Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2770 times:
All it could potentially take is money.
I'm convinced he is in Dagestan or somewhere like that, being given room board and dialysis by some warlord type. For the right money they would happily rat him out.
Hill country Pakistan is just too primitive for someone with major health issues. He has to be somewhere he can be treated for them. That would fit with the Antonovs which left Afghanistan just before the Coalition hit.
Air2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2691 times:
Fine, so what you're saying is that if we do find him, we do nothing because of the election? No, you think we already have him in the bag and are waiting the right time to spring it on the world. Let's see, how many people would that actually involve?
Well, The President and Vice-President, of course.
Secretary of Defense
A couple of "assistants to the secretary"
The actual troops
Don't forget OBL himself and all his people
Oh yeah, and all the Pakastani forces that are in the area.
Yeah, I think we can keep that secret.
You know what? He's going to get caught sometime, maybe it will be tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month, maybe next year. It really doesn't matter, the President's enemies will always find a way to spin it.
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
You know Randy, you really come through as the brainwashed fool you are when you can say that a stunt is the only way Bush can win the election while he has an 11 point popular vote lead and a lead in the electoral college. His job approval is 54%, and no President has ever not been reelected with over 50% this late in an election year. Oh, and you know who was the last guy to jump straight from the Senate to the Presidency? John F. Kennedy. 44 years ago. A Kerry win would make history, and I don't see Kerry as any kind of history making candidate. No one is voting FOR Kerry, only against Bush. Kerry has no substance to his campaign other than "Bush Sucks Vote for Me!" and Senator Smilies as the runningmate. Of course the hardcore Dems and the brainwashed (like Randy) will vote for Kerry, but the swing vote isn't. The debates will give Bush a decisive and safe lead. Bush will have rock bottom expectations, while the "brilliant orator" Kerry will have the bar set very high. Kerry will have trouble keeping people awake, never mind actually helping his campaign. Bush will meet expectations by surviving, and, judging by the improvement in his oratory skills in the Convention address, should make quick work of destroying Kerry by one simple issue. Iraq. If Kerry goes pro-war, he loses the liberal base. They will flock to Nader, and probably push him above 5% nationally. That gives him federal matching funds and automatic ballot access in a lot of states, and it gives the Democrats a hard time for elections to come. If Kerry goes anti-war, the Lieberman/Miller style Democrats will flip to Bush. If Kerry can dodge enough and keep up the "yes no maybe bowl of mush" during the debates, the GOP attack dogs will slay him for the flip flopping. I just don't see how Kerry can win.
VonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4644 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
You guys can't be serious. You think if they were REALLY close to catching him they'd broadcast it all over the media for everybody to see? That's like going on local news and saying you're going to rob a particular bank tomorrow. Give me a break.
Sept. 11 is getting near, people will be remembering... Nice timing to be "close" to nabbing OBL. I guess the raising the terror alert level game is losing its effectiveness.
United4everDEN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
nothin but a attempt to steal the election.....Bush cant win this one without some stunt.
Maybe you all are just too thick headed. Why would we wait to capture bin laden at the moment before the election ends when we know where he is, and what in the world makes you think that JUST Bush has control over when laden is captured??? Morons...
Cadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1810 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2646 times:
I agree with the thought that Osama will be captured in the near future - possibly very close to Election Day (which would give Bush the election). As I recall, wasn't Bush's popularity at a low when Saddam was captured? Then if I recall correctly, he became popular again, albeit for short time. I think that the military, CIA, etc. knows exactly where Osama is, and possibly even has infiltrators with him.
Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
>You know Randy, you really come through as the brainwashed fool<
I guess you might say there was 4700+ BWfools in MSG then....
I voted for Bush in 2000 because he SEEMED to be a man of integrity he has since proved otherwise......I wish those who accuse Kerry of Flip Flopping would take a look at there own Bush......youll find that you are a brainwashed hypocrite.
>JUST Bush has control over when laden is captured??? Morons...<
Like our intellegence agencys are that incompitant....Ill bet they know where OBL is within the size of the big Island of Hawaii.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29990 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2632 times:
Will believe it when it happens,
We have been "Close" before remember.
Saying we are "close" is taking a risk if he isn't caputured, but I don't think the statements in the article mentioned where intended to indicate that we had him surrounded and where starting to pump tear gas into the cave.
Frankly I think the whole statement is meant more for Osama's ears rather then US domestic ears, if you get my meaning.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
It's just to fucking coincidental for me. When they get the son-of-a-bitch, I'll still pump my fist. But... this close to the election?????
I figured you would be smarter than to start this conspiracy horseshit.
If it turns out to not be the case then I will ask you for salt and pepper so that I can eat my crow. But to me, this is a rumor, not a conspiracy theory and it has been floating around for a while now. But, if it happens, I stand by my first statement.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13376 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
You really think he's already, or about to be captured?
Remind us again of the effectiveness of the intelligence services, really saw Sept 11th coming didn't they?
Really got all those fearsome WMDs nailed down in Iraq didn't they?
With their record, if he is captured, luck may well play a part.
You may never catch him, if Pakistan cannot, in their own territory, what chance a bunch of US forces loudly going in?
Would it matter if he was, he's a figure-head, an inspiration to like minded people, certainly now if not before he was ran out of Afghanistan.
AQ are a very loose, disparate group, not some baddies all holed up in some secret complex like a bad James Bond film.
AZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2443 times:
I wouldn't put it past Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al., to pull of a surprise "capture" of Osama bin Laden within 2-3 weeks of the election. It's just their style. It will only happen if Bush's lead shrinks to 1 or 2 points or if Kerry regains some momentum and retakes the lead. Otherwise, we won't likely hear anything about OBL.
I also voted for Bush in 2000 because I believed he was sincere and could be trusted. I won't be voting for Dubya in '04. I'm supporting Kerry all the way. Kerry's focus is where it ought to be right now - an economy that stinks!
This is not to say we shouldn't be concerned about the war on terror. We absolutely should continue to track down bin Laden and his Al Qaeda assassins. However, that effort should have NOTHING to do with Iraq. The war on terror is separate from Iraq. As long as bin Laden is alive and free, he is able to continue to recruit for Al Qaeda. He is able to spin his message of hatred for the U.S. Translation: OBL is still the most dangerous terrorist on the face of the Earth.
Bush tells us we're a safer world with Saddam in prison and out of power. I would correct him on one account: IRAQ is a safer country without Saddam in power. The rest of the world is still one huge target for the world's worst madman.