Publisher:
Bonnie King
CONTACT:
Newsroom@Salem-news.com
Advertising:
Adsales@Salem-news.com
~Truth~
~Justice~
~Peace~
TJP
Feb-05-2013 18:58
TweetFollow @OregonNews
Osama Where Art Thou?
Ralph E. Stone Salem-News.comEvidence should convince skeptics that bin Laden was indeed killed by Navy SEALS on May 2, 2011.
 Osama bin Laden, March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011. |
(SAN FRANCISCO) - Under the prevailing narrative, Osama bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS at bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, 2011, at zero dark thirty, spy-jargon for "half past midnight," the time of bin Laden's death. According to this narrative, the raid was videotaped and photographs were taken. The body was then taken to the supercarrier USS Carl Vinson where traditional procedures for an Islamic burial were followed. The body was then placed in a weighted bag and slid into the sea.
Several methods were used to confirm that bin Laden was actually killed, including DNA testing, facial-recognition techniques, a CIA analysis of photographs, and one of bin Laden's own wives had identified his body. Supposedly, bin Laden was buried so soon after his killing because according to Islamic practice and tradition the body must be buried within 24 hours. Why at sea? Probably because a grave site might end up being a place of worship for bin Laden followers.
We know there was a raid in Pakistan because Pakistani officials condemned the "unilateral action . . . which constitutes a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty." During the raid, one of the Navy helicopters malfunctioned and was destroyed before the Navy SEALS left. There are images of the destroyed helicopter available on the internet. In fact, the U.S. is concerned that Pakistan gave China access to the high-tech helicopter.
On May 6, 2011, al-Qaeda confirmed that Osama bin Laden was dead, dispelling doubts by some Muslims that the group's leader had really been killed by U.S. forces, and vowed to mount more attacks on the West.
Why were the Bush and Obama Administrations so obsessed with assassinating bin Laden? Because bin Laden was the actual and symbolic leader of al-Qaeda, who in 2004 admitted ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks, which resulted in 2,977 deaths. The killing was part of the Administration's targeted assassination program, an extrajudicial execution. The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions. Will the U.S. be held accountable for this extrajudicial assassination? Probably not.
All this evidence should convince skeptics that bin Laden was indeed killed by Navy SEALS on May 2, 2011. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has refused to release photographs, videotapes and other evidence establishing bin Laden's death, arguing that the photographs are gruesome and their release could damage national security. This refusal only fuels conspiracy theories, rumors, and hoaxes that bin Laden had been dead for years or is still alive. But is the U.S. government capable of engineering a hoax of this magnitude and keep it going over two years through a presidential election and the snooping of the Zero Dark Thirty filmmakers? I don't think so.
The Obama Administration admits it released sensitive information about the bin Laden raid to the Zero Dark Thirty filmmakers but claims this same information could cause an "unnecessary security and counterintelligence risk" if released to the general public. What makes the filmmakers so special that they get access to "sensitive information" while the general public does not?
In Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DoD and CIA, Judicial Watch has asked the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn a U.S. District Court ruling and instruct the DOD and CIA to release 52 images from the raid on bin Laden’s compound and bin Laden's burial at sea. A hearing was held on January 10, 2013. I doubt the Court of Appeals will require the government to release the images.
Osama, where art thou? Lying at the bottom of the sea. There is ample actual and circumstantial evidence supporting this conclusion.
Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He is a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are very fortunate to have this writer's talents in this troubling world; Ralph has an eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many Salem-News.com writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war. Ralph served his nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the Vietnam war. After Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal Trade Commission as an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law. Over the years, Ralph has traveled extensively with his wife Judi, taking in data from all over the world, which today adds to his collective knowledge about extremely important subjects like the economy and taxation. You can send Ralph an email at this address stonere@earthlink.net
 |
 |
 |
Articles for February 4, 2013 | Articles for February 5, 2013 | Articles for February 6, 2013
googlec507860f6901db00.html
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.
J. Attorney February 17, 2013 10:31 am (Pacific time)
My only concern is for the TRUTH, not for the “prevailing narrative.” If I accepted prevailing narratives, I would have believed the earth was flat during the the Inquisition.------Bin Laden's "guilt" is certainly part of the prevailing narrative. Never mind it was never proved, and evidence of his execution is nonexistent or hearsay. (You cite an anonymously written article in Esquire by the supposed shooter, yet the same shooter had previously expressed doubts : "I didn't recognize bin Laden, SEAL who wrote 'No Easy Day' says" [http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/10/world/navy-seal-60-minutes and http://youtu.be/GTuSu8NT1ec] ------Those who want the prevailing narrative to keep prevailing -- whether it's because they're "scared out of their wits" (Tarpley, 2006: http://youtu.be/fylBIpNlL-k) or worse, complicit in the cover-up -- will never open their minds to alternative explanations, nor allow others to. This, even in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence and common sense.------I agree with your statement: “The U.S. narrative is that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.” But to add that “if the U.S. got it wrong so be it” is a shameful abdication of civic responsibility, and I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms.
Ralph E. Stone February 16, 2013 6:42 pm (Pacific time)
J.Attorney: Thanks for taking the time to comment on my article. Here are some general comments on your comments: * I cited Wikipedia only to show that there are conspiracy theories claiming that bin Laden died before 2011 or is still alive. You can't really quarrel with that. * As for Snopes, all I cited it for is that there is no definitive evidence that bin Laden had kidney failure or even if he did whether that refutes his killing in May 2011. He could have had kidney problems at the time of his death in May 2011. In other words, bin Laden's kidney failure is "undetermined." * While many of the tapes attributed to bin Laden have been questioned, the 2004 tape I cited was first broadcast on Al_Jazeera and supposedly multiple sources declared the tape authentic. * Who actually was responsible for 9/11 is largely irrelevant for the prevailing narrative. The U.S. narrative is that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11; that bin Laden took credit for it; and the raison d'etre for the May 2011 raid was to seek revenge. If the U.S. got it wrong so be it. * Esguire printed a first-person account of the killing of bin Laden by the former Navy SEAL who actually fired the shots that killed them. At this point, I am convinced bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS on May 2, 2011. But maybe convincing evidence will surface to prove me wrong. But you, of course, are free to believe otherwise.
J. Attorney February 16, 2013 8:37 am (Pacific time)
Mr. Stone, I respect you as an attorney, and I don't mean to argue with you. All I want is the truth -- wherever it may lead. And, in the end, justice. I hope we can agree on these goals. Are you really citing Wikipedia and Snopes as expert evidence? The Wikipedia passage you quoted does nothing to support your argument (on the contrary), and Snopes' own conclusion about Bin Laden's kidney failure is "Undetermined." What about the experts who have analyzed and discredited the Bin Laden tapes (audio and video)? What about the secrecy and obfuscation surrounding Bin Laden's death? What about the contradictory reports about the raid in Abbottabad… http://www.prisonplanet.com/ludicrous-bin-laden-fable-changes-yet-again.html .... Is it unreasonable to suspect a cover-up? What about the 1,700+ engineers and architects... (http://www.ae911truth.org/)... who have scientifically disproved the NIST explanations of "structural failure due to fires" for the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings -- thus casting doubt on the 9/11 Commission Report's elaborate tale of 19 Muslims on a suicide mission? (Incidentally, did you know that a detailed outline of the entire report had been prepared in advance by White House insider Philip Zelikow and his colleague Ernest May?... http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0303outline#a0303outline ) What about the thousands of other experts -- with extensive backgrounds in government, the military, aviation, engineering, academia, the arts, medicine, science and technology -- who have dared to challenge the official story about 9/11, risking their professional reputations and careers (and some even their lives) for the sake of the truth? Are they all conspiracy theorists?... http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ I doubt many readers will see this comment at this point, but I hope you will. And I hope you have the courage to rethink your presumptions about this government and its propaganda. Denial and self-deception are vital defense mechanisms for our fragile egos. There are many psychopaths in positions of power who understand this psychology and take full advantage of it. Please don't be fooled by them.
Ralph E. Stone February 8, 2013 8:21 am (Pacific time)
J.Attorney: Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the attacks. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeerasatellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[137] In a videotape recovered by U.S. forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad, bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi in a way that indicates foreknowledge.[138] The tape was broadcast on various news networks on December 13, 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."
In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he said he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[127][140] In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence in the hijacking of the planes on September 11.[127] According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War.
Through two other tapes aired by Al Jazeera in 2006, Osama bin Laden announced, "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers. [...] I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers [...] with the raids" (May 23, 2006).[142] In the tapes he was seen with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, as well as two of the 9/11 hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they made preparations for the attacks (videotape broadcast September 7, 2006).[143] Identified motivations of the September 11 attacks include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U.S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. enforcement of sanctions against Iraq.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)
That bin Laden suffered from lung and kidney diseases is an unconfirmed rumor, which neither proves nor disproves his death on May 2, 2011. (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp)
J. Attorney February 6, 2013 6:05 am (Pacific time)
Mr. Stone, given your conclusion, how do you evaluate the following reports, especially the last two? (please Google the headlines for the source links)-- --Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks, (CNN, 9/16/2001) --Mistranslated Osama bin Laden [Confession] Video - the German Press Investigates (DC Indy Media, 12/23/2001) --Report: Bin Laden Already Dead (Fox News, 12/26/2001) --Bin Laden tape "faked" (referring to an audiotape recounting recent terrorist attacks; Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, 11/29/2002) --FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (Global Research, Canada, 06/10/2006) --Duke Professor Skeptical of bin Laden Tape (ABC-11 News, Raleigh, NC, 01/19/2006) --SEAL Team 6 Bin Laden Shooter Says Suspect Did Not Look Like Bin Laden ("60 Minutes" interview, Youtube clip, 09/11/2012) --Revealed: Military emails show that NO U.S. sailors witnessed Osama bin Laden's secret burial at sea (Daily Mail, UK, 11/21/2012) As an attorney, do you believe that the "ample actual and circumstantial evidence" you cite would establish our government's account beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court?
[Return to Top]©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.