Bin Laden is dead - Page 6

Obviously the concept of a war zone is lost on you. Maybe there are a half dozen guys that know what happened there. The rest read, heard or watched it on video.

His "wives and kid" were not there. Even the Obama White House had to abandon that lie.

Got proof?

Isn't that sorta the point here? We don't have much proof of anything. We have lots of claims which seem to be true. But we're being asked to take a lot on faith and trust by people who, frankly, have a strong political interest in making this all look a certain way.

And this from the most* open and transparent administration in US history. And by "most" here I mean least.

Let me put it another way: Do you think we would have heard about this kind of an operation if it had failed? Do you think there is anyway the administration is going to allow this to look like a failure insofar as it is within their control?

My guess is we would have heard about it. We heard about Bush's failed attempts.

I really need to check what the obama admin is saying. I'm not up to date on all of this.

How do you explain this then?

"It would make the ultimate reality TV programme: Osama bin Laden was confined to the house in Abbottabad for at least five years, with three wives and several children.

But then Bin Laden was not just the head of a global terror network, he was head of a family that comprised at least five wives and 20 or more children. Their future, and in some cases their loyalty to his cause, is now steeped in doubt. Three of his wives and as many as nine of his children the youngest still a toddler were living in the small compound in Pakistan where he was killed last weekend, according to Pakistani intelligence services.

Officers contacted by the Guardian have built up a picture of Bin Laden's domestic arrangements behind the five-metre (18ft) walls of the compound, where furnishings were modest, children were home-schooled and rabbits, chickens and a cow were nurtured.

The Bin Laden family lived on the top two floors of the large home raided by US special forces. They never left the compound, which covered nearly an acre, perhaps never left the house itself. According to Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, Bin Laden's Yemeni wife, who was injured during the US assault, she never left the upper floors of the three-storey house.

A senior official from Inter-Services Intelligence, the main Pakistani spy agency, said that in addition to Sadah, two other women found at the three storey home by local authorities after the Americans had left had also been identified as wives of the al-Qaida leader.

"Three wives have been taken into custody. One had been shot. She told us they had been living there for five years," said another senior Pakistani military official. "The children are also in our protective custody.""
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...amily-compound

BAM!

"Rogers said bin Laden made no apparent move to surrender. "You don't know if he's got a suicide vest," he said, referring to the SEAL team.
He said there was concern that the building could have been rigged with explosives. "These are difficult circumstances. (Bin Laden) had an opportunity to surrender. This was a combat operation, and he's an enemy combatant. It's Osama bin Laden, for goodness' sake."
~ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...d-threat_n.htm

No, because it's a "correction" the White House put out. Who knows if its true... Santa Claus may appear in the compound next, together with the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot.

But since *you* are so enraptured by the 'honesty' of this administration , I quoted it for you... since you are as likely to believe it as anyone.

As MJ1970 said, the WH has provided no proof of anything re. this case. All the material that would have provided evidence that stands up to scrutiny has been disposed of.

We believe what we want to believe. Blind faith shows little bounds, especially when the object of that blind faith conforms to what makes us feel good.

Do you have a link to this correction or can you copy it to here?

Oh for fuck's sake.

I'm now starting to get the sense with all of the various rationalization and excuse-making that even the people who ordered and executed this operation are trying to find cover for what they did.

I think a suicide vest was pretty unlikely, but certainly possible, but a button of some sort to destroy the whole building seems very plausible. Not just to go out in a blaze of glory, so to speak, not just so he would be his own martyr so to speak, not just so he wouldn't be paraded like a trophy in the US, so to speak but also because it would destroy much of his terror planning information. Al Qaeda must be pretty pissed off with Osama right now, if there still alive that is.

We fund Al Qaeda. Of course they're still alive.

Got links?

Yea that's why one seal team member repelled in WITH A SEAL DOG STRAPPED TO HIM!




America, Fuck Yea!

I can understand the argument that Osama had to be shot dead because the Navy Seals thought he was about to trigger an explosion that would bring down the whole building.

If it were true that that was the fear.

But I doubt it because according to accounts two helicopters landed and the one(!) guy with a gun engaged in a firefight with the navy-seals outside of Osama's (bed?)room. Let's just imagine there were a button to ignite the booby-trapped building would Osama wait until they entered his room and could shoot him?

So no the boobytrapped-building-idea can be discarded as improbable, leaves the suicide-vest-option. He had enough time to get out of his bed and put on a suicide-vest he had somewhere in this room and that's why he waited for the navy seals to enter the room to kill them with himself...

That's more likely.

But what I can't understand is that the US entered the territory of a souvereign nation without asking the government for permission, a nation it has not declared a war on. Isn't that a breach of international law and UN-code?

Wait, a declaration of war is not necessary, the very act of entering the territory without permission is an act of war. So in fact the US declared war on Pakistan by entering the territory with its forces without permission.

We have given billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Much of that money has ended up in the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Oh I know. I'm sure the seal team would be thinking. "Lemme deduce the likelihood of this building being rigged to explode given the fact that this person is engaged in a firefight just outside the bedroom that I don't know what's in. Now IF OBL is in there and the building it rigged then ... but if OBL is in there and the building is not rigged .... but also maybe we have the wrong building but it's rigged and also maybe we have the wrong building and it's not rigged. Therefore I should use nonlethal techniques because I want to avoid douchebags on the internet second guessing my actions"





Oh yea I'm so appalled by that. cause you know it's not like Pakistan didn't burn us once when we tried to get OBL.

Here is the kind of thing that generates suspicion, and for good reason. The UK Daily Mail national newspaper carried this article on the bin Laden assassination.

If 100% genuine, why would the press publish the obviously photoshopped picture of "her passport"? (See 3rd picture down in article). Anyone remember the "Weekly World News", in which equally badly retouched fake pictures were employed?

Osama bin Bigfoot.

Not to completely dismiss the article, but The Daily Mail is filled with crap to draw in an audience who thrive on it. They run stories on GW that only jazzguru would dare post.

Pakistan has been willing to let drones bomb which often kill innocent civilians. In this instance a much more humane method was employed and for the number one target, therefore they shouldn't consider it an act of war.

I assume you are using "letting" in the very loosest sense of its meaning as in...the US comes in and says "We're going to do this." and Pakistan says..."Ummm...sure...OK."



And, interestingly, the people behind that activity are not considered "terrorists."

Odd.

Global warming and bill gates are going to fuck things up so bad what difference does it make?

Ever read much about the assassination of the unfortunate Benazir Bhutto, that is, outside of the filtered, infantile drivel spoon fed to the rather "twee", insulated-from-reality US audience?


That's another example of "American Exceptionalism"... a state of howling duplicity in which our military/intel/security etc agencies have the license to do wtf we want: our own activities which fall smack dab within what the FBI (or any other party) define as "terrorism" are just fine.

"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species." - Jack

Bin Laden in heaven :

NICE!

Poor standard of joke, even for 14 year old acne-faced schoolboys.

There is nothing in the Koran that promises "72 virgins for martyrs". The famous piece on "suicide bombing" on CBS's "60 Minutes" that was filmed in August 2001 and aired shortly after the 9/11 attacks was largely responsible for propagating the "72 Virgins for martyrs" myth. It was a deliberate and insistent mistranslation by the US media, and despite protests from the Muslim community, there was no retraction. It was eagerly digested by an already primed-for-hatred US public.

I guess some people will never have a sense of humor.

I for one believe he was responsible for 911. I believe that he was an on going danger to the world and not just a blaming puppet for the U.S.

I also believe his death will give necessary closure for the psychology of the U.S. and the same for his followers ( albeit a different effect ). A much better scenario than never finding him.

And I believe this is better than the death of Saddam who had nothing to do with 911 ( even though the previous administration seemed to want to tacitly indicate he did ) .

Well that settles it then.



I guess we could call this faith based foreign policy.

Fair enough, but on what information is your opinion based? I have yet to hear it. I would *love* to hear this information: hard, fact-based material, with no BS... just so I don't feel compelled to have to keep writing about it. Endless , repetitive, uncorroborated propaganda .. much of which has been soundly debunked, doesn't cut the cake.

If bin Laden was "responsible for 9/11" then consider:
(a) Why did the US DoJ not indict him for such,
(b) why did the FBI claim there was 'no hard evidence' to link OBL with that attack,
(c) why did President Bush baldly state on at least two occasions that "he wasn't concerned about (the status/whereabouts etc) of OBL?
(d) Why, if he was responsible, did the CIA state that "there is no link between OBL's (considerable) personal wealth and the funding for 9/11"?
(e) What was his motivation? Did he make out financially like the proverbial bandit? How did the Islamic world gain from it? How
(f) If bin Laden was in as responsible as has been promoted, WTF did senior members of the Bush Administration allow a number if OBL's US based relatives to leave the US on special flights at a time when all commercial and private planes were grounded by the FAA, thus depriving US law enforcement and intelligence agencies with a perfect opportunity to gather a lot of potential information about OBL, other "al Qaeda" people, other militant groups, and Allah knows what else. If that was a blunder, and OBL was responsible as promoted/sold, then it was one of the most amazing gaffes in US law enforcement history.. but this little issue was kept very, very quiet
indeed.

The mandate seems to have been "don't spoil the party".


Tell that to a large proportion of the families and friends of those who were murdered that day. They have had NO closure from this latest twist.

Then consider the testimony of former FBI translator/whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a person who was far more qualified than pretty much anyone in the US media re. Mid East affairs/Osama bin Laden et al:
Ms. Edmonds said the following:



Here, we have the testimony of a professional law enforcement agent with specialist knowledge of the languages and dialects of the region, a person with no known political agenda, putting her career and life at risk to tell the people about what she knew, VERSUS the pronouncements of an administration whose agenda depended heavily upon public support for the wars (and numerous other measures) enabled by OBL's supposed acts. (!)


Tacitly? omfg!
This was the other "justification for the Iraq war, which was so vigorously promoted by Cheney and other senior administration people, and the US media, to such an extent that in a poll taken in 2005 or 2006, over 90% of the approximately 160,000 US troops stationed in Iraq said "we are there to kick Saddam Hussein's butt for 9/11".

**

I wish I could get closure on this gnarly affair, but I cannot force myself into pathological denial by trying to believe in things that have been proven to be utterly and demonstrably false. In a way, I really sometimes wish I hadn't started digging... it's been painful in many respects. When one becomes aware of problems surrounding this entire 10+ year old affair, it is impossible to revert back to a prior, relatively comfortable position. I am not making any claims: I never have... as I have reiterated (or tried to) in here a number of times... but some people prefer to label me as a conspiracy nut, not because of the material I have quoted, but primarily because I refuse to succumb to blind faith...

I understandwhy these defense mechanisms kick in, and I have come to accept that cannot change peoples' minds using facts many of which have been provided by US government agencies and personnel. The nonsense goes so far that to believe in a central plank of the story *mandates* the notion that 3 of the fundamental laws of nature were somehow violated by "bin Laden's team".

We have been requested to accept this kind of insanity.

hehe.

I think its game over for you....

CIA chief Panetta said:

"We don't know if it was bin Laden". "We don't even know if he was ever there".

I suppose that places Panetta amongst "the conspiracy theorists"...

I'm a bit older than 14 and have not had acne for longer than that, but I must admit, I found it funny. Whether or not the "72 virgins" was true root is not important to the joke. It was clever overall.

OK, I'll give a little on that. I re-read the joke out loud and got a titter of laughter from a friend; she thought it was funny. Not sure if this example of humor would be considered acceptable if applied any other group other than our national piñata of choice... (not necessarily Osama, but anyone of Arabic or Persian ethnicity., and Muslim of course).

Whatever... carry on.

+1

How do you know this information? Are you a reporter or is it just here say from something you heard or saw?

sammi's rambling post can be condensed into these two strawmen.

First, I believe firmly in due process of law. But that process does not apply to international terrorists. It does not apply in matters of war. Unlike sammi, I do not think we should mirandize people with whom we are at war, put them in handcuffs, and give them their phone call. Just a small difference of opinion there.

Secondly, America is the sole superpower. China's economy may rival ours, but their military still does not come close. Eventually it may, but as of now they do not possess one fifth of our military capabilities. This is not to say they don't have a significant capability. They most certainly do. They have a huge conventional force. The difference is their lack of naval power as compared to us. Our air power is also superior, though they do have a large number of aircraft and are making inroads with their stealth technology.

Oh, and China is not going to "call" our debt. Please spare us your fourth grade understanding of economics.

SDW definitely needs to read Animal Farm again.

Umm, yes you are completely dismissing the article by attacking the source rather than addressing the content.

AGW is still a farce, btw.

I think this quote from George Orwell is particularly meaningful in light of our discussion: