IT Employment

A&E's Biography was about Bin Laden last weekend. It didn't point any fingers or make assumptions but simply showed all the possibilities. They say they MAIN problem with thracking him is that he always seems to select countries with virtually no laws and the USA has no jurisdiction. These 'hideaways' are what has protected him since the early 90's when he was building his training camps, it was next to impossible for Clinton to trck him or know WHICH training camp he was in when Clinton bonbed Afghanistan. It was just a crap shoot but at least destroyed the camps for a while and perhaps reduced his numbers at the time.

I think that given the past we can surmise that the world's 'intelligence' of these countries is weak at best, these countries and regimes have been built on deception, I don't think anyone has sufficient intelligence and therefore we just sit and wait for him to emerge.

IF he is still alive, which I am certain he is because SOMEONE would want the credit for turning up a body, he is merely laughing as he always has at the US for not catching him at his game of cat and mouse.

I believe he will turn up, or at least his trained followers will, and terror will again be on the horizon.

I don't think TERRORISM as a whole can be stopped period. It's a futile attempt to ensure security, the same money (180 Billion or so) could have been better spent in improving your intelligence and alliances around the globe.

We can make it harder for terrorists to attack us by improving our own intelligence, but I don't think terrorism will ever be ended, it goes back to the dawn of time and will until the end of time.

.
I imagine he's been moving around inside Pakistan, being protected by hundreds, if not thousands, of his followers, and the Pakistani government can't (or won't) do anything to apprehend him. They have big problems with India, as you probably know, and the USA is pretty much on the Indian's side of that dispute. That's not to suggest that the USA has always agreed with India concerning the various quibbles between them, but we're certainly more aligned with India than with Pakistan.

I further imagine that we have several hundred "operatives" (both military and CIA) tracking bin Laden's movements inside of Pakistan, but they would be out-gunned and out-manned for a frontal assault to capture him - not to mention the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first place. (At least we don't have "official" permission.) These operatives are probably trying to bribe for and buy information and access in the hopes that someone will turn on bin Laden. There are probably a dozen or more teams of special forces inside of Pakistan, waiting to be sent at a moment's notice - or a second's notice, to swoop and grab if the opportunity presented itself. But it hasn't yet been possible. The last thing we want to do is bungle an attempt to snatch him inside a country in which we should not be.

And, of course, we don't hear about any of it because secrecy is vital.

That's just my guess, of course. (But it would make for a great book.)

I tend to agree with what you say, that it is probably 6 or 7, and your analysis of the reasons why he is still at large is probably highly accurate. I would, however, like to raise a possibility around option 6.

Now, please don't think that what I am going to say is what I think is the case, and I have no evidence whatever to suggest it is - I am just floating a possibility here.

We know that the Family Bush has very close ties, on a business and financial level, with the family Bin Laden. We also know that Osama bin Laden is most definitely the black sheep of the Family Bin Laden, and does not have a lot of time for his family, in part due to their ties with the USA.

Nevertheless, blood ties run very deeply in countries such a Saudi Arabia. It is always possible that the head of the Family bin Laden, has spoken to the head of the Family Bush, along the line of:
"Please, chase my son as hard as you like, but do not catch him. He is, after all, still my son. It may be to your economic detriment were you to do so."

As I said, I have no evidence to suggest this is the case, but I find it an interesting hypothesis. It would be a situation that could put the Family Bush in a difficult no win situation.

I am generally not a conspiratory theorist - I just find this possibility fascinating.

Tear it to shreds - please just do it politely :-)

Alan

.
Since I obviously can't see behind the closed doors of the Bush "family business", my skepticism is also speculation. However, I am extremely skeptical for the simple reason that the whole thing is bigger than just President Bush and/or his family.

The problem with "conspiracy theories", such as the one you suggested, is that it gives too much credit to one man - or to one family. Look past the "elected government" and the political posturing, and there are some pretty big wheels in motion. There are too many high-powered people in both the government and the military that just wouldn't let that happen. It's more than just President Bush who want's bin Laden. There are 300 million more of us - many of whom are very powerful.

I will suggest one thing, however, and we will probably be in agreement. There's a lot more to this that we know - or may ever know. (Even going back to the Clinton years.) But I prefer to avoid the "conspiracy theories". After all, I'm still trying to find out who really killed President Kennedy in 1963, organized crime syndicates or Fidel Castro - or both. (And we still won't normalize relations with Cuba.......interesting, don't you think?)

The same Biography I mentioned before actually did a big piece on Bin Laden's family.

In 1991 he was establishing secret training camps and disowned his own family. In 1993, he is said to have had a religious argument with his family and thier differences had caused his father to disown him.

Now I am not from Iran obviously, but I do have a lOT of East Indian and Pakistani friends. Culture is allowed to be kept quite diverse here and these families live by the same principals they would at home. When a Pakistani family (or Hind) has internal issues that lead to a member being diswoned, that's it, end of story and they never see nor speak of each other again.

One can then assume that seeing as Bin Laden and his family are in thier holmeland and have extremely strong religious beliefs, the same must be true in Afghanistan.

I know North American families are very tight in the social respect, but even in England and Germany the bond is very different than it is out here. People seem to enjoy individuality and personal freedoms a little more and don't spend as much time as a family unit. Perhaps this is due to the wars that forced young men and women to grow up fast, procreate and work for a living.

In North America (especially in modern times) families stay together much longer, kids stay at home while at college, they even take a year off between high school and college, there's less of a rush to grow up and move on.

Sorry for the segue, but i think it's important to explain that there are considerable cultural differences which also flow down to the family unit that must be considered.

Yes blood is blood and family is family, but it is not taken so strong elsewhere and simple squabbles mixed with stubborness will break some families up for good.

Hmm, a couple of bloody good arguments. I kind of liked the theory but I may have to park it in the unlikely bin (no pun intended). I will not be laden with it further (pun intended).

Thanks again blokes, I have to agree with both of you, and thanks for your analysis. It is good to be able to put a point of view then receive a coherent counter view that is actually good enought to make me change my mind.

Cheers,

Alan

You just need to wait for him to get up and rush out of the highrise.

(I guess that's SORTA tasteless but not intended to make light of 9/11)