One would think that the details of the assassination of such a high profile terrorist would be clear and straight forward; but as time goes on more and more questions are being asked even by the most loyal of American patriots.
Initially it was announced by John Brennan, the White House Counter-terrorism chief, that Osama, his son, as well as one of his 5 wives was “killed during a fire fight”, with Osama’s wife being used as a human shield during the raid. “The footage of the battle in Bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout is said to show one of his wives acting as a human shield to protect him as he blasted away with an AK47 assault rifle.” – The Daily Mail
We were later told that there was no firefight, but Osama “offered stiff resistance” which was what led to him being shot in the head twice despite the fact that he was unarmed.
Interestingly, the following day Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, released a statement saying that Bin Laden’s wife had rushed after the US troops and was “shot in the leg”, leaving her with an injury that was not life threatening.
Basically, every original detail of the story has been changed. You can view some of the different versions below:
Please note that most of these discrepancies were released within 24 hours of the incident. Barack Obama’s spokesman blamed these errors on the “fog of war”, while Obama himself failed to comment on them.
A photograph was also released by the White House which appears to show Obama, Hilary Clinton and other officials keenly watching the events of the assassination as they unfolded:
Looking at the picture it would appear as though Hilary Clinton in particular is reacting to the violent nature of the expedition; and the whole room is captivated by the “live feed” we are told that was used to watch Obama’s assassination, from a camera that was on the helmet of one of the Navy SEALS.
The Daily Mail reported, “Last night pictures were released of Mr Obama and his security team – including Hillary Clinton – watching the mission to kill Bin Laden in the White House’s Situation Room – relayed to the White House by satellite – which played out like an episode of TV show 24 featuring fictional counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer”.
One would think that if the incident was “watched live” there would be virtually no discrepancies on what exactly happened. Yet initially we were told that Bin Laden was armed and killed in a firefight, and later on it was said he offered “stiff resistance” but he was actually unarmed. Your guess is as good as mine as to what form of stiff resistance an unarmed man could have offered when surrounded by a group of Navy SEALS with guns (side note: perhaps Osama had been taking taekwando lessons). Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that Osama was sick and in constant need of kidney treatment, and so he couldn’t be too far from a kidney dialysis machine in order for him to survive. Speaking of which, there is no sign of it in any of the pictures, and this old man that couldn’t take a piss without the help of a machine, was so violently resistant to being captured that he had to be shot in “the head”, by officials who are trained to incapacitate armed (and mostly healthy) terrorists.
Thinking about it objectively, this has got to be one of the most unsuccessful raids of all time, that is if ofcourse we are being told the truth. Essentially, the SEALS killed the ‘most valuable intelligence asset on the planet’, because they could find no other means to restrain him other than shooting him in the head.
Just when we thought we were getting to grips with the story, CIA director Leon Panetta in an interview with the London Telegraph said that there was a 25 minute black out of the live feed just before the US Navy SEALS entered the building. Specifically he said “Once those teams went into the compound i can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.” If this is the case, why would the White House release a photograph that “insinuates” that the entire incident was watched live and give immediate confirmation of what happened? Was this photograph deliberately intended to mislead, or are we giving Hilary Clinton’s acting skills a bit too much credit? Perhaps.
Hang on a minute. You mean to tell me that not only is there no body to actually prove the fact that Osama was killed, but even the supposed video footage cannot be seen because there was a black out when it actually happened?
It gets more interesting.
The daily mail reported ““The leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye.”, but, without intending to rhyme, ‘this was a complete lie’. There was either a black out and he saw nothing, or there was no blackout and he saw everything that happened. There is even ‘.1%’ of a chance that it was not even Bin Laden that was killed.
The American government said they were 99.9% confident that it was Osama that was killed. DNA evidence from Osama’s body and the brain of his late sister were compared to determine if it was him; along with photos of his “dead corpse” being compared by facial experts with previous “indisputable” images of Osama.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how they could have done all this in less than 24 hours before the conclusion was reached. The transportation of the samples to the lab alone is likely to have taken a considerable amount of time, never mind the actual analysis process itself. I guess we should just assume that one of the SEALS had a piece of Osama’s sisters brain in his back pocket.
Okay so lets just say for a minute that we actually believe all this happened; isnt it just a little bit funny that though pictures of Osama’s dead body exist, they cannot be shown because the images are too grotesque; but there is a blacked out 25 minute video that neither the media nor the government seems interested in displaying either? Or are we to assume that this video with no image is rated R as well? (Theres probably lots of swearing)
One of Osama’s sons, Omar Bin Laden, brought forward a number of considerable points in a statement he gave to the New York Times. Why was Osama “not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world”? “The US neglected its commitment to presumption of innocence”. These are very valid points, especially seeing as the only things that link to Osama being a part of 9/11 is a debatable confession video, which as we know in this day and age could have been created by “anyone”.
If the death of Osama is true, it is nothing less than the murder of a man before he had a chance to reveal anything that he knew. With all the evidence in front of me i am only inclined to believe one thing and one thing alone. There is something very fishy going on, and if Osama is truly buried under water, he would agree.
Click Here To Read More Of The MURDER BY MEDIA Series