Friday, May 6, 2011

Scapegoat bin London destined to be killed, even if only virtually

"They killed him not because there was a fire fight or something going on. They went there with the intention to kill him. That's an execution or an assassination, whatever you want to call it," Michael Moore told CNN.
More details to come later, but here’s what Chambliss said:
”I hope they went in with the idea of killing him, not capturing him. We needed to take this guy out. And I know that’s what the executive order said.

I've been meaning to say something about this, but the fact that bin Laden was supposedly killed, AND IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE COULD NOT BE SHOWN HIS FACE (why not a couple of shots to the heart? - it's not as if "the mastermind of 9/11" deserved a merciful, instant death) when he supposedly could have been captured and all that, is yet more evidence that this operation was just a charade to remove the virtual bin Laden from the media's virtual reality.

Senator Chambliss' statement offers additional evidence - why would Obama assume that OBL could not be captured? Since when is it the prerogative of a President (even a real one, as opposed to the British Empire's errand boy currently occupying the Oval Office) to order a hit on someone who could be captured and provide valuable information? It's as LaRouche said at the outset: he was a scapegoat, and the purpose of scapegoats is to take the blame and get killed (even if just virtually, years after secretly dying in reality), thus removing the guilt from the world.