Is this why the US pretended to kill bin Laden?

I was wondering why the death of bin Laden on 1st May was so obviously a hoax. I thought it may have been deliberately made to look suspect, but maybe the US was just desperate for another war. This one could trigger World War III. Would the political puppets in the West really be prepared to risk everything to satisfy the crazed bloodlust of the elite bankers and industrialists they serve? Would David Cameron order the nukes to start flying around?

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

The rest of the article is here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is this why the US pretended to kill bin Laden?

  1. Leg-iron says:

    I think they really killed him. They don’t need him any more and the risk of him writing his CIA memoirs would be too great.

    As for war, well, that’s where the money is made. The banks fund both sides and the winner takes the money from the loser but still owes the bank interest.

    That’s how it’s worked in the past, anyway.

  2. English Viking says:

    Leg Iron,

    I think they really killed him too; about 5 years ago.

  3. Little Mo says:

    I know he is alive and well – as he (or a chap incredibly like him) has been working in my local Asian corner shop for 3 years now. Answers to the name of Nasir now.

  4. Little Mo says:

    Just back from said shop (10pm closing) – it’s deffo him (OBL) and I think the other shady geezer (likewise employee of some 3 years) is none other than Mullah Mohammed Omar (replete with wonky eye). Tried to snap them on my phone – but they were having none of it. Now it seems I’m banned from place. Nonetheless I’m on their case. Am planning US style raid on joint tonight (employing additional tactics from Carry On Up The Khyber). If you never hear from me again, be assured I’ve died for Blighty in the attempt – with whole business being naturally hushed up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>