Al Qaeda's #3 Man... Captured

seinfeldrules

Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
3,385
Reaction score
0
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/pakistan.arrest/index.html

LAHORE, Pakistan (CNN) -- The alleged number three man in al Qaeda -- believed responsible for the terror group's global operations -- has been captured in Pakistan's frontier province with Afghanistan, Pakistani and U.S. officials have confirmed.

Pakistan's information minister, Pakistani intelligence officials and U.S. counterterrorism authorities told CNN that al-Libbi and three other al Qaeda suspects were arrested Monday in Mardan, a city in a northwest Pakistani province on the border of Afghanistan.

That frontier province, U.S. intelligence reports have consistently said, is where it is also believed that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are currently hiding.
 
Good news
would have happened in 2002 if the Afghan war was prosecuted properly
 
By the looks of his skin (ghostly white) looks as if he hasn't been outside much. He looks beat up too.
 
The caught Ronald Mcdonald.... I hope they catch the Cookie monster next.

How long until Bin Laden is caught is the question on everyone's mouths though.
 
Owned. Only a matter of time before Bin Laden is drawn and quartered like the animal he is.
 
Very good news here!,

lets hope that Osama is next himself :D:D:D
 
/me waits for the tree-hugging-hippies aka (democrats) to create some excuses to why America still isn't anymore safer before 9/11 although evidence is brought in daily proving otherwise...
 
Woo hoo. Hopefully they can extract all possible from him pretty quickly before disposing of him to speed up the capture of the big fish.
 
operative x said:
* operative x waits for the tree-hugging-hippies aka (democrats) to create some excuses to why America still isn't anymore safer before 9/11 although evidence is brought in daily proving otherwise...

How about Republicans (like me) who feel the same way as those "tree-hugging-hippies aka (democrats)" that we are probably only marginally safer than before 9/11.
 
operative x said:
I'll take a margin over nothing anyday...
Well, this is sort of like catching their equivelant of Tommy Franks, it's still pretty big.
 
Good. I hope they rip this guy limb from limb. That is after they extract info from him.

I remember reading an article about their ranking system. Apparently, if one high "official" gets captured, someone is ready to take his place. That may have not happened in this case but its something to prepare for.

operative x said:
* operative x waits for the tree-hugging-hippies aka (democrats) to create some excuses to why America still isn't anymore safer before 9/11 although evidence is brought in daily proving otherwise...

Its people like you that create this divide and hate amongst the two parties. Republican, Democrat, they're both capable of massive failures and mistakes. Whats wrong with hippies anyways? Its terrible to have people on this earth who devote themselves to peace and love right? Grow up. Maybe if more people practiced that concept, we wouldn't be in these shameful positions.

Reports have been released recently stating that America's ports are still vulnerable to attack. A recent report came out from the CIA or another government agency claiming that we're still not prepared for a chemical or biological attack. In addtion to that, we have nuclear weapons and materials missing from around the globe. Islamic extremism is also springing up in Asia and Europe. We're not exactly safe yet. There's plenty of room for improvement.
 
SFLUFAN said:
How about Republicans (like me) who feel the same way as those "tree-hugging-hippies aka (democrats)" that we are probably only marginally safer than before 9/11.


I'd say you're in even more danger ..the death/capture of osama will probably escalate things temporarily but if anything your little side trip to iraq made a whole whack of osamas. But at least they cut off one head off the hydra
 
CptStern said:
I'd say you're in even more danger ..the death/capture of osama will probably escalate things temporarily but if anything your little side trip to iraq made a whole whack of osamas. But at least they cut off one head off the hydra
Who are these "new osamas"?
 
satch919 said:
Its people like you that create this divide and hate amongst the two parties. Republican, Democrat, they're both capable of massive failures and mistakes. Whats wrong with hippies anyways? Its terrible to have people on this earth who devote themselves to peace and love right? Grow up. Maybe if more people practiced that concept, we wouldn't be in these shameful positions.
I'll admit it i was wrong, my bad. I guess im just a little angry after cs:s, danm those random headshoters to hell!
 
john3571000 said:
Good news
would have happened in 2002 if the Afghan war was prosecuted properly

Exactly.

One thing about this administration - even if they honestly believe they are doing the right thing, damn they can be stupid about going about it.
 
gh0st said:
I figured as much.

you dont get it ...I thought the hydra comparison would have helped clarify my meaning ..that failed so I gave you a simple visual explanation ..which I dont think you understood

here's it even further simplified:

kill bad guy osama and 10 bad guys will take his place ...kill 10 more 100 will take their place ...and so on
 
Awesome, after 4 years, countless billions of taxpayer dollars, unknown amounts of civil rights violations, well over a thousand service men and womens lives, countless innocents, broken homes, and strained foriegn relations... We got number three.....

Heres to hoping we get bin laden soon.. Even though that will change absolutely nothing...
 
gh0st said:
Owned. Only a matter of time before Bin Laden is drawn and quartered like the animal he is.




ahayhahahahhaahahahahah....no :|
 
CptStern said:
you dont get it ...I thought the hydra comparison would have helped clarify my meaning ..that failed so I gave you a simple visual explanation ..which I dont think you understood

here's it even further simplified:

kill bad guy osama and 10 bad guys will take his place ...kill 10 more 100 will take their place ...and so on
And with each new one their followers will see them as a less of a leader.
 
Foxtrot said:
And with each new one their followers will see them as a less of a leader.


you're wrong ..if the very idea of 9/11 inspired thousands of recruits what do you think killing the heads of these organisations will do. The probelm is that the US is too isolationist ..they act as if the US is the only country affected by terrorism ...just look at most european countries and see how ineffective government has been on cracking down on terrorism ..you just cant ..for every training camp you take out there are hundreds if not thousands of people sitting in darkened rooms, in cafes, in public squares planning their next attack ..sorry but yopu will never win the war on terror ...I dont think that's the bush admins goal
 
CptStern said:
you're wrong ..if the very idea of 9/11 inspired thousands of recruits what do you think killing the heads of these organisations will do. The probelm is that the US is too isolationist ..they act as if the US is the only country affected by terrorism ...just look at most european countries and see how ineffective government has been on cracking down on terrorism ..you just cant ..for every training camp you take out there are hundreds if not thousands of people sitting in darkened rooms, in cafes, in public squares planning their next attack ..sorry but yopu will never win the war on terror ...I dont think that's the bush admins goal
We can't "win" but we can defintely stop almost all attacks. And what do you mean by the US being isolationist? Is that why we have all those troops overseas?
 
Foxtrot said:
We can't "win" but we can defintely stop almost all attacks. And what do you mean by the US being isolationist? Is that why we have all those troops overseas?

serving YOUR interests ...where are in sudan where are you in the congo? rwanda, haiti (on second thought stay out of haiti as you've already done enough harm)
 
CptStern said:
serving YOUR interests ...where are in sudan where are you in the congo? rwanda, haiti (on second thought stay out of haiti as you've already done enough harm)
Hah I love it, if we help or don't help it is always negative. If we help it is always "Look at all the dead people, all for oil" and if we don't help it is always the US being blamed for not helping. Today in my Sociology class a girl from Liberia said she (and most people she knows from Liberia) is not mad that America didn't help out right away, it is their own fault for starting a conflict like that and it is going to keep happening even though the people are all the same (her English was bad and she had a heavy accent so it was hard to understand her). So if someone who has actually suffered is not made at the US why are you?
 
CptStern said:
serving YOUR interests ...where are in sudan where are you in the congo? rwanda, haiti (on second thought stay out of haiti as you've already done enough harm)
Since when was it our job to bail out the third world?
 
gh0st said:
Since when was it our job to bail out the third world?

Wasn't the purpose of the Iraqi war (except the WMD) to "free the people of Iraq and the people of the world from a great tyrann"?
 
holy crap I agree with Foxtrot!!

no matter what America does it pisses someone off..

stay out of this war=why didn't you help us?

get involved in war=we don't need/want your help!

half the world wants us to be their "big brother"..

but the other half see us as the "big bully"
 
T.H.C.138 said:
holy crap I agree with Foxtrot!!

no matter what America does it pisses someone off..

stay out of this war=why didn't you help us?

get involved in war=we don't need/want your help!

half the world wants us to be their "big brother"..

but the other half see us as the "big bully"

I think the question being raised was why help Iraq when their were places with far more genocide and violence going on.
What could the US possibly get out of a regime change in Iraq which they couldn't with Sudan, etc? Hmmm...
 
gh0st said:
Since when was it our job to bail out the third world?


you tell me:

US interventions:

Iran
Guatemala
Laos
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Congo
Brazil
Indonesia
Bolivia
Uruguay
Cambodia
Chile
Angola
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama
 
Anyone of those you could say "wow, good happened there", or "man the US really ****ed that country up". What difference does it make?
The_Monkey said:
Wasn't the purpose of the Iraqi war (except the WMD) to "free the people of Iraq and the people of the world from a great tyrann"?
If you dont support the Iraq war, then dont ever try and support humanitarian missions elsewhere. Theres no difference between genocide in Sudan or genocide in Iraq. Unfortunatly its absurd to claim we can be everywhere at anytime with a massive army.
 
gh0st said:
Anyone of those you could say "wow, good happened there", or "man the US really ****ed that country up". What difference does it make?

If you dont support the Iraq war, then dont ever try and support humanitarian missions elsewhere. Theres no difference between genocide in Sudan or genocide in Iraq. Unfortunatly its absurd to claim we can be everywhere at anytime with a massive army.


no ..every one of those is a "man the US really ****ed that country up".


oh and the largest number of iraqi dead is directly and indirectly caused by the US ...more than saddam
 
CptStern said:
oh and the largest number of iraqi dead is directly and indirectly caused by the US ...more than saddam
Lets see?
 
Back
Top