Zadari: Osama was an “Operator” for the United States

Infowars
May 10, 2009

In the interview here, NBC’s David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an “operator” for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.

Look the video and article in Infowars.com:
www.infowars.com...


--- This whole issue of Pakistan / USA links are interesting for 911 Truth investigation, because now, when everything is going to table there - and country is falling to civil war, there are lots of unhappy people in ISI and amongst officials.

Rumors from Pakistani involvement in 911 conspiracy has been high on many investigation, maybe we get many leaks, unhappy people ready to speak their knowlefge from the beginning of "war on terror" ... Now they are in middle of it - and I think that was not part of their plan.

Well if the pres of Pakistan is making statements like this, it helps explain why the Taliban is being positioned to overthrow.

I'm going from memory here, but I think his operative handle or alias during his anti-soviet realted employment with the Bush era CIA was Tim Osman. Interesting to note that shortly before 9-11 happened, there were fairly reputable media sources in France claiming that the CIA was meeting with Osama in an American hospital in Dubai.
TheBin Laden Construction Group was on site during the construction of the WTC complex, at least one source claims that they were questioning why they were planting explosives in buildings that weren't even fully constructed yet. There's a long list of oddities and cooincidences surrounding this man, and something about the whole Bin Laden thing that reminds me of Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by twitchy]

reply to post by JanusFIN

The Pakistanis are right to go public with this stuff. I think the world is ready for it. Zardari is not saying anything that isn't known or hasn't been published already in the MSM, but the fact that he is focusing on it is a departure.

Saddam Hussein already found that playing footsie with Uncle Sam could lead to a severe case of "hammer toe." Uncle Sam changes the rules of his games when it suits him and all the other kids in the playground no longer trust him.

Pakistan is dropping heavy hints that some special secrets that they know could become very embarassingly public if Sam doesn't stop trying to push them around.

This is good news for the truth movement and good news for America. It is getting closer and closer to the time for the American public to have a heart to to heart with their elected representatives. The line that America has taken, starting eight years ago with the election of George W. Bush is a vector to catastrophe for the whole world. America and it's allies need to find a different way into the future.

I just wanted to add that although the focus of the OP's post is what Zardari is saying about bin Laden, there are other things that Pakistan knows all about that would be highly embarassing to the United States if revealed by an authoritative source like Zardari.

These are things that are almost never discussed when Uncle Sam is having coffee and cupcakes with his friends. Watch the following:




[edit on 10-5-2009 by ipsedixit]

It is very interesting to view this following clip having already seen the above clip. It is easy to see American foreign policy in action, how it shape shifts and is spun for the American public.



The Taliban are clearly a very useful hot potato being manipulated to suit America's needs in the region. Of course Pakistan cooperated in taking them in but, why? Because they like having hooligans over for dinner? Hardly. Musharraf, at the time, must have been pressured into it by the Americans, not fundamentalist elements in Pakistan.

The moment was a golden opportunity for him to turn to the fundamentalist Pakistanis and say,"I can't do anything to help these people (the Taliban and Al Quaeda). They are under American control in Afghanistan." American military forces in the region could then have finished the problem.

But the problem with finishing the problem is that you then have to deal honestly with secure governments in the region and do mutually beneficial commercial deals with respect to oil and pipelines. That's not the American way.

If America really wanted stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they would have wiped the Taliban and Al Quaeda leadership out in the aftermath of the seige of Tora Bora, but they didn't, because the Taliban are a useful tool in the quest for American dominance of the region.

reply to post by ipsedixit


What a pack of 'Meet The Press' lying traitors. They know darn well that those Osama videos they allude to since 2001 were faked (They could hardly control their own laughter) and they know darn well that Usama bin Laden was dead after 2001. They must think that their victims (the American public) are the stupidist louts who ever walked the face of the earth.

For the sceptical, this clip from Dick Cheney, speaking in the period after the first Gulf War (fought by the Bush Sr. administration), illustrates clearly how the policy of the George W. Bush administration must have been intended to destabilize the region around Iraq.



In Iraq they removed the strongman. In Afghanistan and Pakistan they are playing hide and seek with the poisonous fundamentalist element of Muslim society, but never defeating it militarily. That is the way Dick Cheny's war that will last our lifetimes can be prolonged as long as they need to do it.

It is a policy which is being followed up on by the Obama administration in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. These clips illustrate clearly how the endless war on terror is being generated by America and will be generated in the future, with the dual aim of controlling and cowing the American public and dominating regions of the world essential to American economic security.



[edit on 10-5-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by SPreston

It is totally disgusting. It is difficult to stomach listening to them. How people can doubt that elements of the American press were involved in 9/11 as perps, after watching something like that, is beyond me.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
If America really wanted stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they would have wiped the Taliban and Al Quaeda leadership out in the aftermath of the seige of Tora Bora, but they didn't, because the Taliban are a useful tool in the quest for American dominance of the region.

It was the same with Saddam. They kicked him out of Kuwait but stopped short at removing him from power - and the whole world wondered why. The reason was they thought they still had a chance to make him a willing puppet once again, but Saddam had had enough of the 'American way' no doubt and dropped the US dollar when it came to oil sales. That was the final straw for the US administration and he was subsequently removed from power and murdered.

The thing that bugs me most about this situation is that one can see, by focusing in on a small slice of American foreign policy with the aid of a couple of precisely chosen video clips, that this policy is working.

One could say, "Great, America's foreign policy is working!", but that would be ill considered, because a foreign policy like that can only lose America all of it's friends and lead to trouble in the long run.

When you realize that, another home truth becomes apparent.

That truth is, of course, that this is not "America's policy". This is the policy of the American industrial and banking oligarchy. They don't give a rat's fanny for what foreigners think, for the lives of foreigners or the standard of living in Afghanistan, or what the Taliban are up to. They don't even care about American lives or American living standards.

They care about only one thing, their own insatiable greed. It's a mental illness. They cannot control it, so, they themselves have to be controlled, through the mechanisms of representational government.

Unfortunately, these people are so mentally ill, so driven by their insatiable greed, that they have come to regard the very forms and foundations of the country and system that made them rich as an impediment to even greater riches. Driven by their addiction to wealth and power, they have undertaken to subvert the very system that gave them the wealth they have, by taking steps to undermine and negate the elected representatives of the people, through various ingenious means.

The kind of wealth and power that they crave can only be achieved in a feudal style oligarchical state such as the ones that existed around the world in the middle ages. That's where these people are taking us, back to the middle ages.

This is an extremely dangerous situation because the very existence of humanity as a whole was not placed in jeopardy every time Knute the Brute went on a rampage in the middle ages. Things are very different now.

Back then, by dint of innumerable poorly laid plans and military catastrophes, even Knute the Brute and his descendants gradually realized the value of diplomacy and subtleties like buffer states. (Whoever invented the buffer state was a genius!)

Finally we had the big bloodbaths of the 20th century, the first war to end all wars, the second war to end all wars, and a long series of aftershocks to these major earthquakes.

We enter the 21st century and by some quirk of recessive genetic tomfoolery another Knute the Brute type becomes President of the United States of America, "Hail to the Thief!"

He doesn't know what a buffer state is and doesn't know how big a bang a nuclear weapon can make and sets about doing two things. Going on a rampage like in the good old middle ages and tearing up the legal foundations of representational government in the United States, because these things are in his way.

In this day and age it is too dangerous to do this kind of thing anymore. The entire American oligarchical class has to get "counselling". The American people have to make it their business to reassert the institutions of representational government in the United States. That is the only sensible way around this situation.

We can then have an American foreign policy that truly represents Americans and their best interests, and we can get down to the business of finding new solutions to the real problems the world faces in the 21st century.

The real problems of the 21st century have nothing to do with elevating the standards of living of the American industrial and banking oligarchy. We have to get off the track we are on before somebody on some side of all the various issues loses their nerve and pushes the nuclear button. Let's get back to sanity.


[edit on 11-5-2009 by ipsedixit]

I absolutely agree and do indeed remember just what Twitchy was referring to with Bush Sr.
I still feel that this is why we are in the middle eastern dilemna.
Bush Sr, in my opinion, is the most dangerous man alive and ironically, not on anyone's
"hit list".

Peace...

Originally posted by Gyrochiral
Bush Sr, in my opinion, is the most dangerous man alive and ironically, not on anyone's
"hit list".

Peace...

I'm really glad you mentioned that. One of the most characteristic features of the post Eisenhower era in US history has been the ressort to political asassination in the United States, but virtually all of these asassinations or attempted asassinations have come from segments of the right wing, including the attempt on Reagan that has been linked to Bush Sr. in a speculative way, the asassination of George Lincoln Rockwell that came from within his own party and, I think (off the top of my head) even the attempt on the life of George Wallace.

The democratic left don't seem to shoot people. I wonder if it is because they believe in the principles of democracy. They might want to kill you but they are willing to settle for doing it at the ballot box.

Meanwhile, the shooters keep shooting and keep creating patsies among the lower orders and the American public, ever hungry for a new way to be duped, keeps swallowing the scams hook line and sinker.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

Am chortling....the attempt on Reagan's life was because he could not find a spot for Bush Jr in his administration. I cannot provide the source for this, as I read it in college many moons ago.
Sr. is connected with every power play "elitist" group on this planet and is a silent manipulator; using our very political system as his shield. I do no think that it matters to him really what party is targeted, only that he gets his way.

Peace...

reply to post by Nonchalant


The whole world didnt wonder why. The Saudis and the Jordanians did not want Saddam removed from power. At the time, he was considered an acceptable buffer between them and Iran. End of story.

Just when you thought a story had been consigned to the garbage can it comes back....

The story that Osama Bin Laden was "Tim Osman" comes from two people. Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto, they claim to have met with Osama in 1986 where they discussed getting weapons to the mujaheedin.

Problem is Mr. Gunderson and Mr Riconosciuto arent the most reliable sources....

Ted Gunderson was an FBI agent for 28 years until he was forced out/took early retirement due to "irregularities" in the conduct of his duties. Since then he has popped in everything from Satanism to child molestation to internment camps. hes been sued by Art Bell for slander..oh heck just do a web search to see what all he shows up in....and he will be happy to share whichever story you would like to hear for $29.95...

Michael Riconoscuito is currently in prison on drug charges...anyway...what he claims to have been involved in...

1960's: Peripheral contact with JFK assassination suspects

1973: Accused of links to assassination of Chilean leader Salvador Allende

1980: Involved with delaying the release of the US hostages in Iran

Early 1980's: "In the early 1980s Michael also served as the Director of Research for a joint venture between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida, and the Cabazon Band of Indians in Indio, California

1980's: has knowledge of bio-warfare research

Since 1991 he has been jailed on drug charges. I know, I can hear the "he was framed" charges now....

His first conviction on drug charges was in 1972..his psych eval at the time said.. he is "a mentally unstable person who had trouble discerning between fact and fiction"


You can read more about these two here...

www.911myths.com...

So anyway, these two supposedly represented the US Government in 1986 and sold weapons to Osama........of course that was about the time I was selling the Great Wall of China to Nigeria..

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Infowars
May 10, 2009

In the interview here, NBC’s David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an “operator” for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.

Look the video and article in Infowars.com:
www.infowars.com...


--- This whole issue of Pakistan / USA links are interesting for 911 Truth investigation, because now, when everything is going to table there - and country is falling to civil war, there are lots of unhappy people in ISI and amongst officials.

Rumors from Pakistani involvement in 911 conspiracy has been high on many investigation, maybe we get many leaks, unhappy people ready to speak their knowlefge from the beginning of "war on terror" ... Now they are in middle of it - and I think that was not part of their plan.

hopefully what happens is that certain people in gov or in power are going to be the odd man out . They who have gone with the plan will become not needed and so they will become mad and angry and out the people and the stuff that is going on .

Osama was a long-time CIA operative(not operator). He was the main source of contact for the Afghani fight against russia. WE CREATED HIM.

Why anyone thinks he is not still CIA is beyond me.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Because anyone that believes he was the point man for our contacts with the Mujaheedin....isnt paying attention to the facts. There were two groups of freedom fighters in Afghanistan. One, were Afghanis, the other were Arab volunteers. ALL US aid went to the Afghanis, through Pakistan, the US was not connected to the Arab volunteers that Osama was part of.

Bin Ladin, meanwhile, had expoused anti-American positions since 1982, and thanks to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction business had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding.

A source familiar with bin Ladin's organisation explains that bin Ladin "never had any relations with America or American officials... He was saying very early in the 1980's that the next battle is going to be with America... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Ladin from Americans." A senior offical unequivocally says that "bin Ladin never met with the CIA."

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of grey. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's military intelligence agency, Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to fund the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA

Former CIA officer Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980's, says: "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight...

Moreover, the Afghan Arabs demonstrated a pathological dislike of Westerners. Jouvenal says: "I always kept away from Arabs [in Afghanistan]. They were very hostile. They would ask, 'What are you doing in an Islamic country?" The BBC reporter John Simpson had a close call with bin Ladin himself outside Jalalabad in 1989. Travelling with a group of Arab mujahideen, Simpson and his television crew bumped into an Arab man beautifully dressed in spotless white robes; the man began shouting at Simpson's escorts to kill the infidels, then offered a truck driver the not unreasonable sum of five hundred dollars to do the job. Simpson's Afghan escort turned down the request, and bin Ladin was to be found later on a camp bed, weeping in frustration. Only when bin Ladin became a public figure, almost a decade later, did Simpson realise who the mysterious Arab was who had wanted him dead

Holy War, Inc by Peter Bergen

the handful of Americans who had heard of bin Ladin in the 1980's knew him mainly for his violently anti-American views. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from Orange County, California, told me about a trip he took with the mujihideen in 1987. At the time, Rohrabacher was a Reagan aide who delighted in taking long overland trips inside Afghanistan with anti-Communist forces. On one such trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Ladin's encampment. Rohrabacher was told, "If he hears an American, he will kill you."

Disinformation by Richard Miniter

Finally, from an interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1996....

bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Problem is Mr. Gunderson and Mr Riconosciuto arent the most reliable sources....

What exactly constitutes a 'reliable' source? Is there any physical evidence to suggest that they did NOT have any contact Osama/Tim Osman? It's very easy to simply attack the source rather than the information that they present, and it's a well known tactic employed by those in power to discredit whistleblowers and informants when it suits their purposes.
It's pretty flimsy and lackadasial for a conspiracy researcher to dismiss a witness out of hand because that someone was arrested for drugs. George Bush jr. was supposedly arrested for coc aine posession in 1972, pickled himself on alcahol, and his aunt said publicly that he was pretty much a cokehead. He went on to become governor of Texas and President of the United States. Hell for that matter, I've been arrested for drugs and I can clearly remember what I had for breakfast this morning and the shirt I wore on the day I proposed to my wife 18 years ago.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


And I dont suppose a CIA asset would have orders to say these things, would they? The CIA has NEVER put disidents in positions of power in other countries...oh wait....

While I know osama is not of the same faction that is there now, there is no denying he was a CIA Asset.

How many CIA assets have you ever heard of that were able to cut away?