This is being reported...source Time Mag.

Posted Saturday, Sep. 23, 2006

Fugitive Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, believed to be on the run in rugged terrain in the Afghan-Pakistani border region since the September 11 attacks five years ago, has become seriously ill and may have already died, a Saudi source tells TIME, echoing earlier reports in the French media.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, says that Saudi officials have received multiple credible reports over the last several weeks that Bin Laden has been suffering from a water-borne illness. The source believes that there is a "high probability" that Bin Laden has already died from the disease, but stressed that Saudi officials have thus far received no concrete evidence of Bin Laden's death.

"This is not a rumor," says the source. "He is very ill. He got a water-related sickness and it could be terminal. There are a lot of serious facts about things that have actually happened. There is a lot to it. But we don't have any concrete information to say that he is dead."

On Saturday, the French newspaper L'Est Republicain cited a report by the French intelligence service, Direction Generale des Services Exteriors (DGSE), saying that Saudi intelligence officials "seem to have become convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead." The report quoted by the newspaper said the Saudis believe bin Laden "might have succumbed to a very serious case of typhoid fever resulting in partial paralysis of his lower limbs while in Pakistan on August 23, 2006."

The DGSE report quoted by L'Est Republicain said that its information on the Saudi findings came from a "usually reliable source," indicating that it did not necessarily come directly from Saudi intelligence officials. The DGSE report cited by the newspaper said that Bin Laden's geographic isolation made it difficult for him to receive proper medical assistance for his ailment. The report said that Saudi intelligence picked up the first news of bin Laden's alleged demise on September 4. The DGSE says that Saudi authorities are waiting to get more details, "notably the exact place of his burial, before officially announcing the news," the newspaper said, citing what it called verbatim text from the report.

L'est Republicain, based in Metz in eastern France covering the Lorraine region, says the French secret services considered the DGSE report reliable enough to transmit it last Thursday to the highest levels of the French government, specifically to French President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie. Alliot-Marie has reportedly demanded an investigation into the leak of the DGSE report to L'Est Republicain.

One could only hope this is the truth.

This was/is about the only death that wouldn't automatically raise him to avatar/martyr status.

I hope his last days are/were filled with such pain that he was forced to take another look at the misery he's brought about by his actions.

Fandros

Any bets on how long before people announce the secret CIA operation to poison him just in time for elections?

But anyways, ding dong the bitch is dead... I hope.

Any bets on how long before people announce the secret CIA operation to poison him just in time for elections?

But anyways, ding dong the bitch is dead... I hope.


I think very few would find that offensive.

Doesn't matter what party affliation you belong to. You would be hard pressed to find a Dem or Repub that wasn't dancing if this was true...in heart if not in body.

Fandros

You would be hard pressed to find a Dem or Repub that wasn't dancing if this was true...in heart if not in body.

If that was true, wouldn't we have kept all our troops looking for him instead of having most of Congress and of course the entire Executive branch decide to wage war on Iraq, who still is quite unlinked to Bin Laden? My ex-girlfriend was in one of the reserve units deployed to Afganestan and was the last reserve unit out and since her departure no new troops were deployed there. I really think most of our current politicians never gave two shits.

I'm not sure where you get your info Kelraz. But from the sounds of your sources on troop deployment you had best seek a career in supermarket tabloids.

Quite false and quite out of line.


Fandros

Prove me otherwise. Prove that when we went to war with Iraq we didn't pull out the majority of our troops from Afganestan to Iraq and haven't returned.

Prove me otherwise. Prove that when we went to war with Iraq we didn't pull out the majority of our troops from Afganestan to Iraq and haven't returned.Remarkable. You just non sequitured your own post.

This was in May of this year.
NATO plans to deploy about 8,000 soldiers to southern Afghanistan starting around the beginning of August. By November, about 21,000 NATO soldiers -- compared with about 10,000 now -- are expected in Afghanistan as the alliance gradually assumes command of all international forces there.

Also...


the U.S. boosted troop strength there from about 20,000 to 23,000


Also as of 3 days ago NATO is planning on adding 2,500 more troops. And to add to the misunderstanding you have my brother-in-laws unit is going to kuwait as a ready unit to be deployed where and as needed to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yes our numbers are down since the Iraq war started but we but the troop levels in Iraq go up and down all the time. So your opinions Kelraz of the troop levels are either misguided or made up.

They're made up, I've had friends recently deploy over there.

It's why I nailed him on his laudable attempt to appear savant.

Fandros

Yes Fandros, your friend might be going to Afghanistan. We've been there for 5 years, we can hardly expect every person that’s there to have been there that entire time - some come, some go. But non-stop our numbers have been dropping there.

Korlis, I'm not sure the DOD has heard of your figures. Here's what they've reported.

From the Congressional Research Service Report To Congress on June 9th, 2006:

"As NATO force levels in Afghanistan increase, the United States expects to reduce its troop presence by approximately 2,500 service members by the end of 2006."

"According to the Department of Defense (DOD), as of May 1, 2006 there were approximately 22,900 US service members in Afghanistan"

While we are pulling 2,500 out Great Britain is sending 3,300 in. Canada is sending another 1,000 in. The Netherlands are sending 1,400 in. Denmark is sending 360 troops. France will provide an aircraft carrier.

Fandros, we take the our 23,000 there, minus the 2,500 we are pulling out, and add your friend ... that still is less than what we went in with?

You guys can go the Ostrich route if you want but our government promised we were going to Afghanistan to find and capture Osama Bin Ladin. Then they promised we were going to Iraq because of ties to Al'Queda and that they had weapons of mass destruction. Neither has happened, mostly because of our politician's bloodlust towards Iraq for whatever reason. They manipulated public opinion outraged by the attacks of September 11th to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and the "justice" the American people and the world demanded from the attacks have not and probably will not ever be achieved. Its time to realize that they never had the intention of taking out Osama.

*edit*Apparently its not just me that thinks this too. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html

On an aside, a few acquaintences I've made over at the DOD say that he didn't die of typhoid and is still alive.

The acquaintences I've made over at Reuters say the same thing.

So did my magic 8-Ball.

My acquaintances in Al Qaeda have been saying Allalalalalalalalalalalah.

If I had the time or the inclination, I'd go through all the treads started in this forum and count the number of times we've drifted off into WMD and false intentions of the Bush administration in Iraq.

I've been half tempted to start a thread about Antartic penquins just to see how long it would take to turn to WMDs and Bush's manipulations...

Oh, and I hope Bin Laden is dead. That would make my day. I was hoping he'd die from a spiked mallot up the ass, but this would do just as well.

I am sure if he is dead, Kelraz will hear first hand. He has friends in high places, or at least in his imagination.

Bin Laden can't be dead....
I saw him and Elvis in my Cherrios this morning....
They were holding hands with Dale Earnhart SR.

If I had the time or the inclination, I'd go through all the treads started in this forum and count the number of times Kelraz has mentioned his connections or his girlfriend/ex-girlfriend (GI Jane/Laura Croft) and how he knows this or that but I'd rather pick belly button lint.




I hope you don't mind Tran that I used your quote to make another point.

Well I could have said two drunk girls at the bar told me while we were watching the Skins game ... acquaintences sounded a bit more reputable :)

As long as you tucked a couple dollars between their money makers, it's cool.

...and Fildien, have you heard of intellectual rights? You'll be hearing from my lawyers!

If I had the time or the inclination, I'd go through all the treads started in this forum and count the number of times we've drifted off into WMD and false intentions of the Bush administration in Iraq.


Probably because the clash between the American political sphere and that reality thing has never been quite so clearly drawn, such that even the "we need lines for our crayons" crowd can see the huge disconnect. Possibly even more so than in Vietnam, I don't think people back then ever framed discussions in terms of the obvious pre-text and political manuevering. Perhaps Byl can chime in. In any event it's easy to get angry about and completely undermines the concept of representative government. So yeah, things come back to it.

We've had almost as many "bin Laden might be dead" stories as "Al-Qaeda's #2 man killed" stories. I'm looking forward to the ceremony welcoming water-borne illnesses as our newest ally in the "war on terror."

I'm looking forward to the ceremony welcoming water-borne illnesses as our newest ally in the "war on terror."


But only by the Will Of Allah!!!!!!!

Don't you know that the CIA has operatives poisoning the water wells? He will be a marter no matter how he dies.

Kelraz you illusional drama queen. There have been new troops going into Afgan...

Your original assertion was no new troops had been deployed...

Go back to dropping names and dates and events.....

Fandros Finglaflin
"neg repped by a crying Kelraz"

I'm sorry my profession bothers you, even when I work for your precious Fox News *retch*. Yet even the folks I work with there can't seem to find this information you are providing w/o sources, despite that I already cited where the Congressional report has stated we've been decreasing our number of troops stationed in Afghanistan consistantly since the beginning of the Iraq war. If calling the facts "illusional" makes you sleep better at night, all the better for you I suppose - thankfully the writing is already on the wall and the bulk of the folks in this country aren't as blind and ignorant to whats really going on.

Though again, I'll offer you up an opportunity to prove me and the US Congress otherwise.

If you are arguing Kelraz that troops are lower now than before the Iraq war, then say that, but when you come in and say...

My ex-girlfriend was in one of the reserve units deployed to Afganestan and was the last reserve unit out and since her departure no new troops were deployed there.

And we have said that yes new troops have been deployed there we are going to correct you and tell you that new troops have been deployed there. As for me not quoting the news sources. Those were from the same story basically plastered all over the world from that day. Cept for the first quote 4 months ago the rest was the most current news to date. So if you are the one to post a bad rep for me not stating sources. Ask for them I will gladly state them. Rather that make up facts and other peoples opinions like you so care to do.

For your reading pleasure...

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-21-afghanistan-troops_x.htm?csp=34 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-21-afghanistan-troops_x.htm?csp=34)

As for increasing troop levels. The Troop levels have gone down and back up quite a bit in Iraq. From 12/10/2005

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/20/terror/main1143289.shtml


U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan peaked at 20,300 in April 2004, dropped to about 16,500 by the end of last year, then increased to about 20,000 this year


Ohh and wait did that sat 20,300 troops at peak. Ok then what are our troop levels now??? from 9/21/2006


U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are likely to remain steady, at about 21,000, at least until next February, the top U.S. general for the mission there said Thursday.
quote from the first article...

Wait did that say we have more troops now then we had in 2004 at the supposed peak? Then if thats the case then both your arguments are indeed made up. Go back to playing telephone with your friends. Use smaller words so it is less likely to get changed in route.

Hrm you're right. Every time I looked at articles they were like the second one you linked. Rumsfeld or some big wig would make a statement leading to something like the quote out of your last article: "The announced decrease, which foreshadows the first major reduction in U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan since late last year, signifies what is expected to be a gradual decline in troop levels that will also include reductions in U.S. forces in Iraq."

I suppose I took them at their word for it, and assumed that when they said they'd be reducing force size they'd actually be reducing force size. Then of course I read the Congressional Report about reducing force size again before this thread came up, I didn't realize it fluctuated as much as it did.

We can still sit back and wonder if we'd have found Osama if we had all 145,000 troops station in Iraq searching for him as well before we went into Iraq though. The staggering difference in the numbers (145,000+ vs ~23,000) still backs my point that our priority never really was to capture Osama.

Ya but Afghanistan is not where OBL is supposedly therefore Afghanistan is waranted having that few troops. If we could send 20,000 or even 140,000 troops into the tribal region of Pakistan to get OBL then I am sure we would do that.

For someone in the game you sure don't read the rules very well Kelraz.

/chuckle

only took what, 4 pages and perhaps 5 folks to get you to see where you fuckered up?

I never debated there were lower troop numbers there, infact I think they need to be raised.

What I was debating was your blasted blind bullshit about no new troops going over there....

Fandros

AlQaeda released a new tape and curiously there was no mention of Bin Laden.