Support 911Blogger


Growing Up Bin Laden: Osama's Son Speaks

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932318,00.html
By Andrew Lee Butters
Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009

For Omar Bin Laden, the fourth eldest of Osama bin Laden's 20 known children, the awful realization that his own father was a terrorist mastermind plotting a global conspiracy that would destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people and even his own family came gradually. Of course, there were warning signs: Omar's childhood was marked by regular beatings and survivalist training; there was the growing army of ruffians and retainers who called his father "Prince"; and then there was that Afghan mullah who had given his father an entire mountain in Tora Bora.

But as he recounts in a book co-written with his mother, Omar — now 28 years-old — found it hard to give up hope that a man who had killed so many people might one day turn his back on violence and become a normal father. The younger bin Laden fled Afghanistan only when it become clear that Osama was planning a massive attack on the United States; but he still couldn't accept that his father was responsible for 9/11 until months later when he heard the familiar voice on audiotape claiming credit for the attacks. "That was the moment to set aside the dream I had indulged, feverishly hoping the world was wrong and it was not my father who brought about that horrible day," he writes. "This knowledge drives me into the blackest hole."

*continued here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932318,00.html

CIA magazine ......I mean Time still at it after all these years

"Justice will only exist where those not affected by Injustice are filled with the same amount of Indignation as those offended"

Time magazine and it's roots......................http://www.trivia-library.com/c/history-of-time-magazine-part-1.htm with current owner Time-Warner,yeah sure. "Skull and Bones" till this day!

Al CIA duh ...

al-qaida is a construct of the CIA ...

According to former British Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, al-qaida was the name of the database of operatives who were trained armed and funded by the CIA as a proxy force during the cold war, now-a-days used to provide pretext for the war on terror.

Read the article by Robin Cook ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

What the hell has this

What the hell has this article got to do with the price of beans, and why did it end up on the front page? Is this site a blog for the Official theory also , or are we interested in progression?

...

Don't worry. I doubt that anyone here takes what we see in Time at face value.

Personally, I just discount whatever I see in the MSM on these topics. It is, in general, trash. But it can be good to see what they are saying, so as to be ready.

the site's tag-line...

"Paying Attention to 9/11 Related News". I posted the article because I thought people here might be interested in seeing it, analyzing it, whatever. I had nothing to do with it ending up on the front page.

This is curious in light of the article....

Omar Bin Laden on Belgian Public Television, April 17, 2008: "Maybe they made a copy of my father and they say he says this and he says that"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBLgf_RXZZo

Show "What the hell has this" by AllendeAdmirer

What are we to make of this?

Does this cement Bin Laden's involvement in the attacks? (which doesn't mean US and other elements were not involved either). Or is this complete BS? I have been struggling with where I stand on this issue. As of now I do believe Bin Laden, Al Qeada, and the hi-jackers plotted 9/11, at least to some degree. However, it is clear they were guided by a "hidden force/power" that supported/manipulated them and controlled the entire operation from the top down.

There are those who would suggest Bin Laden was not involved at all. And that the Hi-jackers were just patsies in a larger scheme.

What are we to make of this?

Help me

Iconoclast

Please could you give me any information why you might believe "Bin Laden, Al Qeada, and the hi-jackers plotted 9/11, at least to some degree."
as I have yet to come across any evidence of this except connfessions extracted through torture.

I take it that if you believe that Al Qeada is responsible then you discount the overwhelming evidence that all 3 WTC buildings were brought down by explosives? Please could anyone give me any scientific or logical argument why I should believe that they wer'nt?

Demolition not necessarily tied to "plotters"

AA, you have conflated CD with Al-Qaeda, and I don't believe the two are necessarily part of the same equation.

If -- and this is just speculation -- the Israelis in the van full of explosives near the George Washington bridge were part of the group that planted bombs in the WTC towers, then it does not necessarily follow that the same intelligence association (Mossad) was behind the hijacking etc.

What if neocons in Washington got the ball rolling on the operation, and after that several groups were brought into the plan? Or what if various intelligence agencies learned of an al-Qaeda plot, and then decided to use it to their advantage?

All we can say for certain is that we see various intelligence agencies appearing on and around 9/11. What they knew, what they did, how they were or were not connected: We can't say for sure.

Precisely

For people to assert that there was definitely no involvement by islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden and Al Qeada in 9/11 is wrong.

It is clear that 9/11 involved aspects of the CIA, Mossad, ISI, FBI, Saudi Intelligence, and possibly Iran and Turkey's intelligence services. We can all agree on this.

And whether or not Al Qeada is truly funded and operated by banking elites and other internationalists (it most probably is) is irrelevant to this particular issue. The fact remains that there are "radicals" who actively engage in terrorism and would willingly go along with a plot like 9/11. So we need to keep open the possibility that background information on 9/11 such as, "The Looming Tower," is not necessarily inaccurate but incomplete. Much like our history of WWII.

Why is this important?

Well beside the obvious reason that it is the truth which is our ultimate objective, It is absolutely crucial that people have the best available facts at their disposal when debating this in public discourse. Particularly when you are talking with people who consider themselves "educated" on the 9/11 story. If this helps us acheive common ground in order to break through new ground, so be it.

For example, "So we both agree Osama Bin Laden is a religious terrorist who conspired against the US on 9/11."
":Yes. That is correct."
"Ok, now is it possible that others might have been involved as well?"
"Well, I suppose... what do you mean exactly?"
"Did you know the FBI reported that Mohammed Atta, the lead hi-jacker on 9/11 received a $100,000 wire transfer from the head of the Pakastani ISI, that was never fully investigated?"
"No. I did not know that. That is interesting."

...that is a far more effective way at opening people up to these possibilities when we can meet each other on common ground and they will not feel as threatened by what you have to say.

Anyway, That's my lecture for today. Cheers!

and the evidence for your opinion is?

There is likely to be only a short window of opportunity before net neutrality is destroyed. (see McCain's new bill and the intentions of the Neoconservatives to achieve full spectrum dominance including the internet). ISP's will be allowed to prioritize or censor web content -probably with arguments to curb extremism & enforce copyright etc.

When that time comes, unless the 911 truth movement has been turned into a political force, it will be eliminated overnight.

In the mean time, this site which seemed to be one of the best sources for 911 information, both in editorial decisions and in comments increasingly focuses on areas where they are in agreement with the OT, instead of concentrating on the areas where the OT can be most easily disproved.

Over and over I have heard of the £100,000 to Atta, but I cant see why this is of much importance. Atta was involved in operations in the US, maybe drug running , but the payment in no way proves Atta plotted 911. He could have been paid to take part in a patsy operation instead. All this focus on Al Qeada only reinforces the OT.

So again I ask please can you give me any evidence that proves Al Qeada, Bin Ladin and the ALLEGED Hijackers executed a plot on 911.

Iconoclast ,the bottom line in your engagement routine may be interesting, but it also does nothing to challenge the OT does it?
CD obliterates the OT , with unbreakable laws of physics, not on some "he said, she said" circumstantial progression , especially when 'he or she' may not be entirely trustworthy.

Believe me, I know the OT is bullshit...

The problem is, there exists a wealth of evidence to suggest that Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden have been plotting against the US and other western countries for years.

I could believe that their operations were, in actuality, directed from somewhere else (aka CIA, Mossad, etc.) unbeknown to them but the fact remains that they are an easy scapegoat because there is a lot of information in the public domain that confirms them as terrorists who want to bring down the US, one being the book "The Looming Tower," as I mentioned earlier.

I am not going to spend hours of my time writing out in detail why this is the case. I've done my research, so you can do yours.

One thing I suggest trying is to go to places that DO agree with the official story and try to cross-examine their information with yours. This will undoubtedly give you a clearer picture of what the game is.

Another great source of information is the HistoryCommons.org website that gives an incredibly detailed timeline of events, people, and places since the early 90s. No detail is left out. You will find quite of bit of evidence there to suggest Bin Laden at least wished he could have pulled off an operation like 9/11.

So to bring this full circle. The point about this is that achieving common ground and understanding with your intellectual opponent will clear the way for further investigation. Instead of getting hung up in the periphery, such as, "Was bin laden behind the attacks?" Sure. but the doesn't mean it wasn't an inside job. You could almost view it as placating. Then use the 100,000 transfer or some other interesting unknown fact as bait to bring them into the truth that the MSM so conveniently leaves out.

I promise you will get farther with people when they don't feel threatened by your presentation. Bellowing at people that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, as true as it may be, is going to make them feel threatened and immediately their rational and analytical thinking goes right out the window.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Bin Laden part of 911,CIA,Bosnia,...puzzle:we have to understand

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir ,
I am wery happy to have this entry because we know very little on Bin Laden's familly environment. I have been waiting for a long time to know his family life, who he really was, how he ticks. I have followed up a lot of links to his son in England.
http://www.google.fr/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aoffi...

Neither is it the FBI who will correctly inform us on Bin Laden. It is not the FBI who will tell us that Bin Laden was a CIA agent and that he was very ill and on a dialysis machine. It is from his many son's that we can confrim Bin Laden's death in December 2001.

Howerver take care because with the internet today we are in an Orwellian world where history can be rewritten at will ! Look at how many people in the world were duped into the offical story of 911 99;99 % on the 11th of september 2001. Today there is still perhaps 80% who still believe in George Bush's lies.

In France some people want to introduce the Amercicain judicial system to plead guilty in criminal cases. Howerver the resistance to that idea says that to spend time and money to understand how the crime was done, under what conditions, etc is very important inorder to take the mesures that such acts do not reproduce.

In the same way we have to put Bush father, George Bush , Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bin Laden ( but he is dead ?) , etc on trial inorder to understand how they did a perfect crime and avoid another 911. Bin Laden's background is important to understand what role if any he had on 911.

Yours

John

AQ is CIA,Bin Ladin is CIA

AQ is CIA,Bin Ladin is CIA & everything AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the Military Industrial Complex.No 'independent' terrorist organization would have committed 911 because they would not have benefited from it. How has AQ benefited from 911?They haven't . How has America's Military Industrial Complex benefited? Well,there I can give you a long list.

Fake

Reason why many don't believe Bin Laden and the other crew of alleged hijackers had anything to do with 9-11 is that they have been watching US foreign policy shenanagans for ten or twenty or thirty years, and they can spot a fake. The US gov. propaganda machine had been trying to turn Bin Laden into the poster boy for terrorism for five or ten years before 9-11. Tell me, do you think the Blind Sheikh had anything to do with blowing up WTC?

Who's Who in the Arab World

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Prince, whose bloodline is traced directly back to the Prophet Muhammad. His relatives include the Saudi Royal family, the King of Jordan, the President of Syria and Egypt, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, and all the other heads of state of Arab nations and their families (many of whom are high ranking military officers and members of government).

The so-called "Arab World" likes to play good cop/bad cop with the West. In recent history Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia played the role of the "good" cop, while Syria, Libya and Algeria played the role of the "bad" cop.

Now you know more about the Arab world than 99.99999% of the world's population! Use this knowledge wisely.

For those of you who ever wondered why the color green is so prominent in Islam, it's because the Prophet Muhammed’s eyes were green.

One more important point here. In the Arab world taking money does not make one a paid lackey of the person giving the money. If the person throwing away money at Arab leaders thinks he is buying loyalty, he's in for one big surprise. Arab leaders will gladly take your money and learn your secrets.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

That "planted" red bandana in Shanksville....

should have been green.

"For those of you who ever wondered why the color green is so prominent in Islam, it's because the Prophet Muhammed’s eyes were green."

I remember reading

that there were two bandanas found, I believe in a speech or address by a government official. Not sure if they were both found in the rubble of flight 93, or where.

Who is UBL?

"Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Prince, whose bloodline is traced directly back to the Prophet Muhammad. His relatives include the Saudi Royal family, the King of Jordan, the President of Syria and Egypt, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, and all the other heads of state of Arab nations and their families (many of whom are high ranking military officers and members of government). "

I don't think so.

UBL was born in Saudi Arabia but his father was from Yemen and his mother was from Syria. His family is not related to the royal family but has close ties to them, and basically every penny they have made they can thank the royal family for. The royal family made them and can break them.
"The Saudi Royal family, whom the Bin Ladens served loyally and without whose capricious favor they would have been nothing."
http://www.amazon.com/Bin-Ladens-Arabian-American-Century/dp/1594201641

"Prophet Muhammed’s eyes were green."

I doubt that.

"He (peace be upon him) had wide-black eyes. His eyes were described by the companions as being very dark black with pure white surrounding the iris."
http://www.alimas.netfirms.com/ProphetMuhammad.html

He's not a decendant of the prophet. He and his family owe everything they have to the Saudi Royal Family who they are not related to but who they have always worked for.

There is no debating the fact that he was an Intelligence agent of the Saudi Government. The debate is when did he stop being an agent of Saudi Intelligence?

My guess is never, since the Senate and Congress joint inquiry into the attacks of 9/11 said this in it's report........

"According to a U. S. Government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi Government would not cooperate with the United States on matters relating to Usama Bin Ladin[redacted redacted redacted] reemphasized the lack of Saudi cooperation and stated that there was little prospect of future cooperation regarding Bin Ladin. [redacted] told the Joint Inquiry that he believed the U.S. Government’s hope of eventually obtaining Saudi cooperation was unrealistic because Saudi assistance to the U.S. Government on this matter is contrary to Saudi national interests." Page 110
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/part1.pdf

The Saudi Royal family has their Intelligence asset in charge of the Jihadi Nutjobs that want to overthrow them. Just where you want him. It is also important to note, that the former head of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki, happens to not only be a friend of UBL, but is the brother of Prince Bandars' wife. He replaced Prince Bandar as U.S. Ambassador.

Prince Bandar is a good friend of the Bush family who was meeting with Bush just before and after the 9/11 attacks, and Bush assisted him in getting the Saudi's out of the country. Bush is a traitor who had not only the intelligence services of the FBI and CIA at his finger tips, but those of Saudi Arabia as well. This is the same CIA-Saudi Intelligence network that brought down the Soviets. It's an established fact that they have worked together. And as Prince Bandar confessed in 2007 they had these guys(9/11 hijackers) under their surveillance. Gee...no kidding......
he admits it here...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/#cnnSTCV...

So I guess we are supposed to assume that he kept that a secret from his buddy President Bush, and Bush didn't mind and still wanted to help out the Saudis' because he's such a nice forgiving guy. Pretty f**king unlikely. In fact he's such a nice forgiving guy, he forgave the head of the CIA when 9/11 happened and the "faulty intelligence" on Iraq happened, so he gave Tenet the highest award a civilian can get. Gosh Bush sure is forgiving. Wasn't like that in Texas though when he set the record for executions by a governor.

The Saudi Royal Bloodline Goes Many Places Unknown To Most

jimd3100,

there are many princes and princesses not born in Saudi Arabia who are members of the Saudi Royal family. One doesn't have to be born in Saudi Arabia to be a part of the Saudi Royal family. Yassar Arafat was born in Egypt, but his ancestral family home is Palestine. Arafat's family administered Palestine for the Ottoman Empire.

Muammar Gaddafi was actually born in Turkey. His mother was sent to Turkey while pregnant with Gaddafi for safety reasons; his father was fighting the Italians.

Many descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and the Saudi Royal family are even today dirt poor.

Do you really think Arab leaders will tell the media their family secrets? What we know about the Arab world has a near zero percent reliability quotient.

The prophet's eyes were green, not black, hence the Arab fascination with the color green. Many lies were told about the Prophet Muhammad, including how many real wives he had and how many real male offspring he had. The purpose for such lies (especially concerning male offspring) was for security purposes. To secure the bloodline for posterity, it was felt that the existence of the prophet's male offspring should not be made known.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

On...

July 13, 2007, I first heard of Omar Bin Laden.

His wife said, "He misses his father. Omar doesn't know if it was his father who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I don't think we will ever know."

That was first reported in the London Times, and was also reported on here.

On 4/30/2008, the London Times again reports on Omar Bin Laden.

In that report he said, "who can know 100 per cent that my father is behind 9/11 or 7/7? I am not a judge and jury. I do not know if my father is a terrorist or was involved in the attacks."

Today, Time reports that Omar Bin Laden is now saying that as soon as he heard Osama's confession video, "that was the moment to set aside the dream I had indulged, feverishly hoping the world was wrong and it was not my father who brought about that horrible day" [...] "This knowledge drives me into the blackest hole."

Why the sudden change of heart?

Edit: Watch the video posted by Lullaby Academy up above.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.