Death of Bin Laden: What Really Happened, When and Why?
Politics / US Politics Jul 03, 2011 - 05:36 AM GMTBy: Submissions
Forest Lane writes: In fact, if it were not for its two specific aspects, this recent Bin Laden’s departing - rather the virtual ‘reality‘, customarily maintained by Washington officials and mainstream media outlets, than actual one - should have been given no importance at all. After all, one can easily argue that given bin Laden was a mythical effigy manufactured by those officials and American propaganda they could do with their own semi-virtual creature whatever they wanted. But these two aspects: why now? and why in such a way? may prove to be something of considerable importance.
Since, unlike those mainstream vehicles mentioned, this publication is read by many beings who can actually be identified as sentient ones, I won’t insult their intelligence by pointing to all glaring incongruities which the official presentation of the matter contained, especially if we consider how the situation was unfolding in time. Suffice it to say that every single detail of Obama’s initial statement concerning the mission in question - the ‘target’ using his wife as human shield, being armed and killed in a firefight - had been edited in less than 48 hours. Yes, even that “firefight” thing. How could someone who followed the proceedings live - and we all have seen the officially released by the White House pictures of Obama and his team peering at their monitors - confuse a firefight with its absence remains a mystery which amounts to that of the exact substance of the brains of those who meant such surreal nonsense to be unquestioningly swallowed.
Nor will I waste the readers’ time by providing any rebuttal to all those idiotic ‘justifications‘ of the instant easing the main evidence into the sea. Because everything is as plain as day. Had it been any actual evidence available there we would have most definitely seen it. Among all those ’conspiracy theories’ this story has given rise to undoubtedly the most unbelievable of all is that US national security officers, who spent a decade and massive financial as well as all other sorts of resources chasing the “most dangerous individual on the face of the earth”, when at last succeeded would get instantly rid of this individual’s body through dumping it into the sea. But the question still remains: why was it staged now? and why in this way?
Some would argue that it had everything to do with boosting Obama’s dying approval ratings - especially taking into account that it did work out to some extent. But it’s a long way until the election while this ’success’ will certainly be short-lived. Besides bin Laden was too important - not as a person, but as a concept - to be wasted on such a disposable puppet as Obama. After all, all US bellicose foreign policies of the last decade, three full-scale wars of choice and the global War on Terror were in a certain way based on this concept. Washington murderous demagogues and their scholarly minions even procreated that insane academic aberration which seriously attempted to justify the use of all military might of the “sole remaining superpower” with its military budget exceeding those of all developed countries combined not against another superpower or something comparable in scale but against this fabled singular individual.
So, regardless when bin Laden actually departed as a living being, to dispose of him as a concept he should become of no value to the US as such first. But before considering this aspect of the timing of the event in question, let’s touch upon its purely technical suplement. Why US national security officials were prepared to provide photography (hardly a problem in the age of Photoshop), but also DNA, fingerprints; however, not a body? Why was a campaign instantly initiated in the mainstream media with all sorts of
counterterrorism and Special Operations experts reiterating often anonymously and always unanimously that “there are more reasons not to do an autopsy in this case than to do one“, “it is certainly not necessary to establish identity” and ““the forensic work will be confined to identification”?
We know that in the course of the last decade many sources which one would have to deem quite knowledgeable on the matter repeatedly stated that bin Laden was dead. Moreover some of them, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright included, pointed out that despite the hunters in this chase of the century were perfectly in control of the process it could come to its fruition only when “the most politically expedient moment” to announce the end of the saga arrived. Here are just a few such testimonials:
- On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.
- In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN that “I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead.
- On July 17, 2002, the then-head of counterterrorism at the FBI, Dale Watson, told a conference of law enforcement officials that “I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore.”
- On January 18, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced: “I think now, frankly, he is dead.”
- On December 26, 2001, Fox News, citing a Pakistan Observer story, reported that the Afghan Taliban had pronounced Bin Laden dead and buried him in an unmarked grave.
In addition to it, in April 2002, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, stated that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”. Pieczenik would certainly be in a position to know such information, having worked directly with Bin Laden when the US was financing, arming and indoctrinating the latter in an attempt to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the late '70s and early '80s. And he was probably right on this one. However, some other high level Republican source told Alex Jones of
Infowars.com, as it was reported by the site in August 2002, that bin Laden was dead and that his corpse was “physically on ice” waiting for that “most politically expedient” moment. And, while the first part of this statement might evidently very well be true, the second part was probably still inaccurate.
What did really happen? Look at the last entry in the list above once again - it might contain all necessary clues. What if bin Laden actually died then - or years ago at any rate - for whatever reasons and was buried by the Taliban in such a way that US personnel simply had no idea about the location of his burial place? It would explain everything and answer all the questions posed above. It’s quite possible that some time ago US representatives had discovered this place or been informed in respect of its location. And thus acquired all what they needed to stage this final act - of course, with certain inescapable restrictions. That’s why we could be presented with DNA evidences, but not the body itself. Had it been stored “on ice” all the time, they could have gone as far with their play as an autopsy. Given not quite ideal medical conditions of Tora Bora and its vicinities, especially if six feet under, they simply had no other choice but to arrange the final touch in the fashion of a Camorra operation with the problem slipping quietly into the sea.
Still, why now - not in technical but in conceptual terms? It’s simple. Because by now bin Laden has ‘expired’ precisely as a concept. For a decade his existence in this role served as the main excuse for the global “crusade against terrorism” - America’s outright war of conquest, driven solely by its (or rather its elite’s) strategic and economic interests. Prior to it the excuse for interventions into internal affairs of sovereign states was opposing the threat of communism. But now the situation has changed. Half of the world suspects that the 9/11 events were an inside job. The other half is convinced that it was the case. The crumbling American empire and all ’developed democratic countries’ are on the verge of a systemic collapse, both in economic and political terms.
Given the masses’ slowly awakening consciousness and inevitable upcoming global economic disaster, the War on Terror which was used by the US and its allies to untie one's hands to employ their military capacities unilaterally (but locally) and ‘legitimize’ their resorting to war as the last means to sustain this crumbling empire is not good enough for them anymore. This kind of disaster requires equally global and equally radical distraction/excuse. The only thing that will do is overall destabilization of the situation around the world. The only thing that makes a match is stealth sliding into WW3. Such a thing in turn needs a global indulgence to be used in the process. Such an indulgence is to be constituted by relatively recently introduced into international law and actively promoted at the moment the concept of “responsibility to protect”.
The testing - not for the first time - of that concept on an actual country we are witnessing now in Libya. It’s not just an aggression against the sovereign state under a fake humanitarian cover. And oil is very far from being the only reason behind this aggression. It is practical implementing of the new paradigmatic shift in US and global elite’s policies in the region which Washington officials have been quite overtly voiced for years now. Its objective is a total destabilization of the situation in this region and subsequently in the world at large. In accordance with new realities of this mission terrorism is not an enemy anymore. Once again it is an ally. Western powers sponsored ’rebels’ in Libya comprised to a considerable degree of the same terrorist fighters that form Al-Qaeda groups in Iraq and Afghanistan are those forces which are helping now the West to topple Gaddafi. Thus the crumbling Western Empire is dragging the whole world along with it towards an abyss.
This is why it’s hard to overestimate the importance of stopping this cynical butchery in Libya, shedding light on profound hypocrisy of those who are behind this exercise in ’humanitarian’ taking lives that is sold as protecting them, and calling things which are going on in the country by their right name. And the second really alarming aspect of this bin Laden’s poorly arranged departure. Becoming ever more incompetent lies of the ruling elites and their puppet governments are not a good sign at all. It might mean that those elites feel prepared to undertake some radical steps in the very near future that may render all those “subtleties” pertinent to the processes aimed at deceiving the masses simply unimportant. Which says a lot about the destination we are obviously headed for.
By Forrest Lane
Forrest Lane is a former tennis analyst and private financial consultant and currently a screenwriter. He can be reached at: citizen.lane@lycos.com.
© 2011 Copyright Forrest Lane - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
