|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Dec 31, 2007 18:11:10 GMT -4
In this 2 Nov, 2007 David Frost Interview of the late Benazir Bhutto, at around 06:15 she casually stated that Omar Sheikh murdered Osama Bin Laden. Both she and David Frost let the statement pass without comment, as if it were common knowledge. Now she's been assassinated, under suspicious circumstances. Uncensored video - skip to 06:00: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQInterestingly, the BBC has censored the statement from their copy of the video. At 05:00, they inserted a reaction shot of Frost to cover the removed footage. This is a clear case of historical revisionism. If she had simply made an error or misstatement, why create the illusion that she never said it? Even those who are biased against belief in conspiracies should have a problem with this kind of blatant censorship by a "reputable" news agency. BBC censored video - skip to 04:50: news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/world/video/130000/nb/130362_16x9_nb.asx?ad=1&ct=50In case it's not painfully obvious by now, OBL is dead and the war on terror is a fraud. He is being used as a hand puppet to promote the globalist agenda. The most recently faked audio message is just another piece of propaganda for consumption by the gullible masses. For more information, here's a link to a story about the BBC's censorship of Bhuttos's statement.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jan 1, 2008 16:07:16 GMT -4
If OBL is dead then it is al-Qa'ida that is using him as a sock puppet.
Or are you saying there are no Islamist terrorists?
|
|
|
Post by yodaluver28 on Jan 1, 2008 20:59:16 GMT -4
In this 2 Nov, 2007 David Frost Interview of the late Benazir Bhutto, at around 06:15 she casually stated that Omar Sheikh murdered Osama Bin Laden. Her statement is hearsay at most, she makes no attempt to discuss it any furthur or to prove the allegation and in fact, if you listen to the context of the statement, she seems to have simply misspoken. She was discussing that Pervez Musharraf had passed on to her people warnings from another country's intelligence services that there were serious threats on her life coming from various Afghani warlords, Taliban sympathizers in Pakistan, and Osama Bin Laden's son, Hamza Bin Laden. She went on to say that she'd dodged numerous assassination attempts in the past and that the goal of these people was to destroy the democratic process in Pakistan, not just her personally. Bin Laden himself wasn't even the topic at hand. She mentioned Omar Sheikh being involved with some of these people who wished to stop the process and explained that he was the man who organized the killings of several British and American citizens in Iraq. We also know that it was he who beheaded Daniel Pearl and she was probably referring to Sheikh's murder of Pearl and simply said Bin Laden's name by mistake. It's also important to remember that Sheikh has been in prison for Pearl's murder since February 2002 and before his arrest was coordinating Pearl's kidnapping and other operations, fitting in the murdering of Bin Laden at the same time, while the US was attacking OBL's hide outs in Afghanistan, seems extremely unlikely. Or Frost let it pass as if he realized that she'd misspoken and meant to say that Sheikh murdered Daniel Pearl or was repeating unproven conjecture. What suspicious circumstances? Her assassination is tragic, of course, but surprising or suspicious? Not in the least. She's been a target of both Islamic extremists and pro-military junta factions in Pakistan for more than fifteen years. Her return to Pakistan spurred horrific riots and she's been under constant threat of assassination from both Al Qaeda operatives as well as Musharraf loyalists. The Pakistani government has been less than honest about the exact cause of her death but since Musharraf and/or Al Qaeda loyalists working within the government are already suspected by many outside sources of being involved, this is not surprising. There's no illusion that she never said it. It may have simply been removed at her request because she realized she'd misspoken and didn't want to create the kind of rampant conspiri-thizing that's now going on as a result of her statement. Or perhaps the BBC didn't want to encourage it. Editing isn't necessarily censorship. Interviews get cleaned up all the time, with mistakes, flubs, and irrelevent discussion removed. If Bhutto truly believed that Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh and was determined that the world know it, why wouldn't she announce it for real? Why slip it into the middle of a discussion about something else? Why wouldn't she accuse the BBC of censorship when the edited interview aired? She was a brave woman, if that's what she meant, she would've said it again. Please present evidence that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Not erroneous news reports of a supposed funeral from 2002 or conjecture made my media pundits but evidence. And even if OBL is dead, how does that diminish terrorism? He had dozens of co-conspirators, hundreds of close followers, and thousands of symphathizers. He wasn't the only terrorist in Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. His death would change nothing except make him an effective martyr to the cause. Or perhaps the notion that he's dead or a hand puppet of some evil "globalist agenda" is simply being used as propaganda by people like Alex Jones for consumption by their gullible fans who can't accept the reality that religious extremists who can't be reasoned with are in this world.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jan 1, 2008 22:25:19 GMT -4
We also know that it was he who beheaded Daniel Pearl and she was probably referring to Sheikh's murder of Pearl and simply said Bin Laden's name by mistake. Or Frost let it pass as if he realized that she'd misspoken and meant to say that Sheikh murdered Daniel Pearl or was repeating unproven conjecture. That's quite a bit of ad hoc reasoning. How does one subconsciously substitute "Osama Bin Laden" for "Daniel Pearl" (not the same # of syllables, one a terrorist, the other a victim) and not immediately correct oneself? Her responses are all calm and carefully enunciated. The likelihood of such a slip in the first place, and not followed by an immediate correction by her or Frost, is very small. Well, they hosed down the crime scene, for starters. That makes it conveniently difficult to do a proper investigation. Well, would you have known about the censorship if I hadn't told you about it? There would be less conspiracy theories about it if they hadn't censored the statement. Censoring it makes it appear that they're hiding something. In the unlikely event that she had substituted OBL for some other person's name and asked for a correction, why not let her overdub it with the correct name instead of removing it? If the world knew that all those post-911 messages were fake, that would certainly diminish the fraudulent war on terror. Those messages and their convenient timing have always seemed to benefit the Bush administration, either to scare the public into reelecting him, or getting more police-state legislation pushed through Congress. Those messages have done very little to benefit the alleged terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jan 1, 2008 22:38:13 GMT -4
If OBL is dead then it is al-Qa'ida that is using him as a sock puppet. Or are you saying there are no Islamist terrorists? A lot of the unbiased evidence suggests that all the recent large-scale terrorist acts have been false-flag government/intelligence run operations: 1993 WTC bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, Colombine massacre, 9-11, Madrid train bombing, 2005 London bombing. These acts have always resulted in benefits for the powers that be (government and corporate), rather than for the alleged terrorists. These benefits have been large increases in funding, power and control of the people by the "authorities" in the name of security. They have been used primarily as an excuse to set up increasingly restrictive police-states in the US and Britain, and to justify costly no-win foreign wars that largely benefit the oil companies, defense contractors, and their investors. (Also, the US military has "liberated" the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Good news for the CIA.) The alleged "terrorists" have gained virtually nothing from these acts, either personally or as a group.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 1, 2008 22:42:18 GMT -4
A lot of the unbiased evidence suggests that all the recent large-scale terrorist acts have been government/intelligence run operations: ... Colombine massacre... I've never heard of this expressed as a conspiracy. Can you explain this to me?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jan 1, 2008 22:43:52 GMT -4
A lot of the unbiased evidence suggests that all the recent large-scale terrorist acts have been government/intelligence run operations: ... Colombine massacre...I've never heard of this expressed as a conspiracy. Can you explain this to me? Try using google. The information is out there.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 2, 2008 0:38:57 GMT -4
In case it's not painfully obvious by now, OBL is dead Be careful what you say... Obviously OBL assassinated Bhutto for saying this, then exponged it from the BBC's archives. You might be next.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 1:07:59 GMT -4
The Colombine massacre a government operation? Get real.
Why does every news event have to be the result of some kind of government (presumably US government) conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 2, 2008 11:09:34 GMT -4
...Madrid train bombing.... These acts have always resulted in benefits for the powers that be (government and corporate), rather than for the alleged terrorists. I seem to recall that the immediate political consequences of this one was the Spanish government being voted out. Hardly a benefit to them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 12:44:42 GMT -4
...Madrid train bombing.... These acts have always resulted in benefits for the powers that be (government and corporate), rather than for the alleged terrorists. I seem to recall that the immediate political consequences of this one was the Spanish government being voted out. Hardly a benefit to them. Or for the U.S. either, since a very pro-U.S. government was replaced with one that was quite a bit cooler towards us, and resulted in Spain withdrawing all their support for the war in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 15:44:07 GMT -4
Hey, he's right. I used Google and it turns out there is a lot of information out there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 2, 2008 16:20:26 GMT -4
Try using google. The information is out there. yeah if it's on the internet, it MUST be true.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 2, 2008 22:00:22 GMT -4
[quote author=911truth board=othertheories Try using google. The information is out there.[/quote] And some of it might even be true! ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 3, 2008 11:47:49 GMT -4
Or, on the other hand, 100% of it may be grade-A medow muffins.
|
|