Osama is alive.

[Phoenix44]

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]

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.

"When I saw him last he was in excellent health," Dr. Amer Aziz told The Associated Press. "He was walking. He was healthy."

Aziz was recently released after being held for one month and questioned by U.S. security officials said.

Aziz said bin Laden showed no signs of the kidney failure that he is widely reported to suffer from.

"I didn't see any evidence of kidney disease. I didn't see any evidence of dialysis," he said.

Aziz said it was the second time he met bin Laden. The first time was in 1999 when Aziz said he treated the al Qaeda leader after he hurt his back falling off a horse in southern Afghanistan. Bin Laden was in good health at both meetings, he said.

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]

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]

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."

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Your Brother
John

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

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]

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

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