Osama bin Laden is Already Dead (In Depth Opinion Piece)

various sources | 11-28-01 | HighWheeler

[HighWheeler]

Osama was probably killed in the saturation bombing in the initial strikes. The statement Bush made on October 11 was very puzzling, considering that he is man of his word, and that only a month earlier he said the elimination of terrorists and their network would take years to complete. Yet he laid it all on the line with his offer.

I have an idea how this was all militarily executed in the first strike, and why it took almost a month to commence, and I may post it after a while.

[Steven W.]

I thought this was the desire some weeks back, too (to nail him and we'd just never find out, which is still possible) - however, my opinion changed in the last week or so. 1st because of the impressive fashion that we've waged this war it's now far better for us to nail 'em than not (whereas that was a different case than before, as you outline). At this point we should get 'em and that'll help weak-kneed coalition members gain some strength. Lastly, as far as him being dead at this point, I don't agree, because of the large number of witnesses around Jolalabad that had seen him in the prior week's time.

[Cicero]

It's a reasonable argument, and you may be correct. I think some of the points are weak, however. I agree that Bush was confident that the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden, but that could have been based on what was clear to everyone at the time--that the Taliban were not about to give up on that point. It wouldn't have been in character with what we had already seen of them. They had plenty of chances earlier, and they refused to do it.

Moreover, although some of the tribal leaders have been willing to switch allegiance at the drop of a hat, that isn't true of the real fanatics. They are still showing that they are willing to die for the cause.

I am more inclined to agree with your general evaluation. We have been assuming that Bush would want to produce Bin Laden's body, but as you say there may be advantages in having him simply disappear. If he is already dead, there are also advantages in not saying so until after the whole country has been mopped up. He is a useful bogie to placate weenie-whiny liberal newspersons with. In fact, although he did nothing about the problem, it was clinton who first made bin Laden infamous, demonizing him in the clintonoid media, as had earlier been done with Saddam. So Bush already had a liberal-certified liberal demon to deal with, and that made it awkward for the press to complain.

[HighWheeler]

I think the "witnesses" who have seen him may be a ruse. If he is deep in the mountains as thought, word of his whereabouts would be slow to make it to the rest of the world.

He is an obvious person, and if there were actually sitings of him, he would also be seen by U.S. operatives and seen by other technological means.

I think the first 26 days were spent narrowing down his previously vaguely known position. I think the saturation bombing in the first days took him out.

[white_wolf]

I was struck by the Bush Press Conference in October (the one where the Presidential podium was at the head of the long hallway in the White House) in which he seemed supremely happy and confident. I remarked to my wife at the time that he looked and sounded like a man who had just won a big victory. I wondered at the time if we hadn't gotten bin Laden then.

However, mitigating against this is the lack of rumours about it. If we had gotten him, somebody within the terrorist ranks or the Taliban either knows or suspects it. They would have no incentive to keep quiet it about it.

So, you may be right, there is evidence for and against your theorem.

[HighWheeler]

Here you go.

[eno_]

I believe I was the first on FR to call him "Elvis bin Laden." He will be seen in Somalia, which will then have the crap bombed out of it. Then the Philippines. And so on.

[HighWheeler]

Please review, thanks.

[RightWhale]

You got it! He'll be spotted slithering over rocks in downtown Baghdad about Jan 19, 02. Ka-bloom!!

[walden]

What do you think?

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

I agree with most of your evaluation, however the one problem you have is the interview with the Pakistani journalist on Nov 7 or thereabouts, with photo evidence. Could that have been a lie? Probably, but not likely.

[white rose]

I don't agree, because of the large number of witnesses around Jolalabad that had seen him in the prior week's time.

But remember that it's been reported that bin Laden has at least 10 "doubles." These sightings could have been of any one of those guys, done to throw everyone off the trail.

I've been thinking along the lines of HighWheeler's argument for some time now. The fact that it's also been reported that we want DNA samples from bin Laden's female relations, to enable us to positively identify any remains we might find, also leads me to suspect this theory is correct. It tends to imply that we already have these remains, and want to make sure we didn't just blast one of his ringers to hell.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I've been dying to ask this. Did anyone see Bush's speech in the Rose Garden the other day? The one where the two rescued international relief workers spoke?

I thought Bush seemed cranky that day. He seemed all hopped up on anger, or impatience, or something. He was snapping at people, and could barely contain himself. Did anyone else notice that?

The bigger question is, what's up? What would put him in such a cranky mood?

[tonyinv]

How do you explain the interview he gave, and the Al'Jazeer videos. Although the first one was probably filmed before the bombing started wasn't there a couple more taped after the airwar started?

[Henchman]

Dead! I keep thinking of those thousands of Afghans crawling over those hills looking for Osama because of the $25 Million offer. Can't help LMAO at the thought! Let's raise the reward to a round $BILLION! The whole country will look like an aunt hill.

[Joshua]

"However, mitigating against this is the lack of rumours about it. If we had gotten him, somebody within the terrorist ranks or the Taliban either knows or suspects it. They would have no incentive to keep quiet it about it. "

Exactly.. The terrorists would love to portrait him as their martyr. It would give them something to rally around. This is a very well written piece of Bravo Sierra

[suni]

FYI

[HighWheeler]

I don't think that photo had a dated object in it such as a newpaper with a headline showing evidence of the actual photo date. If I were a photojournalist who wanted to become famous for a day, I would pull out an unpublished file photo of him and claim it was taken yesterday.

Photos are easily doctored anyway. I would like to see a video of him describing details of very recent events as proof of his existence.

[HighWheeler]

You have to carefully evaluate these "pieces of evidence". Look for him to talk in undeniable detail about a recent event, or hold up a London Times from yesterday. I don't think we will ever see this.

[Tallguy]

There is a weakness in your argument relative to the "OJ Trial" theorem: Do you think that the Al-Queda operatives really understand the nuances of the American legal system and the culture from which it sprang? I don't. Therefore, I don't agree with your fear that Osama might suddenly be turned over to us in order to create the mother-of-all-circus-trials..

Another case in point concerning the cultural disconnect: Why should the Taliban make deliberate targets of Western journalists? It makes no sense in light of the Vietnam experience. The only hope for the survival of the Taliban regime is to make it politically impossible for the US to prosecute the offensive. The just made it a heckuva lot easier on Bush by offing those journalists. It's gonna make it a lot harder for Geraldo to second-guess Bush strategy. Western journalists are a potential ally to be wooed, not dragged from a pickup truck and shot like some rabid dog.