As far as your apparently unquestioning acceptance of the Myth Of Abbottabad (unless I'm misreading you), not so much.
As for the question of whether passengers were placed into Witness Protection, I have long noted that it IS pure speculation on my part, but I still consider it plausible.
That’s where I think Kludge and LG get confused – between which parts of the theory are evidence and which are speculation. We are all working to the same evidence and broad conclusions that come of it, only having different solutions in the underlying detail where evidence is lacking – which as I mentioned, given the lack of investigation we decry, is not so important. On the other hand, I don’t think that OCTs have the right to speculate for a second – too many lives depended on it.
Also, I’m hardly ‘unquestioning’ of events at Abbottabad. The compound exists, I’ve seen pictures of the dead guards, the downed helicopter and the room where bin Laden was said to be assassinated, I’ve read accounts of the marines, much of which is corroborated by Pakistani media and witnesses. I’m not going to say the whole thing did not happen – I don’t accept such levels of fakery can take place without too great a risk. No, something major happened there. That’s just part one.
Then we look at the circumstances of the compound which ideally match a prison to hold someone of importance/circumstance of house-arrest (I’ll provide the detail and sources if required) and is agreed on by numerous media commentators. This background makes no sense in context of a staged operation. If it were that, then the aim would be to make it look like a hideout (perhaps one of bin Laden's remote, underground, cave complexes which Rumsfeld spoke so fondly of), not the prison that it was. I am forced to accept the prison was real, not a nonsensical part of a staged story. That’s part two.
After that, we apply everything we know about bin Laden, his communications (real and/or not) and movements, prior to that date. We look at the agreement reached between the Taliban, Pakistan and what the U.S. knew shortly after 9/11. We consider what would most benefit the perpetrators of that attack – that bin Laden remain alive - and how they let him escape Afghanistan when he could have been captured (see my last post). Ideally, we will take into account the close, overlapping relationship between the CIA and ISI. And with all of this, boy does the official line on bin Laden's assassination from the Obama administration ever fit and make sense. That’s part three.
This idea that bin Laden’s death was a staged event contradicts logic in too many places, casts doubt on much before and obscures a clear version of events. Come up with something that actually fits and I’d consider it. The Neocons in Washington wanted bin Laden contained and alive, to use him and fuel their military ideology. And that’s what happened for a decade. Fortunately, President Obama is not a part of the same cabal and eliminated their prize asset. I’m not unquestioning – it simply makes perfect sense; all fits in this context; every single piece of information we have, incorporated, in place and explained.
I should have noted, given recent discussion: this is an example where myself and BR disagree, but again the broad conclusion is clearly shared that bin Laden is not the main player in events, the evidence of this is simply lacking. I’ve just perhaps taken a step further than BR, in moving from questioning everything and believing nothing/little, to determining what did happen, based on everything we do know.
Edited by Q24, 11 January 2013 - 03:37 PM.