It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nonsense.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I've posed this question numerous times on ATS for the last two days and nay have answered it, instead, it's simply ignored all together, and with due protocol; it's an imperative.

The United States goverment, acting upon marginal intelligence sought to have been in compliance with Pakistani authorities --later contested-- bombed 3 houses that harboured number two in Al-Queda. Instead of the capture of this man which would have been much easier, they decided to kill him. Now do tell me, what good is a man whose capture could have perfectly well stagnated Al-Queda for some time and led to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, dead?

Luxifero




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Is very simple, the administration has not reasons for finding bin-laden but more reasons to keep the "war on terror alive and well" so Iran will be an easier target to sell.

The more resentment grows in the middle east toward the actions of our administration in the area, they more justification for scare tactic to get the public afraid of another possible attack specially a nuclear one.

Now Iran has been accused of Seeking the production of nuclear weapons.

Just like Saddam and his MWDs, remember when they didn't find any then it change it to He was planning to acquired them


[edit on 18-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Instead of the capture of this man which would have been much easier, they decided to kill him.


Umm... that sentence right there shows how much you know about how “easy” it would have been to capture him



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   


Umm... that sentence right there shows how much you know about how “easy” it would have been to capture him


Perhaps my phrasing of that sentence was not considerate of facts, however, it still remains constant that his capture was the rational course of action, not his death.

And, yes, i'm quite sure that capturing this man would not have been that difficult once a full scale operation was conducted; or does the United States not find it appropiate to conduct such things?

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
He wasnt found by the way. Just thought Id point that out. I agree, why didnt they capture him if they knew he was there? Why did they instead decided to bomb the entire place without warning? They didnt even warn Pakistani authorities. What, could they have not helped with the capture?

Things dont add up.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Cosidering the way it was executed, I'm not all too sure we want him dead either.

Seriously, given the vast resources at our disposal, do you not think it strange that we would "tip our hand" with regards to our possible intentions by assigning a noisy Predator drone to buzz the area for several days prior to the attack, as was reported by a local tribesman?

Do you really think that ANY intelligence force's operatives would be so dense as to not realize the signal that that kind of interest would transmit to an educated, even, cunning, opponent like Zawahiri?

Given Zawahiri's relationship to bin-Laden, and given the bin-Laden family's relationship to the Bush family, perhaps Zawahiri is some one who's both too dangerous to live and possibly too expensive to kill.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join