Re: Is Osama in Iraq?

In article
<357442fa-4be8-4e7c-bad0-303dc3d8ba01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
SilentOtto <silentotto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 29, 8:46 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<39dfca72-445b-42c1-a566-d03ddb065...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

SilentOtto <silento...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How convenient....

bin Laden isn't in Pakistan, where going after him would cause
considerable political turmoil with an erstwhile ally...

It wouldn't cause anything of the kind, of course. The US hits targets
inside Pakistan on an ongoing basis:

The Pakistani government is having increasing difficulty denying
strikes, they're very unpopular within Pakistan and are contributing
to the political instability and the increasing animosity toward U.S.
base forces in Pakistan.

Any sort of serious incursion would have a very serious political
backlash in a country that is our main supply artery to Afghanistan.

You're just guessing wildly,

I bet you think Bhutto was a popular leader in Pakistan, too.

Heh.

The turmoil in Pakistan hardly began when Dubya walked up the Capitol
steps that cold day in January back in 2001.

It was there long before the CIA started funneling money through
Peshawar to the Mujahidin in Afghanistan back in 1980.

Throughout it all, the Pashtuns have been a thorn in everyone's sides.
They will be so when Obamination is crowed King in November, as well.
The best bet is he'll withdraw rather than suffer their thorns during
his reign.

Osama bin Laden will be able to move back there at that point. And the
Iranians may just let him, too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL24645020080131?feedType...
&feedName=topNews

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/top_al_qaeda_ma.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9909169/

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/01/al_qaeda_suicide_cel.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR200...
101799.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR200...
701539.html

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=3945

Again, you'd think if bin Laden was in Pakistan, the last thing Dubya
would have done is bring the hunt to an abrupt end in March of 2002.

Because he needed to start assembling the forces for the invasion of
Iraq, obviously.

It doesn't take 143,000 American soldiers to track down and assassinate
a single Expatriated Saudi Sheik and a few of his ragtag associates.

Operation: Enduring Freedom was the wrong war, the wrong place, and it
was fought for all the wrong reasons. Which is why the US helped the NA
conduct it, rather than jumping in there with both feet.

No...

He's in Iran, the very country that the Bush administration has had an
aching hard-on to bomb for the last five years.

You shouldn't listen to blithering idiot malcontent anarchists like
Seymour Hersh. I can assure you, Hersh loathes you almost as much as he
hates himself.

One doesn't need to read Hersh to recognize that the NeoCons in the
Bush administration badly wanted to attack Iran.

One actually DOES need a Hersh to discredit the Conservatives. It's how
the game is played.

BTW, it's about time you stopped showing your ignorance by labeling
anything chauvinistically American as "NeoCon." You don't know what a
"NeoCon" is, and it's /obvious/ you don't know; and the more you use
that term, the more you appear to be a "mind numbed robot."

The Bush administration obviously used Hersh. Sy is extremely gullible,
after all.

He's even been caught using forged documents for his books. He thinks
the Soviets tried to bomb Pearl Harbor because one of their submarines
sank in the Pacific. He thought Graner was following orders at Abu
Ghraib. He thought Lt. Calley was following orders at My Lai, too.

If you understood the first thing about Iran and her nuclear weapons
project--or her activities in regional political struggles since 1979,
you'd know how foolish you are for buying into that claptrap and
nonsense.

Those who have been following this all along are stunned at Dubya's
insistence on using kid gloves with everything Iranian.

Dubya outlined the plain and simple truth in January of 2002, and has
attempted to dance around the truth ever since. But he's danced only
with his words, never his actions--his actions have followed the
principles of that speech ever since.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

One need only pay attention to their rhetoric and naval deployments.

Yes, that defines the limits of your attention span, we know.

The US was well aware of the secret nuclear weapons project in Iran as
early as 1993, when the facilities at Natanz were nearing completion.
Dubya's administration was well aware that the enrichment cascades were
already running the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Dubya chose August of 2002 to have MeK blow the whistle on those
facilities--because he was attempting to preempt counter actions from
Ali Khameine'i as America prepared to launch OIF.

It was Dubya, himself, who appointed the guy who wrote the NIE last
year--the same report which seemed to contradict his administration's
"aggressive" stand on Iran's secret nuclear project.

Funny how, with the publication of that report (which even IAEA doesn't
buy), that the "insurgency" in Iraq died down to a whisper. Funny how
al-Sadr keeps telling his thugs to lay low.

Funny how a deal was made and you didn't even notice.

Heh heh...

The vast majority of the insurgent activity against U.S. forces was
being conducted by Sunni insurgents.

The "insurgency activity against US forces" was never a major factor in
ANYTHING in Iraq--except for fueling your hysteria.

Must you perpetuate that silly tunnelvison which destroyed all the
rational dialogue in this country?

Don't answer--we already know the answer...

You're right...

A deal was cut.

It was cut by Petraeus who agreed to stop trying to bring the Sunnis
under government control, agreed to recognize Sunni militias as the
lawful security forces in Sunni controlled areas of Iraq and agreed to
provide funding and training for the Sunni militias.

That happened too. It was Hersh who first pointed it out. He thought
this discredited the United States.

Heh. What a fucking ridiculous old fool is Hersh. If he weren't an
anarchist being backed to the hilt by the Socialists in the US, I'd
laugh even harder.

The so-called Sunni-Shi'ite war was being fueled from outside. It does
seem, on the surface, counterintuitive that the Mullahs would be funding
both sides of that conflict in Iraq, but there's a preponderance of
evidence that that is EXACTLY what they were doing.

Petraeus saw what needed doing and did it.

In return, the Sunni insurgents agreed to stop attacking U.S. forces
and to stop providing safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq.

That was a very, very small part of the conflict. Something you seem to
be ignoring is that the IED attacks, such as they were, were more
expensive to them than to the US. They were bound to come to an end,
anyway.

That's why the insurgency died down, not some deal with Iran.

The "insurgency" in Iraq was NEVER directed against the US forces,
dummy. That part of their efforts was never effective, and only
continued because the Opposition Party in America used them for their
Anti-America campaign back here on the Homefront.

The "insurgency" in Iraq was always Iraqi Shi'ites and Sunnis vs Iranian
Shi'ites, and it was always about control of the New Government.
/Iraqis/ were the victims--and the numbers speak for themselves, of
course.

Amazing with all of your so called "expertise" that you totally missed
what Petraeus has done....

I'm not an expert. I'm just a cowboy on Usenet, like you.

As to Sadr, it's clear that he's biding his time and saving his
resources for the fight to come once U.S. forces are withdrawn from
Iraq. He doesn't need his militias mauled by direct confrontation
with U.S. troops, especially when he can prevent any political
agreements, like the misnamed "revenue sharing plan" and just wait us
out.

That being said, I fully expect Sadr to resume "reminding" us that
it's time to leave as we approach the elections.

You can't keep your Minutemen together when there's no conflict. They
have lives to lead--and they'll get jobs, have families, join their
local school board council.

He's willing to fight us, and he will if circumstances make it
necessary.

If he waits too long, he'll have nothing to fight us with.

But, he's too smart to fritter away his strength in attacks he doesn't
really need to make.

I wish NeoCons were that crafty.

Al-Sadr may have already lost his ability to mount credible attacks (not
against the US, dummy).

Last year's NIE may have signaled the end of his Iranian Gravy Train.

What an amazing coincidence.

When are you going to post an interview with the guy who has a sister
who grooms the Persian cat owned by the guy who changed the windshield
wipers on bin Laden's house maid's car?

You're lost and afraid in a world you never made. That's okay, Seymour's
just as clueless as you. And HE has a Pulitzer under his belt.

From the guy who claimed that the real reason for invading Iraq was to
engage Iran in a proxy war...

Forgetting that proxy wars are supposed to work the other way around.

No, invading Iraq in order to engage Iran is exactly what happened, and
it's exactly the way proxy wars work.

Are you illiterate, or are you just too lazy to crack open a history
book?

Hahahahahaha...

Rightards...

Kid, next to me, the "Rightards" might as well all be Marxists.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
.

Loading