FBI: "Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9-11"

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#663366"][b]Great article ...[/b][/color]



[size=3][u][quote]Hello world!
June 11th 2006
FBI States No Hard Evidence Connects Bin Laden to 9/11[/u][/size]


June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

[b]On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. [/b] [b]The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.[/b] When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, [b]Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”[/b]

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”[b] Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”[/b] I asked, “How does that work?” [size=3][b]Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.[/b] [/size] In the [b]case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury[/b]. [size=4][b]He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”[/b][/size]

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, [b]if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?”[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img] The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, [b]the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. [/b]

[b]Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001.[/b] Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, [b]it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence?[/b] After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, [b]the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI? [/b]

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” [b]This should be headline news worldwide.[/b] [b]The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not.[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? [b]Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account?[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? [b]Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]

[size=3][b]Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not?[/b][/size] How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

[b]…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it. [/b]

——————————
——————————Ã
¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€œ


[i][size=1][1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, [url="http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm"]http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm[/url], [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, [url="http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html"]http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b...1_bt630-01.html[/url], [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm[/url], [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, [url="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape"]http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret....laden.videotape[/url], [Accessed June 5, 2006][/size][/quote][/i]


[url="http://www.8thestate.com/"]http://www.8thestate.com/[/url]

[Guest #22]

Conservatives are fucked here. THey can either:
A.) Deny Usumu's (FoxNews Spelling?) involvement in 9/11 along with the FBI, and then question our war in Afghanistan, or
B.) Think (as I still do) that he was somehow involved, and then wonder why the FUCK we aren't going after him.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='#22' post='283457' date='Jun 18 2006, 12:38 PM']Conservatives are fucked here. THey can either:
A.) Deny Usumu's (FoxNews Spelling?) involvement in 9/11 along with the FBI, and then question our war in Afghanistan, or
B.) Think (as I still do) that he was somehow involved, and then wonder why the FUCK we aren't going after him.[/quote]


B. And it's because he's in Packastan and the situation amongst the locals there makes it a little tougher than that. Chris Henry's Dealer a few months ago explained this very very well.

Although dont get me wrong I do see a motovation mossad and pnac might have, Im just not sure I buy it.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='#22' post='283457' date='Jun 18 2006, 12:38 PM']Conservatives are fucked here. THey can either:
A.) Deny Usumu's (FoxNews Spelling?) involvement in 9/11 along with the FBI, and then question our war in Afghanistan, or
B.) Think (as I still do) that he was somehow involved, and then wonder why the FUCK we aren't going after him.[/quote]

you should replace "conservatives" w/ "the bush administration"... most conservatives think as i do, that osama had all (or at least most) of the credit for 9/11, and want him dead... we can't be blamed for not getting him yet...

[Guest #22]

but you can be blamed for supporting the administration so willfully.

[Honkey]

How can you legitimately say that Osama is responsible for 9/11 when the FBI doesn't have him on their list? Al Qaeda is one of the world's largest drug operations and the leading trafficer of opium. The pictures of Osama with guns being fired on those farms is in fact a drug operation and he is training soldiers to guard their drugs not terrorists to drive planes into buildings.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Honkey' post='284199' date='Jun 20 2006, 09:09 AM']How can you legitimately say that Osama is responsible for 9/11 when the FBI doesn't have him on their list? Al Qaeda is one of the world's largest drug operations and the leading trafficer of opium. The pictures of Osama with guns being fired on those farms is in fact a drug operation and he is training soldiers to guard their drugs not terrorists to drive planes into buildings.[/quote]

you have driven off on the wacko express brother....

[Guest oldschooler]

Geeez, even though the U.S. Government has shown evidence
to World Leaders, and bin Laden declared war on the U.S.
through the media back in 1998, even though he admitted to
attacking the U.S. ... hell, I guess he`s just an innocent
"drug dealer" now...

[Guest bengalrick]

i said that bin laden and al qaeda was involved in the drug trade a while back... when someone (i think steggy) called me out on that point, i did some investigating and found... well.... nothing.... i am pretty sure that i was wrong... but i'd love for someone to find evidence to the contrary...

[Guest oldschooler]

I`m sick of this thread. Talk about a few people taking shit out of context
and running with it...

[quote][b]CAUTION[/b]

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. [b]In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.[/b]

[b]REWARD[/b]

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.[/quote]


[url="http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm"]http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm[/url]


Now where exactly does it say that he isn`t wanted for 9/11 ? To be "wanted" for a crime,
you need to be formely "charged" with a crime. It doesn`t mean he didn`t do it, it doesn`t
mean he isn`t wanted for it... it just means he hasn`t been "charged" with it ... YET.

[Guest #22]

[quote name='Honkey' post='284199' date='Jun 20 2006, 09:09 AM']How can you legitimately say that Osama is responsible for 9/11 when the FBI doesn't have him on their list? Al Qaeda is one of the world's largest drug operations and the leading trafficer of opium. The pictures of Osama with guns being fired on those farms is in fact a drug operation and he is training soldiers to guard their drugs not terrorists to drive planes into buildings.[/quote]
You are a fucking idiot. Under the Taliban Regime, the Poppy Fields were all eliminated, and Opium Production dropped completely off and you won't find a single source that disagrees with me.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='#22' post='284312' date='Jun 20 2006, 02:18 PM'][b]You are a fucking idiot.[/b] Under the Taliban Regime, the Poppy Fields were all eliminated, and Opium Production dropped completely off and you won't find a single source that disagrees with me.[/quote]


A little harsh wouldnt you say? The man is a little misinformed but a f-ing idiot?

[Guest #22]

probably true. but not undeserved

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

#22 is correct on the large degree of elimination of the poppy crop under the taliban.

However, there has been a record harvest this past spring in the South of the country. Which is being used to fund the resurgent Taliban.

But it's a common tactic for whichever side is in the opposition in Afghanistan. When the Taliban were in power, the Northern Alliance (who make up most of the government now) were using it to fund their conflict against the majority Taliban at the time.

Also, I think the situation in Somalia is well worth watching. It's almost an identical replay of the scenario in Afghanistan in 94 when the Taliban kept to power. In Somalia, a loose affiliation of Islamic militias have been seizing more and more territory from the long time warlords (some backed by the US). They have the capital city Mogadishu under their control and are moving northwards A large part of their success is due to the fact that they're receiving overwhelming support from local citizens, who want law and order restored after years of fighting and unrest under the different war lords.

Additionally, the areas under control of the Islamic Militias have much better law and order than the rest of the country.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Most of the militias have released statements saying they are anti Al-Quaeda and foreigners in general, as they believe foreign intervention is the root cause of the problems there. But as they're fighting warlords who in some cases have been receiving US support over the years (Muse Sudi Yalahow and Abdi Kadir Bebe for example) it's not a stretch to imagine that they might regard the US as the enemy and be sympathetic to anti-US interests.

[url="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14441219.htm"]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14441219.htm[/url]

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='284503' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:04 PM']It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Most of the militias have released statements saying they are anti Al-Quaeda and foreigners in general, as they believe foreign intervention is the root cause of the problems there. But as they're fighting warlords who in some cases have been receiving US support over the years (Muse Sudi Yalahow and Abdi Kadir Bebe for example) it's not a stretch to imagine that they might regard the US as the enemy and be sympathetic to anti-US interests.[/quote]

Ultimately, it probably wouldn't matter exactly where they stand...In this political climate, it would probably only take one press release to have the populace convinced that they are Al-Quaeda terrorists.

But that's a trigger that would only be pulled once the Warlord option has been exhausted.

BZ

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='oldschooler' post='284214' date='Jun 20 2006, 09:31 AM']Now where exactly does it say that he isn`t wanted for 9/11 ? To be "wanted" for a crime,
you need to be formely "charged" with a crime. It doesn`t mean he didn`t do it, it doesn`t
mean he isn`t wanted for it... it just means he hasn`t been "charged" with it ... YET.[/quote]


[b]Not true ... you can be wanted for a crime ... and not be formally tried for it .... Zarqawi was on the most wanted list ... but technically wasn't charged for or indicted in the United States for specific crimes ....

And yes it does mean he is not WANTED for it ... because he isn't. You either are or aren't wanted for something ... and he is not. Now could he have done it ... sure .... hell I could .... because right now they have no indicted suspects ....

the bottomline is that in a court of law ... the U.S. case would fold fast .... the Confession tape of Bin Laden would get laughed out of court ... as the guy looks nothing like him and is right handed when he is left handed .... the guy is also wearing a ring ... and Bin Ladan and the Jihadists are against all wearing of jewelry.
[/b]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='284780' date='Jun 21 2006, 12:58 AM'][b]Not true ... you can be wanted for a crime ... and not be formally tried for it .... Zarqawi was on the most wanted list ... but technically wasn't charged for or indicted in the United States for specific crimes ....

And yes it does mean he is not WANTED for it ... because he isn't. You either are or aren't wanted for something ... and he is not. Now could he have done it ... sure .... hell I could .... because right now they have no indicted suspects ....

the bottomline is that in a court of law ... the U.S. case would fold fast .... the Confession tape of Bin Laden would get laughed out of court ... as the guy looks nothing like him and is right handed when he is left handed .... the guy is also wearing a ring ... and Bin Ladan and the Jihadists are against all wearing of jewelry.
[/b][/quote]

[b]wanted[/b]
To seek with intent to capture, a public announcement by a law enforcement agency that they desire to question or arrest some person



[b]suspect[/b]

hold in suspicion; believe to be guilty; "The U.S. suspected Bin Laden as the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks"


Notice how the FBI`s site says he is WANTED for the Embassy bombings, and he is a SUSPECT
for other attacks ?



Anyway, I guess all of this is just horsehit... according to you...

[quote]The (9/11) commission found that the plot originally called for hijacking 10 planes and attacking targets on the eastern and western coasts of the United States.

According to the commission:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, planned to have nine of the planes crash into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state.

Mohammed was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities.

The hijackers of the 10th plane, which Mohammed planned to pilot, would contact the media, kill all of the adult men onboard and then make a statement denouncing the United States before freeing the women and children.

The plot also called for hijacking and blowing up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia, but al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden scrapped that part of the plan because it was too difficult to coordinate operations on two continents.

Bin Laden scaled back the plot in the United States to the four planes that were eventually used in the attack.

They narrowed down the list of targets to the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and either the White House or the Capitol.

Bin Laden wanted to hit the White House, but Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 19 hijackers, favored the Capitol, because they felt it would be an easier target.

Mohammed initially proposed the attacks in 1996, but planning did not begin until 1999.

Bin Laden had wanted the attack to occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount tunnel, which preceded a Palestinian intifada. But the hijacker-pilots were not yet fully trained.

Bin Laden then pressed for a date earlier in 2001, such as May 12, the seven-month anniversary of the USS Cole attack, or in June or July, when Sharon was due to visit the White House. Again, the hijackers were not ready.

The September 11 date was not chosen until three weeks before. The hijackers bought their tickets only two weeks before.

The plot cost an estimated $400,000 to $500,000, not including the hijackers' training in Afghanistan. The hijackers spent about $270,000 in the United States, mainly on flight training, travel, housing, and vehicles[/quote].



[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/[/url]

[TheBZ]

I would guess if it was that straight-forward, they would have no problem putting him on the WANTED list.

Which goes back to the original point, which is...Why have the FBI skirted that distinction?

There must be some reason. Can anyone offer a guess?

BZ

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='284843' date='Jun 21 2006, 07:07 AM']I would guess if it was that straight-forward, they would have no problem putting him on the WANTED list.

Which goes back to the original point, which is...Why have the FBI skirted that distinction?

There must be some reason. Can anyone offer a guess?

BZ[/quote]
Because the physical evidence was blown up?

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='284843' date='Jun 21 2006, 08:07 AM']I would guess if it was that straight-forward, they would have no problem putting him on the WANTED list.

Which goes back to the original point, which is...Why have the FBI skirted that distinction?

There must be some reason. Can anyone offer a guess?

BZ[/quote]




Ugggh, he IS on the wanted list.

And he is a suspect (believed to be guilty) of attacks around the World.
I`ll even post the link that says as much (again)

[url="http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm"]http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm[/url]

I would go as far as to say he is a suspect (believed to be guilty) of the 9/11 attacks ! *gasp*


Plus, I`ll even post (again) a quote from your own former Leader ...


[quote]Since the first demands for "evidence," the U.S. government has busied itself preparing a laundry list of suitable accusations and diplomatically correct labels to hurl at bin Laden and his terrorist cells. The mysterious "proof" of his guilt has been shared, we're told with Allied leaders in Europe, as well as with various Pakistani and Afghan (rebel) authorities. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson later characterized a secret U.S. briefing as offering "clear and compelling evidence," [b]while Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced he was "quite satisfied" the information "proves" bin Laden's involvement. [/b]

So what is this evidence everyone's talking about? It's hard to say for sure, since it's off-limits to all but the highest-level government officials, but according to Jordan Paust, professor of law and director of the International Law Institute at the University of Houston, "There could be various types of evidence. We could have super-sensitive satellite pictures, statements from people within the Taliban, intercepted intelligence reports."

Whatever it is, it probably involves two basic components. Legally important evidence and politically important evidence.[/quote]

[url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,177983,00.html"]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,177983,00.html[/url]



Like I said, talk about taking shit out of context and running with it...

[TheBZ]

That's a pretty combatitive reply...Considering that I was only asking the question 'Why?'

I certainly have no agenda to exonerate Osama Bin Laden...I'm just wondering why they haven't put enough evidence together to actually make a distinctive enough connection between him and 9/11 - at least to the point that they must have with the embassy incidents.

If it is a matter of destroyed evidence, as Bung suggested...that is somewhat understandable...But a plausible admission of guilt (BJ's left-handed tape) should be enough to tip the scales.

It's just semantics, I suppose...But it's strange that they aren't willing to classify him in the same way they did for the embassy bombings.

As for Jean Chretien's statements...He must have been satisfied, because Canada was part of the thrust towards Afghanistan...And our government has forces that are there right now. (albeit, it is a different government in power now)

That having been said, most Canadians aren't in the habit of accepting our leader's political statement as the absolute truth on a matter. [i](You should try that some time...It's absolutely liberating, OLD.)[/i]

The Prime Minister had a decision to make, and he backed it up with that statement. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do my own research or soul-searching to figure out where I stand on the matter.

Personally, I believe he was involved...But it is the train of events that have followed that I have more of a problem with.

It also doesn't matter to me whether he is alive or not at this point...Because it is pretty obvious that if he was really the target/great opposition that he was made out to be, he would have been found - dead or alive - by now.

Which leads me to believe that the moments troops were en route...It was already about something else, and has been ever since.

BZ

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='284912' date='Jun 21 2006, 08:34 AM']It also doesn't matter to me whether he is alive or not at this point...Because it is pretty obvious that if he was really the target/great opposition that he was made out to be, he would have been found - dead or alive - by now.

Which leads me to believe that the moments troops were en route...It was already about something else, and has been ever since.

BZ[/quote]
Now wait a sec....how could it not matter if he's alive or not? Why do you think we have a large number of elite forces in Afghanistan looking for him now? For a ruse?
Keep in mind how easy it would be for someone like him, with his money (although unless he's toting around bags of it, or has hidden it well in banks we cannot trace, that we've probably frozen every asset that he has) to blend in with people who look like him, dress like him and are sympathetic to his cause to hide. And then factor in the mountainous, unfamiliar terrain (and a LOT of it, Afghanistan is a BIG country), and I'd say that adds up to a pretty tough target to find.
I think the reality is that he's so hemmed in right now, with limited resources and an inability to communicate that's kept him alive, because as soon as we trace ANY communication that he sends unwisely , the cat's out of the bag and he's dead.
The guy is NOT stupid...he masterminded and probably funded the 9/11 operations (yes, I actually believe that rather than some of the "alternative theories" that have been bandied about here) and he is constantly on the move if in fact he is still alive. I still think he will make a mistake eventually and we will get him.

[Guest bengalrick]

i truely believe that bin laden is dead, but i hope we don't stop looking until we find his rotting bones....

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='284995' date='Jun 21 2006, 12:53 PM']i truely believe that bin laden is dead, but i hope we don't stop looking until we find his rotting bones....[/quote]

[b]So if he is dead ..... how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice to find those bones ?

What about your own family members ... how many of them are you willing to offer up to find those bones ?

Are you willing to go search for those bones ?

How many years do you think we should roam the mountains of Afghanistan looking for bombs of a man whom may not even be in Afghanistan or have his remains there ?

Should we hire the same guys still looking for Jimmy Hoffas body ? [/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='285010' date='Jun 21 2006, 01:23 PM'][b]So if he is dead ..... how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice to find those bones ?

What about your own family members ... how many of them are you willing to offer up to find those bones ?

Are you willing to go search for those bones ?

How many years do you think we should roam the mountains of Afghanistan looking for bombs of a man whom may not even be in Afghanistan or have his remains there ?

Should we hire the same guys still looking for Jimmy Hoffas body ? [/b][/quote]

we will always look for him, until we find him... you don't have to be at war w/ a country to look for someone...