How bin Laden got away

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
from the March 04, 2002 edition



<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html"; target="_blank">How bin Laden got away</a>

A day-by-day account of how Osama bin Laden eluded the world's most powerful military machine.



By Philip Smucker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor



[quote]TORA BORA, AFGHANISTAN - All 1,000 of the regional tribal leaders rose to their feet and shouted "Zindibad, Osama!" ("Long Live Osama!").



The Al Qaeda chief placed his right hand over his heart, the ethnic Pashtun sign for being honored, while 15 of his elite guards flanked him.



In the last public speech given at the Jalalabad Islamic studies center on Nov. 10, Osama bin Laden painted the battle lines black and white. "The Americans had a plan to invade, but if we are united and believe in Allah, we'll teach them a lesson, the same one we taught the Russians," he said, according to two tribal leaders who attended the speech.



Mr. bin Laden, with that speech, was laying his plans to stay a step ahead of the US campaign. He would travel to his favored fortified redoubt in Tora Bora, as the US expected him to, but he would also pave a way out. After his rousing speech, he bestowed cash gifts on key people who could later help him escape.



The US-led war in Afghanistan was going exceedingly well up to that point. The Taliban regime had been pushed from the northern half of the country; the capital of Kabul and much of the rest of Afghanistan would fall within the next few days.



It was a war like no other. In an evolutionary leap powered by Information Age technology, US ground soldiers were mainly employed as observers, liaisons, and spotters for air power - not as direct combatants sent to occupy a foreign land. The success of the US was dazzling, save for the fight for Tora Bora, which may have been this unconventional war's most crucial battle. For the US, Tora Bora wasn't about capturing caverns or destroying fortifications - it was about taking the world's most wanted terrorist "dead or alive."



In retrospect, it becomes clear that the battle's underlying story is of how scant intelligence, poorly chosen allies, and dubious military tactics fumbled a golden opportunity to capture bin Laden as well as many senior Al Qaeda commanders...<hr></blockquote>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Weren't they asking for DNA from bin Laden's family to see if a body they found all burnt up in a cave belonged to bin Laden? What ever happend with that?



    Also I heard they were testing the folks at camp X-ray by taking DNA samples and seeing if any of them were exposed to radiation of the kind that would result from exposure to nuclear materials. The DNA would tell things they would never want known...
  • Reply 2 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:

    <strong>from the March 04, 2002 edition



    <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html"; target="_blank">How bin Laden got away</a>

    A day-by-day account of how Osama bin Laden eluded the world's most powerful military machine.

    By Philip Smucker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Amazing how old that report became once it was put out to press...



    The war ain't over in Afganistan...watch the TeeVee News. We are finally in a battle where our forces are getting killed. I hate to say this...



    But finally we are having casualties! This is a war dammit and no matter what "hi-tech" crap we use we still have to fight them with our feet on the ground and guns drawn. You don't fight or win a war without casualties.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 4 of 22
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong>Amazing how old that report became once it was put out to press...



    The war ain't over in Afganistan...watch the TeeVee News. We are finally in a battle where our forces are getting killed. I hate to say this...



    But finally we are having casualties! This is a war dammit and no matter what "hi-tech" crap we use we still have to fight them with our feet on the ground and guns drawn. You don't fight or win a war without casualties.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think you could fight and win a war without casualties, but you cannot do it without ground troops to hold terrotory and keep the locals in line. When you introduce ground troops you greatly increase the risk of casualties.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>

    I'm to believe these guy's with their track record?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What do you mean?
  • Reply 6 of 22
    Talking about Bin Laden getting away:



    [quote]While in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official - presumably the Chief of Station. The meeting, held in bin Laden?s private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and this year?s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14th he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down.<hr></blockquote>



    Source: Le Figaro, October 31st, 2001



    [quote]The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to ?back off? investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden?s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who

    were living in Falls Church, VA ? right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996, frustrating efforts to investigate the bin Laden family.<hr></blockquote>



    Source: BBC Newsnight, Correspondent Gregg Palast ? Nov 7, 2001



    Now there going to be a bunch of people bleating about this...saying the usual BS etc etc, simply beacuse it doesnt fit the official mold of our supposed "war against terrorism". But the sources of these facts are as equally credible (if not more so that the blanket blandout propaganda from CNN and the US networks). None of the news services quoted have retracted these stories, even the one from La Figaro, which is owned, believe it or not by the Carlyle group, which has very strong and intimate connections to both Bush, Cheney and the bin Laden Family.We just find it very hard, or unacceptable to acknowledge that many the powers that be in this country are a lot closer to these terrorist maniacs than we would wish to acknowledge.





    Also:



    [quote]on September 11, 2001 - For 35 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred ? an event that has never happened in history.<hr></blockquote>



    Sources: CNN, ABC, MS-NBC, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times.



    To compare:

    When golfer Payne Stewart's private Learjet ceased to respond to Air Traffic Control in 2000, within TEN MINUTES there was a F-16 fighter on each wing, and remained there until the plane crashed in a field in the midwest some hours later. THAT is NORMAL procedure.



    WTF??????



    It's disquieting (to put it most mildly) that there is so much information that doesnt fit the official line...but somehow it seems that the hijackings were far less of a surprise to certain folk than the the media would have us think. Specially considering that numerous warnings were received by our $35 billion per annum US Intelligence complex in the months leading to Sept 11...and nothing was done:



    [quote]Three American officials, Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. A French book released in November, ?Bin Laden - La Verite´ Interdite,? discloses that Taliban representatives often sat in on the meetings. British papers confirm that the Pakistani ISI relayed the threats to the Taliban.<hr></blockquote>



    Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001; the BBC, September 18, 2001.The Inter Press Service, Nov 16, 2001]



    The above quotes and information represent a small sampling from investigator Mike Ruppert's website. He was the former LAPD narcotics agent one who got former CIA director Deutsh to publicly admit that his agency has been importing and dealing cocaine in the US on the grand scale for decades, thereby costing him a key Cabinet position he was ready to take. Ruppert has an impeccable track record and and has offered a reward to anyone who can disprove his conclusions...and to date, nobody has done that.



    I am far more inclined to put credibility in someone who actually looks and examines the facts like the experienced police officer this man is, rather than those media puppets which merely ditto and parrot the official line because it is (a) convenient and (b) appears to be superficially "patriotic" for those who don't want to really know what (may be) going on.



    Go read the timeline of the the events leading to 9-11. All these events have been published by the regular news organizations, and Mr Ruppert is the one who has collated them.



    It's right there at:



    <a href="http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html"; target="_blank">http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html</a>;









    [ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 22
    I agree with Tonton, I think that he is dead.

    Of course they are going to say that he got away, if he were announced as killed youd have a martyr situation on hand.



    Oh well, hes an evil prick and deserves to die anyhow.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    corvettecorvette Posts: 561member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>Face it folks -- BL is dead.



    He was probably killed in Tora Bora but there was also that nasty Kidney disease he had.



    Without a visible leader to step in and rally up further organized fundamentalist support, BL is too arrogant not to have communicated to his supporters in some way, be it by videotape or some other form of clear communication direct from the leader.



    RIH. Rest in hell. Or whatever the Muslim term for hell is.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    How can you be that naive? Do you actually think an arrogant man like OBL who planned the attacks is dumb enough not to escape? He probably escaped into Pakistan, maybe into India. Muslim or not Muslim, he wouldn't want to die. He has 50something wives, remember?
  • Reply 9 of 22
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    OBL will have "got away" only if he dies of old age. The odds are infinitesimally small against that happening. He can try and run all he wants; he'll just die tired.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 11 of 22
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>



    They are masters of the understated selective reporting style.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What subjects, points of view, etc. is it they deliberately don't report on?
  • Reply 12 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>

    They are masters of the understated selective reporting style. Granted, an organization has the right to espouse their views, but masking a propaganda mill in the guise of a newspaper borders on unethical behavior. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    All news organizations make decisions about what stories they'll cover. Nobody has infinite resources. And all news organizations have editors who decide what gets published. What does The Chistian Science Monitor do that borders on unethical that The NY Times doesn't do?
  • Reply 13 of 22
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I took a political science (international) class in college, and we had to buy a subscription to the Christian Science Monitor for the semester as part of our course requirement.



    It's one of the most respected papers. Funny, because it is a weird religion, with its emphasis on "unusual" approaches to healing.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>Also:

    quote:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    on September 11, 2001 - For 35 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred ? an event that has never happened in history.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Sources: CNN, ABC, MS-NBC, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times.



    To compare:

    When golfer Payne Stewart's private Learjet ceased to respond to Air Traffic Control in 2000, within TEN MINUTES there was a F-16 fighter on each wing, and remained there until the plane crashed in a field in the midwest some hours later. THAT is NORMAL procedure.



    WTF??????</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wow, that Payne Stewart comparison raised a flag in my brain! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    I heard that there were F-16s scrambled to NYC but they were 5-10 minutes too late?



    Anyone hear of the reports that when the no fly zone was up there were I believe 4 jetliners that did get permission to fly out of the US on 9-11? Supposedly the families of Bin Laden were on them...



    Take Samantha's observations for what they are worth. After Iran/Contra, Panama Invasion and the Gulf War debacles...anything can/could happen...



    I think Bin Laden is still alive...sick, tired but alive. Remember, there are hundreds of fundamentalist Muslim schools (camps) around the world that would harbour him...
  • Reply 15 of 22
    How can you be that naive?

    Do you really think that you are going to know when he dies?

    I dont think so.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 17 of 22
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 18 of 22
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The Bin Laden group is one of the world's largest construction companies. The Osama has over 50 siblings from three of his father's wives (I think that's the number.) The family is well-entrenched in Western culture, educating them here and in Europe, holding various white-collar jobs. A western firm designed the Bin Laden Group's headquarters in Riyadh. The facts about the family go on and on. It is more likely that the rest of the family, the family that disowned Osama, is more, uh, normal, than their madman sibling would lead you to believe.



    You can be as paralyzed by paranioa and conspiracy theories all you like. They hurt you alone. Bad **** happens.



    Was have to assume that UBL is still alive and that others are ready to take his place anyway. To assume anything else puts us at a distinct disadvantage -- we will be less prepared, open to more attacks. If he's dead, great. Make sure you kill him a few times over.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:



    <strong>It's about story content. NYT labels editorials as such, news is for the most part factually reported. Editors will always decide which stories do and don't hit the presses, but internal factual story content is not manipulated in news, just whether or not the whole thing will appear.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Editorializing creeps into the NY Times news pages all the time. I don't have much of a problem with this except when they claim to be unbiased. They're not. They may try to be but everyone has a bias and it eventually shows. I still don't see what the CSM does things that other news organizations don't do. They are a better source for international news than my local paper (The Hartford Courant) by far.



    [quote]<strong>CSM is a religious paper which in itself is OK...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No it's not. It's a paper owned by a religious organization.



    [quote]<strong>They are AOK, within the editorial pages, but outside that... </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You have it exactly backwards. Their editorial pages are the least interesting part of the paper.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
Sign In or Register to comment.