• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you believe Bin Laden is dead or alive?

Do you believe Bin Laden is dead or alive?

  • alive

    Votes: 14 60.9%

  • dead

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • Total voters
    23
jfuh said:
Quite a large border, why don't we know more specifically, and yes I'm thus implying, why haven't we caught him yet?
Click to expand...

Who knows what we know, why haven't we caught lots of people we are looking for, perhaps because we haven't found them or we can't get them from where they are.

Why haven't we had any evidence either way?
Click to expand...

We've had speculation either way.

Do you know? Why is it even a question?
Click to expand...

I asked you, what has he done lately?
 
jfuh said:
Why neither you nor I know if he's dead or alive? That's the answer to your question - just as I answered before that you failed to comprehend.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was asking anyone to make a factual statement and provide solid evidence. It's your OPINION based on the evidence at hand.

You asked me why I don't know, let me ask you one.

What happen to the WMD materials Saddam declared, UNSCOM said he had, but we never found? What happened to them and if you don't know, why?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Again, no answer, only an attack. Just as I expected.

Why can't you just address your weak claim that we "left Afghanistan"? I'll tell you why. Because you know it was a false claim and you had hoped you could sneak it through this discussion. The truth is we are still in Afghanistan, fighting terror and rooting out al-queda. Your false guise of our having "left Afghanistan" is over, jfuh. You lied. You were caught. Deal with it.

Furthermore, I am asking that you stop attacking other posters intelligence and comprehension and such. Please stay on topic and avoid the flaming. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Attack? Stating that you failed to comprehend is not an attack. If I told you to get your head out of your *** though that would be an attack. Try to decipher the difference.
Like I said, if you can not comprehend the fact that we have no idea where OBL is, we have allowed for the taliban to take control over everywhere outside of the capital then you will understand exactly what it means when the rest of us say "we left Afghanistan" Perhaps you think that because there are still US troops in Japan, Germany and S. Korea that we are still occupying those countries too?
 
Stinger said:
Who knows what we know, why haven't we caught lots of people we are looking for, perhaps because we haven't found them or we can't get them from where they are.
Click to expand...
4 years and 0 results? OBL still at large and completely unknown, Taliban in control of everywhere outside of the capital?

Stinger said:
We've had speculation either way.
Click to expand...
Why only speculation and nothing solid or factual? 4 years and we still "don't know".

Stinger said:
I asked you, what has he done lately?
Click to expand...
My answer is why don't we know? I don't know, do you? No, no one knows. 4 years now and still no one knows anything more about OBL than what we knew about him before 9/11. He was cornered in Tora Bora and now we have no clue whatsoever. Why don't we know anything?

I'll tell you why we don't know and why you can't give a reason either - we left Afghanistan and turned our imagination to Iraq, but I'm sure you already knew I was going to say that.
 
jfuh said:
Attack? Stating that you failed to comprehend is not an attack. If I told you to get your head out of your *** though that would be an attack. Try to decipher the difference.
Like I said, if you can not comprehend the fact that we have no idea where OBL is, we have allowed for the taliban to take control over everywhere outside of the capital then you will understand exactly what it means when the rest of us say "we left Afghanistan" Perhaps you think that because there are still US troops in Japan, Germany and S. Korea that we are still occupying those countries too?
Click to expand...

Okay, it's a pity you weren't able to "comprehend" the simple question that was asked of you. Frankly, anyone can see it for the dodge that it was. Fine, jfuh. We "left" Afghanistan - whatever helps you sleep at night. :roll:
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Okay, it's a pity you weren't able to "comprehend" the simple question that was asked of you. Frankly, anyone can see it for the dodge that it was. Fine, jfuh. We "left" Afghanistan - whatever helps you sleep at night.
Click to expand...
Glad I could help you to admit that.
 
................

Moderator's Warning:
Cool it.
 
Gunny: This thread needs to know who you are directing the warning to. Thanks.
 
jfuh said:
4 years and 0 results? OBL still at large and completely unknown,
Click to expand...

Actually 12 years, but the last 4 he has been put into a cave and in hiding.

Why only speculation and nothing solid or factual? 4 years and we still "don't know".

My answer is why don't we know? I don't know, do you?
Click to expand...

So you can cite to any actions he has been able to take or be successful at, any terrorist attacks since we ran him into hiding?

No, no one knows. 4 years now and still no one knows anything more about OBL than what we knew about him before 9/11. He was cornered in Tora Bora and now we have no clue whatsoever. Why don't we know anything?
Click to expand...

Cause he's pretty good at hiding in some of the roughest country on the earth. How did the Millininum Bomber hide out right here in the country so long. Do you have a way to get him that our mostly highly trained Special Forces and military planners haven't thought of or something?

I'll tell you why we don't know and why you can't give a reason either - we left Afghanistan and turned our imagination to Iraq, but I'm sure you already knew I was going to say that.
Click to expand...

We have 30,000 troops in Afghanistan last I heard.

What was the last attack OBL planned and carried out?
 
Stinger said:
Actually 12 years, but the last 4 he has been put into a cave and in hiding.
Click to expand...
When did Congress allow Clinton to launch an invasion into Afghanistan? They didn't, they were too busy trying him over a blow job; nope, only 4 years.

Stinger said:
So you can cite to any actions he has been able to take or be successful at, any terrorist attacks since we ran him into hiding?
Click to expand...
that's avoiding the question. There was quite a time between the first and second WTC bombings.

Stinger said:
Cause he's pretty good at hiding in some of the roughest country on the earth. How did the Millininum Bomber hide out right here in the country so long. Do you have a way to get him that our mostly highly trained Special Forces and military planners haven't thought of or something?
Click to expand...
I don't have a way, millennium bomber was ultimately caught and within how long? our country is also far larger than Afghanistan with much of the roughest terrain as well. The FBI did not have the full military at it's disposal to find the guy. We do have the full military at our disposal to find OBL. Yet still as I've said, we know nothing more about him than we did before he bombed the WTC. As I said, repeatedly now, we don't know because we turned our attention away from the War on terror to nation building in the wrong country.

Stinger said:
We have 30,000 troops in Afghanistan last I heard.

What was the last attack OBL planned and carried out?
Click to expand...

I can't answer this last question; however what is 30,000 in such a rocky terrain? If they are effective why has the taliban now in regained control of just about everywhere but the capital? oh right, because we left afghanistan and turned our attention to Iraq.
 
jfuh said:
When did Congress allow Clinton to launch an invasion into Afghanistan? They didn't, they were too busy trying him over a blow job; nope, only 4 years.

that's avoiding the question. There was quite a time between the first and second WTC bombings.
Click to expand...

I believe he is remarking on the complete lack of substance against Radical Islam throughout the 90's. It is true that "Islamic fundamental" and "religious terrorism" was considered taboo and too politically incorrect (unless the subject was on the evils of Christianity) to discuss. This sentiment was infectious and it spread throughout Washington. This means that not even the intelligence world was authorized to consider such things and certainly it was never placed in a report that the President had to see. People may voice on the "extreme" measures taken by this current administration, but to be fair they should also voice on the "extreme" lack of measure by President Clinton.

We could have gotten Osama Bin Ladden in the 90's. He was even offerred to us. However, the fear of breaking international law (which is designed to protect the tyrant and his soveriegnty) and using military forces guided President Clinton to do nothing. In the mean time, U.S. Marines and civilians were being killed in embassy bombings, U.S. Sailors were killed on an attack on a vessel, U.S. Airmen were killed in a barracks bombing, and U.S. soldiers were ambushed and killed during a UN peace keeping mission, and American civilians were murdered in the first WTC. The response by President Clinton was an empty promise to bring these terrorists to justice, declare the first attack on the WTC an FBI issue (no Patriot Act) rather than a CIA issue, and a few insignificant bombings on empty buildings.

Al-Queda and countless agents in other organizations were hardened by their victories against the "Great Satan," and the Middle Eastern youth smiled. What is so very sad is how Americans today complain about how much our friends in Europe don't like us anymore for our actions, but dismiss that we lost the respect of our enemies long ago. And as we saw on 9/11, that is far more dangerous against this new age of superstition where our enemy is reaching back to anchient thirsts for religious violence.

I keep saying this. Getting and killing Osama Bin Ladden is important (if he still lives), but it will do nothing against a civilization that is stranded in misery from Cairo to Islamabad, whether we speak of religious oppression and brutality or brutal dictator.
 
Last edited:
I can't answer this last question; however what is 30,000 in such a rocky terrain? If they are effective why has the taliban now in regained control of just about everywhere but the capital? oh right, because we left afghanistan and turned our attention to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Who took responsability for the London/Madrid bombings? Just a question.
 
Hatuey said:
Who took responsability for the London/Madrid bombings? Just a question.
Click to expand...


There has been speculation regarding links between the bombers and another alleged al-Qaeda cell in Luton, which was broken up in August 2004. That group was uncovered after al-Qaeda operative Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was arrested in Lahore, Pakistan. His laptop computer was said to contain plans for tube attacks in London, as well as attacks on financial buildings in New York and Washington.

A website known to be operated by associates of al-Qaeda had been located with a 200-word statement claiming responsibility for the attacks.

The attacks bear similarities to the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and suggest an attack in the style of al-Qaeda. Budapest-based security analyst Sebestyén Gorka told the Reuters wire service that "the first thing that's very obvious is the synchronised nature of the attacks, and that's pretty classic for Al-Qaeda or organisations related to al-Qaeda".

Source


The problem here is that this enemy does not march under a banner or reside in a single country. They are from all over the Middle Eastern region and some aren't even born and raised there. Chasing around "rogues" of Islam is foolish while standing by and watching a civilization crash. This would be the same thing that we are doing with this "war on drugs." We fool ourselves into thinking that we are making some great progress by arresting up the dealer on the street as we allow the Cartels that thrive under host nations that enjoy the international law of soveriegnty to grow the fields in plain view.
 
Last edited:
jfuh said:
When did Congress allow Clinton to launch an invasion into Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

When did they turn him down? He had his full term of 8 years to get him and he didn't.

Originally Posted by Stinger
So you can cite to any actions he has been able to take or be successful at, any terrorist attacks since we ran him into hiding?


that's avoiding the question. There was quite a time between the first and second WTC bombings.
Click to expand...

No it's not, and he attacked us during that time, our Embassy's and our war ships and finally the WTC second attack on 9/11. Bush sent the military after him as oppose to Clinton who choose not to. The military has run him into hiding. DEEP hiding. We are limited in what we can do in Pakistan but if you want to go on record as saying you would support a preemptive strike in a sovereign Pakistan to get OBL if we know where he is then say so.

I don't have a way, millennium bomber was ultimately caught and within how long?
Click to expand...

Years, in our own country. If someone wants to hide and they can get some help at it, it possible to do so. Not comfortable as in the terrain OBL is stuck in and very limiting in what he can do. Let's hope our military gets him, but's let's get off the "Bush hasn't caught him", Bush isn't over there after him, Bush can only assign our resources to go after him, the people trained to do so.

our country is also far larger than Afghanistan with much of the roughest terrain as well.
Click to expand...

Oh please, don't even try to make that argument. Hunting someone one here, in our own country, within our own borders, amongst our own citizens is not EVEN comparable as to the difficulty. So don't insult our intelligence here with that argument.

As I said, repeatedly now, we don't know because we turned our attention away from the War on terror to nation building in the wrong country.
Click to expand...

And that is pure conjecture on your part and in direct conflict with the opinions of the generals and officers in charge.

I can't answer this last question; however what is 30,000 in such a rocky terrain? If they are effective why has the taliban now in regained control of just about everywhere but the capital?
Click to expand...

Well maybe because we turn control over to NATO and they just don't want to fight. Maybe we need to take over again, would you support that?

oh right, because we left afghanistan and turned our attention to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea we could not do both?

Do you disagree with this statement

""Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.""

Hmmmm?
 
Stinger said:
When did they turn him down? He had his full term of 8 years to get him and he didn't.
Click to expand...
Lol, so what did that same congress say when Clinton launched cruise missile's into Afghanistan? Something about turning the attention away from a blowjob trial?

Stinger said:
No it's not, and he attacked us during that time, our Embassy's and our war ships and finally the WTC second attack on 9/11. Bush sent the military after him as oppose to Clinton who choose not to. The military has run him into hiding. DEEP hiding. We are limited in what we can do in Pakistan but if you want to go on record as saying you would support a preemptive strike in a sovereign Pakistan to get OBL if we know where he is then say so.
Click to expand...
IF we know where he is in Pakistan absolutely, go all in, I'm sure the Pakistani government would be open to assisting.

Stinger said:
Years, in our own country. If someone wants to hide and they can get some help at it, it possible to do so. Not comfortable as in the terrain OBL is stuck in and very limiting in what he can do. Let's hope our military gets him, but's let's get off the "Bush hasn't caught him", Bush isn't over there after him, Bush can only assign our resources to go after him, the people trained to do so.
Click to expand...
There you go editing again, leaving out the key sentences that the FBI does not have all the resources or manpower at it's disposal. If they did, things would be very different.

Stinger said:
Oh please, don't even try to make that argument. Hunting someone one here, in our own country, within our own borders, amongst our own citizens is not EVEN comparable as to the difficulty. So don't insult our intelligence here with that argument.
Click to expand...
More edits and more spinning. Stating an obvious is not insulitory. Had the FBI more resources as is the national goal of catching OBL now, things would be very different.

Stinger said:
And that is pure conjecture on your part and in direct conflict with the opinions of the generals and officers in charge.
Click to expand...
Lets look at your statement below to see just how contradictory this statement you've made here is. Also, when was the last time we heard active officers stating anything but optimism? Retired officers and generals, now that's different.

Stinger said:
Well maybe because we turn control over to NATO and they just don't want to fight. Maybe we need to take over again, would you support that?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely I'd support it - glad to see you agree that we left afghanistan and focused on Iraq. Perhaps now you can retract that post just above.

Stinger said:
Where do you get the idea we could not do both?
Click to expand...
Where's OBL?

Stinger said:
Do you disagree with this statement

""Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace;
Click to expand...
Nothing so far
Stinger said:
that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists;
Click to expand...
Everything here has been debunked over and over.

Stinger said:
that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States;
Click to expand...
After the first gulf war he wasn't even a threat to Kuwait much less further countries. Tell me, how was Saddam a threat to the US? Was it "imminent"?

Stinger said:
and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the Chinese, Russians, or Europeans agree with this.

Stinger said:
" The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.""Hmmmm?
Click to expand...
It has undermined US efforts completely. As well as various portions of the statement that have been completely debunked now.
 
jfuh said:
Had the FBI more resources as is the national goal of catching OBL now, things would be very different.
Click to expand...

"Patriot Act."

By giving the case to the FBI and labeling it a domestice issue, the CIA was cut out of the investigation. Why was it given to the FBI and not the CIA?
 
GySgt said:
"Patriot Act."

By giving the case to the FBI and labeling it a domestice issue, the CIA was cut out of the investigation. Why was it given to the FBI and not the CIA?
Click to expand...
No, you're confused. The reference was being made to the capture of the former millenium bomber, not OBL. Had the FBI more resources then to capture the bomber he would've been caught much sooner.

I don't know why OBL was given to the FBI; nor did I know that he was given to the FBI, do you?
 
jfuh said:
No, you're confused. The reference was being made to the capture of the former millenium bomber, not OBL. Had the FBI more resources then to capture the bomber he would've been caught much sooner.

I don't know why OBL was given to the FBI; nor did I know that he was given to the FBI, do you?
Click to expand...

The first WTC bombing was given to the FBI and was defined as a criminal act. It was just an example on how the CIA was locked out of the investigation and how "fundamental religion" was not to be considered as a strategic aspect in the 90's. The FBI would have had more resources if it was treated for what it was and the CIA was involved. A terrorist act by religious extremists.


"Ramzi Ahmed Yousef is a Kuwaiti of Pakistani descent who was one of the Muslim planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was arrested at an Islamabad, Pakistan Al Qaeda safe house in 1995 and was extradited to the United States."

In the mean time Al-Queda was untouched and continued to carry forth it's war on the west...

Yemen 1992
Somalia 1993
Operation Bojinka
Saudi Arabia
1998 U.S. embassy bombings
1999 and 2000 attacks
September 11, 2001 attacks
Paris embassy attack plot, 2001
The Singapore embassies attack plot.
The kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and numerous bombings in Pakistan.
The El Ghriba synagogue bombing in Djerba, Tunisia, which killed 21.
Foiled attacks on Western warships in the Strait of Gibraltar.
The Limburg tanker bombing.
A November 2002 car bombing in Mombasa, Kenya, and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner.
Bombings of Western compounds in Riyadh in May 2003 and other attacks of the Saudi insurgency.
The Istanbul bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2003.

This was all due to the pattern set by President Clinton and his "political correct" view on this threat. It infected all levels of Washington and the reports of Islamic terrorism went unacknowledged. It carried right over to the Bush administration. Truth be known, if it wasn't for 9/11, Al-Queda would still be blowing up embassies and attacking the military wherever they breath. But, since the unthinkable did happen, the U.S. declared the War on Terrorism in 2001. Al-Queda members consist of Somalis, Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghansis, and now....Iraq. They fly under no single nation's banner (except the nation of Islam) and all Muslim governments silently cheer for their efforts. In the mean time the failing civilization in the Middle East continues to be determined to indoctrinate hate upon their children.

This all began with Washington's need to ignore this threat some time ago for immediate gains that continue today.
 
I think that he is alive, but I don't think that it really matters. He is sick or wounded and out of action.
 
I believe that Bin Laden is alive and well. What he is doing is enjoying that confusion that he has caused Bush. I can't believe that a dead man (Bin Laden) have returned from the dead 7 times according to the American Media.
Another thing that's strange to think about is...why the American hounds was able to kill Saddam, but is catching hell trying to get Bin Laden, and I am starting to wonder is Bush and Laden talking in secret?

I am willing to bet that Bin Laden is alive in hiding, due to the fact that if he was Dead the media would be around his body, and by noticing the media I know he is alive.
 
Do you believe Bin Laden is dead or alive?
Click to expand...

I hope he's alive so that the world can see his execution.
I would make sure I wasn’t the one firing the blank.;)
 
GySgt said:
This was all due to the pattern set by President Clinton and his "political correct" view on this threat. It infected all levels of Washington and the reports of Islamic terrorism went unacknowledged. It carried right over to the Bush administration. Truth be known, if it wasn't for 9/11, Al-Queda would still be blowing up embassies and attacking the military wherever they breath. But, since the unthinkable did happen, the U.S. declared the War on Terrorism in 2001. Al-Queda members consist of Somalis, Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghansis, and now....Iraq. They fly under no single nation's banner (except the nation of Islam) and all Muslim governments silently cheer for their efforts. In the mean time the failing civilization in the Middle East continues to be determined to indoctrinate hate upon their children.

This all began with Washington's need to ignore this threat some time ago for immediate gains that continue today.
Click to expand...
Here's the point that I have. I don't think it was so much of a "political correctness" thing so much as it was a America doesn't care thing. Clinton fired a few missles, but from what I've read, the CIA couldn't make up it's mind or give credible evidence of who did it or where they were. It was by far a failure of the administration not to pursue the matter more. But then we also know what happened when they fired missiles. The Republican congress that was more than eager to start the whole blowjob trials wasn't focusing on the matter. The whole of the US didn't care about the problem either. It's no wonder that we're laughed at for being ignorant about the world outside of the US.
IN a manner of speech 9/11 was a blessing in disguise. It made us realize just how the world outside our borders really is. It made us focus on these matters more so than we would've otherwise. It has also forced us to discuss these matters and debate about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom