Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
have no idea whether it is true or not yet, but that certainly would explain all the destruction of evidence, and the burial at sea.
I think they discredit themselves right off the bat though, when they call Ronald Kessler an FBI agent, because he's a Journalist and an author. His latest book is called The Secrets of the FBI and he has written other things about the FBI, but he's never worked for them
You'll see that Kessler states that the records on file that they believed to be Bin Laden's fingerprints did not match, but they DID match the body through DNA and facial recognition. What that tells us is that the original prints that they had were incorrectly identified.
I think they discredit themselves right off the bat though, when they call Ronald Kessler an FBI agent, because he's a Journalist and an author. His latest book is called The Secrets of the FBI and he has written other things about the FBI, but he's never worked for them
You'll see that Kessler states that the records on file that they believed to be Bin Laden's fingerprints did not match, but they DID match the body through DNA and facial recognition. What that tells us is that the original prints that they had were incorrectly identified.
if the fingerprints didn't match, how do we actually know that the others did?
you have to admit that there has been a lot of SECRECY after the killing.
'
the killing itself was highly trumpeted and then everything shut down-body dumped in the ocean, no pictures, no stories, no family interviews, no witnesses, no actual PROOF of any kind-nothing.
if the fingerprints didn't match, how do we actually know that the others did?
you have to admit that there has been a lot of SECRECY after the killing.
'
the killing itself was highly trumpeted and then everything shut down-no pictures, no stories, no family interviews, no witnesses, no actual PROOF of any kind. why give ammunition to the conspiracy theorists if you have the proof?
I would say because for conspiracy theorists, there is never enough proof. After the whole birth certificate insanity, I'd be pretty hesitant to cater to any conspiracy theorists as well.
As far as witnesses though, there was the twitter guy that accidentally ended up writing about it on the internet. There's also all of the pictures, evidence, etc that came from the hideout itself. The thing they aren't giving out is the body and I can kind of understand that. No matter what he does there will be people that say it was the wrong move and lambaste him for it and in the end it probably could be the wrong move. But I understand why they did it.
As far as "If the fingerprints didn't match, how do we actually know that the others did?", if it was a cover up and they were saying hey yeah yeah the fingerprints don't match but THESE DO! Then why release the fact that the fingerprints don't match at all? If it was leaked information about the fingerprints wouldn't they have leaked the info about the DNA not matching as well? It just seems a unlikely. Yes, it could be another layer of falsehoods, releasing a partial truth to make people believe it more, but that's when you start getting into territory where you're just making up conjecture with no facts and with only suppositions.
If this was a cover up, then it was stupid to release information that the fingerprints didn't match, but that's my opinion.
I do not believe there was a cover up, I just believe they've kept secret military details secret.
I would say because for conspiracy theorists, there is never enough proof. After the whole birth certificate insanity, I'd be pretty hesitant to cater to any conspiracy theorists as well.
As far as witnesses though, there was the twitter guy that accidentally ended up writing about it on the internet. There's also all of the pictures, evidence, etc that came from the hideout itself. The thing they aren't giving out is the body and I can kind of understand that. No matter what he does there will be people that say it was the wrong move and lambaste him for it and in the end it probably could be the wrong move. But I understand why they did it.
As far as "If the fingerprints didn't match, how do we actually know that the others did?", if it was a cover up and they were saying hey yeah yeah the fingerprints don't match but THESE DO! Then why release the fact that the fingerprints don't match at all? If it was leaked information about the fingerprints wouldn't they have leaked the info about the DNA not matching as well? It just seems a unlikely. Yes, it could be another layer of falsehoods, releasing a partial truth to make people believe it more, but that's when you start getting into territory where you're just making up conjecture with no facts and with only suppositions.
If this was a cover up, then it was stupid to release information that the fingerprints didn't match, but that's my opinion.
I do not believe there was a cover up, I just believe they've kept secret military details secret.
it wasn't the government that said the fingerprints don't match-it was a journalist.
i certainly don't doubt that there was a raid and i certainly don't doubt that the team was told that they were taking out bin laden. (and obviously the man had been under surveillance for a while).
i just have my doubts that it was bin laden.
it makes no sense to have all these conflicting stories.
i also see no reason for bhutto to lie, do you? we have military guys on you tube talking about bin laden getting killed in tora bora in 2001, and other sources saying that he died of kidney failure previously.
i just think that after spending over a TRILLION dollars, they would offer some satisfaction to the americans who funded this whole process, but i guess that is asking too much.
Yes he did. However, many of his supporters in bloggerdom as well as posters here, attribute the icing of Laden to Obama alone.
Where?
Or do you mean credit has to be given to everyone involved every single time anyone mentions Obama in relation to bin Laden? That would make for a lot of superfluous reading.
it wasn't the government that said the fingerprints don't match-it was a journalist.
i certainly don't doubt that there was a raid and i certainly don't doubt that the team was told that they were taking out bin laden. (and obviously the man had been under surveillance for a while).
i just have my doubts that it was bin laden.
it makes no sense to have all these conflicting stories.
i also see no reason for bhutto to lie, do you? we have military guys on you tube talking about bin laden getting killed in tora bora in 2001, and other sources saying that he died of kidney failure previously.
i just think that after spending over a TRILLION dollars, they would offer some satisfaction to the americans who funded this whole process, but i guess that is asking too much.
Good point. Even if they didn't match though, there was a lot of articles that came out about the DNA being matched through family members though so there still is that.
As far as the other instances of Bin Laden possibly dying earlier, I really think that there's no way that that would be true. Simply because its great political capitol if its played correctly. Obama's camp obviously did not handle it correctly especially with everyone already thinking about falsifying evidence with all of the birther stuff. But Bush, I can see GW withholding info when it comes to him dying before they got into the Iraq war. The Bush camp used the Bin Laden/Al Queida connections to lead to Iraq, to WMD's, to war, etc. If Bin Laden died before hand, yes they could have still kept the war machine going by saying something, but I can see them covering up an early death with that in mind. The problem comes with the fact that they continued to hide it for Years.
If GW could have pulled out the OSAMA'S DEAD card at any time, I can't see them never using it. There were so many times when that could have been a great distraction and the Bush camp loved to create a great distraction.
It just doesn't make sense that Bush would do that, of course that would make it more understandable why Bush eliminated the Hunt for Osama task force, because it was a waste. But then that would mean when Obama re-installed the Hunt, he would be in full knowledge it was fake, and then let it go for 2 years, and then concoct the whole thing.
The big leap of faith for me that I can never make is that GW and party would let something that could be such a HUGE approval boost go. I mean if anything, they would have used it in 2004 for the election. If Osama died in 2001 or earlier, there's NO WAY Bush doesn't use that and make a huge fake thing for the election for bonus points. Or if Obama faked it, that he wouldn't wait another year and try for the bonus points when they could help out his re-election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
