Poll

I tend not to believe the story of Osama Bin Laden's death simply because upon further research there appears to be too many holes, inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions in the reports.

Have laid out what I believe are the inconsistencies in this group post here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Plus this video titled 'Was Osama Bin Laden's death a hoax?' shows some respected individuals saying Bin Laden's death was staged/faked: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8687...

It is known that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA agent. He wan controled by US inteligent corps. Maybe he was dead by suffering illness and the murder by the US marine corps was a fiction.

Have you ever watched "The Hunting Party" starring Richard Gere? To me the whole thing is staged but I don't know the details of what is really going on because it hasn't stopped. I don't know if Osama Bin Laden was who he says he is or not. But his death was SO fabricated it was almost funny! Sometime I think he isn't even dead yet. Where is the body?

I'm unsure if what was told to us concerning his death was accurate or not. Our Government has not been the pinnacle of truth through our history as a country. My own Native American People can vouch for this. Who knows what truly happened. I doubt we will really ever know.

To add fuel to the fire, I have several friends in the Middle East told me the conspiracies and thoughts from over there.

Group 1.) Laughs hysterically and says that bin Laden died of natural causes and there are obits to prove it -- you just have to read Arabic. (No one was able to produce a link to said obit for me.)

Group 2.) Believes that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden are drinking together in Montana under the protection of the US government.

Group 3.) Thinks everyone is wasting their time debating the fact that he's dead.

Have fun debating!

I believe Bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs as reported by the government. Are there inconsistencies in the reporting on his death? Yes. But consider this: As a former investigative journalist, I know reporters rarely get things 100% correct, nor does their reporting jive with each other's. Second, as someone with nearly 26 years of military experience, I know operations rarely go as planned and getting all the details often takes months or years no matter how much debriefing or after action reports are produced. A lot of details are left out because personnel simply don't want to own up to their own actions.

Also, simply on the face of it, it is obvious there was a special ops raid on Bin Laden's compound. There was a crashed spec ops helo in the compound. Those cost millions; you don't just drop one somewhere as a prank. Was Pakistan's intelligence service aware Bin Laden was living there? Undoubtedly. The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban and funded Al Qaeda. It is very likely the ISI hustled Bin Laden out of Tora Bora when Bush called off American troops from attacking the mountain complex and let the ISI fly helos into the compound. Despite outward appearances, Pakistan and the US do not have good relations and the ISI and CIA don't talk to each other.

Why didn't we find Bin Laden earlier? Because we weren't looking. Within months of 9/11, George Bush announced he was no longer concerned about Bin Laden and didn't care where he was. (He also wasn't concerned about Bin Laden *prior* to 9/11 and looked what happened.) According to the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, Bush was financially obligated to the Bin Laden family. The Bush and Bin Laden families had been business partners since the 1930s or 1940s. Daddy Bush arranged for the Bin Laden family to bail W out of one of two of his many business failures. Several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US on 9/11, including Osama's uncle, the family patriarch. Bush allowed all of them to fly out of the country (while everyone else was grounded) before the FBI could question them. He also allowed Osama to escape from Tora Bora. And shortly after saying he was no longer concerned about Bin Laden, Bush closed down the CIA's Bin Laden Bureau, essentially ending the search for him. You can't find what you're not looking for.

President Obama reopened that bureau and the search for Bin Laden after taking office. And they found him.

Now, after saying all that, a friend of mine, Australian author Liam Saville, wrote a great novel about an alternative version of Bin Laden's death. If you like this debate, you'll love the book.

Martin wrote: "Also, simply on the face of it, it is obvious there was a special ops raid on Bin Laden's compound. There was a crashed spec ops helo in the compound. Those cost millions; you don't just drop one somewhere as a prank. ..."

It could be argued that spending several million (or even a hundred million) on staging this assassination (assuming it was staged, for the sake of argument) is merely loose spare change and a very good investment on continuing the propaganda that supports the multi-trillion dollar revenue bonanza that is the "war on terror".

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, reports on a funeral notice for Osama bin Laden that was published on December 26, 2001, in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ward: http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bi...

Fox News, among various other international mainstream media outlets (including the NY Times, MSNBC etc), also reported on this on Dec 26, 2001 with the headline ‘Bin Laden Already Dead’: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/...

This 2001 Fox article states: “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.”

------------------------

A 2002 article in The Tribune -- Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen (October 16, 2002) http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtrib...

-------------------------

Testimonial Evidence that Bin Laden Is Dead -- http://www.informationliberation.com/...

In addition to this objective evidence, we had considerable testimony in 2002, from people in position to know, that bin Laden was dead, or probably so. These people included:

• President Musharraf of Pakistan;

• Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s counterterrorism unit;

• Oliver North, who said: “I'm certain that Osama is dead. . . And so are all the other guys I stay in touch with”;

• President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan;

• Sources within Israeli intelligence, who said that any new messages from bin Laden were “probably fabrications”;

• Sources within Pakistani intelligence, who “confirmed the death of . . . Osama Bin Laden” and “attributed the reasons behind Washington's hiding news on the death of Osama Bin Laden to the desire of the hawks of the American administration to use the issue of al-Qaida and international terrorism to invade Iraq.”

In October 2008, former CIA case officer Robert Baer suggested in passing during an interview on National Public Radio that bin Laden was no longer among the living. When Baer was asked about this, he said: “Of course he’s dead.”

In March of 2009, former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla published an essay in the American Spectator entitled “Osama bin Elvis.” Explaining his title, Codevilla wrote: “Seven years after Osama bin Laden's last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence for Elvis's presence among us than for his.”

-------------------------

Shortly after Bin Laden’s death was announced, former US Navy Seal Jesse Ventura made an interesting observation in a television interview that aired on CNN in June 2011. He reminded viewers of earlier reports stating “Bin Laden was on a dialysis machine 10 years ago.” Ventura added, “Experts have said the disease he suffered from is generally fatal within two years. How did he manage to survive 10?”

------------------------------

Also in 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that an Egyptian bank manager formerly associated with the Muslim extremist claimed to be certain Bin Laden had died many years before the US announced they’d killed him.

------------------------

American anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed on duty in Iraq, also questioned how the US had matched Bin Laden’s DNA with a member of the terrorist’s family in less than 24 hours. “The only proof of Osama being dead again that we were offered,” Sheehan wrote on her Facebook page as CNN reported on May 5, 2011, “was Obama telling us that there was a DNA match between the man killed by the Navy SEALs and OBL. Even if it is possible to get DNA done so quickly, and the regime did have bin Laden DNA lying around a lab somewhere — where is the empirical proof?”

Sheehan concluded her Facebook post, “I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid.”

James Morcan wrote: "Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, reports on a funeral notice for Osama bin Laden that was published on December..."

Yes, I know about these stories. Shortly after 9/11, there were reports Bin Laden had kidney failure, Marfan disease, and just about every other crud known to man. They have all been dismissed. There is no way Bin Laden would have lived in Afghanistan to plan the 9/11 attacks if he had kidney failure requiring dialysis.

Unfortunately, most of the sources you cite here are discredited.

* Fox News is not a main stream news media organization. It is legally incorporated as an "entertainment company," a fact it uses every time its sued for libel.

* WorldTribune.com: I have my doubts about a news sources that lists its legal counsel at the bottom of the home pages as "World Tribune Legal Counsel: Roy M. Cohn (1927-1986) Backup Paralegals: Hammer, Rude, Hussein, Nasty and Tong." Roy Cohn was Joe McCarthy's legal counsel during his Red-baiting hearings of the 1950s. And the "backup paralegals," well, what can I say?

InformationLiberation.com: I don't give this website much credence either. The article you quote starts: "First, up until mid-December 13, 2001, the CIA had regularly been intercepting messages between bin Laden and his people. At that time, however, the messages suddenly stopped, and the CIA has never again intercepted a message." Yes, that's true. It was because Bin Laden was using a satellite phone and he realized the NSA was listening in. From that point on, Al Qaeda used only written communications carried by couriers. This has been widely reported.

ABC News did some coverage on the rumors about Bin Laden's death (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/osama-bi...)

As for reports of people attending Bin Laden's funerals (plural)- if you were on the lam from a country with a military the size of the United States', you'd want people to think you were dead, too. Black flag ops work both ways.

As for Cindy Sheehan, I have the greatest respect for the work she's done since the death of her son. But the answer to her question is simple: The US got samples of Bin Laden family DNA from the Bin Laden family members who publicly (though doubtfully) disowned Osama after the 9/11 attacks. This, too, was widely reported.

Believing that an earlier Bin Laden death was kept secret so Bush's Global War on Terror could continue also does not make sense. We were well on our way to invading Iraq within months of 9/11 even though there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. We were trapped in that morass for a decade, and announcing the death of Bin Laden could have gotten us out earlier. Iraq was not a war against terror; it was an invasion of a sovereign nation on false pretenses, and we -- and the Iraqi people -- paid dearly for it. And the last time I checked, terrorism hasn't ended with the real death of Bin Laden, killed in a Pakistani compound by US Navy SEALs.

I think perhaps it might be advantageous to also inject the subject of political "doubles" into this debate. Especially as numerous observers have commented that Osama's appearance changed drastically in Al-Qaeda videos over the years - sometimes he seemed to become more youthful all of a sudden, sometimes his nose and other features seemed to change. Likewise with Saddam Hussein, who some researchers believe was not the same Saddam shown in the execution video.

Gaddafi was another strongly rumored to have several lookalike doubles on his staff.

Politically, having doubles makes sense of course. Sending a lookalike/double into a public situation that is 'hot' or where assassins might be lurking is handy. But beyond useful, for the political outcasts or terrorist leaders (or so-called terrorist leaders) on the 'most wanted' lists, doubles would probably be necessary.
But also, from the West's perspective, if there is a propaganda machine rolling perpetuating or grossly exaggerating the War on Terror, then killing doubles of these leaders could be necessary - especially if the likes of Bin Laden and Hussein were business partners or CIA agents as some researchers believe.

I recall in the 1990s there were mainstream media reports commenting on rumors that Russian President Boris Yeltsin had a double. A photo appeared with Yeltsin showing his hands with all 10 fingers. And yet the real Yeltsin has two fingers missing - he lost his thumb and index finger on one hand while imprisoned in a Soviet gulag in the 1930s...

James Morcan wrote: "I think perhaps it might be advantageous to also inject the subject of political "doubles" into this debate. Especially as numerous observers have commented that Osama's appearance changed drastica..."

Oh, you had to go there! That is the rub, isn't it? Doubles to throw a wrench into the works. Hitler used them, Hussein, why not Bin Laden, either to fabricate a "death" to get the US off his tail or to feed to the US so they think they killed him?

Along similar lines: How many times have we heard the second in command of Al Qaeda has been killed in a drone attack? Does Al Qaeda have that many second in commands, or are there that many fools around who would allow themselves be named second in command, which seems to be a death sentence.

Martin wrote: "Yes, I know about these stories. Shortly after 9/11, there were reports Bin Laden had kidney failure, Marfan disease, and just about every other crud known to man. They have all been dismissed. There is no way Bin Laden would have lived in Afghanistan to plan the 9/11 attacks if he had kidney failure requiring dialysis. ..."

I agree with you on some of these points Martin and disagree on others.

Firstly, you’re right that Black Flag Ops do work both ways and terrorists can play the same tricks that the three letter intelligence agencies routinely carry out in stealth. So this fact cannot be ignored, I agree.

Debating whether Fox News is mainstream media or not comes down to semantics really. With Murdoch being an Australian I am therefore fully aware of who owns Fox News and the none-too-subtle political agenda behind that organization. FYI, I have researched and written extensively on the corruption of modern media outlets as has my co-writer Lance Morcan who is a former long-time journalist and newspaper editor. But then again, there’s an agenda behind virtually all mainstream media outlets these days and they are all corrupt/biased to varying degrees. Technically speaking, as surely you must be aware, mainstream media simply means any media that reaches the mainstream (as opposed to a small niche), which Fox definitely does. I wish Fox only reached a tiny percentage of rednecks given its heavily biased warmongering and xenophobic content, but unfortunately it reaches a far bigger audience than that and other major outlets all over the world report on what Fox says…

Same arguments you make discrediting the Tribune can apply to most other media outlets if you dig deep enough e.g. in the 70s and 80s the CIA’s now declassified Operation Mockingbird used thousands of journalists (mostly from the supposedly honest NY Times and Washington Post) to deliver articles pushing the CIA’s agenda and propaganda. No doubt as much if not far worse media operations occur today, especially as the Military Industrial Complex has its tentacles everywhere – again, which you must surely have witnessed first-hand. Personally, I tend to assume that all mainstream media reports are pushing some kind of agenda and are heavily biased and therefore take all such reports with a grain of salt.

To say the reports listed above about Osama are ALL discredited simply because they are not the biggest news sources or ones you personally respect the most is really a subjective response in my opinion. And note I also mentioned the NY Times, MSNBC and other major/respected/mainstream outlets reported on the same news of Osama’s 2001 death coming from news org's in Egypt and Pakistan. Plus, you’ve now added American broadcaster ABC into the mix which I wasn’t previously aware. However, I chose to highlight Fox as it’s ironic they (the ultimate propaganda outlet for the “war on terror” who almost never report anything against the Military Industrial Complex) actually reported Osama died in 2001 and then made a big thing of his later reported death in 2011...

Regarding Osama’s reported kidney problems and other serious ailments, to say they “have all been dismissed” is perhaps not the best summary if I may say so. Yes, various (Western) news organizations claim they have “debunked” these theories, but then again those same outlets say they’ve debunked all kinds of alternative, yet popular, theories like there being an assassination committee behind JFK’s death. So I think we need to differentiate between certain (mainstream) media outlets in the West dismissing claims, and ALL news organizations let alone ALL independent researchers. For the point is there have been many news articles surfacing all over the world in recent years that have questioned how Osama’s health was and how he lasted so long given the grave reports on his health from the mid-late 1990s onwards. There is no consensus just yet, especially as basically nothing is known/confirmed on Osama since about the late 1990s.

I think we also need to be careful dismissing articles on Osama’s reported 2001 death by the likes of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury (an economic advisor under the Reagan administration I believe) and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, or the statements made by Pakistani Prime Minister Musharraf (and I think from memory former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto also stated Osama had already been killed shortly before her 2007 assassination, although my memory could fail me on that one). All of these are just a small smattering of the respected and/or high-profile individuals who have said such things.

Again, I’m not saying Osama DEFINITELY died in 2001 or that he did not die in 2011 as per the official story. I have a few “gut feelings” and certainly don’t trust what the Military Industrial Complex tells us, but I certainly wouldn’t beat my life on it as I wasn’t there and honestly don’t know (nor do I pretend to know). But I think such things should at least be investigated properly, just as I think all the anomalies surrounding 9/11 (99% of which the Commission refused to look at) should also be investigated.

Also, your statement "There is no way Bin Laden would have lived in Afghanistan to plan the 9/11 attacks if he had kidney failure requiring dialysis" assumes the official story is true and that 9/11 was not an inside job. I believe we all need to go back several clicks in the information/intelligence line and question everything we've been told. If A was a lie then B might be too and therefore C doesn't even need to be studied as it all might be a litany of lies.

Cindy Sheehan was commenting on the earlier reports around the world of Osama's earlier "deaths", so I don't think we can dismiss her statements either. Although granted she may have been wrong about the blood angle, but that wasn't her main point.

Regarding your statement “Believing that an earlier Bin Laden death was kept secret so Bush's Global War on Terror could continue also does not make sense. We were well on our way to invading Iraq within months of 9/11 even though there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.” – You have lost me with these statements. Granted, you have MUCH more experience than me on these wars, but I don't understand how you can isolate these wars from the War on Terror. Correct me if I am wrong, but Afghanistan occurred almost immediately after 9/11 (by late 2001 it had begun, right?) and that was all about the destroying Osama Bin Laden’s army of Al Qaeda/Taliban agents/soldiers in that country (and part of the stated goal was naturally to find and kill Osama – Al Qaeda’s leader). Then there were eventually convenient connections made between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq/Saddam (contentious connections, as widely reported) which allowed the US and her allies to begin the 2nd Gulf War.

Officially speaking, and as per all the White House’s and Pentagon's statements, both wars were part of the War on Terror and all related to 9/11 and Al Qaeda (of which Osama was the leader). For example, Wikipedia summarizes the official cause of the Iraq war as follows: “According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, *to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism*, and to free the Iraqi people." General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme NATO Allied Commander and Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Strategy and Policy, describes in his 2003 book, Winning Modern Wars, his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after the 11 September attacks regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years.”
So that all sounds to me like terrorism and 9/11 was a major reason for the Iraq War as well. However, like most recent wars, nobody (not even the best journalist or army general) seem to be able to succinctly or clearly summarize what the hell the Iraq War was all about. And certainly very few in the world still trust the WMD story – certain investigative journos claim to have been told stuff or have evidence about WMDs (and certainly journos are infinitely more trustworthy than military sources). But of course journos get “tip offs” all the time that is part of the propaganda…Journos can be played like anyone else.

One thing we certainly can agree on is the (second) Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism in actuality and was simply an invasion. And an illegal invasion I would add.

I also agree with your assessment of the Information Liberation article as I’ve since noticed Oliver North may have been misquoted.

Martin wrote: "Oh, you had to go there! That is the rub, isn't it? Doubles to throw a wrench into the works. Hitler used them, Hussein, why not Bin Laden, either to fabricate a "death" to get the US off his tail or to feed to the US so they think they killed him? ..."

Well, I wasn't going to mention doubles as I thought everyone would mock me for even bringing it up! But glad to see at least one person will consider the concept.

And yeah, doubles throw a massive wrench in the works. If we had a truly honest media that allowed journalists to freely question everything, and if we had the most intelligent and freethinking journalists to the fore instead of parrots or entertaining/beautiful journos, then the masses would be aware of doubles. Unfortunately, hardly anyone (except the odd Hollywood director) ever mentions the subject of doubles and therefore there are no real debates being had about whether it was Osama or Saddam or Gaddafi who died...Or even, dare I say it, whether it's always the same Obama...

James Morcan wrote: "Martin wrote: "Yes, I know about these stories. Shortly after 9/11, there were reports Bin Laden had kidney failure, Marfan disease, and just about every other crud known to man. They have all been..."

James, I can't disagree with anything you say except the quotes from Wikipedia about why we invaded Iraq. As I wrote in another post, most of the senior staff of the Bush administration, including Cheney, came out of the neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC)which had advocated for an invasion of Iraq since the mid-1990s to secure its oil and create a "hegemony" for the US. George W stated while running for office he planned to invade Iraq to "build political capital." The only tie to terrorists Saddam Hussein was know to have was al-Zarqawi, who was living the area of Iraq that was still under UN military control. The CIA offered the Bush White House a plan to assassinate him, but Bush wanted to keep him alive to use him as an example of Hussein's "support" of terrorism. The British Downing Street Memos and subsequent documents make it clear the Bush administration knew Iraq had no WMDs left; the last were destroyed during Operation Desert Crossing during the Clinton administration. So, in this respect I say the invasion of Iraq was not related to terrorism, but to simple greed.

OTOH, yes, definitely the Bush administration played up the continuing fighting in Iraq as part of the GWOT, when the violence was simply a response to our invasion -- much like the Philippine-American War of 1898-1902 was a response to our annexing the country as a colony. Bush and Cheney wanted to keep feeding the flames of fear by telling Americans they had to be afraid, very afraid. Cheney is still doing it.

And definitely, the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned about plays a part in misinforming the public about terrorism and other so-called threats. Heck, the bulk of the major media outlets in the US are owned by defense corporations thanks to deregulation of the media. But, ironically (or maybe not so ironically) it wasn't defense companies that made the most profit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cheney's Halliburton -- an oil drilling services company -- is known to have profited the most of anyone, followed by the investment firm The Carlyle Group, owned by the Bush family and several of their cronies. (GHW Bush was chairman of Carlyle but had to step down when Jr. was preparing to invade Iraq.) Blackwater probably came in third. Big Oil also made a fortune off the wars; it takes a lot of oil to keep a war machine moving.

So, my statement is just a belief that if Bin Laden had actually been killed or died naturally before 2011 and it was made public, it would not have made a big difference. Iraq was quagmire we were stuck in, and there was no easy way to get out. And the Bush administration would have found another reason to make people afraid. The right wing in this country is still trying to do it. Sharia law is coming to the US! Iran is getting The Bomb! Gay marriage is turning all into homosexuals! That's my point.

Okay now I understand where you are coming from, Martin.
Tend to agree that if it hadn't have been Bin Laden it would've been someone or something else.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify and share what you know.
Best,
James

More holes in the official story than Swiss cheese infested by woodworm.

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

ROUND TWO (Feb 2017) ...

... Time to reopen the "war on terror" X-Files!

-----------------------------------------

Decided to open up this poll again a year and a half later as we now have a lot more members, almost 4,000 in fact. Thought it'd be interesting to see how this revisited poll ends up and how most of y'all vote, as well as what comments are added.

Really wish to learn all your thoughts and see what new information there may be on Osama Bin Laden's mysterious death.

Also check out this group discussion thread on this subject:

Osama Bin Laden -- Does the account of his death remotely add up? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Takaaki wrote: "It is known that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA agent. He wan controled by US inteligent corps. Maybe he was dead by suffering illness and the murder by the US marine corps was a fiction." Hmm, I never heard about this ... do u have some evidence?

James wrote: "I tend not to believe the story of Osama Bin Laden's death simply because upon further research there appears to be too many holes, inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions in the reports.

Have..."

I am just wondering what knowing the answer to this question will help us in. After his death (be it fake or not), nothing in the world changed to the better, I would even go to say that it changed to the worse.

I voted unsure (or maybe I don't care but I still care about the discussion on the implications of his death).

DrVivacious wrote: "James wrote: "Martin wrote: "Yes, I know about these stories. Shortly after 9/11, there were reports Bin Laden had kidney failure, Marfan disease, and just about every other crud known to man. They..."

James wrote: "I tend not to believe the story of Osama Bin Laden's death simply because upon further research there appears to be too many holes, inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions in the reports.

Have..."

James wrote: "I tend not to believe the story of Osama Bin Laden's death simply because upon further research there appears to be too many holes, inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions in the reports.

Have..."

This absolute nonsense.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/...

DrVivacious wrote: "I believe if Pakistan is mainly involved in terrorism, why it isn't in the list of ban with 7 other countries."

Trump only placed his "ban -it's not a ban" on Muslim countries in which he doesn't have business interests. Of course, if any of those banned countries offered Trump a business partnership, I'm sure he would remove them from his banned list.

My view is the story is essentially correct, and the confusing factors arise because different people see things differently, but i also think it is likely that some things in the story have been massaged.

I don't think there was anything sinister about bin Laden escaping Kabul or wherever he was - I think it as incompetence. The US subcontracted the "invasion" to the northern alliance, and I suspect a few million dollars would buy bin Laden safe passage.

One basic thing tells me it was staged!

Bin Laden was the "Prize above all other Prizes",
Yet they put the body in a body bag, raced it to a USN ship and buried it according to Muslim traditions.
1/ Nowhere does the Muslim religion state that a body must be buried at sea within 24 hours!
2/ No distinctive photo's taken of the body.
3/ Absolutely NO real proof to the press.
4/ SEAL team 6 was sent on an op a couple of weeks later in a Vietnam era chopper that was shot down because it had no armour, it was not a SpecOps chopper and did not have the proper onboard defensive systems!

Really really strange the whole affair.
I would have though Obama would have been putting evidence out there for the world to see!

Totally staged John, and you as a former intelligence agent would certainly know more than most!

Who the heck knows? Hard to decipher what is real. Everything is fake.

Most times, I feel like I want to just pull the blanket back up and go back to sleep. It would be easier....

I thought the SEALS operation suspicious.
It took too long to find so obvious a place as his compound.
His image, the same one again and again, what resembled Sunday School illustrations of Jesus Christ, fueled the Iraq war.
What I find impossible to swallow is the dumping of his body in the ocean. That can't be done in a normal capture of a criminal, and how is it ethical to the public? It is a horrendous thing to do to a Muslim unless they wanted fuel for war. Not considering Bin Laden but considering Muslims.
Where is the follow-up on his wives? I don't keep up well with news like that but I expected more follow-up. That might persuade me one way or another. Where are they? Are they alive?
It was very easy to imagine that Bin Laden died a number of years before the SEALS operation.

OK, I looked up Bin Laden's wives and it makes no sense. They were handed over to Pakistan authorities, sent to Saudi Arabia, and never heard about again. What doesn't make sense is not gleaning as much information from them as possible, and while another organization, ISIS, may have been forming. After so much hunting, you would think the U.S. authorities would hold Bin Laden's wives and children for questioning.

Can't see how I can vote. If I've voted before, can't remember how I voted.

In Muslim religion body first must be buried on planet earth and deep under the pit. It's false information for sure and if they were keen on doing such a ritual they must have done bathing and praying according to Islamic shariah! Was it even there? No.

Katherine wrote: "OK, I looked up Bin Laden's wives and it makes no sense. They were handed over to Pakistan authorities, sent to Saudi Arabia, and never heard about again. What doesn't make sense is not gleaning as much information from them as possible, and while another organization, ISIS, may have been forming. After so much hunting, you would think the U.S. authorities would hold Bin Laden's wives and children for questioning. ..."

Good point and that's reminiscent of how the U.S. are on record (as exposed by Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911) as flying out all the US residents of the Bin Laden family back to the Middle East (without questioning) the day after 9/11.

Go figure!

He died in tora bora during 2002,,, i heard this by word of mouth

I saw a documentary not too long ago and the civilians that lived in the alleged town where he was killed thought the whole episode was staged and fake. Can't recall the name of the doc. though.

I could find it if anyone's interested though it would take a few hours of digging through YouTube.

Well, there'll always be an element of doubt, won't there? Of course, it was rather convenient that any burial that may have taken place was in the Arabian Sea...

I've never bothered to look into the issue too deeply - simply as I feel that any information available probably cannot be verified. That said, the bin Laden family was considered an incredible "asset" to the US Government for decades, particularly under George Bush Snr.

They are also (as I'm sure is common knowledge) very close to the Saudi Royal Family and own an Oil & Consultancy company which grosses over $2 billion per annum in addition to running the largest construction firm on the planet, so on balance, any actual assassination looks unlikely to me as a cynic.

I'm not convinced that bin Laden hasn't died of natural causes at some point. He did appear to have renal failure in most of the later photos of him that are available. Before anyone asks: "But how did he receive dialysis in a cave?" etc I'd like to remind them that he had/has enormous personal wealth at his disposal, along with more from who knows how many ardent "followers" and that many people are able to live for years on at-home dialysis.

Personal wealth won't drag a honking huge dialysis machine through secret tunnels while one is hiding in caves. I always wondered how he could be a guerrilla on the run while getting regular dialysis.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he WAS alive, and it WAS him, why couldn't the raid have been both staged AND gone more or less as reported? Supposedly, they went in to capture him. He was too feeble to resist capture, and taken by surprise. Did they capture him? No. Killed. Was there any serious attempt to capture him, rather than kill him? Why not give a senile old man a trial, before killing him. Everyone is supposed to be entitled to a trial, including major war crimes criminals and terrorists. Was it just a woopsy that they couldn't bring him? Since there isn't an option to vote "Both", I can't vote.

I was under the towers, i heard noises that even a kid could tell werent right in accordance to what the government try to get people to believe. Osama was a CIA tactician, and he was back on the pay role to take the fall for 9/11 and an excuse to invade for oil and social control via fear tactics. I believe he is alive and well paid.

Miss wrote: "I was under the towers, i heard noises that even a kid could tell werent right in accordance to what the government try to get people to believe..."

Wow, that's a strong confirmation right there.
Thanks for sharing what you observed in New York City on that day.
There are so many other similar statements by witnesses, thousands in fact, which cannot be overlooked forever.