It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The real target of the Abbottabad raid and the geopolitical war against Pakistan

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:25 PM
Well, I thought it was about time to write my first thread for ATS and want to start by looking at the Abbottabad raid of May 2011, in which Osama Bin Laden was allegedly shot and killed. Most of the people on ATS were unconvinced by the official story of the Abbottabad raid which still has many holes and inconsistencies, but lacked the geopolitical knowledge to ascertain what the official story might be covering. With that in mind, lets start with some analysis of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the main antagonist of recent events in that part of the world, General(r) Pervaiz Musharraf (some of you were expecting Bin Laden to be the main antagonist of this story, but he is more of a boogeyman than an important political player). So this is going to be quite a long thread, spread over more than one post.

We start, then, in the late 1990's when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister of Pakistan. Sharif was a classic oligarch, an industrial tycoon educated as a lawyer, but was constrained to follow nationalistic policies by the politically strong pakistani military (Sharif was preceded and succeded by military rule, and fended off at least one other military coup, led by Ghulam Ishaq Khan). The pakistani military follow much more nationalistic (and Islamic) policies, and viewing even native oligarchs as puppets of the west remove them from time to time on the grounds of corruption and selling out national interests.
Such was the case with Musharraf, previously strategic commander for the Kargil Infiltration to derail peace talks between India and Pakistan. This involved placing Islamic militants in the Kargil area of Kashmir. When india found out and attacked, PM Sharif withdrew support for militants. This was a humiliation for pakistan, as the broader population tend to prefer the Islamic/nationalist policies of the military. Musharraf blamed Sharif, and began to talk of a coup.
Musharraf also supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, who he correctly viewed as Islamic Nationalists (please do not confuse the Taliban with Al Qaeda, which is a totally different animal and someone else's puppet). As did the Arab gulf states, who leased Shamsi Airbase prior to the USAF taking over (Officially the base was leased for wealthy sheikhs to go game hunting, but was in actuality the conduit for Arab influence in Afghanistan). At this point the US foreign policy think tanks still backed the Northern Alliance as potential clients or puppets, hubris possibly preventing them from seeing the Islamic Nationalist policies taking shape in the region.
Musharraf sent 28,000 pakistani troops to fight on the side of the Taliban (8000 irregulars recruited from Pakistani Madrasses. The estimated taliban force of 25,00 therefore containd 8,000 paki nationals, almost 1/3rd. another 3,000 were arabs) This seems to have come as a surprise to US intelligence;

This U.S. Intelligence Information Report concludes that the ISI is much more involved with the Taliban than Pakistani officials have been telling U.S. diplomats. U.S. intelligence indicates that the ISI "is supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel, and food."


The Northern Alliance sent intel to Nawaz Sharif about pakistanis fighting in afghanistan, complaining they were disguised as pashtun tribesmen. They actually were pashtun tribesmen who do not recognise the Afghan/Pakistan border that seperates their lands. Sharif tried to intervene and stop the military, but Musharraf wouldn't let him. After the national humiliation of Kashmir, Musharraf was determined to maintain a strong foreign policy, which now included backing a pashtun dominated Islamic Nationalist goverment in Afghanistan. Backed by a strong military, and no doubt emboldened by pakistan becoming a nuclear power following the nuclear tests in 1998, Musharraf took charge and ousted Sharif.

Now, if you read the all the above, you might be thinking 'so what?' If you understood all of the above, then you realise that Pakistan under Musharraf was following a policy of a strong, independent, nuclear armed pakistan, following a nationalist islamic agenda that sought to spread pakistani influence in it's near abroad, Kashmir and Afghanistan, by backing (sometimes creating) Islamic militant movements. These are exaclty the 'undesirable' traits we hear about Iran or Syria during the 'war on terror', except pakistan already has nuclear weapons and trains far more Islamic militants. And whereas Iran is considered problematic because of it's large population, difficult terrain (for invading) and possible support by China/Russia, Pakistan has an even larger population (approx 170 million and millions more ethnic pashtuns in Afghanistan), even more difficult terrain and a proven and developing relationship with China and Russia. If Ahmedinejad of Iran can be considered to trigger a 'warning light' in foreign policy circles, Musharraf would have triggered something akin to a 'red alert' with flashing lights and wooping siren.

Both he, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, had to go. We all know what happened next for the Taliban.

Musharraf was threatened into acting against the Taliban he had helped put into power.

"The intelligence director told me that Mr Armitage said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," he said. The US envoy also insisted that Pakistan suppress domestic expression of support for attacks on the United States, he said. "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Gen Musharraf said..


This was not an idle threat. Western powers would have destroyed pakistan in order to contain it. Musharraf complied with US requests, even evicting his arab guests from Shamsi airbase, and NATO got to work removing the pashtuns from power, curtailing the political reach of pakistan. (the huge increases in opium addiction among the pashtun tribes that formerly supplied the taliban with their manpower , while NATO are in control of the poppy fields, is a huge conspiracy in itself, but must remain a digression for this thread).
Unable to remove the nuclear-armed general from power militarily without destroying the country, western powers turned to the oligarchs of pakistan, with whom they had enjoyed previous success. Eventually securing his replacement by a civilian administration more receptive to US demands. One such demand was that US could use drone strikes on both sides of the border to degrade the infrastructure used by Islamic Nationalist movements, much of which was set up by the military to enable pakistan's more assertive regional policies.

The new administration, and the alliance with NATO was an affront to Pakistani nationalism and many Pakistanis wished for the return of Musharraf and Nationalist policy.

But could the general return in another coup? or would the US stop him? cont......

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:15 PM
So, Musharraf is out of power, while the population of Pakistan debate the difference between his aggressive nationalist islamic policies, and the complicit, submissive reality of the new civilian government;

With plenty of support from the population, Musharraf launches his own political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League. Notice the name of the party in relation to his policies? As of 2010, he makes clear his intention to return to Pakistan, and get rid of the corrupt puppet government. To this end he begins to talk about another revolution in pakistan (remember that the pakistani military often removes civilian governments for being corrupt and/or puppets)

Claiming that Pakistan was being run to the ground, former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf did not rule out a fresh military takeover in the country.“The state is being run to the ground at the moment, and people are again running to the military to save the country,” Musharraf told a gathering in Aspen, Colorado.
While agreeing to the fact that the country’s constitution was sacrosanct, the former dictator questioned, “Should we save the country and do something unconstitutional or uphold the constitution but let the state go down?” Vowing to return home on his “own accord”.


This made the Pakistani puppet government, and their internationalist masters take notice. And as Musharraf repeated and further clarified his intentions through the end of 2010 and the start of 2011, anouncing on Piers Morgans show that he intended a return before March 2012, they took action to stop him. Paid cronies swung into action all over pakistan, Abbottabad's district and sessions judge in a missing person's case passed judgment asking the authorities to declare Pervez Musharraf a proclaimed offender. On February 11, 2011 the Anti Terrorism Court, issued an arrest warrant for Musharraf and charged him with conspiracy to commit murder of Benazir Bhutto. On 8 March 2011, the Sindh High Court registered treason charges against him. In all, four seperate trials took place to dissuade Musharraf from making an open return to Pakistan, with the punishments getting increasingly harsh as Musharraf repeated his plans, and support among the pakistan populace began to coalesce.

And now we come to the real heart of this conspiracy. Musharraf could only return by clandestine means (hard to do as he was living in London and no doubt watched by MI5) or arrange a coup through his supporters in the Pakistani military (of which there are plenty of generals who would undertake a coup, and better now while some of the ISI madrassa infrastructure remained, before US drone strikes degraded it all). Either way, the coup conspirators, with or without musharrafs presence, would have to meet up in a safe house close to where the top brass, and musharrafs closest allies were based; ABBOTTABAD. If there was a coup being planned for Pakistan, my contention is that it would have taken place in a safehouse owned by the pakistani military, and the CIA would have undertaken a counter coup operation to stop it. That is to say, a CIA raid on Abbottabad, occuring sometime after Musharraf had been barred from returning to the country.

As can be seen, the 'Bin Laden hideout' is in close proximity to the Military Academy there. US intelligence state in the 'official Bin Laden Death' story that the house was built in 2005, deduced from satellite photos. It is possible that the Pakistani military own and operate safe houses in this area, and even possible that their friends in the Taliban use them. So why should we think this safehouse, if that was what it is, was not housing Bin Laden? The holes in the official story should cause us doubt. This location was apparently revealed to US intel by a captured member of Bin Laden's 055 Brigade, who normally commit suicide rather than be captured. They were used like soviet commissars to 'encourage' loyalty and discipline, mainly by punishing disloyalty with death. Would such a person really give away Bin Laden?

But the most damning evidence for a CIA raid for something other than Bin Laden came in the delay in getting the official story out, and especially the early reporting by MSNBC which might have given the game away.

We will look at that next..........

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:41 PM
The following is a transcript of MSNBC's early breaking of the 'bin Laden raid'
(the words of the co-anchor have been removed by me)

ok melissa, iam going williams, our department of justice correspondent, has informed us of the following....i'm going to go with this, i see no indication that i should not. pete williams reports an administration official...i'm going to read directly from the note that pete has written for the administration official says he's been told that president obama will anounce tonight that...i'm sorry, i'm being told now not to...i'm being
told to hold it. there's no indication from this note that i should, but i'm being told to hold it. i'm sorry about that.
i have no doubt that petes reporting, which we'll probably get to very shortly...not...not for reporting i'm being told. at this point. not for reporting, petes'll find out soon the president is going to be making a very major we expect it to have something to do with events that have occured overseas...over the course of the last couple of hours.melissa, i'm told that what we can say is that the president will speak..will be speaking about a very grave and serious operation, a CIA operation...can i say overseas?...can i say it has something to do with something overseas?...yes. a grave, serious CIA operation overseas will be the subject of the
presidents statement...when he does come out within the next...well, we expected him seven minutes ago.
well, lets talk about that. we're told that we can mention that it is a CIA operation overseas...lets talk about, you know, the CIA and the activities that they've been involved in."

video source

The above text is taken from about 8min 30s onwards. credit to ATS for picking this up at the time, the original thread is well worth a read. Does it sound like a succesful CIA raid to you. Sounds to me like the CIA boys got 'knacked'(as pakistanis round where i live like to say). No one appeared on the white house lawn to have a medal pinned on their chest. And then we get the announcement that 31 of SEAL team 6 died in a 'helicopter crash'
here and here

A 'helicopter crash' is often used to announce deaths of special forces, especially if they have been involved in secret operations. In Britain, where our special forces operate in four and eight man squads, both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts opened with reports of four or eight soldiers killed in a 'helicopter crash'. These are actually special forces losses incurred in action leading up to the official declaration of war, and the early crashes never make it onto official casualty lists even though you know they announced it on TV. America probably follows a similar system, wait a few weeks, then announce a helicopter crash.

So, the CIA launched a counter coup action against the Pakistani military and got their asses handed to them. What about Musharraf? Well he still intended to return in six months, although he made a rather odd comment to the press;

There are efforts to scare me, but these people don't know that I'm not among the afraid," Musharraf told a rally of about 8,000 supporters in the commercial centre Karachi via video link from Dubai.The former general said he would return between January 27 and 30 and dismissed concern about his security. "I have fought wars. I am not scared of danger.


I guess the general wasn't going to be deterred by the navy seals, and was newly confident in his ability to contest control of pakistan. Would the pakistani military again try and organise a coup? And could they mobilise their assets before US drone strikes incapacitated them?

Up next, the Salala incident..........

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:30 PM
Both before and after the Abbottabad raid, the pakistani military had been pressuring the US to cease operations in their country and vacate the Shamsi Airbase. This was partly because US strikes were aimed at degrading the 'Madrassa' infrastructure set up in recent years which gave Pakistan convenient geopolitical tools to use in neighbouring countries when pursuing nationalistic and Islamic regional policies, often against the interests of western powers. As mentioned already, it is not hard to motivate the general population in support of these polices and no surprise that protests at Shamsi eventually led to US agreeing to give up the base on April 22nd 2011. But a few weeks later, after the Abbottabad raid, the USrefused to leave, causing some grief to Pakistanis.
Why the change of mind? Had the US scored a geopolitical victory recently that allowed them to dismiss pakistani requests? Or had the Abbottabad raid served as enough of a warning to cow pakistans dissident military?

Hardly. The rest of 2011 saw an uptick in Taliban violence in Afghanistan, with 'organized' mass participation attacks. The Pakistan military refused to rollover and had started to deploy their assets. Perhaps they required another reminder not to pursue their own interests. this came in the form of the Salala Incidenton the 26th november 2011, in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in a NATO strike 12 miles inside pakistan.

MSM don't provide much details of this incident, and might seem a footnote to the geopolitical struggles, but the reaction in pakistan suggests ther is more to it.

According to the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, the attack was a coordinated NATO strike and used two AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters, an AC-130H Spectre gunship and two F-15E Eagle fighter jets.

No more messing around with SEAL teams. From now on, Pakistani soldiers up to no good would be blasted from a safe distance. The Pakistanis are under no illusions their soldiers were delibera tely targeted. Were these soldiers allied with the Musharraf nationalist faction? Well, after this raid, Musharraf finally gave up his dreams of returning to power, just otwo month after the Salala incident.
The US also had to finally vacate Shamsi in December 2011, because of the political blowback from the incident. Given the previous push to evict them, would the US risk this asset undertaking a raid aginst 'low value' targets in the Pakistani military? Or was the Salala Incident more akin to the Abbottabad raid and required urgent action?

An interesting statement on the Salala Incident put out by the University of Pakistan blames the incident, and all of NATO's aggression in the region on 'elite war-mongering bankers'.source

And that is where i will finish this lengthy analysis of the geopolitical war against pakistan. I could go on, so if anyone has any questions, or wants to disagree with my analysis, please contribute. (the sad fact is a lot of ATSers won't even read this thread as it is 'too much text', as if you can get too much inofmation!)

I'll leave you with words of caution from Dr. Paul Craig roberts;

Did the armed services committees of the House and Senate calculate the risk of destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan when they acquiesced to Obama's new war there, a war that has already displaced 2 million Pakistanis?

and that ancient enlightened emperor of the sub continent, Ashoka, questioning wars of conquest;

What have I done? If this is a victory, what's a defeat then? Is this a victory or a defeat? Is this justice or injustice? Is it gallantry or a rout? Is it valor to kill innocent children and women? Do I do it to widen the empire and for prosperity or to destroy the other's kingdom and splendor? One has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant.... What's this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil?

thanks for reading ATS......
edit on 12-9-2012 by Outfoxed because: fixed broken link

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:52 PM
While agree that Pakistan is a major instigator in the region and they supported the Taliban in Afghanistan....

I think Pakistan is a bigger danger than Iran. Pakistan has the worlds largest plutonium producing plant!

I don't know the enriching capabilities of Pak but why would any Western nation allow Pak to have such a facility? I see PAk allying with Iran when it is attacked. I believe this is part of the plan to start a new world war to reshape world government structures by having the countries unite under the auspices of the UN.

This combined with a controlled collapse of the western economies will force the need for world government.

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

Seems strange to think about western nations 'allowing' other nations to have nuclear technology, but that is exactly the reality of the world we live in. Pakistans Nuclear weapon program spawned the infamous A Q Khan, who proceeded to 'proliferate' the technology, much to the anger of western powers. Once again, pakistanis act as a geopolitical foil to the central planners of thge world.
A tie-up between Iran and Pakistan is hindered by the sunni/shia thing, and it is traditionally gulf arab states that have influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran even deployed troops on it's Afghan border due to suspicions of the Taliban. An alliance between thge two is possible in the context of a world war, especially if it is religiously inspired, or manipulated. An Iranian/Pakistani/Afghan alliance would be a huge geopolitical player if it happened; nearly 300 million people living in some of the most difficult terrain to invade, nuclear armed, and a plethora of military equipment supplied by some of the worlds big players. Add in the fanatical muslim militias and they would be a world heavyweight, dominating the middle east and central asia. The new caliphate even!

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:14 PM
Outstanding thread. This is why I love ATS, for threads just like this one. You've taken all the available sources and found an angle that has not been discussed. I think you're on to something here. The evidence does indeed point in the direction you've indicated. Pakistan has always been the wild card and will remain so for as long as they have nuclear weapons.
Great work.

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:23 PM
Great outline.....! What do you see in the future for the Pakistan/ India scuffling?
Would this front alone not be enough to keep those busy generals from palying too far afield?
Indias greater military might, and bigger population/GDP etc....Kind of put the Paks at a disadvantage dont they?
Do you see China and Pakistan making any imperialistic moves together maybe?

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:30 AM
reply to post by stirling

The India vs Pakistan thing doesn't seem like progressing at the moment. Pakistan may be too pressured by NATO, or it's foriegn policy 'sold out' by the puppet government. Cross-border Islamic terrorism may be provocative to India, but India has to contend with 90 million muslims within it's borders and 300+million muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They don't really have any good options, but don't need to confront Pakistan militarily again as NATO are already harassing pakistan and degrading the terrorist infrastructure. Pakistan might still re-assert itself, but that would require a change of government, which brings me to your other question,

regarding China and Pakistan's relationship, watch General Ashfaq Kayani.
And from the wiki page for the Salala incident;

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a 40-minute telephone conversation with the Pakistani foreign affairs minister and released a statement afterwards in which it expressed China had "strong concerns" and was "deeply shocked" over the attack and maintained that "Pakistan’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected." During the first week of January 2012, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani left for an official five-day visit to China, a close ally of Pakistan, at the invitation of the Chinese leadership. According to military sources, the army chief was expected to meet the Chinese president and prime minister alongside top security officials, and a focal agenda of the meeting included discussions on the NATO incident, a briefing by Kayani on rewriting terms of engagement with the US, as well as security cooperation between China and Pakistan. Commenting on the occasion, a security official said: "We want to take our relationship with China to the next level".

Kayani seems to be the General best placed to make a move to be the new dictator, and he is a strong ally of Beijing, already discussing security arrangements with China. And the 11 year NATO incursion on their borders is bound to provoke a reaction sooner or later.

So, watch General Ashfaq Kayani, he could be the next president of Pakistan.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by Outfoxed
So you think that Musharraf was present inside Pakistan during the supposedly counter coup attempt by US? Was the helicopter carrying the seals that were killed in abbotabad? I'm a bit confused.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by hp1229

So you think that Musharraf was present inside Pakistan during the supposedly counter coup attempt by US? Was the helicopter carrying the seals that were killed in abbotabad? I'm a bit confused.

Ok, I'll try and clarify a bit. The events of 2011 suggest to me that Pakistan was ripe for another military coup. Musharraf's words and actions from 2010 to 2011 make him the most likely to instigate such a coup. Musharraf seemed willing to play the game, and set up his own political party, but the game changed when the Pakistani government declared him a murderer, treasonous and an enemy of the state through the courts. A coup seemed likely but instead, the Abbottabad raid happened. I am saying that the raid was against high ranking military who might be involved in such a coup. Musharraf may have been there, and maybe not. I strongly suspect General Ashfaq Kayani (mentioned in my reply above) was there. The use of the SEALS could indicate that Musharraf was there and they wanted to take him alive and turn him in to the Pakistani government. Blasting Musharraf from a distance could make him a martyr for the nationalist cause, but dragging him through the courts could destroy his support and dishearten the nationalist movement. Musharraf had a bust-up with the legal establishment before he left power. He can never get a fair trial in Pakistan, and the lawyers and judges would love to tear his reputation to shreds.

As for the 'helicopter crash' that killed the SEALS, I reckon the crash is a cover story for the death of 31 SEALS in a counter coup operation in Abbottabad. Just as the 'death of Bin Laden' is a cover story for the counter coup operation itself. There may have been several such special forces raids in Pakistan in 2011(I have looked at the two most interesting for this thread) but it is only when they go wrong and dozens of soldiers die that they have to make up a ridiculous cover story. If the raid had been a success, I doubt we would have got either the "Bin Laden is dead!" story or the "helicopter crash kills 31" story.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:19 PM
Nice thread OP, and it’s nice to see an original look at events last year in Pakistan.

That is where my praise for your thread ends because I entirely disagree with you.

Fundamentally you are saying that the operation in Abbottabad to kill Bin Laden was in reality actually a counter coup by the CIA that was then covered up by killing the SEAL’s involved by “faking” a helicopter crash.


First off all you have zero evidence just lots of hypothesis, assumptions and conspiracy rhetoric, I must say I am rather confused by your thread, I don’t think you are making it clear enough why America would bother organising a counter coup. I really don’t think this was anything to do with control over Pakistan, no way would America sacrifice their boogie-man and with the Arab Spring I don’t think they would need to. Go read William Blums “Rouge State” and it will become evident that America does not need to go to such lengths to influence the government of another state.

Biggest problem I have with your thread is that you seem to have this belief that the SEAL’s killed on the helicopter were from SEAL Team Six. There were not, what you call SEAL Team Six is actually more accurately called the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group or DERVGRU, it is not like SEAL Team Six is a Team like a soccer team or even a military “Squad”. DERVGRU is made up of 4 squadrons (or five if you count Black squadron (Snipers)). It was a hand-picked troop of about 24 experienced operators from Red Squadron accompanied by a EOD and Interpreter that took part in the mission to kill bin laden. The men on the helicopter that crashed came from Gold Squadron, the guys form Red Squadron were out of the country by the time that happened all bare one guy who was picked up from another squadron because he spoke Arabic.

Also the reason it took “so long” for the news to break is not part of some cover up. There was much debate about telling the public about the operation as it rendered much of the intelligence captured during the raid compromised. They also had to take time to ensure the SEAL’s were out of the theatre of operations and confirm that they had indeed killed Bin Laden.

Further to this if as you claim this was some kind of counter coup then Pakistani ISI would be all of this, they would know about it and be telling the world about the attempted CIA Coup of Pakistan and Al-Qa’ida would never have officially announced the death of Bin Laden.

I do commend you OP for an original look at these events and I would encourage you to continue to write threads of this standard but you have to make it about facts not about speculation then you must critically analyse your thread.

edit on 13-9-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok, you seem to have misunderstood some parts of what i wrote. Just to be clear; there was NO helicopter crash!
Just a story of a helicopter crash to account for 31 dead navy SEALS, who died in the Abbottabad raid.

Biggest problem I have with your thread is that you seem to have this belief that the SEAL’s killed on the helicopter were from SEAL Team Six. There were not, what you call SEAL Team Six is actually more accurately called....

You might be missing the point of a cover story here. Whoever they say died in the crash, actually died in Abbottababad, regardless of what their team was called or designated. Whatever outfit they chose to credit with killing Bin Laden, did no such thing and will, of course, be alive somewhere. Do you see what they did there?

Go read William Blums “Rouge State” and it will become evident that America does not need to go to such lengths to influence the government of another state.

Even mighty America has to tread carefully with pakistan, who are nuclear armed and closely aligned with China. As I said in my thread, America can normally contain Pakistan by appealing to their native oligarchs, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan, Asif Zardari and that ilk. The military are a different animal. But still a type of animal that the CIA are used to dealing with.

if as you claim this was some kind of counter coup then Pakistani ISI would be all of this, they would know about it and be telling the world about the attempted CIA Coup of Pakistan

The Pakistani military are constantly shouting about how NATO and 'the west' are violating their soveriegnty, killing their people and corrupting their government. It just doesn't appear on MSM is all (a lot of the articles linked in the OP only say a few lines about Pakistani grievances) . In the case of the Abbottabad raid, which seems to have gone wrong, the US was pushed into coming up with a cover story in a short time and came up with the Bin Laden death story, which they then changed later as the numerous holes in the story emerged. In this case, they were lucky that the civilian government in Pakistan wanted to cover this up as well (because they fear a military coup as much as NATO do), and would back whatever story the US came up with.

and Al-Qa’ida would never have officially announced the death of Bin Laden.

Really? What does an 'official' Al-Qa'ida announcement look like then? The authenticity of Al-Qa'ida messages and tapes has often been in question. (off topic funny bin laden tape)

Also the reason it took “so long” for the news to break is not part of some cover up. There was much debate about telling the public about the operation as it rendered much of the intelligence captured during the raid compromised.They also had to take time to ensure the SEAL’s were out of the theatre of operations and confirm that they had indeed killed Bin Laden.

Didn't the offical story say they killed bin laden a few days earlier and already dumped the body into the sea? Or did the original story say the killed him on sunday, but then they changed that after people got suspicous about how they could have done the DNA tests so quickly? But wait! The initial reports from Al-jazeera and the native pak press interviewed people who observed the firefight on sunday night, which is why they initially said it had occurred hours before they broke the news?

Do you really hold the official story to be true, with all the details about which SEAL team did it? Or could you ever be convinced to question it?

Here's a summation of the 'official' Bin Laden narrative; "He lived in a cave in a far-away land, plotting how one day he might come and get you!" It is time to grow out of these stories and start watching what the magicians other hand is doing. And it is doing to Pakistan the same as it is doing to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran. Control by any means they can get away with.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by Outfoxed
So US was helping the existing pakistani government from the coup? And if the coup failed with the US seals and the helicopter, was it the pakistani military that took them out or just selected few of Musharraf's followers within the pakistani military? If the military wanted to bring the general back in power, they would whole heartedly support Musharraf. I see what you are getting at which is obviously not backed by any facts (as it is impossible to do so on ATS) but it could be a good theory nonetheless.

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:10 AM
reply to post by Outfoxed

So there was no helicopter crash and they faked the crash to cover up the deaths of those members of some clandestine unit killed in an attempted counter coup in Pakistan.

There is zero evidence to support your hypothesis just speculation. Your entire premise assumes that Bin Laden was never killed on May 1st 2011. As someone who has read deeply into the events of Neptune Spear I am confident that he was killed or possibly captured on that day either way however Bin Laden is no longer an active terrorist operative.

If what you say was to be true then Pakistani ISI would have exposed this conspiracy, Al-Qa’ida would never have announced the death of Bin Laden and the Americans could have had a much more effective and less complicated means of conducting such an operation. Furthermore I still done understand why they would have needed this “Counter coup” as you put it.

Also how do you explain the wreckage of a “Stealth Hawk” inside the compound where Bin Laden was killed and his wife’s and kids being found at the compound after the Americans left that to me kind of proves that Americans where present in Abbottabad

And why kill off 31 SEAL’s when it there were 24 SEAL’s who took part in the attack on the compound, the numbers don't even add up

Again It is nice to see a original theory but I think you are wrong.

top topics


log in