Are we still looking for Bin Laden?

jlew24asu

MrBrian wrote:

And how do we know this? because the CIA met with him in an American owned hospital.

what the hell are you talking about

citizen_drew

jlew24asu wrote:

Iraq and 9/11 are not connected. they only became connected well after the invasion (and saddam) and bin laden instructed al zarkawi to start up al qaeda in iraq

and your response has absolutely nothing to do with my response to limbo.

So al qaeda setting up shop in Iraq, connected Iraq to 9/11 ???
Then to me that would also mean bin Laden and his al qaeda cronies setting up shop in Pakistan would mean connecting 9/11 to Pakistan as well...either that or we really aren´t interested in finding him...

jlew24asu

citizen_drew wrote:

So al qaeda setting up shop in Iraq, connected Iraq to 9/11 ???

al qaeda attacked on 9/11

al qaeda (yup the same group) set up shop in Iraq after the invasion.

where did you get confused?

citizen_drew wrote:

Then to me that would also mean bin Laden and his al qaeda cronies setting up shop in Pakistan would mean connecting 9/11 to Pakistan as well

I agree 100%. what should we do, invade pakistan? i'll be eagerly awaiting your response.

MrBrian

jlew24asu wrote:

what the hell are you talking about

It was reported that CIA agents met with Usama Bin Laden in a US owned Hospital in Dubai. Also you must wonder how it's known that He was on dialysis.

citizen_drew

jlew24asu wrote:

al qaeda attacked on 9/11

al qaeda (yup the same group) set up shop in Iraq after the invasion.

where did you get confused?

Only that we followed them init Iraq and not Pakistan, not confused, it just demonstrates to me he wasn´t the primary objective..

I agree 100%. what should we do, invade pakistan? i'll be eagerly awaiting your response.

That would be a bad idea in my opinion..

jlew24asu

citizen_drew wrote:

That would be a bad idea in my opinion..

well the united states government agrees with you. and so do I.

so for now, we go about catching him any way possible short of invading pakistan.

decides2dream

*looks under sofa cushions*


nope...not there.

sonicreducer

so pakistan is harboring a known terrorist within it's borders, right? i mean seriously,... pakistan says we can't go in there,... wtf?

jlew24asu

sonicreducer wrote:

so pakistan is harboring a known terrorist within it's borders, right?

we cant prove that and they say they dont know where he is.

sonicreducer wrote:

i mean seriously,... pakistan says we can't go in there,... wtf?

yea seriously. thats what they say. i'll ask again, should we invade? you, me and everybody else will say no.

so what does that mean? we dont want to catch him I guess.

moeaholic

Milestone wrote:

He will actually be captured in the last month of Bush's presidency, helping to save the president's legacy.

basically the same thing that was said going into the '04 elections, he'd be captured to win bush the presidency. if i'm not mistaken, it was also said before an off year election, to keep the republicans in control...he'd be captured right before the elections and everyone would vote republican. now it's being pushed back to right before bush leaves? come on, make up your mind. when will he be caught?

Rushlimbo

jlew24asu wrote:

cuz the pakistan government says so.

yes

no. the government in afgahistan supported al qaeda and bin laden. pakistan does not. see the difference?

because we are not allowed there. this would entail going for an all out war with pakistan. is that what you want?

i already did but I will again. you'll have to pardon my friend everyone, he's a little slow.

the taliban government of afgahistan supported al qaeda and osama bin laden. on september 11th 2001, the USA was attacked by al qaeda. the united states gave the taliban about a month to turn over bin laden or risk retaliation for the attacks on 9/11. we overthrew the taliban and forced them into the mountains along the border with pakistan. this are is know as Waziristan. you can learn alot about this area here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas

pakistan has said bin laden is not there and they do not know where he is. that may or may not be true.

logically speaking, this is the only area of the world where bin laden can have safe haven. and his only escape route after he was chased from his headquarters in tora bora afganistan. this area has been self governed and lawless for hundreds of years.

hehehe. you just dont get it. If we really wanted him Pakistan saying "NO" would not matter. If you really think Pakistan would declare war on the U.S. if we conducted special ops in this area of Pakistan then you are hopeless. But you just keep on believing that is the reason we dont have Mr Laden.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

we cant prove that and they say they dont know where he is. yea seriously. thats what they say. i'll ask again, should we invade? you, me and everybody else will say no.

so what does that mean? we dont want to catch him I guess.

It didn't stop you invading afganistan though did it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Rushlimbo wrote:

Where we cant go? When has that stopped us? LOL.

rofl....bahhahaa...

I can't believe I read that either...

even flow?

jlew24asu wrote:

what the hell are you talking about

For somebody as condescending as you can be, you really need to bone up on the facts. Observation/reading time can be so much fun.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

It didn't stop you invading afganistan though did it.

pakistan is a country of 180,000,000 and the government has given us support. albeit not enough IMO.

jlew24asu

Rushlimbo wrote:

hehehe. you just dont get it.

I get it perfectly fine.

Rushlimbo wrote:

If we really wanted him Pakistan saying "NO" would not matter.

yes it does. we cant prove bin laden is there. should we invade on a hunch?

Rushlimbo wrote:

If you really think Pakistan would declare war on the U.S. if we conducted special ops in this area of Pakistan then you are hopeless.

you think a few special forces going into the tribal area has a chance? you my friend are hopeless.

Rushlimbo wrote:

But you just keep on believing that is the reason we dont have Mr Laden.

you make no sense at all. tell me limp limbo. why dont we have bin laden?

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

pakistan is a country of 180,000,000 and the government has given us support. albeit not enough IMO.

So you only start fights on small counties with no armies cos your scared you'll get beat?

Specifics

jlew24asu wrote:

we cant prove that and they say they dont know where he is. yea seriously. thats what they say. i'll ask again, should we invade? you, me and everybody else will say no.

so what does that mean? we dont want to catch him I guess.

The difference is that the "you" and the "everybody else" would also say no to fighting bullshit wars in smaller countries too.

whereas "me" has a tiny little hard-on for watching big american soldiers fight against small opposition, but gets a little scared when the enemy might be nearly half the size of america, which might actually mean the outcome has an effect on "me"s' life.

"me"s' good ole apple pie morals take a back seat then huh?

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

So you only start fights on small counties with no armies cos your scared you'll get beat?

Iraq was a small country with a small army? I didnt think so. regardless, what kind of bullshit is this? should we invade because we think bin laden is there? does anybody here know anything about pakistan ?

jlew24asu

Specifics wrote:

The difference is that the "you" and the "everybody else" would also say no to fighting bullshit wars in smaller countries too.

refering to Iraq? yea, bullshit war. anything else?

Specifics wrote:

whereas "me" has a tiny little hard-on for watching big american soldiers fight against small opposition, but gets a little scared when the enemy might be nearly half the size of america, which might actually mean the outcome has an effect on "me"s' life.

you said it buddy. finally we agree on something.