View Full Version : Bin Laden Surrounded

02-21-2004, 03:55 PM
I know this will get moved but I thought it might top all this QB talk.http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html

02-21-2004, 04:30 PM
thats obviously a trash website because Ive looked at CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS and none of them meantion anything at all reguarding Bin Laden. There isnt even a small link off to the side about it, not on the TV either. Something like this wold be huge news. By the way incase you didnt notice it was dated Feburary 22nd....now you might say its in europe because thats who released the info. or something but its not even the 22nd over there yet.

02-21-2004, 06:54 PM
i dont buy this until it hits CNN, msnbc, etc...

02-23-2004, 10:16 PM
It was reported in the Daily Telegraph which is a fairly large paper in Great Britain and was running on the CNN ticker yesterday afternoon.

02-23-2004, 10:18 PM
Also we shifted the unit that captured Saddam from Iraq to a small section in the Afghan mountains "to pursue a prominent target" today.


02-26-2004, 03:48 PM
info like this was in this AMs paper locally today. But the thing is, hasn't he always been basically surrounded for the last 2 yrs? Maybe i'm wrong on this but I've been pretty much under the assumption, since 9/11, that they/we've pretty much knew he was in the mountain region along the Aphgan/paskistan border. oK, the puzzling thing is about all this is that Bush has declared war on terrorism, yes? If that's the case, why doesn't he just march into pakistan and drag that little skinny *** out of there?? He didn't make no qualms about going into Iraq in the name of defense on terror. he's [Bush] already said iran and N Korea are "axis of evil" and we don't hear anything about going into either of those places either. So just why is it REALLY that Bush was so intent on going into Iraq anyway? Was Sadaam THAT much more of a threat to us than Bin Laden and Al-qeda ??? Hmmmmm !!