Disposable and Expendable
As more ‘facts’ emerge about the assassination of Osama bin Laden, one
thing is clear: that there has been active collaboration between the
Empire and the media in suppressing the true nature of the events
surrounding bin Laden’s death[1]. For starters, are we to believe that
the army of corporate media mavens swarming around Islamabad didn’t know
about the following?
"
The CIA maintained a safe house in
the Pakistani city of Abbottabad for a small team of spies who
conducted extensive surveillance over a period of months on the compound
where Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. special operations forces this
week, U.S. officials said." — ‘
CIA had secret outpost in Abbottabad‘,
Washington Post, 6 May 2011
And what of bin
Laden's 'army'? what was it doing whilst the gringos were skulking
around Abbottabad? It stinks. The entire obscene event reeks of a
Hollywood-prepared script, right down to Obama's performance at Ground
Zero. Nothing on the scale of moving a US president to downtown
Manhattan is done on the fly, such trips are prepared weeks, if not
months in advance.
And of course, the presentation. The para following the one above is a classic:
"The secret CIA facility was
used as a base of operations for one of the most delicate human
intelligence gathering mission in recent CIA history, one that relied on
Pakistani informants and other sources to help assemble a "pattern of
life" portrait of the occupants and daily activities at the fortified
compound where bin Laden was found, the officials said." (ibid)
Not a hint of a question from the Washpost about the fact
that the Empire has quite obviously known where bin Laden's been hanging
out for months if not years, so why now? Instead the WP tries
to wax eloquent describing the run-up to the illegal assassination as
the "most delicate human intelligence gathering mission in recent CIA
history". "Delicate"? With CIA operatives tramping all over
Abbottabad?[2]
Thus it's clear that bin Laden could have been 'taken out' at pretty
much any time over the past few months at the very least and, given that
the CIA and Special Forces have been camped almost outside his
(overpriced) mansion, and that he was unarmed, he could have been
captured, not blown away and dumped in the ocean like so much garbage.
One can only draw the conclusion that the Empire had decided that now
was a 'propitious' time to remove a valuable 'asset', it seems for
short-term gains in Obama's approval ratings and of course to take
peoples' minds off more pressing issues, like how to feed the kids.
After all 'al-Qu'eda' goes on, how can you destroy something that
doesn't in any real sense of the word, exist, by taking out its putative
leader?
Moreover, a live and captured bin Laden is even more dangerous than
when he was hanging out in his Abbottabad mansion 'leading al-Qu'eda'
and no way was he going to be captured alive to talk.
Expendable: The Liberal Democrats
Closer to home, a comparable 'dumping of assets' has been taking
place in the local elections with the Liberal Democrats sent scuttling
back whence they were back in 2007 with 15% of the total vote. Not
surprisingly (though the BBC seemed bemused) the Tories gained seats but
the biggest winner (not surprisingly) was Labour (though in Scotland,
traditionally almost solid Labour, has been trounced with the Scottish
National Party taking an overall majority).
So why was the BBC so bemused that the Tories gained ground? Clearly,
those who had previously voted Lib-Dem decided that they'd had enough
of the vapid and hypocritical Lib-Dems so I'm pretty sure that those who
switched to the Tories were probably Tory voters (35%) before and ditto
for those who switched to Labour (37%). It explains why the Tories
made small gains. It ain't rocket science BBC pundits.
"Nick Clegg has said the Lib
Dems are being "blamed" for coalition spending cuts as the party suffers
heavy losses in English local elections." -- BBC News, 6 May 2011
Do you wonder why voters deserted the Lib-Dems in droves when it
can't even admit to being nothing more than a spare wheel to the Tories?
Of course it's going to get blamed for the cuts, it helped make them!
Who else do they think the voters should blame? Do these bozos in
Parliament have any inkling of what it's like out here? Obviously not.
Even worse, because the Lib-Dems betrayed their electors, they have given what appears
to be a green light for the Tory government's destruction of our social
infrastructure. Hopefully, this means the end of the Liberal Democrats
and not a century too soon.
And the referendum on whether to change the electoral system has also
gotten nixed (68% No, 32% Yes). No surprise there, it was after all a
creation of the ruling political class who were divided over it. The
problem was that although the AV system did offer a few advantages over
the existing 'first past the post' system, like yours truly who didn't
vote this time, it reveals an almost complete cynicism in the political
process. So why would a small change to voting process (but more complex
to complete) persuade voters that it was a step forward? Better the
devil you know...
Thus even those in government who supported AV (the Lib-Dems and a
sprinkling of Labour, the Tories officially opposed it) were true to
their wishy-washy 'liberal' pretensions and campaigned in a very
lacklustre manner for the AV system. No wonder the voters said no,
making a few changes as to how we vote for our entrenched mafia was not
going to alter the almost total disconnect between the state and the
citizen.
The upshot reveals the total confidence trick played on the voter by
the alleged Tory/Lib-Dem coalition with the Lib-Dems paying the price
for wanting—not to represent the voters needs—but joining the
'coalition' being nothing more than a lusting after power.
Changing the voting system might well have led to a more
'representative' parliament but would do nothing to alter the fact that
in reality we have a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle Dum, or not
much choice at all.
Note
1. Apparently 'al-Qu-eda' has issued a press release acknowledging
the death of Osama bin Laden. "Al-Qaeda has confirmed the death of its
leader, Osama Bin Laden, according to a statement attributed to the
group and posted on jihadist internet forums." (BBC
6 May 2011) Though who knows? There have been so many of these
'jihadist' Websites, one that I discovered was run out of an office in
High Holborn, London and quite easy to track down though I didn't see
any signs of the anti-terror squad hammering on the doors of Al-ansar
Net, 184 High Holborn, London WC1V 7AP. Thus even this 'admission' has
to be taken with a very big pinch of salt. (See, 'From ‘al-Qu’eda’ to ‘Abductions’-the deceptions continue' by William Bowles, 17 May 2007)
2. There are now numerous reports from people in the neighbourhood
concerning the comings and goings. It's inconceivable that the Pakistan
government, let alone the CIA did not know of his presence. Apparently
bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad for at least five years!
13 May 2011
An update on the ludicrous assumptions being made by the mainstream
media concerning the alleged death of bin Laden. Here for example, is
Channel 4 News' latest 'take' on the aftermath of the bin Laden
assassination:
"Our International Editor Lindsey Hilsum, just back from Pakistan,
will be examining how the country is being squeezed from both sides. The
US is placing them under intense pressure after the Bin Laden attack,
with suspicions high that intelligence has been found in the compound
that reveals the extent of the support network President Obama has
already referred to. It could be very awkward yet for people in
Pakistani intelligence and/or the military. And on the other front the
Taliban is pushing - accusing the Pakistanis of colluding with the
Americans." -- Channel 4 News email, 13 May 2011
The media and the state have this unwritten rule: never state the
obvious, that the US and Pakistan have known where bin Laden has been
for years (elsewhere it's called Occam's Razor)! So the MSM goes through
the farce of 'reporting' the 'news' knowing full well that the Taliban
have been supported by Pakistan's ISI just as bin Laden had been
supported by the US. These two relevant facts blow Channel 4's
assumptions about Pakistan being caught between two fires right out of
the window.
In fact, the contradictions and paradoxes of US-Pakistan relations are irrelevant to the main objective of the US in the region which is to maintain a state of chaos and instability, just as USNATO's presence in Afghanistan is not about winning but simply about being there.
Let the occupation go on for years, money is being made, economies are
being held hostage and kept in a permanent state of dependence on the
Empire. And all the while the Empire moves ever closer to its two main
rivals, Russia and China. This is what Empire-building is all about.
So, in the meanwhile Lindsey Hilsum goes through the motions of
analysis, all of it based upon false assumptions about what the US knows
or doesn't know. It's ludicrous, yet this juvenile nonsense is being
written by university graduates and is considered serious journalism
would you believe. But how can it be if it omits from the equation the
real relationship between the US and Pakistan and US objectives in the
region?
The way Channel 4 paints the picture, it's all about 'the war on
terror', getting revenge for 911 and eliminating its arch-enemy
personified by the myth called Osama bin Laden/al-Qu'eda, made real by
the likes of Lindsey Hilsum.
