Al-Qaeda leader never claimed responsibility for attack, Van de Wiel tells Australian Supreme Court
Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet | Thursday, February 28th, 2008
Skepticism towards the 9/11 official story reached the Australian Supreme Court this week after a lawyer asserted that the attacks were not orchestrated by Osama bin Laden during the trial of an alleged terror group in Melbourne.
“To say that this was all orchestrated by Osama bin Laden is a silly thing to do. He’s never claimed responsibility for it,” Remy van de Wiel QC told the Australian jury.
Unless you accept the credibility of a dodgy videotape of a fat Bin Laden doppelganger “miraculously discovered” in a house in Jalalabad by U.S. troops and pushed as authentic by the ever-honest U.S. government, then van de Wiel has a point.
Indeed, Bin Laden’s first public statement following the 9/11 attacks was to deny any responsibility for carrying them out.
“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle,” Bin Laden told the Pakistani-based Ummat newspaper.
Despite the fact that it only took three months to charge him with the 1998 embassy bombings, there has been no formal indictment of bin Laden over six years after 9/11 and the FBI’s wanted poster makes no reference of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.
When asked by reporters why no reference was made, FBI agent Rex Tomb was forced to admit that “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Van de Wiel is the defense lawyer for Abdul Nacer Benbrika, leader of an alleged terror organization that the prosecution claims planned to carry out violent attacks in Australia.
Van de Wiel asserted that the group were incapable of organizing “a booze-up in a brewery,” and pointed out the lack of evidence against them besides the fact that they liked to “bullshit to each other.”
The case mirrors almost every other example we have studied in Britain, Canada and America , where a group of Muslims are infiltrated by security agents, radicalized and provocateured into saying something which could be perceived as advocating violence, and then arrested. Despite the complete lack of hard evidence of intent or capability to carry out attacks, the trials provide fodder for propagandists to cite in order to hoax the public into thinking terrorists are everywhere, thus convincing them to hand over more liberty in the name of security.
As we reported last week, four prosecutors In the Guantánamo Bay case assert that the trials are rigged and that convictions are already assured despite the fact that there is scant evidence to link Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his cohorts with 9/11, proving that the official story is a fable and the real perpetrators are being protected.