorly faked one at that.
I do think you are mostly correct about your theory of why we invaded Iraq though.
But like the war pushers and planners said in their papers and books, it would take a devestating attack on the USA to motivate the public into supporting such an "imperial mobilization".
They are the ones who in fact have directly benefitted from 9/11 not the muslim hordes or the few cave dwellers everybody is blaming for the act...with only the word of a corrupt government to go on.
My personal belief is that bin Laden died in Dec. of 2001. He had some serious health issues including kidney problems. The administration used him as a bogeyman after that to support their ongoing military activities.
saturneptune
New Member
You know, one can leave here for several weeks, for either a busy schedule or sickness, come back, and you are still flapping those jaws with insane conclusions and flawed history.
Aside from having no basis for this...I find it humorous that alatide only castigates his own personal satan (G.W. Bush) for this, and doesn't slam Obama for also "going after Obama."
Bless his heart, that selective memory must cause headaches...
In other words you can't defeat the truth.