# Osama is alive.



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2004)

I honestly thought he was dead...and now this new video.  Damn.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of the members here as to whether this will help or hurt Bush in his campaign.  I could see going either way...much of it may depend on how Kerry and Bush play the news.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

What video?  Who released it? Al Jazeera?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

Either way, how it will effect the election will depend on how Kerry responds.  Obviously, Osama's picture is always good for Bush, but I think that if Kerry responds strongly to this new evidence, it could actually help him.  He would need to invoke the "See!  GWB has been ineffective in the war on terror, has misallocated resources and wrongly prioritized" technique.


----------



## sifu Adams (Oct 29, 2004)

I thought Osama was canpaining for Kerry?  just kidding.  it seems that people dont have as much faith in Kerry when it comes the the safety of the US.  They have strong faith other areas of the campain but not safety. I think this might make the undecided vote for Bush if only to feel more safe at home.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2004)

Or people might not like the fact that in three years Bush hasn't gotten close to getting the guy...and is on record saying he doesn't really even think about him anymore.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Chronuss (Oct 29, 2004)

...I seriously don't understand how we couldn't find this guy...an Arab over six foot with a towel around his head and a beard to his knees dragging around a dialysis machine...we should've at least been able to see the ruts in the sand...we should've dropped in a cargo of New York City sewer rats...that would've driven his **** outta those caves...


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

I, too, find it curious we couldn't find him.  Perhaps he's a CIA operative ... ?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

> with a towel around his head


 That would correctly be referred to as a Turban.


----------



## Kane (Oct 29, 2004)

What do you mean not find him? It is tough work to find someone like Osama. This isn't your ordinary criminal master mind (like Ted Bundy) or oppressive dictator (like Saddam Hussein) this is the leader of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world. I don't think we would of found him even if Gore was president. We would actually more be better off right now I think than if Goe was president. Bush has done a great job reducing Al Queada numbers. Many people say that Bush was not alert enough during 9/11. Well he made up for it in the way he stomps the mudholes out of terrorists.

However yes, I did see actually two videos. One was of Osama Binladden and the other was of a man who speaks pretty good English that stated that "Blood will run all over he streets of America" which is scary. Binladden said that he will plan to do another terrorist attack during the election. Do you think he is for real or do you think he is bluffing?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> That would correctly be referred to as a Turban.


 Sure Dan...next thing you'll tell us is that those dresses the Scots wear are called "Kilts". 

Seriously, I think this is bad for GWB.  He's on record as Steve said of claiming not to even care anymore about OBL.  Silent all this time, now, "Boom".

I think we just got our October Surprise.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

Well put.


----------



## sifu Adams (Oct 29, 2004)

I think if Osama could vote he would vote for Kerry.  I believe he has been quite for a reason.  That reason is the more he showed up the better chance we had at finding him.   As for the comment that bush said he not concernd with him.  that I believe is taken out of context.  I took it as he knew he had the best (USA troops) working on it and he had to start working on america.  Something I think he has not had a chance to do after 9/11.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

The Pashtun region of Pakistan & Afghanistan is pretty difficult terrain. It is dominated by clans that go back hundres, if not thousands of years. President Musharaff holds very little authority in that part of his country. 

If the United States put its efforts into finding Osama Bin Laden, we would have been able to find him. Either in the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan, or perhaps in Jakarta, Indonesia (I personally think he can move quite easily between these two locations). However, the United States took its best operatives out of Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. And now, Fallujah is a bit higher on the radar screen. 

One report said that Mr. Bin Laden looks healthy and strong in the video, his voice was clear and true. This brings to question (which has already been questioned by some) the diabetes idea, and whether he has the disease or not.

I see the appearance of bin Laden as neutral in the American election. Although, I follow the news a bit more closely than most. It could be that some recall the President saying we would get bin Laden 'Dead or Alive'. If so, that can not be good for Bush. 

I think what was said on the tape is far more important. 'President Bush can't protect the American people. Kerry can't protect the American people. Only a change in our foreign policy can protect us from bin Laden.'  Also, Osama bin Laden's apparent surprise that the President sat reading a book while the attacks began; that the United States Military did not respond faster. It seems Mr. bin Laden has been able to keep abreast of all the happenings in our country over the last three years.  

Does that mean CNN and FOX NEWS are assisting a terrorist organization?


----------



## sifu Adams (Oct 29, 2004)

Don't you think by saying  a change in the overseas policy's is not a way of tring to support kerry and get bush out?  that has been a big campain idea for Kerry and I not for sure Osama would feel better if bush lost his power.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

Personally, and not to offend anyone - I really don't think it matters much to OBL who is in office in America.  I think his issue is with our way of life.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

> As for the comment that bush said he not concernd with him. that I believe is taken out of context.


 Would you please explain the appropriate context of this excerpt?


> I truly am not that concerned about him, said President George W Bush on 13 March 2002, after being asked the million-dollar question where is bin Laden? once too often 5. Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if hes alive at all, said Bush, brushing bin Laden off as a person who has now been marginalized 6.


Originally published in The New American Century, April 8th 2002.


----------



## GAB (Oct 29, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Sure Dan...next thing you'll tell us is that those dresses the Scots wear are called "Kilts".
> 
> Seriously, I think this is bad for GWB. He's on record as Steve said of claiming not to even care anymore about OBL. Silent all this time, now, "Boom".
> 
> I think we just got our October Surprise.


Yes I think you are right.. I believe someone mentioned that...

So much talk about the election already being rigged. I think that will be 
bad for the country, we will implode.

Regards, Gary


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

sifu Adams said:
			
		

> Don't you think by saying a change in the overseas policy's is not a way of tring to support kerry and get bush out? that has been a big campain idea for Kerry and I not for sure Osama would feel better if bush lost his power.


I think this statement is completely and utterly foolish.

United States Foreign Policy does not change when the President changes. The country has entered into binding agreements which go a long way in defining how the United States will behave in the world. The United States obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will not change under a President Kerry, or even a President Nader. Our commitments to the United Nations will not change. In fact there are probably several thousand treaties and aggreements that the United States State Department currently enforces.

While the President may set the 'tone' toward foreign policy; such as withdrawing from the 10 years of international work on global climate change culminating in the *Kyoto Accords*, or withdrawing from the 1972 *Antiballistic Missle Treaty*, or walking out on the 1972 *Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention* because of 'on-site inspections', or opposing (alone in the world) the *UN Aggreement to curb the international flow of illicit small arms*, most agreements are crafted by career civil servants over the course of several administrations. The actual policies reach across many administration.

Submitted for your review.

Current Treaties in the United States
http://www.state.gov/s/l/24224.htm

Agreements that the United States has walked away from after commitments.
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogue


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2004)

And we all know that the United States honors it's treaties.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

Well, sometimes our Congress acts a little slow, but usually, if a treaty gets ratified, it gets honored, usually.


----------



## Darksoul (Oct 30, 2004)

-Maybe its a problem with "career politicians". Does anyone think the founding fathers had in mind people who spend their lives working politics? I know this thread is directed at Bush and Kerry and bin Laden, but I can't help and point a finger at another part of the "machine". (Insert Pink Floyd joke) The president can only serve 2 terms, while those in congress and elsewhere can serve a lifetime. I think maybe they should only serve one term, and let someone else take a swing. There is something to be said for incumbents, they're comfortable, lazy, non-attentive to their constituents. 

-My other point is the "War on Terror" crap. There is no way the US or anyone can win a war on terror, with the exact same reasoning as the war on drugs, and we know a lot of money has been wasted to no avail with that one. Going into the middle east to tackle these extremists group isn't a bad thing, if you have a real plan, including exit strategy. Then to shift gears and go after Iraq. Fine, whatever. Bad intelligence and they dont' want to take the blame, so shift it somewhere. How convenient.

-And Osama...one of many enemies the US faces. Is he alive? How old is the tape? Do the "experts" know what they're talking about? And will this affect the election? Do we citizens have any real control anymore? Maybe we are the incumbents...

A---)


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, sometimes our Congress acts a little slow, but usually, if a treaty gets ratified, it gets honored, usually.



Ask the Native Americans about that one.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2004)

Chronuss said:
			
		

> ...I seriously don't understand how we couldn't find this guy...an Arab over six foot with a towel around his head and a beard to his knees dragging around a dialysis machine...we should've at least been able to see the ruts in the sand...we should've dropped in a cargo of New York City sewer rats...that would've driven his **** outta those caves...



Ya know, I think that the _kidney disease_ that Osama _suffers_ is an urban legend.  We have to remember that UBL has been in Afghanistan fighting superpowers for decades.  First the Russians and now us.  (Which is forboding in a sense, because it means that right now he is probably killing our soldiers with the same weapons our country supplied to kill the russians."  

The bottom line.  The man knows how to hide.  And he knows how to command ill equipped troops to kill.  

We may not ever catch him.  If we put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, it will become hell on earth, just like it did for the Russians.  You'll never hear the political leaders say anything close to this though.  They want our country to appear strong and invincible.

In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much.  It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....

Just food for thought...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Baytor (Oct 30, 2004)

I really thougth the guy was dead too.  Maybe the need for dialysis is false.  Maybe he has better hideouts than we thought.  Maybe he's hiding in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and getting treatment there.  Maybe the CIA used him in a weird experiment when he was fighting the russians.  They spliced roach DNA into him, making him almost impossible to kill, but afraid of sudden bright light.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 30, 2004)

*In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much. It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....*

We're losing OUR crap in Iraq, Upnorth.  

This has been said many times of the war on terror..."It is better to kill the terrorists OVER THERE, rather than OVER HERE."   

I suspect Osama is saying, "It is better to kill the Americans OVER THERE (in Iraq), rather than OVER HERE (in Pakistan).  

As is, we're using Pakistanis to hunt for him...which is turning out to be as effective as sending Afghanis to seal off Tora Bora.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 30, 2004)

I saw a translation of his new video last night on the news.  They claim that he sounds conciliatory, using the concept of "we only attack America because America attacks us", which is a far cry from "We will crush a America, we will never stop", (these are not direct quotes).  

It's quite obvious that this was a strategically timed release of his speech, but I'm having difficulty divining what his strategy is.  What does he really want the American voters to do?


----------



## Baytor (Oct 30, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I saw a translation of his new video last night on the news. They claim that he sounds conciliatory, using the concept of "we only attack America because America attacks us", which is a far cry from "We will crush a America, we will never stop", (these are not direct quotes).
> 
> It's quite obvious that this was a strategically timed release of his speech, but I'm having difficulty divining what his strategy is. *What does he really want the American voters to do?*




1 - Pull all military people out of the Middle East.  
2 - Stop supporting Israel.  
3 - Convert to his extremist form of Islam.  
I think that would about cover what he really wants.  I don't have any transcripts to back that up, but if I remember correctly, I think it's accurate.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 30, 2004)

Certain segments of Islam are starting to react adversely to terrorism.  The beheadings are not well accepted by some Muslims, and the killing of the children in Beslan unsettled many.  I suspect this is the reason for the conciliatory tone.  Either that or he irrationally thinks he can drum up sympathy for his cause in the US.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2004)

Baytor said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 1 - Pull all military people out of the Middle East.
> 2 - Stop supporting Israel.
> 3 - Convert to his extremist form of Islam.


I think I agree with points 1 & 2. I think point 3 is a bit more difficult to make. Although there have been some statements concerning a 'New Caliphate', the stronger statements have been about getting the United States service out of Mecca.

And of course, when we measure some of the comments from Ann Coulter, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, even the statements about the 'New Caliphate'  sound pretty rhetorical, too.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 30, 2004)

You know, I think the next few years will bear out a growing and better defined separation between the Islamic moderates and extremists.  At least, I hope so.

I hope that it inspires a moderation of the non-Islam extremism as well.  We're all filling up the planet, we'd better learn how to be better neighbours soon.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 30, 2004)

Yup, I'm all for #1 and #2.

Hell, lets go 1 further, lets pull all our troops back from everywhere, and really man and fortify our own borders.  

#3 though.....I dunno....it just doesn't seem christian y'know?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2004)

I think that perhaps a 'major' drawback of United States forward deployment is appropriate, but not a complete drawback. It certainly would have a huge impact on the military budget.

I also think a major re-thinking of our borders is necessary. Although, I am more in favor of wide open borders. Let everyone in, who wishes to come in. It would put an immediate end to 'illegal immigration'. We could then turn our focus to shining light on the 'underground economy', which so devistates our society.

But, back to our forward deployment ... I saw this little statistic earlier today. I wonder how many people are aware of these facts:



> According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm


----------



## Baytor (Oct 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think I agree with points 1 & 2. I think point 3 is a bit more difficult to make. Although there have been some statements concerning a 'New Caliphate', the stronger statements have been about getting the United States service out of Mecca.
> 
> And of course, when we measure some of the comments from Ann Coulter, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, even the statements about the 'New Caliphate' sound pretty rhetorical, too.


I don't think it is that far of a jump.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't part of his problem with us our culture, which he finds corrupt and morally bankrupt?  Wouldn't our converting to his branch of Islam (is it wahabi?) be a simple solution to that problem?

While I think that is something he would want, I don't think that even he thinks it is very likely.  Anyway, that's why I put that down on my list.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 30, 2004)

I think he'd be happy with "Stop trying to tell the rest of the world what is right and wrong".

Personally I found the rational for the "Weapons of Mass destruction" hunt kinda silly...  I mean if the US wants to disarm other countries, shouldn't it disarm itself first?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2004)

Baytor said:
			
		

> I don't think it is that far of a jump. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't part of his problem with us our culture, which he finds corrupt and morally bankrupt? Wouldn't our converting to his branch of Islam (is it wahabi?) be a simple solution to that problem?
> 
> While I think that is something he would want, I don't think that even he thinks it is very likely. Anyway, that's why I put that down on my list.


The idea that 'our culture' is part of his problem gets presented quite often by the President ("They hate us because of our Freedom"), but I am not certain that any of the statements from Al Qaeda make that claim.

From what I have seen, Osama bin Laden's great anger with the United States is that our military set up bases on Saudi Arabian soil prior to the 1991 Gulf War. When the war objectives were completed, we did not remove our military. As I understand it, the presence of non-islamic military in the holy land of Mecca and Medina is offensive to the wahabi branch of Islam.

Now, since 911, the United States military has dramatically reduced its presence in Saudi Arabia. But we are currently constructing 17 permanent bases on Iraqi soil. Don't know how that is going to go over.

Anyhow ... it is easier for the powerful to sell the idea that 'our freedom' is what they hate. It doesn't take a lot of nuance. 

Lastly, there have been some statements from the radical Islamists, that they wish to see the rise of a 'New Caliphate'; a world wide Islamic church. If you think back 1000 years, 1,100 years, Islam was the cultural, economic, religious power on the planet. Of course, the tribes with long memories would like to return to that global structure, as compared to the colonial expriences of the last century or two.


----------



## Baytor (Oct 30, 2004)

I agree that it is easier to say that "they hate our freedom".  It is also smarter.  By making freedom the issue, not behavior, you can potentially get the same reaction from two very different people.  For example, lets take 2 well known names, Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint.  These are two people with very different world view.  When you say, they hate our freedom, Falwell might think, "They hate the fact that I'm right and they are godless heathens."  Flint might think, "They hate the fact that I take pictures of hot naked women...."  The point here is that by saying "freedom", you get 2 people to potentially agree with you, where they may not agree with each other on anything before.  Politically, this is great because you don't offend anyone.

But it's not our freedom they hate.  It's our behavior.  We allow consenting adults to smoke , drink alcohol, and have sex outside of a marriage that's probably been arranged by our parents.  Our tv's broadcast this message of "do whatever you want" all the time, all over the world.  This, and other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Wahhabi sect, which is considered a very strict one.  

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/a/al/al_qaida.html

According to the link above (so take it with a grain of salt), al quida's religious inspiration came from the Wahhabi sect.  This would be logical, the wahhabi sect is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, so OBL would likely have been taught by Wahhabi teachers.

This link provides some good info about religion in Saudi Arabia.  
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

So, bottom line, does OBL hate us because we are corrupt?  Probably.  I don't think that is the driving factor for him though.  After all, he spent time training with our CIA to fight the Russians.  Like you said, one of the major factors was the US/coalition forces in SA during the first gulf war.  I think that Israel is a secondary issue for him.  But think our culture is also part of it.

At any rate, I enjoyed the conversation.:asian:


----------



## Fight with attitude (Oct 30, 2004)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Personally I found the rational for the "Weapons of Mass destruction" hunt kinda silly... I mean if the US wants to disarm other countries, shouldn't it disarm itself first?


Sure it would be nice to see the US disarm itself but if me and you had guns pointed at each other and I wanted to throw both of them away I wouldn't put mind down first and hope that you would follow. No, I would keep the gun pointed at you until you through away your gun and then I would thorw away mind.

I wouldn't want to give you the chance to shoot me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 30, 2004)

Well, can we shoot first, then put ours down?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *In a way, President Bush came close to the truth by saying, he didn't think about him much. It might be an appropriate strategy considering the fact that much of the fall of the Soviety Union came from the amount of crap they lost in that country....*
> 
> We're losing OUR crap in Iraq, Upnorth.
> 
> ...



I agree with this sentiment 100%.  The mujahedeen want to lure their enemies into a muslim nation because its easier for them to fight then.  I think that who ever is the next president is going to have to deal with an Iraq that is going to be turning very much into a Soviet Afghanistan.  Bush the Elder has talked about this very thing in regards to actually invading Iraq.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 30, 2004)

Interesting.

I don't think bin Laden cares a hoot about who will win the next US election.  I think we are all a bit self-focused to think that somehow he's trying to tell us who to vote for, or who he supports.  I agree with what has been said here before, he's angry about past and current wrongs he perceives against various parts of the world, not what each President is like.

I think this can be a minor boost for Kerry, if only because Bush the Younger has mentioned that he has stopped thinking about him.  This may bring the point home to many, it seems, Americans who believed the whole bait-and-switch after September 11, when suddenly we went from hunting down bin Laden to going after Hussein.  "Whhherrrghh?  Huh?  What happened? Weren't we supposed to be fighting the terrorists?"

Then again, Bush may call bin Laden "evil", which seems to stimulate people to support him, assuming that he (Bush) is "good" or "valiant" in contrast.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 30, 2004)

If Bush was as great a "Commander-In-Chief" as he seems to think he is, Bin Laden wouldn't be available for TV appearances right now.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 31, 2004)

So, just for context, here is everything I could find on Osama Bin Laden's kidney.

This article shows us where the story begins.


> The first published reference to his kidney problems was an intriguing February 1999 article in The Guardian, in London, which quoted a former CIA counterterrorist operations official, Vincent Cannistraro: "The Saudis hired someone among his followers to poison him, probably in November 1998. He suffered kidney failure but recovered, at least partially." A week later, on Feb. 15, 1999, the Saudi-owned newspaper Al Hayat reported that bin Laden was suffering kidney pain. .The kidney story continued to make odd reappearances. Last October, the French daily Le Figaro reported that bin Laden had received secret kidney treatment on July 4, 2001, at an American hospital in Dubai, where he was allegedly visited by a CIA officer. An agency spokesman dismissed that as "complete nonsense." Even bin Laden himself was quoted in a Pakistani newspaper last November saying, "My kidneys are all right." Then, on Jan. 28, CBS News had an exclusive report that bin Laden had received kidney dialysis in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on Sept. 10, the night before the World Trade Center attack .


I could find no other corroboration of the November 1998 poisoning story. If we are talking about a poisoning, these types of things need not be life threatening, provided one has a good doctor. From this article:





> Although acute renal failure is potentially life-threatening and may require intensive treatment, it usually reverses within several weeks to a few months after the underlying cause has been treated.
> 
> A few people will progress to </FONT>chronic renal failure and/or end-stage renal disease. Death is most common when the cause of the kidney failure is related to surgery or trauma or when it occurs in people with coexisting heart disease, lung disease or recent stroke. Old age, infection, loss of blood from the GI (gastrointestinal) tract, and progression of the kidney failure also increase the risk of death.


Another article states:


> Recovery from acute kidney failure depends on what caused the disease. If the cause does not stem from damage to kidney tissue itself, you will probably make a full recovery. Partial recovery of function may occur in situations in which the injury does not completely resolve.


So, given that OBL has a good doctor, which every miilionaire ought, and in deed had suffered some sort of kidney issue due to an attempted poisoning, he is probably recovered, and likely has been for some time.

This article quotes a Pakistani doctor who had seen OBL :


> LAHORE, Pakistan, Nov. 27, 2002
> 
> *(AP) *A Pakistani doctor said Wednesday he saw Osama bin Laden a year ago and the al Qaeda leader was in good shape at the time.
> 
> ...


Even US intelligence could come up with no evidence that OBL had any sort of significant kidney issue:


> No evidence: US intelligence has no evidence that Osama bin Laden is suffering from a serious kidney ailment, despite persistent rumours to the contrary, a US official said on Wednesday.
> 
> "We have no reason to believe he has a serious kidney ailment," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official was responding to an ABC News report which said intelligence reports indicate bin Laden received a kidney transplant in Pakistan. While they cannot rule out that bin Laden had kidney stones or other minor problems, US intelligence has no evidence that he has a serious kidney condition requiring dialysis, the official said. Rumours that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease have long been in circulation. President Musharraf gave them added credibility in January when he said bin Laden had probably died of a kidney disorder. "Hes a kidney patient. And I know  we know  that hed donated two dialysis machines to Afghanistan. One was specifically for his own personal use and the other for general use," Mr Musharraf said in an interview with CNN.


complete article here.


Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything definitive one way or the other, but in a way, that helps justify that bin Laden has no serious kidney problem. Recall that the story has been floating around in various incarnations since the Guardian article in 1998. If this kidney problem hasn't killed him in the last six years, through being thoroughly hunted for the last 3, living in caves and deserts and far away from regular urban amenities, it is ether not very serious, or non-existant.

If something ever kills Osama bin Laden, it will likely be from something other than his kidneys.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 31, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Would you please explain the appropriate context of this excerpt?
> Originally published in The New American Century, April 8th 2002.





> I truly am not that concerned about him, said President George W Bush on 13 March 2002, after being asked the million-dollar question where is bin Laden? once too often 5. Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if hes alive at all, said Bush, brushing bin Laden off as a person who has now been marginalized 6.


I always took it to say that with a good portion of the Al Qaida leadership decimated and their base of operations obliterated that OBL isn't nearly the threat he had been. The ability to make a tape and send it in to Aljezeera doesn't show him as being potent, just still alive. 
He's still a going concern, but:
Ill equiped
No stable base of operations
few remaining leaders below him
hunted by nations
much of his funders (non-family) assets freezed

His greatest threat to us now, though it is surely something to be concerned about, is his effect in influencing and motivating others of like mind.
Which he is good at.

We need to keep hunting him!!! But dismantling his operations and network and keeping him unstable is more important than finding one man.

Just my take on things.
Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2004)

> Bush's original comment came while U.S. forces in Afghanistan were searching for the Al Qaeda leader, who had eluded joint American-Afghan military operations designed to find him.
> "We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.
> 
> "I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became - we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."





			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> I always took it to say that with a good portion of the Al Qaida leadership decimated and their base of operations obliterated that OBL isn't nearly the threat he had been. The ability to make a tape and send it in to Aljezeera doesn't show him as being potent, just still alive.
> 
> He's still a going concern, but: Ill equiped - No stable base of operations - few remaining leaders below him - hunted by nations - much of his funders (non-family) assets freezed
> 
> ...


This is a difficult topic to discuss with all the statements available for reference.

I am afraid the President's view on al-Qaeda is extremely limited. He has made claimes that '75% of al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured'. My understanding of this phrase is that, like the Iraq playing cards, the President asked for a list of the al-Qaeda leadership. As these leaders were killed or captured, the President would put an 'X' through a photo. The President apparently believes that 75% of his 'playing cards' have 'X's through them (although, a closer count has been reported to be 65%).

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5945061/site/newsweek/

Besides this being a *very childish* way of running a foreign policy, it gives no possibility to address the ability of al Qaeda to replace its leadership. As Donald Rumsfeld put it "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Terrorism as a tactic is a Hydra-headed beast ... when you chop off one head, two more grow to take its place. This is one reason why a 'War' is the wrong metaphore for actions against terrorist organizations. War has 'fronts', and 'battlefields'. War ends with 'treaties'. These concepts have no place when battling terrorist actions (see Israel's successes).

To battle terrorists, you must have human intelligence (woefully lacking in Islamic parts of the world). Terrorists must 'disappear'. They can not be killed on the battlefield, or they become martyrs, encouraging further recruitment. The engagments must be quiet, very quiet. And of course, I have some ethical problems with this idea. It is a very dangerous game.

To think that al Qaeda does not have the tools it needs to continue its struggle (removing Western, secular involvement from Mecca) in a world that has a population of 1 Billion Muslems is short-sighted. Certainly, the loss of Afghanistan as a base of operations has hurt, but, I believe al Qaeda, like most human endeavors is able to adapt.

Hopefully, we have seen the last of Foreign Policy via a deck of playing cards.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is a difficult topic to discuss with all the statements available for reference.
> 
> I am afraid the President's view on al-Qaeda is extremely limited. He has made claimes that '75% of al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured'. My understanding of this phrase is that, like the Iraq playing cards, the President asked for a list of the al-Qaeda leadership. As these leaders were killed or captured, the President would put an 'X' through a photo. The President apparently believes that 75% of his 'playing cards' have 'X's through them (although, a closer count has been reported to be 65%).
> 
> ...


Well Michael, you sure know more about this than I do. Also: I don't think that the president had his generals in the pentagon playing with decks of cards nor do the card have anything to do with the development or implementation of foreign policy. To my understanding they were a simple tool given to the members of our armed forces so that they could recognize, by sight, terrorists and the Hussein leadership/military leaders. Nothing more.

I definitely agree about the fact that 


> Terrorism as a tactic is a Hydra-headed beast ... when you chop off one head, two more grow to take its place.


 No doubt!! A most difficult strugle, and the reason that the "War on terrorism" can't be "won" persay. But the struggle is worth it and is right to do, I feel.

Your Brother
John

PS: WHY is it that intel is so shallow in the middle-eastern nations??


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 31, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think his issue is with our way of life.



While I'm certain OBL doesn't approve of "our" way of life, I've also not seen anything that leads me to believe that terrorists attack us for that.  No matter how easy it is to believe, or how often we try to convince ourselves.

There are, however, many different indications that we are attacked for our policies and behavior in, and towards, the Middle East.  

We should not automatically change our behavior to appease a murderer, of course -- but we should certain consider whether our actions are productive, and good.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> While I'm certain OBL doesn't approve of "our" way of life, I've also not seen anything that leads me to believe that terrorists attack us for that. No matter how easy it is to believe, or how often we try to convince ourselves.
> 
> There are, however, many different indications that we are attacked for our policies and behavior in, and towards, the Middle East.
> 
> We should not automatically change our behavior to appease a murderer, of course -- but we should certain consider whether our actions are productive, and good.


 Well said.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Well Michael, you sure know more about this than I do. Also: I don't think that the president had his generals in the pentagon playing with decks of cards nor do the card have anything to do with the development or implementation of foreign policy. To my understanding they were a simple tool given to the members of our armed forces so that they could recognize, by sight, terrorists and the Hussein leadership/military leaders. Nothing more.
> 
> I definitely agree about the fact that
> No doubt!! A most difficult strugle, and the reason that the "War on terrorism" can't be "won" persay. But the struggle is worth it and is right to do, I feel.
> ...


John, I don't know how much I know about anything ... I try to stay informed. I read quite a bit ... but all my information is from easily available sources. 

Whether the President uses the playing cards to measure progress or not, many sources, including the only I linked to, indicate that any al Qaeda agent that has been captured, has been replaced.

Now, concerning Mid-East Intelligence, the short answer to why it is lacking is that 'The Cold War Ended'. 

Seymour Hersh, in his book 'Chain of Command'. tells us the CIA had a difficult time transitioning from the Cold War ... where agents were assigned to diplomatica and cultural offices in the US Embassies around the world, where they would try and recruit spies form with the Soviet Union's military and diplomatic corps.  

To infiltrate al Qaeda or Iraq ... the agent could not be attached to US Embassy, because there were no functioning US Embassies in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Although, I haven't read it, the book 'See No Evil' by Robert Baer is apparently pretty straight forward about the decline if the CIA after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Perhaps I need to get a copy for my library.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## RRouuselot (Oct 31, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *I honestly thought he was dead*...and now this new video.  Damn.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of the members here as to whether this will help or hurt Bush in his campaign.  I could see going either way...much of it may depend on how Kerry and Bush play the news.
> 
> ...




I think we need to rectify that situation right quick!!! Someone needs to do a double tap on O.B. as soon as possible.


----------

