Where's Bin Ladin?

[The Reaper]

Okay, put yourself in command of AQ and examine the alternatives.

1. The Boss is dead and you can decide what to do.

Do you announce it and provide the facts, announce it but tamper with the facts to make him a martyr, or hide the death altogether?

Which would generate the best response from your remaining followers and supporters?

Which would be least beneficial to your enemy?

2. Bin Laden is alive.

Why would you use him (or not) in videos?

Again, what advantages would you see among your supporters for each alternative?

Why would you not show him off to your enemy?

Why would you use his voice in audio tapes, but not put him in videos any longer?

FWIW, I do not buy the lack of technical video support. Previous tapes were shot with comcorders and I am sure that they are not unavailable to a multiimillionaire in Pakistan, or wherever he might be.

TR

[HOLLiS]

IMHO, it is in the best interest of AQ to present UBL as being alive.

"See the great US can not catch one man, they can not kill one man, Allah is with us."


Even the anti-war critics recite the mantra, "The Great US can not catch one man, WTH?" Which adds to micro managing the war, "See Bush is incompetence, he can not catch UBL", "Bush lied about AQ, or he would be chasing UBL." AQ and the anti-war crowd would probably both gain if more resources were diverted to find UBL.

I think the answer lies partially in the anti-war movement on the seeing the benefits of keeping UBL "alive". For all practical purpose UBL is out of the game either way.

[NousDefionsDoc]

The ELN managed to keep the death of Cura Perez a secret for almost 8 months - until they worked out succession.

We didn't know for sure about Carlitos for quite a while either.

We need a body.

[APLP]

I am thinking someone hit him with a Le Mas round.

[x-factor]

1. The Boss is dead and you can decide what to do.

First, I think you might be mirror imaging. You're assuming that AQ is even capable of an orderly transition of power (presumably to Zawahiri or Mullah Omar). That may not necessarily be the case, certainly not in the Western sense anyway. Islamic history is replete with organizations (the Caliphate not the least of them) that were completely unable to deal with leadership succession. They're not a military organization, not exactly anyway, the chain of command is more liquid.

This is one of the main reasons I think he's still alive. If he died, I'm fairly certain there'd be some infighting and politicking during the transition and that they wouldn't be able to keep that quiet.

I think the only way the could manage an orderly transition is if Bin Laden established a line of succession in an indisputable public statement. Its not unlikely that if he does die, the way the world will here of it is in the release of a video combining his last orders, a heartfelt eulogy by his successor, and a exhortation to carry on.

That said, because your question is really interesting, I'll stipulate an orderly transition and continue.

Do you announce it and provide the facts, announce it but tamper with the facts to make him a martyr, or hide the death altogether?

Which would generate the best response from your remaining followers and supporters?

Which would be least beneficial to your enemy?

You're assuming that if UBL dies of natural causes it can't be spun as an AQ victory. He's being hunted by the entire world (more or less) and has been for a long time now, but he dies peacefully in his own bed...

"Our beloved Sheik was hidden and protected by the hand of Allah, who kept the infidels Americans and the apostates in Afghanistan and Pakistan at bay! Verily they may fill the sky with aircraft and bring armies to defile Muslim lands but they were no match for Allah who is master of all strategems and only who's service can victory be found. And so Usama Bin Laden lived as long as Allah decreed, for no other way is possible, no matter what the infidel Bush should say!"

As for the succession issue, they'll probably do something to parallel what Abu Bakr said when he took over leadership when Mohammed died: "If anyone worshipped Muhammad, let them know that Muhammad is dead, but if anyone worshipped God, then let them know that God is living and cannot die."

Its always easier to spin the truth than to hide it with a lie. By admitting Bin Laden is dead and being proactive about their message they're selling the idea that AQ is not a cult of personality or a fly-by-night gang of thugs, that it is a long-term institution and the true successor to the Caliphate. It gives the Muslim world, with all their discontentments, something really big and powerful to believe in. That is a potentially powerful uniter for their base and a show of strength for those that might be on the fence about joining them.

The worst thing for AQ is to try and hide his death and get caught. Then they look weak and cultish which is going to cost them followers and prompt a splintering of the organization.

2. Bin Laden is alive.

Why would you use him (or not) in videos?

Again, what advantages would you see among your supporters for each alternative?

Why would you not show him off to your enemy?

Why would you use his voice in audio tapes, but not put him in videos any longer?

I sort of answered this in my first post, but I'll add one thing. More than anything, AQ wants to avoid appearing irrelevant or undignified. When UBL speaks they want it to be a nearly religious-level event. If they keep putting out UBL statements when he doesn't really have anything to say, then they're throwing UBL's cache away, they're cheapening his image. Zawahiri and the American guy can take care of the day-to-day statements taunting Bush, calling for Musharraf's head, and scolding other Muslim groups. Thats just scut work. Its the same reason why the US President rarely gives national addresses.

Also, there's the OPSEC issue. Anytime UBL communicates with anyone, he's potentially exposing himself, so there's a practical incentive to keeping quiet as well.

The audio-vs-video thing is odd. I gave three possibilities earlier, but I'm still trying to figure that one out myself.

FWIW, I do not buy the lack of technical video support. Previous tapes were shot with comcorders and I am sure that they are not unavailable to a multiimillionaire in Pakistan, or wherever he might be.

I agree that the no-video-support argument is a little thin, but I think still shouldn't be dismissed. AQ takes its propoganda very seriously. They may insist on doing it right. And if they don't perceive a pressing need for Bin Laden to speak on a video, then they'd be all the more likely to wait for the good production value.

[Sdiver]

IMO, Bin Ladin is dead. As has been stated earlier, w/o his dialysis, his Renial Failure took him out.

If in fact, if he is dead, AQ would withhold leaking it to their followers.

I can't see them saying the truth of OBL's death as this "The boss is dead because of a common human disease. He didn't go the way he wanted to, "In the belly of the Eagle", or standing alongside the brave fighters of AQ with his captured AK-47 in his hands, killing the infidels. No, he died because of Kidney Failure. He only will be getting 7 virgins, and 4 of which are overweight......now for a check of the weather with Hassain Bin Ranin'......"

Wasn't there video of a UAV over P-stan awhile ago, several top AQ members at a funeral of some sort. I remember some analysts saying, that on the tape from the UAV, the size of the coffin was estimated at well over 6' in length. What ever happened to that vid anyway?

Now, to play my own Devil's Advocate, IF OBL is NOT dead, then I think he is very actively attempting to gain access to this country, (if he isn't here already), to cause some sort of incident at next years conventions. The GOP's comes to mind.

[dr. mabuse]

r

[x-factor]

Several people have put a lot of stock in the renal failure/dialysis thing. Here's a summary of whats been publically released on UBL's health, compiled by a medical doctor whose hobby is the health issues of historical figures:

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_binladen.htm#3

NOTE: "The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that bin Laden does not need dialysis, but does suffer from kidney stones." (cited from an MSNBC article)

Take the dialysis assumption and stand it on its head and you're saying he survived the flight from Tora Bora in 2001 to TR's Date in April 2003 all the while in constant need of major medical care. How realistic is that?

Again, until we get some more evidence, I think Occam's Razor works in favor of "alive."

[Ranger Luna]

He's working at a local liquor store here in Ca.

[dr. mabuse]

r
I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and believe that you just like to argue or are trying to be funny or trying to egg people on, because, surely you can't be serious.

Have a good 'un.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by dr. mabuse

X-factor, you quote someone that we don't know his real name nor do we know if he even really even is a doctor, who quotes a MSNBC(!?) source that names no one in particular and that is the strongest argument you've got?

Don't trust the MSNBC source? Ok, the National Review (hardly a liberal rag) says its sources say the same thing and cites several subsources both inside the US government and through their own independent investigation.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...0511030759.asp

The idea that Bin Laden was dead from typhoid was floated in 2006, but shot down within days by pretty much every major news outlet. All of whom asserted that their sources believed Bin Laden was alive.

My source was a 27 year company man (among others) and I'll trust him over your MSNBC any day.

So, you're going to dismiss out-of-hand NBC News (an established news organization with a 50+ year track record and reporters in daily contact with the White House, the Pentagon, NSC, etc) but you're personal, completely anecdotal source is unimpeachable, despite being completely unverifiable?

But set the source questions aside. Lets say he does need dialysis every 5 days. That would mean in the two years between Sept 11 and the date TR gave in the first post, that he survived roughly 146 dialysis procedures...the same procedure you said has killed patients that "surely were younger and stronger"? Moreover, he survived all 146 of these procedures, presumably, in conditions that were not exactly hospital quality.

Which is more likely?
a) that he did infact survive all of those procedures (not to mention avoiding infection) or
b) that any health ailments he may or may not have are not that dire

***

Secondly, I have no doubt that if the QPs thought I was here just to agitate or clown around that they'd have booted my ass (and been right to do it). I'm discussing the subject because I find it interesting and I enjoy a good debate the same way a shooter likes going to the range. It keeps the skills up. I post at this site because I've worked with SF men, I like them, and I know they're sharp guys. They're unique in that they combine a lot of theoretical knowledge with an equal amount of practical experience and so, I find, they make for very well-thought out points of view. I know talking through issues with them (whether we agree or not) will help keep me sharp and then I can serve this country all the better.

Lastly, I'm not making my case (in this thread or any other) based on my job or any secret data. I'm making it based solely on publically available information and my best reasoning. I've got no problem with anyone who wants to disagree and I'll be the first to tell you that no one here really knows the answer. But I'd appreciate it if we could leave the snide "if you're really DoD" nonsense out of it.

[dr. mabuse]

This is the last post on this subject for me. When someone defends NBC or big media, it speaks volumns. I never said anything about "if you're really DOD". If you're sensitive about it that's your issue. I've just never met anyone along your line that defends big media. Just raises a red flag for me, that's all.

We just have different standards, that's all. And I'm trying to be polite about it without sarcasm.

To reiterate, the circles I occasionally travel in due to family and/or political connections are different than yours. We simply don't take major media seriously. No one I personally know in politics or LE or business or the very few people I have personally met or worked with in SF take big media seriously.

If you were SF and I were somewhat familiar with you, I might PM you with names. TR or TS or NDD I trust enough to probably supply names. It's fairly obvious that if I quote people, they stop talking to me. Just like you hallowed NBC with their un-named sources. NBC says we're losing the war, no one needs guns, soldiers are schlubs, etc, etc, etc. Why would you trust them? What are you thinking?

I have a DIRECT connection with big media here in Texas (ABC) and you're more than welcome to trust them but, as a group, I sure as hell don't. I know big media from the inside out.

I'll tell them you said "hi" in Crawford.

Have a good 'un

[dr. mabuse]

r

[Rumblyguts]

I don't know, but going back through the OBL death threads here, I've read that one QP here was told by a legendary QP that it was the latter's opinion that OBL was dead. Therefore, I'll go along with that information, as that seems to be relaiable source.

I'm not trying to be cryptic, as folks can find the post, but just illustrating how arguing source credibility without revealing sources is ..well.. entertaining

Heading back to my lane...

[DanUCSB]

I say dead. Not because I have any special sources, but out of common sense (not so common in today's America).

UBL is the worldwide face of AQ, and the movement's most popular figure. Combine this fact with his demonstrated willingness to put himself in the public eye despite being hunted, and then consider the lack of verified sightings in the last couple of years.

He is the biggest tool in the AQ bag; if he were still around, we'd have seen more of him, more recently.