Do you think Bin Laden is dead?

[Nevadamedic]

I just read this on Wikopedia........

April 2005
The Sydney Morning Herald stated "Dr Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, says documents provided by an Indian colleague suggested bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year...'It's hard to prove or disprove these things because there hasn't really been anything that allows you to make a judgment one way or the other', Dr. Williams said."[85]


August 2006
On September 23, 2006 the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (DGSE) stating that Osama bin Laden had died in Pakistan on August 23, 2006 after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's alleged death on September 4, 2006.[86][87][88] The alleged death was reported by the Saudi Arabian secret service to its government, which reported it to the French secret service. The French defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie expressed her regret that the report had been published while French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed.[89] American authorities also cannot confirm reports of bin Laden's death,[90] with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying only, "No comment, and no knowledge."[91] Later, CNN's Nic Robertson said that he had received confirmation from an anonymous Saudi source that the Saudi intelligence community has known for a while that bin Laden has a water-borne illness, but that he had heard no reports that it was specifically typhoid or that he had died.

Do you think he is dead or alive? I have mixed feelings. I think there is a chance he could be dead, there's always that possibility, but then again I can see why they would want to circulate rumors of his death.

Personally I hope he is still alive as I want our Country the satisfaction of getting this son of a bitch. What do you think will happen if he is caught? Brought to trial? Or killed by our forces during the captured?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Given his history of ESRD, if he is alive, he's getting dialyzed somewhere. A diagnosis of massive organ failure would not be inconsistent with ESRD, if the patient has a line infection from a hemodialysis catheter or peritonitis from a PD catheter. Either can lead to sepsis and multi system failure. Of course, the Bush administration let him slip out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. So much for "dead-or-alive". Of course, if he's dead, well BushCo doesn't want that to get out as they can't use that boogey-man any more to try and frighten American's gullible enough to fall for their shit.

 

[Paulie]

Of course, if he's dead, well BushCo doesn't want that to get out as they can't use that boogey-man any more to try and frighten American's gullible enough to fall for their shit.

Wow. I love to see the truth spoken.

 

[Annie]

Wow. I love to see the truth spoken.

And the Democrats wouldn't want it to get out for their most bandied complaint about Iraq is that first bin Laden needed to be dead.

 

[JeffWartman]

George W. Bush is the last person that wants to capture bin Laden.

 

[Nevadamedic]

George W. Bush is the last person that wants to capture bin Laden.

That's not true at all.

 

[JeffWartman]

That's not true at all.

Yes it is. Learn history and you would know that.

 

[Bern80]

Yes it is. Learn history and you would know that.

that's a little out there. Why don't you explain to us your version of history that makes that plausible.

 

[JeffWartman]

that's a little out there. Why don't you explain to us your version of history that makes that plausible.

Bully eluded to it earlier. In order for Bush's policy to work, you need an enemy...someone to rally against. Bin Laden is the face of that enemy. Once he gets captured, the short attention span of the American public is drawn to something else.

The American public are very simple minded people. To get them to keep fighting, you need a face for the enemy. Bin Laden is really all they've got.

 

[Bern80]

Bully eluded to it earlier. In order for Bush's policy to work, you need an enemy...someone to rally against.

Bush's policy? You mean his policy to fight terrorists. You're right, that's way out there.

Bin Laden is the face of that enemy. Once he gets captured, the short attention span of the American public is drawn to something else.

The American public are very simple minded people. To get them to keep fighting, you need a face for the enemy. Bin Laden is really all they've got.

Incorrect on many levels. One, the American people don't fight the war. the troops do. The attention span of the people is irrelevent. For you're argument to work what you would really need to mean is that the American peolpe won't tolerate a continued war on terrorism if bin Laden is caught. By extension then what you are saying is that the American people will see no need to fight the war on terror once bin Laden is caught. The American people aren't that simple minded. To say the American people are stupid enough to believe the war on terror would be over once bin Laden is caught is the statement of an elitist.

 

[JeffWartman]

Incorrect on many levels. One, the American people don't fight the war. the troops do. The attention span of the people is irrelevent.

You couldn't be more wrong. Throughout our history, wars end when the public turns against the war.

For you're argument to work what you would really need to mean is that the American peolpe won't tolerate a continued war on terrorism if bin Laden is caught. By extension then what you are saying is that the American people will see no need to fight the war on terror once bin Laden is caught. The American people aren't that simple minded. To say the American people are stupid enough to believe the war on terror would be over once bin Laden is caught is the statement of an elitist.

That's not what I said. I said the public would turn to something else, not that the WOT would be "over"

You're confusing the WOT with the War in Iraq...keep in mind, Iraq and 9/11 had nothing do with each other.

 

[Bern80]

You couldn't be more wrong. Throughout our history, wars end when the public turns against the war.

Accept for Vietnam and possibly Korea, why don't you name some.

That's not what I said. I said the public would turn to something else, not that the WOT would be "over"

If that's not what you said than what difference does the attention span of the American people make as far as Bush's policy concerned. especially since he'll be out of office shortly anway?

You're confusing the WOT with the War in Iraq...keep in mind, Iraq and 9/11 had nothing do with each other.

You'd like to think that. I am well aware they are two different things and had nothing to do with each other. Which makes your statement about bin laden's capture that much more confusing. You honestly believe that the American people think the face of the war in iraq is bin Laden? get real. Even Bush isn't makeing that claim anymore.

You're going to have to better clarify in what context the capture of bin Laden would hurt Bush and why he doesn't want it. Cause I can't come up with one reasonable explanation

 

[JeffWartman]

Accept for Vietnam and possibly Korea, why don't you name some.

First of all, it's "except"

Are you denying that you need public support for war?

If that's not what you said than what difference does the attention span of the American people make as far as Bush's policy concerned. especially since he'll be out of office shortly anway?

If you read what I wrote, I said "Bush's policy" not just the WOT.

You'd like to think that. I am well aware they are two different things and had nothing to do with each other. Which makes your statement about bin laden's capture that much more confusing. You honestly believe that the American people think the face of the war in iraq is bin Laden? get real. Even Bush isn't makeing that claim anymore.

You just made my point. You said he isn't making that point "anymore" No educated person EVER thought Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Nada.

You're going to have to better clarify in what context the capture of bin Laden would hurt Bush and why he doesn't want it. Cause I can't come up with one reasonable explanation

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Gem]

Bully eluded to it earlier. In order for Bush's policy to work, you need an enemy...someone to rally against. Bin Laden is the face of that enemy. Once he gets captured, the short attention span of the American public is drawn to something else.

The American public are very simple minded people. To get them to keep fighting, you need a face for the enemy. Bin Laden is really all they've got.

I think you and Bully both are giving the American public far too much credit. They have already demonstrated quite conclusively that they don't truly care about capturing Bin Laden. Bush and his team have worked quite hard at moving the discourse away from Bin Laden to Islamic extremists in general...Bin Laden has been quite effectively minimized. In fact, I would imagine that even if he were captured the Democrats would be out in force discussing why it didn't matter even as Bush was trying to backtrack to demonstrate why it was suddenly important again that we caught him. And while they hop back and forth trying to get more points for their side, most Americans are yawning and watching American Idol or whatever the latest bullshit reality tv series is this week.

 

[JeffWartman]

I think you and Bully both are giving the American public far too much credit. They have already demonstrated quite conclusively that they don't truly care about capturing Bin Laden. Bush and his team have worked quite hard at moving the discourse away from Bin Laden to Islamic extremists in general...Bin Laden has been quite effectively minimized. In fact, I would imagine that even if he were captured the Democrats would be out in force discussing why it didn't matter even as Bush was trying to backtrack to demonstrate why it was suddenly important again that we caught him. And while they hop back and forth trying to get more points for their side, most Americans are yawning and watching American Idol or whatever the latest bullshit reality tv series is this week.

We may have differences, but I can respect that well thought out, mature post.

 

[Bern80]

Are you denying that you need public support for war?

Your statement was; "Throughout our history, wars end when the public turns against the war."

I asked a simple question asking you to prove it. For you to be correct the majority of wars ended because the people no longer supported them. Out of the wars our country has fought alone I came up with one, maybe two. According to you there should be more. What are they?

If you read what I wrote, I said "Bush's policy" not just the WOT.

If you read what I wrote I also said Bush's policy. So again I ask hpw is the capture of Bin Laden not good for Bush's policy? Quit bein and RSR and just answer the question.

You just made my point. You said he isn't making that point "anymore" No educated person EVER thought Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Nada.

So if no one believe that why would the capture of Bin Laden hurt Bush?

Then you haven't been paying attention.

There's a little over a dozen posts here now. Whar is there pay attention to? the one statement I have to go off is that you said Bush doesn't want Bin laden caputured because it will derail the attention span of the people. derail it from what exactley?

 

[JeffWartman]

Your statement was; "Throughout our history, wars end when the public turns against the war."

I asked a simple question asking you to prove it. For you to be correct the majority of wars ended because the people no longer supported them. Out of the wars our country has fought alone I came up with one, maybe two. According to you there should be more. What are they?

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm not just talking about the United States. I'm talking about war in general.

If you read what I wrote I also said Bush's policy. So again I ask hpw is the capture of Bin Laden not good for Bush's policy? Quit bein and RSR and just answer the question.

I have already answered this question. People will diminish the terror threat because they feel safe that bin Laden is now captured. Obviously they would be wrong. So Bush wants OBL out there so he can keep going after suspected "terrorists"

 

[Bern80]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm not just talking about the United States. I'm talking about war in general.

That specificity makes no difference. You said wars end when public support turns against them. So what wars ended that way? This shouldn't be hard as you claim to know this to be so. I wasn't specifically talking about American either, I used it as an example to disprove your point.

I have already answered this question. People will diminish the terror threat because they feel safe that bin Laden is now captured. Obviously they would be wrong. So Bush wants OBL out there so he can keep going after suspected "terrorists"

Again what difference does it makes if we feel safer, rightly or not? You think somehow Bush is going to miraculously give in to the opinions of the American people if bin laden is captured and change his policy?

 

[JeffWartman]

That specificity makes no difference. You said wars end when public support turns against them. So what wars ended that way? This shouldn't be hard as you claim to know this to be so. I wasn't specifically talking about American either, I used it as an example to disprove your point.

U.S. involvement in Vietnam
U.S. involvemnent in Korea
USSR involvement in Afghanistan
and on and on and on...

Again what difference does it makes if we feel safer, rightly or not? You think somehow Bush is going to miraculously give in to the opinions of the American people if bin laden is captured and change his policy?

I never even came close to saying anything like that. You need some reading comprehension skills, man.

 

[Bern80]

U.S. involvement in Vietnam
U.S. involvemnent in Korea
USSR involvement in Afghanistan
and on and on and on...

Oh nice try. Just admit you made about the stupidest statement ever when you said that. That is a whopping 3 out of god know how many wars there have been in the history of the world. Your statement very clearly states that the vast majority of wars ended due to public sentiment and all you could come up with was three? Either admit it was dumb statement or keep going cause I'm not buying it. the following wars did not end that way.

WWI
WWII
The Civil War
The American Revolution
Gulf War I
Iraq War (so far)

I never even came close to saying anything like that. You need some reading comprehension skills, man.

You most certianly did and simple reason dictates for your argument to work the above would need to be true. You said the capture of bin laden would hurt Bushes policy. Okay, so how could it do that? Well your presumption is that somehow via the American people feeling safer because of bin laden's capture it will somehow alter Bush's policy.

So Bush wants OBL out there so he can keep going after suspected "terrorists"

the assumption than has to be that he will stop going after suspected terrorists for the sole reason that american's feel safer with OBL out of the way. Which is ludicrous, Yuo need to examine your argument before you accuse other of reading comprehension problems.