PDA

View Full Version : "U.S. to launch 24/7 hunt for bin Laden" cnn.com headline...


cyks
Mar 5, 2004, 03:39 AM
Am I the only one that thought we were doing this since 9/11?
Guess I was wrong...silly me.

That was (and still is as I write this) the main cnn.com site headline for the majority of Thurs/Thurs night...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/binladen.search/index.html

Granted, the article does go into detail about using high-tech devices to find him- but please... saying that we're just now going after him 24/7 is just insane. Makes it sound as if our search parties all had 9-5 jobs...and when the 5'oclock whistle blew- bin Laden was safe for another day.

What's everyone else's views?

(besides the conspirist theory-in that we caught him months ago..and they are now just waiting to be closer to the election to admit it)

virividox
Mar 5, 2004, 03:50 AM
i know right, what were they doing take days of during the holidays?

maybe he slipped away during the coffee breaks.


i was always under the assumption they were doing this since the begining, or at least they should have been doing this...i guess i was wrong oh well

AssassinOfGates
Mar 5, 2004, 04:49 AM
Oh wow, so they wasted all our tax dollars on a half-arsed effort. Great work!

caveman_uk
Mar 5, 2004, 05:23 AM
Is it just me that thinks that having Bin Laden at large is actually useful to the western governments at the moment? They can push through any half-baked 'anti-terrorism' laws they want that remove our rights and civil liberties because this guy is still there as the bogeyman. As soon as he goes they'll need another good reason to screw us. My guess is they ain't been looking that hard - though don't be surprised if he gets 'found' near election time if Bush looks like he's going to lose...

Awimoway
Mar 5, 2004, 05:47 AM
It's very simple. This is an election year. Bush needs to ride the coattails of a short-term high in order to win reelection, so he put off capturing Bin Laden until 2004.

A less cynical explanation has to do with America's utter silence on the issue of Pakistan's nuclear engineer getting a tame slap on the wrist for selling nuke secrets to half the rogue nations of the world. In return for letting Pakistan off easy, they have finally allowed U.S. troops to cross the border into Pakistan. Because that really has been handicapping our efforts. I heard an army general state today that we are not crossing the Pakistani border, but that's doesn't mean it's true, of course, just that it's not publicly true. (The general sounded like he was trying to think of a veiled way of saying yes, we are crossing the border, and gave up because he couldn't think of a clever way to do that.) If we can't cross the border, then this new massive effort is a farce anyway.

Thomas Veil
Mar 5, 2004, 09:22 AM
...but please... saying that we're just now going after him 24/7 is just insane. Makes it sound as if our search parties all had 9-5 jobs...and when the 5'oclock whistle blew- bin Laden was safe for another day.
Sure! It's just like those Warner Bros. sheepdog/coyote cartoons -- "'Mornin', Sam," "'Mornin', Ralph." :D

jxyama
Mar 5, 2004, 09:26 AM
well, at least this time we are looking for something that's 100% known to have existed... :rolleyes:

rainman::|:|
Mar 5, 2004, 11:19 AM
In other news today: "Scientists begin really looking for cure for cancer" and "Police now actively solve crimes". Good god, there's not a :rolleyes: big enough.

I hope they look at whatever secret detention facilities the US has, because that's where this guy is... and probably has been for a couple of years now.

paul

MongoTheGeek
Mar 5, 2004, 11:52 AM
In other news today: "Scientists begin really looking for cure for cancer" and "Police now actively solve crimes". Good god, there's not a :rolleyes: big enough.

I hope they look at whatever secret detention facilities the US has, because that's where this guy is... and probably has been for a couple of years now.

paul

I seriously doubt that bin Ladin has been held by US forces or forces allied with them. Things will settle down when he is captured (after a brief final spurt by the true believers) If bin Ladin is not publicly captured and held there will be actions done in his name. People will rally to him. He will be a ghost.

Even from a cynical political point of view its best to catch him early. Every few weeks you can dribble out pictures and information. Besides if there has been anything proven in the past 50 years its wars don't win elections.

1macker1
Mar 5, 2004, 01:33 PM
It's not close enough to election day for them to find Bin Laden. Give it a few months, then they will magically find him.

TimDaddy
Mar 5, 2004, 02:04 PM
It's not close enough to election day for them to find Bin Laden. Give it a few months, then they will magically find him.

I'm not sure when would be a good time, politically. If he were still at large, that would be my only reason to even consider voting for Bush again. So, maybe it would be good to continue the hunt until the first Wednsday! But, for many, I'm sure if Bin Laden has been caught by election day, they will attribute it to Bush's greatness and vote for him again. If not, they may hope John Kerry will catch him. I don't know. Politics suck. Where's Gatewood Galbraith when you need him?

wordmunger
Mar 5, 2004, 02:37 PM
I heard on NPR that the reason the hunt hasn't been very intense recently is that resources were devoted to Iraq. That, combined with the fact that getting around in that area of the world is nearly impossible in winter (these are *very* rugged mountains) accounts for the slowdown.

Another way of putting this is that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we probably would have caught Osama by now.

jxyama
Mar 5, 2004, 02:42 PM
But, for many, I'm sure if Bin Laden has been caught by election day, they will attribute it to Bush's greatness and vote for him again.

i really hope the "many" you refer to above isn't that numerous...

one of my favorite jokes:

brain surgeons from germany, france and america are talking.

german surgeon: "german brain surgeons are the best in the world. we can operate on a patient and next day, he would be recovered enough to be out looking for a job!"

french surgeon: "oh, that's nothing! french surgeons are the greatest. by the day after, our patients would be out in the battlefield!"

american surgeon: "gee guys, you two are no match for america! we are so great that we can put a brainless guy in the white house and soon enough, half the country would be fighting in wars and the other half would be looking for a job!"

TimDaddy
Mar 5, 2004, 02:50 PM
i really hope the "many" you refer to above isn't that numerous...

one of my favorite jokes:

brain surgeons from germany, france and america are talking.

german surgeon: "german brain surgeons are the best in the world. we can operate on a patient and next day, he would be recovered enough to be out looking for a job!"

french surgeon: "oh, that's nothing! french surgeons are the greatest. by the day after, our patients would be out in the battlefield!"

american surgeon: "gee guys, you two are no match for america! we are so great that we can put a brainless guy in the white house and soon enough, half the country would be fighting in wars and the other half would be looking for a job!"

Funny joke.

Keep in mind, I'm just "figgurin'" here. I have no stats to back me up. I'd say, most of those people already consider Bush great and will vote for him anyway. But, there's still the undecided. Funny thing about the "swing" vote. (myself included) We do make it difficult for one party to pimp out the entire nation, but then again we often respond with our votes based on one big news headline. I try really hard not to get caught up in the hype, and look at the overall candidate. Personally, he is going to have to make a few changes, and rescind a couple of statements before I will vote for him again. I doubt he'll ever back off the gay marriage thing. I really like John Kerry, (though I think he too is against gay marriage) and I hope he picks a good running mate that won't scare me too far back to the right.

allpar
Mar 5, 2004, 02:51 PM
I seriously doubt that bin Ladin has been held by US forces or forces allied with them.

Not since 9/11. Before that, we trained him, armed him, built his headquarters (bombed by Clinton while Republicans said it was too expensive and dangerous), and funded him - along with countless other terrorists fighting the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and the impossibility of sustaining a dictatorship over that vast a population and land space in the modern world. So who did the terrorists target? You got it.

No, we haven't been making a major push for Bin Laden lately, we've been fighting Iraq. You remember them, that's the country right next to the one the 9/11 terrorists came from. (Saudi Arabia in case you didn't know.)

We've been working on reducing Saudi Arabia's support of terrorists by, um, issuing a rare press release saying that if they are doing this by accident would they please reconsider their system for allocating financial aid.

keysersoze
Mar 5, 2004, 02:58 PM
So they are going to use U2's, predator drones and listening devices...

1. U2's are most definitely NOT new technology, therefore I presume they have been using them already.

2. Predator Drones everyone knows about, from various discussions. I presume it is even MORE likely they have already been used.

3. These listening devices? Maybe.

24/7? Agreeing with other posts, but what the **** was happening before this announcement? A 35-hour workweek ;)

:rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
Mar 5, 2004, 03:01 PM
It's not close enough to election day for them to find Bin Laden. Give it a few months, then they will magically find him.

exactly! I've been thinking this all along.

Anyone want to do a pool on the date?

D :p