Is Bin Laden really dead or was it a hoax?

[MomentsofSanity]

The basis for what I said is what I read in the book, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/c...7831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304648343&sr=8-1 (ASIN: B004OEKA7Q, Amazon link ) Ollie says the guy died in 2001.

So your post indicates Ollie-the document-shredder seems to accept that bin Laden died in 2011 instead of in 2001? That's what I read your link to mean anyway.

I take the discrepancy to indicate that nobody should ever rely on "whichever way the wind is blowing" Oliver North.

I really do think, based on a lot of careful study and analysis, mainly going to original sources whenever possible, that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset, and that he died in 2001, and that he had no connection with 911, which was altogether a Dick Cheny/PNAC inside job, with operations funded by YOUR TAX MONEY!!!! It's irrefutable FACT that PNAC was absolutely hell bent on selling the masses on a mideast WAR they and the oil companies had preplanned for a long time, with go-ahead justified by New Pearl Harbor.

Hey, the dumb-shit tax slaves will buy that....just roll it out in Forbes, People, NBC and ABC, and bring on some Hollyweird writers to put up som flicks telling the lie too.

Will you also now dismiss Robert Baer who also seems quite satisfied that bin Laden was alive until Monday's events?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110503/wl_time/08599206901200

 

[WildHorse]

`



.

 

[xj0hnx]

and that he had no connection with 911, which was altogether a Dick Cheny/PNAC inside job,

Glad you got that out in the open so soon, now you can be moved to the Truther bin without fear that you will have something relevant to say.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[cganesh75]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/al-qaeda-confirms-bin-ladens-dead/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

[MomentsofSanity]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/al-qaeda-confirms-bin-ladens-dead/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

And yet even this won't silence those who wish to hold on to a belief that they are smarter than everyone else and know the real truth.

Just once it would be nice to have one simply say "Clearly I was wrong."

 

[Craig234]

On another note, I wonder if former CIA director Porter Goss had it right in 2005; just how specific the location he's talking about was.

Here's an AP story.

It fits the basic situation in Pakistan.

CIA Director Porter Goss says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the al Qaeda chief will not be caught until weak links in the war on terrorism are strengthened.

In an interview with TIME magazine published Sunday, Goss said part of the difficulty in capturing bin Laden was "sanctuaries in sovereign nations."

The magazine asked Goss when bin Laden would be captured.

"That is a question that goes far deeper than you know," he said. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.

"We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.

"We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways that are acceptable to the international community.

 

[sunzt]

Al Qaeda confirms UBL's death. Can we just end this now?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/bin.laden.qaeda.comment/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

(CNN) -- Al Qaeda released a statement on jihadist forums Friday confirming the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites.

The development comes days after U.S. troops killed bin Laden in a raid on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

The statement, translated by SITE, lauded the late militant, threatened to take action against the United States, and urged Pakistanis to "rise up and revolt."

Bin Laden's death will serve as a "curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries," the message said.

"Soon -- with help from Allah -- their happiness will turn into sorrow, and their blood will be mixed with their tears," it said.

The statement said al Qaeda will "continue on the path of jihad, the path walked upon by our leaders, and on top of them" bin Laden "without hesitation or reluctance.

"We will not deviate from that or change until Allah judges between us and between our enemy with truth. Indeed, He is the best of all judges. Nothing will harm us after that, until we see either victory and success and conquest and empowerment, or we die trying."

It said that Americans "will never enjoy security until our people in Palestine enjoy it."

"The soldiers of Islam, groups and individuals, will continue planning without tiredness or boredom, and without despair or surrender, and without weakness or stagnancy, until they cause the disaster that makes children look like the elderly!"

It urged Pakistanis "to cleanse this shame that has been attached to them by a clique of traitors and thieves" and "from the filth of the Americans who spread corruption in it."

Bin Laden and other militants used the Internet to post messages to their followers before and after al Qaeda's September, 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

 

[Macamus Prime]

It's a pretty big fucking lie. And, if people believe that a man became President when he wasn't even a citizen, then they will believe he lied about issuing the order to and has, killed someone.

Hey, guess what? He proved the birthers wrong. And the deathers will be proven wrong as well. When this shit get declassified a few years down the road, all you shit for brains racists can choke on it, just like you choked on his birth certificate.

 

[Craig234]

The basis for what I said is what I read in the book, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/c...7831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304648343&sr=8-1 (ASIN: B004OEKA7Q, Amazon link ) Ollie says the guy died in 2001.

So your post indicates Ollie-the document-shredder seems to accept that bin Laden died in 2011 instead of in 2001? That's what I read your link to mean anyway.

I take the discrepancy to indicate that nobody should ever rely on "whichever way the wind is blowing" Oliver North.

I really do think, based on a lot of careful study and analysis, mainly going to original sources whenever possible, that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset, and that he died in 2001, and that he had no connection with 911, which was altogether a Dick Cheny/PNAC inside job, with operations funded by YOUR TAX MONEY!!!! It's irrefutable FACT that PNAC was absolutely hell bent on selling the masses on a mideast WAR they and the oil companies had preplanned for a long time, with go-ahead justified by New Pearl Harbor.

Hey, the dumb-shit tax slaves will buy that....just roll it out in Forbes, People, NBC and ABC, and bring on some Hollyweird writers to put up som flicks telling the lie too.

I feel a bit bad when I see some people latch on to a wrong 'conspiracy theory', because usually their heart is in the right place, and their being interested in looking for information is admirable compared to many citizens that could just not care less what their government does - but they can be very wrong about the theory.

We can use people looking hard for lies, which sometimes exist - Gulf of Tonkin is just one of many examples - but sometimes very false theories gain a following.

Anyway, in ways, the OBL conspiracy theories do fit something the government could do, and there's a big motive; having a mysterious enemy was a great help to launch a major foreign policy initiative that would not have been politically feasible previously, like invading countries we'd had our eyes on, as surprisingly laid out in PNAC by a real 'conspiracy' of right-wing figures who then largely became the US government.

And they were clearly not honest - more very surprising honesty came from one of them in an article explaining that they knew what war they wanted, but had to find a way to politically sell it and they settled on 'a threat of weapons of mass destruction' because it was 'bureaucratically convenient' - and once that was selected, clearly they had a motive to try to twist evidence to fit that story.

I disagree with you 'the US did 9/11' for a lot of reasons.

But I agree with you about Bush and PNAC were determined to 'sell the US on war with Iraq' - which is why Bush immediately after 9/11 asked Richard Clarke, to his surprise, if he could find any links with Iraq - and when Clarke said no, the president told him 'look again'. There was clearly a whole PR campaign to 'sell the country' on war with Iraq, filled with lies about how he didn't want that war, it was a last resort, etc.

They had a variety of motives - PNAC was likely in part motivated by a general sense of 'the US culture is better for the world than the backwards middle east cultures' type thinking, thinking they were 'benevolent' in their interest to bring democracy even at the price of war - ironically similar to Al Queda and others' holding similar views that THEY had a better culture to deliver at the cost of violence.

On the one hand, the Bush figures can and do make a case about bad things about Saddam and improvements in the situation in Iraq - at huge human cost; they also set a precedent of what JFK said the US would never do, 'start an aggressive war', and violating the UN charter against doing so. While we don't now see a lot of countries taking advantage of that precedent, it's still a problem.

 

[xj0hnx]

You fail to mention that I stated that I did the work of reading my own way through ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL wherever I could, mostly to while away the interminably boring hours sitting on airplanes, I ACTUALLY READ the source material, and I exercised my own analytic intelligence, and I conclude what I post.

I estimate that most here merely skim stuff and fire off halfwit posts without any true deep personal study, reflection or analysis, simply posers.

Exactly like you, xj0hnx.

Cease, troll.

LOL. Oh, I don't doubt you gave it your own "analytic intelligence", but considering that same "analytic intelligence" brought you to the conclusion that 9/11 was done by Cheney, it just really doesn't say a lot for your "analytic intelligence", says a lot about it, just not a lot for it.

 

[Craig234]

One of the questions that does seem a mystery is why bin Laden, who it seems would have heard the helicopters, even though they were the 'quiet' type, because the blogger neighbor heard them, and even if the Seals met no resistance or silently shot anyone on the way to the bedroom, was not armed.

 

[OutHouse]

One of the questions that does seem a mystery is why bin Laden, who it seems would have heard the helicopters, even though they were the 'quiet' type, because the blogger neighbor heard them, and even if the Seals met no resistance or silently shot anyone on the way to the bedroom, was not armed.

Who cares. Im estatic the fucker is dead

 

[dank69]

One of the questions that does seem a mystery is why bin Laden, who it seems would have heard the helicopters, even though they were the 'quiet' type, because the blogger neighbor heard them, and even if the Seals met no resistance or silently shot anyone on the way to the bedroom, was not armed.

Maybe he's a sound sleeper? The compound was right near a military base so maybe they are used to helicopters? Just a guess...

 

[MiniDoom]

I read you cannot really hear the helicopters until they are above. I'm also guessing they used suppressors and sub-sonic ammo.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe he's a sound sleeper? The compound was right near a military base so maybe they are used to helicopters? Just a guess...

The 'West Point' is a kilometer away, and it was a school, not a base with helicopters; if you look at satellite photos there are no helicopter bases nearby.

Maybe he wasn't awoken, but the neighbor reporting the sound of the helicopters coming, the son reportedly shot on the stairs (probably because he heard them...)

 

[Craig234]

I read you cannot really hear the helicopters until they are above. I'm also guessing they used suppressors and sub-sonic ammo.

Yes, the neighbor blogging about the sound of the helicopters is the strongest indication I've seen they were loud. Silent guns seem probable.

 

[OutHouse]

The 'West Point' is a kilometer away, and it was a school, not a base with helicopters; if you look at satellite photos there are no helicopter bases nearby.

Maybe he wasn't awoken, but the neighbor reporting the sound of the helicopters coming, the son reportedly shot on the stairs (probably because he heard them...)

Maybe maybe maybe, what if, what if, what if.......

Damn dude you sound like a 3 year old asking why why why. Admit it you have nothing but maybe and what if's.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, the neighbor blogging about the sound of the helicopters is the strongest indication I've seen they were loud. Silent guns seem probable.

Apparently with those helicopters it depends on where the neighbor was, if he happened to be under the flight path than sure he would have heard them. Also they were surely flying pretty low, and based on my own experience in theater, with the way they construct neighborhoods and houses with lots of solid, high walls it dampens and diffuses the sound quite a bit.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to wonder what Craig234 added to this forum debate when he noted, " On another note, I wonder if former CIA director Porter Goss had it right in 2005; just how specific the location he's talking about was."

Hmmmmmmmm--do the math, OBL had been sheltering at that safe house McMansion for six years, and when we add 2005+6 we get the present date of 2011.

So maybe Porter Goss was right in 2005, but was certainly now proven wrong by 2006.

 

[BeauJangles]

One of the questions that does seem a mystery is why bin Laden, who it seems would have heard the helicopters, even though they were the 'quiet' type, because the blogger neighbor heard them, and even if the Seals met no resistance or silently shot anyone on the way to the bedroom, was not armed.

I think that the speed of an operation like this plays a huge part. The guy who Twittered during the raid noticed the helicopters, but we have no idea how long it took between the time they were heard and the time they inserted the SEALs. Basically, I have a feeling that, by the time he woke up, heard the choppers, and even thought about running, the SEALs were already on the ground. Once on the ground, they only had to secure the two entrance gates and Osama had nowhere to run.

 

[Craig234]

I have to wonder what Craig234 added to this forum debate when he noted, " On another note, I wonder if former CIA director Porter Goss had it right in 2005; just how specific the location he's talking about was."

Hmmmmmmmm--do the math, OBL had been sheltering at that safe house McMansion for six years, and when we add 2005+6 we get the present date of 2011.

So maybe Porter Goss was right in 2005, but was certainly now proven wrong by 2006.

One thing I 'added' was the interesting question of what Goss was talking about.

It could have been anything from a complete lie, to information that was wrong, to information that was vague, to this very house or city.

There's a question how much the reluctance to launch a mission inside Pakistan played a role, versus identifying the location.

While it seems likely they only discovered it last August - what was Goss referring to?

 

[Craig234]

I think that the speed of an operation like this plays a huge part. The guy who Twittered during the raid noticed the helicopters, but we have no idea how long it took between the time they were heard and the time they inserted the SEALs. Basically, I have a feeling that, by the time he woke up, heard the choppers, and even thought about running, the SEALs were already on the ground. Once on the ground, they only had to secure the two entrance gates and Osama had nowhere to run.

I agree - but it seems likely he could get a gun, if he had one nearby. Maybe he didn't bother to keep a gun handy...

 

[BeauJangles]

I agree - but it seems likely he could get a gun, if he had one nearby. Maybe he didn't bother to keep a gun handy...

Yeah, I have no idea. According to reports there were weapons nearby.

Maybe he chose not to fight, knowing he was pretty screwed or maybe he hoped to be captured. Yeah, he undoubtedly would have been interrogated harshly, but I wonder if he also saw a potential trial as a soapbox that he could preach from.

Pure speculation. Honestly, we'll never know. What we do know is that he's dead as a doornail.

 

[Lemon law]

The 'West Point' is a kilometer away, and it was a school, not a base with helicopters; if you look at satellite photos there are no helicopter bases nearby.

Maybe he wasn't awoken, but the neighbor reporting the sound of the helicopters coming, the son reportedly shot on the stairs (probably because he heard them...)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, IMHO, a hair splitting debate, the question is how much advance warning OBL and his household had the raid was targeting their safehouse? If they had 5 or 10 minutes of advance warning, they could make a run for it on the street with a good chance of success,
but only the 30 second time warning or so when they heard the helicopters directly overhead
is well into not enough time to run for it territory.

And do the math, if a helicopter is flying at 180 MPH, they can cover about 1.5 miles in that 30 seconds.