Monday, May 02, 2011

Obama Reports, "Bin Laden is Dead!"


The Death of bin Laden; The Death of America
By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2011
News outlets all over America have repeatedly announced the government story that Navy SEALS recently killed Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a palatial “safe house” in Pakistan. But, of course, government photos of the dead bin Laden will not be released to the public for fear of inciting animosity among bin Laden’s militant Muslim followers--as if the announcement that he had been killed wouldn’t be enough to enrage them! And, furthermore, the body of bin Laden was quickly buried at sea out of “respect” for Muslim tradition that one has a speedy burial. But no mention is made, of course, as to why his body could not have been buried. Were all nearby cemeteries filled? And the question, “Why were the rest of the dead bodies of the other Muslims who were killed in the raid also not buried at sea?” has neither been asked nor answered. The media simply keeps regurgitating the announcement that Navy SEALS killed bin Laden. And, of course, the one thing a burial at sea accomplishes is it circumvents any attempt by independent sources to confirm the true identity of bin Laden via a post burial examination.
Is Osama bin Laden really dead? I don’t think there is any question about it. In fact, bin Laden has been dead for several years. If readers will recall, this is the latest of several announcements by various government spokesmen that Osama bin Laden left the land of the living. As respected researcher Joel Skousen notes in his latest World Affairs Brief, no less than 9 public announcements of bin Laden’s demise have been made spanning the years 2001-2009.
For example, on January 18, 2002, the Pakistani President declared, “I think now, frankly, he [bin Laden] is dead.”
In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN, “I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead.”
In November of 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in October of that year.
In September of 2006, French intelligence leaked a report suggesting Osama had died in Pakistan.
In March of 2009, noted military and intelligence analyst Angelo Codevilla stated, “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.”
And in May of 2009, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari said, “I’ve said before that he [bin Laden]--I don’t think he’s alive.” He also said the head of US intelligence told him they [the US] hadn’t heard from Osama bin Laden in 7 years so they presumed him dead.”
Skousen also points out the fact that it is unfathomable that bin Laden could have remained alive and hiding out in caves and primitive safe houses for an extended period of time, because it was a well known fact that he suffered from acute kidney disease that required almost daily usage of a dialysis machine (which was NOT present in the home where the US government claimed he was shot). US intelligence personnel surely knew that bin Laden was treated at the American Hospital in Dubai in July of 2001 by Dr. Terry Callaway, and that CIA station chief Larry Mitchell met bin Laden in the hospital during the time he was admitted. In fact, French television and the Agence France Presse reported that bin Laden was hospitalized between July 4th and 14th of that year.
See Joel Skousen’s web site here.
I certainly do not doubt that Navy SEALS killed someone during that raid. In all likelihood, it was a bin Laden look-alike who had outlived his usefulness. The official story of the raid has changed so many times and has so many holes in it, it is an embarrassment to the US national press corps that they have carried the story “as is” in such a careless and unprofessional manner. But, then again, the national press corps has been little more than a national propaganda machine for the federal government for decades, anyway. So, why should this story be any different?
At this point, I encourage readers to check out the following report that chronicles some of the more obvious discrepancies and laughable explanations of the government’s official story (or more appropriately, stories).
So, the obvious question that needs to be asked is, “What is to be gained by the announcement of this raid in which Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed?”
For one thing, this is going to make it extremely difficult for Republicans to beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 elections. Immediately following the raid’s announcement, Obama’s approval rating soared by almost 25 percentage points. And with an extremely weak GOP Presidential field (believe it or not, Republican Congressman Ron Paul actually fares better head-to-head against Obama than any other Republican candidate--but the Powers That Be (PTB) within the propaganda media and the GOP establishment will do everything in their power to prevent Paul from gaining the nomination), the “bin Laden factor” makes Obama almost unbeatable. As Skousen astutely asked, how many terrorists have Gingrich, Palin, or Huckabee killed?
However, the thing that benefits the most from this raid is America’s emerging police state, which is now strategically positioned to take another giant leap forward.
With bin Laden now declared “dead,” the US government will have to find another excuse to continue the “War On Terrorism.” Will US forces now pull out of Afghanistan? Not on your life! Literally! US forces are permanently embedded in the Middle East. They are never coming home. In fact, the US 2nd Marine Division is on alert for an insertion into Libya, and US attacks against Syria are soon to follow.
All the PTB need now is another 9/11-style attack, and the architects that are drawing up plans for America becoming a Gestapo-style police state will be free to launch their evil machinations almost at will. And revenge for the death of bin Laden will be the reason provided to the American public that will convince them to accept this next round of attacks against the Bill of Rights and America’s liberties.
While Americans are rejoicing over the death of Osama bin Laden, they need to be infuriated at the death of America, because that is what this so-called “War on Terror” is accomplishing.

The Assassination of Osama bin Laden: Glaring Anomalies in the Official Narrative
Osama was Left Handed...
By Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research, May 11, 2011
“In politics stupidity is not a handicap”, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821.)
For those who believe in omens, the triumphal announcement of the murder of Osama bin Laden, his son and various of his household (if it were he) by US., special forces, did not bode well.
Running at the bottom of Fox4O on the event was: "Reports: Obama Bin Laden Dead." On Fox News, anchor Gerald Rivero announced that Mr Obama had been shot: "President Obama, speaking from the East Room of the White House (told) the nation and the world President Obama is in fact dead, it was a US., led strategic ..." His co-anchor interrupted and he corrected to: "I am sorry, Osama bin Laden is dead, a strategic operation, they caught him in a mansion outside Islamabad." Fortunately the President was shown walking away from his lecturn, after the announcement.
Rumours of his death may have been exaggerated, but did not prevent the BBC and Sky News repeating them.
However, as the bin Laden saga unravels, electoral suicide may be yet unavoidable. That the President quickly claimed responsibility for the liquidations ("Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan...") is already beginning to seem unfortunate. Also being questioned is legality, with two independent, unpaid UN experts asking some un-charachteristically tough questions.
Christ of Heyns' expertise is in extrajudicial, summary, or arbitary executions, and Martin Scheinin, an authority on human rights and counter terrorism, have stated the importance of knowing if: " ... the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden. "The norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment,” they stated. “Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.” That two such authorities should raise deeply concerning questions regarding legality, at the very, least dampens the President's parade.
Ironically, the 1st., May, the day Obama boasted that bin Laden's "demise should be welcomed ...", and saw the killing of Colonel Quaddaffi's son and three young grandchildren, was the day America celebrates "Law Day": "meant to reflect the role of law in the foundation of the country and to recognise its importance for society." An aspiration which might have passed its sell by date, some might think.
Since this "new day in the proud history of America", according to the Daily Mirror (3rd., May) forests' worth of news print has also shown huge anomalies, unanswered questions and contradictions, including mine which noted some and omitted others, in danger of becoming a book, rather than an article.
A glaring anomaly mentioned by others, is the fact that Pakistani officials said there was neither internet or telephone connection to the home where the family and seemingly others resided, but it was cited as a "Command and Control Centre", by the US., Administration, who had also stated that the residents did not use mobiles either, for fear of their location being discovered. There was also, apparently no electricity, the world was initially told, but gleefully, apparently took away a "treasure trove" of computers and mobile phones.
No doubt the "Command and Control Centre" story (the same was said regarding Quaddaffi's son's modest, one story home) is because, were it not, bombing, or breaking, entering and killing looks a bit like cold blooded murder. The "burials" at sea might, some have queried, tend to confirm some missing bits of the story. Disposing of bodies in water (or concrete pillars and blocks) has long made forensic certainties difficult. No body, no forensics and no proof of wrong doing.
However, we have the videos of bin Laden's sad, deteriorating years. Wrapped up in a blanket, topped by a wooly hat, unkempt beard, sadly replaying himself, appearing on television. Shades of Saddam Hussein's unkempt appearance, proof for those who knew of his scrupulous attention to appearance, that he had been held by the US., for months. (By the way, whatever happened to that former US., soldier who alleged just that? All references also seem to have vanished.)
Anyway, back to the videos. There he sits, on the floor, in an apparently run down dwelling, zapping away at the remote (no electricity remember) presumably also in a fantasy world - or is that the Psych-Ops one?
The zapping on the remote is being done, and it is held in his right hand. All pictures that can be found, show him wearing his watch on his right hand (in this one he is not) and those with a gun, holding it in his left, or with it slung over his left shoulder.
Osama bin Laden was left handed. This from the FBI "Most Wanted" notice:
" Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane."
So who is it in those videos?
Another day, another anomaly.
There is another anniversary on Ist., May. In 1915, the RMS Lusitania sailed from New York. Six days later, she was torpedoed, with the loss of all on board. Let us hope it is not another political omen for the Obama Administration.
The Barack Obama Administration: Fifty Facts Regarding the Assassination of Osama bin Laden
Barack Obama is categorically and pathologically incapable of telling the truth
Jim Byrd
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
According to numerous studies, it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something. Whether sport, art, science, vocation, lying, or incompetence, it can be accomplished in as little as 10,000 hours of practice. Therein lies Barack Obama and his administration’s problem with attempting to coherently and truthfully relay to the world what happened during the Osama bin Laden assassination in Pakistan. Obama’s antagonist and his toughest challenge since, well, quite frankly, since his dialogue and actions have been publicly recorded, has been the truth. The facts of what actually happened during that fateful 40-minute raid have changed every time an Obama administration agent has been introduced to a microphone. The ambiguous, vague, duplicitous, and paranoid substitutes for the truth from Obama have reached mythical status.
Based on factual and anecdotal evidence, Barack Obama is categorically and pathologically incapable of telling the truth. If one has followed every single updated and contradictory factual release by the Obama administration regarding the assassination of bin Laden, and if one has resisted gnawing at the fasteners of his restraints after being subjected to this mythological and cuckoo asylum-inducing roller coaster ride of prevarication, his cerebral constitution is better than most.
But finally, the Obama administration has presented the facts of that fateful evening in a semi-coherent and plausible sequence of events that would be perfectly acceptable in a parallel universe where fantasy will always trump the phenomena of reality.
Ensuing are 50 facts presented by the Obama administration explaining what exactly happened during the raid. Barack Obama gets the ball rolling by rushing to “spike the football” by fantastically claiming in his news conference that after a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and then took custody of his body, resulting in his capture and death.
The facts:
The Navy SEALs were engaged in a firefight during most of the 40-minute operation.
We expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance. There were many other people who were armed in the compound.
There was a firefight.
There was not a firefight.
For most of the period there, there was a firefight.
Only one of five people killed was carrying a weapon.
Osama bin Laden was resisting.
Osama bin Laden was holding a gun.
Osama bin Laden was firing at U.S. forces.
Osama bin Laden was in a room with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol.
Osama bin Laden was unarmed.
Osama bin Laden appeared to be reaching for a weapon.
Later, an AK-47 and Makarov pistol were found in the room.
Osama bin Laden acted scared and completely confused.
Osama bin Laden turned and retreated into the room before being shot twice in the eye and chest (from behind apparently).
He was retreating, a move that is regarded as resistance.
You don’t know why he’s retreating[sic].
Osama bin Laden used his wife as a shield by shoving her at a Navy SEAL.
He did not use his wife as a shield.
His wife was killed.
His wife was not killed.
His wife was shot in the leg, but another woman was killed.
But it wasn’t clear if either were trying to shield bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden’s son was killed.
Osama bin Laden’s other son was killed instead—maybe or maybe not Hamza.
They would have captured bin Laden if he had been naked.
During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure.
We didn’t say it was mechanical.
The air temperature was too hot so the helicopter crashed.
It just did a hard landing.
It clipped a wall with the tail rotor.
There were no phone or internet lines running from the house, cut off from the technological world.
There was a satellite dish.
Videos shows Osama bin Laden watching satellite television.
There was a photo of a digital satellite decoder.
Osama bin Laden lived in a well-guarded mansion in a secure neighborhood.
Osama bin Laden lived in a massive mansion worth $1 million.
Osama bin Laden lived in an affluent area outside Islamabad, Pakistan.
Osama bin Laden lived in a sophisticated $1 million hideaway.
Photos show that the compound was in such a state of squalor.
Photos show the baroque mansion was infested with rubbish, dirt, and trash.
Photos show the paint peeling off the walls.
John Brennan, Obama’s counter-terrorism czar, said, “We were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target.”
There is an official White House picture released of Clinton holding her hand over her mouth in the go-to-move from any horror movie when encountering the horror. “Those were 38 of the most intense minutes,” Clinton stated.
Clinton said, “I have no idea what any of us were looking at that particular millisecond when the picture was taken.”
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a White House official stated that at the very moment that Clinton’s hand shot to her mouth, she let out a shriek as Obama’s deficit numbers inadvertently flashed across the screen.
Clinton said later about the horror picture, “I am somewhat sheepishly concerned that it was my preventing one of my early spring allergic coughs. So it may have no great meaning whatsoever.”
Unfortunately, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated, “Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on.”
CIA Director, Leon Panetta, said, “The world needed proof and the photo would be released.”
Obama said, “There’s no doubt we killed Osama bin Laden. There was no need to release the photographs or gloat. There’s no need to spike the football.”
These 50 contradictory, antithetical, and sophomorically paradoxical statements are as close as Barack Obama and his administration will tempt reality or the truth, but the statements are at least more forthright than any other aspect of Obama’s life.
Regarding our military and those Navy SEALs who took out bin Laden, God bless them all. They did what they are trained to do. And God bless the CIA operatives that procured the intelligence that led to Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and Obama to “spike the football daily for a week.” And protect these very CIA operatives from Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, for attempting to prosecute them. I almost agree fully with John Kerry regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden: “I think those SEALs did exactly what they should have done. And we need to shut up and move on about, you know, the realities of what happened in that building.” The only problem is the Obama administration has changed the “realities of what happened in that building” daily. Obama does not owe anyone an immediate explanation regarding the raid, nor even an acknowledgement of it in the immediate aftermath, but if he is going to explain it, he should tell the truth and not be so obvious about “spiking the football.”
Obama sent this country’s most elite fighting team, SEAL Team Six, to assassinate bin Laden. Illegally. A plethora of national and international laws were broken. I am perfectly fine with that. I applaud him for that. Bush ordered the CIA to obtain information in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect this country from another attack by using interrogation tactics that were effective, which prevented another attack in Los Angeles, and led to the eventual whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. I am perfectly fine with that. Barack Obama and Eric Holder are pursuing the prosecution of the CIA operatives responsible for that information. I am not fine with that, and the United States of America should not be fine with that either. 
The Swirl of Conspiracy Theories
Obama quickly earned a reputation as a serial liar, a 24/7 dissembler, and a thoroughly unreliable source for information about everything
Alan Caruba
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
It is testimony to how little Barack Hussein Obama and the government he heads is trusted when one considers the swirl of conspiracy theories that filled the forums on the Internet, the comments attached to articles analyzing the killing of Osama bin Laden, and the general discourse of the chatteratti on radio and television.
Soon enough, photographic evidence will be offered as proof and, even then, the conspiracy theories will question them.
This occurred to me as I searched foreign news websites for information that was not directly generated by the White House. To my surprise, Al Jazeera had a remarkably comprehensive round-up of statements and quotes by leaders from around the world, all welcoming news of Osama’s death.
It also struck me that many commentators took note of the fact that Obama had actually fulfilled former President G.W. Bush’s promise to find Osama and bring him to justice “dead or alive.” The fact that Obama has been, willingly or not, pursuing the objectives of his predecessor did not go unnoticed. In the end, Obama may not get all the credit he craves from the event.
The same Internet that invented and elevated Obama to the Oval Office has been dissecting and disputing
virtually everything he has had to say, officially or not, over the past two years or so. He has not come off well.
While all presidents have had to circumvent the truth from time to time, Obama quickly earned a reputation as a serial liar, a 24/7 dissembler, and a thoroughly unreliable source for information about everything from his birth certificate, his two memoirs, and other pronouncements.
Little wonder that spinners of conspiracy theories immediately seized on the news of Osama’s death to wonder out loud about its timing. Was that intended to disrupt the airing of Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice”? Why was Osama buried at sea? Why was he living in a private compound just outside of Islamabad, Pakistan near a military facility? Et cetera!
I was reminded of Occam’s Razor. “The 14th century philosopher William of Occam had a keen eye for plausibility. We know his approach to problem solving by the label “Occam’s Razor,” an axiom often stated in shorthand as, “The simplest explanation is usually the best.”
And then I thought of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory. The more closely you study the subject, the less clearly defined it becomes.
There are useful lessons to be drawn from both. The first is that the basic facts that have been released by the White House and reported widely are probably true. A Navy Seal Team, acting on intelligence gathered by the CIA, Pentagon, and other U.S. sources, identified where Osama was staying and killed him. This is the simplest explanation.
Beyond that, the speculation regarding the event only serves to obscure it.
Writing at the Middle East Forum, Raymond Ibrahim offered a very useful reminder.
“Years ago, Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda’s undisputed leader, placed it all in context. After he was asked about the status of bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, he confidently replied:
‘Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time.’”
Jihad does transcend time. In a dispatch published in The New York Times on May 20, 1876, “The Disturbances in Constantinople”, the reporter noted that “Our readers, not familiar with Oriental countries can hardly appreciate the passion of fanaticism which at times burns in the breast of the lower classes among the Mohammedans. The majority of these have no idea of the process made by the Western races, or of the inferiority of their country to other modern states.”
Given 9/11 and modern communications, those in the West do better understand the fanaticism of Islam. Constantinople is now called Istanbul. And Turkey, a bridge between the East and West, has been sliding back into the fantasies and fanaticism of the past.
America, the apotheosis of the modern world, reached out to kill its avowed enemy. That is what great powers have always done and must always do.
World's media tricked by fake bin Laden photo
By Paul Harper
Tuesday May 3, 2011
An image of Osama bin Laden after his death yesterday has been revealed as a fake.
The photo, which shows a bloodied bin Laden with a gun wound to the head, is the photo-shopped combination of two images - one of the al Qaeda founder alive in 1998 and another of an unnamed corpse.
The image has reportedly been circulating for two years, but that did not stop the image being picked up by media across the world in the wake of the terrorist's death.
Pakistani TV picked up the image soon after the news of bin Laden's death.
"The picture of Osama bin Laden's dead body has been released. It is unverified," a commentator of Pakistan's Geo said, The Times of India reported.
Britain's Daily Mail, Times of London, Telegraph, Sun and Daily Mirror also all used the image of their websites' front pages, the Guardian reported, although they were quickly taken down.
Associated Press had placed the image on its wires, but soon retracted the photo as it could not verify its authenticity.
The Guardian reported the picture appears to have first been published by the Middle East online newspaper on April 29, 2009, although the site's editor then said they could not ascertain whether it was genuine.
Here in New Zealand, TV3 used the image in its 6pm news bulletin last night.
"We cannot confirm if it is in fact bin Laden but it has been used in international feeds," reporter Mike McRoberts said in a disclaimer prior to showing the graphic image.
The image was not used on the 3News website, however.
A US official revealed the body was photographed before being buried at sea, although no images have been released by the Obama administration.
It is not clear whether photos of bin Laden's body will be released.
- with AP
Skeptics Question Osama Bin Laden Death, Asking for Proof
By Christina Caron
May 2, 2011
As elated crowds celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden after Navy SEALs killed the al-Qaida chief in a weekend raid in Pakistan some are asking, "Where's the proof?"
Photos depicting a bloodied and bruised face appearing to be that of bin Laden began appearing on Twitter and Facebook last night soon after news of his death spread across the Internet. According to Reuters, an archive photo of bin Laden at a news conference proves that image was a fake. Now people are asking to see the evidence proving bin Laden is dead.
"We have released a tremendous amount of information to date," Obama's top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said. "At the same time we don't want to do anything that is going to compromise our ability to be as successful the next time one of these guys needs to be taken off the battlefield."
Anjum Naveed/AP Photo
Vehicles are parked inside the compound of a house where it is believed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden lived in Abbottabad, Pakistan, May 2, 2011. There is speculation about when Osama bin Laden's DNA evidence will be released.
As for the releasing of death photographs, Brennan said that is "something to be determined." But he added they're going to do everything they can to prevent denials of bin Laden's death.
Public Demands Proof
From Pakistan to the U.S. people expressed their skepticism about the death of the man who is perhaps the most infamous terrorist ever known.
"I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. Like Sadam I wouldn't have believed it until I saw his body," tweeted MaryGlazerOut.
Eric Solochier, 22, a senior at Penn State University said his dad was one of the firefighters who helped clean up New York City the day following 9/11, so bin Laden's death would be especially meaningful to him -- he wants to believe it, but he's not convinced.
"There has to be some sort of visual or DNA test. You can obviously photoshop anything you want," said Solochier. "They should submit video. It would be somewhat gruesome but it's something we should be able to see. "
A senior at the University of Texas who wished to remain anonymous because of his participation in ROTC said that although bin Laden's death is a blow to al-Qaeda, he still finds it hard to believe.
"It's been nearly six years since we have heard a great deal about him or his potential whereabouts, and rumors of bin Laden's death (even from natural causes) extend as far back as December of 2001," he said.
It may have been those very rumors that led Obama to pass up an opportunity to bomb bin Laden's compound. As ABC News' Jake Tapper reported earlier today, Obama recognized that kind of destruction would leave no trace of bin Laden's death.
Instead, Obama opted for a far more difficult mission with a Navy SEAL team, and now the White House is grappling with whether to release the DNA evidence and photographs that they worked so hard to obtain.
Conspiracy Theories: Public Questions Bin Laden's Death
In the president's speech last night, he avoided any mention of DNA or photographic evidence. But today, officials in the Obama administration told ABC News "There's no doubt it's him."
Officials said today they are "99.9 percent" certain that bin Laden was shot dead in Pakistan. They also cited CIA photo analysis matching physical features such as bin Laden's height.
Any pictures of bin Laden would undoubtedly be gruesome, one of the reasons why the White House hasn't made them public. But the photos might be released in modified form -- just as they were in July 2003 when the U.S. government released photographs of Saddam Hussein's dead sons Uday and Qusay Hussein only after they had been touched up by a mortician.
DNA Evidence and Its Role in Terrorism Investigations
A U.S. intelligence official told ABC News bin Laden's DNA was compared with DNA from several of his relatives.
Intelligence agencies have come to rely on DNA evidence as part of their anti-terrorism operations. A 2007 report prepared by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy states the FBI has a large inventory of DNA samples, which was how DNA testing confirmed in October 2006 that Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah, an Al Qaeda operative wanted by the United States in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, had been killed in an air strike by Pakistani forces near the border with Afghanistan.
And if a relative isn't readily available in the U.S., how does the U.S. go about getting DNA from non-U.S. citizens? The report explains, "DNA samples from the terrorist's maternal family must be collected abroad. For this, foreign governments have been enlisted to help collect samples that can be compared with DNA from individuals captured or killed."
Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of the book "Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong," said bin Laden also could have also been identified via physical evidence, for example, a piece of clothing he sweated on, his hair -- if they locate the same profile in multiple pieces of evidence then they can be confident they have identified him.
The public's interest in this particular brand of proof has become more prominent, especially now that DNA evidence is regularly featured in crime shows such as "Law & Order" or Showtime's "Dexter."
"DNA is now the gold standard for identifying individuals," Garrett said. "Twenty years ago would we have demanded a fingerprint or bloodtest or comparison of the teeth? Maybe not."
Although today's public wants to hear about DNA evidence in addition to photographic evidence, the public need for "proof" remains the same as it did 50 years ago. After Adolf Hitler's suicide in April 1945, conspiracy theories for years suggested Hitler was alive and in hiding. The Russian secret services came forward with a skull and jawbones. DNA results eventually showed the skull was that of a female.
Just two years ago the History Channel aired a series called "Hitler's Escape," suggesting that without a body the potential for speculation is seemingly endless.
No doubt the bin Laden conspiracy theories will continue as people wait for visual proof of his death -- no matter how gruesome.
Edna B. Foa, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety, says it's not surprising given the current political climate. After all, she said, "people are suspicious Obama wasn't born in the United States."
But a photo or DNA evidence provides little comfort. The terrorist network is called that for a reason -- it's so broad and far reaching that the death of bin Laden won't likely calm the public's fears, especially because there have already been so many rumors about his capture. Now that he has been caught, 10 years later, "It's not such a big deal in terms of influencing how people feel about being taken care of," Foa said.
Solochier, whose father helped clean up New York City after 9/11, says seeing a photo wouldn't provide closure, "But it's a huge step in the right direction."
The Associated Press and ABC News on Campus reporters Danielle Waugh and Ashley Jennings contributed to this report.
Bin Laden Is Dead ... But Why Didn't We Kill Him 10 Years Ago?
by Washington's Blog
Global Research, May 2, 2011
Washington's Blog
President Obama announced tonight that U.S. special forces killed Osama Bin Laden.
That's great ... but we could have killed him years ago.
As I noted in 2009:
According to the U.S. Senate - Bin Laden was "within the grasp" of the U.S. military in Afghanistan in December 2001, but that then-secretary of defense Rumsfeld refused to provide the soldiers necessary to capture him.
This is not news: it was disclosed in 2005 by the CIA field commander for the area in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was holed up.
In addition, French soldiers allegedly say that they easily could have captured or killed Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but that the American commanders stopped them.
A retired Colonel and Fox News military analyst said that the U.S. could have killed Bin Laden in 2007, but didn't:
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August
of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it ....Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.
Indeed, a United States Congressman claims that the Bush administration intentionally let Bin Laden escape in order to justify the Iraq war.
Similarly, Cenk Uygur pointed out:
The New York Times reported ... that we sent in 36 U.S. Special Forces troops to get Osama bin Laden when we knew he was in Tora Bora. By contrast, we sent nearly 150,000 soldiers to get Saddam Hussein. In case you're keeping count at home, we got Saddam and we didn't get Osama. What does that tell you about this administration’s priorities? This goes beyond incompetence. If you send only 36 soldiers to get somebody in the middle of Afghanistan, it means you don’t want to get him...
Osama had about 1,500-2,000 well-armed, well-trained men in the region. 36 guys to get 2,000? Why would we let ourselves be outgunned like that?...
There is an inescapable fact – if you put this little effort into capturing someone, it means you don’t want to capture him.
If people inside the administration actually held back from capturing Osama bin Laden when we had him cornered, it borders on treason.
Postscript: Of course, some people claim that Bin Laden was actually killed years ago. But as I pointed out in 2009, whether or not he was alive or dead was less important than the fact that the American government pretended that he was a supremely powerful boogeyman who justified an endless and all-consuming war on terror:
Many people claim that Bin Laden died a long time ago. According to Israeli intelligence,; Pakistani intelligence,,2933,41576,00.html; and other sources, Bin Laden is dead, [Articles below this article.]
According to video experts and and top Bin Laden experts, recent Bin Laden videos are fake.
So if Bin Laden is alive, American leaders have to explain why they have repeatedly chosen not to pull the trigger.
And if he is dead, they have to explain why they are claiming that he's alive and authenticating his videos.
Articles mentioned above:
Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen
Special to World
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
TEL AVIV — Osama Bin Laden appears to be dead but his colleagues have decided that Al Qaida and its insurgency campaign against the United States will continue, Israeli intelligence sources said.
Al Qaida terrorists have launched a new campaign of economic warfare and are targeting shipping in the Middle East, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.
But Bin Laden's heir has been chosen and his colleagues have decided to resume Al Qaida's offensive against the United States and Western allies, the sources said.
They said the organization regards the United States as the main target followed by Israel.
"In this case, it doesn't matter whether Bin Laden is alive or not," a senior Israeli intelligence source said. "The organization goes on with help from key people."
The sources said Al Qaida has already determined Bin Laden's heir. They said the heir has not been identified, but is probably not Bin Laden's son, Saad. Saad is said to be in his 20s and ranked within the top 20 members of Al Qaida.
Earlier this week, Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, was said to have released a videotape in which he claims that the Al Qaida leader is alive and functioning. Bin Laden's voice was not heard on the tape.
A senior Bush administration economic official said last week that another major Al Qaida attack anywhere in the world could have devastating economic repercussions.
The FBI warned last week that Al Qaida may be preparing for a major attack. The warning followed the release of an audio tape featuring the voice of Zawahiri.
Bombings in Bali aimed at tourists, an attack on U.S. soldiers training in Kuwait and the bombing of a French tanker in Yemen are signs of the new campaign, reported in its Oct. 22 edition.
The first attack was carried out last week with the Al Qaida terrorist attack on the French tanker Limburg, a 157,000-ton ultra large crude oil carrier, that was bombed as it picked up a pilot before mooring at the Yemeni port of al Shihr.
One crew member was killed and others were injured in the blast.
According to intelligence officials, a small boat approached at high speed from the starboard side of the ship and detonated a large explosive device.
A week earlier, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued an alert to ships in the Middle East to be alert for Al Qaida terrorist attacks.
Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
Wednesday, December 26, 2001
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
The Death of bin Ladenism
By Amir Taheri
Published: July 11, 2002
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.
With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?
Even if he is still in the world, bin Ladenism has left for good. Mr. bin Laden was the public face of a brand of politics that committed suicide in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.
What were the key elements of that politics?
The first was a cynical misinterpretation of Islam that began decades ago with such anti-Western ideologues as Maulana Maudoodi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt. Although Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb were not serious thinkers, they could at least offer a coherent ideology based on a narrow reading of Islamic texts. Their ideas about Western barbarism and Muslim revival, distilled down to bin Ladenism, became mere slogans designed to incite zealots to murder.
People like Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb could catch the ball and run largely because most Muslim intellectuals of their generation (and later) had no interest in continuing the work of Muslim philosophers. Our intellectuals were too busy learning Western ideologies of one kind or another -- and they left the newly urbanized Muslim masses to the half-baked ideas of men like Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb and eventually Mr. bin Laden.
Now, however, many Muslim intellectuals are returning home, so to speak. They are rediscovering the philosophical heritage of Islam and the challenges of Muslim political thought. And Maudoodi-Qutbism is now being seen as a pseudo-Islamic version of Western fascism.
The second element that made Mr. bin Laden possible was easy money, largely from wealthy individuals in the Persian Gulf area who believed that they were buying a place in the hereafter while protecting themselves against political opposition in this world. Some paid because they believed they were helping poor and oppressed Muslims. Others paid so militants would go and spend their energies far away from home.
That easy money is no longer available, at least not in large quantities. Many donors have realized they were financing terrorists. Some have been forced to choose between the West, where they have the bulk of their wealth, and the troglodyte mujahedeen of the Hindu Kush.
The third element that made bin Ladenist terror possible was the encouraging, or at least complacent, attitude of several governments. The Taliban in Afghanistan began by hosting Mr. bin Laden and ended up becoming his life-and-death buddies. The Pakistanis were also supportive because they wanted to dominate Afghanistan and make life hard for the Indians by sending holy warriors to Kashmir. The Sudanese government was sympathetic, if not actually supportive, and offered at least a safe haven. This was also the case in Yemen, where in November 2000 I accidentally ran into a crowd of Qaeda militants who had flown in from Pakistan for a gathering.
We now know that Qaeda cells operated, often quite openly, in Muslim countries from Indonesia and Malaysia to Morocco and Tunisia, without being bothered by anyone. The fall of the Taliban means the gang no longer has a secure base. All the other countries are also closed, and in some cases even hostile.
The fourth element was the mistaken practice of many Western powers that sheltered the terrorists in the name of freedom of expression and dissent. We now know that London was a critical haven for Al Qaeda. The murder of the Afghan resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud was planned in London. Qaeda militants operated in Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain and Italy without significant restraint.
The fifth element that made bin Ladenism possible was the West's, especially America's, perceived weakness if not actual cowardice. A joke going around militant Islamist circles until last year was that the only thing the Americans would do if attacked was to sue. That perception no longer exists. The Americans, supported by one of the largest coalitions in history, have shown they will use force against their enemies even if that means a long and difficult war.
The sixth element of bin Ladenism was the illusion in most Western nations that they could somehow remain unaffected by the violence unleashed by fanatical terrorists against so many Muslim nations from Indonesia to Algeria.
Mr. bin Laden could survive and prosper only in a world in which these elements existed. That world is gone. Mr. bin Laden's ghost may linger on -- perhaps because Washington and Islamabad will find it useful. President Bush's party has a crucial election to win and Pervez Musharraf is keen to keep Pakistan in the limelight as long as possible.
But the truth is that Osama bin Laden is dead.
 Obama's "Big Lie": White House Propaganda and the “Death” of Osama bin Laden
by Larry Chin
Global Research, May 2, 2011
On the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama declared that the CIA, on his personal order, successfully killed Al-Qaeda “mastermind” Osama bin Laden. In a conveniently scheduled Sunday evening telecast, Obama shamelessly wielded tired lies and 9/11 propaganda, while congratulating himself and the CIA. In classic lying George W. Bush fashion, Obama announced “mission accomplished”.
Obama has pronounced Osama bin Laden to be dead. But according to historical facts and extensive documented evidence, he may never have been alive in the way that the official propaganda has portrayed him. Or alive at all.
Osama bin Laden has been a CIA asset in reality, and a propaganda boogeyman in official fiction.
The official Osama bin Laden narrative, along with “Islamic terrorism” and Al-Qaeda, is a CIA military-intelligence fabrication designed to provide a pretext for an eternal global war agenda, and to provide an ongoing propaganda pretext for the “war on terrorism”.
The “Militant Islamic Network”, including bin Laden himself, has been, since the Cold War a intelligence network that has been “run” on behalf of Anglo-American interests.
The attack of 9/11 was a false flag operation, planned and carried out by Anglo-American intelligence assets,
blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, despite no credible supporting evidence.
On the other hand, evidence abounds concerning the manipulation of terror assets, including bin Laden, by the CIA. This milieu was thoroughly examined by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon, in which he concluded:
“Given the degree of documented intelligence penetration of al Qaeda; the fact that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset during the first Afghan conflict against the Soviets; the fact that a number of the so-called hijackers and/or al Qaeda members had been trained in CIA training camps in Chechnya; had fought in CIA/US-sponsored guerrilla conflicts (e.g. in Kosovo with the KLA in 2000), or had received military training at US installations; given all that, it is reasonable to assume that one or more top al Qaeda officials were in fact double or triple agents…”
“Based upon what is known about successful intelligence penetrations for years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda could not have sneezed without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it.”
The assertion that bin Laden’s whereabouts have been unknown, that he could have eluded detection for a decade (including the “he’s hiding in caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border” and other such fables) was debunked years ago. According to a November 2003 Reuters report, bin Laden was received kidney dialysis in a US military hospital in Dubai two months before the 9/11 attacks, and again on September 10, 2001, according to Pakistani intelligence. These and other reports support the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was not only a CIA asset (one whose whereabouts were more than known), but one who was deathly ill. Other reports over the years suggest that the “mastermind” may have certainly died at some point, even while his image continued to be used incessantly to keep the “war on terrorism” alive.
President Obama’s lying before the cameras was as shameless as the clumsiness of the mainstream corporate media dance surrounding it. At the same time Obama stated in his speech that the killing of bin Laden had taken place “tonight” in a mountain hideout in Pakistan, various reporters on competing networks, citing multiple sources, contradicted Obama, stating that bin Laden was killed a week ago in a firefight near Islamabad, and that bin Laden’s body had been tested for DNA ever since. This conflict alone raises enough doubt to throw this new official story into the question. In the coming days, there will undoubtedly be more holes revealed.
Seasoned observers have said for years that Osama bin Laden---the mythic figure--- would elude capture as long as the Anglo-American elites needed to continue the current course of war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He would never be captured, absolutely never be put on trial, and would not be “killed” unless political expediency demanded it. The elites, for various reasons, have chosen this hour to end this tired and
overused trump card.
The “successful kill” of bin Laden comes at a convenient time. Obama’s popularity has plummeted. His political opponents are threatening to unseat him in 2012. The continued US presence in the Middle East and support for the “war on terrorism” is fragile, weakened by popular protests, and ambivalence among Americans.
The “war on terrorism” narrative, the continuing world war done in its name, will never end. It is clear, however, that some change in course is in the works; at the very least, a tactical shift.
In the meantime, Barack Obama can now claim to have “finished the job” in Afghanistan, just as he promised to do when elected, and declare himself to be a champion anti-terrorist, a “take-charge” military leader and bastion of justice who has avenged 9/11. Obama will ride this hard for his re-election campaign.
In response to Obama’s victory speech, crowds (of unknown origin) gathered outside the White House chanting “U.S.A.”. Whether this spectacle was staged or genuine is not known. What is known is that the vast majority of the American public remains oblivious to the fact that their own government, Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations alike, have never stopped lying to them about 9/11, the “war on terrorism”, or Osama bin Laden.
On this night, Obama repeated The Big Lie, the biggest one of all.
Osama bin Laden’s Second Death
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, May 2, 2011
If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool’s joke this morning’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans.
Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?
Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that “bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.” That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?
This morning’s headline has the odor of a staged event. The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting “USA USA.” Could something else be going on?
No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory. He committed the fool’s error or restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat. The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake. And re-election time is approaching.
The various lies and deceptions, such as “weapons of mass destruction,” of the last several administrations had terrible consequences for the US and the world. But not all deceptions are the same. Remember, the entire reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden. Now that President Obama has declared bin Laden to have been shot in the head by US special forces operating in an independent country and buried at sea, there is no reason for continuing the war.
Perhaps the precipitous decline in the US dollar in foreign exchange markets has forced some real budget reductions, which can only come from stopping the open-ended wars. Until the decline of the dollar reached the breaking point, Osama bin Laden, who many experts believe to have been dead for years, was a useful bogyman to use to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.
Bid Laden killed? What year was that?‏
Devvy Kidd
02 May 2011
Timing in life is everything they say
Like perhaps a few million others, last night at 9:00 pm CST, Jerry Rivers aka Geraldo Rivera, on FAUX News Network announced the putative president would speak at 10:30 pm EST on a Sunday night. Immediately networks went on "high alert" because no one could remember a president calling a 15-minute press conference on a Sunday night, so it must be important. Speculation swirled about that it had to do with the US killing Mummar Gaddafi’s son and three of his grand children. Aren't we a great super power?
But, by 11:00 pm EST, it turned to Osama Bin Laden. He's dead! But, still no Barry Soetoro at the mike. I finally went to bed 30 minutes later. According to news reports, the usurper took to the mic just before midnight EST. How come there was a delay of almost an hour and a half? The press conference is called for 10:30 pm EST. One would think Barry would have had his notes together and ready to go for such a historic statement to the American people. I wonder what last minute details were being finessed?
And, why so late on a Sunday night. Why not this morning? I think it's safe to say that a whole lot of people go to bed earlier on a Sunday night for work the next morning. Perhaps the late night show was so Americans who missed it the night before would get full saturation this morning before they went to work. You know, hip, hip, hurray!
This morning I see celebration in the streets as people rejoice over the death of the "9/11 mastermind". We got him! Obama/Soetoro announced last night an operation took place April 29, 2011, in Pakistan in which Bin Laden was killed. Another CIA creation and former ally of the US taken care of in a country that claims to be our friend, Pakistan. A country that has received tens and tens of millions of dollars stolen from we the people for things like upgrading their energy systems.
The part I like the best is that the body of Bin Laden is then dumped at sea. What? Well, that was after his photograph was taken, of course.
As Ian Henshall wrote this morning:
"Was it really necessary to dump the body at sea? The reason given today on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme was the need to conform with Islamic practice. Sceptics are asking when has the CIA up to now been sensitive to Muslim practices of a speedy burial? Are the obvious suspicions justified: was the body someone else's? Or is the CIA as usual trying to foment off the mark conspiracy theories by acting as if the whole affair is a hoax when it is not?
"What was the role of the Pakistani authorities? Was the raid carried out by Pakistan as reported in the Pakistani press or was the raid a complete surprise because the CIA gave Pakistan no warning as reported on the BBC this morning? Is there a connection with the affair of the CIA contractor Raymond Davis?
"The then British ambassador to Washington Christopher Meyer told BBC listeners this morning that it was several days before they were sure that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. This contradicts the official 9/11 story that US officials knew this straight away, from analysing flight manifests of the apparently hijacked planes.
"These vital manifests have never been released to the public. On the internet self described conspiracy theory debunkers have circulated "leaked" manifests to "prove" the official 9/11 story, but these manifests appear to be faked. Some sceptics suspect the apparently hijacked planes on 9/11 were part of a reluctantly confirmed top secret anti-hijack exercise the Pentagon was running on the morning of the 9/11 attacks.
"How come the world's most wanted man could have been living in a huge, inevitably high profile compound in a Pakistani military city less than an hour's drive from the capital, asked bemused BBC reporters this morning."
A good question.
May I point out a few things?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." September 13, 2001, President George Bush
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." March 13, 2002, President George Bush
June 18, 2006: FBI says, it has "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
September 11, 2006, I wrote in a column:
"Eric Haney who has stated that Bin Laden was killed in the massive bombing of Tora Bora, Afghanistan on
December 15, 2001. I sent e-mail to Haney. He responded in the affirmative that Bin Laden was killed that day. Who is Haney? You can visit his web site: CSM Eric L. Haney, USA (Ret). "For more than twenty years, Command Sergeant Major (retired) Eric L. Haney served in the United States Army's most demanding combat units: As a Combat Infantryman, as a Ranger, and ultimately, as a founding member and eight-year veteran of the Army's super secret counter-terrorist arm, Delta Force." I would venture to guess that Haney has excellent contacts in the military."
Perhaps that's why Bush told us in March 2002, that Bin Laden wasn't important and not a priority.
According to news reports, DNA was checked. There were many reports Bin Laden was being treated for serious kidney problems in 2001:
Kidney disease is serious and kills a lot of people. Does the CIA have Bin Laden's DNA? After all, they did business with him for a long time. If Bin Laden was on dialysis, could he have lived another ten years roaming around mountains eluding our military? Why would Bin Laden hole up in a compound so easily discovered? Well, perhaps he was just getting careless in his old age.
Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama
by Michel Chossudovsky
16 November 2003 (revised 17 November 2003)
"If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.
"A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book "Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment.
"Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with CIA"?
"The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001. (See Alexandra Richard, at"
Pakistan, our friend:
"On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
"When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said."
Chossudovsky is a highly respected writer and researcher.
Do I believe the real Bin Laden was killed during this operation? That would mean I believe a pathological liar like Obama/Soetoro and the CIA. When pigs fly.
The media will spend all day on the Bin Laden story and how the brilliant Obama/Soetoro got the most wanted man in history, but they won't be covering this event today:
9th Circuit will hear eligibility arguments
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
"Only days after the White House released a copy of Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii, claiming to have put to rest the dispute over his eligibility to hold the office, attorneys will argue on Monday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the requirements of the U.S. Constitution simply are too important to ignore for the sake of political expediency, even when they involve a sitting president."
Done with the birth certificate and on to taking high fives for killing Bin Laden. Who cares about some old court proceeding today?
Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
by David Ray Griffin
Global Research, October 9, 2009
Is Osama bin Laden still alive? I have dealt with this question in a recent little book entitled Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? The present essay summarizes the main points of this book.
Since the transference of power from the Bush administration to that of Barack Obama administration, the question of whether bin Laden is dead or alive has become more important.
Although George W. Bush famously said that he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive,” he made clear that he was not serious about this. Besides stating that he was not concerned about bin Laden, he demonstrated this by diverting most of America’s military resources to Iraq. Bush could, of course, be unconcerned about bin Laden because he knew that, besides the fact that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he was probably dead anyway.
I do not know what President Obama and his people think about these matters, but their rhetoric presupposes that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and is still alive.
In November 2008, for example, a Washington Post story said:
“President-elect Barack Obama . . . intends to renew the U.S. commitment to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. . . . ‘This is our enemy,’ one adviser said of bin Laden, ‘and he should be our principal target.’”
In his White House address of March 27 of this year, President Obama said:
“[A]l Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. . . . [A]l Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.”
Obama has appealed regularly to these intelligence estimates, which have invariably claimed that bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, somewhere along its border with Pakistan. This claim has been used to justify the extension of US military activity into Pakistan, with the result that people now speak of the “AfPak war.”
One way to argue against this war is to point out that, if these intelligence experts do not even know whether bin Laden is alive, they certainly cannot know where he is and what he is thinking.
There are, to be sure, other good arguments against the this war, and many critics are making these arguments. But to point out that bin Laden is almost certainly dead provides an argument that goes to the heart of the publically articulated rationale for this war.
Of course, another way to argue against this war would be to point out that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. But even though our own FBI has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” a large part of the American population has been conditioned to reject all revisionism about 9/11 out of hand. As we saw recently with “the Van Jones affair,” people are considered unfit for public service if they once signed a document suggesting that the official account of 9/11 might not be fully true.
My little bin Laden book is primarily for people who, besides assuming that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, also believe that the AfPak war is justifiable because we need to prevent him from planning another attack. Many such people will turn against the war if they become aware of convincing evidence that bin Laden is almost certainly dead. There is considerable evidence for this conclusion.
This evidence is of two types: objective evidence and testimonies.
Objective Evidence that Bin Laden is Dead
The objective evidence includes the following facts:
First, up until mid-December 13, 2001, the CIA had regularly been intercepting messages between bin Laden and his people. At that time, however, the messages suddenly stopped, and the CIA has never again intercepted a message.
Second, on December 26, 2001, a leading Pakistani newspaper published a story reporting that bin Laden
had died in mid-December, adding:
“A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement . . . stated . . . that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial.”
Third, bin Laden had kidney disease. He had been treated for it in the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, at which time he reportedly ordered two dialysis machines to take home. If you have ever wondered what bin Laden was doing the night before the 9/11 attacks, CBS News reported that he was being given kidney dialysis treatment in a hospital in Pakistan. And in January of 2001, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said – based on a video of bin Laden that had been made in either late November or early December of 2001 – that he appeared to be in the last stages of kidney failure.
Fourth, In July of 2002, CNN reported that bin Laden’s bodyguards had been captured in February of that year, adding: “Sources believe that if the bodyguards were captured away from bin Laden, it is likely the most-wanted man in the world is dead.”
Fifth, the United States has since 2001 offered a $25 million reward for any information leading to the capture or killing of bin Laden. But this reward offer has produced no such information, even though Pakistan has many desperately poor people, only about half of whom have been supportive of bin Laden.
Testimonial Evidence that Bin Laden Is Dead
In addition to this objective evidence, we had considerable testimony in 2002, from people in position to know, that bin Laden was dead, or probably so. These people included:
• President Musharraf of Pakistan;
• Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s counterterrorism unit;
Oliver North, who said: “I'm certain that Osama is dead. . . And so are all the other guys I stay in touch with”;
• President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan;
• Sources within Israeli intelligence, who said that any new messages from bin Laden were “probably fabrications”;
• Sources within Pakistani intelligence, who “confirmed the death of . . . Osama Bin Laden” and “attributed the reasons behind Washington's hiding news on the death of Osama Bin Laden to the desire of the hawks of the American administration to use the issue of al-Qaida and international terrorism to invade Iraq.”
For this reason, perhaps, the stories about the demise of bin Laden largely came to an end in the latter part of 2002, when the United States was gearing up for its attack on Iraq. From then until now, there have been few such stories.
Recently, however, two former intelligence officers have spoken out. In October 2008, former CIA case
officer Robert Baer suggested in passing during an interview on National Public Radio that bin Laden was no longer among the living. When Baer was asked about this, he said: “Of course he’s dead.”
In March of 2009, former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla published an essay in the American Spectator entitled “Osama bin Elvis.” Explaining his title, Codevilla wrote: “Seven years after Osama bin Laden's last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence for Elvis's presence among us than for his.”
This is an excellent article, with only one serious flaw. In 2007, Benazir Bhutto, being interviewed by David Frost, referred to Omar Sheikh as “the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” Codevilla cited this statement as further evidence that bin Laden is dead. But Bhutto had simply misspoken: She had meant to say “the man who murdered Daniel Pearl,” which is the standard way of referring to Omar Sheikh. That she misspoke was shown the next day, when she told CNN: “I don’t think General Musharaf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is.” Ten days later, speaking to NPR, she reported having asked a policeman assigned to guard her house: “Shouldn’t you be looking for Osama bin Laden?” This flaw aside, Codevilla’s article provides good support for his claim that the widespread belief in bin Laden’s continued existence is not backed up by evidence.
What about the “Messages from Osama bin Laden”?
Many people, of course, assume that there is a lot of evidence that bin Laden is still alive, namely, the dozens of audio tape and video tape “messages from bin Laden” that have appeared since 2001. These tapes provide good evidence, however, only if they are authentic. The longest chapter of my book is devoted to this question.
I show, in the first place, that the technology for making fake audio and video tapes is now so advanced that even experts can be fooled. So although the press regularly tells us that intelligence agencies have authenticated the latest bin Laden tape, it is virtually impossible to prove a tape to be authentic.
It is sometimes possible, however, to prove a tape to be a fake. For example: If the person hired to play bin Laden writes with his right hand; if he is much heavier and darker than bin Laden was in a tape made about the same time; if he has fatter hands and shorter fingers; if his nose has a different shape. And if, in discussing the Twin Towers, he says that the fire melted the steel, whereas the real bin Laden would have known that a building fire cannot melt steel. I am speaking here of the video that was allegedly found by US troops in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in November 2001, which is widely known as the “bin Laden confession video.”
Also obviously fabricated was the “October Surprise” video, which appeared on October 29, 2004, just in time to help George W. Bush get reelected. One clue that it was a fake, aside from its timing, is provided by its language. Bin Laden’s own messages were saturated with references to Allah and the Prophet Mohammed. But in this October Surprise video, Allah was mentioned rarely and the only “Mohammad” mentioned was Mohamed Atta. Also, whereas undoubtedly authentic bin Laden messages portrayed worldly events as cause or at least permitted by Allah, the speaker on this October Surprise video gave a purely secular account of events, even telling the American people: “Your security is in your own hands.”
The most obviously faked video is one that, appearing in 2007, was identical to the October Surprise video of 2004, except that the bin Laden figure now had a completely black beard, leading me to call it the video from “Blackbeard the Terrorist.” Although pundits tried, with straight faces, to explain why bin Laden might have dyed his beard, or put on a fake one, this video was best treated with the respect it deserved by a YouTube video featuring a actor wearing a very long, very black, beard, and saying:
Hello, long time no see. It is me, Osama bin Laden. And no, this not to be confused with just-for-men hair color commercial. . . . I make this video to prove to world that me still alive and kicking.
This video is very funny. But there is, of course, nothing funny about the fact that obviously fake bin Laden videos have been used, and are still being used, to justify the AfPak war, which continues to kill dozens if not hundreds of innocent people each week, including women and children attending weddings and funerals.
If my little book, by showing that bin Laden has probably long been dead, can help shorten this war, it will have served its main purpose.
Its other main point, to which a separate chapter is devoted, is that these fake bin Laden tapes appear to be simply one part of an extensive propaganda operation, in which the US military intelligence is using tax dollars – illegally – to propagandize the American public, with the aim of furthering the militarization of America and its foreign policy.
I hope my little book will stimulate the 9/11 truth movement, along with the anti-war movement in general, to take on more fully the task of exposing this propaganda effort, to which a growing portion of our tax dollars is being devoted.
The Truth behind 9/11: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
At 11am, on the morning of 9/11, the Bush administration had announced that Osama was behind the attacks
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 11, 2008
This article below entitled Who is Osama bin Laden? was drafted on September 11, 2001. It was first published on the Global Research website on the evening of September 12, 2001.
Since 2001, it has appeared on numerous websites. The original September 11, 2001 posting is one of the most widely read articles on the internet, pertaining to Al Qaeda.
From the outset, the objective was to use 9/11 as a pretext for launching the first phase of the Middle East War, which consisted in the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan.
Within hours of the attacks, Osama bin Laden was identified as the architect of 9/11. On the following day, the "war on terrorism" had been launched. The media disinformation campaign went into full gear.
Also on September 12, less than 24 hours after the attacks, NATO invoked for the first time in its history "Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - its collective defence clause" declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon "to be an attack against all NATO members."
What happened subsequently, with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is already part of history. Iran and Syria constitute the next phase of the US adminstration's military roadmap.
9/11 remains the pretext and justification for waging a war without borders.
Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2008
Excerpts from the Preface of America's "War on Terrorism", Second edition, Global Research, 2005.
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.
That same evening at 9.30 pm, a "War Cabinet" was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11.00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the "War on Terrorism" was officially launched.
The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to "state sponsorship" of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan.
Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops. Americans were led to believe that the decison to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.
Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The "terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event" as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on "humanitarian grounds", with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the "international community".
Several prominent "progressive" intellectuals made a case for "retaliation against terrorism", on moral and ethical grounds. The "just cause" military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11, without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the "Islamic terror network", it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.
I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled "Who is Osama bin Laden?" was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See full text of 9/12 article below).
From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive "enemy of America", who was "threatening the Homeland".
The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.
Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US adminstrations. Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: "he turned against us".
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive "outside enemy" had been fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".
Michel Chossudovsky, Excerpts from the Preface of America's "War on Terrorism", Second edition, Global Research, 2005.
Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
by Michel Chossudovsky
September 12, 2001
A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution."
Right: William Safire receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President George W. Bush (R) in the East Room of the White House in Washington, December 15, 2006.
Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra
has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage" -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts".
Read more:
The following text outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.
Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".
In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Karmal.:
With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.
The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:
"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow."
Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus
Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.
In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA"
CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help".
Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.
With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000.
Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:
'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course."
The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle
The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation":
CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'
In the Wake of the Cold War
In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons. Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.
The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia.".
Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.
Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..."
And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI"
In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI.
In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.
No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".
The War in Chechnya
With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war".
Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.
The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:
"[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev."
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia"
Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.
During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya".
Concluding Remarks
Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.
While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.
In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
By Ed Haas
06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006
This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden. In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why
Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”
In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape
removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
Also See:
Why was Benazir Bhutto Assassinated?
08 March 2009