"But conspiracy theories aside. Really, let's give the US government the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that they are not lying, and that Bin Laden was really killed in that compound."
This article has been recently updated 6th May 2011.
The US authorities have trumpeted the death of Osama Bin Laden after a recent successful US military operation in Pakistan. Questions have been raised over the release of a fake photo of his death (above image) that was used by several mainstream newspapers until the fakery was reported, and the image pulled. However, that is only the beginning of the story...
9/11 activist Jon Gold wrote an excellent piece titled "The Facts Speak For Themselves" which he has added to over the years. In the article, there is an interesting chronology of the various reports over the years concerning Bin Laden's state of health or death:-
Over the years, there have been several reports indicating that Osama Bin Laden is dead.
On 12/26/2001, Fox News reported that “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication.”
On 1/18/2002, President Pervez Musharraf says, “I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient.”
On 7/18/2002, the FBI’s counter-terroism chief Dale Watson says, “I am not really sure of the answer… I personally think he is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that.”
On 10/7/2002, President Hamid Karzai says that Bin Laden is probably dead.
On 10/16/2002, Israeli intelligence sources report that Osama is dead.
On 10/23/2005, a Multan newspaper reports that Osama Bin Laden, “died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness.”
On 3/15/2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports about a claim by then Rep. Curt Weldon that Osama Bin Laden died in Iran.
On 9/23/2006, it is reported that “a French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.” President Chirac said this was “in no way whatsoever confirmed.”
Recently, former CIA official Robert Baer said that he thinks Osama is dead.
On 6/30/2008, Time released an article entitled, “Is Osama bin Laden Dying … Again?”
Bare in mind - that some of the links in the above quote may no longer work. So I suggest that readers enter them into the http://web.archive.org/ machine for retrieval.
Does the above chronology constitute proof of prior death? No, it doesn't. But it's something to keep in mind.
The alleged DNA test of Bin Laden's body (occurring within 24 hours) and the alleged wife of Bin Laden confirming the body - doesn't neccessarily constitute cast-iron proof that Bin Laden was killed in the recent operation. These claims do come from a government that lied its way into several wars (including concocting evidence about WMD's). Some people are making very speculative claims that the DNA test could have been from Bin Laden's body which may have been lying in a morgue somewhere in Pakistan. Really?
I would argue that it is not wise to start arguing about the credibility of the DNA issue. It seems he could well have been identified within a short time:-
I suppose conspiracy theorists could have a laugh and take a look at how Pope John Paul II died in 2005 as well as point fingers at the timing in which he was recently dragged out for his somewhat morbid "beatification" ceremony. For all we know, they could've done the same with Osama? Really? Yes, it does make for an amusing conspiracy theory...
But conspiracy theories aside. Really, let's give the US government the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that they are not lying, and that Bin Laden was really killed in that compound. Congratulations - it has been a decade and trillions of dollars and many lives that have been lost in order to hunt down and kill one man. One man who allegedly had a Pakistani ISI "handling officer":-
On 10/19/2007, B. Raman reported that “Brig Ejaz Shah, a former officer of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence” [...] “used to be the handling officer of Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar, the amir of the Taliban.” When I asked Mr. Raman “What does it mean to be Osama Bin Laden’s “Handling Officer” for the Pakistani ISI? What is the responsibility of the person that has this particular job?” his response was, “The handling officer of a source in Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies is the person who looks after the welfare of the source, keeps him motivated and uses him as needed. The source cannot meet anybody else other than his handling officer except the head of the agency. One source–one handling officer is the general rule. This is to prevent the exposure of the operation and maintain its deniability. I understand in the CIA they call him the Running Officer of a source.”
Source: - (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact36)
There is more information on Ejaz Shah here - including sources that point to him working with ISI officers (even though he was no longer a member of the ISI) as well as protecting the terrorist Saeed Sheikh:-
There are some important and basic facts to summarise about Osama Bin Laden:-
* Bin Laden has never been indicted for the 9/11 attacks.
* Bin Laden has released contradictory statements about his involvement in the attacks - most of them being denials.
* Bin Laden has not been regarded by the US authorites as the 9/11 mastermind (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been alleged to be the mastermind, but he has been tortured and admitted making up stories - albeit one should not assume he is innocent either).
* Bin Laden was found to be residing close to an important Pakistani military facility.
(All those facts - and more - are listed in Jon Gold's article "The Facts Speak For Themselves" which was recently updated http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/).
US Sen. Carl Levin stated that the Pakistani military and ISI have lots of explaining to do:-
"I think the Pakistani army and intelligence have a lot of questions to answer, given the location, the length of time and the apparent fact that this facility was actually built for bin Laden and its closeness to the central location of the Pakistani army," Levin said. "So I think the army and the intelligence of Pakistan have plenty of questions that they should be answering and hopefully they are being asked by the Pakistani government."
Obama's counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told CBS News that Bin Laden had apparently been living in that secure facility "for the past five or six years". Mr Brennan also stated that "we know that he had released videos and audios. We know that he was in contact with some senior al Qaeda officials.."
And then this from Democracy Now:-
The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail is reporting a local police source in Abbottabad said bin Laden’s compound was also used by Hizbul Mujahideen, a Pakistani militant group active in Kashmir that many believe has the support of Pakistani security services.Meanwhile, the Pakistani government is claiming it warned U.S. intelligence two years ago about the compound where bin Laden was killed.
So if the Pakistani authorities were likely aware of his presence there for so long.....why take Bin Laden out now?
Stefan Molyneux has a theory......
Here are what I regard as the most important questions here:-
Why is the US government confronting the Pakistani ISI when the US government worked closely with the Pakistani ISI before and after 9/11 and even allegedly worked with people who had close ties to Al Qaeda.
9/11 activist Jon Gold writes:-
The planning of the recent Mumbai "terrorist attacks" are said to have originated in Pakistan. There are allegations that Pakistan was involved in the 9/11 attacks as well. Since 9/11, Pakistan has been considered to be an ally, or partner in the "War On Terror." Why would the U.S. become an ally with, and reward a country that was allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks? Wasn't it Bush who said, "we will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them?" Could it be because during the Bush Administration, Pakistan policy was "essentially being run from Cheney's office?"Here are some unanswered questions raised by the Family Steering Committee of the 9/11 Commission (i.e. the people who spear-headed the fight for the creation of the Commission and who were regarded as "essential" by the Commission staffers):-
On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:
· Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?
· What was Mahmood Ahmed's relationship with Al Qaeda?
· Where did the money come from?
· Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?
· On September 11 th , Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?
The following is a video that I created a while ago that briefly explores the close ties between the Pakistani ISI and CIA before and after 9/11:-
Why did the 9/11 Commission refuse to even mention allegations against members of the Pakistani ISI, especially that of General Mahmoud Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh? Is General Mahmoud Ahmed still in Rawalpindi, or is he in Lahore? Why did the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission also try and create a false link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Why did he shy people away from the NSA? Why did he write a complete outline of the final report before the commissioners even started their work? Why did he prevent commission staffers from seeing the 28 redacted pages that allegedly talked about Saudi Arabian government connections to the attacks? Why is Obama still refusing to unclassify those pages? Why wasn't there follow-up reports concerning allegations that Pakistani lobbies gave money to 9/11 Commission staff in order that they be nice to Pakistan? Lots of questions remain unanswered - but the most disturbing story of 9/11 comes from the way the American (and British) government protected and covered-up information that suggested Saeed Sheikh and Mahmoud Ahmed were involved in the 9/11 plot - much to the ire of members of the Family Steering Committee of the 9/11 Commission. The idea that the US intelligence agencies were not aware of Saeed Sheikh's activities before 9/11 and in the months after 9/11 - is not credible. If he was in close touch with Al Qaeda, and if he indeed wired money from the Pakistani ISI to an Al Qaeda member and suspect (Mohammed Atta) via an alias - then this may well have been discovered upon a basic intelligence liason with the Pakistani ISI. Why was this not done? Why did the US government not bring up the topic of alleged 9/11-funding by Saeed Sheikh (as well as Mahmoud Ahmed) after Daniel Pearl was murdered?
There are a lot of leads that imply that Saeed Sheikh wired money to 9/11 hijackers, and History Commons is an excellent resource that covers the reporting:-
One of the entries is particularly revealing:-
September 24, 2001: Newsweek reports that the paymaster for the 9/11 attacks is someone named “Mustafa Ahmed.” [Newsweek, 10/1/2001] This refers to Mustafa Mahmoud Said Ahmed, an Egyptian al-Qaeda banker who was captured in Tanzania in 1998 then later released. [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/28/2001; Newsday, 10/3/2001]
October 1, 2001: The Guardian reports that the real name of “Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad” is “Sheikh Saeed.” [Guardian, 10/1/2001] A few days later, CNN confirms from a “senior-level US government source” that this “Sheik Syed” is the British man Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh rescued from an Indian prison in 1999. [CNN, 10/6/2001; CNN, 10/8/2001] However, starting on October 8, the story that ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed to give Mohamed Atta $100,000 begins to break. References to the 9/11 paymaster being the British Saeed Sheikh (and the connections to the ISI Director) suddenly disappear from the Western media (with one exception [CNN, 10/28/2001] ).
October 2001: Other articles continue to use “Mustafa Mohammed Ahmad” or “Shaykh Saiid” with no details of his identity, except for suggestions that he is Egyptian. There are numerous spelling variations and conflicting accounts over which name is the alias. There is an Egyptian al-Qaeda financier leader named Mustafa Abu al-Yazid who uses some variant of Saeed Sheikh as an alias. [Evening Standard, 10/1/2001; BBC, 10/1/2001; Newsday, 10/3/2001; Associated Press, 10/6/2001; Washington Post, 10/7/2001; Sunday Times (London), 10/7/2001; Knight Ridder, 10/9/2001; New York Times, 10/15/2001; Los Angeles Times, 10/20/2001]
Lots of leads talk about Omar Saeed Sheikh...then the trail gets obfuscated, mixed up with other names and aliases, and finally runs cold.
There is an interesting report in January 2002 by the Press Trust Of India that talks about a criminal known as Aftab Ansari and his alleged connections to Omar Saeed Sheikh:-
Linking Tuesday's shootout at American Centre in eastern Indian metropolis, Kolkata, with September 11 US strikes, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed FBI that the ransom money taken by Dubai underworld don Aftab Ansari to release a Kolkata shoe baron was used to finance Mohammed Atta, leader of the hijackers who rammed planes into buildings in Washington and New York.
CBI Director P C Sharma told visiting FBI Chief Robert S Mueller that Ansari, who claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack, had taken a ransom of Rs 37.5 million to free shoe baron Parthapratim Roy Burman through hawala channels to Dubai, CBI sources said.
Out of this amount, Omar Sheikh, one of the three militants released by India for the safety of hostages on board the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar, had sent 100,000 US Dollars to Atta through telegraphic transfer, CBI sources said. Sheikh, a British national, was an important leader of Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islamia (HuJI).
The sources said Ansari had been directed by Sheikh in August last year to establish a network to have covert operations launched through Bangladesh besides carrying out kidnappings to secure release of some hardcore militants from jails.
Ansari was cultivated by Pakistan's ISI in early 2000 for supporting covert operations in India, sources said, adding, shootout was a clear indication that some Pakistan-supported groups were targeting India through third countries.
(Continued here:- http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/pti012202.html)
An article in India Today on 25th February 2002 was titled "Ansari Had Pakistani Patronage and Sheikh is Linked To Al Qaida". The article also references Omar Saeed Sheikh's alleged connections to Ansari:-
A clip from an NBC report on the murder of Daniel Pearl mentions the fact that the US government secretly indicted Omar Saeed Sheikh for the kidnapping of another American in 1994. There was no official mention by the Justice Department about arresting him for suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 plot, although some US intelligence officials were inquiring about any connections that he may have had with Al Qaeda (and that is mentioned at the end of this brief report:-)
Regardless of any investigations....US authorities very likely already knew about Saeed Sheikh's ties with Al Qaeda. This, and the allegations against General Mahmoud Ahmed and the ISI involvement in 9/11 funding - were basically covered-up and left unaddressed. There were never calls for the arrests of Mahmoud Ahmed and Omar Saeed Sheikh based on this alleged involvement. Why?
Such issues of Pakistani ISI and CIA connections are part of some core questions when it comes to the unsolved crime of 9/11. And it seems that people want to ignore them and instead focus on whether Bin Laden was killed recently or not. Who cares when Bin Laden was killed? Ultimately, the time or nature of his death is not important and may well get pigeon-holed as an easy way to attack people who question the official account of 9/11. The real questions are the ones that are being ignored.