Noose tightening around OBL?

in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href=""; target="_blank">ABC News link.</a>

Getting Closer

Bin Laden May Be Near Capture

March 6 ? U.S. intelligence officials believe the noose around Osama bin Laden is tightening, and investigators are literally redoubling their efforts to catch the terror mastermind, ABCNEWS' Investigative Unit reports.

Whoa. Can it be? Is it coincidental that GWB is having a press conference tonight? Are we being bamboozled by the media again?

Probably...stay tuned...and hope.


  • Reply 1 of 28
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Drudge seems to think otherwise, but wouldn't it be great?

    18 months and finally we might be able to call the war on terror a success.
  • Reply 2 of 28
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Because we got one man? Please. We have dessimated Al-Qaeda. They still function, but nowhere near the same level they did 18 months ago.

    I agree getting UBL is very important, but it is hardly the measure of success. I do think the American people would see as such, though.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    SDW, capturing Bin Laden would not only give our people and troops a major morale boost, but it would destroy the morale of Al Qaeda.

    I think that Al Qaeda is still strong because we don't have Bin Laden. But once we get them, I think it will interrupt their entire operation. I think we might see the terrorist organization start to crumble.

    It will be very interesting to see if we have him or not or if this is just another 'case against Iraq' speech.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    It would be wise not to take one story and run with it. Nothing is clear here, as is domonstrated by <a href=""; target="_blank">this meta-analysis of the various versions of the story.</a> I should also point out that the most likely scenario is that the ISI is protecting him, and it is extremely likely that Musharraf is well aware of it. Anyway, here is a post I put up in another thread showing some of many of the contradictory versions of the story as told in the highest of high-profile media sources:

    what was recovered?

    [quote]Officials and the Qudoos family originally claimed that a single computer hard drive, documents, and US dollars were taken from the house. [AP, 3/2/03 (B), Australian Broadcasting Corp., 3/2/03] The family said the single computer had no Internet hookup, and the mentally impaired Ahmed Abdul Qudoos didn't know how to use it. [AP, 3/2/03 (B)] Soon it was reported that authorities were said to have "recovered a huge amount of information about al-Qaeda" from multiple computers, disks, cell phones and documents recovered with Mohammed. [Associated Press, 3/3/03] They very quickly "gleaned crucial information" from a "mother lode" of evidence. [Baltimore Sun, 3/3/03] But it was simultaneously reported that "the computers and cell phones seized during the arrest have not yielded the wealth of information that officials had hoped they would..." [ABC News, 3/3/03]


    who was arrested with him?

    [quote]A third man was supposedly arrested in the house with Ahmed Abdul Qudoos and Mohammed. Initially he was described as an Egyptian. [Reuters, 3/2/03] Later officials were suggesting he might be Saif Adel, Osama bin Laden's security chief. [Los Angeles Times, 3/3/03] Then, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said the third man was Somali, but gave no details. [Reuters, 3/3/03] Most recently, senior US intelligence officials are claiming the third man is Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, a native of Saudi Arabia. He is said to be the main money man behind the 9/11 attacks. [Reuters, 3/3/03 (C), MSNBC, 3/3/03, MSNBC, 3/3/03 (B)] As I have previously suggested elsewhere, and will discuss further below, considerable evidence suggests no such person by this name exists but was in fact an alias. Shortly after 9/11 it was reported that a man who had at least ten aliases, multiple birthdates, social security numbers and so forth transferred money to the hijackers using the name "Mustafa Ahmed." [Newsweek, 10/15/01] Why wouldn't he have used a better alias for such a transaction?


    And it goes on and on and on like this, with references at the end of every sentence.

    So now there is 'considerable evidence' that Al-Hawsawi doesn't exist, or more specifically, was simply an alias used by Saeed Sheikh (this is known), the convicted killer of Daniel Pearl. (Note: Saeed was very very crucial player in Al-Quada, as can be read here: <a href=""; target="_blank">Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh</a>. According to both Saeed and even Musharraf, Pearl was killed because he was digging too deep in the solid connection between al-qaeda and the government of pakistan)

    How ever, as is pointed out by every headline from the New York Times to the LA Times, the timing is extremely convenient for both the Bush Admin and Packistan.

    Also, as pointed out by an intel agent, none of these arrests would have been announced in this way because it would have hindered futher efforts.

    Here's a news flash: In many ways, Al-Quada is the ISI, and the ISI is the dominant force in Pakistan. The web is so intricate, I don't think we will ever know what's really going on. But one thing is for sure: the Bush admin is not in nearly as solid a position as they pretend. It is blatantly obvious that this arrest (or story of arrest) is being used for political purposes, which is not unexpected by anyone except the most vaive.

    Even the threat warning might have been fabricated, as it has in the past (according even to Ari Fleischer)

    [quote]The US was elevated to orange alert status for most of February 2002, the second highest category possible. Shortly after Mohammed was arrested, Newsweek reported that a February 26 intelligence report said Mohammed was actively involved in new terrorist plots in the continental US: "He has directed operatives to target bridges, gas stations, and power plants in a number of locations, including New York City." [Newsweek, 3/1/03] This was widely reported, and officials said this warning was partly responsible for the elevation of the alert status. [CBS News, 3/1/03, New York Times, 3/3/03] One AP article was even titled, "Mohammed's Plots Key To Recent Orange Alert." [Associated Press, 3/3/03]

    If Mohammed is in fact dead or if he had already been captured in September 2002 or before, then the orange alert must have been fabricated. All the hysteria about duct tape would have been for nothing, except its political effect. It wouldn't have been the first time, as one can see from a February 13 ABC News article which was titled, "Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information." [ABC, 2/13/03] Some critics have speculated that the alert was raised to muster support for Bush and his plan for an Iraq war. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One CBS article suggested, "There is considerable private speculation about whether the rising scare-o-meter is somehow playing into the march toward war." [CBS, 2/13/03] Rep. Robert Wexler (D) said, "It's clear that this administration uses the threat from terrorism for political purposes." He has suggested this has been a pattern for some time. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One example would be May 2002, when a series of news reports exposed the Bush Administration's failings to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Within a matter of days, the administration released quite a number of terror warnings. [CNN, 5/20/02, Washington Post, 5/22/02, USA Today, 5/24/02] CBS noted, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." [Washington Post, 5/27/02] Other reports questioned the alerts [USA Today, 5/24/02, Time, 5/27/02], and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer even said at the time that the warnings were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week." [Washington Times, 5/22/02]


    [ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 28
    giant and Samantha Joanne Ollendale would make a great couple. Have you guys considered dating?
  • Reply 6 of 28
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    They'd have to consult the UN first.
  • Reply 7 of 28
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    giant's assessment is nothing we don't already know. Bin Laden is a slippery guy, and the ISI makes the CIA look like the Boy Scouts.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    I assume the ISI = Pakistani security agency/CIA equivalent?
  • Reply 9 of 28
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>I assume the ISI = Pakistani security agency/CIA equivalent?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Yup. Some 'mixed' company in that, um, company.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    Hey, just Al-Qaeda?

    Scrap all that labeling. A terrorist is a terrorist. Muslim, Palestinian or Columbian...whatever. The United States is fighting against the terrorists of the world. We're going to take them down one terrorist at a time. Until I guess we are the only ones left on the planet.

    Cool huh?

    Well, I saw ABC News tonight and they started their broadcast of OBL in their "Exclusive Report".

    GWB didn't make a peep about it, right? I missed the first 5 minutes and slept through the rest...
  • Reply 11 of 28
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote] Noose tightening around OBL? <hr></blockquote>

    This would be something to celebrate for sure . . . I bet the economy would jump alittle too . . .

    Things would change mood-wise around the country
  • Reply 12 of 28
    Capturing Osama Bin Laden isn't going to stop Islamic terror at all. That's the whole point about modern international terrorism.

    There are cells on every continent of the planet and they really don't need orders from a media-friendly James Bond villain to blow things up and generally piss us off.

    All this talk of 'Al-Qaeda' is such cack.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    People who say the War on Terror is a failure because OBL hasn't been captured are partisan tools.

    *hugs Fran*
  • Reply 14 of 28
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    [quote]There are cells on every continent of the planet and they really don't need orders from a media-friendly James Bond villain to blow things up and generally piss us off.<hr></blockquote>

    Yeah, but there's a big difference between shooting your local nosy reporter or blowing up a neighborhood school bus and supporting long-term operations in the United States. Remember, we're not at war with Islamic Terrorism, but International Islamic Terrorism. Al-Qaeda is the one-and-only group that has demonstrated an intercontinental reach so far. Once we finish off al-Qaeda, terrorists can have all the fun they want blowing up temples in Tunisia or shopping malls in Jerusalem, but they won't be bothering us here.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>I agree getting UBL is very important, but it is hardly the measure of success.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    That's not what your favorite Commander In Chief said a while ago when the War on Terror was in fashion.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    ummm, its unlikely al quaeda will be slowed by the death of ubl. he has set himself up as a martyr in the minds of those that follow his extremist views.

    its the same thing as with old ben kenobi: in death i will become more powerful than you can imagine. the us does not need the shadow of a 'heroic ubl' as a martyr and rallying cry for the al quaeda.

    they also dont need george bush with his doe-eyed smirk telling us he needs the blood of iraqi children to keep his hair from greying ( i kinda gleened that last bit from his recent speeches).
  • Reply 17 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:


    ...Once we finish off al-Qaeda, terrorists can have all the fun they want blowing up temples in Tunisia or shopping malls in Jerusalem, but they won't be bothering us here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Finish off al qaeda? The very nature of terrorism and terrorist groups (or if it were us in there place: revolution and revolutionairies) is that they dont have a single address, they dont travel as group. They are scattered all over, 1 in this house, 2 in that house, 20 in that enclave and scattered all around the world. To think you can 'finish off' a group like that is short-sighted.

    Instead you will likely see a re-branding by the us so that they can brag they finished off al qaeda.

    "Oh no, al qaedas gone. that nuclear attack on the dallas mavericks was from the terrorist group... yo quiero. I saw a little chihuahua with a taco and a stick of dynamite running from the scene myself, hes the one we believe is the ring leader and hes been financing his operations by selling us crappy mexican food for years."
  • Reply 18 of 28
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie:

    <strong>ummm, its unlikely al quaeda will be slowed by the death of ubl. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Oh come on. Think about what your posting here. Getting OBL will have a devastating effect on his group. They will be significantly slowed when we get him.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I think a simple and fair assessment would be that Al Qaeda would be shaken, and weakened, but not finished. To what degree is unknown. Can't wait to find out.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Towel:


    Once we finish off al-Qaeda, terrorists can have all the fun they want blowing up temples in Tunisia or shopping malls in Jerusalem, but they won't be bothering us here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I just wanted to make sure I read that correctly.
Sign In or Register to comment.