Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf (not to catch him)

[p8ntball1016]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?msid=144096

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian .

-snip-

Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.



The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.



"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian .
-snip-
------------------------

the article ends with this interesting statement:

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."

[impostal22]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1028044,00.html

boogles my mind...the only thing that makes a little sense to me is that it is possible that osama is already dead, and fearing civil unrest, they release this, making everyone believe that osama is alive and well. not only would this kind of thing prevent civil unrest, it could be used to the advantage of the bush administration later on...like 5 days before election day, have the media release month-old tapes of osama being captured/killed.

before i get flamed, i don't necessarily believe this; i'm just stating a possibility to think about. also, keep in mind that politics are extremely complicated, and that GWB (&his cohorts) hold the most powerful positions in the world, which influence the world directly. what people would go to to keep this power goes well beyond even this seemingly-crazy hypothesis. again, i'm saying if this were a democrat president in the same position, i'd suspect the same thing. this type of need for power stretches across all people, across the entire political spectrum.

assume this story is true, considering the informant has been a middle eastern analyst for quite some time, and seems very credible. what does it mean? i mean, it didn't make big news back in august when it was reported. why wouldn't it make big news? cuz bush promised the american people that he would capture osama. this is one of the key promises bush made to america (especially considering osama orchestrated 9-11). how pissed off do you think americans would be if they found out bush made a deal with the pakistan president to NOT capture osama.

either if this is true or not, it's a very ugly situation. i wish more people knew about it, though.

p8ntball1016- excellent find!

[p8ntball1016]

Adding on what you said impostal, Bush has basically sold out our safety for the safety of another nation.

[cphilip]

LOL.... thats so old its not even funny. Thats very old news. Note the writer speculates that there might have been some kind of deal but its listed as "Possible explanations". The Guardian is hardly a very credible resource of information my friends. And that is VERY old speculative reporting. But all those related stories have been hashed over here long ago last summer.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
Adding on what you said impostal, Bush has basically sold out our safety for the safety of another nation.

Funny... I thought you felt there was no danger?

Besides you really do not believe any of this do you? I certainly do not. We do think he is in Pakistan but it is an area that is very uncontrolled and it would be difficult to get over in there.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
The Guardian is hardly a very credible resource of information my friends.

what makes the guardian not credible?

[cphilip]

Originally posted by impostal22
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1028044,00.html

boogles my mind...the only thing that makes a little sense to me is that it is possible that osama is already dead, and fearing civil unrest, they release this, making everyone believe that osama is alive and well.

Released what kid? Its an OLD NEWS story long debunked and denied by all parties as having a shred of truth. Released implies something officialy announced. You not bother to read the date and then look for follow up stories? Apparently not! LOL... you realy take the cheese kiddo. Your done stepped in it this time. You really should keep up BEFORE you enter into a discussion. I thought we were all being skeptical of anything we read? Seems only if we don't like it!!!!! I rest my case.:D

[cphilip]

What makes it credible? Same back at cha! It's a terribly biased and one sided and notoriously so rag. So it the Indian Times. And again it's all very old news. All very editorialized and lacks any credible back up from any governments scources at all. Later it was all denied by those as well. So there is no proof of any of it either way. Its a wash. No story left too it.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip


Released what kid? Its an OLD NEWS story long debunked and denied by all parties as having a shred of truth. Released implies something officialy announced. You not bother to read the date and then look for follow up stories? Apparently not! LOL... you realy take the cheese kiddo. Your done stepped in it this time. You really should keep up BEFORE you enter into a discussion. I thought we were all being skeptical of anything we read? Seems only if we don't like it!!!!! I rest my case.:D

apparently you missed the part where i said.."before i get flamed, i don't necessarily believe this; i'm just stating a possibility to think about."

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
What makes it credible? Same back at cha! It's a terribly biased and one sided and notoriously so rag. So it the Indian Times. And again it's all very old news. All very editorialized and lacks any credible back up from any governments scources at all. Later it was all denied by those as well. So there is no proof of any of it either way. Its a wash. No story left too it.

show me an unbiased news site.

[cphilip]

If he is alive he may very well be in those areas of Pakistan that border Afganistan. And he might even be going back and forth. The problem is that if we go over into Pakistan then we have an international border crossing. And we are trying to get Pakistan to take care of it for us in order not to get into that mess. But even they do not control those people up in there. Those people even run thier own form of government based on Tibal laws outside of the Pakistani government. Even the Pakistani's dont want to go in there! That is a very backward no mans land in there. Hard to get anything accomplished there

Also remember India and Pakistan have long been enemies. And anything the Indians can do to discredit them they will. And visa versa. No problem finding and reading negative stories about Pakistan in Indian papers. Or visa versa. They are always accusing each other of some sort of shenanagans.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by impostal22


show me an unbiased news site.

The onus is on you to do that. You brought it up. He who slings the mud must make pottery out of it or clean it up!

In your case the only thing credible is what you already have chosen to believe. Earlier in a thread you professed to be a skeptic of everything. Here you just proved you lied about that. You are not a skeptic of everything. You hide behind that when you want to. You believe ANYTHING that supports your already drawn conclusion. I gonna call a spade a spade here. You just proved it to me.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip


The onus is on you to do that. You brought it up. He who slings the mud must make pottery out of it or clean it up!

actually..you're the one who said guardian was biased...i say it's unbiased, so isn't it on YOU to find me an unbiased site, since you're challenging what i call an unbiased site?

[cphilip]

Not so. You brought it here and proclaimed it as fact. You did that. Not me. I challenged it is all. But you gave it credibility and tried to move forth without challenge. It did not happen.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
Not so. You brought it here and proclaimed it as fact. You did that. Not me. I challenged it is all. But you gave it credibility and tried to move forth without challenge. It did not happen.

sorry for the misunderstanding. i meant just show me a news site that you think is unbiased, not one that has an unbiased report of this story. i'm just curious what news site you think is unbiased.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by impostal22


sorry for the misunderstanding. i meant just show me a news site that you think is unbiased, not one that has an unbiased report of this story. i'm just curious what news site you think is unbiased.

I don't think any of them are. Not sure where you got the idea "I" did. But look back and you will see I did not proclaim any to be. You inferred that yours was.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip


I don't think any of them are. Not sure where you got the idea "I" did. But look back and you will see I did not proclaim any to be. You inferred that yours was.

i never proclaimed mine to be unbiased. if inferring it means posting an article about it and extrapolating from it, then i guess you're right. but if we all know that there is no such thing as an unbiased news site, it is kind of redundant to reply to my post with "the guardian is biased." by stating that my source is biased, you are inferring that i could have come up with an unbiased source, which we both agreed is impossible. so we go back to the original post, knowing that the source, like all sources, is biased.

[cphilip]

In that respect that one is particulary biased. Always has been. Some are more so than others I will grant you that. Some are "fairly" credible but always biased. That one ain't even near middle or the road journalism at all in my opinion. No sources not back up no nothing! They just present a theory and run with it. Its so far left it's off the scale of left. And again that is old stuff there. Not anything new at all. But thats the way it was presented here was as if it was a revelation and as if it was "Announced" or something. And it was indeed presented as if its was fact. A quick read reveals NO AUTHORIZED CREDIBLE SOURCE at all. Its fiction at best.

I know we are not going into Pakistan if we can help it. And everyone knows there has been negotiations to get Pakistan to help by doing it themselves. And there is some indication they are trying. But even they don't control that bad arse land up there. If he is hiding there and if anyone knows it then its the local tribes and yes they would hide him. Even if they didn't like him. Thats thier way. One can assume Bush and Pakistan have agreed on some things in that respect. They would have too. But one can also assume neither of them thinks he is so important as to jeaprodize cooperation between the US and Pakistan and India as well. He is not. If he has to stay over there and hide out he is about as equaly ineffective as if he were dead. If he wished to be effective he would have to come out at some point to do it. That area is not a good place to operate from.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
In that respect that one is particulary biased. Always has been. Some are more so than others I will grant you that. Some are "fairly" credible but always biased. That one ain't even near middle or the road journalism at all in my opinion. No sources not back up no nothing! They just present a theory and run with it. Its so far left it's off the scale of left. And again that is old stuff there. Not anything new at all. But thats the way it was presented here was as if it was a revelation and as if it was "Announced" or something. And it was indeed presented as if its was fact. A quick read reveals NO AUTHORIZED CREDIBLE SOURCE at all. Its fiction at best.

forgetting that it's the guardian...the informant is a middle eastern analyst frequently guest speaking on fox news etc, who is widely appreciated as being a very accurate and extremely credible source.

[cphilip]

And has since been debunked and the story debunked.

The Guardian is little more than a tabloid rag. Often writing incredible stories to sell papers. They have now coined the Phrase "Guardian Journalism" to be synomymous with exagerated and misconnected conclusion! Its true!

Here is an example of a story written about that kind of slant that is Gaurdian to a T. Its rightest but the base of this story IS TRUE!

Typical Guardian journalism

Meanwhile, how’s this for another sample of reporting by the liberal-left? An item in The Guardian of the 23rd December, written by Ted Oliver, focused on certain alleged racial incidents in Belfast—a place not normally associated with such happenings and therefore making for added sensationalism. A Ugandan family and a group of Chinese were apparently driven from their homes in a run-down southern area of the city. One of the Ugandans was a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy. Police were searching for a gang responsible and, according to the report, thought they could be ‘racists’ and that groups based in England may be organising them.

So what did The Guardian do? It headlined its report as follows: “BNP could be behind brutal racist attacks in Belfast.” Just like that! There was not a shred of real evidence that the British National Party had anything to do with the incidents. The party has a fairly small branch in Northern Ireland and from our knowledge of the people involved it is extremely unlikely that they would get up to such behaviour. “Could be...” “May be...” Equally, the culprits “could be” or “may be” ordinary criminals. They “could be” or “may be” little green men from Mars, for all we know. This is all these press hounds have to go on, but that doesn’t deter them. The holier-than-thou Guardian, as an almost automatic knee-jerk reaction, decides that it is probably all down to the awful BNP! Indeed, even if the BNP was in any way responsible, the party—according to Guardian thinking—would no doubt have approved of what happened. So it’s all perfectly fair, as in love and war, to print a headline aimed at planting in the public’s mind that the BNP goes around ill-treating pregnant women.

Ain’t we lucky to have a free press!



Heres a few examples of the other side of the coin.

Here is a claim that they completely fabricateda story and then attacked to protect it from being revieled http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

Here the Guardian attacks another liberal publication and distorts the truth. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030529_Playground_Journalism.html

There is TONS of this kind of stuff about the Guardian. Most people read it like they would a Gossip Paper. Some believe it and swear by it. But often it's very exagerated non confirmed rumor mongering. And they do not like to be proven wrong. They seem to have an issue with honesty and never retract anything. They prefer to attack the person revealing thier lies. Thats honest journalism? Not in my book. I realise many are no better. But this one takes on a whole new tactic. Not just to make incredible stories wether they are true or not. But to then squash anyone that tries to prove they lied. Not thats rather odd and scary.

[shartley]

And we see why children don’t run a darn thing in our world. ;)

[AssassN]

Originally posted by shartley
And we see why children don’t run a darn thing in our world. ;)

Why? Because we are so insanely smrt and intalligetn?

[shartley]

Originally posted by AssassN


Why? Because we are so insanely smrt and intalligetn?
LOL Yeah... that is exactly it! :D

;)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by cphilip
Not so. You brought it here and proclaimed it as fact. You did that. Not me. I challenged it is all. But you gave it credibility and tried to move forth without challenge. It did not happen.

I second this notion!!!!!:D

Now as to why this story is utter crap. India does not like Pakistan, and visa versa. They have fought 3 wars and are struggling with the Kashmir dispute. Why would a Pakistani General tell the press of their worst enemy a state secret that could destabilize his own nation.:rolleyes:

Learn your history before you give things like this credence.:p

[taylor492]

Yeah everyone knows that they're well know for their investigative reporting :rolleyes:

[Restola]

lol the Times of India?

You have to be kidding...

p8nt, you look like a fool.

[AssassN]

Originally posted by Restola
lol the Times of India?

You have to be kidding...

p8nt, you look like a fool.

I always look like a fool!