Bin Laden: before Abbottabad (merged thread)

He looks like a doctored sock puppet, his mystique fading like that of Che, yet never fully gone, slowly succumbing to a superior system of economics, justice, moral values, technology and military might. And yes, even better football. I swear to God, this video prop is my neighbor, Old Bill. I''m driving by his place later to see if there are any lights on. What's the wager on how long the prop's words lingered in the few, average, working Americans that tuned in? He should have maybe cursed Mexican truck drivers or gay rights activists or abortion clinics or the slump in the housing market or the Minn. Vikings and gleaned a couple more seconds of collective American attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

No. What he said was that Bin Laden is not our only threat nor is killing or capturing him going to end the war or cause our enemies to quit. There are quite a few people in the government who believe that we should just be focused on finding Bin Laden. We cannot afford to focus on Bin Laden and ignore everything else.

SFC W

---

Hm. I was referring on this:

Quote:

---

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, 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. I -- 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. 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. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Yes, I read it. One media report I saw said the meassge was a lot of incoherent thoughts. I didn't take it that way. It was a very well laid out piece of propaganda and I agree it was all pointed toward the US.

Sarajevo what is your view on the speech?

---

I think it is a great PR speech (how do you guys call that, IO?) and fact that he is calling Americans to the Islam (second time) can be significant. Or doesn't' need to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

He's more than a cog in a wheel but he is not irreplaceable, no one is. He does have symbolic value and we don't need a martyr. The more important point is that AQ is not a heirarchial organization, it's amorphous -- the old starfish; cut a ray off and it just generates another to replace it. His death or departure wouldn't make much difference to the organization other than symbolically.

Still there is that symbology. His continued breathing is really in both our interests. Even if it isn't satisfying.

Presidents say a lot of dumb things; if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to say "What the President really meant was..." :)

---

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Yes, I read it. One media report I saw said the meassge was a lot of incoherent thoughts. I didn't take it that way. It was a very well laid out piece of propaganda and I agree it was all pointed toward the US.

---

Well, in mean time, Sheikh Abu Umar al-Hussaini al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi (Leader of the Islamic State of Iraq for those who are confused with his full name) came out with his own audio message!? :confused: Title: "And If you Cease (to attack), It will be better for you".

How widely held is UBL-global warming information operation of 2004 theory?
Stealing from the famous George Packer article to summarize it:

Quote:

---

Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden's public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn't a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush's strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance.
(Packer, 12/18/06)

---

If so, in his latest screed he hits on global warming again. He also points out the flaccid opposition re: Iraq by the Democrats. And possibly endorses (theoretically tainting from the US political discourse) contrarian, non-interventionist thinking:

Quote:

---

And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war…

---

Quote:

---

And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.

---

What gives? Am I reading this right or reading too much into it? Off-track or on target?


------------------
Packer, George, "Knowing The Enemy: Can social scientists redefine the "war on terror"?". The New Yorker, Vol. 82 No. 42. (December 18, 2006)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarajevo071

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

---

True, but I'd submit his demise was critical to the Anbar Awakening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarajevo071

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

---

to in the excerpt you quoted seems to differ with us...

As for anyone in US military circles predicting anything significant occurring as a result of Zarqawi's death, I missed that. Politicians did do what you say but then, they're politicians. IMO, no one with any sense at all pays much attention to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Politicians did do what you say but then, they're politicians. IMO, no one with any sense at all pays much attention to them.

---

I agree
:D:D:D!!

Regardless of what his "untimely but well deserved" death may have contributed to the overall grand scheme of things - it gave me a warm and fuzzy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

No. What he said was that Bin Laden is not our only threat nor is killing or capturing him going to end the war or cause our enemies to quit. There are quite a few people in the government who believe that we should just be focused on finding Bin Laden. We cannot afford to focus on Bin Laden and ignore everything else.

SFC W

---

Quote:

---

Bush - Truly not concerned about bin Laden
Added: August 11, 2006
From: BI30

Remember, this is just SIX MONTHS after 9/11. In response to a reporters question, President Bush tells the world that he is "truly not that concerned" with catching the man who murdered 3,000 Americans just six months and two days earlier because "we've marginalized him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

---

http://www.unspun.us/images/ProtectingAmerica.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Okay, you and I agree and the guy I responded to in the excerpt you quoted seems to differ with us...

---

Heck, where did I ever write that getting Bin Laden would be the end of our troubles? Scroll back down and I plainly say that this Wahhabi Islam sect (which comes out of Saudi Arabia and not Mesopotomia, I might add) is the spiritual, financial, and ideological home of Al Qaeda. That doesn't mean me and 99% of the American public don't want him out of commission anyway. If you are fighting a war on terror, knocking out high profile terrorists might (just might) have a positive effect on the home front.

It is sort of like the debate over capital punishment. Opponents always say that executing criminals won't stop crime. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Putting Al Capone behind bars or six feet under wasn't going to end the crime problem in Chicago...doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort.

Bin Laden is wanted for what he did...NOT necessarily for what getting him may result in. I don't know how to put it any clearer than that. I don't think I am anywhere near along in this thinking. The fact that we appear to have no particular interest in him over any other Al Qaeda operative puzzles me. Wasn't 9/11 the reason why we got in this war, anyway?

I just agreed with Sarajevo that zapping Bin Laden might be satisfying in a sense but that it would accomplish little or nothing.

Agree that most, if not 99% probably do agree with you but would also suggest that any such spike in positive effects on the home front would be fleeting. Also and IMO that benefit would be outweighed by the disadvantages in the martyr effect. Those folks consistently beat us to a pulp in the information arena...

I agree that Bin Laden is wanted by many for what he did and not for what getting him may result in and that you certainly are not alone in thinking that. I suspect that the potential result is the principal reason for not making him an issue and that is seen by many as adequate reason to not worry about him. The interest in all the other AQ folks is simply due to the fact that it is, as I said, an amorphous collection of people any one of whom is capable of setting up an operation and obtaining the funding through the others to pull that operation off. Not to mention that Hezbollah is a far more dangerous entity. AQ is just one of many and it isn't nearly as effective as its very successful propaganda has many believing.

Nah, 9/11 was the reason we went to Afghanistan. Islamist International Terrorism and attempting to modify the attitudes in its birthplace were the reason for Iraq and the greater Long War, GWOT or whatever we're calling it this week. The 9/11 attack just provided a rationale and a window to counter 27 years of Islamist probing attacks and western cheek-turning (by four successive US Presidents from both parties among others) by saying we weren't going to take it anymore.

I doubt, if true, that his death will fundamentally progress the War on Terrorism. But it would be a small victory. I couldn't find further information anywhere else.

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/4672

I googled the Pillar quote and found the Time article it refers to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4502669n

Quote:

---

The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports.

---

Is this guy for real?

The 60 minutes spot was strange.

Here is the 4-page article (+ 27 pages of comments) underlying the spot.

Quote:

---

Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt
Delta Force Commander Says The Best Plan To Kill The Al Qaeda Leader In 2001 Was Nixed
Oct. 5, 2008
....
In 2001, just 10 weeks after 9/11, he was a 37-year-old Army major leading a team of America's most elite commandos. Even now, 60 Minutes can't tell you his name or show you his face. 60 Minutes hired a theatrical make up artist to take this former Delta officer through a series of transformations to disguise him. He calls himself "Dalton Fury," and is the author of "Kill Bin Laden," a new book out this week.
.....
Fury says he'll donate his profits from the book to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

I have no way to determine whether this article is factual in whole, part or not at all. Others here may be better informed.

Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor, pp.238-239, blames the escape on CIA "HQs managers" taking over the operation after UBL's radio transmission was received.

DefenseTech did two minutes of research and apparently found out who the guy is.

Despite the comic book pseudonym he adopted, the guy is the real deal.