US Capture of Bin Laden close

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: tallest1

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

Uh? Hello. We invaded Afghanistan, with authorization by the US Congress. It was an act of war, delcared or not. Pakistan is a sovereign nation that is an "ally" that Congress has not authorized the use of force against. Thus the US has to ask permission to have military operations in Pakistan. Are things getting clearer?

Ill futher clarify why the US is following Pakistans request not to use force in their country and why Pakistan actually said no. Pakistans govt would be overthrown by radical islamic extremists if either happened. Lets not forget Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This is a very delicate issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
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.

It's foolish to believe that thousands of troops wandering the mountains of Pakistan are going to find him. A few special forces troops are much more capable, since they don't leave the large footprint that a huge force does - they won't let bin Laden know that they're coming. This is how 99% of US actions tracking one man are carried out - why do you think we always have pictures like this when we catch someone? They were sleeping in their cave when we caught them. (I have a better picture of a terrorist, but I can't find it online anymore :/)

Originally posted by: tallest1
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?

Yes, let's tell him where we're looking, so he can get away... It's because bin Laden has a double-digit IQ.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tallest1
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?

Yes, let's tell him where we're looking, so he can get away... It's because bin Laden has a double-digit IQ.

Yes, it is the best strategy to not broadcast our every move but I figure that avenue had been abandoned every since we allowed the media to travel with and broadcast the location and tactics of our troops in Iraq, the place Rumsfeld called The center of our war on terrorism.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

It's foolish to believe that thousands of troops wandering the mountains of Pakistan are going to find him. A few special forces troops are much more capable, since they don't leave the large footprint that a huge force does - they won't let bin Laden know that they're coming. This is how 99% of US actions tracking one man are carried out - why do you think we always have pictures like this when we catch someone? They were sleeping in their cave when we caught them. (I have a better picture of a terrorist, but I can't find it online anymore

Yes, there is no way Osama can be capture or the 'War on terror' can be won by simply throwing soldiers into the field. Intelligence is the only way.

Yes, let's tell him where we're looking, so he can get away... It's because bin Laden has a double-digit IQ.

You mean you don't take a bullhorn with you when you go hunting, so you can say, "OK, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DEER YET, SO WHATEVER THEY ARE DOING TO HIDE IS WORKING SO FAR. I'M GOING TO GO STAND BY THE BIG OAK TREE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE WOODS, NOW. HOPE I SEE A DEER ON THE WAY. HERE I GO.."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tallest1
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?

Yes, let's tell him where we're looking, so he can get away... It's because bin Laden has a double-digit IQ.

Yes, it is the best strategy to not broadcast our every move but I figure that avenue had been abandoned every since we allowed the media to travel with and broadcast the location and tactics of our troops in Iraq, the place Rumsfeld called The center of our war on terrorism.

I watched the invasion of Iraq extensively (hey, I was on spring break in Indiana - what else was I going to do?) and didn't hear any mention of actual troop positions. Well, there was one - Geraldo, who was promptly sent packing by the military. In fact, it was actually forbidden. In any case, the two situations are entirely different.

 

[Klixxer]

!

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?

You are? and always will be? YUP.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Likely a story without value with a meaningless sound bite contrived and timed to bolster Bush's image as "winning the war on terror".

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tallest1
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?

Yes, let's tell him where we're looking, so he can get away... It's because bin Laden has a double-digit IQ.

Yes, it is the best strategy to not broadcast our every move but I figure that avenue had been abandoned every since we allowed the media to travel with and broadcast the location and tactics of our troops in Iraq, the place Rumsfeld called The center of our war on terrorism.

I watched the invasion of Iraq extensively (hey, I was on spring break in Indiana - what else was I going to do?) and didn't hear any mention of actual troop positions. Well, there was one - Geraldo, who was promptly sent packing by the military. In fact, it was actually forbidden. In any case, the two situations are entirely different.

I've heard of that as well but I must say, Fox News' detailed (and animated!) maps of conflicts within the region must've made a nice tactical graphic for insurgents lacking pen and paper

 

[heartsurgeon]

it has always been my personal belief that Bush II learned from Bush I (don't win the war to soon, the public forgets).

I have stated before that i would not be surprised if Bin Laden's head was in a cryovac bag frozen in the basement of the Naval Observatory (official residence of the Vice-President)

Cheney will thaw the head out in the final wek before the election and present it to the world on a platter..

oh, just kidding!!

 

[1EZduzit]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they know where Bin Laden is and are waiting for the opportune time to capture him and trot him out for the cameras just before the election vote. They might even have a WMD's located they are sitting on. They are so secretive, who would know?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tallest1
I've heard of that as well but I must say, Fox News' detailed (and animated!) maps of conflicts within the region must've made a nice tactical graphic for insurgents lacking pen and paper

CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all had the same maps and graphics (maybe they changed the colors), and they could only comment on certain things. Besides, during the invasion itself, there were only about five major battles (Basra, Fallujah, Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul) - it's not rocket science to assume that our troops would make it to any one of these places.

The most shocking thing to me about the invasion was when we were rolling through the desert and a few hundred tanks would roll past a bedouin, who had never even seen a car. I can't imagine what people like that must think when such things happen.

 

[PatboyX]

now that i think about it...werent we sort of on the outs with pakistan becuase of their amnisty policy?
i thought it was their government.

 

[conjur]

This is what the article above says:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.
...

Cofer Black is the one who reported earlier this year:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/...rror.report/index.html

Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003
Report: Iraq now 'a central battleground' in war on terror

From David Ensor and Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, April 29, 2004 Posted: 6:27 PM EDT (2227 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday.

The Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.

The figure marked a 45 percent decrease in attacks since 2001, but it did not include most of the attacks in Iraq, because attacks against combatants did not fit the U.S. definition of international terrorism.

Cofer Black, the State Department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism, told a news conference that he attributed the decrease to "unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism."

http://democrats.senate.gov/dp...?doc_name=fs-108-2-163

despite Terrorism Director Cofer Black's April 1 testimony before a House Committee that "there can be no accommodation with this evil" of al Qaeda, the report omits a number of Al Qaeda attacks because they were not "international" in scope, including attacks carried out by al Qaeda affiliates against targets within the countries in which they operate.

Interesting. Just how credible is this guy anyway?

 

[dudeguy]

Originally posted by: conjur
This is what the article above says:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.
...

Cofer Black is the one who reported earlier this year:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/...rror.report/index.html

Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003
Report: Iraq now 'a central battleground' in war on terror

From David Ensor and Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, April 29, 2004 Posted: 6:27 PM EDT (2227 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday.

The Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.

The figure marked a 45 percent decrease in attacks since 2001, but it did not include most of the attacks in Iraq, because attacks against combatants did not fit the U.S. definition of international terrorism.

Cofer Black, the State Department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism, told a news conference that he attributed the decrease to "unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism."

http://democrats.senate.gov/dp...?doc_name=fs-108-2-163

despite Terrorism Director Cofer Black's April 1 testimony before a House Committee that "there can be no accommodation with this evil" of al Qaeda, the report omits a number of Al Qaeda attacks because they were not "international" in scope, including attacks carried out by al Qaeda affiliates against targets within the countries in which they operate.

Interesting. Just how credible is this guy anyway?

basically he is a civil servant, or what ever there is in america, and a republican pr merchant.

 

[nCred]

He will be caught if he´s alive, some one will betray him sooner or later.

 

[ReiAyanami]

hopefully he hasn't turned his terrorist assocation into a broader movement

 

[Infohawk]

Question for Bush Boys: if you found out Bush had delayed the capture or news of the capture of Bin Laden, would you still vote for him?

And there was a thread about how Bin Laden didn't fund 9/11 as was widely thought. His importance should be less important now...

I think he just might be the October surprise.

 

[Train]

its funny how some people assume that if something is not in the news its not happening. Like anyone here knows what operations have been carried out in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past 3 years by watching TV.

I havent seen a shuttle launch on TV since 1986, does that mean there havent been any?
Wake up people, TV only gives you a small percentage of the information out there.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
its funny how some people assume that if something is not in the news its not happening. Like anyone here knows what operations have been carried out in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past 3 years by watching TV.

I havent seen a shuttle launch on TV since 1986, does that mean there havent been any?
Wake up people, TV only gives you a small percentage of the information out there.

That certainly gets my vote for the Most Idiotic Analogy of the Year Award!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train
its funny how some people assume that if something is not in the news its not happening. Like anyone here knows what operations have been carried out in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past 3 years by watching TV.

I havent seen a shuttle launch on TV since 1986, does that mean there havent been any?
Wake up people, TV only gives you a small percentage of the information out there.

You haven't seen a shuttle launch since '86 and your lecturing people about knowing what's happening?


if you found out Bush had delayed the capture or news of the capture of Bin Laden, would you still vote for him?

 

[glenn1]

US Capture of Bin Laden close

That's good. I'd prefer dead over captured, but hey, whatever works.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: glenn1

US Capture of Bin Laden close

That's good. I'd prefer dead over captured, but hey, whatever works.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: glenn1

US Capture of Bin Laden close

That's good. I'd prefer dead over captured, but hey, whatever works.

I wouldn't. I'd rather capture him alive. Dead is the easy way out. Make him suffer.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: glenn1

US Capture of Bin Laden close

That's good. I'd prefer dead over captured, but hey, whatever works.

I wouldn't. I'd rather capture him alive. Dead is the easy way out. Make him suffer.

I think he be judged. Everyone assumed he had financed 9/11. Turns out his money didn't play a big role. And torturing him wouldn't be great for our citizens abroad. Best solution is to keep him in jail for ever IMHO.

 

[glenn1]

I think he be judged. Everyone assumed he had financed 9/11. Turns out his money didn't play a big role. And torturing him wouldn't be great for our citizens abroad. Best solution is to keep him in jail for ever IMHO.

While I understand your POV and somewhat agree with your analysis of the benefit of that approach. However, I also realize that keeping him in jail would raise the possibility of people trying to commit terrorist acts to bargain for his release. I also don't care for the idea that a President could pardon him and he'd be free as a bird.

So perhaps if we do capture him, we ought to create an endless loop video of him sitting in "jail" and feed of that released to the public, and in reality taken him out to sea, wrapped his body in an anchor chain, locked it with a padlock, and dropped him into the Pacific Ocean.