US Capture of Bin Laden close

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.
 

lordtyranus

Banned
Aug 23, 2004
1,324
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
<tinfoil> He will be caught on November 1. </tinfoil>


That might be true. It could be Bush's trump card. Though I'd expect it to be around a week beforehand, or at least more than the day before.
 

dudeguy

Banned
Aug 11, 2004
219
0
0
Originally posted by: Klixxer
It has been close for two years.

well lets put it like this, reuters, the leading news agency, didnt bother with this electioneering story, but AP hacked it out from a television transcript. hmmm. who is the fool?
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Kerry better pray that Osama isn't caught, or else he is finished.

I don't know about Kerry but I pray Osama is caught mmm..... 2 years ago
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.

They are hardly "ignoring" bin Laden, there has been active military operations to find and capture him since 2001. They just havent been talking about said operations.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: dudeguy
Originally posted by: Klixxer
It has been close for two years.

well lets put it like this, reuters, the leading news agency, didnt bother with this electioneering story, but AP hacked it out from a television transcript. hmmm. who is the fool?

Just watch FoxNews quote AP's 'hack' in 5....4...3....2....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.

They are hardly "ignoring" bin Laden, there has been active military operations to find and capture him since 2001. They just havent been talking about said operations.

A few thousand troops scurrying about in Afghanistan with the bulk of those providing security in the cities?

Bush, himself, has said bin Laden is no longer a priority. Now, because we're nearing the election, the Bush campaign will strut out some high-ranking officials bleating some memo handed to them by Rove beating the drums of war against bin Laden again.


Phooey.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.

Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistn, he is in the rural and mountainous areas of Pakistan that are by and large ungoverned areas of Pakistan run by warlords sympathetic to the fanatical islamic jihadist cause.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.

They are hardly "ignoring" bin Laden, there has been active military operations to find and capture him since 2001. They just havent been talking about said operations.

Uh huh. Care to explain why the US would NOT want to report any form of progress in the War on Terror, especially in a place where it matters most?
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.

Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistn, he is in the rural and mountainous areas of Pakistan that are by and large ungoverned areas of Pakistan run by warlords sympathetic to the fanatical islamic jihadist cause.

Just because Bin Laden left Afganistan doesn't mean everything is peachy over there. Just look, we nabbed Sadaam months ago and Iraq ain't playing any nicer. Anyways, if I remember correctly Pakistan was declared an ally to us so nice try at putting blame elsewhere
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.

They are hardly "ignoring" bin Laden, there has been active military operations to find and capture him since 2001. They just havent been talking about said operations.

Uh huh. Care to explain why the US would NOT want to report any form of progress in the War on Terror, especially in a place where it matters most?

Did I say anything about progress? No. I said there have been ONGOING military operations since 2001. What progress they have made always does make it to the airwaves. But the US has its hands tied because it cant go in Pakistan go to war with the warlords in Pakistan to extract bin Laden. Pakistan has made many arrests in the past year, they just dont have the willingness to take on the warlords in their ungoverned areas with full force.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.

Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistn, he is in the rural and mountainous areas of Pakistan that are by and large ungoverned areas of Pakistan run by warlords sympathetic to the fanatical islamic jihadist cause.

Just because Bin Laden left Afganistan doesn't mean everything is peachy over there. Just look, we nabbed Sadaam months ago and Iraq ain't playing any nicer. Anyways, if I remember correctly Pakistan was declared an ally to us so nice try at putting blame elsewhere

WTF? I didnt say anything like that. Im not laying the blame elsewhere, they are an ALLY of the US and they have arrested hundreds of terrorists and other al qaeda suspects. They will however NOT LET the US use military force in their country against warlords in their ungoverned sections. If the US had the authorization of Pakistan to go into ungoverned regions, the US would likely find a whole hell of a lot of wanted people. However in the process Pakistans govt would be over run, and we create even more problems.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue due to the criticisms leveled at the RNC for ignoring bin Laden.

They are hardly "ignoring" bin Laden, there has been active military operations to find and capture him since 2001. They just havent been talking about said operations.

Uh huh. Care to explain why the US would NOT want to report any form of progress in the War on Terror, especially in a place where it matters most?

Did I say anything about progress? No. I said there have been ONGOING military operations since 2001. What progress they have made always does make it to the airwaves. But the US has its hands tied because it cant go in Pakistan go to war with the warlords in Pakistan to extract bin Laden. Pakistan has made many arrests in the past year, they just dont have the willingness to take on the warlords in their ungoverned areas with full force.

Afganistan has a good number of warlords too (funded by oil, curruption AND drugs even) and last time I checked, we didn't have much trouble getting by nonetheless.

And in your last sentence, are you implying that we're relying on the Pakistan government to get Bin Laden for us? Thats not something the president I know would tolerate
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Thats becasue the goverment in Pakistan is trying to save face but if it came to US actually stepping foot onto the soil that sh1t would get overthrown.
Just another case of those with the power ignoring what the people are all about.
kinda like here.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.

Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistn, he is in the rural and mountainous areas of Pakistan that are by and large ungoverned areas of Pakistan run by warlords sympathetic to the fanatical islamic jihadist cause.

Oh? You know for a fact that bin Laden is in Pakistan? I remember reading articles before that the CIA believed bin Laden escaped through Pakistan and, presumably, to the sea and on to who-knows-where. Bush only gave him about a five-month headstart.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Yeah, Bush's Saudi buddies will love that one -I'll believe it when I see it
They have been saying this for years now.
They only thing being captured around Afganistan is poppys for profit.

Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistn, he is in the rural and mountainous areas of Pakistan that are by and large ungoverned areas of Pakistan run by warlords sympathetic to the fanatical islamic jihadist cause.

Just because Bin Laden left Afganistan doesn't mean everything is peachy over there. Just look, we nabbed Sadaam months ago and Iraq ain't playing any nicer. Anyways, if I remember correctly Pakistan was declared an ally to us so nice try at putting blame elsewhere

WTF? I didnt say anything like that. Im not laying the blame elsewhere, they are an ALLY of the US and they have arrested hundreds of terrorists and other al qaeda suspects. They will however NOT LET the US use military force in their country against warlords in their ungoverned sections. If the US had the authorization of Pakistan to go into ungoverned regions, the US would likely find a whole hell of a lot of wanted people. However in the process Pakistans govt would be over run, and we create even more problems.

Nice, you managed to answer my last question even before I posted it. I think I understand how you see things now and I'll leave it at that. Sorry to get you riled up

Edit: :beer: