« Thursday Gumpagraph | Main | Record Number Of Bodies Recovered In Baghdad »

December 21, 2006

French Soldiers Twice Had Bin Laden In Their Crosshairs 9/11, "War On Terror"

The White House, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, and their allies in "defense" industries all have a lot riding on the continued existence of enemies who can excite the public appetite for war. From a marketing perspective, the best kind of enemy is one personified by an individual person who is easy to hate — Saddam Hussein, Muammar Khaddafi, Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laden. Brand names (and faces). And if you've established a successful brand, you want to protect it.

Get out your tin-foil hats. AFP:

French soldiers in Afghanistan had Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in their crosshairs — twice — but did not receive the order from their US commander to open fire, a French documentary reported.

The filmed report, by journalists Eric de Lavarene and Emmanuel Razavi, asserts that the French troops had bin Laden in their rifle scopes in 2003 and then again six months later in 2004.

Four French soldiers assigned to a 200-strong special forces unit in Afghanistan under US military control all confirmed — "at different times and in different places" — that they could have killed bin Laden but that the order to shoot was not forthcoming, the report claims. [Emphasis added]

When people talk about any kind of conspiracy theory, the argument you always hear is that if a conspiracy involves a large number of people surely someone would talk. But the truth is that people do talk, but no one believes them when they do. So this French report will be written off as bogus and forgotten.

And for all I know, it is bogus. Or not. See also this.

Posted by Jonathan at December 21, 2006 10:19 AM  del.icio.us digg NewsVine Reddit YahooMyWeb


I want to talk about Iraq from a different perspective. Let me preface by saying I whole heartedly support the troops and just about everyone in the military, this is not a criticism of them. It also is not a criticism on anyone who reports on the horrors of the Iraq invasion.

9/11. Anyone with a computer who explores the Internet has stumbled on the conspiracy theories. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports U.S. involvement, either cooperatively or solely. But I'm not a scientist, physicist, reporter or researcher so I am unable to confirm the conspiracy theory evidence, with one slight exception.

The collapse of the twin towers. They fell at near free fall speed. I ignore flight 93, the strike on the Pentagon and the collapse of building 7. I also ignore what started each collapse. I focus on just the collapses themselves because of the overwhelming amount of video footage, both professional and armature. All the video footage of both collapses is identical with one respect: the time it took for the buildings to fall.

No other conspiracy in history comes close to having the amount of replicated evidence as the collapse of the twin towers. I cannot find any explanation – that uses physics - to show the buildings could have fallen this fast. So I'm asking if anyone knows of this kind of evidence, specifically related to the twin towers, to please tell me where I can find it.

Here's why I ask. *IF* 9/11 was an inside job, if frames everything our government has done since in a VERY different light. A profound and dark light that changes the perspective of everything that’s happened in the last 3½+ years.

I submitted this comment because for some time now every thing I hear about the Iraq war I place into two frames, the commonly held belief that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, and the other, a conspiracy frame. The conspiracy frame seems more likely, and would make all the news about the Iraq war, the meddling of our Constitution, the loss of liberties, and the no bid contracts for American companies, a fake.

If this is all a fake, why is there little action being taken? Are people afraid? Is the true enemy so powerful it's believed they cannot be dealt with? Are we so selfish that we care more about ourselves then a potentially dark reality that’s different then the cozier reality we're living? The war is real, the people in the war are real and the place is real. But is the context of all this real?

Which reality should I live in?

Posted by: Jeff at December 22, 2006 01:24 AM