Stratfor disputes OBL killing in Abbottabad

By: Azhar Masood | Published: August 19, 2011

ISLAMABAD - Globally recognised intelligence and forecast STRATFOR has rejected the US Central Intelligence Agency claim that the man killed in Abbottabad’s compound by US Naval SEALs was al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. This was one of the reasons the CIA kept Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in dark.

The STRATFOR says: “The possibility that bin Laden was already dead and in terms of his impact on terrorist operations, he effectively was. That does not mean, however, that he was not an important ideological leader or that he was not someone the United States sought to capture or kill for his role in carrying out the most devastating terrorist attack in the US history.” In its latest intelligence gathering, the STRATFOR claims that aggressive US intelligence collection efforts have come to fruition, as killing of Osama bin Laden was perhaps the top symbolic goal for the CIA and all those involved in the US covert operations. Indeed, President Obama said during his speech on May 1 that upon entering the office, he had personally instructed CIA Director Leon Panetta that killing the al-Qaeda leader was his top priority. The logistical challenges of catching a single wanted individual with Bin Laden level of resources were substantial and while 10 years, the United States was able to accomplish the objective it set out to do in October 2001.

Because of bin Laden’s communications limitations, since October 2001 when he fled Tora Bora after the US invasion of Afghanistan, he has been relegated to a largely symbolic and ideological role in al-Qaeda. Accordingly, he issued audiotapes on a little more than a yearly basis, whereas before 2007 he was able to issue videotapes.

The growing infrequency and decreasing quality of his recorded messages was the most notable when al-Qaeda did not release a message marking the anniversary of 9/11 in September 2010 but later followed up with a tape on January 21, 2011.

The bottom line is that from an operational point of view, the threat posed by al-Qaeda - and the wider jihadist movement - is no different operationally after his death.

“The killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden represents possibly the biggest clandestine operations success for the United States since the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003,” it claimed.
The confirmation of his death is an emotional victory for the United States and could have wider effects on the geopolitics of the region, but bin Laden’s death is irrelevant for al-Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement from an operational perspective.

The operation that led to bin Laden’s death at a compound deep in Pakistan is among the most significant operational successes for the US intelligence in the past decade.

An important local source told this scribe: “If it was not the case why all the evidences leading to the confirmation of Laden’s death were eliminated. His was never subjected to postmortem. Neither the DNA was collected nor it was matched.”

Another important source conceded: “How come one of the wives of bin Laden, Hamal, who remained in the custody of Iranian Intelligence and hidden mole of US intelligence community made her way to Abbottabad. Hamal never appeared in public.”

“Hamal has deep US connections. When she traveled from Iran to Pakistan her movements were under watch and the watchers had decided Hamal to end her journey in Abbottabad”, the sources added.
Senior intelligence analysts in Islamabad argue: “A three trillion worth manhunt concluded very discreetly. Dead body of the ‘man killed” by SEALs had no media mention as was done by the US authorities in case of Iraq’s President Saddam.”

After receiving this vital information, this scribe phoned a senior Pakistani journalist in Washington DC early Thursday. He did not rule out latest findings on this subject saying: “Why the CIA was in hurry to remove all possible evidences of the bin Laden’s killing who dominated world politics for over a decade?”

The Washinton-based journalist termed the crash of US Army’s Chinook helicopter and killings of over 36 US Naval SEALs as a part of the effort to finish left over evidence which could lead to facts of May 2 US action in Abbottabad.”

The STRATFOR further states the primary threat is now posed by al-Qaeda franchise which can attempt to stage an attack in the United States or elsewhere in retribution for bin Laden’s death, but they do not have training or capabilities for high-casualty transnational attacks.

Pakistan’s former spymaster Lt Gen (r) Hamid Gul told TheNation they never challenged credence of the STRATFOR. “I agree with the latest intelligence gathering about May 2 operation’s follow up. This remains one of the reasons the CIA never informed its Pakistan counterpart ISI when it decided to kill a fake bin Laden”, he said

Apocryphal sources

The ISI is one of the most untrustworthy entities out there and is as guilty of 9/11 as the CIA is. Getting everybody to ask the wrong questions about Bin Laden's death is a nice way to keep us all distracted. Keeping everybody in the treadmill has been a tried and tested tactic, one of example of which is Obama's political games with his birth certificate. Of course he was born in the US, and everybody who engages in birtherism plays into Obama's hands. Donald Trump found that out the hard way.

I'm sorry, I see no reliable sources in this article and no reliable analysis. Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad.


until now, I am waiting for evidence for this claim:
"Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad."
That you overtake this official claim, lowers your reputation.


I'm sorry you think that lowers my reputation. I think it actually enhances my reputation that I accurately predicted that Bin Laden was alive, in Pakistan and wondered aloud whether the US wasn't sending in a team of commandos to get him... about a month before Bin Laden was found alive, in Pakistan, by commandos, and murdered. I reasoned my way towards this prediction, I didn't just 'guess' it. Did you miss the discussion with Graeme MacQueen, bio? That would be unfortunate, because I found it very informative. Did you believe Bin Laden was dead from reading David Ray Griffin's books? I'd ask for a refund.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about evidence with you: it's de rigeur for many truthers to reject all evidence and refute the default explanation for any event, always with some slaphappy conspiracy theory. You know there is evidence, you just will not accept it and invent a plethora of reasons to do so. I will admit the US government lies, and I promise you I will write about that. Over the years, and countless times, I have pointed out errors in arguments, blog posts, commentaries, logical fallacies, etc. etc. I posted the first comment here. I described the source as 'apocryphal'. I do believe I was correct in that assessment, as confirmed by Erik Larson. Remember; one can be just as gullible believing conspiracy theories as one can be believing authorities. You do not know how I determined my position and you will find out in time.


"Did you miss the discussion with Graeme MacQueen, bio? That would be unfortunate, because I found it very informative."

Yes, I did miss it obviously, if there had been offered evidence for this claim. Can you please send me a link?


Can you please read my work before you start talking about how something "lowers my reputation", bio? Could you please explain why you did that without, as you now admit, even having taken the effort to study my position? I find this whole exchange highly offensive.

STRATFOR does not claim what the article says

At best this is really poor journalism; the basis for the post's headline is this claim:

"Globally recognised intelligence and forecast STRATFOR has rejected the US Central Intelligence Agency claim that the man killed in Abbottabad’s compound by US Naval SEALs was al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden."

FALSE; STRATFOR has not rejected the claim that OBL was killed by SEALS in Abottabad.

The blog post does accurately quote from a May 2, 2011 STRATFOR article titled, "The Tactical Irrelevance of Osama bin Laden's Death."

However, NOWHERE does the article give any indication that STRATFOR disputes that, "the man killed in Abbottabad’s compound by US Naval SEALs was al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden." Rather, in a number of places, including in statements that blog post author Azhar Masood quoted, STRATFOR explicitly and implicitly accepts the US claim.

The quotes in this article that do express skepticism of the claim are the OPINIONS of people the author of the blog post ("this scribe") allegedly contacted, and none are alleged to be with STRATFOR: "an important local source," "another important source," "Senior intelligence analysts in Islamabad," "a senior Pakistani journalist in Washington DC," and "Pakistan’s former spymaster Lt Gen (r) Hamid Gul." With the exception of Gul, a source of dubious credibility, these sources are anonymous and therefore unverifiable; even a journalist wouldn't go on the record w/ their opinion! None of them claim to have inside knowledge contradicting the claim that OBL was killed in Abottabad by the SEALs - but even if they did, the article's main claim - that this is STRATFOR's conclusion - would still be unsupported.

This Masood article is so bad I'm skeptical that it's disinfo, but you never know. In any case, it's garbage, and Masood has no credibility as a journalist now, if he ever did.

NOTE to all 911blogger users: when submitting an article, always include a source link to the ORIGINAL post; not a repost. If the article was worth a crap, I would edit the post to insert the link, but here it is - i'm not making it an active link on purpose; this article does not deserve a higher profile in search rankings:

I'm not surprised

Thanks for digging this up.