Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

**Wendy** · 05-09-2011, 04:12 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<span style="font-size: 14pt">iyyee yiiyyiee!!!</span>

**Gen** · 05-09-2011, 04:19 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

**Stormmey** · 05-10-2011, 01:05 AM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WeNdY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 14pt">iyyee yiiyyiee!!!</span>

</div></div>

must copy this for future use

**Derek** · 05-10-2011, 01:49 AM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stormmey1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WeNdY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 14pt">iyyee yiiyyiee!!!</span>

</div></div>

must copy this for future use </div></div>

**Wendy** · 05-10-2011, 09:48 AM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

Yes Derek yuh a drive mi mad A two strawn a hair lef outta mi weave

**Derek** · 05-10-2011, 12:09 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2001</span>
1) Report: Osama bin laden Already Dead - Wednesday, December 26, 2001 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

2) U.S. Ignores bin Laden Death Reports, Continues Search - NewsMax.com Wires - Wednesday, December 26, 2001 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/190519.shtml

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2002</span>
Top news media networks announce the death of Osama bin Laden:
1) FBI Official Thinks Osama bin laden Is Dead - WASHINGTON, July 17, 2002 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in515468.shtml

2) Bin Laden ‘probably’ dead - Thursday, 18 July, 2002, 09:15 GMT 10:15 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2135473.stm

3) Sources: No bodyguards, no bin Laden http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/30/bin...son/index.html

4) <span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Lt. Col. Oliver L. North certain of Osama’s death</span></span> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/books/27NORT.html

5) Peter Bergen: Bin Laden has aged ‘enormously’ - February 1, 2002 Posted: 1:24 PM EST (1824 GMT) http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/02/01...nna/index.html

6) Pakistan Pres. Musharraf: Osama bin Laden likely dead - January 19, 2002 Posted: 12:35 AM EST (0535 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapc....19/index.html

7) Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis - January 21, 2002 Posted: 10:42 AM EST (1542 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21...tsc/index.html

8) <span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Bin Laden tape a fake, Swiss lab says Scientists compared recording to 20 other tapes of terror chief</span></span> - Nov. 28, 2002. 06:23 PM http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Content...ol=968705899037

9) <span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Osama bin laden family DNA will help to identify ‘tall man’ killed by CIA By David Wastell in Washington and Charlotte Edwardes</span></span> (Filed: 03/03/2002) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...equestid=68233

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2003</span>
1) Popular conspiracy-mongering radio host Alex Jones announces, citing high-level Bush administration sources, “that Osama bin Laden died of natural causes and that his family has given the body to the CIA.” Jones added, “they’re gonna roll him out right before the election, he’s on ice right now.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/121703binladendead.html

2) French military analyst announces that Osama bin Laden was killed in an American air raid in Tora Bora shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...-%20538318.html
Note: This news article was removed just yesterday following the new announcement of Osama bin Laden‘s death. I believe slowly and gradually they will remove all such articles that deal with Osama’s death announcements in the past. So don’t blame me if the links don’t work.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2004</span>
February – Iranian Radio reports that Osama bin Laden was captured in the Afghan-Pakistan border area “a long time ago” — but the official announcement was delayed because “Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election.” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_310332.htm

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2005</span>
April – The Israeli press picks up an account from a radical Muslim London newspaper: “We now report that the al-Qaeda organization has announced the death of Osama bin laden.” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...078937,00.html

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2006</span>
September – French intel document says that Saudis believe bin Laden had died of typhoid in Pakistan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15024223...-%20terrorism/

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2008</span>
June – Citing two unnamed officials, Time magazine reports that a recent CIA study has concluded bin Laden has long-term kidney disease and “may only have months to live.” http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...819280,00.html

<span style="font-weight: bold">Year 2009</span>
April – Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari tells the media that his country’s intel services “obviously feel that [bin Laden] does not exist anymore”

<span style="font-style: italic">Yes I'm sure he's dead. Just not sure if it was the kidney disease or if he was killed by the guy according to Benizir Bhutto.</span> </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I think this deserves some comment, not just Wendy tearing out her hair. </span>

**mountaingal** · 05-10-2011, 02:42 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

is a whole lot of opinion in those citations, derek. plus, ollie north lied under oath to protect reagan, no?

**RichD** · 05-10-2011, 03:02 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is a whole lot of opinion in those citations, derek. plus, ollie north lied under oath to protect reagan, no? </div></div>

why hasn't he come out to contradict the current story...he is a opponent of the current president this would put a nail in Mr Obama's political coffin

**RichD** · 05-10-2011, 03:05 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Sept. 11 there have been conflicting news reports about whether such a conspiracy actually existed. Mr. North said he doubted there was such a conspiracy. And certainly there is none now, he said, because he is convinced that Mr. bin Laden is dead, quite possibly buried beneath the rubble of an American airstrike in Afghanistan.</div></div>

ah sah

**mountaingal** · 05-10-2011, 03:08 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

that's what i'm finding, rich. the opportunity for people who "know" bin laden is dead to come out and declare/prove it is so good - why arent they availing themselves of that? it's not for love of obama, that's for sure...

**Wendy** · 05-10-2011, 03:11 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that's what i'm finding, rich. the opportunity for people who "know" bin laden is dead to come out and declare/prove it is so good - why arent they availing themselves of that? it's not for love of obama, that's for sure...

</div></div>

Not even AlQueda a bun fiyah pan di news ( and yes, I believe there is a boogie man name Al Queda )

**johnnycakes** · 05-10-2011, 05:51 PM

Re: Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

Here's a good analysis of the relationship between Pakistan and the United States,bin Laden's assassination and where we're going from here.

from ZNET:

The Great Game’s New Clothes
By Conn Hallinan

Source: Dispatches From The EdgeTuesday, May 10, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Conn Hallinan's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

According to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Leon Panetta, the U.S. never informed Pakistan about the operation to assassinate al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin because it thought the Pakistanis could “jeopardize the mission” by tipping off the target.

Maybe, and maybe not. This is, after all, the ground over which the 19th century “Great Game” was played, the essence of which was obfuscation. What you thought you saw or knew was not necessarily what was.

The “official” story is that three CIA helicopters—one for backup—took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan and flew almost 200 miles to Abbottabad, most of it through Pakistani airspace. Pakistan scrambled jets, but the choppers still managed to land, spend 40 minutes on the ground, and get away.

Is it possible the helicopters really did dodge Pakistani radar? During the Cold War a West German pilot flew undetected through the teeth of the Soviet air defense system and landed his plane in Red Square, so yes. Choppers are slow, but these were stealth varieties and fairly quiet. But at top speed, the Blackhawks would have needed about an hour each way, plus the 40 minutes on the ground. That is a long time to remain undetected, particularly in a town hosting three regiments of the Pakistani Army, plus the Kakul Military Academy, the country’s equivalent of West Point. Abbottabad is also 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad, and the region is ringed with anti-aircraft sites.

Still, it is possible, except there is an alternative scenario that not only avoids magical thinking about what choppers can do, but better fits the politics of the moment: that Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) knew where Bin Ladin was and fingered him, estimating that his death would accelerate negotiations with the Taliban. Why now? Because for the first time in this long war, U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide.

Gen. Hammad Gul, former head of the ISI, told the Financial Times on May 3 that the ISI knew where he was, but regarded him as “inactive.” Writing in the May 5 Guardian (UK), author Tariq Ali says that a “senior” ISI official told him back in 2006 that the spy organization knew where bin Ladin was, but had no intention of arresting him because he was “The goose that laid the golden egg.” In short, the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader helped keep the U.S. aid spigot open.

Indeed, bin Ladin may have been under house arrest, which would explain the absence of trained bodyguards. By not allowing the al-Qaeda leader a private militia, the ISI forced him to rely on it for protection. And if they then dropped a dime on him, they knew he would be an easy target. As to why he was killed, not captured, neither the U.S. nor Pakistan wanted him alive, the former because of the judicial nightmare his incarceration would involve, the latter because dead men tell no tales.

As for the denials: the last thing the ISI wants is to be associated with the hit, since it could end up making the organization a target for Pakistan’s home-grown Taliban. If the ISI knew, so did the Army, though not necessarily at all levels. Did the Army turn a blind eye to the U.S. choppers? Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that there is a shift in Pakistan and the U.S. with regards to the Afghan war.

On the U.S. side, the war is going badly, and American military and intelligence agencies are openly warring with one another. In December the U.S. intelligence community released a study indicating that progress was minimal and that the 2009 surge of 30,000 troops had produced only tactical successes: “There remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency.” The Pentagon counter-attacked in late April with a report that the surge had been “a strategic defeat for the Taliban,” and that the military was making “tangible progress in some really key areas.”

It is not an analysis agreed with by our NATO allies, most of which are desperate to get their troops out of what they view as a deepening quagmire. A recent WikiLeak cable quotes Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, saying “No one believes in Afghanistan anymore. But we will give it 2010 to see results.” He went on to say Europe was only going along “out of deference to the United States.” Translation: NATO support is falling apart.

Recent shifts by the Administration seem to signal that the White House is backing away from the surge and looking for ways to wind down the war. The shift of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA removes the major U.S. booster of the current counterinsurgency strategy, and moving Panetta to the Defense Department puts a savvy political infighter with strong Democratic Party credentials into the heart of Pentagon. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war but could never get a hearing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican.

The last major civilian supporter of the war is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Gates, her main ally, will soon be gone, as will Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. The shuffle at the top is hardly a “night of the long knives,” but the White House has essentially eliminated or sidelined those in the administration who pushed for a robust war and long-term occupation.

A surge of sanity? Well, at least some careful poll reading. According to the Associated Press, six in 10 Americans want out of the war. Among Democrats 73 percent want to be out in a year, and a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans want Congress to address an accelerated withdrawal. With the war now costing $8 billion a month, these numbers are hardly a surprise.

Pakistan has long been frustrated with the U.S.’s reluctance to talk to the Taliban, and, from Islamabad’s perspective, the war is largely being carried out at their expense. Pakistan has suffered tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties in what most Pakistanis see as an American war, and the country is literally up in arms over the drone attacks.

The Pakistani Army has been deployed in Swat, South Waziristan, and Bajaur, and the U.S. is pressing it to invade North Waziristan. One Pakistani grumbled to the Guardian (UK), “What do they [the U.S.] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?” For the 30 million Pashtuns in the northwest regions, the Pakistani Army is foreign in language and culture, and Islamabad knows that it will eventually be seen as an outside occupier.

A poll by the New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan’s northwest—home and refuge to many of the insurgents fighting in Afghanistan—found some 80 percent oppose the U.S. war on terror, almost nine in every 10 people oppose U.S. attacks on the Taliban, and three quarters oppose the drone attacks.

The bottom line is that Pakistan simply cannot afford to continue the war, particularly as they are still trying to dig themselves out from under last year’s massive floods.

In April, Pakistan’s top military, intelligence and political leadership decamped to Kabul to meet with the government of Harmid Karzai. The outcome of the talks is secret, but they appear to have emboldened the parties to press the U.S. to start talking. According to Ahmed Rashid, author of “Taliban” and “Descent into Chaos,” the White House is moving “the fledgling peace process forward” and will “push to broker an end to the war.” This includes dropping “its preconditions that the Taliban sever links with al-Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks.”

Given that in 2008 the Taliban agreed to not allow any “outside” forces in the country and pledged not to pose a danger to any other country, including those in the West, this demand has already been met. As for the constitution, since it excluded the Taliban it will have to be re-negotiated in any case.

While there appears to be a convergence of interests among the major parties, negotiations promise to be a thorny business.

The Pentagon will resist a major troop drawdown. There is also opposition in Afghanistan, where Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities are deeply suspicious of the Taliban. The Karzai government also appears split on the talks, although recent cabinet shuffles have removed some of the more anti-Pakistan leaders.

Then there is the Taliban, which is hardly a centralized organization, especially since U.S. drone attacks and night raids have effectively removed more experienced Taliban leaders, leaving younger and more radical fighters in charge. Can Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliver his troops? That is not a given.

Both other insurgent groups—the Haqqani Group and Hizb-i-Islami—have indicated they are open to negotiations, but the Americans will have a hard time sitting down with the Haqqanis. The group has been implicated in the deaths of numerous U.S. and coalition forces. To leave the Haqqani Group out, however, will derail the whole process.

The U.S. would like to exclude Iran, but as Rashid points out, “No peace process in Afghanistan can succeed without Iran’s full participation.” And then there is India. Pakistan sees Indian involvement in Afghanistan as part of New Delhi’s strategy to surround Pakistan, and India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists who attack Indian-controlled Kashmir and launched the horrendous 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Murphy’s Law suggests that things are more likely to end in chaos than reasoned diplomacy. But self-interest is a powerful motivator, and all parties, including India, stands to gain something by ending the war. India very much wants to see the 1,050-mile TAPI pipeline built, as it will carry gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Fazilka, India.

A lot is at stake, and if getting the peace process going involved taking out Osama bin Ladin. Well, in the cynical world of the “Great Game,” to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.

Back in the Victorian era the British Army marched off singing a song:

“We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do/

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and we’ve got the money too”

But in the 21st century most our allies’ armies don’t want to fight, ships are useless in Afghanistan, there aren’t enough men, and everyone is broke.

For 33 years the people of Afghanistan have been bombed, burned, shot, tortured and turned into refugees. For at least the moment the pieces are aligned to bring this awful war to an end. It is time to close the book on the “Great Game” and bring the troops home.

Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

Yes, bin Laden is definitely Dead

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads