unable to confirm report bin Laden dead

[deep]

By Anna Willard

PARIS, Sept 23 (Reuters) - France and the United States said on Saturday they could not confirm a report that Osama bin Laden had died and France launched a probe into how a secret document containing the claim was leaked.

The French regional daily L'Est Republicain, published in Nancy, quoted a document from France's DGSE foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi secret services were convinced the al Qaeda leader had died of typhoid in Pakistan in late August.

President Jacques Chirac told reporters bin Laden's death "has not been confirmed in any way whatsoever, and so I have no comment to make".

"I was a bit surprised to see that a confidential note from the DGSE had been published," he said after a summit with leaders of Germany and Russia.

The Saudi Interior Ministry was not available for comment and officials in the United States, which has made capturing bin Laden a priority in its war on terrorism, were also unable to confirm the account.

"We don't have any confirmation of that report," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"We've heard these things before and have no reason to think this is any different," added a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named.

"There's just nothing we can point to to say this report has any more credence than other reports we've seen in the past."

LEAK PROBE

In Paris, Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie ordered an investigation into the leaking of the classified DGSE document.

The French newspaper printed what it said was a copy of the report, dated Sept. 21, and said it had been passed to Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin the same day.

"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," it read.

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda fell victim, while he was in Pakistan on Aug. 23, 2006, to a very serious case of typhoid that led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23793153.htm

 

[deep]

does it matter?

there is more violence in Iraq
after Al-Zarwi's death, than before


I remember when the Ayatollah in Iran, was hated by the U S
he is gone
do we like Iran more, now?

does it matter?
if it is true it will help W's popularity

but, things will get worse

because the conditions that created, Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden have gotten worse

and they will stay the course
so expect even more

and remember you bought this
for yourselves

 

[BVS]

does it matter?

Not really. Maybe some people will feel some payback, but in the long run he and the other leaders and supporters have already done their part.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Even if he's dead there will be hundreds of others, probably thousands, to take his place. And his death will only make them more determined, the only thing that could make that even more palpable would be his murder by the US.

Might be some comfort to loved ones of those who died on September 11th, but every person is different and you can't generalize about that.

 

[deep]

the only thing that could make that even more palpable would be his murder by the US.

i think I agree

but
a lot of people will be offended
with the suggestion that it is even possible to murder him

if a U S droan or hell-fire missile blew him up along with 10-15 other people

"murder" would be the correct term


there is a lot of "murder" done these days at the hands of the U S and allies

and yes there was a lot of murder committed on 9-11

 

[verte76]

He's got a successor picked.

 

[A_Wanderer]

because the conditions that created, Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden have gotten worse

You mean that the USA has put more infidel troops in Saudi Arabia?

 

[U2democrat]

Al-Qaeda is not structured as a hierarchy, so no matter what happens to bin Laden, if the US catches/kills him or if he dies of disease, Al-Qaeda will still be a force to reckon with, they will not be weakened.

 

[INDY500]

Damn French.

They've gone and spoiled Karl Rove's big '06 "October surprise."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Al-Qaeda is not structured as a hierarchy, so no matter what happens to bin Laden, if the US catches/kills him or if he dies of disease, Al-Qaeda will still be a force to reckon with, they will not be weakened.

Al Qaeda is not a problem, any command and control structure has been broken. There are other problems and one consistent source of threat has been young Muslim guys born and raised in western countries, or guys who have converted and use the wonders of the internet to figure out how to make up a bomb and kill a lot of people. Absolutely no connection other than the obvious theological/ideological to "Al Qaeda".

 

[Rono]

Damn French.

They've gone and spoiled Karl Rove's big '06 "October surprise."

 

[deep]

You mean that the USA has put more infidel troops in Saudi Arabia?

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

 

[A_Wanderer]

The question of threat is both one of probability of attack and magnitude - I agree that the Iraq War has worsened the probability of attack.

I also think that the probability of attack will always exist and definitely did exist before both the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan. The difference in that probability is easy to qualify within Iraq but a lot harder outside the country.

The magnitude of the risk is a much more difficult thing to assess, and the danger is that it is all potential and for any speculation about what may have happened if the US never went into Iraq is purely hypothetical and we should only allow ourselves to project what was going on with Saddam in power.

If the reaction by Muslims guys raised in the west to the Iraq War is to go out and murder their fellow countrymen and women then I think do not think there is much that can alay them and that they will perpetually be incompatible with society and pose a risk; given that deportation is not an option domestic Islamic terrorism is a dificult nut to crack.

 

[BVS]

Al Qaeda is not a problem, any command and control structure has been broken. There are other problems and one consistent source of threat has been young Muslim guys born and raised in western countries, or guys who have converted and use the wonders of the internet to figure out how to make up a bomb and kill a lot of people. Absolutely no connection other than the obvious theological/ideological to "Al Qaeda".

I think this is the question that we should be asking...

Is it organized or is it a real cluster fuck?

Regardless, we still need to address the fact of what the root cause is. And anyone who says it's strictly religion is fooling themselves!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh there are other root causes for people to be upset about, plenty of them in fact but it is the theology that results in the violence - wheres the Tibetan suicide bomber?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Damn French.

They've gone and spoiled Karl Rove's big '06 "October surprise."

"The US has given the world George Bush. We have given the world Menage a trois. Game Over."

 

[BonosSaint]

Checkmate.

 

[toscano]

Oh there are other root causes for people to be upset about, plenty of them in fact but it is the theology that results in the violence - wheres the Tibetan suicide bomber?

Or the Christian one one, or the Sikh, Jew, Hindu or Greek Orthodox ?

 

[najeena]

I hope that most people realize, should this rumor prove to be true, that Bush had nothing to do with Bin Laden's demise. I suppose we might have tried to introduce poison somehow, but I don't think we're anywhere that close to him. If it IS true, would Bush try to take credit for it?

Do you doubt it?

 

[BVS]

Or the Christian one one, or the Sikh, Jew, Hindu or Greek Orthodox ?

Look at history and you will realize you are wrong.

 

[deep]

Oh there are other root causes for people to be upset about, plenty of them in fact but it is the theology that results in the violence -

wheres the Tibetan suicide bomber?

Squeeze them into a ghetto,
the size of Gaza

cut off utilities
give their land to new immigrants from eastern Europe



there were no suicide bombers in the 60s. 70s,

when did it start the 90s or the 80s?

create the right environment

and anyone and just about everyone is capable of being a suicide bomber

 

[80sU2isBest]

there were no suicide bombers in the 60s. 70s,

when did it start the 90s or the 80s?

I don't know specifically about "suicide bombers" but Islamic terrorism certainly existed in those times.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Squeeze them into a ghetto,
the size of Gaza

cut off utilities
give their land to new immigrants from eastern Europe



there were no suicide bombers in the 60s. 70s,

when did it start the 90s or the 80s?

create the right environment

and anyone and just about everyone is capable of being a suicide bomber

Obviously this is true, why else would British Pakistanis bomb the underground?

The rise of the suicide bomber is directly connected to that of Islamic fundamentalism. I reiterate that the theology is a driving force around the world.

 

[verte76]

One really crazy thing about suicide bombers is the fact that mainstream Islam really is opposed to suicide. I wonder why this is so poorly understood by some Muslims.

 

[financeguy]

Obviously this is true, why else would British Pakistanis bomb the underground?

The rise of the suicide bomber is directly connected to that of Islamic fundamentalism. I reiterate that the theology is a driving force around the world.

Pork sandwich, anyone?

 

[deep]

I don't know specifically about "suicide bombers" but Islamic terrorism certainly existed in those times.

and was there Jewish terrorism in the 40s?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Pork sandwich, anyone?

Only if it comes with alcohol and pornography.

 

[mkdominatr]

Even if he was dead and the US intelligence knew do you think they would tell us? I dont think so. Him being "alive" gives us reason to remain over there....

 

[Irvine511]

The rise of the suicide bomber is directly connected to that of Islamic fundamentalism. I reiterate that the theology is a driving force around the world.

whenever i get in a huff about the potential for apocalyptic mass death embedded in the structure of religion -- any religion -- someone invariably posts about the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka who were the original suicide bombers.

is it right to target Islam so specifically? or, is it right to exclusively target Islam?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is right to specifically target Islam, it is not right to exclusively target Islam. But we are not at war with the Tamil Tigers and the conditioning of the terrorists that we must deal with is deeply rooted in religious belief.

It is worth pointing out that marxists have the wonderful attribute of generally wanting to live; this does not make them incapable of self-sacrifice but they will not be eager to die.

The only path to eros is through thanatos in the demented mind of the true believer. The conditioning and mindset is consequent of the belief system and I don't see how any unbeliever should on one hand condemn Christianism unequivocally but take a much softer bordering on apologetic approach to Islam. They share the same delusions of invisible friends, they both have to be let down and mocked.

There is reason in humanity that generally overrides that of belief, it is what keeps the vast majority of people from being insane, but the greater the fervor the less the reason - so when talking about true believers being so dangerous it is a slight against the religion but significantly against the individuals themselves who constitute a minority, since the majority of people are relatively reasonable.