Article

2006-09-11 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-09-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 *bravo* WaPo - a brilliant spin piece which lets them have it their way regardless of how you look at it. Triangulation perfected. I eagerly look forward to their, um, demise.

Posted by .com 2006-09-11 02:36|| 2006-09-11 02:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Fresh bullshit in time to heap on the masses for 9/11, fits nicely the donk narrative

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-11 06:21|| 2006-09-11 06:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Binny boy would still be using satellite phones, were it not for our friends in the press.

Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but like everything else, actions have consequences.

Posted by Bobby 2006-09-11 06:26|| 2006-09-11 06:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Rawalpindi.
Warmer now?

Posted by john 2006-09-11 07:08|| 2006-09-11 07:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Maybe the trail is 'stone cold' because Binny is 'stone cold'. Check that cave in Tora Bora again. But if I'm wrong, what are they going to do with him when they catch him? We'll have to get permission from a Carter appointed judge to even feed and house him let alone bring him to justice.

Posted by GK 2006-09-11 07:15|| 2006-09-11 07:15|| Front Page Top

#6 The "stone-cold' thought occurred to me, too. On the other hand, one way to avoid Carteresque judicial interference would be to simply "forget" to mention Binny's capture to the press.

Posted by SteveS 2006-09-11 09:07|| 2006-09-11 09:07|| Front Page Top

#7 At least we know WaPo is a sucker to anonymous sources.

The colder this trail is described, the hotter it may be.

Posted by john">john 2006-09-11 10:27|| 2006-09-11 10:27|| Front Page Top

#8 "Maybe the trail is 'stone cold' because Binny is 'stone cold'"

well the argument is that he cant be dead, cause theres no chatter that hes dead.

But OTOH it seems that the reason we cant find him is cause hes so hidden. Only Zawahiri, it would seem, is actually in contact with him.

Would anyone other than Zawahiri actually know if he died? (I presume any low level attendants could be shut up by Zawahiri, one way or another) So if he died, wouldnt it be up to Zawahiri to decided whether to let it out or not? What would be in it for Zawahiri to let the truth out?

NOt saying OBL IS dead, just saying theres real questions here.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-11 10:48|| 2006-09-11 10:48|| Front Page Top

#9 Didn't he have several body doubles for secutiry purposes? Osama bin Laden isn't dead until they are, too.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-11 12:26|| 2006-09-11 12:26|| Front Page Top

#10 "Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'"

So's he.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-11 16:23|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-09-11 16:23|| Front Page Top

#11 OBL couldn't let today go by without making a video. He's dead, Jim

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-11 16:58|| 2006-09-11 16:58|| Front Page Top

#12 Hmmm. 'New' Bin Laden audiotape discussing 5 year anniversary of 9/11 to be released in 5....4.....3....2....1..

Just sayin'.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-11 17:12|| 2006-09-11 17:12|| Front Page Top

#13 audio ain't video. All he has to do is hold up a DailyTimes copy with the date on it, and he'd gain a boatload of publicity and volunteers. The fact he hasn't tells me he's dead and Ayman doesn't want it to get out

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-11 17:32|| 2006-09-11 17:32|| Front Page Top

#14 And when it does, look for the left to immediately declare the WOT to be over.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-11 17:35|| 2006-09-11 17:35|| Front Page Top

#15 yep, that's a given....

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-11 17:38|| 2006-09-11 17:38|| Front Page Top

#16 I am skeptical of Binny still breathing. If he shows up on hte next video wtih the current NFL scores then maybe I will think differently.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-09-11 19:24|| 2006-09-11 19:24|| Front Page Top

#17 Binny dead, Hmmmm, maybe. Maybe not. But the piss poor allocation of resources to bring his head to the fair citizens of this country is not debatable.

The Iraq war took preeminence. We all know it did. Right or wrong, I don't care, that is irrelevant to me. The Iraq war took resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden, and we might have him by now if resources were focused on his capture. I'm simply more interested in the righteous revenge on Bin Laden than Iraqi passification.

Is or has Binny been directing anything, operationally in recent years. Doubt it, but whatever the case, his head would be a welcome find.

I for one still want to see GW mount Binny's head on the front of a classic caddy. Add some bull horns for theatrics and sew a pig's head onto his corpse just for shits and giggles. Then take a Southern states tour with Toby Keith and Lynrd Skynrd to display the sorry fuck's corpse, but again that's just me.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2006-09-11 20:33|| 2006-09-11 20:33|| Front Page Top

#18 The Iraq war took resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden, and we might have him by now if resources were focused on his capture.

Really?

The proponents of the "we were distracted by Iraq" theory typically point to Tora Bora as the time and place more US troops could have captured bin Laden. Leaving aside the practical issues of a larger US presence in Afghanistan -- basing, force protection, logistics -- given that Tora Bora was in 2002, just how the fuck did events still a year in the future prove a distraction?

But now let's look at the practical issues...

More troops mean more supplies; how were they to get into Afghanistan? Obviously roads from Iran were out; roads from Pakistan would pass through FATA or Waziristan. There are roads from Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, but those are far, far from deep-sea ports and there aren't that many passable routes.

More troops means more convoys for beans and bullets; more convoys means more targets. Convoys are the classic soft target for irregular forces; look at Iraq. So you have to put troops to protecting the convoys -- patrolling the convoy route, acting as QRFs, escorting -- and that means that the more troops you put in, the fewer will actually be able to do anything but force protection.

So those extra troops really don't contribute much, and eventually, start to cost you opportunities.

Yeah, keeping our forces light and relying on local forces cost some opportunities, too. But it also meant more strategic flexibility.

The flexibility that removed a major terrorist supporter and scared the piss out of another one.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-09-11 21:42|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-09-11 21:42|| Front Page Top

16:23 Zpaz
16:20 Zpaz
15:59 Zpaz
15:48 Zpaz
15:37 Zpaz
15:19 Zpaz
15:18 Zpaz
15:10 Zpaz
14:36 Zpaz
13:47 Zpaz
13:37 Zpaz
13:12 Zpaz
12:55 Zpaz
11:27 Zpaz
23:59 Old Patriot
23:53 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:46 Zenster
23:44 Zenster
23:44 anymouse
23:41 Zenster
23:38 Zenster
23:33 trailing wife
23:28 RD