Tuesday, September 25, 2007

BTW, Osama bin Laden is Long Dead

"He's Dead Jim"


It has been a few weeks since the last purported video of bin Laden has emerged. At first it had me flummoxed, because the video made many references to current events. That confused me because I have long been convinced that bin Laden has been dead since December of 2001. His likely end came when U.S. cluster bombs turned him into a pink mist at the caves of Tora Bora.

It turns out that the video tape freezes after a few minutes while the audio portion goes on. George Maschke of the Booman Tribune notes, "The video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30,". It freezes up again a few minutes later. All references to current events occur when the video is frozen. Also, bin Laden looks 10 years younger than he did when last seen in 2001, but wearing the same clothes as in a video from years before. If he is alive, he has a great make-up department at his cave studio.

Add to it that the message did not even sound like things the living bin Laden would say. For example, bin Laden encouraged people to read a somewhat obscure Jewish American author, Norm Chomsky. Bin Laden was a madman, but that was not his style of crazy.

The pattern has been consistent for six years. An allegedly "new" audio or video tape of bin Laden will emerge. Hay will be made over it by the lamestream media, and a few weeks later I will get an obscure web report that a firm in Switzerland or something has analyzed the tape and found a number of dubious splices, as if the message was just a re-edited version of older tapes. Now, the guys at Langley can do that stuff too. Why don't they say it? Why doesn't our press over here report it? If he is alive and in Pakistan, why haven't we leaned on the Paks harder to get him?

Some people want to make us believe bin Laden is alive, when there is a lot of evidence (more than I have given here) to make a reasonable person think that he is dead. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's "Noam" Chomsky, not "Norm." I would hardly say he was "somewhat obscure." Any college student who has studied philosophy, political science, languages, or psychology has probably encountered Chomsky in their readings. Whether you agree with him or not, you cannot call him obscure.

It troubles me that this blog often comments on foreign affairs and yet seems to have no knowledge of Noam Chomsky (judging from the fact that you don't know his first name and you called him "obscure"). He is a polarizing figure and I don't expect the writers of this blog to agree with Mr. Chomsky, but he is very relevant and has made his voice heard in several arena, suck as foreign affairs. It would do the writers of this blog well to be familiar with his writings, even if they are critical of them.

Check out Wikipedia for more info on him. There are several pages devoted to him, including one based on the wide-spread criticism of Mr. Chomsky. Regardless of how one feels about Mr. Chomsky, I don't think "somewhat obscure" is an appropriate description. Sure he isn't on the display table or at Wal-mart but I don't think that should be the litmus test for relevancy.

5:47 PM, September 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Umm, that should be "such as foreign affairs" not "suck as foreign affairs."

5:50 PM, September 28, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home