Osama bin Laden Dead Since 2001?

Editor’s Note: I wrote this article the day after Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed on May 1, 2011. I then published the article on May 3, 2011. The article is still as relevant today as the day I first published it.


The big news story of the week is that Osama bin Laden is dead.

The story came out on May 2, 2011. Supposedly, Osama bin Laden was shot and killed on May 1 by U.S. Navy Seals in a Pakistani compound in the town of Abbottabad, which is near to Islamabad. The BBC reports:

The Abbottabad residence is just a few hundred metres from the Pakistan Military Academy – the country’s equivalent of West Point or Sandhurst.

The BBC’s Aleem Maqbool in Abbottabad says it will undoubtedly be a huge embarrassment to Pakistan that Bin Laden was found not only in the country, but also on the doorstep of the military academy.

In other words, Osama bin Laden was hiding in plain sight.

My response to the mainstream story was identical to that of Gonzalo Lira, an expatriate and economist. He writes:

The second I heard about Osama Bin Laden’s death, my reaction was that it was bullshit.

The whole story smells: Where he was supposedly located; how he was shot twice in the head, rather than captured; how he was buried at sea; how there’s (so far) no picture of his corpse.

Let’s examine a few of the facts and see where they lead us.

Pakistanis Shocked and Skeptical that Osama bin Laden Was Living in Their Midst

Location of Osama bin Laden compound in Pakistan

If you think it’s unusual that Osama bin Laden could have been living in a somewhat populated area of Pakistan — right next to their biggest military academy — you’re not alone. The Pakistanis themselves are shocked and openly skeptical.

From a May 2, 2011, BBC article:

[Aleem Maqbool] says residents in the town were stunned the al-Qaeda leader had been living in their midst. [source]

And from a May 3, 2011, Express India article:

In the immediate aftermath, people in Abbottabad expressed widespread disbelief that bin Laden had died — or ever lived — among them.

“I’m not ready to buy bin Laden was here”, said Haris Rasheed, 22, who works in a fast food restaurant. “How come no one knew he was here and why did they bury him so quickly? This is all fake — a drama and a crude one.”

Kamal Khan, 25, who is unemployed, said the official story “looks fishy to me.” [source]

The U.S. has supposedly been engaged in the world’s largest manhunt for Osama bin Laden for nearly 10 years. Do they find him in a cave in a remote area of Afghanistan? Nope. They find him in a totally different country, hiding in plain sight — in a massive compound — right next to Pakistan’s military academy.

I agree with Kamal Khan; something’s fishy.

Osama bin Laden Shot in the Eye

If you wanted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had found the right guy (in this case, Osama bin Laden), I would think that your priorities would go something like this:

  • Priority #1: Capture your target alive and take him into custody without harming him.

  • Priority #2: If capture is not immediately possible, and gunfire is unavoidable, shoot to debilitate. Do not shoot to kill.

  • Priority #3: If you must kill the target, do not aim for the face or head. Aim for the chest or heart so the true identity of the victim can be more easily confirmed.

But this is not what happened at all. According to one source, President Obama watched the assassination of Osama via a camera mounted on a soldier’s helmet. The first shot that hit Osama allegedly entered through his left eye; the second shot hit him in the chest.

A more recent BBC report tells a similar but slightly different story: “Bin Laden was shot above his left eye, blowing away a section of his skull, and was also shot in the chest.”

Of course, I wasn’t there. If it weren’t for news reports, I wouldn’t have a clue about how the operation went down. But it seems to me it would have been far more logical to debilitate Osama or, at the very least, avoid shooting him in the face so that it would be easier to get a positive ID.

No Pictures of Osama bin Laden’s Corpse

So far, no pictures of Osama bin Laden’s corpse have been released, although there is at least one fake (gruesome) picture in circulation.

U.S. officials claim they have pictures of the corpse, but are hesitant to release them due to their graphic nature.

Furthermore, even if the photos were released, I doubt they could be used to confirm the identity of the body. Officials claim they used facial recognition technology to confirm Osama’s identity, but this claim sounds dubious at best. After a major gunshot wound to the face, the victim would probably be unidentifiable except by DNA or dental records.

I do not doubt somebody was killed in the Pakistani compound, but I am skeptical that it was actually Osama bin Laden.

Muslim Scholars Say Hasty Sea Burial Unnecessary

Further compounding the difficulty of determining the true identity of the victim, the U.S. placed Osama’s body in a weighted bag and dumped it into the ocean a mere 12 hours after he was shot and killed. Officials claim this was done to conform with the Islamic practice of burying the dead within 24 hours.

But multiple Muslim scholars argue that a sea burial was entirely unnecessary. The UK-based Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid, Chairman of the Muslim Council for Religious & Racial Harmony, offered his perspective…

It is correct to carry out a burial at sea when someone dies on a sea journey, he says, but in this case there was no sound reason for it.

The US authorities could surely have found someone – a member of the extensive Bin Laden family, or even one of the many supporters of his “evil” ideology – who would have been prepared to give the body a proper burial, he argues.

His words were echoed by Mohammed Qudah, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Jordan, who told the Associated Press news agency that burying Bin Laden at sea was not forbidden if there was nobody to receive the body and provide a Muslim burial.

But he went on: “It’s neither true nor correct to claim that there was nobody in the Muslim world ready to receive Bin Laden’s body.”

Here’s another question to consider…

If the U.S. is so intent on following Muslim burial traditions, then why were the bodies of Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay, kept for photographing and autopsies?

Identity of Saddam Hussein’s Sons Confirmed by Dental Records

The circumstances under which Uday and Qusay died were very similar to the circumstances under which Osama was supposedly killed. About 200 troops stormed a house in Mosul where the brothers were staying.

This July 25, 2003, Fox News article points out that not only were photos of the bodies taken, but autopsies were performed and dental records were used to confirm the brothers’ identities:

For Uday, dental records matched 90 percent — a 100 percent match could not be made because of injuries sustained in Tuesday’s attack. The dental match for Qusay was 100 percent, the U.S. military said.

Great care was taken to confirm the identities of Uday and Qusay. Positive identification was far more important than honoring Muslim burial traditions.

So why the sudden about-face with Osama bin Laden? Why not take ample photographs, perform an autopsy, and use dental records to confirm his identity?

Of course, I’m not the only one asking these questions; many people are. Which is why, as an afterthought, U.S. officials offered a second reason for the hasty sea burial: They did not want Osama’s grave to become a “terrorist shrine.”

There Are Hundreds of Photos of Che Guevara

Che Guevara's Dead Body on Display, October 1967

Military and political leaders will often display the corpse of an especially well-known and influential enemy so that there can be no doubt that he is in fact dead.

Gonzalo Lira, the expatriate and economist I quoted above, uses the case of the revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara to make this point.

When the Bolivian Army killed Che Guevara in October 1967, they displayed his body as proof that he was indeed dead. The Bolivians in fact staged the body so that ordinary people—and the world’s journalists—could get a good view of the corpse, up close and personal.

The attached photograph, grisly though it may be, is one of hundreds taken of Che’s body. It—along with the pictures and testimony of hundreds of journalists and ordinary people who saw his corpse—puts to rest any notion that Guevara somehow survived—which of course was the whole point: The Bolivian Army wanted there to be no doubts that El Che was really dead.

As noted above, the U.S. military did not hesitate to release gruesome photos of Uday and Qusay. You can still find them easily online. So why hesitate now by claiming the photos of Osama bin Laden are too gruesome?

The Bolivian Army allowed hundreds of journalists to photograph the body of Che Guevara so there would be ample proof of his death. So why didn’t the U.S. keep the body of Osama bin Laden so that it could be seen and photographed by hundreds of reporters from around the world?

Osama bin Laden May Have Died from Kidney Disease

In a January 19, 2002, news article, Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf said he believed that Osama bin Laden had died of kidney disease.

Osama bin Laden Dead from Kidney Disease

General Musharraf referred to bin Laden as a “kidney patient” and said he believed Osama had died. From the article:

General Musharraf said the multimillionaire had acquired two kidney dialysis machines for use in Afghanistan — one “specifically for his own personal use and the other for general use.”

Do you really think Osama would have been able to survive while running through rugged mountain terrain from the U.S. military for nearly 10 years with two bulky dialysis machines in tow? Don’t you think he would have been easy to kill while tethered to a dialysis machine for dozens of hours every week?

Prominent Physician Claims Osama Was Healthy, But Why?

After multiple news reports revealed that Osama bin Laden was a kidney patient, one prominent physician — Dr. Amer Aziz — claimed that he had treated Osama multiple times and that he “was in excellent health and showed no signs of kidney failure.”

In fact, this November 28, 2002, article — Prominent physician admits to treating Osama bin Laden — directly refutes previous news articles about Osama’s poor health. From the article:

Bin Laden was in strong health on both occasions, said Aziz, a British-educated orthopedic surgeon. He said he saw no evidence that the al-Qaida leader had kidney disease, as has been widely reported, or that he was on dialysis.

Also in this article was this brief — but vitally important — piece of information:

Dr. Amer Aziz, recently released after being held incommunicado and interrogated for a month by FBI and CIA agents, told The Associated Press he knew nothing of al-Qaida’s plans.

There are two reasons I find Dr. Aziz’s testimony suspicious:

  1. Dr. Aziz’s testimony came more than 10 months after the initial reports that Osama was a kidney patient.
  2. Even more suspicious, Dr. Aziz’s testimony came after he had been detained and interrogated for a full month by FBI and CIA agents.

Even though Dr. Aziz was “only” detained and interrogated for a month, I imagine it was psychologically and emotionally damaging.

It is also not hard to imagine that Dr. Aziz’s release was conditional upon false testimony that Osama was healthy and had no kidney problems.

Osama Stays in American Hospital in Dubai to See Kidney Specialist

Gary North has written much about Osama bin Laden and his health issues — issues that have gone unreported by mainstream media. In his April 14, 2004, article — Two Long-Ignored Smoking Guns of 9/11 — Gary North writes:

In July, 2001, Osama bin Laden spent at least one week in an American-run hospital in Dubai. He suffers from kidney disease. The U.S. government knew about this visit. It even sent a CIA officer to interview him.

This particular hospital visit is intriguing because it implies Osama was in very poor health just two months prior to 9/11, making his 10-year flight from U.S. military forces even more unbelievable. Continuing on, Gary North quotes himself from one of his prior articles on the subject:

The story of bin Laden’s hospital stay was reported last week in Le Figaro. I cannot imagine a hotter story, yet U.S. newspapers are pretending that it’s not newsworthy — “not worth pursuing.” An Israeli Website has translated the full article from Le Figaro (Oct. 31). This should have been front-page news in every newspaper in America, the lead story on every network. But it doesn’t fit the official government version. The people therefore don’t have a right to know. Or, as we might put it, “All the news that fits.”

Arriving from the airport of Quetta, Pakistan, Osama bin laden was transferred upon arrival at Dubai airport. Accompanied by his personal doctor and faithful lieutenant, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahari (though on this latter, the testimony of the eyewitness was not formal), as well as by four body guards and an Algerian nurse, bin Laden was admitted to the American Hospital, a building of glass and marble situated between al-Garhoud Bridge and al-Maktoum bridge.

Each story of the hospital has two VIP suites and around 15 rooms. The millionaire Saudi was admitted to the renowned department of urology headed by Dr. Terry Callaway, an expert on kidney stones and male infertility. In the course of several telephone calls, Callaway did not wish to respond to our questions.

In March 2000 the weekly journal, Asia Week, published in Hong Kong, raised questions about bin Laden’s health, stating that he suffered from a serious physical problem and more precisely that he was in danger due to a kidney infection that had spread to the liver and required the care of a specialist. According to legitimate sources, bin Laden had delivered to a post in Kandahar a mobile dialysis machine sometime in the first part of 2000. According to our sources, “this trip for reasons of Bin Laden’s health” was not the first. Between 1996 and 1998, Osama bin Laden went to Dubai several times for health purposes. . . .

Throughout his stay in the hospital, Osama bin Laden received visits from many family members and Saudi Arabian and emirate personalities of status. During this time, the local representative of the CIA was seen by many people taking the elevator and going to bin Laden’s room. . . .

I share this lengthy excerpt because it corroborates Musharraf’s testimony about Osama’s kidney problems. It also lends more credibility to Musharraf’s assertion that Osama had died of kidney disease in late 2001.

Multiple Sources Say Osama Died in December 2001

In researching and writing about Benazir Bhutto’s misstatement that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama bin Laden, blogger Jen Clark made some interesting discoveries; mainly that multiple news sources say Osama died in December 2001.

Other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.

I followed Clark’s reference to the Israeli news report and found that the article is still online. The article — Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen — claims that both Israeli and U.S. intelligence were aware that Osama bin Laden had died. From the article:

The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.

All these reports of Osama’s death in December 2001 are quite persuasive. But there’s more.

U.S. Government Insider Says Osama Died in 2001

The reports above are further corroborated by a Prison Planet article that proclaims “Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been on Ice for Nearly a Decade.” From the article:

In April 2002, over nine years ago, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker, told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”. […] “I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying,” Pieczenik told Jones during the April 24, 2002 interview.

Steve R. Pieczenik’s testimony cannot be easily dismissed. He’s worked for five U.S. presidents and worked directly with Osama bin Laden in the late 70s and early 80s.

This Pennington Press article quotes Steve R. Pieczenik at length. It is well worth reading. Here’s one of the most relevant excerpts from the article:

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.

This gives even more credence to the theory that Osama bin Laden died more than 9 years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan. If this is indeed true (and I believe it is), then why has the U.S. claimed for nearly 10 years that Osama is still alive? And why has the U.S. all of a sudden “found” Osama, killed him, and sunk his body to the bottom of the ocean just 12 hours after his death?

To Wage War, You Need an Enemy

Emmanuel Goldstein

As the War on Terror began, Osama bin Laden was made out to be Enemy #1. His regular appearances in U.S. news media made him the face of terror. So as long as Osama was alive, it gave the U.S. an excuse to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

William L. Anderson draws the apt comparison between Osama and George Orwell’s fictional character Emmanuel Goldstein:

In George Orwell’s classic 1984, the government of Oceania — Big Brother — tells the people that they have a common enemy — Goldstein. At their daily “hate” sessions, the picture of Goldstein comes up on the screen, while the people scream in anger and horror at the image. Goldstein, they are told, is everywhere and must be destroyed.

In like manner, Osama bin Laden has been used as the focus of American hate… and the source of American fear.

Andy Rooney wrote an op-ed piece on November 21, 2002, titled “Andy believes Osama is dead.” In it, he makes an astute observation:

I don’t like being suspicious of my own government, but this is the most secretive government the United States has ever had. You have to consider what reasons our leaders might have for perpetuating the idea that bin Laden is alive. I suppose our “war on terror” would lose some of its urgency if the main object of our search were proved to be dead. That would be one reason for our government to continue saying bin Laden is alive.

I personally believe it was not only expedient to convince Americans that Osama bin Laden was still alive — it was also strategic. In fact, a February 11, 2002, article hints at this very purpose:

George Friedman, chairman of a global intelligence forecast service, STRATFOR, blamed U.S. military and political strategy for casting Bin Laden as “a critical element in psychological warfare” in the U.S. and abroad.

In other words, just as the fictional character of Emmanuel Goldstein was used to unite the citizens of Oceania against a common enemy, so Osama bin Laden has been used for military and political purposes inside the U.S.

So long as Osama was alive, he could be used to create and perpetuate fear in Americans so they would more readily go to war, give up their freedoms, and allow the President to continue to trample the Constitution.

The Real Reason the U.S. Claims Osama Is Now Dead

Of course, I can only speculate about the timing of Osama’s “latest” death.

As the news of Osama’s death broke out, millions of Americans began to celebrate. Tens of thousands who attended a baseball game in Philadelphia on Sunday night began chanting “U.S.A.” when they first heard the news.

Which makes me think that perhaps the timing of the news was designed to boost consumer confidence and open their wallets. After all, the economic conditions in the U.S. are deteriorating with every passing month.

Gerald Celente suggests Osama’s death is being used to draw attention away from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s April 27 announcement that he will continue to flood the world with cheap money.

Steve R. Pieczenik (quoted above) suggested that “the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face.”

Stephen Jones points out that May 1, 2011, is the 235th anniversary of the founding of the Illuminati on May 1, 1776. Does the recent assassination in Pakistan have special significance to the Illuminati?

Other sources suggest that the event has given the U.S. a reason to wage war against Pakistan. After all, they were harboring Osama bin Laden, a known terrorist, and the U.S. has previously declared that it will wage war on any country that provides protection to terrorists.

The worst possibility of all is that the U.S. government is using Osama’s death in preparation for another false flag event against U.S. citizens. The warnings of “heightened terrorist threat” are coming out of Washington daily. The U.S. government could easily carry out a “new 9/11” event on American soil, disguise its true origins, and then conveniently blame the “terrorists” who are angry about us killing Osama.

In the end, we’ll probably never know for sure why the U.S. decided to do what it did at this point in time. The important thing is that we refuse to take mainstream news at face value and dig up the truth as best we can so we see things accurately and plan accordingly.

Don’t be scared. Be prepared.
-Survival Joe

P.S. Please link back to this article and share it with your friends. Thanks.