why can't US capture/kill OBL

my2hands

soulsinging wrote:

yeah man, damn the man!

if our intel is not supposed to come from the pentagon, where should our defense intelligence info come from? aren't they the very definition of experts? all they do is watch things like that... so who is better qualified to tell us where bin laden might be? who would you maybe trust if they said bin laden is in X?

i guess you didnt learn anything about our "defense intelligence" from our Iraq debacle.

surely your memory is better than that friend



ps... again my point is, it does not matter where he is, if uncle sam doesnt want him captured.

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

i havent seen any logical explanations from my government about the "war on terror" yet

thats great. but that explaination of his whereabouts comes from many more sources then the american government.

my2hands wrote:

whether he is there or not is irrelevant. if the US military wanted to extract him, they would. period, end of story.

you seem very sure of yourself yet you are 100% wrong. US military can not go into pakistan.

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

ps... again my point is, it does not matter where he is, if uncle sam doesnt want him captured.

you have only been spoon fed bullshit into believing that.

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

thats great. but that explaination of his whereabouts comes from many more sources then the american government.



you seem very sure of yourself yet you are 100% wrong. US military can not go into pakistan.

obviously we differ on this matter. i think history has shown uncle sam goes where he wants, when he wants, for whatever reason he wants. trust me, a team could extract this guy without anyone even fucking realizing it.

the funny thing is the 2 way street your like minded people present... "the american military is the greatest of all time, the only true superpower"...while at the same time "we cant extract one 6'5 arab from a foreign country, because they wont let us"... considering his area of hiding happens to be right on the afghan border i dont think it is all that "impossible" almost laughable if it wasnt so sad.

and considering this administartions ithcy trigger finger and unilateral approach to "national security" i think we could force pakistans cooperation if we really wanted to.

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

you have only been spoon fed bullshit into believing that.

by who? certainly not the media? when have they ever said what i am saying? please, they would be in for a shitstorm of criticism.

there is a very small minority who even considers this in the national media, or even the independant media

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

obviously we differ on this matter. i think history has shown uncle sam goes where he wants, when he wants, for whatever reason he wants. trust me, a team could extract this guy without anyone even fucking realizing it.

while I appreciate your enthusiasm about the ability of the US military, your believing this shows exactly how little you know of the area.

my2hands wrote:

the funny thing is the 2 way street your like minded people present... "the american military is the greatest of all time, the only true superpower"...while at the same time "we cant extract one 6'5 arab from a foreign country, because they wont let us"... considering his area of hiding happens to be right on the afghan border i dont think it is all that "impossible" almost laughable if it wasnt so sad.

I know its laughable right.

my2hands wrote:

and considering this administartions ithcy trigger finger and unilateral approach to "national security" i think we could force pakistans cooperation if we really wanted to.

again this is just your opinion. opinions are like assholes, we all have one.

if we always use the approach you suggest then why didnt we invade North Korea. I mean, those fuckers actually tested a nuke.

inmytree

suns rival wrote:

with it's state of the art defense & intelligence capabilities, why can't the world's most powerful nation capture/kill a mere mortal like Osama? just curious.

good question...I wonder about that, too...

I did not read through the entire thread, yet, but I'm sure there a few excuses de jour...

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

good question...I wonder about that, too...

I did not read through the entire thread, yet, but I'm sure there a few excuses de jour...

excuses?? is that the same as legitimate reasons?

PJPOWER

My guess is that we haven't found him because of the time it takes to identify the remains of someone in a hut after a 1000 lb bomb was dropped on it..........

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

excuses?? is that the same as legitimate reasons?

you tell me...

all I know is "wanted dead or alive" was uttered by our great leader...and, well you know the story..

perhaps there are "legitimate reasons" that bin laden has not been found...perhaps there aren't...but at the end of the day....the boggieman is still out there....

and please don't give me the "we can't go after him because Pakistan won't let us"....puuuleazzz....when did this administration give a fuck what another country says, does, or wants....(other that Israel)....?

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

you tell me...

all I know is "wanted dead or alive" was uttered by our great leader...and, well you know the story..

perhaps there are "legitimate reasons" that bin laden has not been found...perhaps there aren't...but at the end of the day....the boggieman is still out there....

and please don't give me the "we can't go after him because Pakistan won't let us"....puuuleazzz....when did this administration give a fuck what another country says, does, or wants....(other that Israel)....?

call it a bullshit reason all you want but even the big bad USA isnt going to invade a country with 170 million people with nuclear weapons just to get one guy.

Commy

icarus wrote:

umm, actually its been a well known fact for years that islamic militants were operating in warizistan. the pakistani government (musharraf) has very little control over the tribal leaders in these areas. musharraf is terrified that tribal leaders will turn on him and the government could easily collapse, so they're allowed a huge amount of autonomy.

Musharrraf is very unpopular in Pakistan. He rules with US support, not the majority of Pakistanis. Its not that he allows the autonomy in certain areas of Pakistan, its that he can't control his country with such little support from the people.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Musharrraf is very unpopular in Pakistan. He rules with US support, not the majority of Pakistanis. Its not that he allows the autonomy in certain areas of Pakistan, its that he can't control his country with such little support from the people.

bottom line is that the area is not controlled and the US is not allowed there. doesnt matter how you say it.

it is also one of the most rugged remote regions on earth.

everyone knows how much I support the strength of the american military. but even if we dropped in 1000 of our best men, they would get bogged down in a heartbeat. the only way to take on something like that is a full out invasion.

and i'm so sick of hearing the same bullshit, " hasnt stop the US before" give it a rest.

Ahnimus

Why won't? Is the appropriate question.

Bush allowed OBL to escape to Pakistan and will not pursue him there.

It's obvious 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Bush will not go to war with the real culprits.

Why won't Bush capture OBL? It's not worth it. Pakistan does not own 1/4 of the world's OIL and the Saudis are just damn good friends.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

Bush allowed OBL to escape to Pakistan and will not pursue him there.

Bush did not allow him to escape into pakistan. for a smart guy you sure do make some silly statements. he LET him?? thats just ridiculous.

they are reasons which have been discussed throughout this thread why we can not pursue him into pakistan. one obvious one is WE CANT.

Ahnimus wrote:

It's obvious 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Bush will not go to war with the real culprits.

so the fact that el queda, you know the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were operating and living in Afghanistan means nothing?

what would invading saudi arabia in october 2001 have done to stop el queda? im kinda shocked at how much you really dont get it.

you seem to think its important where these people were born. why?

Ahnimus wrote:

Why won't Bush capture OBL?

because the US CAN NOT go into pakistan. why cant you people get this through your heads?

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not worth it. Pakistan does not own 1/4 of the world's OIL and the Saudis are just damn good friends.

your finally right about something. it's not worth it. why would the US want to topple a government that is shaky at best but still being able to hold in check the 170 million people in it, alot of which do have hatred for the US.

it has nothing to do with oil.

thanks for stopping by dude. you gave the most uninformed post in this thread.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

bottom line is that the area is not controlled and the US is not allowed there. doesnt matter how you say it.

it is also one of the most rugged remote regions on earth.

everyone knows how much I support the strength of the american military. but even if we dropped in 1000 of our best men, they would get bogged down in a heartbeat. the only way to take on something like that is a full out invasion.

and i'm so sick of hearing the same bullshit, " hasnt stop the US before" give it a rest.

you know, i was watching a show the other day-could be wrong-but apparently special forces had Bin Laden pegged, his exact location, everything, on 6 or 7 different occasions. And orders from Washington came not to strike every time. who knows why...maybe he is worth more to the US alive. Maybe its hard to maintain a war on terror when all the bad guys are dead.

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

Bush did not allow him to escape into pakistan. for a smart guy you sure do make some silly statements. he LET him?? thats just ridiculous.

Yup, there was plenty of opportunity as OBL headed east into Pakistan.

they are reasons which have been discussed throughout this thread why we can not pursue him into pakistan. one obvious one is WE CANT.

Interesting logic, we can't because we can't. You should have finished with "because I said so."

so the fact that el queda, you know the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were operating and living in Afghanistan means nothing?

It doesn't mean nothing, but they wouldn't have been capable without funding. We know the funding came from Pakistan.

what would invading saudi arabia in october 2001 have done to stop el queda? im kinda shocked at how much you really dont get it.

About as much as invading Iraq did.

you seem to think its important where these people were born. why?

No I don't think it's important. What is important is where the terrorists are coming from [Saudi Arabia] and where their funding is coming from [Pakistan]. Where they are operating [Afghanistan] isn't as important. Consider that some of these terrorists were operating within the United States, are you going to blow yourself up? No.

because the US CAN NOT go into pakistan. why cant you people get this through your heads?

"because I said so." isn't a good argument.

your finally right about something. it's not worth it. why would the US want to topple a government that is shaky at best but still being able to hold in check the 170 million people in it, alot of which do have hatred for the US.

Oh, are you talking about Iraq?

it has nothing to do with oil.

It most certainly does.

thanks for stopping by dude. you gave the most uninformed post in this thread.

In other words, I gave the post with the most opposition to your personal beliefs pertaining to the "War of Terror".

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

Yup, there was plenty of opportunity as OBL headed east into Pakistan.

yea and we failed to get him. one major reason was because he gave his satellite phone to someone else and sent it one way while he went the other. he was planning his esacpe into pakistan for years.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0210-05.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer

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

Ahnimus wrote:

Interesting logic, we can't because we can't. You should have finished with "because I said so."

we cant because pakistan says we cant. bottom line. I dont know how else you want me to spell it out for you.

Ahnimus wrote:

It doesn't mean nothing, but they wouldn't have been capable without funding. We know the funding came from Pakistan.

ok now you want to bomb where the money came from instead of actaully going after the organization itself. wow dude.

Ahnimus wrote:

About as much as invading Iraq did.

so why do it? you are the one who said we should have gone after them instead of Afghanistan. I have never believed Iraq was invaded because of 9/11.

Ahnimus wrote:

No I don't think it's important. What is important is where the terrorists are coming from [Saudi Arabia] and where their funding is coming from [Pakistan]. Where they are operating [Afghanistan] isn't as important.

so you would rather invade saudi and pakistan while letting el queda and the taliban flurish in the training camps of afganistan? interesting.

Ahnimus wrote:

Consider that some of these terrorists were operating within the United States, are you going to blow yourself up? No.

lol this is too good. so now you are comparing el quedas ability to operate in afganistan as being similar to the US? dude I pray you continue to respond this is too easy.

Ahnimus wrote:

"because I said so." isn't a good argument.

sorry I didnt think I had to spell it out for you. because pakistan says so got it now?

Ahnimus wrote:

Oh, are you talking about Iraq?

no i'm talking about pakistan. try to focus.

Ahnimus wrote:

It most certainly does.

you should have ended with "cuz I said so"

Ahnimus wrote:

In other words, I gave the post with the most opposition to your personal beliefs pertaining to the "War of Terror".

no, no need to use other words. its the most uniformed post (and reply) of this thread.

Ahnimus

jlew24asu wrote:

yea and we failed to get him. one major reason was because he gave his satellite phone to someone else and sent it one way while he went the other. he was planning his esacpe into pakistan for years.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0210-05.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer

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

Smart guy.

we cant because pakistan says we cant. bottom line. I dont know how else you want me to spell it out for you.

hmm, who gave permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Did Saddam say "Hell yeah, come here and kick my ass please!!"?

ok now you want to bomb where the money came from instead of actaully going after the organization itself. wow dude.

The money came from pakistani intelligence.

so why do it? you are the one who said we should have gone after them instead of Afghanistan. I have never believed Iraq was invaded because of 9/11.

Personally I don't think you should have fucking gone anywhere, but you did, now you are justifying it by trying to play-down the involvement of Pakistan with "Because I said so"s and "they won't let us" crap. That never stopped the US from invading Iraq. Iraq was all about OIL, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that.

so you would rather invade saudi and pakistan while letting el queda and the taliban flurish in the training camps of afganistan? interesting.

Yes, go to the source, cut off their logistics. That's how wars are fought. Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda is still alive and well?

lol this is too good. so now you are comparing el quedas ability to operate in afganistan as being similar to the US? dude I pray you continue to respond this is too easy.

Yes, how is it any different?

sorry I didnt think I had to spell it out for you. because pakistan says so got it now?

Oh, does the queen live in Pakistan? I don't get why that matters. Again, Saddam didn't say you could invade Iraq, did he?

no, no need to use other words. its the most uniformed post (and reply) of this thread.

Absolutely.

wolfamongwolves

It's truly depressing that such mind-numbingly naive and barely-formed understandings of what's actually going on in the Middle East are still being bandied around on this thread as if they were objective facts.