Questioning Events is not 'Conspiracy Theories'

Citizens Oversight (2011-05-06) Ray Lutz

This Page: https://copswiki.org/Common/M1163
More Info: Bin Laden, Iraq War

Also posted: http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/questioning-bin-laden-capture-events-is-not-conspiracy-theories

Questioning Events is not "Conspiracy Theories"

We seem to have lost our ability to critically review the behavior of the govt because there are so many people who label such reviews as works of wacko conspiracy theorists. But alternative explanations need not be "conspiracies" nor even be illegal. Can we disregard the chants: "Don't go against your own team" and "Revel in the feeling of unity we experienced after 9/11"??

Perhaps there are alternative theories for these events that are not conspiracies nor even illegal. If you think about them, are you then a conspiracy theorist? Of course not.

Considering the theory that this was a fully staged capture (i.e. no bin Laden captured, helicopter downed to provide evidence that it actually occurred, etc) there are many facts that support this notion, such as no live video of the event, no casualties from the downed chopper, no pictures of bin Laden, body disposed rapidly at sea, no problem getting the helos to the site inside Pakistan, capture story changed from "very spicy" (firefight, bin Laden cowering behind a woman) to "bland" (no firefight, bin Laden unarmed) to suggest it is now the true one, etc.

We can act as scientists and test the theory by predicting a future event. If the event was legitimate, then we should expect the US to be very disturbed about how Pakistan could be harboring such a fugitive in their country and pull funding or at least have a big "heart to heart" with their leaders. If it was staged, we should expect this concept to be scuttled, and funding to continue. In fact, we may even see Pakistan given some sort of award for their role. Mark my words, I predict the latter, supporting the notion of a sham operation. Let's see what happens, so as scientists, we can test the theory.

But if it was a sham, why do it? Was it to only give President Obama a needed bump among the conservative "remember 9/11" crowd? If you watched enough Columbo or read Sherlock Holmes, you've probably seen this purely tactical play before. Assume we did not know where bin Laden was, but thought he was still alive. This staged scene could be used by our team to smoke him out. Not willing to see the US get away with the sham event, bin Laden resurfaces and allows our team to finally find him. Later, our president admits the capture was a sham, but by then the real bin Laden was captured. There is nothing illegal after all, as it is all just play acting.

If it does not work, then it closes off the myth of bin Laden and allows us to get out of Af/Pak war, and Iraq, so no harm done.

Please note, there is no "conspiracy" here. Such sham operations are done all the time in warfare, and the invasion of Normandy and "Operation Fortitude" is a good example where our leaders lied about the site of the invasion, directing Hilter to the Pas de Calais instead of Normandy. Unfortunately, this sentenced the small diversionary invasion force to death, but it was worth the success of Normandy, or so they argue. That was not illegal, because the deception was part of warfare. You can kill someone in war, so what harm is there if you just lie?

Our President and SEALS should be willing to do nothing less, and so the claims that anyone is "disrespecting the integrity of the SEAL teams" is ridiculous. According to Sun Tzu in "The Art of War", all warfare is based on deception. SEALS are warriors that understand the need for deception in such a play. Plus, this may save us billions if we can shorten our engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So maybe we should join into the chorus and applause for President Obama and his team for a sham well done, and for a good cause. The deception, unlike the WMD sham of Bush and Cheney, may get us out of two bogus wars, instead of into them.

Comments