Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,

781 posts in this topic

Oh, it's way more than bipartisan Boo.

If you really buy into that 2 party system stuff, then you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were. Or, perhaps, just way more gullible.

Remember that it was the 'opposition party' Nancy Pelosi who turned back the Kucinich effort to impeach Dubya for his high crimes. She took it 'off the table' :wacko:

The truth is, as Shaddow is suggesting, that Dubya and Obama serve the very same masters. Obama has embraced the Unitary Executive and the Global War On Terror much more enthusiastically than Bush did, and he made that clear as a candidate, reference Pakistan.

The Bin Laden family and Bush family are business partners. OBL was a creature of the US CIA. He served us well, and the odds are very high that he died of medical complications about 10 years ago.

But hey--everybody loves illusion and simulation. This country thrives on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that when the government says Bin Laden was killed and buried at sea, furthermore they outright refuse to show any evidence of it, people still believe them. On the other hand, when someone claims they found emails from Stanfor (which, have been released and anyone can find, given they take the time to look through all of them), people outright refuse to believe the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Stellar.

Americans in particular have been conditioned for years to believe the government in whatever it says, no matter how absurd the statement might be, or how it might conflict with evidence and reality.

And we have the E-6 who killed 16 in Afghanistan who will probably be acquitted by a military jury, and is almost praised by many, already forgiven because of his PTSD status. I am utterly sympathetic to the PTSD thing, because I experienced a mild version of it myself decades ago. I can relate, but I cannot forgive.

And Bradly Manning is the counterpoint. He blew the whistle on government crimes, and was tortured for a year and pronounced guilty by his C-in-C even before a trial.

Things are crazy, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except perhaps for the obvious question of... Why wouldn't bin Laden have refuted this tape after it was released?

And I must ask again, because you've ignored it multiple times now... Does this also mean that you officially rescind your absolute claim that the tape in question is fraudulent?

booNy, honestly, are you reading anything I’m saying? :lol:

I have all but spelt it out already…

If bin Laden were under house arrest, he was not free to release whatever statement he wanted. Any message from him came through the intermediaries that were his imprisoners. In Pakistan that would be elements of the ISI with deep-rooted links to elements of the CIA. The messages could be vetted - released, withheld or adjusted as necessary - to suit the desired agenda.

That is why we get the CIA director stating of the 2004 tape, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."

That is why John McCain said, "Bin Laden May Have Just Given Us A Little Boost".

That is why we get ‘bin Laden’ validating the Iraq War (see below).

That is why we get ‘bin Laden’ vindicating the U.S. prosecution in the Moussaoui trial.

Because it ain’t bin Laden speaking!

It’s like if you had to pass all of your UM posts through me, i.e. you could not post directly to the boards, and wanted to get a message out. If I didn’t want you to get that message out, I’d just delete the text. I might even add my own text to have your message say what I want.

It would be the same for bin Laden but with audio editting.

Of course the tapes were passed through couriers. Nobody thinks that bin Laden walked up to Al Jazeera himself. So who did deliver the tapes?

You pose the perfect question though; Who knows?

Now you are asking questions like a real investigator – I never thought I’d see the day!

I’ll give a hint as to who might have delivered the tapes…

Where did we first hear about the February 12th, 2003 audio tape? Surely Al Jazeera or some Al Qaeda website broke the news? Well no, existence of the transcript was brought to the world by Colin Powell, in the U.S. Senate. Yes, U.S. sources somehow had the full transcript before Al Jazeera even located the tape.

It appears the U.S. source jumped the gun.

Incidentally, that particular audio tape was another full of fabrication. Check the date: one month prior the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Lo and behold, there is ‘bin Laden’ declaring allegiance with Saddam Hussein – what a gift!

The Bush administration could not have planned it better in their wildest dreams!

Look at the media reports: -

"This just reinforces that bad guys hang with other bad guys, that they swim in the same cesspool," the official said.

The tape surfaced at a time when the Bush administration is preparing for a possible war with Iraq and is trying to strengthen its argument that there is a link between al Qaeda and the Islamic nation led by Saddam Hussein.

How fortunate the tape surfaced at just the time to support Bush’s argument!

What an absolute pile of crap - there was nothing ‘fortunate’ about it.

It is now known the propaganda was shaped to draw a bin Laden/Hussein connection.

The U.S. had been hunting down bin Laden for years, even before 9/11. Who in the U.S. would protect him? Someone associated with the Bush/Cheney administration?

Wahaaay! You are getting good at this.

Yes of course the Neocon administration would want the figurehead for their ‘War on Terror’ to remain at large.

Read that excerpt from the U.S. Senate report again in my post #91… at the point bin Laden could have been captured, whose decision was it, “not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape”? Why it’s one of our upper-tier Neocons - Donald Rumsfeld.

And don’t be fooled into thinking the same faction were, “hunting down bin Laden for years”.

In September 2001, Bush said bin Laden was wanted, “Dead or Alive”.

But 6 months after, Bush stated, “I’m truly not that concerned about him” and, “He himself tries to hide… if in fact he’s hiding at all. I don’t know where he is. I just don’t spend that much time on him. To be honest with you, I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong… ”

And days later, April 2002, Rumsfeld is reported describing bin Laden as “neutralized”. However could he be so sure? Oh yeah… it was Rumsfeld’s order that allowed bin Laden to cross into Pakistan unhindered.

And they just decided to let Obama take credit for finally nabbing bin Laden?

No. Let Obama? Who says Operation Neptune Spear was not genuine? Well ok, I know many do, but not me. To me the operation appears entirely genuine and the suggested reason and logic put forward for ‘staging’ of the event is weak.

Let’s say some CIA agent picked up on bin Laden’s location and Obama took the necessary action – that’s the official story right? I’m cool with that. The apparent fact that bin Laden was in confinement by the ISI and U.S. forces went in on a kill mission is enough.

It is so confusing. All of the details of these conspiracy theories have my head spinning. How can you keep it all straight?

That is a problem.

However, once all of the facts are collected and pieced together, the events are clear.

You don't have a chain of evidence do you? You are accepting some tapes as genuine (like his denial, and accepting his word of denial too it would seem...) but you aren't following your own standards of evidence for their acceptance. Why is that?

I admit to not having the same level of concern prior to bin Laden’s December 2001 ISI internment in Pakistan. After that it went quiet… so far as to lead many to believe bin Laden may already have been dead. It is from that point that the tapes became suspicious…

The authenticity of the first tape after December 2001 was disputed by independent analysts who said it could not be confirmed as bin Laden. The second tape after, was the one promoting the bin Laden/Hussein connection, providing fuel for the Iraq war, discussed above. The third tape to follow was an undated piece of stock video footage. And the fourth, the 2004 videotape reported as bin Laden’s first real ‘confession’, contradicting his two previous denials.

It is at the point when bin Laden effectively disappeared, with the messages becoming both suspicious and contradictory, and those held up as evidence of his guilt, which should come under greatest scrutiny.

I'm not calling a guilty verdict either.

Ok :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Stellar.

Americans in particular have been conditioned for years to believe the government in whatever it says, no matter how absurd the statement might be, or how it might conflict with evidence and reality.

And we have the E-6 who killed 16 in Afghanistan who will probably be acquitted by a military jury, and is almost praised by many, already forgiven because of his PTSD status. I am utterly sympathetic to the PTSD thing, because I experienced a mild version of it myself decades ago. I can relate, but I cannot forgive.

And Bradly Manning is the counterpoint. He blew the whistle on government crimes, and was tortured for a year and pronounced guilty by his C-in-C even before a trial.

Things are crazy, no doubt.

Yes... a prime example, even here, is to provide a source or a link which 99% of the time is only believed if its a MSM link regardless if the source is an "unidentified white house official who declined to give his name because he's not authorized to speak to the media".

... and grown adults believe it and repeat the erroneous claims as fact.

The NYT newspaper's sources was used to propagate the build-up to the Iraq war just this way. And we all know now that the Iraq invasion was an un-just invasion built on lies and faulty intelligence. Yet was anybody fired or tried in a court of law for their false testimonies?.... not yet!

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering…

Have bin Laden’s wives, who were imprisoned in the compound with him, been allowed to speak out yet? Surely they are a prime source of information on bin Laden’s killing, plus whereabouts and circumstances prior 2011.

I checked and, apparently not.

After their detention for nearly a year, the women have just this month been charged on an immigration violation carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. All in the public domain are a few second-hand quotes… passed through the ISI, of course.

Why am I not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the wives were to speak out, they might say that OBL had been dead for years. Can't have that. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the wives were to speak out, they might say that OBL had been dead for years. Can't have that. :ph34r:

The wives might say a lot of things given the opportunity - more likely they will disappear and not be heard from again.

The same happened to bin Laden’s first trainer and alleged Al Qaeda security director, Ali Mohammed… who also happened to be a U.S. special forces officer, U.S. intelligence informant and lived in the United States – you couldn’t make it up. After his ‘arrest’ in 1998 (it appears, to withdraw Mohammed safely from his longterm Al Qaeda infiltration)… Mohammed disappeared with no record of sentencing on his trial.

The last comment on the matter came from his wife in 2006: “He's still not sentenced yet, and without him being sentenced I really can't say much. He can't talk to anybody. Nobody can get to him. They have Ali pretty secretive... it's like he just kinda vanished into thin air.”

At least there are rumours of a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial coming this year – a bit of an Obama showpiece for election year it seems. Though it will not be the civilian court that Obama originally wanted, rather a closed-door military trial with very limited access to reporters.

If it goes ahead, it’s only taken 9 years to arrange :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kangaroo Courts are becoming the hallmark of the US government, ESPECIALLY those regarding the Global War On Terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Ladin had been officially killed 9 times prior to compound shoot out, check it out for yourself. The USA don't need this bogey man for wars nor saddam these puppets have been literally fired, the new bogey man is Asad, and Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Ladin had been officially killed 9 times prior to compound shoot out, check it out for yourself. The USA don't need this bogey man for wars nor saddam these puppets have been literally fired, the new bogey man is Asad, and Iran

I don’t think those occasions were particularly “official” or “confirmed” but I know what you’re saying – there were numerous prior reports of bin Laden’s death from December 2001 onward to May 2011 from legitimate sources. Not all of those reports can be accurate… all but one were lying or fed false information. The better to deter the search, I’d say.

But how do we know which report to believe?

For a number of reasons I think the evidence leans heavily toward bin Laden being killed in that compound on May 2nd, 2011. I had intended to set out those reasons in this post. However, in attempting that, I realized it really is very difficult with the evidence available to prove that any one report of bin Laden’s death should be accepted over another.

As mentioned, most of the reports were false. How can I convince anyone that the U.S. word alone is entirely truthful on this occasion? That is the bed that decades of U.S. propaganda has made for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Ladin had been officially killed 9 times prior to compound shoot out, check it out for yourself. The USA don't need this bogey man for wars nor saddam these puppets have been literally fired, the new bogey man is Asad, and Iran

Roger that! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know which report to believe? Good question!!

If it is true that OBL was a dialysis patient, then a safe assumption might be that the earlier reports might be more accurate. Dialysis patients are fragile and must do if frequently and forever.

I Benazir Bhutto had it right, and her death came not long after her public statement on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know which report to believe? Good question!!

Yes, even though I believe bin Laden was most likely killed in the compound raid, it is tough to argue because at the end of the day I’d be asking people to believe the U.S. word over another.

If it is true that OBL was a dialysis patient, then a safe assumption might be that the earlier reports might be more accurate. Dialysis patients are fragile and must do if frequently and forever.

I personally knew a guy who was on dialysis for ten years so wouldn’t let that sway judgment too much.

I Benazir Bhutto had it right, and her death came not long after her public statement on the matter.

“Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden”

~Benazir Bhutto, Nov. 2nd, 2007

That statement came less than two months before her death and only two weeks before Pakistan’s elections (where she was lead opposition to U.S. and British ally, Pervez Musharraf) – perhaps a combination of those reasons, but certainly the latter, were motive for the assassination.

Bhutto did contradict her own statement at a later date, but whether that was intended to cover the revelation who knows. Of all the names to mistakenly drop, those two fit a little too well.

Where it becomes really interesting is when we know Omar Sheikh is a British national of Pakistani descent, with close connection to both MI6 and the ISI… oh, and he happens to be the ‘Al Qaeda’ boy reported to have wired $100,000 to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. That report was later alleged to be another mix up… yeah, it’s all just a big coincidental mix up, I’m sure.

So Bhutto (remember – she is the main opposition to British ally, Musharraf, and has just accused a British intelligence asset of murdering bin Laden) is assassinated. And then it happens the British government send out special investigators to bring us the ‘facts’ of her death from this foreign country (why were the British so interested?)… and the report turns out to be a complete cover up of the circumstances…

Bhutto was killed by a bomb, the force of which knocked her into the sunroof lever putting a hole in her head, and there was one attacker, a classic terrorist attack… the British said. It is utter poppycock; a barefaced lie. The bomb was a ruse to make it look like a terrorist attack. Fact is, Bhutto was shot in the head. For whatever reason, both the attackers and British wanted to frame it as something else.

Look, the gunman fires, her veil lifts and she goes down before the bomb blast: -

They never did catch the suited man in the shades who fired the shots.

Could Bhutto have been correct that Omar Sheikh, a British intelligence asset, murdered bin Laden, before the circumstances of her own assassination were then covered up by the British? I wouldn’t rule it out.

Hmm hard to know who or what to believe when it comes to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The contradictions alone tell us there is more to the story than on the surface. What I do know is that the fingerprints of intelligence services are all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Q, but your dialysis friend wasn't living in the deserts of Southwest Asia. :rolleyes:

Thanks very much for that link, I had never seen it before.

The safe thing to believe is that the government makes stuff up as a default position. I assume it's a lie, and then if later evidence proves otherwise, then I might change my mind.

I wonder if Busharoff knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes Q, but your dialysis friend wasn't living in the deserts of Southwest Asia. :rolleyes:

No my friend didn’t live in the desert, but nearly as remote hehe - toward the end, when treatment was required on a more daily basis, he had a dialysis machine installed in his house to save the round trip to hospital.

Anyhow, bin Laden wasn’t living in the middle of nowhere; for the 5-6 years prior 2011, the story is that he lived in a high concentration military catchment area, a little over an hour from the capital. I don’t see any reason he couldn’t have had access to a dialysis machine… especially with the ISI as his guard.

I wonder if Busharoff knew?

Well, after Musharraf was ousted, a Pakistan court raised an arrest warrant for his alleged connection to the assassination of Bhutto. Fortunately for him, he is now in exile in… London. Yes, it looks as though “Busharoff” and the Brits had involvement in the assassination.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that!! :w00t:

Thanks for all that info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think OBL has been dead for a decade.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think OBL has been dead for a decade.

I'm in shock that you don't "know" it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really annoying how anything to do with the US is a conspiracy. Some are laughable like the death of mj,elvis and monroe. Some are serious though like 9/11 and the oc bombing. I'm not saying i believe or disbelieve any of them but it's always US related. I'm from Glasgow Scotland btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point Camarel.

Perhaps Ike's comments in 1961 are somehow connected to what you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this event really happened no 1 priority capture alive bring him back like Sadam parade him as a trophy have him executed by some indigenous faction the U.S wants to ally with milk it out through the whole election process, when you don't have something you hide it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really annoying how anything to do with the US is a conspiracy. Some are laughable like the death of mj,elvis and monroe. Some are serious though like 9/11 and the oc bombing. I'm not saying i believe or disbelieve any of them but it's always US related. I'm from Glasgow Scotland btw

You are right, it is annoying. Why is there always a conspiracy? I believe it is because we rely on ONE source, the US Federal government. And they seem to be very selective in the details they provide. Normally, there would be nothing wrong, the word of the police is fact, the word of the suspect is denial of the obvious.

That is, until you catch the AAA uncontestable government in lies often enough that you begin to wonder "Why would they lie about that?" "What would stop them from doing other bad things?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it wrong if I don't care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong or right, not caring is typical.

It is a psychological thing, not wanting to ruin or threaten one's worldview. Normal behavior for a large part of the populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.