Rumor: bin Laden in custody?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 01:52pm

link

I think it's BS. Anyone else?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-23 01:55pm

If it was true, it'd be all over the news sites by now.

I call BS.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-23 02:03pm

I'm going to call bullshit.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 02:04pm

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=60830

Hmm...

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-01-23 02:05pm

Bullshit. Extraordinary claim, extraordinary proof. Instead, we are handed 'suspicious movements' around where Laden was sighted. Ever think they might be trying to bag the fucker?

Now, admittably, I expect some delay between his capture and the media break. But unless this lights up every news channel at the eleven o'clock update, it's hot air.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-01-23 02:06pm

Methinks this is bunk, were it true there would have been greater coverage of such a news worthy story by now. Besides, why would the State Department denying capturing Usama if they really did have him? The U.S. certainly didn't keep quiet when they catched Saddam.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-23 02:34pm

I'm leaning toward bullshit here too.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 04:37pm

They've already claimed that it's false. So it must be true!

No seriously, sounds like bullshit to me.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-23 05:22pm

Bullshit. We would have been informed at the paper, if it was true.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-01-23 05:43pm

The only reason that they would capture someone like him and keep it a secret is if they wanted to wait until before the elections, but then again, we didn't do that with Saddam, or any captured Al-Qaeda/Iraqi for that matter, and I don't see how it would be any different for bin Laden.

In short, I say it's bullshit too.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-23 05:51pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:The only reason that they would capture someone like him and keep it a secret is if they wanted to wait until before the elections, but then again, we didn't do that with Saddam, or any captured Al-Qaeda/Iraqi for that matter, and I don't see how it would be any different for bin Laden.

Actually, there are lots of legitimate military and security reasons for maintaining such a high-profile capture a secret for at least a little while. However, political concerns would not be sufficient to maintain secrecy, and even the legitimate security concerns would not hold up for very long (more than a few days, I would imagine). For example, the US might want to first move him to a secure area before announcing the capture so as to prevent anyone from attempting either a rescue or an assassination along the way, or they may simply wish to confirm his identity before announcing the capture, and in bin Laden's case that may be more difficult than it seems.

That being said, the article is almost certainly bullshit (it doesn't even bother to point out that there may be OTHER high-value targets in the region), just not for the reasons you pointed out.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-23 05:52pm

According to the BBC, it was a really bad prank by a Lebanese news program that people took far too seriously.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 424197.stm