600 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

DONTEATUS, on 02 December 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

JUST ZERO DARK THIRTY !

Don't forget LET'S ROLL! or the original story concocted for Mary Tillman regarding the death of her son.

[Q24]

Little Fish, on 02 December 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Hamid Gul former head of pakistani ISI believes bin laden died several years ago,
he also thinks the raid was an electioneering stunt. given the heat obama was getting at the time, this seems most plausible.
if the story of the raid was true, it should be expected that bin laden's death was evidenced, but there is no evidence. The fact that the story kept changing is a sign of a pysop to me, throws the mdeia off into meaningless details masking the important questions.

Hamid Gul, who retired from the ISI in 1989 and claims to have had no contact since?  Hmm.  There are many high-profile individuals who believe that bin Laden died some years ago.  It sure made a good cover for his imprisonment.... it fooled me; I used to believe bin Laden likely dead also.

I do agree that bin Laden was imprisoned with a purpose in mind.  But I don’t see the real or potential benefit of pulling the stunt at the time it happened.  Did Obama benefit beyond a popularity rise over a couple months?  Did the powers that be find benefit in Obama over Romney?  I don’t get it in this context... it all seems like a very elaborate stunt for the sake of... nothing.  The powers that be waited all this time for... nothing?  I need a real motive.

Unless, it wasn’t a stunt at all; Obama and genuine CIA agents really did take bin Laden out.  That makes sense.  I bet the real Neocons in Washington were pissed about that.

There was evidence of something having occurred at the compound – the Navy SEAL retelling, crashed helicopter and U.S. and Pakistani reports confirm all that.  I think you mean evidence such as letting the world media view the body that would have closed the case, but then perhaps the U.S. were not in position to do that... the wound of an assassin’s bullet through the back of the head indicating a ‘kill mission’ does their credibility no favours.  The changing story may be a result of the U.S. attempt to save face by presenting bin Laden as the aggressor, before the real details came out.

[Little Fish]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

bin Laden was placed under control/house arrest immediately after 9/11.

bin laden was in rawalpindi, pakistan the day before 911.
http://globalresearc...es/CHO311A.html

Quote

high level Taliban, Pakistani and U.S. officials agreed that he should be detained in Pakistan.

possible

Quote

bin Laden was allowed to, and did, cross into Pakistan as arranged.

this conflicts with the first point.
I don't think bin laden was ever in afghanistan.

I see no reason why no pictures were released, of the aftermath, or the body, at that point there was nothing to hide and everything to gain politically. dumping the body at sea is absurd, and again no evidence.

[Q24]

Little Fish, on 03 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

bin laden was in rawalpindi, pakistan the day before 911.
http://globalresearc...es/CHO311A.html

possible

this conflicts with the first point.
I don't think bin laden was ever in afghanistan.

It’s quite possible for bin Laden to be in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Sep. 10^th and Khandahar, Afghanistan by Sep. 13^th.

Little Fish, on 03 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

I see no reason why no pictures were released, of the aftermath, or the body, at that point there was nothing to hide and everything to gain politically. dumping the body at sea is absurd, and again no evidence.

There were pictures released from Pakistani sources of the helicopter, building and dead guards.  I’m not sure it would be sensible to release pictures of bin Laden... a bullet exit wound in his face is going to be hard to tidy up... and this gives away the assassination/kill mission... it doesn’t look great or do Obama any favour.  I also don’t see that dumping the body at sea is unrealistic.  Though, I do see what you mean about all of this resulting in somewhat lacking evidence.  But overall I can’t make it fit.  This elaborate stunt... for nothing.  So help me.  The motive I asked about?  There isn’t anything is there?

[through the fire]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

There were pictures released from Pakistani sources of the helicopter, building and dead guards.  I’m not sure it would be sensible to release pictures of bin Laden... a bullet exit wound in his face is going to be hard to tidy
up... and this gives away the assassination/kill mission... it doesn’t look great or do Obama any favour.  I also don’t see that dumping the body
at sea is unrealistic.  Though, I do see what you mean about all of this resulting in somewhat lacking evidence.  But overall I can’t make it fit.  This elaborate stunt... for nothing.  So help me.  The motive I asked about?  There isn’t anything
is there?

Yeah, they don't want anyone to think badly of going on a kill mission..........so they admit it was a kill mission.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

It’s quite possible for bin Laden to be in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Sep. 10^th and Khandahar, Afghanistan by Sep. 13^th.




There were pictures released from Pakistani sources of the helicopter, building and dead guards.  I’m not sure it would be sensible to release pictures of bin Laden... a bullet exit wound in his face is going to be hard to tidy up... and this gives away the assassination/kill mission... it doesn’t look great or do Obama any favour.  I also don’t see that dumping the body at sea is unrealistic.  Though, I do see what you mean about all of this resulting in somewhat lacking evidence.  But overall I can’t make it fit.  This elaborate stunt... for nothing.  So help me.  The motive I asked about?  There isn’t anything is there?

You're assuming that he actually had a bullet hole in his face that day.  Not necessarily a good assumption, all things considered.

[Little Fish]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

It’s quite possible for bin Laden to be in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Sep. 10^th and Khandahar, Afghanistan by Sep. 13^th.

from the article i posted above
"In patient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in most American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been discharged from the Hospital on or "after" September 11
If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 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."

my perception at the time from tv reports was that mushariff was being threatened by the US.
is it conceivable the pakistani authorities allowed bin laden to leave the country after the attacks? I don't think so. I think most likely he was detained in pakistan on september 11th, held in captivity to produce the bogeyman videos and messages, and that he probably died some years ago - I say that because there is no evidence in recent years of his being alive, and many people who were in a connected position to know have stated their belief that he died years ago.

Quote

There were pictures released from Pakistani sources of the helicopter, building and dead guards.  I’m not sure it would be sensible to release pictures of bin Laden... a bullet exit wound in his face is going to be hard to tidy up... and this gives away the assassination/kill mission... it doesn’t look great or do Obama any favour.  I also don’t see that dumping the body at sea is unrealistic.  Though, I do see what you mean about all of this resulting in somewhat lacking evidence.  But overall I can’t make it fit.  This elaborate stunt... for nothing.  So help me.  The motive I asked about?  There isn’t anything is there?

it has been speculated by Jerome Corsi that the initial operation was to do an "october surprise" to win the election, but as i said before things were getting hot politically for obama last year with regard to the birth certificate and it may have been decided to create a media event to take the heat off his administration. I don't see that issue as where obama was born, I see the issue as obama having authorised a fake document, and it was being revealed that he did in fact lie in releasing a fake birth certificate. this news management is  done all the time. the timing of the raid just after the release of corsis book and the press were gathering momentum with the story.

the problem i have is that there is no evidence of osama being killed in that raid. if the raid were real as told, it would be expected that there were pictures or videos of a dead bin laden, witnesses of a dead bin laden, but above all a body of bin laden. sounds like a another jessica lynch scripted story.

[Q24]

through the fire, on 03 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Yeah, they don't want anyone to think badly of going on a kill mission..........so they admit it was a kill mission.

Although certain officials, and in my opinion analysis of the circumstances, have left no doubt this was a kill mission, Obama himself, the Navy SEAL known as ‘Mark Owen’ and others, have said that bin Laden would have been captured alive if possible – that appears to be the official line on it.  My computer is playing up terribly at the moment (damn virus) so I can’t provide the links, but a quick Google search will confirm this for you.  So, at least there is some ambiguity in the public mind to the question.  It would end that ambiguity and not look good for the U.S. operation if determined that bin Laden were cowering on the floor and received a bullet to the back of the head.

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

You're assuming that he actually had a bullet hole in his face that day.  Not necessarily a good assumption, all things considered.

I’m speculating there are potential reasons not to release pictures other than lack of a body.

Little Fish, on 03 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

from the article i posted above
"In patient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in most American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been discharged from the Hospital on or "after" September 11
If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 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."

my perception at the time from tv reports was that mushariff was being threatened by the US.
is it conceivable the pakistani authorities allowed bin laden to leave the country after the attacks? I don't think so. I think most likely he was detained in pakistan on september 11th, held in captivity to produce the bogeyman videos and messages, and that he probably died some years ago - I say that because there is no evidence in recent years of his being alive, and many people who were in a connected position to know have stated their belief that he died years ago.

It’s quite possible for bin Laden to be in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Sep. 12^th and Khandahar, Afghanistan on Sep. 13^th.

I think you refer to Richard Armitage’s reported call to Musharraf threatening to ‘bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age’, or some such words, had the U.S. not received co-operation with their ‘War on Terror’.  There is no indication this occurred before Sep. 13^th, by which time bin Laden is reported to have been back in Afghanistan.  Armitage’s first meeting with Pakistani officials and intelligence heads actually came on Sep. 13^th.  Given this, don’t see it inconceivable that bin Laden may have had passage to travel freely for a day or two after 9/11.

Also the suggestion that bin Laden was held to produce his bogeyman videos and messages doesn’t fit from a Sep. 11^th timeline.  Remember that bin Laden had twice denied responsibility for the attacks by Dec. 2001 – I think you agree that these refutations were genuine?  There is some very convincing evidence that bin Laden was crossing the Tora Bora mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan in Dec. 2001 and it is only after this time that the trail went terribly cold and the bogeyman videos were released.

Of course, there would be no evidence of bin Laden after that time except for the vetted video and message releases once the CIA/ISI whisked him away to a safehouse/detainment.  And with reports of his death, that only suits the plan better.  As we well know, we aren't likely to find what no one is looking for.

Little Fish, on 03 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

it has been speculated by Jerome Corsi that the initial operation was to do an "october surprise" to win the election, but as i said before things were getting hot politically for obama last year with regard to the birth certificate and it may have been decided to create a media event to take the heat off his administration. I don't see that issue as where obama was born, I see the issue as obama having authorised a fake document, and it was being revealed that he did in fact lie in releasing a fake birth certificate. this news management is  done all the time. the timing of the raid just after the release of corsis book and the press were gathering momentum with the story.

Hmm... it’s not quite on the ‘new Pearl Harbor’ or ‘transforming event’ scale of motive.

And it raises so many problems...

For one, there is no way Obama can stage this event without prior certainty both that bin Laden is already dead and control of the body – we can’t have bin Laden ‘turning up’ or his remains found someplace else.  This means that Obama would need to know exactly the time and location of bin Laden’s ‘real’ death beforehand to ensure the stunt would not come back to bite him.  I have reason to believe that Obama is not singing from the same hymn sheet as Bush/Cheney and the other Neocons in Washington – they would not keep bin Laden on ice to pull Obama out of a hole - therefore, the ‘real’ death of bin Laden must have been under Obama’s presidency, and keeping the ‘real’ death quiet followed by the stunt must have been all of Obama’s doing.  That means bin Laden would have only been killed from 2009 onward rendering those earlier death reports as false and/or propaganda.

For two, bin Laden’s death was never going to, nor did it, end the Obama birth certificate debate which existed from the beginning of his presidency and continued with some vigour beyond bin Laden’s death.

Little Fish, on 03 December 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

the problem i have is that there is no evidence of osama being killed in that raid. if the raid were real as told, it would be expected that there were pictures or videos of a dead bin laden, witnesses of a dead bin laden, but above all a body of bin laden. sounds like a another jessica lynch scripted story.

I do sympathise about the lack of evidence to a body, though I don’t think pictures should ever necessarily be “expected” – as mentioned above, it does Obama nor the U.S. any favour to broadcast the fact that it was a lawless and cold-blooded assassination.  I know if I were the president and had ordered the killing, for legitimate reason that I can think of, then I wouldn’t want the pictures released either.  I guess I don’t need to ask if you accept the Navy SEALs as witnesses of a dead bin Laden?

In all, I don’t understand why people go with this idea the raid was a stunt when there is a far better explanation fitting the circumstances and reports which, whilst still involving a conspiracy, doesn’t involve a somewhat elaborate operation for the sake of what I still see as little to no benefit.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 04 December 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Although certain officials, and in my opinion analysis of the circumstances, have left no doubt this was a kill mission, Obama himself, the Navy SEAL known as ‘Mark Owen’ and others, have said that bin Laden would have been captured alive if possible – that appears to be the official line on it.  My computer is playing up terribly at the moment (damn virus) so I can’t provide the links, but a quick Google search will confirm this for you.  So, at least there is some ambiguity in the public mind to the question.  It would end that ambiguity and not look good for the U.S. operation if determined that bin Laden were cowering on the floor and received a bullet to the back of the head.




I’m speculating there are potential reasons not to release pictures other than lack of a body.




It’s quite possible for bin Laden to be in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Sep. 12^th and Khandahar, Afghanistan on Sep. 13^th.

I think you refer to Richard Armitage’s reported call to Musharraf threatening to ‘bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age’, or some such words, had the U.S. not received co-operation with their ‘War on Terror’.  There is no indication this occurred before Sep. 13^th, by which time bin Laden is reported to have been back in Afghanistan.  Armitage’s first meeting with Pakistani officials and intelligence heads actually came on Sep. 13^th.  Given this, don’t see it inconceivable that bin Laden may have had passage to travel freely for a day or two after 9/11.

Also the suggestion that bin Laden was held to produce his bogeyman videos and messages doesn’t fit from a Sep. 11^th timeline.  Remember that bin Laden had twice denied responsibility for the attacks by Dec. 2001 – I think you agree that these refutations were genuine?  There is some very convincing evidence that bin Laden was crossing the Tora Bora mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan in Dec. 2001 and it is only after this time that the trail went terribly cold and the bogeyman videos were released.

Of course, there would be no evidence of bin Laden after that time except for the vetted video and message releases once the CIA/ISI whisked him away to a safehouse/detainment.  And with reports of his death, that only suits the plan better.  As we well know, we aren't likely to find what no one is looking for.




Hmm... it’s not quite on the ‘new Pearl Harbor’ or ‘transforming event’ scale of motive.

And it raises so many problems...

For one, there is no way Obama can stage this event without prior certainty both that bin Laden is already dead and control of the body – we can’t have bin Laden ‘turning up’ or his remains found someplace else.  This means that Obama would need to know exactly the time and location of bin Laden’s ‘real’ death beforehand to ensure the stunt would not come back to bite him.  I have reason to believe that Obama is not singing from the same hymn sheet as Bush/Cheney and the other Neocons in Washington – they would not keep bin Laden on ice to pull Obama out of a hole - therefore, the ‘real’ death of bin Laden must have been under Obama’s presidency, and keeping the ‘real’ death quiet followed by the stunt must have been all of Obama’s doing.  That means bin Laden would have only been killed from 2009 onward rendering those earlier death reports as false and/or propaganda.

For two, bin Laden’s death was never going to, nor did it, end the Obama birth certificate debate which existed from the beginning of his presidency and continued with some vigour beyond bin Laden’s death.




I do sympathise about the lack of evidence to a body, though I don’t think pictures should ever necessarily be “expected” – as mentioned above, it does Obama nor the U.S. any favour to broadcast the fact that it was a lawless and cold-blooded assassination.  I know if I were the president and had ordered the killing, for legitimate reason that I can think of, then I wouldn’t want the pictures released either.  I guess I don’t need to ask if you accept the Navy SEALs as witnesses of a dead bin Laden?

In all, I don’t understand why people go with this idea the raid was a stunt when there is a far better explanation fitting the circumstances and reports which, whilst still involving a conspiracy, doesn’t involve a somewhat elaborate operation for the sake of what I still see as little to no benefit.

You place great faith in Obama's certain knowledge of anything at all, in this case whether Osama was dead or alive.

Most US presidents know only what they are told by some advisor or the other.  The average US president is but a puppet with no conscience or courage at all.

Little Fish makes a good point about the Birth Certificate Controversy as another motivating factor in coming out with the Abbottabad Myth.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 04 December 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

You place great faith in Obama's certain knowledge of anything at all, in this case whether Osama was dead or alive.

Most US presidents know only what they are told by some advisor or the other.  The average US president is but a puppet with no conscience or courage at all.

Little Fish makes a good point about the Birth Certificate Controversy as another motivating factor in coming out with the Abbottabad Myth.

Aha, so Obama didn’t know if bin Laden was dead or alive and he didn’t have the courage to question it but the powers that be who had bin Laden on ice deceived Obama to believe the latter and he thought it was an operation of his order but actually it was a stunt by the powers that be who found this the best moment to play their ace up the sleeve and intended, though failed, to save Obama from the birth certificate controversy?

Err... and that makes more sense than bin Laden being found and killed May 2^nd 2011?

Like... really??

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Little Fish makes a good point about the Birth Certificate Controversy as another motivating factor in coming out with the Abbottabad Myth.

No he most certainly DID NOT.

As evidence by the birther thread i attended a while back.  He did not believe that OCR scanning software could produce the downloadable Obama BC.  I had done it myself with my own BC and certainly had some (not all) the same results.  Had asked him to do it with his own BC to see the same results but he had then disappeared from the thread.

So anything regarding his claim about Obama's BC is pure hogwash.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 04 December 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Aha, so Obama didn’t know if bin Laden was dead or alive and he didn’t have the courage to question it but the powers that be who had bin Laden on ice deceived Obama to believe the latter and he thought it was an operation of his order but actually it was a stunt by the powers that be who found this the best moment to play their ace up the sleeve and intended, though failed, to save Obama from the birth certificate controversy?

Err... and that makes more sense than bin Laden being found and killed May 2^nd 2011?

Like... really??

What makes that scenario more likely sir, is that politicians control the government, and while there should be considerations OTHER THAN politics in good governance, the sad reality is that political considerations, including reelection, frequently carry the day in what actually happens.  On its best day, politics is a dirty business.

Making appointed leaders look better in the public mind is a very large part of day to day operations.  It is the PERCEPTION that is being controlled and desired, not necessarily (seldom) the truth.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 04 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

No he most certainly DID NOT.

As evidence by the birther thread i attended a while back.  He did not believe that OCR scanning software could produce the downloadable Obama BC.  I had done it myself with my own BC and certainly had some (not all) the same results.  Had asked him to do it with his own BC to see the same results but he had then disappeared from the thread.

So anything regarding his claim about Obama's BC is pure hogwash.

Many pronouns there, but I assume you speak of Little Fish.  I cannot speak for him, and perhaps I misunderstood his previous post that I referred back to.

I'm neutral on the birth certificate controversy, and not knowlegdeable enough about OCR and such to make an informed decision.  However, "where there is smoke there is fire" comes to mind.

[Little Fish]

RaptorBites, on 04 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

No he most certainly DID NOT.

As evidence by the birther thread i attended a while back.  He did not believe that OCR scanning software could produce the downloadable Obama BC.  I had done it myself with my own BC and certainly had some (not all) the same results.  Had asked him to do it with his own BC to see the same results but he had then disappeared from the thread.

So anything regarding his claim about Obama's BC is pure hogwash.

it is the details that you are not mentioning. post#10 in that thread proves it is a fake. ocr does not do that, scanning maybe account for kerning and anti-aliasing, but not the details in post#10.

[RaptorBites]

Little Fish, on 04 December 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

it is the details that you are not mentioning. post#10 in that thread proves it is a fake. ocr does not do that, scanning maybe account for kerning and anti-aliasing, but not the details in post#10.

So, have you tried the scan yourself?  Or are you still basing it off what what you think?

I still think the latter.

Besides, OCR does intentionally duplicate parts of the scan to minimize the file itself.  So box 1 and box 2 can be duplicated in that process.

Edited by RaptorBites, 05 December 2012 - 05:24 PM.