Al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden 'dead'. Again.

[James H. Fetzer]

Peter,

Have you read OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? (2009)? It's author
will be interviewed today on KPFK 90.7FM Los Angeles at 4 PM/PT (May 4,
2011), which is heard globally at http://www.KPFK.org. I recommend it.

Jim

Official story:

Official: Osama bin Laden is dead
http://www.msnbc.msn.com
Osama bin Laden is dead and US has body, says person familiar with
developments.

For a dissenting view, here's a quote (from "James Henry Fetzer",
facebook):

One of the most blatant acts of bullshit in our nation's history! A
man who could so directly and baldly lie in announcing the death of
a man who died on or about 15 December 2001 could also directly and
baldly lie about his birth certificate! They are announcing that Osama
was taken out by Obama. Now the wars can continue, the predator drones
can keep killing, and no one will care about where Barack was born!

The claim is made that Osama "confessed", when he did nothing of the
sort. In the only authentic interview we have, he explained that he
had nothing to do with 9/11; that he was upset with the US because
it had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina,
the two most holy sites in Islam; that killing innocent women and
children is contrary to the tenets of Islam; and that there is a
government-within-the-government in America that appears to have been
responsible for these atrocities and blaming those acts on Muslims.

Griffin interview:

4PM PT on KPFK 90.7FM Los Angeles (May 4, 2011)
which is heard globally at http://www.KPFK.org)

Latest report:

Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake (2 May 2011)
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-
fake?CMP=twt_fd[/url]

Another skeptic:

Osama bin Laden's Second Death (May 2, 2011)
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=24587

Related article:

"On the Ethical Conduct of Warfare: Predator Drones" (22 February 2011)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=23324

Earlier article:

Gordon Duff, CIA HINTS, BIN LADEN DEAD SINCE "EARLY 2000's" (June
29, 2010)
[url]http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/29/gordon-duff-cia-hints-bin-
laden-dead-since-early-2000s/[/url]

Griffin's book:

David Ray Griffin, OSAMA BIL LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? (2009)
http://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-De...1566567831

An interview with someone who would know:

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

FBI acknowledgement:

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (June 10, 2006)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...a&aid=2623

Scholars press release:

28 May 2006 - OSAMA TAPE APPEARS TO BE FAKE, EXPERTS CONCLUDE
[url]http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&
Itemid=67[/url]

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead (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.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

An interview with a CIA agent the day after 9/11:

CIA veteran doubts the bin Laden story (September 12, 2001)
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/744.html

[Peter Lemkin]

Jim, I have read #137 and remember this information at the time. It is very convincing and may well be true....but it is not proven to a logical certainty. Even less [much less] so is the staged event on this Monday past. I'm not passing judgment. I'm curious to know the truth. At this time, I lean more toward OBL having been dead some years now...but that makes the question of 'why' and 'why now' the show of Bravado and Lies on Monday.....along with why the MSM and USG kept secret to hidden that he died long ago......there is more here than meets the eye....all of it very foul, indeed.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Prof Fetzer - you have an opinion. Indeed, you have an informed opinion. As do most of the serious and committed researchers on Deep Politics Forum.

However, currently, you are behaving like a member of the Spanish Inquisition, intent on intimidating all those heretics who do not agree with your worldview into silence or repentance.

This will not do.

A very good case can most certainly be made that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

A very good case can also be made that he has been deliberately kept alive, as an iconic and impotent bogeyman, to be ritually slaughtered at a time of the West's choosing.

Both these possibilities, and others, are plausible and deserve intelligent, incisive, discussion on DPF.

So, kindly cease and desist from proclaiming that those who disagree with your judgement have fallen for a psyop.

Please allow discussion, investigation and research to continue.

Thank you.

[Helen Reyes]

Two photoshopped dead bin Ladens not worthy of 4chan into this, I still say it's a complete hoax. Whether they buried some poor schmuck at sea or took the dead bin Laden out of the freezer for this one or dissolved some unrelated ISI house detainee in a bathtub of acid doesn't matter.

Some of the details, the conflicting details, are informative. Xinhua reported a Pakistani helicopter was fired on, one Pakistani helicopter (that one or more sent after that event?) was downed and there was a gun battle at the house. The US claims they had a helicopter that went down due to "unexpectedly hot air" at the property. It seems plausible either the ISI went in to bust up a Blackwater/CIA safehouse, or the US went in to rescue an "asset" held in an undisclosed ISI location. Either possibility could apply to bin Laden, but didn't, because he wasn't there.

The WHY NOW question shows "prior knowledge" of impending hostilities on Pakistan's part, whose foreign minister recently (last week or two) cinched a deal with Saudi Arabia for a new military partnership, a special relationship-type deal. Pakistan is moving toward a closer alliance with China away from the US, which isn't new, Pakistan has made the same overtures before, but something new is at work, probably Saudi concerns the US is burning its proxy dictators in the Arab world.

Interpreting the Mickey Leaks can lead to the opposite conclusion: that Mickey released the info on Abbottabad on schedule to order to create a backstory for the US action. Still, there is the problem of the hurried and amateur keystone-kop style cover operation, two fake dead bin Laden photoshops not worthy of 4chan into this. There is also the problem of flags and flowers assembling in NYC and DC before the announcement was made in the wee hours, jumping the gunship at a time when the most diehard patriot could be expected to arrive fashionably late dressed rather informally.

The bural-at-sea-to-satisfy-Muslim-custom just doesn't--excuse the phrase--wash. They had to foresee that it wouldn't. You don't invade a country and kill someone in mountainous central Asia then fly his body out to see somewhere for burial in order to satisfy customs and mores. DNA sequencing can't be hurried for the White House Situation Room either. May 1/2 as Walpurgisnacht, the purported date of death of Hitler and the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati might have been a bone thrown to the "conspiracy theorists" to keep them guessing and to keep things interesting, but the coincidence of no body in Hitler and Osama bin Laden's cases is again a little over-the-top even for a new group of activists in charge of psyops.

I gave this production two thumbs down while recognizing that some of the players probably have genuine talent. The problem was at the organizational level, and reflects real desperation on the part of the Obama administration.

Also, Abbottabad happens to have a poem written about it. Funny thing, since Abbott is an anglicized Aramaic word for father. In the case of the Pakistani gated community of the same name, it just so happens to come from the surname of the man who wrote the poem about the place (he) named after him(self):

I remember the day when I first came here
And smelt the sweet Abbottabad air

The trees and ground covered with snow
Gave us indeed a brilliant show

To me the place seemed like a dream
And far ran a lonesome stream

The wind hissed as if welcoming us
The pine swayed creating a lot of fuss

And the tiny cuckoo sang it away
A song very melodious and gay

I adored the place from the first sight
And was happy that my coming here was right

And eight good years here passed very soon
And we leave you perhaps on a sunny noon

Oh Abbottabad we are leaving you now
To your natural beauty do I bow

Perhaps your winds sound will never reach my ear
My gift for you is a few sad tears

I bid you farewell with a heavy heart
Never from my mind will your memories thwart

Major James Abbott, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath, ~1853

According to a then-and-now graphic on cryptome, the ISI safe house was constructed during or after 2004 (a Pakistani professor says 2005 earlier in this thread).
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/obl-kill/obl-kill.htm

[Jan Klimkowski]

Some of the details, the conflicting details, are informative. Xinhua reported a Pakistani helicopter was fired on, one Pakistani helicopter (that one or more sent after that event?) was downed and there was a gun battle at the house. The US claims they had a helicopter that went down due to "unexpectedly hot air" at the property. It seems plausible either the ISI went in to bust up a Blackwater/CIA safehouse, or the US went in to rescue an "asset" held in an undisclosed ISI location. Either possibility could apply to bin Laden, but didn't, because he wasn't there.

Helen - good to see you posting again.

Interesting thoughts. I posted the Xinhau version (post #59), based on alleged Pakistani eye witness accounts, earlier in this thread.

It's a wildcard, but I wouldn't be greatly surprized if this wasn't a botched TF373 or Blackwater/Xe op to extract one of their own.

The location of the safe house clearly identifies it as an ISI location, and it has doubtless hosted numerous VIP guests from across the spectrum.

The WHY NOW question shows "prior knowledge" of impending hostilities on Pakistan's part, whose foreign minister recently (last week or two) cinched a deal with Saudi Arabia for a new military partnership, a special relationship-type deal. Pakistan is moving toward a closer alliance with China away from the US, which isn't new, Pakistan has made the same overtures before, but something new is at work, probably Saudi concerns the US is burning its proxy dictators in the Arab world.

Yes. And Prof Akbar Ahmed's comments, which I posted a couple of pages back, (post #115) also clearly state Pakistani complicity and foreknowledge. Indeed, Akbar Ahmed suggests that the entire charade was instigated and staged by high level ISI elements.

Interpreting the Mickey Leaks can lead to the opposite conclusion: that Mickey released the info on Abbottabad on schedule to order to create a backstory for the US action. Still, there is the problem of the hurried and amateur keystone-kop style cover operation, two fake dead bin Laden photoshops not worthy of 4chan into this. There is also the problem of flags and flowers assembling in NYC and DC before the announcement was made in the wee hours, jumping the gunship at a time when the most diehard patriot could be expected to arrive fashionably late dressed rather informally.

My own judgement on the latest Wikileaks material, and it's distillation through MSM filters, is that the WikiMessage came straight from Langley.

I gave this production two thumbs down while recognizing that some of the players probably have genuine talent. The problem was at the organizational level, and reflects real desperation on the part of the Obama administration.

:angeldevil:

Also, Abbottabad happens to have a poem written about it. Funny thing, since Abbott is an anglicized Aramaic word for father. In the case of the Pakistani gated community of the same name, it just so happens to come from the surname of the man who wrote the poem about the place (he) named after him(self):

(snip the doggerel)

Major James Abbott, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath, ~1853

That's quality.

:gossip:

[Steve Franklin]

Peter - the source photos for the original fake Osama corpse photo can be seen here:

How to create a fake image of a ghost.

The fact that this whole charade (the execution and disposal of a western-created bogeyman) is being taken seriously by millions of people is really sickening.

I also note that the hawks are beginning to ratchet up the line that "Pakistan's ISI must have known" and this is "treachery" demanding a military reaction.

I'm waiting for the resurrection of Richard Armitage's threat to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age", as reported by Pakistan's President Musharaff after 9/11.

Of course Armitage was "Colin Powell's white son", with the two being buddies from their Golden Triangle "killing gooks" days.....

Considering that China has already intimated that they have Pakistan's back, I wonder who Ole BO plans on borrowing the money from for this third unfunded war. Word has it that China is already selling off part of their vast hoard of treasury bills. Does anybody on this forum not understand what happens if China gets *really* P-O'ed at the U.S.? As Mr. Rogers might say, "Can you say 'sovereign default'?"

[Ed Jewett]

Our deep political state does not trade in truth...not even their derivatives and futures.

Thanks for the quote of the day. The whole affair, like many similar ones, is a sordid mess of glop that will take years to be seen clearly. It is, at this point, still active and dynamic, like the slow hot ooze from a volcanic outflow still cooling.

[Helen Reyes]

Botched extraction was my thought too Jan.

Steve Franklin: if the US nukes China, then the outstanding debt is no longer binding, right?

[Ed Jewett]

Cross and Double Cross With Gitmo Files

US Knew Where Osama Was Since 2005

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

The unredacted Guantanamo files show clearly that the trail to Abbottabad was known to the US intelligence services at least since 2005, when al-Libi, another Abbottabad dweller, was captured.

Timing is everything. The US President announced killing of Osama bin Laden just as Wikileaks completed its publication of Guantanamo files. Was it coincidence? If not, what was the connection?

An answer to this question is directly connected with the cross and double cross accusations exchanged in the murky world where the intelligence services meet mainstream media.

Publication of the US secret papers, the Guantanamo Files, was done almost simultaneously by two competing media groups.

One was the Wikileaks of Julian Assange and their partners The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph, the French Le Monde.

Another one was The New York Times, The Guardian, the Israeli Haaretz.
The Guardian said of the files: "They were obtained by the New York Times, who shared them with the Guardian, which is publishing extracts today, having redacted information which might identify informants. The New York Times says the files were made available to it not by Wikileaks, but "by another source on the condition of anonymity".

Ha'aretz made more of it: "A few media outlets, including The New York Times, the Guardian and Haaretz, obtained the documents from an independent source without the help of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is under house arrest in Britain awaiting his appeal not to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces charges of rape and sexual assault." The Guardian's David Leigh twitted "double-crossing Assange!"

Now we'll give you the story behind the story: who crossed and double crossed whom, which information was redacted and how did it lead to OBL?

In the beginning, the source was one; allegedly Private First Class Manning or whoever it was who got it and transferred to the Wikileaks of Julian Assange. The entire file is still far from being published a big part of it was encrypted and uploaded as Julian Assange's Insurance file. Assange published two tranches of that: the War Diary: Afghanistan War Logs and War Diary: Iraq War Logs. He prepared publication of the third tranche: a huge collection of the State Department cables (Cablegate: 250,000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables) in the Guardian.

At that point, the data river forked. The treasure trove was copied by a Wikileaks German employee,Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who went AWOL after this profitable appropriation. Domscheit-Bergmade a deal with David Leigh of the Guardian; Leigh used it to cross Assange. He cold-shouldered Assange, declared the deal void', and used the data to promote his career and to make friends with Bill Keller, editor of the NY Times They published the cables after redacting them, or should we say "censoring" removeing everything the secret services demanded to remove. We wrote about it at length here in CounterPunch.

Julian Assange succeeded in regaining some lost ground: he established new partnerships, with the Daily Telegraph and others. The cables were being published all the time. And then Assange learned that the Guardian and the New York Times planned to publish the Guantanamo files. There was no time to lose: in a few days, the Wikileaks team prepared the files and began to upload. So did the competitors, possessing the Domscheit-Berg appropriated copy. This was the double-cross per Leigh.

The Guardian and the New York Times have a big and skilful staff, a lot of research, rich archives. But they decided to play ball with the secret services of their countries, redacting information which might identify informants. What a hutzpah! Sometimes, the identity of "informants" is more important than the information.

For instance in the file of Adil Hadi al Jaz'iri Leigh and Keller removed the name of the informant



To their misfortune and to our advantage, at this time the Wikileaks and the Guardian/NY Times were not a loving couple but two competing enterprises. And the Wikileaks published this file in full, warts and all.
Here is the name in full:



Abu Zubaydah the informer was the subject of intensive research, available here that makes clear: this unfortunate man was tortured by the CIA, with permission of US medics and Bush administration, to the point of the total collapse of his personality. He was one of the High Value Detainees; all of them suffered tortures beyond our ability to comprehend. Information they provided was not only unacceptable in court, it was of nil value because they said everything their tormentors wanted in order to gain a moment of peace.

Andy Worthington wrote: Since then, more and more compelling evidence has emerged to demonstrate that Abu Zubaydah was indeed nothing more than a "safehouse keeper" with mental health problems, who "claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did"… "The United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered." Further confirmation was also provided that his torture yielded no significant information and led only to vast amounts of the intelligence agencies' time being wasted on false leads. A year ago, summing up the results of Zubaydah's torture, a former intelligence official stated, bluntly, "We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms."

Removal of his name by the Leigh-Keller gang was not "caring about informers", it was caring about the torturers.

However the most important redactions by Leigh and Keller were directly dictated by the US intelligence services. The name of Nashwan Abd Al Razzaq Abd Al Baqi, or by another name, Abd al Hadi al Iraqi or by his number IZ-10026 was edited away from the file of Abu al-Libi (US9LY-010017DP) and elsewhere. This file is available in a redacted version of the Guardian and in the uncut version of Wikileaks. Comparison shows to what extent all the traces of al Iraqi were removed. It was not connected to "caring about informers", for al Libi was dead, having allegedly committed suicide in a Libyan jail just before the arrival of the US Ambassador in Tripoli. The file of al Iraqi is missing in all databases; he was captured in 2005 and kept in various secret prisons, until transferred to Guantanamo where he is detained now.

Careful reading of the file shows that al-Libi was connected with al Iraqi since October 2002. In 2003, OBL stated al Libi would be the official messenger between OBL and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, al Libi moved his family to Abbottabad, Pakistan and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar. He maintained contact with al Iraqi.

And we know that OBL was found and killed in Abbottabad just as this publication hit the pages of the newspapers. So the trail to Abbottabad was known to the American services at least since 2005, when al-Libi, another Abbottabad dweller, was captured.

What we do not know is the nature of the contacts between the US authorities and OBL. What we do know is that David Leigh and Bill Keller tried to hid it from their readers. Their redacting of the Guantanamo files, like their redacting of the Cablegate, had nothing to do with "saving informers".

David Leigh claimed that Assange "double-crossed" the paper by distributing the Gitmo files to various "right-wing" news organisations, meaning the conservative Daily Telegraph. This is rich. "Left" and "right" has very little meaning nowadays, after Blair and Clinton. What is important is the position on wars and overseas interventions, susceptibility to Secret Service meddling, subservience to the priorities of the state.

In France, right-wing Marina Le Pen stands against foreign interventions in Libya and Cote d'Ivoire, against payments to bankers, against the President, while left-wing Henri Bernard Levi supports wars and interventions, loves bankers, is a friend of the President "right-wing" Sarkozy.


In England, the Guardian is the leading newspaper for calls to war. Libya, Syria the Guardian wants them bombed. Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, - the Guardian wanted them to be invaded. It is just the package is different: instead of right-wing jingoism, the Guardian served the neo-colonialist adventurism under delicate sauce of humanitarian intervention. The Guardian leads on hypocrisy. The Guardian is not the newspaper of the left; it is the problem of the left. The case of Guantanamo files proves that the Guardian redacted the most vital information as told by the CIA.

And Osama? What about Osama bin Laden? Now we know that the US knew of his whereabouts; they knew of the trail, they asked Leigh and Keller to remove relevant references. Why didn't they capture him or kill him earlier?

OBL's organisation did what the US authorities wanted to be done. They fought the Russians and ruined Afghanistan. They conspired and fought against Hezbollah, slaughtered Shias in Iraq, undermined Qaddafi, hated Hamas and Iran. They supported ethnic cleansing of infidels' in Chechnya and in the Balkans. They never ever attacked Israel: they preserved their vigor for Sayyed Nasrallah. Like a dreadful beast nurtured in the CIA secret labs, only once they reportedly rebelled against their merciless creator - on 9/11. Osama was greater than, but similar to such American friends as Jonas Savimbi of Angola or Shamil Basayev of Chechnya, and hopefully after his death his organization will vanish like Unita and Basayev did.

The Guantanamo files reveal utter wretchedness of Osama's unlucky followers. With exception of a few dozen close associates, the rest of the prisoners made a wrong choice ever listening to him. They (especially foreigners) were idealists, who wanted to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth; they were encouraged by the US to flock to Afghanistan to fight the Commies. The majority of them never even had a chance to hold the gun. They, the foreigners in Afghanistan and Pakistan were sold for bounty to the Americans as fast as possible. They paid for this by years of torture. And now they are about to learn that their supreme chief was safeguarded by the same Americans who tortured them!

But in the mind of the Muslim masses OBL will be remembered (justly or not) as the architect of the only successful response of the oppressed to the Empire on its own soil. And that ensured him greatness of his own and a place in history.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

World copyright CounterPunch


http://piazzadcara.wordpress.com/2011/05...ince-2005/

[Jack White]

Right Jan, your complaints about Fetzer are most timely but he has always been in the business of getting those interested in going along with his deceptions, whether it be the JFk assassination, 9/11 or whatever.

My best experience with him was when he sent me an unsolicited copy of The Taking Of America, 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague which Fetzer sent me on April 3, 1998 in the hope of coopting me to give up my theory about Nixon being the ringleader of the JFK assassination, and also an unsolicited copy of Assassination Science in the hope to getting me to go along with his deep deceptions.

In the article on p. 78, Sprague said about my work on Compuiters and Automation and other sources: "Whether Nixon was directly involved in the PCG'S planning for the assassination is still open to question, although one researcher believes that he was."

No efforts by Fetzer to get me to change my mind have succeeded in the slightest bit.

The professor is apparently the government's leading spook.
.

Baloney. Fetzer is correct about FACTS 98 percent of the time.
He is wrong only on two minor subjects...JVB and CMH.

I agree that he should refrain from criticizing other researchers
just because they do not see matters as clearly as he does.

Fetzer is a true patriot. The same cannot be said of all his critics.

Jack