Home > World Events > Bin Laden dead ?

Bin Laden dead ?

September 23rd, 2006

French Newspaper L’Est Republicain has published a report, citing sources in the French security services who claim that Osama bin Laden is dead of typhoid, having been unable treatment by virtue of his isolation.

« Selon une source habituellement fiable, les services saoudiens auraient désormais acquis la conviction qu’Oussama Ben Laden est mort. Les éléments recueillis par les saoudiens indiquent que le chef d’Al-Qaïda aurait été victime, alors qu’il se trouvait au Pakistan le 23 août 2006, d’une très forte crise de typhoïde ayant entraîné une paralysie partielle de ses membres inférieurs. Son isolement géographique, provoqué par une fuite permanente, aurait rendu impossible toute assistance médicale. Le 4 septembre 2006, les services saoudiens de sécurité ont recueilli les premiers renseignements faisant état de son décès. Ils attendraient, d’obtenir davantage de détails, et notamment le lieu exact de son inhumation, pour annoncer officiellement la nouvelle ».

Via ABC News

Categories: World Events Tags:
  1. rog
    September 23rd, 2006 at 21:57 | #1

    ..again?

  2. James Farrell
    September 23rd, 2006 at 22:02 | #2

    Don’t you mean ‘encore une fois?’, Rog?

  3. Smiley
    September 23rd, 2006 at 22:23 | #3

    Yep, but this is what a Malaysian paper had to say on the matter.

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/9/23/worldupdates/2006-09-23T151819Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-268966-4&sec=Worldupdates

    I remember Michael Moore stating in his book “Dude Where’s My Country?”, that it was strange that the US military could not capture him, or go the whole hog (head – platter… a term recently used by a former US official on SBS TV). After all, how hard is it to find a 6’4″ lanky Arab who needs dialysis, thanks to kidney disease.

    I no longer have the book (someone borrowed it and never gave it back) but I’m sure that this was what Moore was suggesting. It is a claim of “conspiracy theoristsâ€? that Bin Laden died not long after 911 (but it seem pretty safe to say that is obviously wrong).

    Even if he is dead, does this necessarily mean the war on terror is over? I would question how a war on something like terror could ever be won. Has the war on drugs been won? Or to quote Michael Moore again, “How can you make war on a noun?�

  4. doug
    September 23rd, 2006 at 22:31 | #4

    For what it’s worth, here’s a translation (via Babelfish) of the French report given above (the ABC’s translation says his internal organs were paralysed—I think Babelfish is more accurate):

    According to a usually reliable source, the Saoudi services from now on would have acquired the conviction that Usama Bin Laden died. The elements collected by the Saoudi indicate that the chief of Al-Qaïda would have been victim, whereas it was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very strong crisis of typhoid having involved a paralysis partial of his lower limbs. Its geographical insulation, caused by a permanent escape, would have made impossible any medical care. September 4, 2006, the Saoudi services of safety collected the first information making state of its death. They would wait, to obtain more details, and in particular the exact place of its burial, to announce the news officially

  5. Scott
    September 24th, 2006 at 00:30 | #5

    “Even if he is dead, does this necessarily mean the war on terror is over?”

    There is no war on terror.

    The real global war is a class one, and dead or alive this wealthy engineer has little to do with it.

  6. milano803
    September 24th, 2006 at 03:57 | #6

    “I would question how a war on something like terror could ever be won. Has the war on drugs been won? Or to quote Michael Moore again, “How can you make war on a noun?â€?

    what about the war on poverty?

  7. pre-dawn leftist
    September 24th, 2006 at 09:28 | #7

    Milano, there’s not much sign of the war on poverty being won either…

  8. milano803
    September 24th, 2006 at 09:52 | #8

    Should it not be fought then?

  9. September 24th, 2006 at 10:07 | #9

    A loser in the war on germs? Guess the caves get pretty unclean.

  10. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 11:56 | #10

    Osama shmarma, Bush has bigger fish to fry
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20467604-401,00.html?from=public_rss
    ‘If you are reading this (no no not Chomsky ya moonbats!), then I am……”

  11. stoptherubbish
    September 24th, 2006 at 15:19 | #11

    OBL is by now an actual and symbolic irrelevance to the gwot. I think what we are seeing here is a planted ‘story’ to smother the elephant in the room which always was-what has the COW done to get the real perp responsible for 11th September? Why did we rush to create hundreds of thousands of additional innocent victims in Iraq, when what should have been done was to go after the person who actually did plan the crime of the WTC attack?

    In my opinion he is ensconced in western Pakistan somewhere, and there is tacit agreement between the US and Musharrif that any attempt to go after him would destabilise Musharraf’s regime. Such an outcome would have disastrous connsequences for the current and latest attempts to subdue (once again) the unruly Afghanis who have a long history of repelling anything any invader throws at it.

    The policies adopted by the US in the wake of the WTC bombings will go down in history as possibly the most disastrous and counterproductive set of decisions, since the treaty of Versailles, and I am including in this, the utterly hysterical, nonesensical and idiotic attempt to do ‘regime change’ on the theology of Islam. It is like something out of some medieval Alice in Wonderland.

  12. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 15:59 | #12

    “..and I am including in this, the utterly hysterical, nonesensical and idiotic attempt to do ‘regime change’ on the theology of Islam.”

    “..latest attempts to subdue (once again) the unruly Afghanis who have a long history of repelling anything any invader throws at it.”

    Careful str, or your ‘shock and awe’ slip might be showing. Iraq baaaad, Afghanistan goooood, remember?

  13. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 16:24 | #13

    “In my opinion he is ensconced in western Pakistan somewhere, and there is tacit agreement between the US and Musharrif that any attempt to go after him would destabilise Musharraf’s regime.”

    Yet- ‘what should have been done was to go after the person who actually did plan the crime of the WTC attack?’

    You got that Bush? You know when Clinton admitted he stuffed up getting Osama, you were supposed to delicately sidestep the Taliban with a limited, incisive police action on Tora Bora, for the main objective of getting our man and if the villain escaped into Pakistan, then conduct a like pursuit action, without destabilising our ‘Saddam is the best option’ man in Musharraf. All in a night’s work for a capable Pres eh?

  14. stoptherubbish
    September 24th, 2006 at 16:51 | #14

    Obs you never give up, that’s about all that can be said.

    The Afghanistan adventure is now a full scale ‘occupy and pacify’, reminiscent of both 19th century imperialism, and the soviet invasion. It will have exactly the same consequences as these previous adventures in ‘border patrol’ on the North West frontier. Zilch.

    You know perfectly well, or should, that the pursuit of OBL was handily ‘suspended’ in favour of regime change in Messo-patamia. You also know, or should, that Pakistan was and is, the real cradle and crucible of the Taliban, which is in fact a movement based on the cultural and religious mores of the Pashtun. You also know or should, that Pakistan’s regime relies on a handy combination of the army and the mosque for its power, a combination which in other circumstances, we are all told, is a threat to the ‘west’s way of life’. Except of course where it actually operates, the province of our great and good friend in the gwot, Pakistan.

    As for Clinton and OBL, true, he failed to get him, but Bush and the armshair fascists running US foreign policy didn’t even think there was a problem until after the event, then put in place a plan to to do ‘regime change’ in Iraq.

    There is no getting away from it. Complete, unmitigated disaster, piled on disaster. And no, I don’t suport ‘occupy and pacify’ in Afghanistan. I supported, and still do, the pursuit and punishment of the actual criminal, including, standing up Musharrif and his regime’s irresponsible and reckless policies on both nuclear proliferation and the coddling of extremists, not some deflected detour, concocted to satisfy ideological obsessions far removed from the actual crime-the bombing of the WTC. Got it.

  15. September 24th, 2006 at 20:28 | #15

    Two weeks out from the US congressional mid-terms and the happy news is ‘leaked’ that OBL is dead? Hmm. :|

  16. Sean Kellett
    September 24th, 2006 at 21:27 | #16

    It will be to the everlasting shame of George Bush if Osama dies a free man.

  17. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 22:12 | #17

    “You also know, or should, that Pakistan was and is, the real cradle and crucible of the Taliban,..”

    So what are you saying str? We should have hit Pakistan with a bit of shock and awe?

    I’m just fascinated to listen to wise multicultural wets lecture us all as to why, a priori, the Coalition of Willing in Iraq and the UN in Afghanistan should have known better than to attempt go nation building there. Yes Saddam was always the best option, although apparently dealing with Musharraf pragmatically aint and he’s really sitting on the bulk of the Taliban/AQ problem anyway. What ‘we’ should have done about that is anyone’s guess, although pursuing OBL in his country should always have been the main game after Sept 11. Excuse us Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan as we go hunting through your countries to round up Osama, Zarqawi and co. That won’t upset any Muslim sensitivities, you know the same ones that aint ready for imposed Western values, unless it’s to pile them all into Western Sydney, in which case she’ll be right mate.

  18. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 23:18 | #18

    “It will be to the everlasting shame of George Bush if Osama dies a free man. ”

    Personally if lingering and untreated Typhus is Allah’s will, then who am I to argue with a smart Prophet like that?

  19. observa
    September 24th, 2006 at 23:38 | #19

    Nice to know he wouldn’t have got the scrub type where he was holed up, but rather the ratty, flea-bitten, lousy type
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhus
    So long flea food and Allah be praised.

  20. Sean Kellett
    September 25th, 2006 at 11:53 | #20

    “Nice to know he wouldn’t have got the scrub type where he was holed up, but rather the ratty, flea-bitten, lousy type”

    How pathetic that a mere flea can do what “leader of the free world” can’t.

    What sort of mindless creature would follow this impersonation of a leader, excusing his failure and hoping OBL has died never having faced justice?

  21. Mark U
    September 25th, 2006 at 14:39 | #21
  22. observa
    September 25th, 2006 at 15:32 | #22

    “What sort of mindless creature..”?
    The same ones that followed this leader here
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/
    or the likes of Eisenhower and Churchill when they didn’t get their man either. Guess we all got a little spoiled with the ‘lion of the desert ‘saying ahh in his undies.

    So it wasn’t fleas or lice MarkU? Osama just didn’t listen to mum and wash his hand properly before dinner. Either that or the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing in the end. Dirty little man and let that be a valuable lesson to us all.

  23. Sean Kellett
    September 25th, 2006 at 17:44 | #23

    Pity, but you’ve mistaken the present pretender and his court of fools with genuine leaders who, having tried but failed, went on to acknowledge their mistakes in the hope that future generations would learn.

    Bush, in complete constrast, is comfortable with his failure. He flaunts it. He revels in it. “I truly am not concerned about him”, he says, “[capturing OBL is] not a top priority use of American resources”.

    It takes a special sort of syphocant to follow the lead of such a failure.

  24. observa
    September 25th, 2006 at 17:48 | #24

    But of course we should always have been all about Osama http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20472735-401,00.html?from=public_rss

  25. observa
    September 25th, 2006 at 21:41 | #25

    “But capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and individual terrorists was never what this war was about.”
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20469179-7583,00.html
    (hat tip to Slatts)

  26. September 26th, 2006 at 08:38 | #26

    observa – Yeah sure drain the swamp then breed more mosquitos – brilliant!!

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

  27. Sean Kellett
    September 26th, 2006 at 10:18 | #27

    Dear God.

    “Draining the swamp”?

    Truly, our discourse is ruled by fools and dilettantes.

  28. stoptherubbish
    September 26th, 2006 at 14:50 | #28

    Yeah observa, you got that one right. The whole gwot, was/is never actually about OBL at all, and even less about nasty dictators, democracy and actual terrorists.

    It is ‘cold war redux’, or rather a whole generation of right wing tragics hoped it would be. The only problem is, that that lovely quote about the repetition of history returning as farce, never had a truer ‘ring’ about it.

    Oh, BTW I like the term ‘multicultural wet’. Where did you get it? Did you make it up? Did someone at Quadrant think it up. They are great those people there aren’t they. So absolutley reliable-you know, on all the really important serious moral questions, they show the kind of tough minded, no nonesense, reality facing backward looking hokum you would expect from a buch of tired old men, and a few ambitious stupid women.

Comments are closed.