Pakistani President Says bin Laden a US Operative

While the headline is about whether Osama is dead or not (of course he isn't-- he can't be allowed to die!), the more notable thing is what Zardari says in this video.

36 seconds in: "We knew that he was your operator" talking about bin Laden destabilizing his wife's (Benazir Bhutto's) government. Note Zardari's smile right after he says it. Of course, David Gregory immediately changes the subject.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/10/pakistani-president-believes-osama-bin-laden-is-dead/

I get the impression he does not mean OBL is a US operative but rather the opposition that got his wife defeated.

"... because he paid the then opposition $10 million to overthrow {stumbles for words} the first woman elected in an Islamic country. So we knew that he was your operator."

Sorry, Spooky; back to the CT drawing board.

I know it's hard for you to accept this, but it's pretty darn clear.

"She rang up senior Bush and asked of him, "are you destabilizing my government?" because he paid the then opposition $10 million to overthrow {stumbles for words} the first woman elected in an Islamic country. So we knew that he was your operator."

It is clear that he is referring to the opposition, not OBL.

If you going to try and just make shit up, you would be better off not presenting evidence that you are doing so.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Now you can say he didn't really mean to say this, and that it was his poor english or something, but don't tell me I am making shit up when I am interpreting what he said in a perfectly straight-forward way.

or why you put your fantasy into it. Lets try looking at what was said again.

"She rang up senior Bush and asked of him, "are you destabilizing my government?" because he paid the then opposition $10 million to overthrow {stumbles for words} the first woman elected in an Islamic country. So we knew that he was your operator."

I would hope we can agree this is what is said in the video. Lets look at it.

"She rang up senior Bush and asked of him, "are you destabilizing my government?""

She - This refers to Bhutto
him - Refers to Bush

We on the same page so far?

"because he paid the then opposition $10 million to overthrow"

he - Refers to Bush again
opposition - Refers to either the guy that got her ousted - President Khan, presumably under orders from Bush - or the guy that replaced her as "caretaker", Jatoi, who was appointed by Khan, again presumably under orders from Bush. Regardless of which he refers to, it is not Bin Laden. Bin Laden, at the point in time referred to (circa 1990) was not involved in Pakistan's government in any way that I can find. He (Bin Laden), as far as I know, was busy in Afghanistan in an effort that was being supported by Bhutto, not only financially but with actual troops. (See S. Coll, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001", Penguin Press HC, US 2004)

"{stumbles for words}"

I see nothing of interest here.

"the first woman elected in an Islamic country."

Woman - Referring to Bhutto

We still together here? Good, because now we come to the key part.

"So we knew that he was your operator."

We - I will admit that I am unsure of who he refers to with "we"... perhaps family or the political party... maybe even all of Pakistan. I don't know that it matters.
He - ahhhh, some meat here. "He" refers to the "opposition" (see above).

You know... What is being said here is that the US was behind Bhutto being ousted during her first term. Would I dismiss that? No, the US has a looong history of meddling in other countries politics. Can I prove it? No. You want to get even more specific on the charge and claim that Bin Laden, as an operative of the US, caused her to be ousted. Think about that... You really believe that Bin Laden took time out from the war in Afghanistan to go to Pakistan and get the Prime Minister (that was supporting the effort he was involved in) ousted? Never happened.

You are making shit up.

Right before this, Zardari says how his wife tried to warn us of bin Laden. Then your transcript starts.

I think here-- "because he paid the then opposition $10 million to overthrow" -- "he" makes more sense as bin Laden not Bush.


Also opposition could in theory refer to one guy BUT it doesn't make sense in terms of OVERTHROWING the govt. So the key "he" doesn't likely refer to the opposition.

I still think it makes most sense for the key "he" to refer to bin Laden.

And probably in the phone call, Bush tipped off to Bhutto that bin Laden was a US operator.

Remember, this story makes little sense in the context of the larger conversation about bin Laden.

to overthrow the first woman president of an Islamic country. It would be too obvious for the US to do this.

Honestly, I think in your effort to make everything fit into your conspiracy, you just go waaay out there. The "he" is obviously Bush and not Bin Laden. Maybe... maybe, if the Zardari did not have a decent command of the english language I might buy it but that is not the case.

Then it has to get even more complicated. You honestly think Bush had his operative (Bin Laden) pay to remove Bhutto because she was a woman, then Bush told her about it when she called him to see if he was trying to destabilize her country? I could understand why Bin Laden might not want a woman running a country but why would Bush give a shit? Especially since all three were on the same page about Afghanistan... And why would he then tell her about it?

You really should be writing a TV show, you could make millions. See LOST, its great stuff and in all honesty, I think you could write something equal or greater. In truth, I do not mean that to mock you in any way, shape or form, I honestly believe it.

you're not even TRYING to understand, you're so upset about the notion of a conspiracy! Frankly you're being silly.

you're being your usual incoherent self. This is what I keep trying to tell you. Your logical leaps destroy your credibility.

The main reason why Untruthers won't engage in an honest debate with an unbiased moderator is because they wouldn't be able to
control it. They wouldn't be able to get by simply by repeating the OCT line and shutting down their opponent thru insults etc.
They won't even admit that there is a legitimate opposition and they certainly aren't interested in any kind of give and take
as a way of discovering the truth. Truth isn't their goal.

Have you ever seen any of them say that they're interested in learning the truth?

Their excuses for not debating are pathetic. No publicly-known OCT supporter will debate - despite the fact that as a publicly
known person, being "outed" isn't an issue. As for the OCT/Untruthers here, it's probably the simple fact that they wouldn't be
able to control the situation. Many or maybe even all of them prefer to remain anonymous and that is their right, though one
wonders what they have to fear...in light of the fact that they would be taking the GOVERNMENT'S side.

your "OCTers won't debate" meme is a fraud and you know it. Just because someone declines your goofy "phone debate" challenge (if you think any of us would trust you or your compadres with our personal information or to conduct the "phone debate" honestly by not releasing heavily edited versions of it), doesn't mean they "won't debate". Debate relies on actual evidence, of which you have none. It's also silly to claim we're "taking the government's side". I find your anti-government rants quite troubling actually.

"Debate relies on actual evidence, of which you have none." Then you shouldn't act like you're afraid to debate me.

you just don't like getting your ass kicked because you can't back up your goofy claims.

You once wrote that you'd debate me about the JFK assassination. I'm not going to try and dig up the post where you wrote that, but
I think you might have even said "any time, any place". Whether you included that phrase or not, the fact is that when I accepted
your offer, you chickened-out with some of the most pathetic excuses I've ever seen.

but I DECLINE your terms of debate. I am not going to give you or anyone else my phone number and I think that any prudent person would realize why that makes sense. Beyond that, if you think I would trust you to release an unedited version of any "phone debate", you've got another think coming. We can debate right here. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

Beyond that, your idea of a debate is to make goofy assertions then refuse to provide any evidence of them whatsoever. If I'm wrong about that, I invite you to link to any of your posts in which you linked to any evidence (even badly wrong evidence) whatsoever. Your idea of debate is, again, to offer some ludicrous, goofy assertion. When challenged for proof or shown to be dead wrong on the facts, you typically resort to a) claiming that if your opponent cannot refute your goofy claim, it must be true b) when your opponent does refute your goofy claim, you immediately claim that all their evidence was "debunked years ago" but, oddly can neither link to that debunking or explain the "debunking" in any detail and c) when nothing else works, resort to making false claims about your opponent, as in when you falsely 1) accused Seger of having claimed to be a pilot, promising evidence of it, then folding as you always do or 2) falsely accuse me of refusing to debate you when I have repeatedly accepted your challenge but declined your goofy conditions and said we can debate right here.

So, do it, big man. Show us where you have ever provided a link to any evidence for your goofy claims. Beyond that, show us where I "refuse to debate". Otherwise, if you insist on continuing to make false claims about fellow members, we might have to let DU sort it out.

How in the world do you define "debate" if you claim there isn't any going on here in this forum?

Dictionary.com has several definitions (in case you need to reference them in your answer):

when most of what he says makes little, if any, sense.

but that doesn't mean I have to let his statements go unchallenged. When he refuses to answer or tries to change the subject it should be obvious to any rational observer that he isn't interested in a debate on any terms, on any subject.


On Edit: I presume you are following similar logic.

The OCT is premised on an alleged phone call from Mrs. Olson while she was supposedly on AA77.

Your evidence is that husband Ted says she called from 77, but that's only a claim. You can't provide any corroborating evidence that
is credible. No billing records of the calls etc. So your case falls apart before it even gets started.

If you can provide physical evidence such as billing records etc., then we can move on to the next issue.

we are debating this, right here in this very forum.

The OCT is premised on an alleged phone call from Mrs. Olson while she was supposedly on AA77.

Your evidence is that husband Ted says she called from 77, but that's only a claim. You can't provide any corroborating evidence that
is credible. No billing records of the calls etc. So your case falls apart before it even gets started.

If you can provide physical evidence such as billing records etc., then we can move on to the next issue.

are handling it quite nicely. Why don't you try responding substantively to their posts, rather than whining about "debate" when you have one at hand?

Ah, you wimped-out just like the others. Isn't there ANYONE in the brigade who can step up to the plate?

Posts containing poor logic reflect only on their authors, not on their subjects.

Cop-outs reflect a lack of confidence in one's position and ability to reason.

Why don't you try responding substantively to any of the others in this thread who are inclined to debate Olson's phone call?

to debate. You must really be afraid to have to admit that you can't refute
what I posted, and who can blame you? The truth can't be denied and cop-outs and spinning won't change that.

your arguments gain credibility because I'm not interested in debating a particular topic. That's not the poorest logic I've seen here, but it's pretty bad.

not just "say" that you aren't afraid to debate and that you DO debate, but every time I try to get you to debate, you chicken out.
I'm beginning to think you don't even know what your own Brigade's positions are, much less how to rebut a substantive argument.

But why would I want to debate about things that don't interest me? I don't expect you to that, so why do you expect it of me? Because if I get to choose the topics, they may not be to your liking.

Olson's phone call. The only way a goofy claim like that can be made is to totally disregard all the physical evidence of AA 77. Nice try.

Can you contact someone from the first-string Untruther team to see if maybe THEY can show where and why my explanation
is wrong? You don't really want to be known as just another KFC, do you?

we've been through this before. You make a false claim (that the "OCT" is premised upon the Olson phone call) and totally ignore the physical evidence of plane debris, the eyewitness testimony of people who SAW the fucking plane hit the building and first responders who talk about smelling jet fuel, of seeing the debris from the plane, etc. No amount of spinning from you can overcome that. Go peddle your "cartoon plane" bullshit somewhere else.

I am trying to understand, please explain because it simply makes zero sense to me. I'll repeat it again (well... cut-n-paste it)

Then it has to get even more complicated. You honestly think Bush had his operative (Bin Laden) pay to remove Bhutto because she was a woman, then Bush told her about it when she called him to see if he was trying to destabilize her country? I could understand why Bin Laden might not want a woman running a country but why would Bush give a shit? Especially since all three were on the same page about Afghanistan... And why would he then tell her about it?

Let me add a bit more. Though I could understand Bin Laden wanting to remove a woman of power, the timing is wrong. Why do it when she is helping the cause he a part of with money and troops? He has too much on his plate in Afghanistan with enemies to start fucking with friends. Because Bush told him to? Whats Bush getting out of it?

Let me go a step further here, and correct me if I am wrong. Assume for a moment, I were to agree with your conclusion in the OP. This is the proof that Bin Laden was an operative of Bush back around 1990. OK, now what?

Breaking out of this scenario, just so you are fully aware of exactly what I think. I do in fact believe that during that time period, the US was funding various groups in Afghanistan and that Bin Laden and his people received aid from the US. I'm not certain I would use the word "operative" to describe his status but I do believe he either directly or indirectly received US aid. Now, I am also unaware of any direct proof of this... that is not to say it does not exist, just that I am unaware of it even though I do believe it. So... I'm not trying to prove your idea wrong, just not agreeing that it is being said in this video or agreeing with your other conclusions here (based on your understanding of the video).

That being said... again, now what?

glad to see you thinking about this

conversation about bin Laden, and right after saying that his wife tried to warn us about bin Laden, that Zardari brings up an unrelated anecdote about the US paying the Pakistani opposition.

The anecdote does make perfect sense if you assume that bin Laden is the one paying the opposition, and that during the course of the call with Bush, Bhutto learned that bin Laden was the US "operator".

If you can't understand that, there's not much I can do for you except feel sorry that you aren't able to understand what has happened to this country.

Brzezinski inspects bin Laden's assault weapon.



It's like the mafia: Once you're in, you never get out.

There are 2 ways out. Either you get killed or die from natural causes.:sarcasm:

CIA was funding Afghan groups, not wannabes like bin Ladan's "Arab Afghans." See Wright's The Looming Tower for the details. Bin Ladin didn't need American money, and his participation is better understood as a Saudi version of McHale's Navy.

anything to do w/911.

Wonders never cease.

nt

nt

Hah! Very funny and true

OBL was in a Pakistani military hospital on 9/10/2001 (as reported by CBS news). It is unknown when he checked out, but
he was there to undergo kidney dialysis - an hours long procedure that leaves the patient exhausted. That's the same
Osama bin Laden about whom President Bush himself said: WHO?

Yet, Osama's strong faith gave him the energy to rise up from his sick bed and in the spirit of a true evil-doer, manage the defeat of the world's largest and most sophisticated national defense system.

OBL: 9/11 Mastermind (still waiting for that evidence GWB promised to give the world that proves his guilt)

U.S. Operative

World's most notorious Patsy


Watch OUT, everyone. Here comes the Untruthers to deny he was/is a U.S. operative, or that he was really in the hospital, and that if he WAS, he could have slipped out unnoticed and high-tailed it back to his cave in time for the Really BIG Show about to unfold.
And of course, they'll remind us that as EVERYONE knows, Osama was merely the spiritual inspiration for the evildoers who
attacked us. Being crazy as a loon and none too bright (you know how those cave dwellers are), Osama couldn't have possibly
planned such an attack. It had to be someone else...far, far away in another country. What with it being such a sophisticated
operation and everything - requiring the services and capabilities that only a nation with superior technology (and a very
weak national defense) could possibly have.

to the planes crashing on 9/11, dude. We've already debunked yourt goofy claim that none of them were "scheduled to fly"

the military hospital in Rawalpini. They knew exactly who the tall dude in a turbo turban was.

You don't dispute that Osama was there, and like some other Untruthers, you probably also believe the BS about
how he only dropped in to get a bandaid for a scratch he sustained while saddling up his camel.

unfortunately, it didn't work. I also note that you don't actually provide any sources for your claim.

nt

In case you couldn't comprehend the OP, this subject/discussion is about Osama bin Laden being a CIA Operative, it's NOT about "planes crashing on 9-11"...

BTW, it's also against DU rules for you to stalk another poster in other threads and harrass them about other threads...

as far as debunking -- you've done nothing of the sort

the "eyewitnesses" were either plants or they got fooled-- it's that simple = TrutherSpeak for "I have no way to debunk the actual evidence, so I'll just claim they were all plants or were all 'fooled'...of course, none of MY witnesses could possibly be plants or fooled".

President Hamid Karzai, the puppet in Kabul which has left Washington beyond exasperated, loved Obama's plan to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Especially because it involves the improbable "hunt for the good Taliban" (always bribable by loads of US dollars) mixed with Special Ops inside Pakistan, and not Afghanistan.

Former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto's widower, President Asif Ali Zardari, the puppet in Islamabad, loved it too. But as the Pakistani daily Dawn revealed, his Foreign Office diplomats definitely did not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=437922&mesg_id=437922



Alex Jones Interviews Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul - Full Transcript


Prisonplanet.com
Friday 12th December, 2008

http://proudprimate.com/resources/hamidgul.mp3
..

Hamid Gul: Well, uh, I was actually in charge of operations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the Americans were providing the logistic support, and the Saudis were sharing one half of the budget for this war. And it was a cheap war because in all — there was uh ten years that we were fighting the Russians, we spent not more than five billion dollars out of the American exchequers. So it was a very cheap war for the Americans to have defeated the Russians and rid the whole of the West of this Red Menace that they used to call.

So, at that time, Osama bin Laden and his, uh colleagues, they were admired and romanticised by the CIA operators. I had never met him then. I had nothing to do with him, because I was only busy training the Afghans. We had to win a war, we had a task on our hands, it was a very big task, and we were so occupied with the training only the Afghans. No other nation was trained by the ISI. I can vouch on that. Not a single person, not even a Pakistani was trained by them.

Osama bin Laden was — you know, I — had never met him, but to the — these people used to come and talk glowingly about him. I met Osama bin Laden after my retirement from the army, in 1993 December in Khartoum, and then again in year, uh, 1994 November when I was went — I was there invited by a Hassan bin-Turabi to an international conference, and during that conference, Osama invited us to a banquet. And it was all in an open place, and, uh, where there were many other people present. I, uh, he struck me as a pretty normal human being, not the bloodthirsty animal that he is being presented by the CIA now.

At that time no conversation between him and me took place. I don’t know whether he’s living or dead. But so far Ayman — Ayman al-Zawahiri has been given — eh, representing him in various interviews of Osama that have been put out.

So one doesn’t really know. But the last interview, which was a voice interview, in that the CIA and the other US intelligence agencies authenticated that it was Osama’s voice. So one doesn’t really know whether he is living or dead.



...


Hamid Gul: No, Benazir was not killed by any of the terrorists. She was removed by the Americans, because she had violated her agreement, because they wanted to keep Pervez Musharraf there, and he slapped another on Pakistan. So she had become rebellious, and such a person, who is a popular leader of a third world country, the head of the largest political party, a woman whom they could not attack as fundamentalist because she was so westernized, therefore it was very important for them to remove her, because they have a mischievous plan which they want to put through.

So, they have installed instead Mr. Zardari, whom they can blackmail very easily, but they have allowed him to keep the powers of a dictator. And in fact he’s the one who’s calling all the shots in Pakistan, so as Pakistan is already completely destabilized politically.

Our po — um, uh be — judicial institution simply does not exist, because the judicial crisis recently dethroned Chief Justice of Pakistan —

actually detracts from the truth. Yes?

What is the truth and who has it?

11/2007-- Benazir Bhutto says Omar Sheikh murdered bin Laden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuFx6rQbE&feature=related

Bhutto was assassinated less than two months later.

5/2009-- Pakistani President Zardari says bin Laden was an US operator and that he is dead now.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/10/pakistani-president-believes-osama-bin-laden-is-dead/

How much longer will Zardari last?

Note, Zardari is Bhutto's widower.

Now, there is some controversy about if Bhutto really meant that bin Laden was murdered, as Omar Sheikh is officially known as the murderer of Daniel Pearl, and perhaps she got confused. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIn_UnLO9I&feature=related Supposedly Bhutto referred to bin Laden being alive after this interview. But it certainly doesn't seem as if Bhutto misspoke or got confused. She didn't catch herself, as one would normally do after saying something so majorly wrong, and neither does Frost say anything. And Bhutto may well have been manipulated to say bin Laden was alive after this interview. Worse yet is the way BBC simply edited out her saying this from the more recent version of the interview, rather than simply putting out a clarifying remark.

Of course, it's rather important to note that both these Pakistani leaders say bin Laden was dead, and that Bhutto was killed shortly after saying he was murdered. All in all, I think the evidence points to the idea that Bhutto spoke the truth and that bin Laden WAS murdered by Omar Sheikh.