Pacastain Reveals in Truth of Binladin

Walnut Creek CA

Description

The truth is, bin Laden died of kidney failure in December 2001. However, U.S. claims of killing him DOES make him a martyr. December 25, 2001 - The Pakistan Observer publishes details of bin Laden’s funeral. On the front page, the newspaper reports that an unnamed Taliban leader said bin Laden “had a peaceful natural death in mid-December in the vicinity” of the Tora Bora mountains. The report says that his death was the result of a “serious lung complication…He was laid to rest honorably in his last abode” in a grave prepared according to the beliefs of the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of Islam to which the Qaeda leader belonged, the report said. Translation of Funeral Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633 News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 days ago Islamabad - A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden. Bin Laden has been replaced by domestic terrorists...the President and Congress. They seem all to ready to go back on the promises that heir predecessors made to American servicemen. AT - I'm curious to know how I do not wish to get into a shouting match here. We are each entitled to an opinion. Neither side can be definitely proven. However, I feel the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to death in December 2001 as a result of complications arising from renal failure. AT - I'm curious to know how this proves that he died back in 2001. It isn't hard at all to make up a story and hand it over to the press, the Law Enforcement community does it all the time. Is there independent, neutral confirmation? Is there DNA evidence? Unfortunately the reports are that neither was done last year when he was supposedly taken out. If he did indeed die back in 2001, how then were the audio tapes created after that that has him issuing statements that have been confirmed by many Government and non-Government agencies that that is Bin Laden's voice? With technology today is way easier to confirm the authenticity of an audio message compared to verifying someone's death after the fact. As to the audio, there have been some government people who have said that it is bin Laden's voice. There have been many more experts who have also examined the audio and stated it was NOT his voice. As to video, one example would be the progressing gray of bin Laden's beard. It steadily increased in the amount of gray from 1997 up until December 2001. Suddenly the spread of gray stopped and the amount remained constant. The quality of video's decreased markedly after December 2001. Some videos only show the face in freeze frame and a voice layover. Prior to 2002, statements from bin Laden were marked with a reference to God or Allah about once in every 40 words. Subsequently, those references were markedly diminished. As to photos, understand bin Laden was a very ill man. Later photos showed a much fuller face indicated significant weight gain and health. Also compare the eyes of later photos. The angle and positioning are different. Now let's think about reasoning. The terrorist elements may have hoped the "death" of bin Laden would reduce the pressure on them. That is plausible, but I think unlikely. bin Laden was more useful as a propaganda tool than as either a leader or a martyr. But why would the U.S. Government lie? Isn't our government truthful? Would they lie about "weapons of mass destruction" so that Iraq might be invaded? (Rhetorical question.) Afghanistan was invaded with the principal goal of "getting" bin Laden. If he were suddenly to die on his own very shortly thereafter, any reason to linger would evaporate. It is hard to conduct a war without an "enemy". It was to the advantage of Bush to keep up the war because it made him popular. It is an advantage to contractors and suppliers to maintain a war (for profit). It was an advantage for Obama to "kill bin Laden" as it boosted his sagging ratings, and is now being used in his re-election bid. Lastly, if you will consult statements coming from our very own government in 2002 and 2003, there was a lot of talk that bin Laden was already dead. Since the "death" could not be proven, it was found that bin Laden was more useful "alive". That continued until a year ago when more could be made of his "death", also unproven. I do not wish to get into a shouting match here. We are each entitled to an opinion. Neither side can be definitely proven. However, I feel the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to death in December 2001 as a result of complications arising from renal failure.