Paul wrote, "...By quoting an obscure conspiracy website you have comprehensively showed this to be true? REALLY? You need to come back down to planet earth where the real people live. ..."

If Paul had looked at the article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html, he would have seen that Michel Chossudovsky only wrote a brief introduction. The majority of that page consists of a republished article by Alexandra Richard from le Figaro.

This story is also confirmed on Paul Thompson's "Complete 9/11 Timeline" at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070401dubai#a070401dubai

There all the sources for the story are included. They include as well are:

Alexandra Richard, "The CIA met bin Laden in Dubai in July," Le Figaro (Paris), 31-Oct-01.';
Agence France-Presse, "Bin Laden underwent treatment in July at Dubai American Hospital: reports" 1-Nov-01;
Adam Sage, "Ailing bin Laden 'Treated Secretly for Kidney Disease'," London Times, 1-Nov-01;
Anthony Sampson, "CIA Agent Alleged to Have Met Bin Laden in July: French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital," Guardian, 1/Nov/01;
Richard Labeviere,"Bin Laden and the CIA: Details of the Meeting," Radio France International, 1-Nov-01;
Elizabeth Bryant, "Radio Reports New CIA-Bin Laden Details," United Press International, 1-Nov-01;
Osama bin Laden, "Interview with Osama bin Laden by Dawn Newspaper," interview by Hamid Mir, Reuters, 10-Nov-01;
Reuters, "CIA Rejects Claim It Sought Osama Deal Before 9/11," 14-Nov-03;
Alexandrine Bouilhet, "War on Terrorism: Since 1979, the American intelligence community maintained close relations with the multimillionaire of Saudi origin afflicted by a kidney problem. An interview with the director of the 'Eastern Journals.'," translated by Bill Fairchild, Le Figaro (Paris), 1-Nov-01;

Given that the US had been given numerous prior warnings of the September 11 attack, some very specific, given that Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan on 11 September was known to the US and given that he was already wanted by the FBI for other acts of terrorism against US citizens (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) I would suggest that the evidence that the US government did not want to arrest Osama bin Laden after September 11 is conclusive and that Kabir Mohabbat had told the truth.

CJ,the mouthpiece of Political Correctness

How refreshing to see that some things don't change. Still not contributing to threads that don't involve your right to view child pornography?

Dagget will be very pleased to hear you refer to our discussion as he is frantic to have an audience for his drivel.

For my own part, please continue to bait me. I enjoy an infantile game every now and then and I'm better at it than you are

Instead of acknowledging the evidence that on 12 July 2001 the CIA met wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden in Dubai, Paul has chosen to engage in a dialogue with OLO's resident village idiot.

---

I think OLO users would do well to heed the words of film maker Aaron Russo, who died in August 2007 (as I wrote earlier at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#50194).

"(Nicholas Rockefeller) told me, 11 months before 9/11 ever happened, that there was going to be an event - he never told me what the event was going to be, but there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan, to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we were going to invade Iraq, you know to take over the oil fields to establish a base in the Middle East and make it all part of the New World Order, and we go after Chavez in Venezuela, and, sure enough, later then, 9/11 happened and I remember how he was telling me how we would see soldiers looking in caves for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all these places and there was going to be this war on terror of which there was no real enemy, and the whole thing was a giant hoax, you know, but it's a way for the government to take over the American people." (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LZjKKUEHTKk)

The evidence confirming what Aaron Russo said can be easily found on the complete 9/11 Timeline at http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project, all sourced on mainstream media outlets, and many other places.

No doubt, Paul will continue to pretend not to have seen the evidence so that he can continue to promote the Big Lie of September 11.

Dagget,

From the history commons “Bin Laden, America’s most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards.”

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. It’s not an uncommon failing, most truthers suffer from it.

The History Commons article is a secondary source. What they are doing is reprinting and commenting upon the original accusations/evidence. They are NOT a primary source independent of the first source and therefore cannot confirm anything. They are merely repeating the original evidence. Please let me know if this needs to be explained to you.

You were so thorough in your copy and paste exercise that you included links to the article in which the CIA, Bin Laden and the Hospital all deny this event took place.

But as I’ve already said above, even if the CIA did meet with Bin Laden in July, he wasn’t public enemy number one until after the dust settled on 9/11.

Regarding this hypothetical meeting, you don’t know what they talked about, neither do I, so to draw the conclusion that they didn’t want to arrest Bin Laden because they wanted him as a patsy for 9/11 is Conspiri-itis.

By the way, just for clarifications sake. Was Osama bin Laden actually involved in 9/11? Because it seems to me you’ve been having a bob each way on that one.

Finally, were the cruise missiles Clinton directed at Bin Laden and his training camps, friendly hellos or were they imaginary as well? http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

dagget says >> " ... acknowledging the evidence that on 12 July 2001 the CIA met wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden ... "

The evidence? Chuddovsky's possibly, possible evidence? Is that the evidence you are referring to?

Village Idiot? Which one are you referring to? Assuming you aren't including yourself.

Paul first claimed that my only source is "an obscure conspiracy website". When I showed this not to be the case, as he should have been able to see for himself, he tried to dismiss the evidence claiming they were not 'primary sources'.

I don't know what he would accept as a "primary source", unless he means CIA agent Larry Mitchell or Osama bin Laden who have unsurprisingly denied that the meeting took place.

Clearly, respected journalists working for a number of mainstream newspapers including Le Figaro (Paris), the London Times, the Guardian, Radio France International, United Press International have obtained the information from sources they judged reliable well before these parts of the jigsaw puzzle could have been assembled into the broader picture.

Furthermore, what motive would all these journalists have to risk their credibility back in 2001 in the way Paul has implied?

Paul wrote, "You were so thorough ... that you included links to the article in which the CIA, Bin Laden and the Hospital all deny this event took place."

That's because, unlike you, I don't try to ignore seeming evidence that doesn't conform to my understanding of events. Only months ago, I was still trying to make up my mind on this question.

---

Of the three attempts by Bill Clinton to have Osama bin Laden killed including the one cited at http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/, Barrie Zwicker had the following to say (when writing of disgraced former New York Times journalist Judith Miller who, as an 'embedded' reporter lied about WMD's having been found in Iraq in 2003):

"She continues, 'Each time Mr. Clinton approved the strike.' And each time the operation failed. Although she does not report this, on one occasion cruise missiles hit the cave where was supposed to be, but he had just left. Either he led a charmed existence all those years or he was being tipped off and protected by forces beyond Clinton's control that wanted bin Laden alive as a n arch villain, an asset who could be milked as the poster boy for militant Islam." ("Towers of Deception", p161)

I note that Paul seems to have lost his voice on this forum.

Perhaps he has understood that if he attempted to put down all of Osama bin Laden's remarkable escapes, both in Clinton's time and in Bush's time, to luck on bin Laden's part, then it would stretch his own credibility well beyond breaking point.

---

Paul wrote, "I see you are now spruiking for an audience ..."

On that forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=74#53689), Paul has declared himself the winner and made the claim that I have made a total fool of myself more times than I can remember, yet it seems to be Paul, rather than I, who is embarrassed by that forum.

If defenders of the "war on terror" choose to use the terrorist atrocity of September 11 to justify that war as, for example, Phillip Tang did early in this forum, then I believe that those who reject the official US Government explanation of those attacks have every right to put that case.

---

Paul wrote, "Many of the police in Basra during the height of the war were KNOWN to be allegiant to Moqtadr Al Sadr. They were KNOWN to have carried out attacks on Allied serviceman. It’s hardly surprising that the British didn't want their people being held at the police station."

That's a new and novel explanation for a military attack upon people who were supposed to be allies of the British, Paul. Could you cite your sources?

Why do you think the British couldn't have come to some arrangement with the Basra police that would allowed the SAS men to be questioned in order to find out what they were doing? Why doesn't the behaviour of the British Commander in Basra seem extremely suspicious to you?

Let's not forget Paul, you have repeatedly used the alleged greater propensity of Iraqis to kill each other as a blanket excuse to avoid discussion of the acknowledged crimes of the occupiers such as Abu Ghraib, so I think we are entitled to have any evidence to the contrary properly considered.