Watch carefully - I'm only going to do this once! [Osama, al-Qaeda, caliphate]

.. Obama is d' ...

  .. Ooops! *Osama* is dead ...

    .. they (CIA/Mossad?) got 'im at long last(?)

-=*=-
 
[update 1, update 2, update 3 & update 4.]

[update 3May'11.]

The slip of the tongue is understandable; after all we are discussing the worst *alleged* terrorist(s), and on a murder body-count basis B, B & H + S, C & O are peerlessly unmatched[1].

«... or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training ...» [wiki/Al-Qaeda].

Today's (NYT) headline: Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says

-=*=-

It's interesting to see & hear (mostly on the teeve) how language is being changed; what reasonable & honest people may call lying propaganda is now a 'narrative.' Makes (crooked) sense in a way, because a coordinated approach is needed to keep the sooo many lies from contradicting each other.

The news that Osama is dead is packaged in such a coordinated narrative, from 9/11 through Afghanistan, hugely threatening al-Qaeda organization, ending after a 'targeted operation firefight,' they killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - all sooo convenient, no? And the 'cream' is the caliphate[2].

My 'watch carefully' headline is because this little tale can only be told the once; one has to ask Q: "Why now, why this particular moment?"

Suggested A: Since we don't 'do' coincidences, they obviously need an humongous distraction; perhaps the perfidious US hegemony/oil-control 'project' has hit some enormous 'speed bump' (in British English a speed hump, road hump or sleeping policeman; in New Zealand English a judder bar?)

With the Arab nation in uproar (attempting to throw off the yoke of US-supported dictators), US/NATO involved in ever-more aggressive invasions (see record murder-counts 'hinted' at above - and each immoral/illegal military action heading for, when not already reached quagmire-status), and the Palestinians looking to unite (against Israel's bloody, 63+ year long murdering for land-theft), we can be pretty sure of where/what the problem is.

My suggested solution: All aggressive invaders to return to whence they came, all stolen property to revest, and a very big "SORRY!"

-=*end*=-

PS Would the real conspiracy please stand up? In other words, Q: Is there any proof? A: Yes; IF any narrative contains a serious flaw = an outright lie = whopper, say, THEN we can be sure that the narrative itself is lying propaganda. In this case, one whopper is 'the caliphate' - it's part of the 'clash of civilisations' fear-narrative deployed to scare the sheople shitless, in turn to distract those sheople from US/NATO murdering for spoil (mostly oil). The next big IF: Only massively dumbed-down sheople can possible believe 'the caliphate' lie, especially when one recalls that belief is done by people in the utter absence of evidence. For more normal = rational people, 'the caliphate' doesn't even pass the giggle-test. My understanding - hard evidence wherever possible, otherwise 'balance of probabilities' - is that Osama's purported prime objective was achieved when the US removed all its forces from Saudi Arabia, and finally, Osama was thought by many to be long dead (kidney failure); it 'beggars belief' (Haw!) that he actually survived unscathed until last week.

PPS Another giggle-test failure is blaming al-Qaeda for 9/11. The tower-steel was chopped into (convenient) lengths and the concrete was completely pulverised (think pyroclastic flow) - but some alleged terrorist passports were quickly found, clearly floated free of the incredible[3], steel-melting aircraft-fuel fire in pristine condition. That of course is a comparative peccadillo; one thing al-Qaeda assuredly did *not* do was to have pre-packed the *three* towers with literally truck-loads of ultra-high energy explosives along with the required, coordinated mini-delay detonator-system. Just as with the coordinated lies, the mini-delay detonators were needed to achieve that wonderfully choreographed, neat and tidy collapse into own foot-print demolition. Current best 'Hollywood-style movie' = cinema stunt ever.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] peerless adj. unequalled, superb. [POD] - S, C & O = Sarkozy, Cameron & Obama.

[2] caliph n. esp. hist. chief Muslim civil and religious ruler. caliphate n. [Arabic, = successor (of Muhammad)] [ibid.]

[3] incredible adj. 1 that cannot be believed. 2 colloq. amazing, extremely good. incredibility n. incredibly adv. [ibid.]

-=*=-
 
Update, 11:29 (= 7 mins from detection to begin reaction)

This 'just in:'

Bin Laden's body buried at sea
Posted May 2, 2011 18:23:00
[Posted 59 minutes ago]
  «Osama Bin Laden was reportedly buried in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition.» 
[abc.net.au/news]

Comment: This 'takes the cake' = makes the argument. It's the same as disposing of the WTC rubble/steel in frantic haste; its other names are 'destruction of evidence' and 'obstruction of justice,' amongst other more disparaging terms.

Body? What body? (Haw again, tapping side of forehead with a finger.)

[«back»] 

-=*=-
 
Update, begun 12:29, ready 13:11

List of stories, with my timestamps:

06:01 US forces kill Al Qaeda figurehead in firefight (via radio)
11:26 Bin Laden's body buried at sea
11:57 Former US leaders celebrate 'victory for America'
12:05 Bin Laden's death a lesson for Taliban: Karzai
12:12 US tracked bin Laden to luxurious compound
12:19 Bin Laden death sparks outburst of online activity
12:24 War against terrorism not over: Gillard

Some observations: Truly amazing! There was an actual, live 'in country' ear-witness, who heard helicopters and explosions - and social-networked his impressions. There was a 'military leak;' a 'source' close to (discredited, disgraced, dismissed) Rumsfeld. A shit-load of ex leaders, *all* with blood on their hands (including our very-own Howard and Downer), are given 'exultant speech-opportunities.' The US is once again proclaimed as being "exceptional." Karzai kicks at the Taliban, who have to be the world's most famous 'collaterals,' since they had abso-effing-lutely nothing to do with 9/11; speaking of which, assassinating Osama (IF it really did just happen) - validates the 'standard 9/11 narrative' - at least, according to all these stories. Then, there's the fantastic (think Shangri-La) over-dimensional, $1mio luxurious terrorist-lair, where they were 'pretty sure' some baddy was holed-up in. This 'pretty sure' having been based on 'confessions of witnesses in Gitmo' - or so the *impression* is given. Sooo, they attacked this terrorist-lair in a night-raid by helicopter, basically just on spec. And this time the 'cream' was a human-shield event and it all 'went badly' = fatal for almost all the by definition 'extremist' targets). Talk about 'touching all bases;' again I have to say "Fantastic!"

You couldn't make this stuff up. (Think Hollywood movie-script.) Buster Keaton springs to mind, to play Raymond Davis.

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, begun 15:57, ready 16:31

Current latest:

Arab world divided on bin Laden's death
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara and wires
Posted May 2, 2011 22:38:00
  «In Iraq, ravaged by nearly a decade of violence in the battle between bin Laden and the West, some were cautious about the circumstances in which Washington announced his death.» 
[abc.net.au/news]

Comment 1: Any battle in Iraq, latest since the appallingly vicious 'fish in a barrel,' 'turkey-shoot' = "Highway of Death" massacre, was and is nothing other than the US' pursuit 1st & foremost of oil (control + resource-rent both), 2ndarily US hegemony, and 3rd but not least, 'protection' of its illegitimate side-kick (Z-land, if you didn't 'get it').

Comment 2: From squillions, any 'vox-pop' can be chosen - to 'prove' any conjecture, here (as always) Arab/Muslim bad, US/Western unrelievedly, 'no teenage-pimples or spots' good.

Comment 3: Arising from #1, carefully note this: Deployment of a *single* lie can and does completely destroy any/all associated arguments. Think: These topics are sooo serious, scrupulous honesty is *required*. The world literally depends on taking the correct path; *any/all* lies = deception, and *no* rational decision is ever possible under even the merest whiff of deceit. Nobody can say "Ooops! Sorry; mistake!" The AusBC is infested with Uni-graduates, and it is their paid, professional business to report to us, we the sheople, in as full and fair way as is possible, because as the voters, we are sovereign; we are *required* by the 'democratic covenant' to vote rationally - outright impossible if = here when misinformed.

The upshot is, when any lie is deployed, whether deliberate (criminally malevolent) or not (criminally culpable), any associated discussion is made *null and void*.

Those who can clearly observe and think know this already; we also know that lies are deployed to dumb-down the sheople = destroy the voter portion of any remaining properly functioning 'democratic process.' We live in a dystopia 'ruled' by lying, murdering criminals, aided by a corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-funded national broadcasters - and as *proven* by the cited Sally Sara (Reuters) article; here hoist on their own petard.

Off with their heads! Or at least sacked, then into gaol with the lying lot.

[«back»] 

-=*=-
 
Update, begun 19:37; last for today

Evening news:

It's a full propaganda assault; no surprise at all, really. The 9/11 neat-and-tidy collapsing towers (all 3; WTC7 hardly ever shown), lots of the old OBL *allegation* material repeated, the only real interest being the expressions on the speakers. Some grim-faced (well acted), others hardly able to suppress their glee. I have to struggle to sort the wheat out from the chaff; it's only natural because I have no direct, inside-line to the underlying reality. On the other hand, the speakers on the teeve, from professional announcers, through politicians to so-called 'experts,' all *know* that they are lying. All IMHO, as usual and of course; but my theses agree well to putative reality (what we can actually see = murder for spoil, and what we can deduce = psychopaths), down to quite enough decimal places. Leaving any further analysis until later perhaps (assuming sufficient impulse), new tonight was a) months long preparation, b) four helis with Navy Seals, c) *no* advance warning to the Paks, let alone seeking permission and d) *no* intention of arrest whatsoever; it was a declared 'kill' mission = extrajudicial execution = assassination. The last not so odd, since OBL never 'made it' onto the FBI most wanted list - on account of lack of evidence, we both 'hear' and suppose; no evidence = no trial, just kill = murder. This lack of evidence was the reason why the Taliban refused to surrender OBL all those years ago - but the US has to do what it wants to anyway, which is to aggressively invade, Iran coup in '53 against democratic oil-nationalisation, Iraq in '91 and again in '03 for oil (also nationalised = the state gets the economic rent), Afghanistan in '01 for pipeline routes (carpet of gold - or bombs), Libya in '11, about 50% nationalised oil and Iran (nationalised oil) again next, how soon? Note the trend. Ah yes; indistinctly heard: "This could aid Obama's re-election campaign." Who'd have thought?

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update 3May'11

Contradictions emerge:

Firstly, note that the 'operation' was kept secret even from Pakistan, and was 'run' by the 'enforcement arm' of the US regime. Whether CIA (usual suspects) or Navy (from reports), the two are effectively the same; proof: The heads are currently 'swapping hats' in an Obama reshuffle. This means that the only stories available (apart from any sourced from the wo/men in the street = usually ignorant, confused or both) - the only *authoritative* reports are from the US regime.

According to a news broadcast (= no doc), four helis were involved.

According to spiegel, three US Apache helis were involved (wrong).

According to another news broadcast (= no doc), two were involved.

According to AusBC:

"Their helicopter stalled ... managing to set it down ..."

This implies only one ("Their helicopter ... set it down") = singular.

"The assault team went ahead with the raid, not knowing if they had a way out."

This reinforces just the one ("The assault team ... not knowing ... way out.")

"The Seals blew up their crippled chopper and used a back-up aircraft to evacuate."

This ("a back-up ...") contradicts one, which means at least two, and/but insufficient briefing, to boot. Hmmm.

There's a conflict between 'eye/ear-witness' and 'official' reports: starting at 01:00AM vs. 01:30AM, a heli crash (presumably noisy) vs. a stall ("unable to restart" = no noise), battle raging until 04:00AM = min 2.5hrs vs "less than 40 minutes", but see "ignorant, confused" above.

Not so BTW, there was *no* moonlight available before 03:52AM and then only 4.1%; compare this with a full moon over Baghdad on 18 Mar 2003 and a full moon over Tripoli on 19 Mar 2011. Un-rehearsed heli landings in the (no moon = pitch-black) dark are considered very high-risk.

Two articles mention doubts as to who was 'home;' "assessed that there was a strong probability that the terrorist who was hiding there was Osama bin Laden" and "found an individual that they believed was bin Laden, ..." One might expect that there should have been *absolutely no* doubt whatsoever, having arrived with guns blazing?

So far, possibly 'merely' inconsistent inaccuracies. It *is* possible, that inaccuracies are deliberately deployed to confuse, *far* more serious is this:

«But the White House later clarified that bin Laden's wife was injured, not killed in the raid and that she was not used as a human shield.»

This demonstrate a contradiction by an admission that some earlier report was *wrong*. Why? Sloppy? IMHO, no; it's another deliberate tactic.

Think this is not serious? Think again; an earlier search for "Bin Laden used wife as human shield" returned 'About 15,600 results (0.09 seconds)' - now up to 17,800 - the propagandists are fast and loose.

What they do is deploy some lie - for effect; then 'withdraw' = revise = modify their story, to return to something approaching non-provably false. But by then the 'damage' has been done; the 'sheople' dumbed down. Again? No, still.

Recall that a single lie puts the *whole* story into doubt. Just a oncer? Nooo; we have the 'new' use of snipers, or better expressed, the new (corrupt & venal) MSM *allegations* about snipers. These details indicate that the propagandists have moved up a notch: We are now in a similar predicament to Winston in room 101; the rat-mask.

[«back»]