Showing posts with label bin laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bin laden. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Obama vs. Osama: A Very Convenient Death
By Victor Thorn
afp.net
The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (75 miles north of Islamabad), where Osama bin Laden supposedly met his demise on May 1 at the hands of a highly sensitive U.S. ground operation was eight times larger than any other building in the area. Built in 2005, these headquarters, described as “a highly unusual structure,” were well guarded and extremely secure
Didn’t anyone in our military or intelligence community—for six long years—question the purpose of this fortress or the identity of its occupants? A $25 million reward lingered over bin Laden’s head, yet not a single person revealed the whereabouts of the world’s most famous terrorist?
With the NSA’s technological capabilities, not to mention the precision of Google Earth, was no one in our multibilliondollar spook industry capable of locating a Muslim who stands six feet four inches and drags around a dialysis machine?
Only moments after Barack Obama announced the death of this Orwellian perpetual enemy, former national security advisor Stephen Hadley proclaimed, “Osama bin Laden was hiding in clear view.”
Was Hadley’s statement accurate, or is it a bit inconvenient to mention that the Egyptian newspaper alWafd ran a funeral announcement for bin Laden on Dec. 26, 2001? Multiple other reports from a wide variety of sources—ranging back years—flatly stated, in one version or another, that bin Laden has long been dead.
AFP has diligently chronicled such reports that largely seem to have been missed or otherwise suppressed by the elite media in the United States.
Even more incredibly, White House officials described how (according to their version of events) the first intelligence threads pointing to bin Laden’s Pakistani locale arrived in August 2010. Still, he purportedly wasn’t killed for another eight months. How many people can go that long without paying parking tickets, let alone when you are the most wanted man in the world?
Bin Laden’s supposed homicide arrived at a time when Obama’s popularity had plummeted to a dangerously low point. Tycoon Donald Trump hammered him for a month straight with allegations concerning his birth certificate while also calling Obama “the worst president ever.”
Amid this onslaught, Obama teetered, appearing weak as gas prices skyrocketed, the economy sputtered and the war against Libya faced ruin.
NATO’s April 30 assassination attempt on Muammar Qadaffi had backfired, with the Libyan president’s son and three grandchildren killed as “collateral damage.” Global reaction was mounting to the point of outrage as it became clear that the U.S.—under the guise of NATO —violated international law by trying to murder a foreign leader. Obama, like his predecessors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was soon to be labeled a war criminal.
But then, just one day later, bin Laden was reported dead and Obama was hailed as a heroic “dragon slayer.” Is it of any symbolic significance that this announcement came on May 1, the communist International Workers Day?
At any rate, celebrations soon ensued outside the White House as the jubilant and gullible sang God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. While addressing the nation, Obama took credit for the operation, boasting, “I directed Leon Panetta, CIA director, to make the capture of Osama bin Laden our No. 1 priority. . . . I authorized the operation to get bin Laden . . . it came at my direction.”
Obama’s popularity numbers will rise, and GOP criticism of him will be more difficult for a while.
However, th e question arises: Why didn’t Republican George W. Bush and his cronies pull off a similar ploy and stake their claim by killing bin Laden?
Those who believe that the world and American political affairs are actually far more stagemanaged than meets the eye—that much of the partisan conflict we see is actually political theater—provide this answer:
If Bush had made good on his threat of getting bin Laden “dead or alive,” he’d have emerged victorious in his war on terror and Obama’s selection as president would have been more difficult. The powersthatbe needed Bush’s tenure to end on a disastrous note so that the doors could be opened for Obama’s “hope and change.”
So, with Obama’s favorability ratings tanking and a power struggle in Washington threatening to reveal many scandalous aspects of his past, the president’s handlers countered by pulling the ultimate tru mp card—the head of bin Laden.
Of course, the neoconservatives who manage U.S. foreign policy couldn’t blow the whistle on this ruse because, after all, they were the first ones to use bin Laden as a patsy after their falseflag attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
In all, the rewards for Obama are obvious. Often criticized as being unAmerican and tepid on foreign affairs, he now boasted about
“the greatness of our country” during his latenight address to the nation.
On a larger scale, even the military machine—mired in a disastrous Afghan war for nearly a decade—may emerge on a positive note.
Despite squandering over $400 billion battling Afghan tribes, Gen. David Petraeus is being hailed as a hero for commandeering the drone attacks on Pakistan. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s message will clearly be: Our efforts weren’t in vain, because we got bin Laden.
In t he second line of Obama’s May 1 address, the president reiterated that al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 911 and only through “the tireless and heroic work of our military” was the U.S. able to combat global terrorism.
afp.net
The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (75 miles north of Islamabad), where Osama bin Laden supposedly met his demise on May 1 at the hands of a highly sensitive U.S. ground operation was eight times larger than any other building in the area. Built in 2005, these headquarters, described as “a highly unusual structure,” were well guarded and extremely secure
Didn’t anyone in our military or intelligence community—for six long years—question the purpose of this fortress or the identity of its occupants? A $25 million reward lingered over bin Laden’s head, yet not a single person revealed the whereabouts of the world’s most famous terrorist?
With the NSA’s technological capabilities, not to mention the precision of Google Earth, was no one in our multibilliondollar spook industry capable of locating a Muslim who stands six feet four inches and drags around a dialysis machine?
Only moments after Barack Obama announced the death of this Orwellian perpetual enemy, former national security advisor Stephen Hadley proclaimed, “Osama bin Laden was hiding in clear view.”
Was Hadley’s statement accurate, or is it a bit inconvenient to mention that the Egyptian newspaper alWafd ran a funeral announcement for bin Laden on Dec. 26, 2001? Multiple other reports from a wide variety of sources—ranging back years—flatly stated, in one version or another, that bin Laden has long been dead.
AFP has diligently chronicled such reports that largely seem to have been missed or otherwise suppressed by the elite media in the United States.
Even more incredibly, White House officials described how (according to their version of events) the first intelligence threads pointing to bin Laden’s Pakistani locale arrived in August 2010. Still, he purportedly wasn’t killed for another eight months. How many people can go that long without paying parking tickets, let alone when you are the most wanted man in the world?
Bin Laden’s supposed homicide arrived at a time when Obama’s popularity had plummeted to a dangerously low point. Tycoon Donald Trump hammered him for a month straight with allegations concerning his birth certificate while also calling Obama “the worst president ever.”
Amid this onslaught, Obama teetered, appearing weak as gas prices skyrocketed, the economy sputtered and the war against Libya faced ruin.
NATO’s April 30 assassination attempt on Muammar Qadaffi had backfired, with the Libyan president’s son and three grandchildren killed as “collateral damage.” Global reaction was mounting to the point of outrage as it became clear that the U.S.—under the guise of NATO —violated international law by trying to murder a foreign leader. Obama, like his predecessors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was soon to be labeled a war criminal.
But then, just one day later, bin Laden was reported dead and Obama was hailed as a heroic “dragon slayer.” Is it of any symbolic significance that this announcement came on May 1, the communist International Workers Day?
At any rate, celebrations soon ensued outside the White House as the jubilant and gullible sang God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. While addressing the nation, Obama took credit for the operation, boasting, “I directed Leon Panetta, CIA director, to make the capture of Osama bin Laden our No. 1 priority. . . . I authorized the operation to get bin Laden . . . it came at my direction.”
Obama’s popularity numbers will rise, and GOP criticism of him will be more difficult for a while.
However, th e question arises: Why didn’t Republican George W. Bush and his cronies pull off a similar ploy and stake their claim by killing bin Laden?
Those who believe that the world and American political affairs are actually far more stagemanaged than meets the eye—that much of the partisan conflict we see is actually political theater—provide this answer:
If Bush had made good on his threat of getting bin Laden “dead or alive,” he’d have emerged victorious in his war on terror and Obama’s selection as president would have been more difficult. The powersthatbe needed Bush’s tenure to end on a disastrous note so that the doors could be opened for Obama’s “hope and change.”
So, with Obama’s favorability ratings tanking and a power struggle in Washington threatening to reveal many scandalous aspects of his past, the president’s handlers countered by pulling the ultimate tru mp card—the head of bin Laden.
Of course, the neoconservatives who manage U.S. foreign policy couldn’t blow the whistle on this ruse because, after all, they were the first ones to use bin Laden as a patsy after their falseflag attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
In all, the rewards for Obama are obvious. Often criticized as being unAmerican and tepid on foreign affairs, he now boasted about
“the greatness of our country” during his latenight address to the nation.
On a larger scale, even the military machine—mired in a disastrous Afghan war for nearly a decade—may emerge on a positive note.
Despite squandering over $400 billion battling Afghan tribes, Gen. David Petraeus is being hailed as a hero for commandeering the drone attacks on Pakistan. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s message will clearly be: Our efforts weren’t in vain, because we got bin Laden.
In t he second line of Obama’s May 1 address, the president reiterated that al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 911 and only through “the tireless and heroic work of our military” was the U.S. able to combat global terrorism.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade
By Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
A multitude of different inside sources both publicly and privately, including one individual who personally worked with Bin Laden at one time, told us directly that Osama’s dead corpse has been on ice for nearly a decade and that his “death” would only be announced at the most politically expedient time.
That time has now come with a years-old fake picture being presented as the only evidence of his alleged killing yesterday, while Bin Laden’s body has been hastily dumped into the sea to prevent anyone from finding out when he actually died.
In April 2002, over nine years ago, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker, told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”.
Pieczenik would be in a position to know such information, having worked directly with Bin Laden when the US was funding and arming the terror leader in an attempt to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the late 70′s and early 80′s (a documented historical fact that talking heads in the corporate media are actually denying today in light of developments).
“I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying,” Pieczenik told Jones during the April 24, 2002 interview.
“And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months,” added Pieczenik.
Pieczenik then stated that the video tape of a fat Bin Laden look alike “taking responsibility” for 9/11 that was released in December 2001 was “such a hoax” designed to “manipulate” people in the emotional aftermath of 9/11. The subsequent war in Afghanistan that followed 9/11 was orchestrated “With the agreement of the bin Laden family, knowing fully well that he would die,” said Pieczenik. “And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan.”
In addition to Pieczenik, as we reported in August 2002, Alex Jones was separately told by a high level Republican source that Bin Laden was dead and that his body was being kept “on ice” until Osama’s death could be announced at the most “politically expedient” time.
Continue reading here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
