Eight Long Years: Where Is Osama Bin Laden?

I wanted to broach this topic in a non-partisan and intelligent way on the day of the eight year anniversary since the United States occupied Afghanistan. To be clear, let's get past bashing Bush for a moment and deal with the present debate regarding the war on terror under the current administration. This is now President Obama's war.

The United States is about to double down in Afghanistan and send an additional 40,000 troops there, and it seems the idea of actually capturing or being close to capturing Bin Laden isn't often discussed. He's no longer in our consciousness like he was during the aftermath of 9/11.

President Obama declared during the campaign that he would kill Osama (not related to Obama) if the opportunity presented itself. But here's the rub, in a study published online February 17 by the MIT International Review, the geographers report that simple facts, publicly available satellite imagery and fundamental principles of geography place the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. in one of three buildings in the northwest Pakistan town of Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.

Now I'm not one easily, if ever, given to conspiracies but if the United States knows the general area where this son of bitch is located, why can't we just focus there? If we have the most capable intellingence and military personnel in the world, how come we can't get a whiff, some DNA, a hair fragment, a video machine, anything that let's us know Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

My question to you fellow Warpathers is, if we caught Bin Ladin tomorrow would you still be in favor of sending 40,000 troops into Afghanistan or at least drawing down? It seems to me that the government, and to an extent the media, has controlled the narrative and have done a good job continuing to justify and selling the war on terror; particularly in Afghanistan.

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

As your a military man(or were) I'd love to hear your opinion even if I end up disagreeing with it.

Well let me see if I can kick this off with a couple of thoughts.

I think President Obama is determinded to go in Afghanistan no matter what. This is the one area where he has broad Republican support. The cynic in me wonders if he's so desperate to add a bi-partisan bullet point to his resume that he's leaning towards giving General McChrystal what he wants.

But I also wonder if he would flip on his promise if we magically come up with Bin Laden? I think public sentiment would sharply turn against us being there at that point. And the conspirosist in me wonders if we've long held off from capturing Bin Laden because of the politics of war.

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

Were you in the Marine Corp?

If I had my way everyone would know where Osama was. He's be in the radio-active dust cloud circling the globe.

There is basic tenant to warfare that was taught by Sun Tzu. Long protracted wars bankrupt countries and drain a nation's health.

This whole BS makes me sick. I think it's a lie. It stinks of money if you ask me. I find it awfully convenient that we're spending a lot of money to keep oil in the ground when China needs it the most. It's also convenient that the Chinese want to decouple oil prices with dollars.

This war that we're being shown is only a small part of the larger economic war that the West (& Russia) is fighting against China. When the West wants to ramp up the war, Iran will get lit up, not because of Nukes but to keep China from getting oil out of the Persian Gulf.

I don't believe anything that I hear on television or read in newspapers.

I wanted to broach this topic in a non-partisan and intelligent way on the day of the eight year anniversary since the United States occupied Afghanistan. To be clear, let's get past bashing Bush for a moment and deal with the present debate regarding the war on terror under the current administration. This is now President Obama's war.

The United States is about to double down in Afghanistan and send an additional 40,000 troops there, and it seems the idea of actually capturing or being close to capturing Bin Laden isn't often discussed. He's no longer in our consciousness like he was during the aftermath of 9/11.

President Obama declared during the campaign that he would kill Osama (not related to Obama) if the opportunity presented itself. But here's the rub, in a study published online February 17 by the MIT International Review, the geographers report that simple facts, publicly available satellite imagery and fundamental principles of geography place the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. in one of three buildings in the northwest Pakistan town of Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.

Now I'm not one easily, if ever, given to conspiracies but if the United States knows the general area where this son of bitch is located, why can't we just focus there? If we have the most capable intellingence and military personnel in the world, how come we can't get a whiff, some DNA, a hair fragment, a video machine, anything that let's us know Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

My question to you fellow Warpathers is, if we caught Bin Ladin tomorrow would you still be in favor of sending 40,000 troops into Afghanistan or at least drawing down? It seems to me that the government, and to an extent the media, has controlled the narrative and have done a good job continuing to justify and selling the war on terror; particularly in Afghanistan.

I have actually seen more in the media asking the question if we should stay in Aghanistan then I have seen in support of building up even more troops.

We're going to be in Afghanistan long term. This is way past Bin Laden at this point. Lots of problems in the region that aren't going away in our lifetimes. We will always be able to use the "instability" of the Afghan gov't as a justification to be there. Afghanistan is too strategic with everything going on in the region. Permanent presence there allows us to project firepower quickly where necessary.

Even if we wanted to leave the country would quickly destabilize and breed many more Bin Ladens. Another issue of major concern is the stability of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. We've seen Pakistan's government isn't exactly on rock solid ground either.

To your conspiracy theory, it definitely isn't outside the realm of possibility. Or another conspiracy theory is that he's already dead and these "tapes" that occasionally surface are fakes created by us.

from wiki:
As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_Air_Field) base, described as "a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries - the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army."[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180) The Bagram Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Air_Base), run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar).[182] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-181)
In February 2009, The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan.[183] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-British_to_play_smaller_role_as_US_troops_fight_.E 2.80.98losing_battle.E2.80.99-182) One will be built in Kandahar province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_province) near the Helmand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmand) border, at Maiwand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiwand) - a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maiwand) during the Second Anglo-Afghan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War). The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabul), a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.[183] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-British_to_play_smaller_role_as_US_troops_fight_.E 2.80.98losing_battle.E2.80.99-182)
Geo-strategic military build-up

The dramatic build-up of an indefinite American/American-led military presence in Afghanistan has unsettled some regional powers, including Russia. However Russia has agreed to let the United States and NATO to use its airspace for logistical purposes[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
"Is it all to fight a number of Taliban - 10,000, 12,000 Taliban?" Zamir Kabulov, Russia's ambassador to Kabul, has questioned. "Maybe this infrastructure, military infrastructure, [is] not only for internal purposes but for regional also."[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
Russia views the large and indefinite military build-up as a potential threat "because Afghanistan's geographical location is a very strategic one," Kabulov said. "It's very close to three main world basins of hydrocarbons: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, Central Asia." [181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
Other observers have also noted that through a stronger military presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. may be seeking to strengthen its own position in the region to counter increasingly warm relations among India, China and Russia.[180] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Karzai_Hints_at_Permanent_U.S._Military_Basing-179)
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea) energy sources and being in the midsts of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.[179] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Afghan_riots_bode_ill_for_US_long-term_plans-178)[184] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Permanent_U.S._bases.3F_Afghans_see_an_election_is sue-183)

We're going to be in Afghanistan long term. This is way past Bin Laden at this point. Lots of problems in the region that aren't going away in our lifetimes. We will always be able to use the "instability" of the Afghan gov't as a justification to be there. Afghanistan is too strategic with everything going on in the region. Permanent presence there allows us to project firepower quickly where necessary.

Even if we wanted to leave the country would quickly destabilize and breed many more Bin Ladens. Another issue of major concern is the stability of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. We've seen Pakistan's government isn't exactly on rock solid ground either.

To your conspiracy theory, it definitely isn't outside the realm of possibility. Or another conspiracy theory is that he's already dead and these "tapes" that occasionally surface are fakes created by us.

from wiki:
As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_Air_Field) base, described as "a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries - the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army."[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180) The Bagram Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Air_Base), run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar).[182] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-181)
In February 2009, The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan.[183] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-British_to_play_smaller_role_as_US_troops_fight_.E 2.80.98losing_battle.E2.80.99-182) One will be built in Kandahar province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_province) near the Helmand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmand) border, at Maiwand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiwand) - a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maiwand) during the Second Anglo-Afghan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War). The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabul), a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.[183] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-British_to_play_smaller_role_as_US_troops_fight_.E 2.80.98losing_battle.E2.80.99-182)
Geo-strategic military build-up

The dramatic build-up of an indefinite American/American-led military presence in Afghanistan has unsettled some regional powers, including Russia. However Russia has agreed to let the United States and NATO to use its airspace for logistical purposes[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
"Is it all to fight a number of Taliban - 10,000, 12,000 Taliban?" Zamir Kabulov, Russia's ambassador to Kabul, has questioned. "Maybe this infrastructure, military infrastructure, [is] not only for internal purposes but for regional also."[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
Russia views the large and indefinite military build-up as a potential threat "because Afghanistan's geographical location is a very strategic one," Kabulov said. "It's very close to three main world basins of hydrocarbons: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, Central Asia." [181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-NATO_Base_In_Afghanistan_Gets_Major_Expansion-180)
Other observers have also noted that through a stronger military presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. may be seeking to strengthen its own position in the region to counter increasingly warm relations among India, China and Russia.[180] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Karzai_Hints_at_Permanent_U.S._Military_Basing-179)
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea) energy sources and being in the midsts of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.[179] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Afghan_riots_bode_ill_for_US_long-term_plans-178)[184] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#cite_not e-Permanent_U.S._bases.3F_Afghans_see_an_election_is sue-183)

Your making my arguement stronger.

The Oil Card - Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century, by Jim Norman (http://theoilcard.com/)

Believe what you want. This war isn't about freedom or any of that "Mom & Apple Pie" BS the media spews.

Your making my arguement stronger.

The Oil Card - Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century, by Jim Norman (http://theoilcard.com/)

Believe what you want. This war isn't about freedom or any of that "Mom & Apple Pie" BS the media spews.I'm not disagreeing with you, oil, control of nukes, shutting down future terrorist training grounds, China, Russia, Iran it's all in play here.