Phone points to bin Laden's Pakistan link

Phone points to bin Laden's Pakistan link

www.theaustralian.com.au

A MOBILE phone used by Osama bin Laden's courier appears to show that he was aided by Pakistani militants linked to the country's powerful intelligence agency, The New York Times said.

Citing US officials briefed on an investigation into the phone, the Times said calls from the device were traced to Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, a militant group linked to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

It cited US officials as saying the mobile phone showed that the group's commanders had called Pakistani intelligence officials. The newspaper cited one US official who said the two par

(visit the link for the full news article)

I always said you have to be stupid to believe Pakistan had no idea that Osama Bin Laden was residing in their country. Believing Bin Laden can live in this residence for a decade and carry out international operations from there and go unnoticed by Pakistan and the Pakistani Military in the neighbourhood of Bin Laden is absurd. I am thrilled at this snippet of confirmation. What if Pakistan was protecting him all along?

Of course this news is also dangerous to Pakistani-U.S. relations.

www.theaustralian.com.au (visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Skyfloating


Part of me believes that this is part of a setup to widen the "War on Terrorism". It seems interesting as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, that the circumstances in Libya, Syria and Pakistan are ramping up in intensity.

At the least, I think we should start reconsidering our financial aid to the Pakistani government. They can not be allowed to accept our money with one hand, and use it to attack us with the other.

What we have here is a nuclear power in which parts of their government are actively supporting groups that seek the destruction of our country. If they want to be a partner in peace, they need to clean their house first.

reply to post by Skyfloating


As usual, not "ONE" named official is quoted..
And this,

Another US official told the daily that the link was not, however, a "smoking gun" that definitively linked bin Laden to the ISI, as it was unclear whether any calls were related to him.

Not exactly proof of anything and from "unknown" sources.

Originally posted by backinblack


As usual, not "ONE" named official is quoted..
And this,

Another US official told the daily that the link was not, however, a "smoking gun" that definitively linked bin Laden to the ISI, as it was unclear whether any calls were related to him.

Not exactly proof of anything and from "unknown" sources.

You really think Bin Laden can set up camp for a decade in Pakistan without anyone knowing about it?

Isnt that kind of naive?

Originally posted by BomSquad
Part of me believes that this is part of a setup to widen the "War on Terrorism". It seems interesting as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, that the circumstances in Libya, Syria and Pakistan are ramping up in intensity.

Possibly. If this turns out to be true (or if they end up "making it true") then Pakistan is next up after Afghanistan.

reply to post by Skyfloating

You really think Bin Laden can set up camp for a decade in Pakistan without anyone knowing about it?
Isnt that kind of naive?

Not sure about that.
I guess it depends on who he told about his whereabouts..

But the point of my post was not that.
It was to point out that your OP was flaky at best with unnamed sources and no definite link to OBL even if true..

Originally posted by backinblack

But the point of my post was not that.
It was to point out that your OP was flaky at best with unnamed sources and no definite link to OBL even if true..

There are many other reasons to believe Pakistan knew the whereabouts of Bin Laden, not only this piece of news. The most compelling reason being that he got to enter the country and live there for a decade...in a neighbourhood full of Military and Pakistani-Intelligence people.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Or maybe Osama passed away long time ago.

If the above is true, there is no point speculating about whether Osama was connected with ISI or not.

Have we any proof that he was even in Pakistan?

So far - we have the words of American officials (untrustworthy) , no pictures of a body (dubious), denials from Pakistan (dubious) and a lot of other info that we are assumed to just believe with zero evidence.

For all we know, he could be driving taxi's in NYC.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

But the point of my post was not that.
It was to point out that your OP was flaky at best with unnamed sources and no definite link to OBL even if true..

The original corporate news source is not much better.

Here is a link to the original New York times article:
www.nytimes.com...

Wow, this is really well sourced and credible information:

...senior American officials who have been briefed on the findings say.

...the officials and analysts said.

...the senior American officials said.

...said one American official

...The senior American officials did not name the commanders whose numbers were in the courier’s cellphone but said....

...could have been involved in supporting Bin Laden, too, officials and analysts said.

The former CIA-agent Bruce O. Riedel adds some information (not about the mobile phone), politicians add some warmongering rhetoric and that's it.
www.nytimes.com...

This style of reporting has become standard practice. Here a link to a relevant “U.S. officials said” rant by the great Robert Fisk.


Reminds me of 1984 “We've always been at war with Eastasia.”

I usually don't like to post information from Webster Tarpley, because I am unsure if he is trustworthy. But here is an important video of him about Obama and a possible war within Pakistan.

Webster Tarpley: The men behind Barack Obama - part 2



Link to part 1
www.youtube.com...

I guess it comes down to which news sources you trust more. Western News sources or other news sources.

Seems most people around here trust no news sources at all.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I guess it comes down to which news sources you trust more. Western News sources or other news sources.

Seems most people around here trust no news sources at all.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

The point is not, that it is the New York Times which is reporting the story.

The point is how the NYT uses anonymous sources to give the story credibility. Anonymity is important in the journalistic process to protect whistleblowers from repercussions. But this is not how it is used here. Glenn Greenwald has written very eloquently, why this sort of reporting is a reason for both caution and complaint.

In very limited circumstances, anonymity is valuable and justified (e.g., when someone is risking something substantial to expose concealed wrongdoing of serious public interest).

But promiscuous, unjustified anonymity -- which pervades the establishment press -- is the linchpin of most bad, credibility-destroying reporting. It enables government officials and others to lie to the public with impunity or manipulate them with propaganda, using eager reporters as both their megaphone and shield. It is the weapon of choice for reporters eager to serve as loyal message-carriers and royal court gossip columnists. It preserves and bolsters the culture of secrecy that dominates Washington -- exactly the opposite of what a real journalist, by definition, would seek to accomplish.

www.salon.com...

reply to post by Skyfloating


I find it strange - how some newspapers can display the bodies of Saddam Hussein's dead sons (bloated and bloodied, with open bullet wounds and such) - but refuse to display the body of Bin Laden.

This is what makes me doubt.

reply to post by mr-lizard


I was under the impression that the US Government had not released the pictures of bin Laden.

The newspapers would not be able to print the pictures, since they do not have the pictures.

I do not see how the pictures would be taken as proof, anyway. You either believe that they killed him, or not. No amount of "proof" (photo, video, signed statements, etc.) will satisfy someone who does not believe in the original source of the information.

The person that was killed in the raid wasn't bin laden i cant believe some people on here are still believing the mainstream news stories of the supposed bin laden.


Skyfloating why do you believe that the person who was killed in the raid was and is bin laden? al qaeda doesn't even exist if it exist.

This whole war on terrorism is agaisnt civil liberties and freedom.

Even after his death OBL continues to be a real life Emmanuel Goldstein. Like skyfloating, most of the NYT readers have swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. I don't expect any impartial organization will get a chance to investigate the incriminating cellphone evidence.

Here is a comment from one of the few exceptions, who shares my believe:

Careful; as a veteran special ops soldier, I've seen this kind of press build up to warfare in far flung regions again and again. ' Leaks' from 'officials' to the press lead to public outcry, which leads to another public sanctioned war. No good comes from these wars. Many people get killed. We never know the real reason. We in the field are told that 'we don't need a reason' [honestly, that's what we're told]. We need to wake up, drop the the emotion, and reject warfare as legitimate foreign policy.

community.nytimes.com...

For those who doubt that such manipulation would be allowed by respected newspapers here a quick video as reminder (the important part starts at about 6:00).

Originally posted by Skyfloating


I always said you have to be stupid to believe Pakistan had no idea that Osama Bin Laden was residing in their country. Believing Bin Laden can live in this residence for a decade and carry out international operations from there and go unnoticed by Pakistan and the Pakistani Military in the neighbourhood of Bin Laden is absurd. I am thrilled at this snippet of confirmation. What if Pakistan was protecting him all along?

Of course this news is also dangerous to Pakistani-U.S. relations.

www.theaustralian.com.au (visit the link for the full news article)

They should have protected him.. he's an innocent man by American virtue.

He wasn't even indicted.. the chronically lying oligarch kings of USSA handed him a death sentence outside a court of law... why should any other country take the US govts word for it?.. that's laughable!!

reply to post by Skyfloating


Interesting, I agree that elements within the Pakistani government and security services had some kind of intelligence on the location of Bin Laden and may even have provided him assistance.

However, saying that his phone was connected to a group who were also connected to the ISI is not a direct enough link to prove absolutely that ISI knew where bin laden was located.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Even after his death OBL continues to be a real life Emmanuel Goldstein. Like skyfloating, most of the NYT readers have swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. I don't expect any impartial organization will get a chance to investigate the incriminating cellphone evidence.

The context of this thread assumes that

a) Bin Laden existed
b) Bin Laden was killed.

So we view things from this particular frame of reality. Mixing in other reference frames is not conducive to this angle of the topic. Sure...he may never have been killed, he may never have existed etc. But thats not really the topic of this thread.. The topic is "Suppose he existed and suppose he was killed....in that case, could it be that he was protected by Pakistan?"

Another possibility is that this piece of news is just intel-leaked propaganda. But to accuse me of "swallowing something hook, line and sinker" is overstated. As long as we dont have all the information there is no way of knowing what is happening.