May 6, 2011

Inconsistencies in the Osama Bin Laden story

First thing I want to know:

If it's true what they first said, that they have facial imaging technology to confirm that their target was indeed Osama, and the folks in the Whitehouse really did see the whole thing go down as it happened, why are the details of the story changing every time they tell it?

First version of events: Osama lived in a multi-million dollar mansion, there was a firefight, and Osama went down guns blazing. He hid behind a women and used her as a human shield. She was killed. He was killed.

Second version of events: Osama lived in a relatively expensive house in the suburbs. There was a firefight, but Osama wasn't armed, but had to be killed, because he violently resisted arrest. The lady in question wasn't actually killed, she was injured when a stray bullet hit her in the leg. She was later taken to a hospital.

Third version of events: Osama lived in a concrete chicken coop. Only one person fired a gun, he was killed. Everybody else was disbursed throughout the house, but were unarmed. They were either shot and killed or arrested. The lady in question was actually shot and killed, but Osama didn't hide behind her, she used her own body to protect him out of her own free will.

Now there are weird bastard child versions of all three events floating around news agencies on the web.

These are all drastically different versions of what happened. Drastically different. If a 10 year old kid told me a story like this and changed the details around as much as the White House has, I would tell that kid to his face that I thought he was lying to me.

Especially if that kid had a long history of lying to me.
Like about how Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Like the circumstances around Pat Tillman's death.
Like the Jessica Lynch "rescue."
Like how in the 1990s iraqi military pulled kuwaiti babies out of incubators and threw them onto bayonets. [pdf]
Like that flight 93 was shot down (or that it was crashed by the passengers? Or was it both?)
Like the Anthrax attacks after 9-11 being from Saddam Hussein (it was from a US military base.)

I don't fault conspiracy theorists for thinking everything the government says is a deception. Our government faces a crisis of legitimacy, like the boy who cried wolf.

Second thing I want to know:

Why is it that we're so goddamned surprised that Pakistan's ISI "didn't know" where Osama was? Really? Because it was reported in mainstream news a long time ago, that Pakistan's ISI was letting Al Qaeda use their training camps. Yeah. ISI training camps were Al Qaeda training camps. We knew this BEFORE the wikileaks report, in which we learn our own government knew this was true, and has known for some time.

Why don't these news reporters get off their ass and do FIVE MINUTES of investigation of their OWN NEWS AGENCY REPORTS. BBC anchors are wondering aloud why Pakistan didn't know where Osama Bin Laden was. And the BBC reported that Mohammad Atta's paymaster was an official in the ISI. And the BBC reported that the ISI's camps were used be Al Qaeda.

Here's an article from the NYTimes in July of last year, that all but says this was the case.

This film, "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions" was one of the first "truther" films. It was produced by the Guerilla News Network, a pioneer in internet based news, the organization has since gone defunct. But their material is still floating around. There is conjecture in this film, and also lots of facts. One fact reported on in this film, is that the ISI and Al Qaeda trained at the same camps. Wikileaks confirms this.

Third thing I want to know:

This is all looking shady as fuck. The Pentagon is paying money to Pakisatn's ISI, and the ISI is giving money to Al Qaeda.
Is it that the Pentagon is THAT STUPID? Quite possibly. We have been, after all, paying off the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to move weapons and supplies to our troops who are fighting with... the Taliban.

But it's easy with just the few facts and anomalies here, to make an assumption that 9-11 was a self-inflicted wound either on purpose or on accident, or that the story of Osama Bin Ladens death is a "Wag the Dog" moment. There is also no actual proof of that. But you have to ask yourself:



  1. Shady indeed. Burial at sea? What was he a fucking VIKING?

    The Patriot act has always frightened me. So many times I've worried about what would happen to me because I question authority. The Patriot act is a VICTORY for terrorists.

  2. Heres a video from a channel devoted to debunking 9/11 truth claims about Flight 93. As for the other incidents, I don't have a problem with those, they're correct.

    I'm pretty skeptical of anything from 9/11 truthers though, because they are proven liars and manipulators themselves.

  3. A problem that I have with the 9-11 truth movement is what they mean by that is THEIR VERSION of the truth. They aren't interested in anything that runs counter to their own claims.

    Early on, I questioned the official story surrounding 9-11 and concidered myself a part of that movement.

    But what started out as reasonable questions about emergency preparedness and the refusal by the Bush Administration to form an investigaton, soon devolved into people saying that Israel was behind it, or that the Trilateral Comission was behind it, or that the planes were remote controlled, or that the towers were actually holograms, or claiming that controlled demolition was used on the twin towers.

    They've got the scientific method all wrong. You don't start with a conclusion and then search for evidence. You start with evidence and build a conclusion, or multiple possible conclusions, based on the evidence.