WikiLeaks: Bin Laden's Body Not Buried At Sea

reply to post by Char-Lee

Because his Family have friends in high places, they would have returned secretly the body to the Family it seems if he were killed as stated.

I agree with your opinion.

reply to post by Helious

we all got to watch Saddam hang on prime time

I'm not aware that they showed it on prime time, can you post a link please?

Also I remember reading somewhere that the reason Bush declared mission accomplished ten years a go is because saddam was killed. I don't remember where I read or heard it though.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
The opinion of one staffer is hardly a official leak that Bin Laden was not buried at sea it’s just his opinion, in my opinion the earth is flat and Santa comes down my chimney every year.

i mean the origional source is RT, need i really say more?

And in my opinion any information coming out of the pentagon or military in general is suspect because they have a very good propaganda machine to promote their agenda and they don't have that good a record of telling the truth anyway.

I think I would trust RT before the military.

Need I remind you of this quote?

"The first casualty of war is the truth" Sen. Hiram Johnson

reply to post by whatsecret


Stratfor doesn't have the best reputation for intel gathering. There were reports that they used things like Google Earth to identify some buildings that they later said were used for weapons, etc. They also apparently used passwords like "Stratfor" to secure their database, which allowed them to get hacked.

atlanticreview.org...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Stratfor doesn't have the best reputation for intel gathering. There were reports that they used things like Google Earth to identify some buildings that they later said were used for weapons, etc. They also apparently used passwords like "Stratfor" to secure their database, which allowed them to get hacked.

atlanticreview.org...

I admit that I have no idea what their reputation for intel-gathering is, so I cannot comment. However after reading the article in your link I'm a bit confused about what they are criticizing Stratfor for. You can read the Stratfor article that is being discussed at atlanticreview.org HERE.

I know it's off topic but I find it very interesting and it's my thread ... So can you please explain?



The author of the Atlantic Review article makes this sarcastic remark....

Yep, Hitler came to power because Germany was politically so united and economically so wealthy, that Germans did not pay attention to politics, but watched soap operas on plasma TVs and chatted on iPhones throughout the Weimar Republic.

But in the Stratfor article they did not say that Hitler came to power when Germany was politically united and economically wealthy. They said that Germany was politically strong and united pre-WWII. And that is absolutely true. The Nazis successfully destroyed all other political parties and and completely brain washed the German people that what they were doing was the only right thing to do at the time.

Here's a good article about it... The Nazis and the German Economy Plus that is how I remember history. I could be wrong of course.

Wait, did anyone even buy that story? They hunt for a man for over a decade then out of nowhere they find him, off him, then give him a sailors funeral. Seriously?

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Wait, did anyone even buy that story? They hunt for a man for over a decade then out of nowhere they find him, off him, then give him a sailors funeral. Seriously?

Surprisingly and unfortunately some people did actually believed this ridiculous story.

reply to post by whatsecret


Stratfor has a reputation for taking other peoples conclusions and making them their own, claiming to have "agents on the ground" and using Google and other sources, and just putting out bad information.

In that article Stratfor claims that Germany today is similar to Germany of pre-WWII, in that they were strong economically, and militarily. Pre-WWII Germany was broke, and had a barely functioning economy because of the crippling reparations forced on them by the Treaty of Versailles. They can't even get that right, and they're supposed to be some big intelligence gathering "powerhouse"?

They're also supposed to be some big security firm, but yet their database was ripped apart because they used plain text passwords, like "stratfor", and other insanely easy passwords.

reply to post by Zaphod58

In that article Stratfor claims that Germany today is similar to Germany of pre-WWII, in that they were strong economically, and militarily. Pre-WWII Germany was broke, and had a barely functioning economy because of the crippling reparations forced on them by the Treaty of Versailles. They can't even get that right, and they're supposed to be some big intelligence gathering "powerhouse"?

I just edited my previous post regarding this. Please check it out.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You know not to disagree with you but I don’t think it should even matter that Stratfor has a questionable reputation.

Really all this is when we boil it down to its most basic components is a guy who works for Stratfor, a company that had nothing to do with Operation Neptune Spear stating that in his opinion they never buried Bin Laden at sea. That opinion is just a valuable as mine is if I say the earth is flat, doesn’t actually make it true its just the view of another talking head.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Oh I agree, but when you add that to a questionable reputation, it's just another nail in the coffin for this claim. If a talking head from a highly respected source, with a really good reputation makes the claim, it gets a little more consideration from just about anyone. So if a talking head from a company with a bad reputation makes the same claim, it should get even less consideration. The fact that he's talking about something he had no involvement in, and knows almost nothing about is enough for me, but for others, the fact that the company in question has a bad reputation just puts that final nail into this claim.

reply to post by Zaphod58

They're also supposed to be some big security firm, but yet their database was ripped apart because they used plain text passwords, like "stratfor", and other insanely easy passwords.

Actually they describe themselves as a "Global Intelligence News & Analysis" firm, "not big security" firm. Also incompetent people work everywhere including the US Government, so easy passwords don't mean anything other than they have people working for them who are too lazy to come up with a better password.

Stratfor has a reputation for taking other peoples conclusions and making them their own, claiming to have "agents on the ground" and using Google and other sources, and just putting out bad information.

Again I am not defending Stratfor but they call themselves "Global Intelligence News & Analysis" firm. So I assume they take news and analyze it... including Google.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Oh I agree, but when you add that to a questionable reputation, it's just another nail in the coffin for this claim.

I feel the same way.. That's why I cannot believe the story told by the Government without any evidence.You know the "questionable reputation" thing.

If a talking head from a highly respected source, with a really good reputation makes the claim, it gets a little more consideration from just about anyone.

What is a highly respected source?

Originally posted by whatsecret
But in the Stratfor article they did not say that Hitler came to power when Germany was politically united and economically wealthy. They said that Germany was politically strong and united pre-WWII. And that is absolutely true. The Nazis successfully destroyed all other political parties and and completely brain washed the German people that what they were doing was the only right thing to do at the time.

This is what Stratfor had to say:

Today's Germany closely resembles pre-World War II Germany; it is economically and politically strong, unified and unoccupied, which means it can actually decide whether to align with Russia or the West instead of having the choice made for it, as it was in 1949.

They were politically strong, but they were only economically wealthy because they dropped so many people from their unemployment numbers, and fixed the books. As stated in the link you added, Jews lost their citizenship, so they were dropped from unemployment numbers, women were dropped from the numbers, most young men weren't listed once conscription started, and the rest were told to do what they were told as far as work, or go to a camp.

Yes, the Nazi party created work, and did reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy, but not as much as people are led to believe they did. They even told people how they were going to spend their leisure time. At the start of WWII Germany was not as strong economically as people (even Stratfor) claim they were.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by whatsecret
But in the Stratfor article they did not say that Hitler came to power when Germany was politically united and economically wealthy. They said that Germany was politically strong and united pre-WWII. And that is absolutely true. The Nazis successfully destroyed all other political parties and and completely brain washed the German people that what they were doing was the only right thing to do at the time.

This is what Stratfor had to say:

Today's Germany closely resembles pre-World War II Germany; it is economically and politically strong, unified and unoccupied, which means it can actually decide whether to align with Russia or the West instead of having the choice made for it, as it was in 1949.

They were politically strong, but they were only economically wealthy because they dropped so many people from their unemployment numbers, and fixed the books. As stated in the link you added, Jews lost their citizenship, so they were dropped from unemployment numbers, women were dropped from the numbers, most young men weren't listed once conscription started, and the rest were told to do what they were told as far as work, or go to a camp.

Yes, the Nazi party created work, and did reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy, but not as much as people are led to believe they did. They even told people how they were going to spend their leisure time. At the start of WWII Germany was not as strong economically as people (even Stratfor) claim they were.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think what they were trying to say was that Germany today (2008) are in the same position as they were pre-WWII meaning they don't need to ask permission from anybody to do anything they want.

Nazi economy depended on slaves and not any other country. They could do whatever they wanted, unlike after the WWII and during the cold war.

reply to post by whatsecret


Except that they aren't analyzing news on Google. At one point they were caught basically taking information directly from Google, and putting it into their reports claiming it came from their "agents on the ground".

Stratfor has a reputation for being a wannabe CIA organization, without the talent, gov't protection, or anything else that the CIA has. They can't hire good analysts, because they don't pay enough

Scepticism of Stratfor’s methods runs high among other strategic analysts. “When I lecture on strategic analysis, I give students Stratfor materials as an example of what not to do,” says security specialist and intelligence analyst Rory Medcalf.

The hacked emails themselves reveal (and independent corroborate it) that Stratfor in many cases peddled secondary source information – including from newspapers – and packaged it to seem like authentic intelligence from the field. In other instances, it passed on rumours recycled from media narratives without validation.

Writing in The Atlantic, Max Fisher says: “Maybe what these emails actually reveal is how a Texas-based corporate research firm can get a little carried away in marketing itself as a for-hire CIA and end up fooling some over-eager hackers into believing it’s true.”’

Fisher adds that Stratfor’s reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor and that “they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight.”

Even prior to the latest disclosures, Stratfor had come in for criticism for peddling sensational rumours that proved to be untrue, and for getting even the big picture on the world of the future – which it claimed was its area of expertise – horribly wrong.

Source

As for the security of their database, any company that claims to be a cheaper version of the CIA for hire, also has to be in the security field, whether they advertise it or not. And their database should be one of their most protected areas. It should NOT be protected by a password such as the company name. If you want to pretend to be some high end analysis company like the CIA you need to ensure your customers information (such as credit cards) are protected. They can't even do that.

Indicatively, in 1991, Friedman, the man who claims he can see tomorrow, wrote of The Coming War With Japan, in which he prophesied that with the end of the Cold War in 1989, Japan would reassert its dominance over the Pacific, which would lead it to conflict with the US. That prediction couldn’t have been more wrong.

Others point to Friedman’s similar failing to see the dramatic changes that swept Egypt. And Stratfor’s intelligence on Iran was dismissed as being of “low grade”.

And in 2010, Stratfor peddled the sensational market-moving rumour that the chairman of China’s Central Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, had defected from China after running up a loss of over $430 billion on the bank’s holdings of US Treasuries. Even as of today, Zhou remains firmly in his saddle, as a living testimony to an irresponsible bit of “intelligence” from a discredited agency that peddles conjectures and gossip for big money.

Perhaps the most embarrassing revelation for Stratfor from the WikiLeaks’ exposure relates to a document that was never intended for public circulation. It is a Glossary of Terms intended halfways in jest that defines various intelligence-related in-house jargon evidently for newbie sleuths.

It defines a ‘Briefer’ (someone at Stratfor who briefs clients) as a person who has the ability to “rapidly assimilate complex material, deliver routine news as if it were reports of the Second Coming” – and get the client to pay up for more services.

It explains one of the methods by which the Briefer can bamboozle the client. “When the Briefer has obtained zero valuable intelligence from analysis, he finds something in the inside of the morning paper, powers up a view graph, and ‘Briefs the Times’.” Customers, it says, are “frequently impressed. It’s a hoot.”

www.firstpost.com...

I always use common sense, in these instances. If you have nothing to hide, why hide the body? This report of him being buried at sea (like an honored soldier?!), always seemed like a lie, to me.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Stratfor has a reputation for being a wannabe CIA organization, without the talent, gov't protection, or anything else that the CIA has. They can't hire good analysts, because they don't pay enough

Anyway, I don't know anything about the organization so they could be as bad as you say they are. Unfortunately the same exact thing can be said about the US State Department, Military, and the rest of Government entities.

Since the real US State Department was hacked into and had their personal data posted online by the same people, I'd say Stratfor shouldn't feel too bad.

Please tell me who I should trust regarding the Bin Ladens body disposal? We established that Fred Burtons opinion shouldn't be trusted because he works at a $hitty "wannabe CIA" firm, so whos opinion should be taken seriously?

reply to post by whatsecret


To be honest, I have my own sources that I trust. People that can find the truth about what happened (used to be in the black world, and still have contacts there, and are willing to talk to me). It's taken me awhile to get to the point where they'll tell me the little that they will, but I trust them more than I trust anyone else.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whatsecret

 

To be honest, I have my own sources that I trust. People that can find the truth about what happened (used to be in the black world, and still have contacts there, and are willing to talk to me). It's taken me awhile to get to the point where they'll tell me the little that they will, but I trust them more than I trust anyone else.

And I assume they are telling you that Bin Laden was dumped into the ocean?