Musharraf: US doesn't know if Bin Laden is alive

Pak, US lost track of Osama five years ago: Musharraf
ANI 4 October 2009, 11:30am IST

WASHINGTON: Former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has said that the US and Pakistan both lost track of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden five years ago, The Dawn reports.

Musharraf, who is on a lecture tour of the US currently, told students and delegates at a college in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, that both Pakistani and US intelligence have failed to collect any details regarding Laden's whereabouts, and now they are even unable to ascertain whether he was dead or alive.

Musharraf also said there is a need of a multifaceted strategy to deal with the Taliban effectively.

He said that while the Al-Qaeda should be eliminated from Pakistan by force, dealing with the Taliban would require a military, political and socio-economic approach.

The former general underlined the fact that the Taliban was a widespread organization with no central command.

"The Taliban is not a monolith, but rather a spread out organization with no single commander who could be removed for the command structure to be destroyed," he said.

PNAC map

Take a look at this "PNAC map":

It says: "North Pakistan to be given to Afghanistan, thus eliminating Pakistan's common border with China and also eliminating the possibility of a pipeline to China via Pakistan."

Great find Nick

Brilliant map.

The Taliban: Shoe-less Rock Throwers

And the public is supposed to believe that the mightiest military on earth cannot defeat disorganized cave dwellers with sling-shots and the occasional AK-47 and that therefore the U.S. must remain in the region indefinetly?

Just 'in case' we find him.

yeah, we gotta stay indefinitely just in case we find Osama alive somewhere-- which we won't. We'll never capture a living Osama and we will never be given a white paper proving his involvement in 9/11.

Also, if I read correctly, didn't Sibel Edmonds specify that she always heard reference to the Bin Ladens, plural, rather than bin Laden, which implies Osama Bin Laden? Any clarification on this? What interests do the Bin Ladens have in Afghanistan now (the family)? I know that Shafig was part of the Carlyle Group alongside Poppy Bush and a long-standing relationship between the Bushes and Bin Ladens exists. I'd like to see that whole area investigated much more intensely. Just too fishy.

Musharraf rejects 'Bin Laden' tapes as evidence he's alive

Musharraf didn't say so directly, but for him to say, "both Pakistani and US intelligence ... are even unable to ascertain whether he was dead or alive." implies he doesn't consider the audio tape that was just released as a 'video' with a pic of OBL to be evidence Bin Laden is alive- obviously, he must believe the tapes aren't genuine.

So, what does he think the tapes are, if they're not 'Bin Laden' messages?
Who does he think is putting them out?
What is he basing his beliefs on?

Hopefully someone will ask him.

How OBL's apparent death also poses difficulties for Truthers

This may seem trivial in comparison with the almost innumerable glaring contradictions and gaping holes in the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, nevertheless:

The hypothesis, for example in David Ray Griffin's "Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive?", that Osama bin Laden was killed in December 2001, doesn't fit altogether neatly into him being both a CIA asset right up until 11 September 2001 and him being a member of the wealthy bin Laden family with all those close ties with the Bush family.

Also, Osama bin Laden's repeated denials of responsibility for 9/11 would not have followed the script that I would have though would have been given to him by the CIA, thereby causing them considerable embarassment.

If he had truly been a totally obedient asset of the CIA, I would have expected him to claim full responsibility for 9/11 in videos that would have appeared authentic in contrast to those obvious fabrications.

Perhaps, after 9/11, he decided that wearing the blame for that particular crime went over the line that even he was prepared to cross, hence his denials.

Having failed to play along, his US masters may have decided that he was expendible, even given his former staunch service on their behalf and his membership of the bin Laden family. After that, they may have consciously chosen to either allow him to die, which would have been easy, given his dependence upon kidney dialysis, or killed him outright.

That explanation for the apparent death of Osama bin Laden in December 2001 would make a little more sense to me.

On the other hand, can it be entirely ruled out that he may have simply been secretly taken out of Pakistan and Afghanistan and be now living a secluded retirement in secret back in Saudi Arabia?


It 'poses difficulties for truthers' according to the significance which those truthers attribute to his reportedly remaining a CIA asset right up to 9/11. But it appears he wasn't so compliant as the CIA would have wished.

I've always wondered about that report that appeared in 'Le Figaro' not long after 9/11, about how he'd been visited by local CIA agents while receiving treatment for his kidneys at a US facility in Dubai (?) in the summer of 2001. I've tended to think of that as a meeting where the CIA men attempted to pressure or somehow induce him to agree to take responsibility for something big that was going to be happening soon. And it turned out he was not so willing. But the 9/11 perps did what they were goint to do regardless, and--as you say--they had little problem with just letting him die (or having him killed outright) while keeping the legend going through periodic video releases. When you have the US news media in tow, patsies can still play the role that they need to play in the public mind, even when in reality they're not so cooperative as US intelligence would like.

Osama Bin Laden as asset

Bin Laden may not have known his visitor in Dubai was working for the CIA, although it was reported that it was widely known- perhaps he thought the guy was one of his allies. The CIA manipulates people thru proxies, which included Saudi and Pakistani intelligence in the Afghan-Soviet war.

Bin Laden likely didn't know who the spies in his network were.

He may not have known understood the true sources of some of his support, or that he was considered an asset by the CIA- his interview by the Daily Ummat indicates he may have been figuring it out:

"The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.

"Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem until the existence of the ex-Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and the Talibans and then this incident happened."

An understanding of OBL's role that makes sense needed

Thanks, rm and Loose Nuke.

I think in regards to the Osama bin Laden issue, and, indeed all aspects of 9/11, it is important that the 9/11 Truth movement, as far as possible, have an analysis that makes sense.

The current mainstream 9/11 Truth movement understanding of Osama bin Laden's role seems contradictory, as noted above and, I think, therefore undermines our case to a small extent, even if we are all agreed that that contradiction is vastly smaller by comparison to those almost innumerable contradictions and absurdities of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

Given the extraordinary efforts went to to get the bin Laden family out of the US in the immediate wake of 9/11 and the intimate business links between the Bush family and the bin Ladens, I would have expected the US government, rather than to have killed him or to have let him die, to do what they could to keep Osama bin Laden alive, even if he had not fully cooperated with the CIA at that point.

If they had the will to save his life, then they should have had the means.

Deliberately allowing him to die surely would have not been good for relations between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, that is, if we reject the hypothesis, as I thought most of the 9/11 Truth Movement had, that Osama bin Laden was a black sheep of that family.

Of course that is speculation, but no more so than the claim that Osama bin Laden died in December 2001 (or, for that matter that he is alive and hiding in Pakistan actively directing Al Qaeda's international terrorist campaign).