orwellian said:
orwellian said:
If you look at the dates on the poster, you see that the original posting was in 1999. The poster was updated in November, 2001, roughly two months after 9/11.
"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."
The 1998 bombings obviously were enough to put him on the list. After the Cole in 2000 and then the 9/11 attack, the Madrid train bombings in 2004, the Algiers bombing in 2007, the Danish Embassy in Pakistan bombing, so on and so forth - I think the "suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" comment sufficiently describes him.
All the other Top 10 folks on the list had typically generic descriptions of their deeds. Every accusation of every crime are not on other posters either, rather generic "suspicions of" this, that or the other.
So first you try to link the "fact" that the FBI didn't have bin Laden on the top ten list as a reason for pointing out as another "reason" that bin Laden can't be behind al Qaeda's goings on. As well as the "fact" that the poor little guy is hiding out in caves to evade the big, bad US and that obviously he can't be behind anything because he's on his death/kidney dialysis bed.
Then we find out that he actually is on the FBI Top Ten list, but the reasons aren't strong enough. It doesn't specifically say that he's responsible for 9/11 so that just one more "fact" that helps your position.
The US Government including the FBI and the CIA, all make no bones that they consider the bin Laden is behind the 9/11 attacks. Government officials have been interviewed, and made attributable statements to this point.
The "fact" that bin Laden is not on their top ten list (btw - he's on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" list as well) and the later "fact" that he is not specifically called out to be behind 9/11 means absolutely nothing related to what the government agency the FBI thinks about bin Laden and his involvement in 9/11. It's general public knowledge disseminated directly through government offices and not as "an anonymous source."
Then we have the statement that it's an insult to believe a man in a cave on kidney dialysis could have orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
Why would that be, even if it were true (that he was on dialysis)?
First, I have to tell you, anyone that can successfully be going through kidney dialysis in a cave is a pretty smart guy. I think he could figure out how to get his leaders together and give out a plan and even keep updated on progress and all sorts of things.
Of course, whether or not he is on dialysis is a big question to begin with if you look at all the facts, and not just the "facts". That he has some kidney disease of some sort, perhaps even diabetes, is little disputed. Dialysis? Could be, even the CIA agrees that is possible.
But even if he is, so what?
Conspiracy theorists often take the slightest bit of confusion and uncertainty in a situation and bend it to make it look like there is something "strange" going on. A lot of the material that they get is the confused statements of victims and onlookers as to things that occurred. The bigger and more horrific the event, the more confused those witnesses are likely to be. There is also confusion and waste in an institution as big and complex as the US government. That also provides a ton of fuel.
The thing that gets me about conspiracies as big as those that surround the 9/11 attacks is that no one can ever convince me that a conspiracy that big could remain secret.
Of course, a conspiracy theorist would tell me "that's exactly why it's so effective - the truth is out there for all to see, stuff that has leaked, stuff that doesn't add up, witnesses that tell a different story than the official version. Obviously the conspiracy is exposed, it's just that no one will believe it!"