Sunday, March 23, 2014

Osama bin Laden Brother in Law "Yeah, we did it"

No surprises at the trial of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. Guess he is on it too, or maybe it is one of those Manchurian candidate brainwashing things.

The defendant's testimony in a stilled Manhattan courtroom Wednesday took a federal jury half a world and many years away, to a mountain cave in the desolation of Afghanistan, to the hours after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
In that mountain cave, defendant Sulaiman Abu Ghaith testified, sat the man who had summoned him, his future father-in law: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden invited him to sit, Abu Ghaith said, and then asked if he'd heard what happened.
"We are the ones who did it," Abu Ghaith, speaking through an Arabic interpreter, quoted bin Laden as saying. Bin Laden then asked for his opinion of what to expect, Abu Ghaith said.
"America will not rest until it accomplishes two things," Abu Ghaith testified he told bin Laden. "To kill you, and to destroy the Taliban."
"You're being too pessimistic," bin Laden responded.

20 Comments:

At 24 March, 2014 05:09, Blogger Ian said...

Since Brian Good will soon be here to spam this blog with nonsense, I want to bring up some of his delusions from another thread:

Of course another view is that the serious debunkers were not willing to get involved in a debate with me, so they slunk away, and then the House created the false legend that I was unwilling to debate William Rodriguez to try to spin the fact that the serious posters abandoned the field.

Brian, the serious debunkers are gone because the truthers are gone. Should serious researchers like Bill Deagle, Craig Ranke, Kevin Barrett, or Jim Fetzer begin posting here again, I'm sure you'd see serious debunkers come here to challenge them.

But there are no truthers left here. Oh sure, you're here to post pointless spam, but you're not a truther. You were banned from the movement for being a sex predator and a liar. Plus, you've posted nothing new for 5 years. There's nothing to debunk from you.

On the other hand, there's so much to humiliate you with, like your hideous haircut, or the fact that you're unemployed and live with your parents, or how you were banned from wikipedia, or how you ran away squealing and crying when Willie Rodriguez challenged you to a debate....

So go ask a scholar like Craig Ranke to come post here, and I'm sure you'll see the serious debunkers return. Until then, I'll be here to remind you that the widows will never have their questions answered and that "meatball on a fork" will never be published in an engineering journal.

 
At 24 March, 2014 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are a libelous liar.

 
At 24 March, 2014 19:59, Blogger Ian said...

That response is incorrect, Brian. The correct response is "It thinks it's funny".

 
At 24 March, 2014 19:59, Blogger Ian said...

Also, it's not libelous to point out that your haircut is a hideous homeless mullet.

 
At 25 March, 2014 08:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your false and defamatory claims about me are libelous.

My "homeless mullet" is a classic American cut. You Sid Sawyer types wouldn't understand that.

 
At 25 March, 2014 15:14, Blogger Ian said...

Your false and defamatory claims about me are libelous.

Squeal squeal squeal!

I've said nothing false, Brian.

My "homeless mullet" is a classic American cut. You Sid Sawyer types wouldn't understand that.

Poor Brian. He thinks looking like a homeless lunatic makes him "edgy". No, Brian, it just makes you look like a homeless lunatic. Maybe you should try checking with someone like me who has a grasp on what's cool these days. Otherwise you'll just continue to look like a pathetic fossil lost in 1968.

Oh, right.

 
At 25 March, 2014 19:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's cool. <<>>

 
At 25 March, 2014 20:23, Blogger Ian said...

"It thinks it's cool". That's more like it, Brian. Keep imitating a transsexual serial killer.

 
At 25 March, 2014 20:23, Blogger Ian said...

Also, I see you still haven't identified a single "libelous lie" from me. That's because you can't.

 
At 26 March, 2014 08:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

All of your defamatory lies are libelous.

 
At 26 March, 2014 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

And your belief that a classic hairstyle thousands of years old is an attempt to be "edgy" only shows how out of touch you are with reality.

 
At 26 March, 2014 14:57, Blogger Ian said...

And yet you still can't identify a single lie I've told about you, Brian.

Also, the idea that your ridiculous haircut is "classic" is as delusional as the idea that the widows have questions, or that WTC 7 is a smoking gun, or that Willie Rodriguez is less than a hero. Carol Brouillet was right about you.

 
At 26 March, 2014 15:39, Blogger John said...

Of course another view is that the serious debunkers were not willing to get involved in a debate with me, so they slunk away, and then the House created the false legend that I was unwilling to debate William Rodriguez to try to spin the fact that the serious posters abandoned the field.

Did he really say that? I don't read his posts anymore. Ian and maybe a few others are the only ones worth reading.

I don't know who he would consider me a serious debunker, but for the record, I did not "slink away". I realized that debating truthers online (or any conspiracy theorists) is a enormous waste of time. I had better things to do, and I did them.

Nowadays there are only 2 appropriate reactions to truthers: mock them or ignore them. Ian seems to get a kick out of the former; I prefer to do the latter. I presume that J Rebori and others who left felt the same way.

I came here because I had friends who tried to convince me of the truther version of 9/11. This blog, and other sites, convinced me that Al Qaeda did it, and all the truthers' quibbling about minutia doesn't change that fact.

 
At 26 March, 2014 19:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, your belief al Qaeda doing 9/11 is inconsistent with 9/11 being being an inside job only shows your ignorance and simple-mindedness.

Al Qaeda was funded jointly by the Saudis and the CIA, perhaps to the extent of many tens of billions of dollars.

There is evidence that Osama bin Laden met with both the CIA and the Chief of Saudi security two months before 9/11 in Dubai.

There is evidence that a Pakistani intelligence agent who wired $100,000 to the alleged 9/11 hijackers breakfasted on 9/11 with future CIA head Porter Goss.

There is evidence that two alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, and this informant was later shielded by the FBI from federal inquiries.

There is evidence that these two alleged hijackers were the beneficiaries of financial support provided by Prince Haifa, the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the USA, Prince Bandar, who was known as "Bandar Bush" for his close relationship with W.

The redacted 28 pages in the Congressional report about 9/11 are believed to discuss Saudi participation in the 9/11 plot.

Prince Bandar was succeeded as Ambassador by Prince Turki al Faisal, who was reported to have met with Osama bin Laden in Dubai two months before 9/11 when he was head of Saudi Security.



 
At 27 March, 2014 04:53, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because John pwn3d him, and he proceeded to babble hysterically like the failed janitor, liar, and lunatic that he is.

And I'm still waiting for you to give an example of a "libelous lie", Brian.

 
At 27 March, 2014 09:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian's belief that John's mere assertion of an opinion, coupled with John's cluelessness about the context of that opinion, constitutes pwnage shows about all you need to know about the quality of Ian's "thought".

Unlike you, Ian, I am not here to talk about myself. You are here to talk about me only because you don't know enough about the subject matter of the blog to contribute anything. All you can contribute is lies about me. And fashion tips. What shoes are going to be trendy this summer, Ian?

 
At 27 March, 2014 15:40, Blogger Ian said...

Ian's belief that John's mere assertion of an opinion, coupled with John's cluelessness about the context of that opinion, constitutes pwnage shows about all you need to know about the quality of Ian's "thought".

Unlike you, Ian, I am not here to talk about myself. You are here to talk about me only because you don't know enough about the subject matter of the blog to contribute anything. All you can contribute is lies about me. And fashion tips. What shoes are going to be trendy this summer, Ian?


My, such squealing!

 
At 28 March, 2014 13:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're just pretending you know nothing about shoes. Tell us, Ian, what's going to be trendy? Isn't it about time for a revival of those Mickey Mouse shoes you love so much?

 
At 29 March, 2014 19:15, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Al Qaeda was funded jointly by the Saudis and the CIA, perhaps to the extent of many tens of billions of dollars. "

Nope, Saudi Wahabis - maybe - but not CIA. Al Qaeda has been anti-American from the day of their founding. Bin Laden refused to meet with CIA agents durong the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.


"There is evidence that Osama bin Laden met with both the CIA and the Chief of Saudi security two months before 9/11 in Dubai."

There is no evidence. There are allegations by has-been acid casualty types, and other morons, but no evidence. UBL was in Pakistan and Afghanistan the entire summer of 2001.

"There is evidence that a Pakistani intelligence agent who wired $100,000 to the alleged 9/11 hijackers breakfasted on 9/11 with future CIA head Porter Goss."

Again, no evidence, just allegations. I had a hotdog with the director of the CIA once, it was 1976, and he was running for Congress then, and like Goss he had no clue he'd ever be DCIA.

"There is evidence that two alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, and this informant was later shielded by the FBI from federal inquiries."

Partially true, the hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Hard to believe he was shielded from federal inquiries because HE FAILS TO MENTION THIS IN HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY (it's a book, try reading one some time).

"There is evidence that these two alleged hijackers were the beneficiaries of financial support provided by Prince Haifa, the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the USA, Prince Bandar, who was known as "Bandar Bush" for his close relationship with W. "


No, this is a lie. The FBI and InterPol tracked this story down and found it to be untrue. 9/11 whack-jobs and other morons wish it to be true...but it's not.

You ignore the Saudis who did fund Al Qaeda, and the fact the Saudis executed them after epic torture sessions (not our GITMO version, the real thing).



"The redacted 28 pages in the Congressional report about 9/11 are believed to discuss Saudi participation in the 9/11 plot."

Maybe. Probably. Like I said, the Saudis dealt with their own. It wouldn't surprise me if they acted on information in those pages.

"Prince Bandar was succeeded as Ambassador by Prince Turki al Faisal, who was reported to have met with Osama bin Laden in Dubai two months before 9/11 when he was head of Saudi Security. "

Nope. Bin Laden wasn't there. You forget he was a millionaire which gave him autonomy. The Saudis had already kicked him out, he didn't trust them and they didn't trust him. This is evidenced by Al Qaeda's attacks within the Kingdom AFTER 9/11. If they were in on it, why would be mount attacks in Saudi?

You have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

 
At 30 March, 2014 00:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you make empty claims that would embarrass you if you were wise enough to recognize how embarrassing they are.

What is your source for your misinformation?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home