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.

 

Possible Breaking: Bin Laden Audio Tape

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
No thanks, a training camp in Afghanistan mean's squat when the Taliban itself offered to assasinate Bin Laden and Bush refused.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
No thanks, a training camp in Afghanistan mean's squat when the Taliban itself offered to assasinate Bin Laden and Bush refused.
Isnt that a pity. To let him slip thru our fingers like that.
I tell you Osama is very well protected, imho.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
[Agreed, It is also likely that the recent attack on the pakistanis killed several al qaeda, hence bin laden offering a truce now......even though his terms for a truce he realises are not realistic.



You know XP, I think this POS and his organization are on the ropes and this "truce" is a way for him to buy time to re-organize AQ for the next strike against us.

There is no truce with these kinda people.....its us or them. OBL and his followers will continue to be hunted down like Jackels.

Maximu§



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDayAfter

What I wonder is how are we not able to find him? Is the country of Afghanistan actually all that big or is the terrain the major issue?


Well yes that is a big area to luck for one man but theres alot of other factors to consider. First the terrain issues which there are many since its some of the worst terrian found anywhere in the world remote mountains , valleys, cliffs etc.. its just a nightmare to work in those types of areas. Its like the entire country was created for a ambush.

Then theres the fact that it borders a country that has a large disputed area that even thier own goverement is afraid to go into in a country that we are not really suppose to be going into to in the first place. So thats a poreous border to a safe haven which is home to lets say people that arent fans of the West.


Most important might be the people. Unlike Saddam which alot of Iraqis hated people love Osama. We only caught Saddam because somebody (one of his own people) ratted him out. Nobody is going to betray Osama like that hes a hero to many people in that area.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
No thanks, a training camp in Afghanistan mean's squat when the Taliban itself offered to assasinate Bin Laden and Bush refused.


FYI that offer was giving in the Clinton years so it was Clinton who passed up the Taliban's offer - not 'old Bush'

But lets blame bush for everything its so much more fun

www.abc.net.au...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I think the Iran angle has merit. The U.S. needs a way to legitimize an attack on Iran and with Al-Qaeda's threats, assuming for a moment they carry them out, what better way to say to the disillusioned public...I told you so.

I think it would be naive to assume that because this man and his followers live like dogs they couldn't carry out on their threats. We already have proof of that. It's not really even up for discussion.

brill



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDayAfter
external image


What I wonder is how are we not able to find him? Is the country of Afghanistan actually all that big or is the terrain the major issue?



I just read this and it pretty much summed up what I was thinkin' ~



MSNBC
How Bin Laden continues to elude U.S.
Al-Qaida leader well-practiced in hiding, secure communications


WASHINGTON - In the past six years, the U.S. twice had Osama bin Laden in its sights.

In 2000, when caught on tape in Afghanistan by a CIA Predator drone, the Clinton administration failed to pull the trigger. Then, three months after 9/11, bin Laden was reportedly wounded in the battle of Tora Bora but still managed to escape.

The U.S. hasn't come that close since.

But how has a 6-foot, 5-inch man of bin Laden's notoriety managed to avoid capture all this time?

U.S. military and intelligence officials believe bin Laden remains in hiding somewhere on either side of the rugged Pakistan-Afghanistan border — his whereabouts closely guarded by local tribesmen. It's believed he rarely travels, and when he does, it's alone. No large entourage — a potential dead giveaway — and probably on motorbike.

He makes no phone calls that could be traced. And when he does communicate, it's most likely by courier.

But U.S. officials believe they are closing in. The officials claim a more aggressive Pakistani military and vastly improved intelligence have led to the killing or capture of several high ranking al-Qaida operatives in the past year — but still no bin Laden.

Some experts believe this latest tape suggests bin Laden feels under no immediate threat.



No immediate threat is a understatement. He is well protected and knows that our resources now are being heavily taxed to the limit. Why should he feel threatened. What's bad is that even when he is caught if ever there will always be someone to pick up where he left off. Sad to say that the U.S. financed him back when USSR was tryin' to take over Afghanistan (mind you they never successfully accomplished).



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDayAfter
Sad to say that the U.S. financed him back when USSR was tryin' to take over Afghanistan (mind you they never successfully accomplished).


Thats not really true

The US hardly ever picked were the weapons they supplied to the Afghan fighters went. They used Pakstani intel to do that for a bunch of reason one being many fighters wouldnt accept direct help from a non muslim country. They just knew if the poured enough weapons into the country they would get used on the Soviets and they were right.

Osama along with pretty much all foriegn fighters in that war were a minor factor. That war was fought and won by local Afghan fighters.

Osama really didnt do much fighting in that war and was already wealthy. He mainly came in and built loads of stuff during that time with the help of his famlies wealth and construction business.

Osama was only the smallest factor in that war and only a tiny blip of the US radar at the time. To think he was the US backed Hero against the Soviets or something is pretty funny



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Yes, and let's just say thas this time they Got the Translation Correctly.




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by TheDayAfter
Sad to say that the U.S. financed him back when USSR was tryin' to take over Afghanistan (mind you they never successfully accomplished).


Thats not really true

The US hardly ever picked were the weapons they supplied to the Afghan fighters went. They used Pakstani intel to do that for a bunch of reason one being many fighters wouldnt accept direct help from a non muslim country. They just knew if the poured enough weapons into the country they would get used on the Soviets and they were right.

Osama along with pretty much all foriegn fighters in that war were a minor factor. That war was fought and won by local Afghan fighters.

Osama really didnt do much fighting in that war and was already wealthy. He mainly came in and built loads of stuff during that time with the help of his famlies wealth and construction business.

Osama was only the smallest factor in that war and only a tiny blip of the US radar at the time. To think he was the US backed Hero against the Soviets or something is pretty funny



Thanks for clarifying that for me ~ I guess I was sort of mislead on that aspect



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Osama was only the smallest factor in that war and only a tiny blip of the US radar at the time. To think he was the US backed Hero against the Soviets or something is pretty funny

Ofcourse, that is NOT entirely True.

USA Support for Afganitan Rebels started even before the Soviet Invasion.


Soviet Invasion of Afganistan

The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs "From the Shadows", that American intelligence services began to aid the opposing factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment.

And they were SIGNIFICANTLY founded and armed by the United States - by the CIA, which was a DECISIVE Factor in defear of Soviet Invasion.


Mujahideen

After the Soviet invasion these mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Reagan referred to these mujahideen as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Osama was only the smallest factor in that war and only a tiny blip of the US radar at the time. To think he was the US backed Hero against the Soviets or something is pretty funny


Yes pretty funny....but true.

Osama had money, and contacts and influence. The CIA used him as as a contact and a fighter.

He was a factor. And he did fight.

He got his famous AK-47 off a Soviet soldier he killed.

Osama had few qualms with accepting US aid against what he considered the bigger scourge of the time....the godless hordes of the USSR.

That's not to say he liked the USA.....but accepting aid from them to fight the USSR?

His enemy's enemy was his friend in this case.

And any help against The Red Army was gladly accepted.

Stinger missiles to down Soviet helicopters just being one of the weaponry that was gained from such a relationship.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
There is no truce with these kinda people.....


You got that right.

Sorry if I'm repeating others in this thread (and I hope I am!) But I'm not buying that this is a Bin Laden tape. He would never offer a truce for any reason! How can anyone think he would? That makes him look weak!

On the other hand, it makes it look like the US is winning and therefore will bolster US citizens' support for this war. Who benefits?

This tape, which was 'confirmed' by the CIA the DAY it came out, is BS. Please consider the motive of this tape showing up just now. Who benefits?


Originally posted by curme
The US needs to distract world opinion from the fact it recently bombed innocent women and children in Pakistan. Now they can say, "Look, see? It's Bin Laden! We had to do it!"


Exactly! It takes the attention off the innocents who were killed in that attack. Who benefits?


Originally posted by LA_Maximus
why would the CIA advertise its failure to catch OBL....everytime OBL spews his garbage its a slap in the face to the CIA.


The CIA/BushCo NEED Bin Laden to be alive! He's more valuable to them alive than dead. He's their most effective tool of fear (and control)! He's what they splash in our faces every time they need more support for the war. They want to prolong the war because they're not done yet!

Besides ALL that, remember when it used to take a week or so to confirm a video tape? Please! You're being played!

There will be an attack all right, but it won't be from Bin Laden. It will be from our own government and/or CIA and Iran will be blamed and we'll go after them. And some people will suck it up like truth soup!



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
If the tape is not faked, what do you guys think of accepting the truce on the conditions that Osama and his top Lieutenants surrender to the international community? If they don't accept our conditions then we know they're still wanting to fight, and if they accept our conditions then there's a chance that the probability for peace would increase dramtically . . . If the Bush Administration took that stance then we could see exactly where everyone stands, and I mean everyone, the whole international community. I think it's naive and downright foolish to totally ignore Bin Laden's offer, there's so much that could be gained by at least discussing it.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dameris
I think it's naive and downright foolish to totally ignore Bin Laden's offer, there's so much that could be gained by at least discussing it.


He hasnt even spell out his conditions for the truce yet. And why the truce, is terrorism not working for him the way it suppose to? The 9/11 attacks should have been enough to persuade America to appease, but I guess it didnt work as plan, of course I knew it wouldn't, so now hes asking for a truce. Its a delay plan, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The CIA/BushCo NEED Bin Laden to be alive! He's more valuable to them alive than dead. He's their most effective tool of fear (and control)! He's what they splash in our faces every time they need more support for the war. They want to prolong the war because they're not done yet!


I agree strongly with you there Heretic... If they wanted him found or dead he would be dead. It is no coincidence that now that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low - suddenly a new Bin Ladin tape comes out and not only offers a truce, but makes it look like Bin Ladin is succeeding due to the "division" within the U.S. Basically telling the American people - "hey, look what you are doing - you aren't backing the war so you're encouraging the terrorists". Bin Ladin is such a puppet.

One thing that does bother me though - and I'd love to hear some insight from others here on this... One thing mentioned in the news article I read is that after the Madrid bombinbs, Bin Ladin did offer Europe a truce, similar to this one. Then, not long afterward, we had the London bombings.

It's not really a stretch of the imagination to say that now that we've been offered a truce.... then a real terrorist attack within the next few months/year is imminent? And what the heck was it supposed to mean when he said "You be seeing it in your homes"? Is he talking about the television with a lack of English skill....or was he hinting at what the attack might actually entail....

Some questions to mull over...any thoughts?

-rdube02

[edit on 20-1-2006 by rdube02]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

He hasnt even spell out his conditions for the truce yet. And why the truce, is terrorism not working for him the way it suppose to? The 9/11 attacks should have been enough to persuade America to appease, but I guess it didnt work as plan, of course I knew it wouldn't, so now hes asking for a truce. Its a delay plan, nothing more.


Why do we care about his conditions? If he wants a truce, he should surrender. If he is truly a man of his people then he should be willing to step up and make that sacrifice. Appeasing radical Muslim extrememists shouldn't happen, but we should at least make more of an effort to appease the Muslim countries we directly effect. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are a direct result of Western influence and intervention in the Middle East and Western Asia. If we are the World's police force then we should make every effort to appease all cultures, not just Western ones.

I don't know why the truce. I could make assumptions of course. Perhaps he offered the truce because he doesn't want to fight anymore. Maybe he knows he's caused more damage then good. Maybe he realizes now that he's instigated a war that could last for decades, and he's trying to find a way to stop it. To delay, to make time to better plan and prepare the next major attacks? Possibly. But maybe he's like Genghis after China, and offers peace and an alliance first before destroying you if you don't accept. Who knows why the truce? Only he knows why he made the offer, and to assume without proper investigation is just marching the U.S. and Western civilization closer to the inevitable . . . another and perhaps the final confrontation between 2 extremely different cultures who both want their piece of the pie.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dameris
I don't know why the truce. I could make assumptions of course. Perhaps he offered the truce because he doesn't want to fight anymore. Maybe he knows he's caused more damage then good. Maybe he realizes now that he's instigated a war that could last for decades, and he's trying to find a way to stop it. To delay, to make time to better plan and prepare the next major attacks? Possibly. But maybe he's like Genghis after China, and offers peace and an alliance first before destroying you if you don't accept. Who knows why the truce? Only he knows why he made the offer, and to assume without proper investigation is just marching the U.S. and Western civilization closer to the inevitable . . . another and perhaps the final confrontation between 2 extremely different cultures who both want their piece of the pie.


It has been like this throughout Islamic history - Muslim leaders/prophets were ready to make a temporary truce with "infidels" if it would benefit Muslims. Part of the reason he is making this truce is for the sake of the Muslim community. Offer a truce - followed up with an attack. That's what we saw with the London bombings...

I believe it is his dream for us to accept conditions to leave Iraq so that he & Islamic fundamentalists can move in and take over & create another state much like they had in Afghanistan under the Taliban. That's just my own take on it anyway.

-rdube02



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
I agree strongly with you there Heretic... If they wanted him found or dead he would be dead.


I actually think he is dead. But we'd never hear about it from 'credible' news sources unless it somehow served our purposes. And right now, him being alive and kicking serves to scare the people into giving up their rights. It's an old trick.



One thing mentioned in the news article I read is that after the Madrid bombinbs, Bin Ladin did offer Europe a truce, similar to this one.


Do you have a link to that article? If not, do you remember who reported it? And I wonder why it wasn't news back when the illeged truce was offered... Does anyone remember hearing about a truce?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I actually think he is dead. But we'd never hear about it from 'credible' news sources unless it somehow served our purposes. And right now, him being alive and kicking serves to scare the people into giving up their rights. It's an old trick.


You believe he is dead, yet you don't believe Al Jazeera's playing the audio tape as a credible source that he is alive?





Do you have a link to that article? If not, do you remember who reported it? And I wonder why it wasn't news back when the illeged truce was offered... Does anyone remember hearing about a truce?


Osama did spell out a truce back in 2004 I believe just after the Madrid bombings. The European nations refuse to agree with the truce. It was news.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join