>>>>>>>These seem to be getting much more common over the last few weeks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe a departing gift from George to Obama, a nicely mixed up Pakistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7702679.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good. We know Pakistan is harboring terrorists, and is doing nothing about it other than take our money ($800 million this year IIRC), so I say go after terrorist targets. As far as mixing them up, I don't know how they could get any more mixed up than they already are.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well Mike your opinion really sums up why you live in possibly the most dangerous country in the world. You also live in a wonderful country but massive power without an appreciation of consequences is not a good combination.
>>>>
>>>>I am not for going around attacking every country we perceive as not sharing our interests. I do not favor invading or bombing Iran, for example. But Al Qaeda directly attacked the U.S. Its leaders are believed to be hiding in the mountainous regions of Pakistan, with the complicity of the Pakistanis. I don't think we should attack the country or civilians. But a targeted military attack on Al Qaeda forces hiding in Pakistan is appropriate IMO.
>>>
>>>I wander whom they were after.
>>>According to late Benazir Bhutto Osama Bin Laden is dead. Since 2001 or 2002.
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
>>>
>>>Commented here
>>>http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/15-01-2008/103426-benazir_bhutto_osama-0
>>>
>>>
>>>She was assasinated soon after Frost interview, so she never clarified (nor was she asked on the spot)
>>>Very strange all together.
>>
>>Given the context of the interview I think she misspoke and meant Omar Saeed Sheikh was behind the assassins of Massoud (the Northern Alliance leader killed sept 9 2001 - or was the assassin of Daniel Pearl - more likely as he was actually charged with that.
>>
>>Since she named him and he is a known quantity and there is no reason to believe he would have either the means or the motive to kill Bin Laden I think it is much more likely she misspoke in the interview and that is why there was no follow up.
>
>It could be. Found exactly that as an explanation on wikipedia.
>
>Along folowing various links from wikipedia, what popped up is that Omar Saeed Sheikh is educated UK citisen, originally recruited by
>MI6, sent to Bosnia to 'help the situation' ... (mujahedeen watch?)
>
>Later due some 'glitch' in his mental system, he turn his back and reject his parents (MI6 recruiters / bags of cash)
>and become Osama BL 'special son' and 'go between'. He had few jihad 'franchises' on his own, beheaded Daniel Pearl, while preserving (alledged ) connections to CIA, ISI all along.
>Now my question to you is ;
>If everybody is so well interconnected ( CIA,MI6,ISI) and talking to each other through various 'channels' ,
>and 2 (if not 3) out of 3 had ways to get to 'son' OmarS , how come they could not catch his 'father' (OBL) by now ?
>Otoh, Jihad Group that was targeted in this latest US attack, apparently split from Al-qaeda to pursue their own terrorist agenda.
>Any comments from you as an ex-007 ? {g}
>

I'm not sure any of what you're asking follows logically. Of course CIA, MI6 and ISI communicate. They use people like Omar Saeed Sheikh in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan (during the Soviet occupation) but seldom have illusions that they have bought people they have only rented.

There are lots of fragments among the groups we consider our enemies - so what? In many cases ( Hezbolloh / Syrian intelligence both working a Bekaa valley ) they hate each other more than they hate us but work together sometimes because they find it expedient. We deal with that when we must and exploit it when we can. I've always felt we'll get Bin Laden when some faction decides to give him up.

UnychOXj9Tg