Are we still looking for Bin Laden?

my2hands · May 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

but currently we cant go into pakistan where he most likely is.

i still think this is naive to believe this, especailyl considering the military funding we currently provide that could be easily taken away. you do know jlew you can change your stance or opinion when provided with overwhelming evidence contrary to your beliefs. we invade and occupy afhganistan and iraq but we wont go into tribal areas of pakistan :rolleyes:

and my civil liberties are not being stripped away. if I feel they are, I will certainly voice my opinion. got it?

then you better start fucking yelling. because they most ceratinly have been stripped away. what the hell do you think has been going on for the last 6 years? and if you do not agree please let me know and i will overwhelm you with supporting documentation that you will not be able to deny.

jlew24asu · May 2007

my2hands wrote:

i still think this is naive to believe this, especailyl considering the military funding we currently provide that could be easily taken away. you do know jlew you can change your stance or opinion when provided with overwhelming evidence contrary to your beliefs. we invade and occupy afhganistan and iraq but we wont go into tribal areas of pakistan :rolleyes:

why is it so hard to believe that we can not go into pakistan. what overwhelming evidence is there that should make me change my stance? "because we did it in afgantistan and Iraq, we can do it in pakistan" ? because we have a huge military budget? sorry, you'll have to do better then that.

here are my reasons why we can not go in

- we can not prove osama is in pakistan.

- you, me, GWB, almost all americans, international community, pakistan do not want us to go into pakistan

- GWB has said osama isn't all that important. destroying the al qaeda network is.

-currently our military is stretched too thin.

- going into pakistan would be considered an act of war by pakistan. do I need to get into the problems with this? talk about upsetting a hornets nest.

while I struggle with the funding we give them, I do not like the alternative. musaraf says he is our ally. they have arrested many high level terrorists. is he my buddy? no. do I trust him? fuck no. but whats the alternative? some radical sheik with his finger on the trigger of some nukes. no thanks. alienating pakistan will only make a bad situation worse.

regardless Bush has said if we can prove osama is there, he will send in troops http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2470098

do you agree or disagree with that stance?

my2hands wrote:

ithen you better start fucking yelling. because they most ceratinly have been stripped away. what the hell do you think has been going on for the last 6 years? and if you do not agree please let me know and i will overwhelm you with supporting documentation that you will not be able to deny.

i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.

El_Kabong · June 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

why is it so hard to believe that we can not go into pakistan. what overwhelming evidence is there that should make me change my stance? "because we did it in afgantistan and Iraq, we can do it in pakistan" ? because we have a huge military budget? sorry, you'll have to do better then that.

here are my reasons why we can not go in

- we can not prove osama is in pakistan.

- you, me, GWB, almost all americans, international community, pakistan do not want us to go into pakistan

- GWB has said osama isn't all that important. destroying the al qaeda network is.

-currently our military is stretched too thin.

- going into pakistan would be considered an act of war by pakistan. do I need to get into the problems with this? talk about upsetting a hornets nest.

while I struggle with the funding we give them, I do not like the alternative. musaraf says he is our ally. they have arrested many high level terrorists. is he my buddy? no. do I trust him? fuck no. but whats the alternative? some radical sheik with his finger on the trigger of some nukes. no thanks. alienating pakistan will only make a bad situation worse.

regardless Bush has said if we can prove osama is there, he will send in troops http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2470098

do you agree or disagree with that stance?

i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.

- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??

-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???

-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????

-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????

- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????

jlew24asu · June 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??

-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???

-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????

-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????

- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????

ok pakistan is a bad bad country. no one is debating that. whats your suggestion? go to war with them? ok lets go.

would you support president bush if he invaded pakistan? if no, why?

my2hands · June 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

ok pakistan is a bad bad country. no one is debating that. whats your suggestion? go to war with them? ok lets go.

would you support president bush if he invaded pakistan? if no, why?

you keep goin to that war thing. no one is suggesting we invade pakistan. the bottom line is if we wanted osama, and he is in pakistan, then we would extract him, or force pakistan to extract him. it would not require an invasion, IMO. he is one person, reduced to riding horses and hiding in caves if you believe the "official" story. one helicopter and one special forces team could get him in no time flat. or of course the pakistan govt could to the same and hand him over.

capturing osama does not require war. and you know it. just face the facts dude, this administration does not want him captured so they can continue free reign under the title "war on terror"

its fucking obvious

my2hands · June 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

i'm sure you can. but none has affected my life. i'm just as free now as I was 10 years ago. certain laws may be tougher and the government might have more power but none is directed towards taking my freedoms away.

and i could provide the info not because i am some know it all, but i can provide it because it has been front page since 9/12/01.

and just because it hasnt affect YOU does not mean yoiur freedoms have not been stolen from you. bacuase they most certainly have been stolen. i thought a guy like you would value your rights, and OTHERS rights more than that.

NCfan · June 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

- i just thought finding the guy who you say masterminded the death of close to 3,000 ppl would be high on your list...but then, this administration has never been about accountability, has it??

-this from the country (pakistan) that was selling nuke secrets and technology to pretty much anyone???

-this from the country (pakistan) who, according to the wall street journal, the head of the ISI (their CIA) wired mohammed atta a couple thousand bucks a week or so before 9/11????

-this from the country (pakistan) who bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their names out of their report?????

- this from the country (pakistan) who won't even distribute the matchbooks our taxdollars paid for w/ reward information on usama that just sits in their crates in pakistan b/c they don't want to give them out??????

You and others here are pointing out exactly why we attacked Iraq instead of countries "that posed a threat".

Sure, it would be nice to have invaded and reformed Saudi Arabia - the country who holds the most responsibility for 9/11. But they hold too much influence in the world due to their oil supplies - and we could not justify an invasion, especially given the international criticism that would have arose.

Sure, it would be nice to invade and reform Pakistan, but they have nuclear weapons - and it isn't worth the gamble if they would use them or not to stave off an invading army. This is why we can't go in there as it is now.

Sure, it would be nice to invade and overthrow the theocracy in Iran - but too many citizens are already dissafected with their government that soft pressure is a much better method than straight invasion.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two major nations that had illegitimate leaders, whom the general population hated. They were the only two countries that the US had a legitimate case against for invasion and reform.

jlew24asu · June 2007

my2hands wrote:

you keep goin to that war thing. no one is suggesting we invade pakistan. the bottom line is if we wanted osama, and he is in pakistan, then we would extract him, or force pakistan to extract him. it would not require an invasion, IMO. he is one person, reduced to riding horses and hiding in caves if you believe the "official" story. one helicopter and one special forces team could get him in no time flat. or of course the pakistan govt could to the same and hand him over.

you watch too many movies. one helicopter? one team? wow, you really know nothing of the area in question.

my2hands wrote:

capturing osama does not require war. and you know it. just face the facts dude, this administration does not want him captured so they can continue free reign under the title "war on terror"

face what facts? you have only provided your opinion. want to hear a fact? we can not prove osama is there. so you dont believe pakistan would treat it as an act of war? you are ok with risking a country like pakistan being our all out enemy? a country with nukes? and a very tense situation to the east? not me.

secondly, how do we prove osama is there? and you keep avoiding my other question. would you support prsident bush sending in troops to pakistan if we had proof osama is there?

you would be the first one making a thread counting the dead soliders and how stupid bush is for sending troops into such a volatile area. and no support from the international community.

even flow? · June 2007

NCfan wrote:

You and others here are pointing out exactly why we attacked Iraq instead of countries "that posed a threat".

Sure, it would be nice to have invaded and reformed Saudi Arabia - the country who holds the most responsibility for 9/11. But they hold too much influence in the world due to their oil supplies - and we could not justify an invasion, especially given the international criticism that would have arose.

Sure, it would be nice to invade and reform Pakistan, but they have nuclear weapons - and it isn't worth the gamble if they would use them or not to stave off an invading army. This is why we can't go in there as it is now.

Sure, it would be nice to invade and overthrow the theocracy in Iran - but too many citizens are already dissafected with their government that soft pressure is a much better method than straight invasion.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two major nations that had illegitimate leaders, whom the general population hated. They were the only two countries that the US had a legitimate case against for invasion and reform.

International criticism from whom exactly? All the countries who felt your hurt and would have been right behind you if you went into the country who spawned most if not all the culprits from 911. And to boot probably funded most of it? You have got to be kidding me!

See you and some of the other people seem to think that there needs to be a war with Pakistan. No! You just need to go through them to get to those mystical tribal regions that some people seem to think are untouchable. I suppose they might put up a bigger struggle then Saddam's army?

And finally, I think that N. Korea would have been ahead of Iraq and Afgan but they actually have an army and may not have been the cake walk that the American public is keen on seeing. I suppose that the N. Korean people are too hungry to tell the States they want change as I remember hearing coming out of Iraq and Afgan before you went in.

Illegitimate leaders. I like that.

jlew24asu · June 2007

my2hands wrote:

and i could provide the info not because i am some know it all, but i can provide it because it has been front page since 9/12/01.

and just because it hasnt affect YOU does not mean yoiur freedoms have not been stolen from you. bacuase they most certainly have been stolen. i thought a guy like you would value your rights, and OTHERS rights more than that.

I very much so value my rights and the rights of all americans. I do not value the rights of terrorists or their sympathizers, which is what the laws are designed to go after. until then, its much ado about nothing

my2hands · June 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

you watch too many movies. one helicopter? one team? wow, you really know nothing of the area in question.

i wouldnt blame it on movies. i took the liberty of assuming. i dont hink it would be as hard as you are paitning him. one minute he is pushed to the edges of the world hiding in caves riding horses with old school weapons, then the next minute only world war 3 can capture him? which is it?

so you dont believe pakistan would treat it as an act of war? you are ok with risking a country like pakistan being our all out enemy? a country with nukes? and a very tense situation to the east? not me.

ONE MORE TIME. you cut off their fucking money and military aid and he would be on our step by the morning. period. dont blame me becuase i realize they have no intertest in capturing him. he is more valuable to their hegemonic desires alive and free. period. if pakistan is so unfriendly and unccoperative with osama then why are we funneling billions thier way as a friend in the "war on terror"

you just cant believe your leaders would let him run free? i understand, it is a tough pill to swallow once you realize they are all pieces of shit that dont give a fuck about you or your country

secondly, how do we prove osama is there? and you keep avoiding my other question. would you support prsident bush sending in troops to pakistan if we had proof osama is there?

your the one that said he was in pakistan?

jlew24asu · June 2007

my2hands wrote:

i wouldnt blame it on movies. i took the liberty of assuming. i dont hink it would be as hard as you are paitning him. one minute he is pushed to the edges of the world hiding in caves riding horses with old school weapons, then the next minute only world war 3 can capture him? which is it?

why did it take so long to get saddam? osama is hiding in one of the most remote areas of the world. he doesnt walk around with a target on his head. lets try and add some common sense to the disccusion.

my2hands wrote:

ONE MORE TIME. you cut off their fucking money and military aid and he would be on our step by the morning. period.

again, you say this as its fact. what if he's not handed over on a silver platter? or do you not even consider that as an option.. i'm not all that happy with the aid we give them. but they do give us help in some sense. they are not our enemy. musaraf keeps the population in check. got it now?

my2hands wrote:

dont blame me becuase i realize they have no intertest in capturing him. he is more valuable to their hegemonic desires alive and free. period. if pakistan is so unfriendly and unccoperative with osama then why are we funneling billions thier way as a friend in the "war on terror"

you just cant believe your leaders would let him run free? i understand, it is a tough pill to swallow once you realize they are all pieces of shit that dont give a fuck about you or your country

this is such crap. this all 100% your opinion. none is fact. WE CAN NOT PROVE WHERE HE IS. the sooner you understand that, the better.

my2hands wrote:

your the one that said he was in pakistan?

thats my best guess, yes.

even flow? · June 2007

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/220279

Note the red highlight and tell the readers again why you can't go in there?

Pakistan's Musharraf increasingly isolated

MOSHIN RAZA / REUTERS
Lawyers take part in a rally against the suspension of a top judge in Lahore, May 31, 2007. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's move to sack the country's chief justice in March has triggered the worst street violence in years.
Growing criticism of general's rule making his position `untenable, unsustainable,' analysts say

ISLAMABAD–When Pakistani President Perez Musharraf survived back-to-back assassination attempts in 2003, he might have thought the worst lay behind him. But now, after easily quelling any threat to his power during eight years of military rule, the general appears trapped in a labyrinth of his own making.

His attempt 2 1/2 months ago to sideline the country's independent-minded chief justice touched off nationwide protests that have coalesced into a full-blown pro-democracy movement. Islamist militants have established a firm foothold in the tribal borderlands, and vigilante-style followers of a radical cleric here in the capital have been kidnapping police officers and menacing those they consider to be promoting a licentious lifestyle.

Musharraf's supporters are blamed for bloody street fighting last month in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, which killed more than 45 people, many of them workers for opposition political parties. And the general's once-polished speeches and public statements lately have taken on a tone that alternates between shrill accusations and near-tearful pleas for understanding.

Long-time political allies are beginning to distance themselves from the 63-year-old Pakistani leader. And although top generals appear to be standing by him, even government ministers are remaining silent in the face of withering criticism of his rule, or offering only a tepid defence.

"His position has become untenable, unsustainable," said author and analyst Ahmed Rashid.

"I don't see how he can hang on," said prominent journalist Zahid Hussain.

The choices facing Musharraf are stark ones, analysts say. He could hunker down and try to ride out the current crisis, or move to declare martial law. He could seek to strike a deal with opposition figures, who are likely to spurn him. Or he could step aside.

"It's a scenario that could play out over some time, or could play out quite quickly," said Teresita Schaffer, director for South Asia affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "My experience is that in Pakistan, when things are in decline, they don't go down a sloping ramp; it's a series of steep stair steps.''

Amid the turmoil, the United States increasingly is viewed as the main power propping up Musharraf in the face of calls that he renounce his position as army chief, allow the creation of an interim government and call free and fair elections.

Some observers warn that the Bush administration's continuing support for Musharraf at this crucial juncture could threaten long-term U.S. interests in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that is considered an indispensable ally in the fight against Islamic insurgents across the border in Afghanistan.

"There's a huge disappointment over the American position, a real sense that it is a short-sighted one," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director at the Brussels, Belgium-based International Crisis Group.

For the time being, the general appears to retain the backing of his patrons in the Bush administration, with whom he cast his lot after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Are we pulling away from Musharraf? No," said a U.S. diplomat. "Because that would be pulling away from the government of Pakistan. We will not draw away from this relationship.''

The conventional wisdom has held that Musharraf is a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists, and that without him, the country could slide into chaos, creating a vacuum that extremist groups would rush to fill.

But opposition parties insist that free and fair elections could empower a moderate, Western-leaning regime. Islamist parties won only about 12 per cent of the vote in the last parliamentary elections, in 2002, and many people believe they would draw less support now.

"There's this perception that if Musharraf goes, in come the Taliban," said Sherry Rehman, a Pakistan People's Party MP. "That's really not the case.'' The opposition insists the groundswell of support for Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom Musharraf is trying to oust, has become a larger renunciation of military rule.

jlew24asu · June 2007

even flow? wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/220279

Note the red highlight and tell the readers again why you can't go in there?

ok, i'm on board. you convinced me.

would you support president bush if he sent troops into pakistan?

even flow? · June 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

ok, i'm on board. you convinced me.

would you support president bush if he sent troops into pakistan?

Through Pakistan and into the region that almost everybody believes that Bin is in? Sure, I'd play along with that foray. Sure the people who believe the tribal region to be some kind of zen land who live in Pakistan may have a problem with it. But name me a country that when a foreign army goes into or through that 100% of the population likes what is happening. The boy in Pakistan is supposed to be an ally. Then he should be playing along. Not the US's fault that he can't keep the country running smooth. Neither could Saddam and he was another one of your puppets. Look at Iraq and look at Pakistan. Almost the same thing. The people with money like who the leader is. The rest would off him in a second.

As for what I believe about that day when the Bin man became public enemy number one. I would like to see the States go in there and get him. Hell you are already in Afgan with some other countries including Canada. Why don't they have a big push north. Then there would be no need for Pakistan, except to have to go in there after you have chased the Bin man out of his cave.

So you may end up in Pakistan but for a very good reason.

Aren't any of the "stans" above Afgan on your buddy list? Not a bad starting ground from there either.

jlew24asu · June 2007

MrBrian wrote:

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.

this has to be the best post in this thread.

it was reported??? really? story like that gots to be true.

catefrances · June 2007

icarus wrote:

Talking about invading Pakistan is laughable and a complete waste of time.

especially considering pakistan are nuclear armed.

i guess bin laden is hiding in those same caves that the US helped modify for the mujahideen when they were our friends and the enemy was the soviet state. looking for people who know the terrain like the backs of their hands by those who also know the terrain but dont apply the forces needed or who failed to provide the man power to do the job in the first place puts bin laden at a considerable advantage. pakistan is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid behind egypt and israel. if they wanted to seriously find bin laden they could do it. one would think the billions of tax payers' dollars the US government has provided islamabad with over the past few years would grease the wheels enough. if musharraf wants to keep his leadership, and his life for that matter, one would imagine a little pressure need only be applied for some action to transpire.

Gary Carter · June 2007

whos bin laden, ive never heard of this guy. is he that guy we helped in the 80s against russia and was buddy buddy with us and then we turned on him so he bombed us a couple of times, is that him

jlew24asu · June 2007

metsfan531941 wrote:

whos bin laden, ive never heard of this guy. is he that guy we helped in the 80s against russia and was buddy buddy with us and then we turned on him so he bombed us a couple of times, is that him

yea thats him

jlew24asu · June 2007

catefrances wrote:

especially considering pakistan are nuclear armed.

i guess bin laden is hiding in those same caves that the US helped modify for the mujahideen when they were our friends and the enemy was the soviet state. looking for people who know the terrain like the backs of their hands by those who also know the terrain but dont apply the forces needed or who failed to provide the man power to do the job in the first place puts bin laden at a considerable advantage. pakistan is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid behind egypt and israel. if they wanted to seriously find bin laden they could do it. one would think the billions of tax payers' dollars the US government has provided islamabad with over the past few years would grease the wheels enough. if musharraf wants to keep his leadership, and his life for that matter, one would imagine a little pressure need only be applied for some action to transpire.

not taht I dont believe you cate, but do you have a link proving that?. I searched and couldnt find the list.

Are we still looking for Bin Laden?

Comments

Categories