Are we still looking for Bin Laden?

i see these guys can be a little tough on you once in a while, i am glad you can handle it


for the record, i dont think your crazy or anything like that. i dont think you want war or any of that nonsense. from what i can tell your probably a nice guy that means well. i respect the fact that we see things different and i would gladly buy you a beer.

but you have to admit that some of these arguments are a tad stretching. you really dont think that the good ol USA would not walk into any country on the fucking planet and take out Osama if it wanted to? it wouldnt matter what country it was, china, russia, or pakistan. and do you really believe that if this country wanted to really turn the dogs loose it wouldnt find him ASAP? they can get a satelite image of my bong from alaska right now in about 15 seconds. i am sure you can see the MANY benefits of keeping mr osama alive and well. if we had him in a cell average joe thumb up his ass would say the "war on terror" is over so lets get the fuck out of the middle east and stop oppressing my fucking rights back here in the states. with the boogey man still alive and making rap video's once a week they can continue to do whatever the fuck they want under the guise of "terror, security, and the homeland".

other reason they may not want to catch him... they do not want to make this guy the king of all martyrs. if we killed or jailed this guy he would immediately explode with popularity in those communities even more than now. i personally dont buy it, but it can be argued.


9/11 conspiracy's i will save for another day

my2hands wrote:

i see these guys can be a little tough on you once in a while, i am glad you can handle it


for the record, i dont think your crazy or anything like that. i dont think you want war or any of that nonsense. from what i can tell your probably a nice guy that means well. i respect the fact that we see things different and i would gladly buy you a beer.

thanks hands. if you make it too chicago, let me know. beers on me.

my2hands wrote:

but you have to admit that some of these arguments are a tad stretching. you really dont think that the good ol USA would not walk into any country on the fucking planet and take out Osama if it wanted to? it wouldnt matter what country it was, china, russia, or pakistan. and do you really believe that if this country wanted to really turn the dogs loose it wouldnt find him ASAP?

sadly, no I dont think we could. while I do believe USA is the most powerful country in the world, we have our limits. marching into pakistan and looking for bin laden is one of them, especially today with our military stretched so thin.

my2hands wrote:

they can get a satelite image of my bong from alaska right now in about 15 seconds. i am sure you can see the MANY benefits of keeping mr osama alive and well. if we had him in a cell average joe thumb up his ass would say the "war on terror" is over so lets get the fuck out of the middle east and stop oppressing my fucking rights back here in the states. with the boogey man still alive and making rap video's once a week they can continue to do whatever the fuck they want under the guise of "terror, security, and the homeland".

I just dont buy it. osama is smart. he knows how to blend in and hide. not to mention he is in one of the most remote areas of the world. outsiders just arent there. but your reasons are logically I just dont see it that way.

my2hands wrote:

other reason they may not want to catch him... they do not want to make this guy the king of all martyrs. if we killed or jailed this guy he would immediately explode with popularity in those communities even more than now.

this is also possible. but I dont see the US keeping its finger off the trigger if they see bin laden in the crosshairs.

my2hands wrote:

9/11 conspiracy's i will save for another day

haha good, i was just starting to like you

jlew24asu wrote:

thanks hands. if you make it too chicago, let me know. beers on me.

sadly, no I dont think we could. while I do believe USA is the most powerful country in the world, we have our limits. marching into pakistan and looking for bin laden is one of them, especially today with our military stretched so thin.

I just dont buy it. osama is smart. he knows how to blend in and hide. not to mention he is in one of the most remote areas of the world. outsiders just arent there. but your reasons are logically I just dont see it that way.

this is also possible. but I dont see the US keeping its finger off the trigger if they see bin laden in the crosshairs.


haha good, i was just starting to like you

so you think pakistan wouldnt extract osama by any means neccesary if we threatened to completely cut them off. i think they would hand him right over considering we support musharaff and his oppresive regime by funneling massive amounts of military aid to them?

i think he would be on the ground here in usa custody by breakfast tommorow.


On November 6, 2001, US President Bush declared his polity: "You are either with us or against us". President Musharraf later claimed that U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" after the Sept. 11 attacks if Pakistan refused to help America with its war on terrorism.[1]

Musharraf writes in his "In the Line of Fire" [2]:

The next morning I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor's House when my military secretary told me that the U.S. secretary of state, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said that I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting and take the call. Powell was quite candid: "You are either with us or against us." I took this as a blatant ultimatum. ... our director general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the U.S. deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage. ... told the director general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age. This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard.
I also analysed our national interest. First, India had already tried to step in by offering its bases to the United States. If we did not join the United States, it would accept India's offer. What would happen then? ...
Second, the security of our strategic assets would be jeopardized. ... And India, needless to say, would have loved to assist the United States to the hilt.
Third, our economic infrastructure, built over half a century, would have been decimated.
The ultimate question that confronted me was whether it was in our national interest to destroy ourselves for the Taliban. Were they worth committing suicide over? The answer was a resounding no.
Eric Margolis who had interviewd Musharraf, writes [3]:

Leaked cabinet documents from 10 Downing Street show three months before invading Iraq in 2003, President Bush told British PM Tony Blair that once he finished off Iraq, he planned to `go after’ Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was in America’s cross hairs.
Every time Pakistan got into trouble with Washington, it would suddenly discover `one of al-Qaida’s top commanders’ and deliver him to the Americans. So far, almost 700 have been sent, in each case for rewards of millions of dollars, as Musharraf unwisely boasted.
Musharraf acknowledges the payments in his book:

"We've captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We've earned bounties totaling millions of dollars"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Pakistan_relations

jlew24asu wrote:

I really dont know. but I love the threat you propose. there has to be alot pakistan isnt telling us. I dont trust them really at all.

threat. it is what they would do. the usa has a long history of financially buying, or strangling, nations to influence policy... so i dont think they would do it to pakistan, especially by now...if they wanted bin laden

but musaraf has to protect himself first. I believe that country is and would be much more out of control if we didnt have musaraf there.

so you admit "we have" musharaf... and you like the idea of an iron fisted leader keeping the population "in control"?

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think you have just validated my point... Musharaf will NOT live forever. But, the military weapons we give him... and the U.S. Taxpayer dollars he uses to expand his nuclear capability will be. We need to STOP giving Pakistan weapons and money to expand weapons and weapons delivery systems programs.

yea I agree. but then we also face burning any bridges we have with potential new leaders of that country. its a fine line between friend or enemy with them.

would be interesting to read a thesis or something from someone who has expert knowledge on pakistan, its people, and its regions.