So, where's Osama?

[mke]

I guess the "wheel him out for the elections" conspiracy theory has been proven to be just that. Which is somewhat worrying, if really still don't have a good idea of where he is or how to get him.

[Gary Sisco]

I saw him at Lum's yesterday.

[Dr Dave]

From The Times Of India, Oct. 24:

Osama getting money from UAE, Saudis

ANI[ MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004 12:07:35 PM ]

LAHORE: Osama bin Laden is living in a safe abode in South Waziristan, a tribal area along Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and getting regular financial assistance from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, a member of the 9/11 Commission has claimed.


"He is not a wealthy man. We ran that information into the ground and discovered he only receives about one million dollars a year from his family's fortune. The rest of what he gets comes from radical sympathisers," The News quoted Commissioner John Lehman as saying.

He stated that even the US can't capture him since he lives in an area which is full of his supporting terrorists, and also because any bid to nab him could prove drastic for Musharraf who already has faced three assassination attempts.

Lehman said that the region was filled with militants who did not recognise the legitimacy of Musharraf.

"That is a region filled with Taliban and al-Qaeda members," he said, adding that Pakistan's security services were filled with "many who agree with bin Laden's beliefs and would aid him if US Special Forces entered the region".

"There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now," Lehman added.

-30-

This is interesting. Is it possible that the reason we can't go after Osama bin Laden and risk "another Vietnam" is because we're overextended in Iraq?

[Gary Sisco]

It's more than possible. It's entirely probable. They don't have enough troops as it is for Iraq, and they've never had enough to do much of anything in Afghanistan, where most of the American fighting has taken the form of air power and small-unit warfare supported by massive airpower. The fact is, they have been overextended from the start, and without a draft, they will become even moreso over time. And even with a draft, the situation couldn't be corrected for two to three years, at minimum, since, one, they haven't a draft law, which would require, at least, another session of Congress; two, the bureaucracies would have to write regulations to implement it; three, then they'd have to organize the various local draft boards to implement it; four, then they'd have to conscript, put the draftees through basics, infantry training, various technical training schools, and etc., before draftee one would ever show up in any war theater. It couldn't be done faster than three years, maybe four, never mind overcoming the political resistance, and not only in Congress.

They've painted themselves into quite a corner. Nitwits. Anyone who knows anything about the region could have (and did) tell them all of this in advance.

[Dr Dave]

In short, the United States of America has a pretty good idea where the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is, but can't go after him because it is enmeshed in a war with a country that didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

And the President's strongest plank is that he's done well in the War on Terror?

[Gary Sisco]

Pretty much.

That and that they'd have to go to war also with hundreds of thousands of mujahedin in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would tip over Pakistan, which the General only barely controls as it is, and of course, Pakistan has nukes.

It's a shit mess for sure. Idiots.

The Great Game redux.

[Gary Sisco]

It is fascinating to watch, however, just how much damage on a global scale can result from 1) one, admittedly dramatic, terror attack at relatively minor cost (not even as much as a standard "study" would cost by DC standards) and 2) one at least mildly retarded or plain idiot being elected, er, annointed to office by his partisan fellows.

What remains to be seen is how much more will result if millions of (at least politically and historically) retarded people manage to elect or get Him annointed again.

Capital H used as is traditional with the only other Guy many people believe to have been in daily communication with God, for consistency's sake.

[Pete C]

You're all a bunch of naysayers. Who cares about Osama? Don't you know we already captured 75% of Al Qaeda leadership?





Sheesh.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

That and that they'd have to go to war also with hundreds of thousands of mujahedin in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would tip over Pakistan, which the General only barely controls as it is, and of course, Pakistan has nukes.

I think this is as much part of the equation as the overextension - all of Gary's points here are excellent ones. Given the political situation in Pakistan, we can get away with CIA contract assassins making incursions into the border tribal areas looking for Taliban/AQ muckity-mucks (the world's worst-kept secret being that we currently do just that), but we can't send in any real US forces (by "in" I mean across the "border," such as it is, into Pakistani territory). And as tenuous as Musharraf's control may be on the country as a whole, no Pakistani leader has ever exerted real control over the NW tribal regions - they've been fruitful recruiting grounds for the scads of little Islamicist militias Pakistan has historically used in the Kashmir border war, and asserting (or, better said, attempting to assert) central authority over those regions would be costly in more ways than one.

[james harrigan]

Originally Posted by mke

I guess the "wheel him out for the elections" conspiracy theory has been proven to be just that.

I can't be bothered to research it, but I'm certain that quite a few posts in the Alley expressed pretty fervent belief in this theory. There was similar enthusiasm for the "they'll just plant fake evidence of WMDs if they don't find any" theory, which has also not panned out. Not to mention the "they are covering up the extent of US casualties" theory from early in the Afghan war, which Gary Sisco in particular was taking bets on.

Do any of the conspiracy theory believers around here feel like admitting their credulousness now?

[crawjo]

I don't consider Osama to be much of a threat any more. I could care less where he is. I'm sure families of the 9/11 victims feel different, though. I'd be more excited if the U.S. captured or killed Zarqawi.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I don't consider Osama to be much of a threat any more.

Personally, I think he still has the resources and reputation to reassemble a pretty potent network, but I have absolutely no firm evidence whatsoever to back me up on that.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I think Osama's dead. The guy hasn't dropped a tape in awhile. The only person we've heard from is that cat who's his second-in-command (don't know his name). The Egyptian dude.

There was a long but interesting front page story in the Post a few days back documenting the transition from going after Osama to going after Saddam. How the forces were transfered, so insider opinions. Very interesting. Here's the URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html

[groover]

I question whether Bush ever really wanted to catch Osama. The Bush family is pretty tight with the Bin Laden family, and though Osama's been a naughty boy, he's still their kin.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Pete C

You're all a bunch of naysayers. Who cares about Osama? Don't you know we already captured 75% of Al Qaeda leadership?

How many are considered to be Al Qaeda leaders is a factor that George W. Bush, in his statement about 75% of them being captured. Seventy-five percent of exactly which list?? Bush doesn't know who all the current leaders of the various factions of Al Qaeda are, much less who the current leaders of similar terrorist groups are, since they keep on evolving. Bush's "War on Terror" is what amounts to flailing at the ever-changing evil-doers.
Mr Bush doesn't seem to understand that the true horror of terrorism is that it doesn't stay the same, but keeps changing and moving, like a chameleon.
Cut off one head [not to mix metaphores] and another grows to replace it.
Terrorism is an ideology, not a fightable enemy, in the traditional sense.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by patricia

How many are considered to be Al Qaeda leaders is a factor that George W. Bush, in his statement about 75% of them being captured. Seventy-five percent of exactly which list?? Bush doesn't know who all the current leaders of the various factions of Al Qaeda are, much less who the current leaders of similar terrorist groups are, since they keep on evolving. Bush's "War on Terror" is what amounts to flailing at the ever-changing evil-doers.
Mr Bush doesn't seem to understand that the true horror of terrorism is that it doesn't stay the same, but keeps changing and moving, like a chameleon.
Cut off one head [not to mix metaphores] and another grows to replace it.
Terrorism is an ideology, not a fightable enemy, in the traditional sense.

I hear what you're saying Patricia. I just don't think Bush would recognize the truth if it bit him on the ass. I think he is a greater threat to our safety than Osama is, and he, as well as his peeps are an ever expanding threat due to Bush's actions.

[Gary Sisco]

James -- Wasn't a conspiracy theory on my part, Junior, unless the overwhelmed military hospitals in Germany and the US are lying about it, in the New York Times, The American Legion magazine, and elsewhere.

The main way they've covered up casualty numbers is by changing the ages-long definition of the word "casualty" in military terminology. Until Bush II, the word "casualty" referred to anyone in the war's theater that was killed (in any way) wounded, missing, taken prisoner, or injured or ill to the point of not being available for further service. The Bushites have changed the definition to mean and mean only those killed in outright combat or wounded in outright combat. No one else. (there is a dead Vermonter who was killed in Baghdad in a driveby while he was doing sentry duty and they are still "determining" if he should be considered a casualty or no. Another National Guard guy, VTer, died of a heart attack there. He doesn't count, though he would have counted in all previous wars.)

CIA guys, "contract agents, private security forces, and mercs (yes, there are mercs in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting on the Bushist side, as there are on the various other sides) are not counted as casualties in any way, in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

To put that in perspective, had that definition been used in say, Vietnam, the casualty figures for the war could be reduced by half at least, and the Wall itself would be considerably shorter than it is, and in WW2 by more than that. You think nobody drowned on their way to the beach at Normandy? By Bushite terms, that wouldn't count, since the drowned one hadn't had time to engage yet in outright combat with the enemy. The number of casualties in the American Civil War would also have to be revised very dramatically downward, as a huge percentage of the deaths in that war were due to disease and malnutrition. They wouldn't count either in the Bushite world, even if they'd died from illness on the lines at Gettysburg.

So far, in Iraq, the official number of wounded, according to the Bushite definition, is plus or minus 8,000 but that figure's been floated for a year at least, so who knows. I'm sure there've been more since then, yo, as US forces are in combat in scores of different actions daily.

Casualty figures in unpopular wars are always fudged of course -- lots of guys, for example, were wounded in Vietnam but died in hospitals elsewhere, like Japan or the Philippines, so they are officially counted as wounded but not as dead in the Vietnam numbers -- but the Bushites have raised the practice to absurd levels.

[Gary Sisco]

Osama's not dead. There would be no percentage in keeping his death a secret, when his entire movement is thanatoid to begin with and nothing's considered better than being martyr. He'd be more powerful still as a martyr. And in any case there's no way to keep something like that a secret. Way too many tribespeople would know about it, and they travel quite a lot. Never mind the various spies for the numerous different sides and groups out there in that Wild East.

[patricia]

So, if the Bush administration admits to 8,000 wounded in action, the number of actually wounded people, on the U.S. side, is probably at least twice that by now.
These people who believed that the U.S. was in danger of imminent attack and, in good faith, defended their country are reduced to insignificant statistics, and some not even that. There is no question that the troops are being supported by the American people. They go where they're sent, confident that they are being sent on a legitimate mission. That's what soldiers do, no questions asked.
Mr Bush continues to accuse Mr Kerry of diminishing the patriotism of the troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps he should look in the mirror, if he wants to see the face of someone who is doing that, on a daily basis.
Not only is Mr Bush brushing aside the deaths and injuries of American patriots, fighting his bogus war in Iraq, but the many, many more Iraqis caught up in Mr Bush's ego trip are mentioned even less.
SHAME!!!!

As for the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, he's out there somewhere.
Having a twenty-five million dollar ransom on his head is no inducement to true loyalists to betray his whereabouts.

Ideology and politics are far greater motivators than any amount of money to those who would protect him. He is a hero to many more than we like to think. Not to be misunderstood, but the deaths on Sept 11 are dwarfed now by the number of deaths and injuries inflicted on Afghan and Iraqi citizens, with no end in sight. Now, it may seem, to Middle-Eastern extremists, that the Americans are, indeed, attempting to erase them and their culture. Like Vietnam, a situation may have been created in which dedicated guerillas are willing to fight to the very last person standing.

[shrugs]

Originally Posted by patricia

So, if the Bush administration admits to 8,000 wounded in action, the number of actually wounded people, on the U.S. side, is probably at least twice that by now.

Not to mention those soldiers et al that will be in need of therapy etc due to what they witnessed. Yeah, I know they joined up to defend their country and all. I just wish they were defending their country.

Non sibi sed patriae!
Semper Fidelis
Uno Ab Alto
Semper Paratus
This We'll Defend

[mke]

Originally Posted by shrugs

Not to mention those soldiers et al that will be in need of therapy etc due to what they witnessed.

And medical treatment for all the exposure to depleted uranium and who knows what else

[shrugs]

Originally Posted by mke

And medical treatment for all the exposure to depleted uranium and who knows what else

I doubt they are are wearing monitoring devices for radiation exposure. I wonder if any journalists wore one.....

And a medical discharge from the armed forces ain't exactly cheap for the government.......

[Jason Bivins]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I saw him at Lum's yesterday.

Wait, Lum's is still around?

[james harrigan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

James -- Wasn't a conspiracy theory on my part, Junior, unless the overwhelmed military hospitals in Germany and the US are lying about it, in the New York Times, The American Legion magazine, and elsewhere.

Gary, you're changing the subject. Here's what I was referring to, perhaps too obliquely:

back when US Special Forces first started operating in Afghanistan, you posted an article from some website that claimed casualties were high, US troops based in Uzbekistan were in disarray, etc. The report seemed transparently phony to me, and it was. Later in that thread you offered to bet ($20, I think) that the US government was lying about combat deaths, and that this lying would shortly be exposed. Such a belief seems like a conspiracy theory to me, and it was of course completely false: whatever other lies were being told, the government was announcing US combat deaths very quickly and accurately (which they have continued to do, though you are right that they have been fudging the total casualty count).

(edit: here's the link to the archived thread, http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...?forumid=11429)

also, what's with the contemptuous "Junior"?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

I'm sorry but Osama's deader than that toe-nail I clipped off last night. The guy loves the microphone too much to just drop out of sight. Here's a cat who has an ego large enough to think he can lead a movement that'll bring down western civilization? And he's going to go quietly into the night? No way. I bet my entire Dolphy collection we'll never hear from his ass again.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Tanager

Personally, I think he still has the resources and reputation to reassemble a pretty potent network, but I have absolutely no firm evidence whatsoever to back me up on that.

Who needs evidence...if you were in charge, you could attack some middle east country based on the sentence you just wrote and get away with it.

[shrugs]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Gary,

I'm sorry but Osama's deader than that toe-nail I clipped off last night. The guy loves the microphone too much to just drop out of sight. Here's a cat who has an ego large enough to think he can lead a movement that'll bring down western civilization? And he's going to go quietly into the night? No way. I bet my entire Dolphy collection we'll never hear from his ass again.

Or he was badly injured and is too fucked up on percoset?

[Root Doctor]

Osama, evil genius that he is, is currently selling Amway products in suburban Virginia.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Dan G

Who needs evidence...if you were in charge, you could attack some middle east country based on the sentence you just wrote and get away with it.

Sweet! I just need to find me an army...

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Gary,

I'm sorry but Osama's deader than that toe-nail I clipped off last night. The guy loves the microphone too much to just drop out of sight. Here's a cat who has an ego large enough to think he can lead a movement that'll bring down western civilization? And he's going to go quietly into the night? No way. I bet my entire Dolphy collection we'll never hear from his ass again.

Darryl, you haven't been hanging out with crawjo lately, have you?