Osama bin Laden: Terror Mastermind with Nine Lives

The recent fanfare on May 1st 2011 from the screenwriters in the mainstream media over the US government’s announcement of the US Navy SEALs’ killing of Osama bin Laden reminds us once again how mainstream journalism requires Orwell’s memory hole in order to function. After all, this isn’t the first time we’ve been told bin Laden is dead. Like a bad action movie franchise bereft of new ideas and forced to regurgitate the same tired concepts with each sequel, rumours of bin Laden’s death have surfaced so many times since this uber-boogeyman allegedly carried out 9/11 that one can’t help but wonder if this “criminal mastermind” is actually "a cat with nine lives"…

Full Article

The Growing Coverup: Osama and "The Big Lie"

The desperation is palpable. Just days since the “big announcement”, Obama administration officials have already been forced to backpedal, issuing multiple corrections, adding to the confusion over the location of the killing, whether bin Laden was armed or unarmed, whether there was a “fire fight”, if an alleged wife was involved, the burial at sea, whether to release “graphic photos”, etc. The mainstream corporate media---following approved CIA/White House narratives---is spewing and regurgitating a tidal wave of red herrings that add to the inconsistencies.

Seasoned observers will not be fooled, no matter how many Obama lies, doctored photos, fake footage, lurid new testimonials and CIA pronouncements are pushed forth. As put simply by Paul Craig Roberts:

“As the alleged body has been dumped into the ocean, nothing remains but the word of the US government, which lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, about yellowcake, about Iranian nukes, and, according to thousands of experts, about 9/11. Suddenly the government is telling us the truth about bin Laden’s death? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll let you have for a good price.”

Full Article

Nailing Osama Bin Laden: Was it a military or a media operation? Why now?

The tip on bin Laden’s whereabouts came in back in 2010. You have to assume the house was under surveillance. If they thought they “bagged him” they would be watching closely and choosing the right time to deep six the target (I actually wrote this lead paragraph sentence before reading this “Breaking News” from the Washington Post: “CIA had secret outpost in Abbottabad”).

“The CIA maintained a safe house in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad for a small team of spies who conducted extensive surveillance over a period of months on the compound where Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. special operations forces this week (U.S. officials).”
​

Both Afghan agents and Pakistani intelligence now say they told the US about the house as early as 2001.

So, they knew he was there. That was a reason drones weren’t used.

The CIA wanted a more controlled high profile and dramatic intervention for public consumption, for what, in the end, was a marketing campaign— marketing the centrality of the agency’s role in a war whose main audience is not on the battlefield, but in the homeland.

They needed a heroic narrative to revive support for a war they have been losing, and a scalp to sell to a conflict-weary and disillusioned population. It is no surprise that the Seals labeled UBL “Geronimo” reviving memories of fighting guerilla-style Indian wars. Muslim renegades are apparently our new “savages.”

The Native Americans took their enemy’s head and hair—Donald Trump, beware; we shoot out their eyes and waterboard their brains.

The target was not “the terror mastermind” but the American people. It was an exercise in political mobilization and perception management. It was the ultimate media operation, relying on many of the tactics used in Iraq that I document in my film “WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception.”

We are as conscious about what we say as what we do, we always fashion a propaganda storyline demonizing the enemy who is often compared to Hitler. Bin Laden lived in a “million dollar mansion” (It cost $48,000 to buy six years ago). He was heavily armed (he wasn’t). He hid behind female human shields (he didn’t). Who cares about facts... this was a TV orchestrated event. The Daily Mail in London complained that their raising questions led to being derided as “cheese eating surrender monkeys.”

They could have captured him, but that would lead to the hassle of putting him on trial. Besides, what if he revealed his long connection with the CIA and US officials? Can't have that. So the kill order was given, along with a quick disposal of the body, mafia-style (as in “sleeping with the fishes)."

The legal justification was self-defense, an argument that any government can use to dispatch its enemies.

Why was it done, and why now?

Full Article

 

I agree but when you are trying to fabricate a farce like this current episode of Bin Laden's death national security doesn't count. The only time it counts is when the government and media are trying to hide something from us.

 

Salty,

My saintly old grandmother used to say that "you are the only bible some folks will ever read."

Looking around here and in the churches today people might as well be reading comic books.

As I posted in another thread (speaking about double standards)

"This is another reason why I am ashamed of being counted among the ranks of "professing" Christians today. People automatically assume I am just like so many of you because of the examples (such as double standards) you set."