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 ...