Pakistan knowledge of Bin Laden's Location

fee fi fo fum

I see the compound in Abbottabad has now been demolished, just completed yesterday.

Timing was unfortunate really given the recent Wikileaks and records of a monthly payment to a 'Geronimo' handled by one Fred Burton.

mod: Split from Seals thread

Jonny7

fee fi fo fum wrote: »

I see the compound in Abbottabad has now been demolished, just completed yesterday.

Timing was unfortunate really given the recent Wikileaks and records of a monthly payment to a 'Geronimo' handled by one Fred Burton.

Ironically the strongest evidence is that most of this was a Pakistani conspiracy - but no one has yet entertained that.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ironically the strongest evidence is that most of this was a Pakistani conspiracy - but no one has yet entertained that.

what is the pakistani conspiracy exactly? and what evidence exactly supports this?

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

what is the pakistani conspiracy exactly? and what evidence exactly supports this?

Just realised this is the navy Seals thread.. belongs in the Bin Laden thread.

The fact that certain Pakistani officials knew that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan and kept it quiet, etc. I guess its not interesting enough

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

The fact that certain Pakistani officials knew that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan and kept it quiet, etc. I guess its not interesting enough

fire up a thread so ...

Jonny7

Even the recent anonymous hack of Stratfor has found evidence that mid-level ISI officers knew of Bin Laden's location.

edit : thanks mod

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Even the recent anonymous hack of Stratfor has found evidence that mid-level ISI officers knew of Bin Laden's location.

is that the evidence from some american claiming that some unnamed pakistani military knew about obl?

it's a bit weak as far as evidence goes ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17188120

unfortunately, wide speculation is rampant when we don't even have the body of victim to confirm.

Jonny7

There's quite a lot of evidence that the ISI have been behind Indian bombings, have ties with the Taliban, as well as militant and extremist groups. HRW are extremely critical of them, a lot of journalists disappear in the region - the ISI are often described as a "state within a state" and recent reports point to tension between these intelligence services and the leadership of Pakistan itself - the high potential for a military coup

Ex pm Musharraf has been accused by the ex-head of the ISI of knowing of Bin Laden's whereabouts - Musharraf himself has said its possible that lower ranks of the ISI themselves knew.

Wikileaks and the anonymous hack on Stratfor have both indicated that internal elements knew of Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan.

Allegedly the compound in which Bin Laden was killed had previously been used as a safehouse by the ISI. The compound itself was about 8 times larger than surrounding buildings and a short distance from a Pakistan military academy.

Even retired Pakistan generals, fiercely anti-Western, have admitted it's remarkable that internal intelligence would not have been aware of Bin Laden's presence. Pakistani media has been asking these same questions and pointing fingers at the ISI.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

. HRW are extremely critical of them,

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

.a lot of journalists disappear in the region -

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

the ISI are often described as a "state within a state"

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

and recent reports point to tension between these intelligence services and the leadership of Pakistan itself - the high potential for a military coup

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ex pm Musharraf has been accused by the ex-head of the ISI of knowing of Bin Laden's whereabouts

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

.Musharraf himself has said its possible that lower ranks of the ISI themselves knew.

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Wikileaks and the anonymous hack on Stratfor have both indicated that internal elements knew of Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan.

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Allegedly the compound in which Bin Laden was killed had previously been used as a safehouse by the ISI.

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The compound itself was about 8 times larger than surrounding buildings and a short distance from a Pakistan military academy.

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Even retired Pakistan generals, fiercely anti-Western, have admitted it's remarkable that internal intelligence would not have been aware of Bin Laden's presence.

Not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pakistani media has been asking these same questions and pointing fingers at the ISI.

Not evidence.

And that's before we even get to the sparsity of evidence that Bin Laden was ever even there, nevermind killed there.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not evidence.


Not evidence.


Not evidence.

Not evidence.

Not evidence.

Not evidence.


Not evidence.


Not evidence.


Not evidence.


Not evidence.


Not evidence.

And that's before we even get to the sparsity of evidence that Bin Laden was ever even there, nevermind killed there.

Well we have to start somewhere, can I assume you believe Bin Laden was behind 911?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well we have to start somewhere, can I assume you believe Bin Laden was behind 911?

is that even relevant to whether he was in pakistan?

i thought the conspiracy was:

Jonny7 wrote: »

The fact that certain Pakistani officials knew that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan and kept it quiet, etc.

i think it is possible.

for now all we have is some unverified rumours, so we can't take it as fact that any pakistani knew whether obl was there if he was there.

either way, pakistan is not a part of the usa, so they have no reason to tell usa anything.

Jonny7

Odd response - why would Pakistan confirm Bin Laden's death then?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Odd response - why would Pakistan confirm Bin Laden's death then?

do you have an evidence for the claim that pakistan confirmed his death?

i thought that no evidence proving bin laden was actually killed in the compound has ever been provided by the authorities, so any confirmation is speculation.

Jonny7

Pakistan confirms Bin Laden death in Abbottobad raid
http://pakistantimes.net/pt/detail.php?newsId=21248

Al Qaeda confirm Bin Laden is dead in that raid
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110506

Bin Laden's daughter confirms death
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

and the US has confirmed he is dead

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pakistan confirms Bin Laden death in Abbottobad raid
http://pakistantimes.net/pt/detail.php?newsId=21248

that confirms that the usa told pakistan that obl was killed.
it is still a very nice pr piece, does not mention that pakistan was not informed prior to the act.

okay, so pakistan confirmed that usa said that obl was dead, i also confirm usa said that obl is dead.

i don't confirm that obl was killed in that operation for lack of evidence, hence the conspiracy.

tbh, i'm not sure what conspiracy you are referring to as either way, pakistan is not a part of the usa, so they have no reason to tell usa anything.

Jonny7

Well the US, Pakistan and Al Qaeda have all confirmed Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad in May of last year

How do you explain that, are they all in on the same conspiracy?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well the US, Pakistan and Al Qaeda have all confirmed Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad in May of last year

i think a more correct word would be "stated". there was no evidence to confirm.

Jonny7 wrote: »

How do you explain that, are they all in on the same conspiracy?

possibly ...

i still don't see the conspiracy regarding pakistan not telling usa ...

i'd be more worried about the usa attempt to prosecute assange ...

ps: even the fbi are still looking for him http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
pps:the fbi have no hard evidence that obl was responsible for 911 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
ppps: maybe you're looking the wrong way at this conspiracy ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

i think a more correct word would be "stated". there was no evidence to confirm.

Why has Pakistan stated that Bin Laden died last year?

If the US has faked this, then Pakistan would do everything in their power to prove so because the fact that the world's most wanted man was living in their country, in a huge compound, just a short distance from their top brass is embarrassing in the extreme - a sentiment expressed all over Pakistani media.

They have a huge infrastructure of intelligence, sources on the ground, are privy to more information than any of us have - why would they fake it too? they have lost billions in funding over this.

If the man was not killed last year, then why would Pakistan and Al Qaeda acknowledge the fact at considerable loss to themselves?

To claim that he was not killed last year is to suggest a huge conspiracy between the US, Pakistan and Al Qaeda at the very least - which is absurd.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

To claim that he was not killed last year is to suggest a huge conspiracy between the US, Pakistan and Al Qaeda at the very least - which is absurd.

Pretty sure that that alliance strongly conspired together to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet rule.

Jonny7

So you are suggesting that the US and Al Qaeda and Pakistan are working together on this?

Ye be warned this might contradict other "theories" on the subject-matter.

weisses

another interesting read

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-emails-stratfor-analysts-didnt-believe-laden-was-buried-at-sea-2012-3


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/wikileaks-stratfor-emails_n_1307547.html

Moriarty

davoxx wrote: »

tbh, i'm not sure what conspiracy you are referring to as either way, pakistan is not a part of the usa, so they have no reason to tell usa anything.

Maybe it's a little too 'real world' for this forum, but sure we'll give it a shot anway.

Pakistan was publically professing to be the US's most stringent ally in the 'War on Terror' in public, all while parts of the Pakistani military continued to give both direct and indirect aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of their own country.

There has been the rather catastrophic situation of the Pakistani regular army having to launch major offensives into the tribal areas of north and western Pakistan at no small cost to themselves against the Taliban, while parts of the ISI seem to be providing material support to the Taliban at the same time. The ISI have kept their eye on the long game of trying to make sure Afghanistan didn't stabilise under the influence of India - via their association with the Taliban - while missing that the organisation that they're funding is fermenting a civil war in their own country.

The mix and crossover between ISI support for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda appears to have become very gray at points along the line of the past eleven years.

davoxx

Moriarty wrote: »

Maybe it's a little too 'real world' for this forum, but sure we'll give it a shot anway.

so long as it is not a baised or twisted reality, i'll play along ...

Moriarty wrote: »

Pakistan was publically professing to be the US's most stringent ally in the 'War on Terror' in public, all while parts of the Pakistani military continued to give both direct and indirect aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of their own country.

There has been the rather catastrophic situation of the Pakistani regular army having to launch major offensives into the tribal areas of north and western Pakistan at no small cost to themselves against the Taliban, while parts of the ISI seem to be providing material support to the Taliban at the same time. The ISI have kept their eye on the long game of trying to make sure Afghanistan didn't stabilise under the influence of India - via their association with the Taliban - while missing that the organisation that they're funding is fermenting a civil war in their own country.

The mix and crossover between ISI support for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda appears to have become very gray at points along the line of the past eleven years.

so what is the conspricy exactly?

Jaafa

It seems Bin Laden, may not have been buried at sea according to the leaked Stratfor emails

Jonny7

Unfortunately that information also backs the fact that Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad - which does not help CT's here that he was killed years ago etc

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

Unfortunately that information also backs the fact that Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad - which does not help CT's here that he was killed years ago etc

Well not really, all it means is the body of a person who the US military claimed was Bin Laden, was not buried were they said he was.

Note I'm not of any particular opinion whether he died last year or in 2004, or if he worked for the CIA or not, carried out 9/11 or not. There's simply not enough evidence to be taking sides IMO.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

Well not really, all it means is the body of a person who the US military claimed was Bin Laden, was not buried were they said he was.

Some theories maintain he was killed over a decade ago - information coming out that he wasn't buried at sea but was buried somewhere else, last year, obviously contradict those theories.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some theories maintain he was killed over a decade ago

ok, there were such theories.

Jonny7 wrote: »

information coming out that he wasn't buried at sea but was buried somewhere else, last year

so this means the fact that he was buried at sea was a lie? that is what you are saying?

Jonny7 wrote: »

obviously contradict those theories.

as more information comes out, the theories are evolved/confirmed/dimssed ... in this case the official story seems to be proven to be a lie according to you.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

so this means the fact that he was buried at sea was a lie? that is what you are saying?

Well I am reading the Stratfor leaks, they don't directly relate to Bin Laden - but they raise the possibility he wasn't buried at sea, but somewhere else.

This directly contradicts the theories he died about a decade ago, which personally I believe are nonsense.

as more information comes out, the theories are evolved/confirmed/dimssed ... in this case the official story seems to be proven to be a lie according to you.

Some believe he died 10 years ago. Obviously those people can't then turn and comment on/support the Stratfor leaks as it would contradict their belief. This is my point here.

I do think its possible the US government could lie about where Bin Laden was actually buried. However the Stratfor leaks aren't conclusive enough yet for that to be clear.

However it's into the realms of fantasy that they could have killed him 10 years ago and faked everything since.

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some theories maintain he was killed over a decade ago - information coming out that he wasn't buried at sea but was buried somewhere else, last year, obviously contradict those theories.

Again though that only applies if you didn't already think he was dead long before this. If you thought he died in 2002/3/4 then this whole thing would be a hoax and it would matter where the 'fake' bin laden was buried.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some believe he died 10 years ago. Obviously those people can't then turn and comment on/support the Stratfor leaks as it would contradict their belief. This is my point here.

well was this information available back then? no? so they can readjust their views.

i'm not sure of your point just as i'm not sure of what the conspiracy is here.

but what is nice is that you refer to the "possibility" that he wasn't buried at sea, while you treat the knowledge of obl location in pakistain as fact ... obviously if you are going to accept the official usa spiel, you should be disregarding these leaks ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

but what is nice is that you refer to the "possibility" that he wasn't buried at sea, while you treat the knowledge of obl location in pakistain as fact ... obviously if you are going to accept the official usa spiel, you should be disregarding these leaks ...

It's two quite different things.

Where he is buried, sea or secret location. So far the only hint of him being buried on land somewhere comes from Stratfor leaks and is in itself weak at the moment - could be referring to any of the victims from the raid. Even so, if, at the highest levels, it was decided they would keep the body for dna, etc and release to the world that he was buried at sea - that is a possible conspiracy.

On the other hand to "fake" Bin Laden's death, the actual operation + ongoing over the years, to fake the daughter + family members in Abbottabad itself, to convince the Pakistan government and officials, to be in control of Al Qaeda (in order for them to confirm his death), to convince other global intelligence agencies, including Chinese, Russians, to domestically and internationally carry out a such a conspiracy would be an order of many magnitudes higher than concealing his final burial place. It is an impossible conspiracy.

The two issues are quite different.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's two quite different things.

Where he is buried, sea or secret location. So far the only hint of him being buried on land somewhere comes from Stratfor leaks and is in itself weak at the moment - could be referring to any of the victims from the raid. Even so, if, at the highest levels, it was decided they would keep the body for dna, etc and release to the world that he was buried at sea - that is a possible conspiracy.

On the other hand to "fake" Bin Laden's death, the actual operation + ongoing over the years, to fake the daughter + family members in Abbottabad itself, to convince the Pakistan government and officials, to be in control of Al Qaeda (in order for them to confirm his death), to convince other global intelligence agencies, including Chinese, Russians, to domestically and internationally carry out a such a conspiracy would be an order of many magnitudes higher than concealing his final burial place. It is an impossible conspiracy.

The two issues are quite different.

obviously, but both are possible ...

on the other hand cheery picking details from the same source and saying some are true and others false even though none of them are substantiated ... well that's just plain crazy.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

obviously, but both are possible ...

They aren't on the same level. One is plausible, the other isn't. One conspiracy isn't "as likely" as another.

on the other hand cheery picking details from the same source and saying some are true and others false even though none of them are substantiated ... well that's just plain crazy.

What are you referring to?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

They aren't on the same level. One is plausible, the other isn't. One conspiracy isn't "as likely" as another.

well both are plausible, being derived from being possible.
the amount of work varies between them, but it is not impossible.

i never said one conspiracy is as probable as another, but both are within the context of the usa, which refused to show proof, lying.

Jonny7 wrote: »

What are you referring to?

that the 'fact' that pakistani officials knew about obl while the 'possibility' of obl being buried not dumped in sea. two claims from the same source ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

both are within the context of the usa, which refused to show proof, lying.

I don't agree that it automatically entails the administration is lying. However I do agree it is a little strange based on the fact that they showed Uday and Qusay, showed footage of Saddam - I would have expected the same of Bin Laden. However that's not how Obama obviously chose to deliver this particular event.

Much more suspicious elements, e.g. Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, China are all convinced. They are privy to more information than Joe Public.

However, I have absolutely no doubt that if pictures and footage of Bin Laden's death had been shown to the public, we would be still having this debate here regardless.

that the 'fact' that pakistani officials knew about obl while the 'possibility' of obl being buried not dumped in sea. two claims from the same source ...

The ISI in Pakistan have long been suspected of knowing Bin Laden's whereabouts (amongst many other accusations) - the stratfor leaks are not the singular source on that matter.

The Stratfor hacks/leaks on this matter are direct
"Mid to senior level ISI and Pak military with one retired Pak Military General that had knowledge of the OBL (Osama bin laden) arrangements and safe house,"

Stratfor leaks are however, the singular source on the matter of the sea burial (so far) and in a much less direct fashion

"Fred Burton, vice president for intelligence at Stratfor, wrote to a colleague at 5.51am on May 2, the day the al-Qaeda leader was killed, saying: “Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane. Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.”
An earlier email from Burton to colleagues stated: “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.”
However, in his last communication on the subject with George Friedman, Stratfor’s chief executive, at 3.10pm, Mr Burton wrote: “: “Down and dirty done, He already sleeps with the fish…”"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9126159/Wikileaks-Stratfor-bosses-thought-Osama-bin-Laden-body-was-flown-to-US.html

The last quote appears to contradict the first two.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Much more suspicious elements, e.g. Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, China are all convinced. They are privy to more information than Joe Public.

we are not privy to their internal dialogues which might confirm that they don't believe it.
and i don't think there is any evidence that suggest that russia and china are convinced, there is plenty to show that they have heard the usa story, but not that they've believed it.

Jonny7 wrote: »

However, I have absolutely no doubt that if pictures and footage of Bin Laden's death had been shown to the public, we would be still having this debate here regardless.

well, you'd still be here regardless of the how quality/source of the pictures or footage was, i'd only be here if there was a reason to suspect that the pictures are fake, or if the footage was 3 frames of a shadowy figure getting shot ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

The ISI in Pakistan have long been suspected of knowing Bin Laden's whereabouts (amongst many other accusations) - the stratfor leaks are not the singular source on that matter.

but there is no evidence to back this up. even if there was evidence that they had no idea, you'd still be claiming that they did.

it's funny how it works one way, but not the other.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The last quote appears to contradict the first two.

as does much of the report for the events surrounding obl death.

but i feel we are going around in circles with your need to blame pakistan for obl.

if you're sticking with the conspiracy that pakistan knew of obl loaction, then i have one point: so what? how is that a conspiracy?
if you mean the conspiracy is that they claimed not to know about his location, but actually did: there is zero evidence to back this up. but thankfully not being a part of usa means that they do not have to show usa their dairies ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

we are not privy to their internal dialogues which might confirm that they don't believe it.
and i don't think there is any evidence that suggest that russia and china are convinced, there is plenty to show that they have heard the usa story, but not that they've believed it.

Okay then what is the evidence that the Russian and Chinese government have not "believed" it.

well, you'd still be here regardless of the how quality/source of the pictures or footage was, i'd only be here if there was a reason to suspect that the pictures are fake, or if the footage was 3 frames of a shadowy figure getting shot ...

I don't need pictures, I am already convinced he was killed in Abbottabad. I've been following this since 2001.

I still find it strange they didn't release photos of it though.

but there is no evidence to back this up. even if there was evidence that they had no idea, you'd still be claiming that they did.
it's funny how it works one way, but not the other.

I'll wait to see what evidence you provide on your claim. I think your definition of evidence depends entirely on whether you back something or not.

but i feel we are going around in circles with your need to blame pakistan for obl.

If that's what you think then you are mistaken.

if you're sticking with the conspiracy that pakistan knew of obl loaction, then i have one point: so what? how is that a conspiracy?

There are strong suggestions that portions of the ISI knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts. That's a conspiracy.

if you mean the conspiracy is that they claimed not to know about his location, but actually did: there is zero evidence to back this up. but thankfully not being a part of usa means that they do not have to show usa their dairies ...

Its highly embarrassing that Bin Laden was in Pakistan, worse that it was a short drive from the capital, a stone's throw from the military academy in a giant compound - these are questions the Pakistani press are asking.

I am fairly sure if he was found in a similar compound, next to a military base in Utah you wouldn't say the US knew nothing of his location now would you

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't need pictures, I am already convinced he was killed in Abbottabad. I've been following this since 2001.

so that mean you've accepted the rectified american story. did you also believe the initial ones?

Jonny7 wrote: »

I still find it strange they didn't release photos of it though.

why would this be strange if you're already convinced? surely you are convinced via the evidence or is it lack there of?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am fairly sure if he was found in a similar compound, next to a military base in Utah you wouldn't say the US knew nothing of his location now would you

no, i would say nothing of the sort. i'd wait till i heard the us story and then determine whether it is plausible and based on facts/evidence available, i would then draw a conclusion.

conversely if the us gov said they did not know about him living next to a military base, would you believe them?

if anything, america conspired to illegally assassinate a innocent man in a sovereign nation, lest we all forget people are innocent until proven guilty ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

why would this be strange if you're already convinced? surely you are convinced via the evidence or is it lack there of?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Producing photographs is something the Bush administration relied heavily on. I just found it strange the current administration didn't do the same to avoid conspiracy theories.

if anything, america conspired to illegally assassinate a innocent man

He claimed responsibility

in a sovereign nation,

The country he was hiding in or being sheltered in? hmm that's the question. Either way, through past experience, the yanks clearly didn't want to share information with Pakistan on the raid lest he be tipped off, again.

lest we all forget people are innocent until proven guilty ...

We all wanted to see the man stand trial - in fact it would have been a greater "victory" for the US to capture him.

However it appears Obama just wanted to draw a line under the whole thing.

Maybe in a few generations everyone who joins a violence terrorist organisation will get access to a fair trial.. but for now.. not so much.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

However it appears Obama just wanted to draw a line under the whole thing.

and thankfully that is all that matters? who cares about laws and stuff?

i dunno, i think you are not looking at this objectively.

you say there is a conspiracy in pakistan yet the only thing to suggest that is unverified rambling in leaked emails.
while we can confirm that there are is no evidence of the murder of obl when there should be, and no proof of him committing the crime, and you don't think there is a conspiracy there?

i'm not sure we can even agree what a conspiracy is anymore.

and here is a link of obl saying that he did not do 911 ... http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

you say there is a conspiracy in pakistan yet the only thing to suggest that is unverified rambling in leaked emails.

No, it's been suggested and commented on for years. It's the main reason the US did not share details of the mission with intelligence within Pakistan for fear that Bin Laden would be tipped off.

while we can confirm that there are is no evidence of the murder of obl when there should be, and no proof of him committing the crime, and you don't think there is a conspiracy there?

If he didn't die in that attack, Al Qaeda and Pakistan would not be confirming his death in that attack. In 2005 the Bush admin ceased prioritising his capture, it was the Obama admin that retook steps to start locating the man.

In 2004, Bin Laden took responsibility for the 911 attacks.

I don't see what the discrepancy with that is? care to point it out?

What is your stance on Osama from 1998 till now? do you even have one?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

No, it's been suggested and commented on for years. It's the main reason the US did not share details of the mission with intelligence within Pakistan for fear that Bin Laden would be tipped off.

or the fact that obl was already dead, hence they could not tell anyone in case they wanted to tag along or see evidence ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

If he didn't die in that attack, Al Qaeda and Pakistan would not be confirming his death in that attack.

they did? i'm pretty sure that seeing as how they did not see obl, all they confirmed is that that americans told them a story, they did not confirm it was true, which unless they had seen the evidence, would be impossible.

Jonny7 wrote: »

In 2004, Bin Laden took responsibility for the 911 attacks.

and that means he did it? maybe the reason bush stopped looking is because bin laden was already killed and they had an actor make the videos?

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't see what the discrepancy with that is? care to point it out?

that there is no evidence that bin laden was killed, but you take it at fact, you take his admission as fact but you ignore his denial ...
yet when there is hearsay, you take that as fact while claiming there is no evidence that the usa used an actor ...

by your logic, no evidence of an actor means no actor, yet no evidence of murder means obviously there was murder ... that's the point i'm making

also a more important point is that there can be no conspiracy in pakistan to hide bin laden as pakistan are not obliged to tell america anything.
while there was a conspiracy to commit murder in pakistan by the americans.

i'm not sure if you see my point, that just as america doesn't go telling pakistan about the terrorist they trained, pakistan have no reason to tell america if bin laden was in pakistan. they are both independent sovereign nations.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

or the fact that obl was already dead, hence they could not tell anyone in case they wanted to tag along or see evidence ...

He was the figurehead for Al Qaeda - here is the statement -

"Congratulations to the Islamic nation on the martyrdom of its good son Osama after a life full of effort and work, determination and patience, incitement and holy struggle, generosity and giving, emigration and travel, advice and good preparation, wisdom and experience.

That the Americans were able to kill Osama is not shameful to us. Where else do men and heroes die except on the battlefield? Every end is predestined. But can the Americans with their media, agents, machinery, soldiers, intelligence and equipment kill what Sheikh Osama lived and fought for? Never, never."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/05/201156203329911287.html

Tagging along? they "trust" the US more than you do?

and that means he did it? maybe the reason bush stopped looking is because bin laden was already killed and they had an actor make the videos?

What do you base this on?

that there is no evidence that bin laden was killed, but you take it at fact,

The most suspicious governments and intelligence agencies in the world take it as fact. Many US officials have seen the photo's and the debate over whether to actually release them continue. Bin Laden's daughter, the women in his compound have all confirmed it was him. And, as I've had to repeat many times, Pakistan has admitted it - at great embarrassment to themselves, and a huge loss in financial aid from the US.

also a more important point is that there can be no conspiracy in pakistan to hide bin laden as pakistan are not obliged to tell america anything.
while there was a conspiracy to commit murder in pakistan by the americans.

If Pakistan military or officials knew of the existence of the world's most wanted man - wanted by their allies, the US - and didn't inform them, then yes that plainly is a conspiracy.

i'm not sure if you see my point, that just as america doesn't go telling pakistan about the terrorist they trained, pakistan have no reason to tell america if bin laden was in pakistan. they are both independent sovereign nations.

Pakistan also helped train the man, the ISI supplied cash to the Mujahideen. You are oversimplifying a very complex relationship between these countries, two countries that have engaged in fighting extremists and Al Qaeda (one in its own backyard) - its extraordinary that elements within the leadership of Pakistan would have known of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad and not informed the US.

You still haven't shared with us your theory on when he died?

davoxx

you are completely mixed up here, you've lost the context.

you said

Jonny7 wrote: »

No, it's been suggested and commented on for years. It's the main reason the US did not share details of the mission with intelligence within Pakistan for fear that Bin Laden would be tipped off.

i said

davoxx wrote: »

or the fact that obl was already dead, hence they could not tell anyone in case they wanted to tag along or see evidence ...

yet you got

Jonny7 wrote: »

He was the figurehead for Al Qaeda - here is the statement -

"Congratulations to the Islamic nation on the martyrdom of its good son Osama after a life full of effort and work, determination and patience, incitement and holy struggle, generosity and giving, emigration and travel, advice and good preparation, wisdom and experience.

That the Americans were able to kill Osama is not shameful to us. Where else do men and heroes die except on the battlefield? Every end is predestined. But can the Americans with their media, agents, machinery, soldiers, intelligence and equipment kill what Sheikh Osama lived and fought for? Never, never."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/05/201156203329911287.html

Tagging along? they "trust" the US more than you do?

i honestly have no idea what you are arguing any more, all i can tell is that you believe the usa version of events without evidence, but you don't apply that equally to other country versions.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

you are completely mixed up here, you've lost the context.

Really what is your version of events?

eh2010

Account in the Guardian about Osama's life on the run from 9/11 to his death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122752/Osama-living-version-Kardashians-Abbottabad-Bin-Laden-fathered-FOUR-children-lived-houses-years-run-Pakistan-9-11.html