(Split in two because it won't post)
It sounds to me like he was a perfect "fall guy", he even had a pattern of history. If he was already dead, he wouldn't be around to defend himself either. Al-Qaeda is by nature a decentralized terrorist organization, there is no leader, just small independent groups. The US labelled Osama bin laden as the leader for whatever reason, he wasn't a true leader in the sense that you use it.
There is always a leader. Every organization has one, otherwise it wouldn't work. There is always somebody there looking at the bigger picture to make sure the pieces are working in accordance to the master plan. What you're thinking of is a terrorist cell. Sure, the organization doesn't have a rigid structure like a modern day business where you have the chairman, other board members and vice presidents, CFO's, CEO's, Department heads and all of that, but there is still someone in charge of calling the shots. Even the terrorist cells have someone who is the leader who activates the cell when they are tapped to do something, they then distribute their orders and plans to their group... Even on the small scale such as that, there is always someone in charge... Decentralized only means that if you take out part of it, the rest of it can still function as the organization always has, it doesn't mean no one is in charge.
Family ties are strong ties. Guilty by association applies in this case, you cannot blame Osama Bin Laden of guilt by association and exonerate the bush/bin laden family in the same breath.
That's funny. If you want to take it to the extreme like that then I guess I have you to blame for the despicable acts that happened daily at Guantanamo Bay, you are/were military after all. The real question is, where do we draw the line at association. Personally, I draw it at the place where there is a fundamental shift in ideology. Regardless of what you think or believe happened and for what reasons and by whom, you can even agree with me on the point that Bin Laden's radical/extremist ideologies doesn't fit with the rest of his family or the Bush family. Even if they all did want the exact same things to happen, the reasons, the methods, the tactics... They're different. Because I draw the line at the fundamental shift in ideology, I don't hold it against all military people when something disgraceful happens, only those who are responsible for them. You're welcome. And for the record, I didn't exonerate anyone from the Bin Laden family. You tell me not to put words into your mouth, yet, you seem to be doing a pretty damned good job of that yourself. Read what I said chief. Play by your own rules too now. The Bush family is not the Bin Laden family no matter how many times you say it is.
And why is this? I used to have a top secret clearance, and I know what stuff is labelled top secret. From my own personal experience, anything that makes the military, government, or interested private citizens look bad, or is incriminating is now being considered "top secret". If you can keep that sort of data from reaching the press, then you would too, to preserve your place. The amount of classified documents since the 1990's has risen from 9 million (or thereabouts) to about 56 million today. Does it seem like the government is keeping secrets? Your own common sense will say yes to this, it is quite obvious. Wiki leaks is a great example of what is being kept secret, but not the only one.
Way to... Um... Huh? I merely stated the fact that we won't ever see those pictures because the Navy said they'd never release them so you should know by using common sense that those shown by the press days later were fakes and you take that and run with it for what? To point out the obvious? Go figure.
Well, if you can do it, so can I. Since you had top secret clearance, you'd know there are even higher clearance levels then that to keep even you from seeing those things. Don't be so presumptuous to know me as to think I'd keep things a secret from everyone. Personally, I'd love to see the pictures. I'd plaster them all over the world's media outlets just to prove the point that you can run and hide, but we won't stop until we get you. That's what I would do. Personally, I don't think that taking out Bin Laden is a bad thing. I don't think it was a good thing either. You claim he was a patsy, I claim he was giving the go ahead. Who is right? Personally, I don't give a damn. I can't change any of what has happened over the past decade, and neither can you.
Yes people hate the US, and if you understood details of our "diplomacy" and foreign policy, you would realize that there is a very good reason to hate the US. Our way of doing business is despicable. We prance around from country to country like we own the world, and extort governments to do our wishes. I believe the overall foreign policy decisions were intentional, to destroy relations. Why? So that the US can be invaded in the future. The US currently has 270 million ish guns in the population, and because of this we actually enjoy a small amount of freedom. Every measure will be taken to disarm the US, to make the world hate the US. For what purpose? redistribution of wealth. Someone out there is jealous of our lifestyle and they want it for themselves. I believe Barack Obama works for these people. The most oppressive regime in history is trying to take hold of the world.
You presume I don't understand the way things work. Our foreign policy currently in use was designed during the cold war after two world wars. You say we prance around from country to country like we own the place and extort governments... I don't disagree. Communism did the exact same thing and as our policies were created in a time where our leaders felt it was necessary to follow suit to protect our way of life, I definitely don't disagree. It was a necessary course of action at the time. Is it necessary today? No.
To be honest, your believe that these policies were created to destroy relations holds no weight with me. Why? Because it's your belief. It isn't fact, and your answer as to why is purely speculation. Keep talking about it though. It's an interesting philosophy.
What I do question about these points though is how does disarming the US make the world hate us? That's a very counter intuitive point and I'd really like to how how you come to that conclusion. Or did you intend to make a completely different point?
Edit: actually, I do get what you were saying now. Two separate things. Policies to disarm, policies to make them hate.
Also the US is NOT a symbol of democracy. It is a symbol of a republic. The differences are simple, in democracy 51% majority makes the laws, in a republic 51% majority makes a bill, and this bill then needs to be compared to the constitution before it can become a law. Sadly this ideal no longer occurs, and congress has been making unconstitutional laws for years. The beauty of the constitution is that constitutional law is simple. What is on the constitution is constitutional law. Study it, understand the definitions, and anyone can know the law. Also, understand how the definitions have changed. Noah Websters' 1828 dictionary is the first codification of US legal definitions (back when legal definitions were the same as real everyday words...).
Again, you presume I don't know the way things work. I'm the one who's been going around reminding people that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy and that the electoral college elects the president, not the popular vote.
That aside, it IS a symbol of Democracy none the less. As you pointed out, the difference is only a small one, so the reality of the situation is, we are called the symbol of Democracy, not because we actually are, but because it's what we represent.
Hmm have you ever worked in the security business?
In all reality the most likely infiltrator would come from a person who understands this industry, and someone who has ties to the bush family.
Again, I'll ask the question that the conclusion people draw to flying planes into buildings and those who install electronic security systems is exactly what now? And why does this conclusion automatically get drawn to the Bush family as well? I can fly a plane into a building and I don't know anyone from the Bush family. What about the plane that hit the Pentagon? I assume Bush had another unknown brother working there as a security guard too... What about the plane that was supposed to hit the White House? I suppose the Bush family wanted to get rid of Laura Bush and the two girls... Oh no! Did I just start another couple of conspiracies?
Yes all the evidence is circumstantial, but then so is the evidence "proving" the other side of the story.
This statement damns your entire argument. You want to know why? Okay, I'll tell you. You admit all of the evidence is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence isn't proof. Circumstantial evidence only allows one to draw conclusions. Conclusions which have yet to be proven accurate or not. I've accepted the events that have happened. I don't claim to know the truth because I know I don't, and neither do you. I lost friends when the towers collapsed. All I've wanted ever since is a good strong ass kicking to make a statement that says that type of behavior will not be tolerated. I don't know if that statement has been made, but a pretty good one has been made, and I'm happy about that.
Obviously he wasn't a mall cop type guard, that makes no sense, you can pick my words apart, but the impression I was making was that he worked for a security company.
Yeah, no... I wasn't picking words apart, I was countering a statement you made. This one:
Bush's little known younger brother works as a security guard at the world trade center, another suspicious connection.
The impression you're actually giving is that he works (at least currently at the time of the events) as a security guard (not alarm or surveillance system installer, not system maintainer, but a guard.. mall cop type... Actual physical body there present on the floor, not someone who was a member of a company hired to install something, but someone who is actually there) at the world trade center, and that you find that funny (in the sense that something isn't quite right about it, not hahaha you made me laugh funny). Sure, you absolutely did give the impression that he worked for a security company, however, you completely mislead the hell out of everyone as to what his actual involvement was.
You can back pedal all you want about this saying, that's not really what I was saying, and try to make me out to be the bad guy because you feel I went through it word by word, but that's just not what happened. You made a bullshit statement and got called out on it and now you realize you screwed up. Rather then accept the error, you're trying to turn it around on me. You lose credibility for doing this. All this shows is that you're unwilling to accept that a belief of yours is wrong. If in 50 years the events around all of this are somehow declassified and it's proven that Bin Laden has been dead for years before this ever happened and our actions in the middle east are based fully on lies, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong for being happy about the news Bin Laden is dead. I'm a man of my word, always have been, you can hold me to it. I'll even PM you my home address in case you want to send me a hand wrote letter that says "See, I told you so."
As a major stockholder he calls the shots, so him "becoming" a stockholder really doesn't lessen his authority, it just lessens his connection with the incident of 9/11.
I'm a stock holder in over a dozen different companies. I guess I should start demanding that I get to tell GE and Edison International how they should be running things. Oh wait, that's not how it works in real life.
No, it actually does lessen his authority. A stock holder does not call the shots in a company. A stock holder only get's to complain about things the company has already done and vote to put new people on the board of directors whom they feel will do what's best for the company and earn them money. Only people on the board have any say in the direction of the company and what jobs they will do, and how to perform them. Stock holders are just investors who have contributed money as capital for the company to spend, to collect returns on that investment in the form of dividends.
As for his connection to the 9/11 events, no one has yet to explain to me how a company such as that is responsible for people flying planes into buildings. If they paid for the pilot lessons or rented the jets that were used, sure, I could see the connection, but since they didn't, please, explain it to me because I just can't logically draw a connecting line between the two.
I do know that the tower ownership changed relatively soon before the attacks, and that an incredible insurance policy was taken out on them, with a legally iron clad part about terrorism that wasn't part of a standard deal that insurance company normally makes.
Really, you know this huh? Ownership changed hands right before it? I suppose you mean the deal with Silverstein Properties. Well, for your education, I'm just going to start off by telling you that once again, you are wrong. The property was, and still is, owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The last time that property changed ownership, it actually didn't change ownership because it was owned by the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, which got bought by the Port Authority in 1961, who then built the World Trade Center. 1961 was the last time the property technically changed ownership because the name on the title had to be changed. Silverstein Properties is a property management company. All they do is sublease the offices to private tenants and will do so until July 2100, as per their 99 year lease they agreed to and signed in July 2001. They, in no way, shape, or form, own the property or the buildings. Port Authority still does, did, and always has.
As for that legally iron clad policy, I don't claim to know if or why that wordage was included, but I can assure you, talk to any lawyer who specializes in the insurance industry and they will tell you, nothing is iron clad. In fact, Larry Silverstein had to sue 16 insurance companies to get his money, which can only be spent on the new construction. And the claims for the payouts were for catastrophic damage to the buildings leading to their collapse, as all sky scrapers have policies for, not terrorism attacks in general, though considering it's history and status before that as a target, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a condition added to existing policies on the condition a new lease was signed. If the buildings remained standing, Silverstein wouldn't have gotten so much. In fact, if you really know how things happened, the planes crashing into the buildings is NOT what caused them to fall, it was the fires that burned uncontrolled for as long as they did in as wide spread of an area as they did that caused the collapse, and as fire insurance is pretty much mandatory in every city in the US, a building collapsing due to a fire is guaranteed to be covered by every policy that is, was, and will be taken out on any building built in New York City. It's just that the fires and catastrophic damage leading to the collapse ultimately resulted from a terrorist attack. But if you have a copy of the policy, please let me see it. I'm all about education and that would be a great piece to add to my knowledge.