Hillhouse Bin Laden Story Confirmed

August 9, 2011

Commentator bokonon in a comment here pointed to posting by Raelynn Hillhouse: Bin Laden Turned in by Informant — Courier Was Cover Story

Sources in the intelligence community tell me that after years of trying and one bureaucratically insane near-miss in Yemen, the US government killed OBL because a Pakistani intelligence officer came forward to collect the approximately $25 million reward from the State Department's Rewards for Justice program.

The informant was a walk-in.

The ISI officer came forward to claim the substantial reward and to broker US citizenship for his family. My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under house arrest in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.

Without further confirmation I took that with some bigger grains of salt.

But here is an excerpt from comments at the blog of Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Chief for the Middle East and still in good contact with the relevant agencies.

Col. Lang,
I know this is off topic. RJ Hillhouse is reporting that OBL was caught/killed due to ISI informant who wanted the 25m reward. Its on FDL–scroll down. She goes on to say Saudi government was paying Pakistan to keep him under house arrest in Abbotabad. I was curious of your take on that.

Posted by: hope4usa | 09 August 2011 at 10:39 AM
…

hope4usa

Yes to both but the ISI walk in merely confirmed the existing analytic opinion that UBL was in a major Pak city under ISI protection. pl

Posted by: Patrick Lang | 09 August 2011 at 10:44 AM

It'll accept that as confirmation.

But of course one can never be sure with all those tricky agencies involved and this will therefore just end up making the various conspiracy theories more complicated.

Posted by b on August 9, 2011 at 17:01 UTC | Permalink

Comments

hmm. wow.

Posted by: annie | Aug 9 2011 17:35 utc | 1

you got to admit it makes a certain amount of sense for the saudis and the ISI to hide bin laden, especially if they knew he had nothing to do with 9/11.
and, while you’re at it, you can kill about a jillion birds with one stone, vilifying bin laden, tha pakistanis, and the saudis with this one convenient little story.
we got to get the invasion of pakistan cranked up, because our faithful indian and israeli cmpanions are fretting bout our failure to grabs pakistan’s nukes… so any badmouthing of pakistan is much appreciated.

Posted by: groundresonance | Aug 9 2011 17:41 utc | 2

of course, it could be that the saudis and pakistanis had no reason to hide bin laden at all… especially if he died in december of 2001 or whenever.
after ten years of this, the bullshit has gotten so deep that there’s no telling what really happened…
anyhow, if you insist on drinking the official kool-aid, here’s how it must have happened…
osama was on the internet one day, and stumbled across PNAC’s call for a new pearl harbor, and osama sez to himself, “huh! i’ll fix those guys’ wagons! i will stage a new pearl harbor for them! …and everyone will think those assholes from PNAC dun it!”
so osama rigged the 2000 election so the signers of the PNAC document, people like cheney, rumsfeld and the usual assortment of likud loons, got installed into positions that would have enabled them to make 9/11 happen, had they been inclined to make 9/11 happen, which they were most definitely NOT —despite their yearnings for a new pearl harbor as expressed in the PNAC document they signed…..
then osama organized everything, from the training of the pilots to the security at the airports to the standdown at NORAD to oneill’s job at the trade center, including bunnypants’ month-long absence from dc while the shit was coming down.
osama even dispatched five mossad guys to film the event….
well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men… little did osama know that the PNAC guys had enough juice to reverse the frameup, and osama found hisself dragging his dialysis machine from pillar to post in an effort to escape the wrath of PNAC.
it’s a sad sad thing

Posted by: groundresonance | Aug 9 2011 18:29 utc | 3

That would certainly be closer to my guesses about where UBL may have been for a decade.
But, if true, why would Obama admin decide to risk offense to Saudis? One always suspected that circumspection about the location or capture of UBL under the GWB administration was partly in deference to Saudi interests.

Posted by: smoke | Aug 9 2011 18:32 utc | 4

could be that saudis dont take offense when you “kill” somebody who’s already been dead for nearly ten years.
you got to wonder why our president, crusader bunnypants, started bombing aghanistan without any evidence at all of bin laden’s involvement.
you got to wonder why bin laden denied involvement.
you got to wonder why bunnypants refused to give the evidence demanded by the mujahideen, who repeatedly offered to surrender bin laden if only bunnypants would supply evidence.
then, a month after bunnypants starts bombing, rove goes to hollywood to enlist media support for the “war on terror”… and a month after that, that atrocious bin laden tape surfaces after a week of nonstop 24/7 media hysteria… —“delayed one more day to process”, “delayed one more day to confirm”, “delayed one more day to whatever”— and the “whatever” being the building of expectations to a feverish pitch so the shit quality of the video would be overlooked, drowned in a week of nonstop 24/7 hype … an example of war propaganda at its worst.
the low quality of the tape was a necessity, even if it came from hollywood, since bin laden’s double was so unconvincing.
but mostly, you got to wondder how bunnypants justified the invasion of afghanistan without any evidence at all.

Posted by: groundresonance | Aug 9 2011 18:56 utc | 5

“…and, while you’re at it, you can kill about a jillion birds with one stone, vilifying bin laden, tha pakistanis, and the saudis with this one convenient little story…”
Why would they be interested in vilifying the Saudis? Especially now when, from Libya, through Egypt and Jordan to Lebanon and Syria (to make no mention of Bahrain and Yemen) the Saudis are leading the way against everything the US is afraid of: Hizbollah, secular democracy, Arab nationalists. Saudi Arabia is the best ally that either the US or Israel has in the region.
No doubt the Saudis enjoy a bit of pseudo vilification, it gives them credibility with the fundamentalists that they are organising and financing. But nothing serious.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 9 2011 21:22 utc | 6

‘The ISI officer came forward to claim the substantial reward and to broker US citizenship for his family’
US: chosen home of terrorists, murderers, extortionists, greedy grubbbers…and now informers! not exactly the sort of base to build a decent society!

Posted by: brian | Aug 9 2011 21:35 utc | 7

well, here’s my theory. right after the helicopter got blown up w/all those navy seals we were quickly informed beyond a shadow of a doubt they were definitely NOT on the bin laden team. then the new yorker comes out w.a step by step of EXACTLY how it happened (inside sources) but he never really taked to any of those navy seals. then people started hypothesizing how maybe they were the guys and all the witness’s to binnys death were taken out. then different publications started questioning the new yorker narrative and saying , hey..there’s no way to confirm how he died and why should we believe it just cuz the new yorker and wapo and whoever in the msm us. then a new story comes on the horizon leaked thru the blogs based on..sources.
it’s a timed distraction. could it be true? yes. is it likely, not any more than any other ‘leaked’ story.

Posted by: annie | Aug 9 2011 21:44 utc | 8

bevin
saudis are arabs… you need more reason than that to vilify them?
why would the official fairytale say that most of the hijackers were saudis? …could perle, wolfowitz, kagans, kristols, cheney, rummy and the rest of the PNAC outfit have been hoping to take ourright control of saudi oil?
i dont know, but something’s gonna have to be done about the saudis, since they’re selling the chinese so much oil that rightfully belongs to us… “rightfully belongs to us” if we continue to act on our belief that might makes right.
the neocons had decided before they got into power that china was gonna be their main rival for oil, and the commotion in afghanistan since 9/11 has blocked chinese pipeline access to central asian/persian gulf oil and gas… mission accomplished on that score… bin laden, judging from the total lack of evidence against him, is/was a patsy.
of course, we’ve got to work into grabbing saudi oil, especially since putin chased the israeli russian yukos guys out of russia… you may remember that the israeli russians were originally scheduled to supply the US with oil as the US tore up the middle east oil patch and remodeled it to israeli spec… but putin kinda put a kink in that plan.
so yukos hatchet man nevzlin flees to israel, and he’s convicted, in absentia, in russia, of five murders, which qualifies him for invitations to obama’s white house.
i could be wrong about all this… but nobody’s come up with an theory that makes better sense.
stated in its simplest terms, the US must protect israel until israel secures itself against sea level rise and peak oil.
if you plug all this baloney –the actions, not the rhetoric– into that framework, it fits, it’s been fitting for ten years now, and if anything, the pattern is getting more obvious and predictable.

Posted by: groundresonance | Aug 9 2011 22:02 utc | 9

i’ve got to say that the commotion in aghanistan and pakistan has not blocked chinese access to turkmenistan gas that might have eventually have wound up in china and india via pipelines through afghanistan and pakistan… and the chinese are building a pipeline through burma, which accounts, i spose, for so much pious handwringing over the dismal human rights conditions in burma.
there are lots of targets left: burma, turkmenistan, angola, saudi, and iran… it could be that we’ll have to wait for a new “new pearl harbor” to mobilize for those operations.
might as well declare world war III and be done with it… israeli america and india against the world.

Posted by: groundresonance | Aug 9 2011 22:09 utc | 10

Story in the August Vanity Fair puts a lot of the blame for 9/11 on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. Nothing about Israel.
Vanity Fair belongs to the same Condé Nast stable of magazines as The New Yorker.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 9 2011 23:29 utc | 11

RJ has been off the radar for a few years ( since ’07?). She used to hang out in late night fdl threads for extended, sometimes very interesting conversations. One worth watching…

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Aug 10 2011 5:54 utc | 12

ground, funny you should mention russia… some of the late night conversations with RJ I mentioned were on the topic of the mysterious poisoning death of former Russian secret serviceman Alexander Litvinenko.. among other things possible ties to Yukos. Unfortunately the archived comments seem to have lost names.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/07/late-nite-fdl-in-which-i-may-have-been-right/

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Aug 10 2011 6:12 utc | 13

But of course one can never be sure with all those tricky agencies involved and this will therefore just end up making the various conspiracy theories more complicated.
Perhaps. But you can be assured of this one thing, the military intelligence industrial complex continues growing even as the country economy rots from the inside out… and that’s no conspiracy. More like a mandate.
The US military is keeping a secret from you…and its not a little one

Special US commandos are deployed in about 75 countries around the world – and that number is expected to grow.

catch this little gem:

What he did let slip, however, was telling. He noted, for instance, that black operations like the bin Laden mission, with commandos conducting heliborne night raids, were now exceptionally common. A dozen or so are conducted every night, he said. Perhaps most illuminating, however, was an offhand remark about the size of SOCOM. Right now, he emphasised, US Special Operations forces were approximately as large as Canada’s entire active duty military. In fact, the force is larger than the active duty militaries of many of the nations where the US’ elite troops now operate each year, and it’s only set to grow larger

.
Canada’s active military personnel is 67,000+
How many men, in how many squads do you need to covertly take out ‘targets’ on a global scale?
The looting continues a pace… As someone said earlier, the U.S. Military has become the personal army branch of the world energy power elite.
Note: pardon me if the above has been posted or discussed already, I haven’t been as on the ball as per my norm, and it may have been alluded to or inferred, to tired to check.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 10 2011 10:53 utc | 14

The Saudis paying off the Pakistani military but they turned when the US offered them double…? And that was enough to turn the Pakistani military? We don’t know the full story but this is not it.

Posted by: bokonon | Aug 10 2011 12:02 utc | 15

The ISI responds:

However, a senior Pakistani security official denied that the ISI had sheltered bin Laden.
“We don’t use toilet paper – we wash,” he said. “But toilet paper is all this theory is good for.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8693111/Osama-bin-Laden-protected-by-Pakistan-in-return-for-Saudi-cash.html

Posted by: bokonon | Aug 10 2011 12:41 utc | 16

OT – sorry, a bit – the recent stories about the hotel maid who accused DSK all go in her favor and show that the MSM lied to protect, as I said several times was the case, the powerful man. Slate and CounterPunch:
http://tiny.cc/ut37n
http://tiny.cc/aelho
The MSM plays that trick a lot.
Massive headlines and rabid verbal support for the PTB interpretation and talking points, with some corrections published quite quickly, as it can’t be avoided, e.g. in the case of the crazed shooter Breivik – yet Le Monde (Fr’s most respected paper) managed to keep the online headline, bolded and in a good middle position Why does Al Quaida hate Norway? for two, almost three, days.
For other events, the corrections are months later after ppl’s opinions have been formed and the mantra is ‘nothing to see here, move along’; the corrections that contradict or reverse the initial mythification are on page 29 or are an addenda, and no longer count. The visual media ignore the corrections as they are move on to the flashy and distractive: sex, suitcase terrorists, dead puppies, theft of underpants.
The US Bureau of Labor Stats and others – it is not just unfolding news – are masters at this. Partial, slanted or even false info is trumpeted with screeching blare, and three months later a ‘minor’ correction is published. Incompetence is a requirement for the job….
I think the truth about OBL’s possible recent death will never be known.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 10 2011 13:00 utc | 17

bokonon #15, i agree. who’s the target? pakistan. they were the target with the first story (for the american/international audience) who’s the target for this story? pakistan (aimed at their own citizens who would be disgusted at them if this were true).
seriously i can’t believe people don’t see the obviousness in the agenda which remains exactly the same.

Posted by: annie | Aug 10 2011 17:00 utc | 18

seriously i can’t believe people don’t see the obviousness in the agenda which remains exactly the same.
Like the last Presidential Election,… and all to follow.

Posted by: Bob M. | Aug 10 2011 20:06 utc | 19

@ groundresonance #5 – Thanks for reviewing that sequence. It’s been fading from memory, making it harder to explain to others my doubt about UBL’s involvement in 9/11.
@lysias #11 – Missed that. When did New Yorker join the Conde Nast portfolio?
@Noirette #17 – re: DSK & hotel maid – It looked like powerful interests were involved in his downfall, and not only his later, partial rehabilitation. Who knows how specifically? – probably ready to take advantage of his inevitable, known peccadilloes. Do you recall that, at first, the court would not release him on bail; rather he was held and publicly disrespected, like any common criminal. But somehow the court changed its mind about his flight risk and let him post bail, just after he agreed to resign from the IMF – leaving the way open to select Lagarde as IMF Managing Director. Perhaps just coincidence.
Interesting that a French court has just ordered an investigation of Lagarde, for her role, as Finance Minister, in a very generous arbitration settlement in a dispute over the sale of Adidas. I don’t know enough about French politics. How much might this reflect national power struggles or how much world power struggles?
In any case, it would seem that, for the powerful, a little threat hanging over the heads of those who serve power could be useful: “We can protect you, unless you show too much independence.” Maintains discipline and allegiance. Makes a taint or a little perversity, hidden behind the resume, a desirable feature. When powerful interests contend against one another, then it gets interesting.

Posted by: smoke | Aug 11 2011 23:05 utc | 20

Back to Main