Support 911Blogger


Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?…An irrelevant question asked by David Ray Griffin.

I say that it is irrelevant because the war policy makers in the U.S. government can easily deal with a bin Laden death and find ways to justify their never ending war on terror; bin Laden’s vital signs are of little consequence.

In the world of David Ray Griffin and his cheerleaders, if it is possible to prove that bin Laden is dead, wars would immediately come to an end. Such irrational rationale seems to be the noble driving force behind his most recent book, “Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?”, if it were not for its reliance on excessive speculation and falsehoods.

His intentional substitution of facts with absurd speculations is akin to using falsehoods and can only be described as regretful and heart breaking since it risks discrediting all his other work.

The truth was available to Mr. Griffin and pointed out to him on numerous occasions with communications channels opened to him in case he had doubts, questions, or needed contacts with sources, Mr. Griffin puzzlingly disregarded these resources.

“Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?” is the title of the book and seems to be the question to be addressed first. For now, I just want to say that I have looked into the possibility of him being dead while doing my own research and found all evidence to be inconclusive.

For that reason, I am going to address the most outrageous falsehoods in Mr. Griffin’s book and will address what I consider inconclusive evidence of bin Laden’s death later.

Chapter 2 of the book, Two Fake Bin Laden Videos in 2001?, starts early in the book on page 12, and uses dizzying mental gyrations and total disregard for the truth in support of the book’s premise; it is the chapter where the most outrageous falsehoods are found. The question mark after 2001 in the chapter’s title, a Fox News tactic, does not absolve Mr. Griffin.

The first video he references, “The “October Video” Reported in November 2001”, is a video that David Bamber of the London Telegraph wrote about on November 11, 2001. Mr. Bamber reported that he had access to it, supposedly viewed it and got translations of it, Mr. Bamber also reported that the video would be used by Tony Blair’s government as the “centerpiece of Britain and America’s new evidence against bin Laden”. Three days later, on November 14, Mr. Blair failed to present any video and instead relied on quoting excerpts from the translation.

Mr. Griffin’s logical explanation for such a failure is the following:

unless the video was a fake and the government decided, between November 11 [the date of Mr. Bamber’s report] and 14 [the date of Mr. Blair’s excerpts], that the fakery was so obvious that it should [British Government] deny having a copy while merely releasing damning “excerpts.”

Before I give you the true story about the video, I need to point out Mr. Griffin’s irrational rationale that I spoke of earlier, if the video is an obvious fakery, why would Tony Blair even release fake excerpts?

The true story about the video was given to me by an ex-bureau chief of Al-Jazeera Television Network whose contacts, including personal email and cell phone, I would have gladly shared with Mr. Griffin. The following is the true story according to my conversation with Al-Jazeera about Tony Blair’s failed attempt to release video evidence

An attempt in mid November 2001, by Blair failed. An Al-Jazeera bureau chief explained what happened; Blair attempted to release a tape of a Bin Laden interview conducted by Al-Jazeera. The interview was to be comprised of responses to questions by both Al-Jazeera and CNN. When the Al-Jazeera’s team reached Bin Laden’s hideout to conduct the interview, their questions were tossed out and were informed that Bin Laden had his own set of questions with prepared answers. The news team objected, but feeling threatened, accepted to conduct the interview. Also, Bin Laden put a condition on Al-Jazeera, either Al-Jazeera airs all or none of the interview. Such a condition forced Al-Jazeera to choose none and refused to be intimidated or to act as Bin Laden’s mouthpiece.

The most likely scenario is that CNN, who was very unhappy with the decision , informed the American government, and as a consequence, their cohorts, the British, of Al-Jazeera’s position prompting British or American intelligence to steal the tape. The quotes from the tape in David Bamber’s report of November 11 helped Al-Jazeera recognize the tape as their own and moved to prevent Blair from using it on November 14.

The excerpt is from an article I wrote that Mr. Griffin had access to Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.

The second videotape Mr. Griffin references in the chapter is what he calls “The Video Dated November 9, 2001” but more accurately, the video released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. In many circles, this video is known as either “The Bin Laden Confession Tape”, or the “Fatty Bin Laden Tape”. It is a tape I spent more than a year authenticating with the help of the person who provided the best translation of the tape to ABC News, a videographer with twenty five years experience, and multitude of technical experts with Al-Jazeera ex-bureau chief helping with the timeline.

Mr. Griffin concludes his analysis of the authenticity of the tape with this statement where he refers to me as “A defender” and promoting Professor Bruce Lawrence’s position, based on Dr. Lawrence’s “friends” in Homeland Security, that the tape is “bogus”.

A defender of the authenticity of this “bin Laden video” has claimed that Lawrence was talking about a later one. Lawrence however, made clear that it was this one to which he was referring, calling it the “bogus smoking-gun tape that came out in November 2001”

I do resent the use of the word claim by Mr. Griffin as I do not claim, I state, and the only way I can defend myself is by sharing with you the email I received from Dr. Lawrence three days after his appearance on the Kevin Barrett show in response to my email critical of his statement on the show and presenting my work on the authenticity of the tape and how it was produced by U.S. and Saudi intelligence

Dear Maher:
When I said that the Nov 01 tape was a fake,
I meant that it did not originate with OBL.
I'd be happy to read your document in Word format.
Thanks,
Bruce Lawrence

This can hardly be described as a claim on my part that Dr. Lawrence back peddled, and his play on words that the tape did not originate with bin Laden is either supportive of my work or, if otherwise, needs to be publicly explained. For the record, Dr. Lawrence has since been unresponsive to all communications requesting that he set the record straight. The following is the work I shared with Dr. Lawrence "Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?" found on page 14 of this linked pdf file.

I do not understand Mr. Griffin defense of Dr. Lawrence as much as I do not understand his back handed slap of my work on the tape since Mr. Griffin stated that he believed in the work to the point he tried to include it in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” and apologized by email for his failure to do so. The following are excerpts from those emails

3-17-2007, In any case, I wanted you to know that after I read both Ed’s essay and your latest version, I checked to see if I could modify my account of this video in my book somewhat but it was too late.
Cordially,
DG

4-20-2007, My book was delayed at the printer. But it’s now on its way to Amazon.
You’ll be unhappy with the OBL part; I modified it a little but it was too late to do very much.
Cordially,
DG

Obviously, Mr. Griffin not only very familiar with the work but a believer. The supposedly limited time he had was used to include in his book what tenacious Ed Haas got the FBI to admit to and which Mr. Griffin managed to quote about eight times.

I can only call this cherry picking, an ugly practice, since he again quotes the FBI’s statement to Ed Haas in this book while ignoring Ed Haas’s other work that disagrees with him. The following is the statement Mr. Griffin quotes

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

What Mr. Griffin ignores is an article dealing with the same statement that Ed Haas edited and published on his own website, “Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?”. The following is an excerpt regarding the FBI statement

Ed Haas’ later work regarding the authenticity of the “confession tape” caught the FBI saying: “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the “confession tape” is in a sealed investigative file.

The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence.

Ed Haas and I collaborated on the article after our appearance on the Kevin Barrett radio show. Even though Ed did the editing and scrutinized the veracity of the content, since I did all the writing, Ed did not put his name to the article despite my insistence.

This cherry picking is not limited to Ed Haas’ work, Mr. Griffin did that to Jason Burke of the Observer, he quoted what agreed with him and neglected the fact that Mr. Burke reported specifically on the tape in question; the title says it all

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/16/september11.terrorism1|Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting
The CIA may have set up the terrorist leader to incriminate himself]]

The most obvious cherry picking relates to my work which determined that the video tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, while claiming that the video tape was made on November 9, 2001, was actually taped on September 26, 2001, and was the result of a joint sting operation by U.S. and Saudi Intelligence. The full analysis is reported in “The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars” which again Mr. Griffin had access to.

These are the incidents of cherry picking that I know of and have no idea how often it was done in the book. Just the fact that there was cherry picking shows that Mr. Griffin’s reasoning is flawed.

Now on the issue of “Dead or Alive” – Based on intelligence sources that Mr. Griffin cites, bin Laden has kidney problems and needs dialysis every three days, this is the line Mr. Griffin accepts and leads him to speculate that bin Laden is dead since dialysis machines that bin Laden procured need electricity which is unavailable in the caves of Afghanistan.

Assuming it is true that bin Laden had kidney problems, severity unknown, to present dialysis as the only effective treatment without considering other treatments that are more effective and readily available is simply disingenuous.

There is an older treatment that bin Laden could have stocked up on. Based on recent medical reports, this older treatment is more effective than dialysis and does not require electricity; the treatment was originally developed for poorer nations such as Pakistan and is called “Peritoneal dialysis”.

Conclusion: Bin Laden had another treatment option which was readily available.

Also, if bin Laden survived Tora Bora and made his way to Pakistan, kidney transplants are the earliest of the transplant operations and there is no limit to the number of people who would gladly give him a kidney; it is very possible that bin Laden managed a kidney.

Bin Laden’s death based on intelligence reporting his dialysis need and later repeated by heads of state here and there are not reliable sources especially when these individuals have vested interests.

Based on the evidence at hand, when it comes to the issue of bin Laden’s death, I refuse to speculate and that is exactly what Mr. Griffin has done.

On the other hand, I am glad to report that Mr. Griffin and I agree on one thing, December 13, 2001 is a very important date, a pivotal date, a date he mentioned in his book more that once; Mr. Griffin, on many occasions, gave December 13 as the almost absolute date bin Laden died. One of Mr. Griffin’s arguments supporting the death theory is that it is the date bin Laden went quiet, i.e. no electronic intercepts.

I have a more plausible take on this quietness and it is not death.

December 13 also happens to be the date the Pentagon released the “bin Laden Confession Tape”, This is what I wrote on May 9, 2007 about the release

By releasing the tape, a by-product of a sensitive intelligence operation, to justify an illegal policy of aggression to the detriment of America’s national security, the Bush administration committed high treason.

When Bin Laden saw himself on TV confessing he realized that the taping was done by a covert camera and realized how close intelligence were to capturing him; Bin Laden would never let anyone that close again.

The release of the tape undermined all future efforts to capture Bin Laden, whether they were conducted by the Bush administration or any future administration.

On December 13, 2001, the promise of “dead or alive” became the biggest lie that the American public and the world would live.

It is no coincidence bin Laden went silent on that date and into deep hiding; it was the only logical reaction to the release of the tape.

The reports of his death followed shorty after, early 2002, by the likes of Karzai, Musharraf, and other heads of state in the region. Mr. Griffin accepts these proclamations at face value and quotes them liberally without scrutiny and never considered the possibility that these heads of state acted in the service of their masters and that such statements were specifically designed to flush bin Laden out.

I don’t know who Mr. Griffin’s masters are but if I follow the irrational rationale he uses in his book, a rationale endorsed on the first pages by a CIA official, a State Department Counterterrorism official, and a founder of the USMC intelligence center, a rationale based mostly on official sources which include the Pentagon and Homeland Security rather than independent research, I have to conclude that Mr. Griffin’s masters reside among those people.

Mr. Griffin’s notiriety within the truth movement, coupled with his intentional desregard for the truth, cherry picking, and dubious sources, again, using the irrational rationale used thoughout the book, could I conclude that Mr. Griffin is a mole in the truth movement entrusted to undermine the very truth the movement is looking for?

The net effect of the book is not the naïve attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan. Instead, the book propagates falshoods within the truth movement and diverts attention from the evidence that could be duplicated by any other independent investigator, evidence that would stand in court and point to the fact that George W. Bush committed treason, murder, and high crimes against humanity.

Prosecuting Bush is the only we we can stop more deaths, American, Afghan, and even Iraqi, and the only way to stop Obama from committing more war crimes.

Harsh critique by Osseiran- which itself includes speculation

I've emailed DRG and invited his response to this.

Personally, I don't consider Griffin credible, given his consistent citation of discredited/disreputable sources such as Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds, CIT, Bollyn, Serendipity.li, and others. In his books and lectures he's also spent a great deal of time promoting the so-called evidence that AA77 didn't crash at the Pentagon, and given scant treatment to the evidence that it did. Griffin's high profile and prolific work have given the MSM grounds for portraying the controversial '757 didn't hit' theory as a major tenet of the 9/11 truth movement, despite the fact that it's hugely controversial in the movement. Also, Griffin has counseled truth activists to avoid promoting specific theories, but he himself promotes a theory that at least some phone calls the planes were voice morphed.

As I'm skeptical about Griffin's reliability, I don't promote his work and haven't bothered to read his books since 9/11 Independent Commission (I own a copy of Debunking), and I only occasionally read his articles which accompany their release. Osseiran has raised some valid points in this article about what we know and don't know, and other possibilities. Speculation is fine, and when it's done it should be presented as speculation, and facts should be cited to support it. Promoting speculation as fact discredits the person doing it. I've read but have not thoroughly researched the work of Haas and Osseiran on the Bin Laden tapes. At this point, I'm not convinced it was or was not Bin Laden on the 'Confession tape'; it may have been set up as a sting, and Bin Laden may have sent one of his doubles to the meeting. There are reasons to question the provenance of the tape, and the authenticity of Bin Laden's messages since- if messages are being faked, which is a strong possibility, it's significant that Bin Laden is not objecting- possibilities include him being dead or in custody.

Mid-November 2001: Bin Laden ‘Confession’ Video Made, According to US
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=amid1101confessionvideoma...

How Do You Authenticate a Sound Recording?
http://www.slate.com/id/2074083/

Osama bin Elvis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis/print

The Shocking Truth About Osama bin Laden: Apparently, he reads our blogs.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-shocking-truth-about-osama

Mr. Osseiran:

You said, "The most likely scenario is that CNN, who was very unhappy with the decision , informed the American government, and as a consequence, their cohorts, the British, of Al-Jazeera’s position prompting British or American intelligence to steal the tape. The quotes from the tape in David Bamber’s report of November 11 helped Al-Jazeera recognize the tape as their own and moved to prevent Blair from using it on November 14."

You're suggesting that the tape was stolen from Al Jazeera- and they did not report the theft? Why not?

You said, "I don’t know who Mr. Griffin’s masters are but if I follow the irrational rationale he uses in his book, a rationale endorsed on the first pages by a CIA official, a State Department Counterterrorism official, and a founder of the USMC intelligence center, a rationale based mostly on official sources which include the Pentagon and Homeland Security rather than independent research, I have to conclude that Mr. Griffin’s masters reside among those people.

"Mr. Griffin’s notiriety within the truth movement, coupled with his intentional desregard for the truth, cherry picking, and dubious sources, again, using the irrational rationale used thoughout the book, could I conclude that Mr. Griffin is a mole in the truth movement entrusted to undermine the very truth the movement is looking for?"

In the first part above you conclude that Griffin 1) has masters and 2) they're in the intelligence community- your speculation is based on [edit: some of the evidence he's selected, the way its presented, and the backgrounds of endorsers]. In the second part, you stated a possible conclusion to draw from your speculation, and posed it as a question; earlier in your article you criticized Griffin for doing this same thing, deriding it as a "Fox News tactic."

Please comment on this. Also, as you've already speculated about Griffin's masters and motives, please comment on other possibilities, and explain why you rule them out.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Your reply

The Al-Jazeera tape ended up in the hands of the Telegraph and was supposed to be unveiled by Blair and Al-Jazeera did not give it to either.

How it ended up in their possession is irrelevant but having it without authorization is usually considered theft.

Al-Jazeera confronted Blair and took the tape back. I would have to guess that if they did not get it back, they would have caused a very serious diplomatic incident by exposing the theft; that was their leverage to get it back and since the Telegraph wrote no further about it they must have managed a gag order too. You have to remember that Al-Jazeera is owned by the ruling family and as long as Al-Jazeera gets the results they aimed for, in this case the return of the tape, they would not start a diplomatic incident.

The paragraphs you mention are at the end of the article, yes, I use the same tactics griffin uses to show how ridiculous his approach and emphasize his irrational rationale.

About your general comment, there are plenty of links within the article you just read that would familiarize you with my work and that of Ed Haas. It is unfortunate that Ed took his site down but if you google his full name between quotation marks you should get a lot of his articles.

My website is www.mydemocracy.net and there are lots of articles that I have not posted to my website, some are about the tape, some are geopolitical analysis.

In peace,
Maher Osseiran

Here are two articles...

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070226141631611
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15694


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Link to Ed Haas' most recent article dated Oct. 31, 2009

Hi Jon,
Thanks for posting the links.
Bryan Sacks is great, he really did a lot of research before he wrote that piece.
He also did a video found on Youtube that you could see on my blog here
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11584

Ed Haas came in from the cold to pen his latest article
"Why it's impossible to support the war in Afghanistan" found at
http://surgeeditorials.typepad.com/surge-editorials/2009/10/why-its-impo...

that is why I am extremely dissapointed with David Ray Griffin.

In peace
Maher Osseiran

re: critique, and insults and accusations

"The paragraphs you mention are at the end of the article, yes, I use the same tactics griffin uses to show how ridiculous his approach and emphasize his irrational rationale."

A note to 911Blogger readers: insults and accusations, implied or direct, are frowned upon here, and are generally in violation of the rules:
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

Maher Osseiran's research, along w/ Ed Haas', has been widely circulated and cited in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I decided to publish Osseiran's article despite the insults and accusations, due to the public interest in knowing about Osseiran's critique- including the way it was framed.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Confrontational, yes, an insult, hardly

The proof is in the pudding.

loose nuke has asked David Ray Griffin for a response.
The publisher, Olive Branch Press, has asked David Ray Griffin for a response.

I look forward to David Ray Griffin's response.

It was not easy for me to take that tone in writing the article. Actually agonized since the day the book was published.
I liked DRG and we communicated often and I would have gladly accepted his latest book if in the least it was well researched; it was not.

If you visit my website, www.mydemocracy.net, and read any of the articles you will quickly realize that I only write about things that others do not treat fully.

The majority of those who commented about the "bin Laden Confession Tape" did it off the cuff and caused serious harm.

I have contacted quite a few to correct the record and had no response and would only respond when a confrontational tone is taken.

What Really Happened took an article off their website, Lawrence played on words, etc...

The more credibility a person has, especially when that person knows the truth and when the truth and resources are available to him, the more confrontational the tone has to be; I am not apologizing.

Again, the proof is in the pudding.

I am waiting for a response.

I will be honest with you guys, within the truth movement, certain things have become a system of belief, when we talk about truth, the first thing we need to have is an open mind. When someone tells me, you are not going to change my mind, it sound more to me like, I don't want to think.

So, if within the truth movement, certain things are a tenant, that is not likely to be the case with the publisher.

If DRG cannot respond convincingly to the publisher, I am going to move to have the publisher pull the book off the market and apologize to the public; maybe even some of you will get their money back.

In peace
Maher Osseiran

The Fatty bin Laden tape - an obvious fraud

The 'fatty bin laden tape' that mosseiran claims to have authenticated, is an obvious fraud. I will never be convinced otherwise. It doesn't take an expert to see the obvious. I question the credibility of anybody who puts forth claims to the contrary, especially when they do it in such an air of snootiness and condescension.

I agree that whether bin Laden is dead or alive is debatable, and at the same time, irrelevant, but mosseiran's curious attempt to discredit DRG, actually does well for DRG's credibility.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Kevin Fenton's response

Response to Maher Osseiran’s Critique of David Ray Griffin’s Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/response-to-maher-osserian’s-critique-of-david-ray-griffin’s-osama-bin-laden-dead-or-alive/

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Here is an old interview...

Done by Michael Wolsey with Ed Haas about this issue.

http://cdn3.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_haas.mp3


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.