To Murder 1 Old BAD MAN US Got Charity Banned From Pakistan

[Simon_Jester]

My follow up question is: If a Nazi war criminal guilty of killing thousands of civilians is found, should he walk because he's old?

Without making any judgement on bin Laden: This is exactly what happened multiple times.

Out of curiosity, how many times was "he's old" used as a defense prior to, oh, 1955?

The Pakistani's have been pissed off about our using someone who was, or was pretending to be, part of a charity giving out vaccines in order to try to get DNA samples from the children in the Bin Laden compound... I believe this was also depicted in a scene from... 'Zero Dark Thirty... Not to mention I've seen numerous programs about the Bin Laden hit and all of them said that they tried to collect the children's DNA under the guise of vaccinations.

I would suggest that we should bear in mind:

1) All the details of what actually happened are extensively classified by the US government and, if applicable, by the Pakistani government.

2) Precisely because of the propagandist element in Zero Dark Thirty, and because it was made with the tacit acceptance of the US government, we can be fairly sure that anything genuinely secret about how bin Laden was found was NOT released in that movie. It's like how movies about the making of the atomic bomb aren't actually going to have secrets about how to make atomic bombs. Government is paranoid about classified stuff and the last thing they're going to do is let Hollywood spill the beans in a film the government helped make.

3) For this reason, no matter how many popular depictions of the raid and the events leading up to it use the "doctor gathering kids' DNA" trope, I think it should be treated as a possibly-urban-legend, unless real evidence is found. The 'fact' that a charity doctor gathered DNA from children in the attempt to find bin Laden should be about as convincing as the 'fact' that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. It is perhaps not literally impossible, but it's far from being obvious or necessarily true. And the fact that it's such a surprising, intriguing rumor, something that makes us go "oh my god they did THAT?," is exactly the sort of thing you get in tidbits of conspiracy theory 'history.'

But it doesn't really matter. The fact is that we violated sovereign airspace with military aircraft and personnel to essentially murder someone without trial... But we had no business invading Pakistan.

This argument would be very compelling to me except that Pakistan was not a neutral party here. Pakistan had explicitly provided airbases and supply routes for US troops (and the troops of US allies) to operate in Afghanistan. Indeed, without that provision, fighting the Afghan war would have been virtually impossible; Afghanistan is a landlocked country and you can't get there without passing through one of the neighbors.

Pakistan had provided permission for many large US units to operate in or pass through their territory, as part of a war effort specifically aimed at locating bin Laden and avenging the September 11 attacks. Moreover, Pakistan accepted great quantities of aid in a variety of forms, due to their status as allies in this war.

So we see Pakistan choosing to allow US troops on their soil to hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, to accept billions of dollars in aid on the grounds that they are allied to the US in a war. To then cry "breach of Pakistani sovereignty!" when those same troops land on Pakistani soil after it is revealed that the Pakistani intelligence service has been conspiring to hide him there for about nine or ten years...

That strikes me as critting the hypo rather hard.

But I soured on the hit after learning most of the facts. I don't take issue with hunting Bin Laden, I take issue with doing the monstrous atrocity of using or posing as aid workers giving vaccines in order to try and get DNA from children to confirm it was Bin Laden living in the compound...

But I was downright outraged and sickened by the well known fact (So well known, I'm shocked anyone is challenging it. I mean the Pakistani ISI arrested the Senior Pakistani Doctor in charge of vaccinations in Abbottabad for working with the CIA! Whether that doctor was, or if the ISI just felt the need to arrest someone for doing something so awful, I have no idea, it's just more proof of my assertion) that the CIA unsuccessfully tried the ruse of giving the Bin Laden children polio vaccinations in order to obtain their DNA for testing as documented in the following articles:

My main issue here is that the parts of the world I can see from my own no-security-clearance place would look exactly the same if the "DNA tests under cover of vaccinations" thing is a hoax. A deliberate piece of disinformation by the CIA, or an urban legend that they looked at and said "fuck it, let's roll with it, it makes us look badass and inescapable"

Because ultimately, all these numerous pieces of 'evidence' boil down to a very short list of mostly shady organizations (like the CIA, the ISI, or the Taliban) making statements and the international press believing them.

So you're angry at the US instead of Pakistan why exactly? They'd rather get even for the loss of face they suffered for harboring bin Laden near their West Point than allow kids to be vaccinated and fed. Sounds like it's totally our fault.

Who says it's an either/or proposition? I'm not happy with Pakistan, but I can understand why they would want to eject organizations which claim they are in their country with no political purpose, but solely to vaccinate and feed poor children, who it turns out either helped the CIA collect intelligence on Pakistani soil, or who the CIA posed as to collect intelligence on Pakistani soil. This caused a backlash not just from the government, but from the people of Pakistan which is why the rate of polio skyrocketed.

So it's not a case of Pakistan being a mad, petulant child about this, it's about them not being able to trust that (despite what the CIA has said) they've stopped. Which frankly, is the intelligent, reasonable position to take because if you believe anything the CIA says... [then you are an imbecile]

It would be logical to investigate the charity, to monitor the charity. It might even be logical to infiltrate the charity- to have ISI agents hire on in various positions and make sure no covert operations are being used.

Would it be logical to expel the charity? Honestly, I think not- because they provide a useful service, and because the exact operation that they are alleged to have participated in is unlikely to recur.

And how happy do you think Americans would be if we captured Mexican drug lord who killed some Americans, but hundreds of Mexicans and the U.S. Refuses to extradite because he killed Americans and we want to try him for that, but Mexico wants him so bad they send their military across the border undetected, they attack the jail where he's being held and get him, then sneak right back into Mexico? Because the words "America Declares War, Invades Mexico" come to mind. Not that that would happen, but it's physically within the realm of possibility.

That is a false analogy.

Remember, bin Laden wasn't being held in a jail to be tried for killing Pakistanis. He was a free man- insofar as a fugitive can be a free man.

If the Pakistanis had wanted to put bin Laden on trial for his crimes against Pakistan, I would say "well and good" and have done with it- stick him in a jail cell, leave the matter at that. But instead, if anything the Pakistanis did the opposite. Parts of their government didn't just fail to grab bin Laden and put him on trial for his actions against Pakistan... they may well have actively conspired to protect him from being punished for actions against other countries.

Also, if the Pakistanis had explicitly declared themselves neutral in the conflict and had never been involved and had NOT deliberately aided either side, then they would have a better claim to be a victim of a violation of sovereignty.

Instead, they aided BOTH sides of a war and then complained when they got caught in the middle. Real smooth move there.

So basically you have absolutely nothing but bullshit to add because you apply arbitrary labels to groups based on... What? Your subjective and not at all thought out opinion and irritation at people pointing out facts that make you so uncomfortable you accuse them of being too high on drugs to think clearly enough to form a valid fact-based opinion?

I don't know if you have, but I've actually seen that particular kind of random stoner-mockery before. It's all Cheech and Chong's fault, because they're the ones who popularized this schtick of the two stoned guys being totally blown away by some very random and unimpressive idea.

I mean, for crying out loud, the guy even included some Cheech-and-Chongisms in the mockery.

[Channel72]

So basically you have absolutely nothing but bullshit to add because you apply arbitrary labels to groups based on... What? Your subjective and not at all thought out opinion and irritation at people pointing out facts that make you so uncomfortable you accuse them of being too high on drugs to think clearly enough to form a valid fact-based opinion?

Not really sure what's going on here. Something seems to be going over your head, or else I'm not being clear enough. I'm saying the statement that "American Revolutionaries ALSO fit the definition of terrorism" is a meaningless distraction in this conversation, and it's also an irritating distraction - not because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of calling American Revolutionaries terrorists, but because it sounds like one of those trivial statements that's supposed to be "enlightening" or thought-provoking or something. Like, is my opinion of Al Qaeda supposed to change, now that you've managed to also apply the term "terrorist" to American "heroes"? Oh man, and here I was, so naive... thinking Americans only do good things. Man - I'm so disillusioned now that you showed me how American revolutionaries were also terrorists. I'm going to go in the corner and cry over my collection of vintage Captain America comics. How could Marvel have lied to me like that?

Hey, guess what, Americans also napalmed the shit out of innocent Vietnamese and massacred wholesale entire indigenous tribes. But fuck that - in fact, right this very moment - yes, literally right now as I type this - some innocent guy in Cuba is probably getting stripped naked, humiliated and rectally violated with a feeding tube - by an American. Oh, and the federal tax dollars that come out of my paycheck are probably indirectly supporting that, as well.

And yet, somehow, that fact does not make me hate Al Qaeda any less, nor does it somehow validate or in any way legitimize Al Qaeda's operating strategy, which specifically calls for massive, indiscriminate, civilian casualties. Nor does it make me feel in any way sympathetic for the double-faced Pakistani government, which constantly tries to play both sides - receiving massive amounts of American aid while also supporting Islamist murderers behind the scenes.

[Ralin]

I'm honestly more surprised that most people here aren't aware that the American Revolution wasn't about the least justified colonial revolution imaginable than by anything else

[Flagg]

So basically you have absolutely nothing but bullshit to add because you apply arbitrary labels to groups based on... What? Your subjective and not at all thought out opinion and irritation at people pointing out facts that make you so uncomfortable you accuse them of being too high on drugs to think clearly enough to form a valid fact-based opinion?

Not really sure what's going on here. Something seems to be going over your head, or else I'm not being clear enough. I'm saying the statement that "American Revolutionaries ALSO fit the definition of terrorism" is a meaningless distraction in this conversation, and it's also an irritating distraction - not because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of calling American Revolutionaries terrorists, but because it sounds like one of those trivial statements that's supposed to be "enlightening" or thought-provoking or something. Like, is my opinion of Al Qaeda supposed to change, now that you've managed to also apply the term "terrorist" to American "heroes"? Oh man, and here I was, so naive... thinking Americans only do good things. Man - I'm so disillusioned now that you showed me how American revolutionaries were also terrorists. I'm going to go in the corner and cry over my collection of vintage Captain America comics. How could Marvel have lied to me like that?

Hey, guess what, Americans also napalmed the shit out of innocent Vietnamese and massacred wholesale entire indigenous tribes. But fuck that - in fact, right this very moment - yes, literally right now as I type this - some innocent guy in Cuba is probably getting stripped naked, humiliated and rectally violated with a feeding tube - by an American. Oh, and the federal tax dollars that come out of my paycheck are probably indirectly supporting that, as well.

And yet, somehow, that fact does not make me hate Al Qaeda any less, nor does it somehow validate or in any way legitimize Al Qaeda's operating strategy, which specifically calls for massive, indiscriminate, civilian casualties. Nor does it make me feel in any way sympathetic for the double-faced Pakistani government, which constantly tries to play both sides - receiving massive amounts of American aid while also supporting Islamist murderers behind the scenes.

It wasn't what you assumed it was. It was a counterpoint to a comment another poster made about "countries only being able to declare war". So if you're done shitting up my thread, you can leave now.

[Flagg]

My follow up question is: If a Nazi war criminal guilty of killing thousands of civilians is found, should he walk because he's old?

Without making any judgement on bin Laden: This is exactly what happened multiple times.

Out of curiosity, how many times was "he's old" used as a defense prior to, oh, 1955?

The Pakistani's have been pissed off about our using someone who was, or was pretending to be, part of a charity giving out vaccines in order to try to get DNA samples from the children in the Bin Laden compound... I believe this was also depicted in a scene from... 'Zero Dark Thirty... Not to mention I've seen numerous programs about the Bin Laden hit and all of them said that they tried to collect the children's DNA under the guise of vaccinations.

I would suggest that we should bear in mind:

1) All the details of what actually happened are extensively classified by the US government and, if applicable, by the Pakistani government.

2) Precisely because of the propagandist element in Zero Dark Thirty, and because it was made with the tacit acceptance of the US government, we can be fairly sure that anything genuinely secret about how bin Laden was found was NOT released in that movie. It's like how movies about the making of the atomic bomb aren't actually going to have secrets about how to make atomic bombs. Government is paranoid about classified stuff and the last thing they're going to do is let Hollywood spill the beans in a film the government helped make.

3) For this reason, no matter how many popular depictions of the raid and the events leading up to it use the "doctor gathering kids' DNA" trope, I think it should be treated as a possibly-urban-legend, unless real evidence is found. The 'fact' that a charity doctor gathered DNA from children in the attempt to find bin Laden should be about as convincing as the 'fact' that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. It is perhaps not literally impossible, but it's far from being obvious or necessarily true. And the fact that it's such a surprising, intriguing rumor, something that makes us go "oh my god they did THAT?," is exactly the sort of thing you get in tidbits of conspiracy theory 'history.'

But it doesn't really matter. The fact is that we violated sovereign airspace with military aircraft and personnel to essentially murder someone without trial... But we had no business invading Pakistan.

This argument would be very compelling to me except that Pakistan was not a neutral party here. Pakistan had explicitly provided airbases and supply routes for US troops (and the troops of US allies) to operate in Afghanistan. Indeed, without that provision, fighting the Afghan war would have been virtually impossible; Afghanistan is a landlocked country and you can't get there without passing through one of the neighbors.

Pakistan had provided permission for many large US units to operate in or pass through their territory, as part of a war effort specifically aimed at locating bin Laden and avenging the September 11 attacks. Moreover, Pakistan accepted great quantities of aid in a variety of forms, due to their status as allies in this war.

So we see Pakistan choosing to allow US troops on their soil to hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, to accept billions of dollars in aid on the grounds that they are allied to the US in a war. To then cry "breach of Pakistani sovereignty!" when those same troops land on Pakistani soil after it is revealed that the Pakistani intelligence service has been conspiring to hide him there for about nine or ten years...

That strikes me as critting the hypo rather hard.

But I soured on the hit after learning most of the facts. I don't take issue with hunting Bin Laden, I take issue with doing the monstrous atrocity of using or posing as aid workers giving vaccines in order to try and get DNA from children to confirm it was Bin Laden living in the compound...

But I was downright outraged and sickened by the well known fact (So well known, I'm shocked anyone is challenging it. I mean the Pakistani ISI arrested the Senior Pakistani Doctor in charge of vaccinations in Abbottabad for working with the CIA! Whether that doctor was, or if the ISI just felt the need to arrest someone for doing something so awful, I have no idea, it's just more proof of my assertion) that the CIA unsuccessfully tried the ruse of giving the Bin Laden children polio vaccinations in order to obtain their DNA for testing as documented in the following articles:

My main issue here is that the parts of the world I can see from my own no-security-clearance place would look exactly the same if the "DNA tests under cover of vaccinations" thing is a hoax. A deliberate piece of disinformation by the CIA, or an urban legend that they looked at and said "fuck it, let's roll with it, it makes us look badass and inescapable"

Because ultimately, all these numerous pieces of 'evidence' boil down to a very short list of mostly shady organizations (like the CIA, the ISI, or the Taliban) making statements and the international press believing them.

So you're angry at the US instead of Pakistan why exactly? They'd rather get even for the loss of face they suffered for harboring bin Laden near their West Point than allow kids to be vaccinated and fed. Sounds like it's totally our fault.

Who says it's an either/or proposition? I'm not happy with Pakistan, but I can understand why they would want to eject organizations which claim they are in their country with no political purpose, but solely to vaccinate and feed poor children, who it turns out either helped the CIA collect intelligence on Pakistani soil, or who the CIA posed as to collect intelligence on Pakistani soil. This caused a backlash not just from the government, but from the people of Pakistan which is why the rate of polio skyrocketed.

So it's not a case of Pakistan being a mad, petulant child about this, it's about them not being able to trust that (despite what the CIA has said) they've stopped. Which frankly, is the intelligent, reasonable position to take because if you believe anything the CIA says... [then you are an imbecile]

It would be logical to investigate the charity, to monitor the charity. It might even be logical to infiltrate the charity- to have ISI agents hire on in various positions and make sure no covert operations are being used.

Would it be logical to expel the charity? Honestly, I think not- because they provide a useful service, and because the exact operation that they are alleged to have participated in is unlikely to recur.

And how happy do you think Americans would be if we captured Mexican drug lord who killed some Americans, but hundreds of Mexicans and the U.S. Refuses to extradite because he killed Americans and we want to try him for that, but Mexico wants him so bad they send their military across the border undetected, they attack the jail where he's being held and get him, then sneak right back into Mexico? Because the words "America Declares War, Invades Mexico" come to mind. Not that that would happen, but it's physically within the realm of possibility.

That is a false analogy.

Remember, bin Laden wasn't being held in a jail to be tried for killing Pakistanis. He was a free man- insofar as a fugitive can be a free man.

If the Pakistanis had wanted to put bin Laden on trial for his crimes against Pakistan, I would say "well and good" and have done with it- stick him in a jail cell, leave the matter at that. But instead, if anything the Pakistanis did the opposite. Parts of their government didn't just fail to grab bin Laden and put him on trial for his actions against Pakistan... they may well have actively conspired to protect him from being punished for actions against other countries.

Also, if the Pakistanis had explicitly declared themselves neutral in the conflict and had never been involved and had NOT deliberately aided either side, then they would have a better claim to be a victim of a violation of sovereignty.

Instead, they aided BOTH sides of a war and then complained when they got caught in the middle. Real smooth move there.

So basically you have absolutely nothing but bullshit to add because you apply arbitrary labels to groups based on... What? Your subjective and not at all thought out opinion and irritation at people pointing out facts that make you so uncomfortable you accuse them of being too high on drugs to think clearly enough to form a valid fact-based opinion?

I don't know if you have, but I've actually seen that particular kind of random stoner-mockery before. It's all Cheech and Chong's fault, because they're the ones who popularized this schtick of the two stoned guys being totally blown away by some very random and unimpressive idea.

I mean, for crying out loud, the guy even included some Cheech-and-Chongisms in the mockery.

Simon, it's not an urban legend, it's a fucking fact that the CIA did this (probably still does, IMO) until 2014. Or did you miss all of those articles I posted where the CIA admitted to using this tactic, and the polio rates in Pakistan going through the roof since it came out publicly that the CIA was doing this to find Bin Laden before 'Triumph of the Dark Thirty' came out.

[Adam Reynolds]

1) All the details of what actually happened are extensively classified by the US government and, if applicable, by the Pakistani government.

Did the Raymond Davis incident, in which a US government contractor shot a Pakistani man and got off scott free after the US State Department payed off the family using Islamic blood money laws, actually happen? Because it very similar sources sources to the vaccine incident.

Was the NSA actually spying? We only have the documents produced by a former employee. Perhaps the NSA exaggerated its abilities to make people afraid of them. And like this case it backfired.

By your logic nothing that any intelligence agency has done can be known for certain because we are trusting people that lie for a living.

2) Precisely because of the propagandist element in Zero Dark Thirty, and because it was made with the tacit acceptance of the US government, we can be fairly sure that anything genuinely secret about how bin Laden was found was NOT released in that movie. It's like how movies about the making of the atomic bomb aren't actually going to have secrets about how to make atomic bombs. Government is paranoid about classified stuff and the last thing they're going to do is let Hollywood spill the beans in a film the government helped make.

While it was clearly propaganda to an extent, why would the CIA be bragging about something that the movie admitted failed? That was likely only included because it was already known. While members of the CIA helped make Zero Dark Thirty, it wasn't made by the agency.

As for the atomic bomb comparison, that is something of a false analogy. Information about intelligence gathering is in the current era almost impossible to keep secret anyway, especially after a rather public operation like the Bin Laden raid. While the same could be largely said about the physics behind nuclear weapons, there are enough details left unknown that it makes it somewhat difficult. Not to mention that someone knowing details about intelligence is hardly the same as openly revealing secrets of the most destructive device ever created.

3) For this reason, no matter how many popular depictions of the raid and the events leading up to it use the "doctor gathering kids' DNA" trope, I think it should be treated as a possibly-urban-legend, unless real evidence is found. The 'fact' that a charity doctor gathered DNA from children in the attempt to find bin Laden should be about as convincing as the 'fact' that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. It is perhaps not literally impossible, but it's far from being obvious or necessarily true. And the fact that it's such a surprising, intriguing rumor, something that makes us go "oh my god they did THAT?," is exactly the sort of thing you get in tidbits of conspiracy theory 'history.'

It is also the same sort of tidbits you get in real history. Did you know that just before D-day, there was a crossword puzzle that featured several keywords from the upcoming invasion? It turned out to be nothing but coincidence.

Conspiracy theories are based upon the simple idea that there is a central intelligence behind things, largely because it comforts them. The reality is almost always simply stupid mistakes, just like the foolish idea of using a vaccine drive to gather DNA from Bin Laden's children.

As for the grassy knoll reference, there are no verified sources that claim such a thing* based on significant investigation. There are for the Pakistani doctor.

* Though interestingly, the police and Secret Service initially believed that the shots fired came from the grassy knoll. Probably the source of that rumor. It was only later that the realized the shots had to have come from the book depository.

[Simon_Jester]

1) All the details of what actually happened are extensively classified by the US government and, if applicable, by the Pakistani government.

Did the Raymond Davis incident, in which a US government contractor shot a Pakistani man and got off scott free after the US State Department payed off the family using Islamic blood money laws, actually happen? Because it very similar sources sources to the vaccine incident.

Was the NSA actually spying? We only have the documents produced by a former employee. Perhaps the NSA exaggerated its abilities to make people afraid of them. And like this case it backfired.

By your logic nothing that any intelligence agency has done can be known for certain because we are trusting people that lie for a living.

I am mainly suspicious because much of the evidence comes from the Pakistani government, which has been doing other things to make propaganda fodder out of the hunt for bin Laden. Meanwhile, unless I am badly mistaken, the Taliban and such have been opposing foreign vaccination campaigns since well before this story hit the news a few years back, so again it is coming from precisely the sources you'd expect to promulgate it even if it were false.

2) Precisely because of the propagandist element in Zero Dark Thirty, and because it was made with the tacit acceptance of the US government, we can be fairly sure that anything genuinely secret about how bin Laden was found was NOT released in that movie. It's like how movies about the making of the atomic bomb aren't actually going to have secrets about how to make atomic bombs. Government is paranoid about classified stuff and the last thing they're going to do is let Hollywood spill the beans in a film the government helped make.

While it was clearly propaganda to an extent, why would the CIA be bragging about something that the movie admitted failed? That was likely only included because it was already known. While members of the CIA helped make Zero Dark Thirty, it wasn't made by the agency.

It's more like, if Zero Dark Thirty were accidentally spreading urban legends about how the search for bin Laden succeeded, the CIA would have no real incentive to correct those urban legends. Since it would at worst not change what people already believe about them, and at best might conceivably mislead an enemy into guarding against the wrong kind of infiltration technique.

Meanwhile, true information about how he was found is actually more likely to end up being pulled out of the movie (because it's classified) than false information is.

As for the atomic bomb comparison, that is something of a false analogy. Information about intelligence gathering is in the current era almost impossible to keep secret anyway, especially after a rather public operation like the Bin Laden raid. While the same could be largely said about the physics behind nuclear weapons, there are enough details left unknown that it makes it somewhat difficult. Not to mention that someone knowing details about intelligence is hardly the same as openly revealing secrets of the most destructive device ever created.

In the minds of the CIA the difference is not that significant- which is precisely why they pursue and harass whistleblowers so extensively. Top Secret is Top Secret and a LOT of information is Top Secret.

It is also the same sort of tidbits you get in real history. Did you know that just before D-day, there was a crossword puzzle that featured several keywords from the upcoming invasion? It turned out to be nothing but coincidence.

Thing is, the crossword puzzle was a matter of public record. Most of the public record I've seen about the Pakistani doctor operating a fake vaccination campaign seems to come from the Pakistani government's accusation that he did it (which they might well make anyway, because asshole generalissimo types like to look for scapegoats, and Pakistan has major problems with asshole generalissimos even if the government's been more democratic these past five to seven years).

And from the CIA saying "we won't do that anymore" without actually confirming or denying that they ever did it in any particular place.

As for the grassy knoll reference, there are no verified sources that claim such a thing* based on significant investigation. There are for the Pakistani doctor.

Are there sources other than the Pakistani government's investigation, and the CIA's disavowal?

[Flagg]

Simon, did you miss these? Because unless every one of these news organizations are "in on it" then the only conspiracy here is the CIA operating with the cooperation of, or under the guise of, aide organizations giving polio vaccinations.

NPR: CIA Says It Will No Longer Use Vaccine Programs As Cover

The Guardian: CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA

ABCNews: The Lasting Fallout of Fake Vaccination Programs

NYTimes: C.I.A. Vaccine Ruse May Have Harmed the War on Polio

Bloomberg Business: The CIA Stops Fake Vaccinations as Real Polio Rebounds

ABC (AU): Polio resurgence in Pakistan following backlash from CIA vaccination ruse in hunt for Osama bin Laden

[madd0ct0r]

Flagg: I did say the vaccine claim was a coverup on page 1, but it's taken this long for the discussion to swing around. Linked below, Simon Hersh's investigative article for LRB

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

In June 2011, it was reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post and all over the Pakistani press that Amir Aziz had been held for questioning in Pakistan; he was, it was said, a CIA informant who had been spying on the comings and goings at the bin Laden compound. Aziz was released, but the retired official said that US intelligence was unable to learn who leaked the highly classified information about his involvement with the mission. Officials in Washington decided they ‘could not take a chance that Aziz’s role in obtaining bin Laden’s DNA also would become known’. A sacrificial lamb was needed, and the one chosen was Shakil Afridi, a 48-year-old Pakistani doctor and sometime CIA asset, who had been arrested by the Pakistanis in late May and accused of assisting the agency. ‘We went to the Pakistanis and said go after Afridi,’ the retired official said. ‘We had to cover the whole issue of how we got the DNA.’ It was soon reported that the CIA had organised a fake vaccination programme in Abbottabad with Afridi’s help in a failed attempt to obtain bin Laden’s DNA. Afridi’s legitimate medical operation was run independently of local health authorities, was well financed and offered free vaccinations against hepatitis B. Posters advertising the programme were displayed throughout the area. Afridi was later accused of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison because of his ties to an extremist. News of the CIA-sponsored programme created widespread anger in Pakistan, and led to the cancellation of other international vaccination programmes that were now seen as cover for American spying.

The retired official said that Afridi had been recruited long before the bin Laden mission as part of a separate intelligence effort to get information about suspected terrorists in Abbottabad and the surrounding area. ‘The plan was to use vaccinations as a way to get the blood of terrorism suspects in the villages.’ Afridi made no attempt to obtain DNA from the residents of the bin Laden compound. The report that he did so was a hurriedly put together ‘CIA cover story creating “facts”’ in a clumsy attempt to protect Aziz and his real mission. ‘Now we have the consequences,’ the retired official said. ‘A great humanitarian project to do something meaningful for the peasants has been compromised as a cynical hoax.’ Afridi’s conviction was overturned, but he remains in prison on a murder charge.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, did you miss these? Because unless every one of these news organizations are "in on it" then the only conspiracy here is the CIA operating with the cooperation of, or under the guise of, aide organizations giving polio vaccinations.

NPR: CIA Says It Will No Longer Use Vaccine Programs As Cover

The Guardian: CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA

ABCNews: The Lasting Fallout of Fake Vaccination Programs

NYTimes: C.I.A. Vaccine Ruse May Have Harmed the War on Polio

Bloomberg Business: The CIA Stops Fake Vaccinations as Real Polio Rebounds

ABC (AU): Polio resurgence in Pakistan following backlash from CIA vaccination ruse in hunt for Osama bin Laden

It would not be the first time that all the major news organizations faithfully reported something they thought was true, when they were all being misled to by the same source.

I mean, if the Internet had existed in those days, I could probably have provided a comparable list of links stating that the Sudetenland was the last territorial claim Hitler would make in Europe, that American warships really were fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin and it wasn't just radar ghosts, or that Mao Zedong was a peaceful and benevolent agricultural reformer.

So no, the fact that six news agencies all repeat essentially the same story does not make that story drastically more credible than if, say, two agencies report it. Because there's this thing called the Associated Press, and there's this thing called press conferences where a government or corporation calls together representatives of all the news agencies and tells them all the same thing at the same time.

This is doubly true when several of your links don't actually talk about whether the event (CIA doctor getting DNA from bin Laden compound under guise of vaccinations) actually happened. They talk about the reactions and behavior of other people who think it happened. Thus, an Associated Press article about how moon landing hoaxers protested the opening of a space flight museum does not prove the moon landings were a hoax, and does not refute someone who suspects they were NOT a hoax.

Flagg: I did say the vaccine claim was a coverup on page 1, but it's taken this long for the discussion to swing around. Linked below, Simon Hersh's investigative article for LRB

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

...Interesting.

The article you link then says that there WAS a plan to enact a "gather DNA under guise of vaccinations" project, but does not confirm or deny that the plan was ever implemented (it wouldn't be the first time the CIA put an agent in place to be prepared to enact a plan, then changed its mind or found out it wouldn't work and called the whole thing off, I suspect).

Plus, anonymous retired source, et cetera et cetera.

So this refutes some of my suspicions- because it's additional evidence that a DNA-gathering program occurred).

But it confirms other suspicions- that the "DNA under guise of vaccination" explanation for how bin Laden personally was found is actually a CIA cover story that they made up on the spot, 'burning' a man who was either innocent or at least no longer of use to them. And that they did this in order to avoid having anyone find out what really happened.

[Flagg]

Flagg: I did say the vaccine claim was a coverup on page 1, but it's taken this long for the discussion to swing around. Linked below, Simon Hersh's investigative article for LRB

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

In June 2011, it was reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post and all over the Pakistani press that Amir Aziz had been held for questioning in Pakistan; he was, it was said, a CIA informant who had been spying on the comings and goings at the bin Laden compound. Aziz was released, but the retired official said that US intelligence was unable to learn who leaked the highly classified information about his involvement with the mission. Officials in Washington decided they ‘could not take a chance that Aziz’s role in obtaining bin Laden’s DNA also would become known’. A sacrificial lamb was needed, and the one chosen was Shakil Afridi, a 48-year-old Pakistani doctor and sometime CIA asset, who had been arrested by the Pakistanis in late May and accused of assisting the agency. ‘We went to the Pakistanis and said go after Afridi,’ the retired official said. ‘We had to cover the whole issue of how we got the DNA.’ It was soon reported that the CIA had organised a fake vaccination programme in Abbottabad with Afridi’s help in a failed attempt to obtain bin Laden’s DNA. Afridi’s legitimate medical operation was run independently of local health authorities, was well financed and offered free vaccinations against hepatitis B. Posters advertising the programme were displayed throughout the area. Afridi was later accused of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison because of his ties to an extremist. News of the CIA-sponsored programme created widespread anger in Pakistan, and led to the cancellation of other international vaccination programmes that were now seen as cover for American spying.

The retired official said that Afridi had been recruited long before the bin Laden mission as part of a separate intelligence effort to get information about suspected terrorists in Abbottabad and the surrounding area. ‘The plan was to use vaccinations as a way to get the blood of terrorism suspects in the villages.’ Afridi made no attempt to obtain DNA from the residents of the bin Laden compound. The report that he did so was a hurriedly put together ‘CIA cover story creating “facts”’ in a clumsy attempt to protect Aziz and his real mission. ‘Now we have the consequences,’ the retired official said. ‘A great humanitarian project to do something meaningful for the peasants has been compromised as a cynical hoax.’ Afridi’s conviction was overturned, but he remains in prison on a murder charge.

Even assuming that the attempt to do it on Bin Laden was false, the CIA has said, and every paper and news site of repute has them on record saying it:"We will no longer obtain DNA using that particular ruse." I'm sorry, but while I will agree completely that the CIA lies all the fucking time, but rarely in a way that makes them look worse than they already do, and certainly never in a way that makes them look that bad.

[Flagg]

Simon, did you miss these? Because unless every one of these news organizations are "in on it" then the only conspiracy here is the CIA operating with the cooperation of, or under the guise of, aide organizations giving polio vaccinations.

NPR: CIA Says It Will No Longer Use Vaccine Programs As Cover

The Guardian: CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA

ABCNews: The Lasting Fallout of Fake Vaccination Programs

NYTimes: C.I.A. Vaccine Ruse May Have Harmed the War on Polio

Bloomberg Business: The CIA Stops Fake Vaccinations as Real Polio Rebounds

ABC (AU): Polio resurgence in Pakistan following backlash from CIA vaccination ruse in hunt for Osama bin Laden

It would not be the first time that all the major news organizations faithfully reported something they thought was true, when they were all being misled to by the same source.

I mean, if the Internet had existed in those days, I could probably have provided a comparable list of links stating that the Sudetenland was the last territorial claim Hitler would make in Europe, that American warships really were fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin and it wasn't just radar ghosts, or that Mao Zedong was a peaceful and benevolent agricultural reformer.

So no, the fact that six news agencies all repeat essentially the same story does not make that story drastically more credible than if, say, two agencies report it. Because there's this thing called the Associated Press, and there's this thing called press conferences where a government or corporation calls together representatives of all the news agencies and tells them all the same thing at the same time.

This is doubly true when several of your links don't actually talk about whether the event (CIA doctor getting DNA from bin Laden compound under guise of vaccinations) actually happened. They talk about the reactions and behavior of other people who think it happened. Thus, an Associated Press article about how moon landing hoaxers protested the opening of a space flight museum does not prove the moon landings were a hoax, and does not refute someone who suspects they were NOT a hoax.

Flagg: I did say the vaccine claim was a coverup on page 1, but it's taken this long for the discussion to swing around. Linked below, Simon Hersh's investigative article for LRB

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

...Interesting.

The article you link then says that there WAS a plan to enact a "gather DNA under guise of vaccinations" project, but does not confirm or deny that the plan was ever implemented (it wouldn't be the first time the CIA put an agent in place to be prepared to enact a plan, then changed its mind or found out it wouldn't work and called the whole thing off, I suspect).

Plus, anonymous retired source, et cetera et cetera.

So this refutes some of my suspicions- because it's additional evidence that a DNA-gathering program occurred).

But it confirms other suspicions- that the "DNA under guise of vaccination" explanation for how bin Laden personally was found is actually a CIA cover story that they made up on the spot, 'burning' a man who was either innocent or at least no longer of use to them. And that they did this in order to avoid having anyone find out what really happened.

I have 6 stories from some of the most reputable and respected politically and ideological varied news sources reporting much the same things. It's not considered a conspiracy theory in any way by any major mainstream publication that I've seen. So I'm going with The New York Times on this one over Simon_Jester.

[madd0ct0r]

Oh, I don't expect the Simon Hersh investigation to be officially confirmed until I'm drawing a pension. And the truth of it is that it dosen't matter whether or not they used vaccination programs for DNA collection, they caused the damage when they claimed they had.

getting locals to accept the programs has always been a struggle in countries where trusting the authorities is, frankly, stupid. Even where people are not carrying out conspiracy level actions of sterilization or profiling, there's been cases where people swapping stuff in the supply chain to make side money resulted in deaths.

[Beowulf]

Flagg: The Guardian reported that anonymous (to us) sources told them that the CIA was using vaccination drives for DNA collection. The rest of your collection of links only report on the fallout of that reporting. There is nothing inconsistent with ISI burning the doctor because of reasons of their own (scapegoat, if nothing else). The CIA saying they wouldn't use that tactic anymore means nothing, as it was done several years after the reporting, and who would trust the CIA saying "We never did that in Pakistan, and we won't do it"? You'd just think they're lying. So might as well take the hit, and say "We're not going to do that anymore".

[Flagg]

Flagg: The Guardian reported that anonymous (to us) sources told them that the CIA was using vaccination drives for DNA collection. The rest of your collection of links only report on the fallout of that reporting. There is nothing inconsistent with ISI burning the doctor because of reasons of their own (scapegoat, if nothing else). The CIA saying they wouldn't use that tactic anymore means nothing, as it was done several years after the reporting, and who would trust the CIA saying "We never did that in Pakistan, and we won't do it"? You'd just think they're lying. So might as well take the hit, and say "We're not going to do that anymore".

So it's suddenly OK, on this board, Stardestroyer.net, to make an argument based on incredulity? I mean this is the argument of everyone defending the CIA: "Well, if they say they aren't going to do it anymore, then they must not have ever done it." Honestly?

And who gives a fuck why the Pakistani's arrested the doctor, really? You're probably right and he had nothing to do with it, or you might be wrong and he might have cooperated with the CIA, I couldn't give a snails shit. What does it have to do with the CIA admitting to using a tactic, and then saying they would no longer use it?

I have it in print from major publications and news services. You have nothing but incredulity. That generally means I win.