On May 1, Barack Obama announced that the number one man on the FBI’s most wanted list, Osama Bin Laden, had been killed by U.S. Navy Seals in a raid upon his complex in Pakistan. As soon as the news was released I was reading comments about it on Facebook and made a few of my own. I was told that, even for me, my comments were just a bit too radical, too cynical to be believed. As the nightly news broadcasts began releasing more details of this ‘supposed’ raid, I wound up having more questions than answers. So, I am going to share a few of those questions with you now. You don’t have to believe everything I say, but I would at least hope that you think about what I am about to say before dismissing me entirely.

Personally, I have doubts that it was in fact Osama Bin Laden who was killed in the attack upon that compound. All we have as evidence is the word of our government and a few videos of some old man, who may or may not be Bin Laden, watching old videos of Bin Laden speeches. Pretty flimsy evidence if you ask me, especially since I have trouble believing anything my government tells me anymore.

But, for the sake of argument, let us say it was Bin Laden who was shot and killed in that raid by Seal Team 6. If I recall correctly, NBC’s Brian Williams reported that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot and killed. In fact, Williams reported that almost all of the shots fired during the entire raid were made by the Navy Seals. So, why was the most wanted man in America murdered by U.S. armed forces instead of being taken into captivity?

Honestly, wouldn’t that have been a far bigger coup for Barack Obama, to have Osama Bin Laden brought back to the U.S. in shackles, to stand trial for all his purported acts of terrorism? Could it be that the U.S. government does not have any concrete evidence tying him directly to those terrorist acts, and therefore it issued orders to shoot to kill? Or could it be that Bin Laden had knowledge that certain groups did want to be allowed to see daylight?

In August of 1998, MSNBC’s International Editor, Michael Moran wrote, “Since the early 1990s, Osama bin Laden, heir to a Saudi construction fortune, has financed attacks on interests of U.S. and its Arab allies.

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. By 1984, he was running Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) that funneled money, arms and fighters into the Afghan war. MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East, were partners in the CIA’s war.” Could it be that Bin Laden may have possibly known things about the CIA that our government could not allow to be made public?

Going back to the Clinton administration, our government had numerous chances to take out Bin Laden, but never followed through on them. Has anyone bothered to wonder why? Sure that the attacks of September 11th had not taken place yet, but supposedly Al Qaeda was already suspected of being behind numerous other terrorist attacks. Why wasn’t the alleged leader of Al Qaeda taken out sooner?

In July of 2001 John O Neill, FBI counter-terrorism export stated, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He also stated, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama Bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” Ironically, O’Neill died in the attacks of Sept 11 while serving as head of security for the world trade center.

I guess we’ll never know the answers to these questions now, as, according to the government, Bin Laden is now fish food. A convenient way to ensure these questions never do get answered, to say the least. But I’m not quite done yet; there is more about this whole thing that bothers me.

First of all, under what legal authority did Barack Obama send a U.S. Navy Seal Team into another sovereign nation to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden? If Obama was so certain he was in that compound, why not have him arrested and extradited? Of course Bin Laden, if he was in fact there at all, must have had friends inside the Pakistani government who knew it and were protecting him. So extradition may have given him another chance to slip away as he supposedly had done every time we got close to him.

Nevertheless, to send U.S. armed forces into another nation, without their permission, and carry out an attack against Bin Laden is akin to members of the Iraqi Republican Guard staging an assault upon George W. Bushes Crawford Texas home because they considered HIM a war criminal. If that were to happen the U.S. would consider it an act of war. Yet we expect Pakistan to just keep quiet about it?

Sure, supposedly we are in a War on Terror, but are there no limits to the authority granted the President of the United States to conduct this war? Already we have overthrown one regime while, at the same time, attempting to dismantle the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Going back to what former FBI counter-terrorist agent John O’ Neill said, everything we needed to know to dismantle Al Qaeda could have been found in Saudi Arabia. If Al Qaeda was our primary concern, why not seek the answers where they could have been found instead of invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Could that be due to the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family? Remember, I’m just asking questions for you to consider, not stating unequivocally that I am correct in my assumptions.

Whether or not you believe that the attacks of September 11 were indeed carried out by Al Qaeda members, or not, they lie at the root of this whole war upon terror declared by President George W. Bush. Some people find it inconceivable that their government could be capable of either being involved in those attacks, or even that they knew about them and did nothing, giving them the excuse they needed to launch a carte blanche war upon whomever they declare to be terrorists, including American citizens who stand for Constitutionally limited government.

Well, what about the fact that it has pretty much been proven that the U.S. cracked the codes used by the Japanese, and were well aware of the impending attack upon Pearl Harbor? That gave FDR just the right amount of public outrage to enter the War in the Pacific, didn’t it?

Don’t believe that? What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? For those of you too young to remember, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a supposed naval battle on August 4, 1964 in which U.S. Navy warships engaged the North Vietnamese navy in the Gulf of Tonkin.

The outcome of these two incidents was that Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave President Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was felt to be threatened by communist aggression. I don’t know, but the broad scope of that resolution sounds a lot similar to the power Congress has granted our current presidents to wage this war on terror. However, the second Gulf of Tonkin battle never took place. Two days prior the U.S. Navy HAD been engaged in a battle with the North Vietnamese. But on the day of the second attack, other than salvage boats, there were no Vietnamese ships in the area. This data comes from a 2005 NSA historical study which was declassified, and states, “[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.”

So you see, our government is capably of lying to us so as to provide them with an excuse for entering a conflict, or expanding an existing conflict. But still, you may have doubts that the U.S. would actually commit acts against its own people, or facilities, as an excuse to start a war.

Well then, allow me to present to you, Operation Northwoods. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted a plan which called for the CIA, or other operatives to commit acts of terror in the United States, and blame it upon the Castro regime in Cuba. The goal was, as stated in the plan, “The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.”

In his book Body of Secrets, James Bamford had this to say about Operation Northwoods, “Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”

Although it was never put into action, it shows that our government has thought about, is probably capable of carrying out attacks upon U.S. citizens, or facilities, then to blame it upon someone it wishes to enter into war with. If that is not enough to raise serious doubts about this whole war on terror, then I don’t know what will.

I know, there are those of you thinking that I am just one unpatriotic son of a bitch. Well, you’re wrong, I’m about as patriotic as you get. I do not like being lied to and deceived by my government, especially when it means sending our armed forces off to die in some hellhole for no justifiable reason.

Besides, look at all the intrusions upon our liberty that this war on terror has spawned. We are all told that it is in our best interests, or in the interest of national security that we submit to these intrusions. Bullshit! In the Supreme Court case of US v Robel, the court stated, “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”

In the Court case of Ex Parte Milligan, the court also stated, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

So whatever you believe about the supposed death of Osama Bin Laden, I hope I have given you food for thought. I just hope that after digesting it, you don’t get heartburn.

~ The Author ~
As usual, hate mail, obnoxious comments, and death threats may be sent to: bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal