It makes sense that Bin Laden has been dead for some time now. I'm amazed that Bhutto's comment along those lines has been ignored.

Certainly, Bin Laden's continued role as the sinister boogie man, hiding in the caves of the Afghani border regions blotting murder and mayhem against the west, fits the agenda of these monsters such as Dick Cheney. But an alive Bin Laden would pose a HUGE risk to those that planned and executed the attack of 9/11/2001, a loose end that would terribly complicate the ridiculous "official story" should he become captured.

There is no plus side to the "capture" of Bin Laden to these monsters that have perpetrated this con job called the "GWOT". He is far more valuable to them if he is lurking under the beds of America's gullible and frightened American public. The best way to perpetuate this scam would have been to get rid of Bin Laden early on. In fact, a key component to pulling off the crime of 9/11 would have been to have a concrete plan for the "removal" of Bin Laden.

He's been dead for some time now. Common sense demands that conclusion.

news report:
May 2, 2008, WASHINGTON — An American missile strike in Somalia apparently killed a militant long identified as one of Al Qaeda’s top operatives in East Africa on Thursday

I just googled "us kills al qaeda agent" and got 1,900,000 hits.

Going after OBL and al Qaeda with military force, as the US is supposedly doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, is like trying to kill a fly with a baseball bat. You'll cause a lot of destruction but you won't kill the fly, the fly in this case being the Muslim movement against the USA. The US State Department has told us recently that al Qaeda is in fact growing, and the CIA has told us it's because of the excessive force the US uses.

The demonization of Osama bin Laden is an old ploy used by the US to stoke the war fever. Hitler, Tojo, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam, Ahmadinejad -- they've all been portrayed as bogeymen to personalize a great American effort, an effort that is really meant to extend US hegemony and increase profits. It makes no difference if OBL lives or dies, the US effort to extend hegemony will continue unchecked. The killing of Saddam Hussein and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi in Iraq have not made one whit of difference to US war aims.

Anyhow terrorism, statistically, is a minor, even miniscule, threat to the average American. Bath-tub slips are a greater threat. The effort against terrorists should be one of intelligence and policing, not one of military force.

Some experts agree:
General Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "People talk about, 'Are you winning?' First, you have to define: What is winning? And I don't mean to be glib about that. Winning in this war on terrorism is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function.

"Example. Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3765

Donald Rumsfeld agreed: "At the present time -- we've used the phrase 'global war against terror,' which I find not perfect. I think that it is really a long struggle, as opposed to a war, which implies armies, navies, air forces and Marines contesting each other. It is irregular, it's asymmetric, and it is not against terrorism per se; it is against these violent extremists who use terrorism, but they also could use other things."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3823

news report:
May 2, 2008, WASHINGTON — An American missile strike in Somalia apparently killed a militant long identified as one of Al Qaeda’s top operatives in East Africa on Thursday

I just ggogled "us kills al qaeda agent" and got 1,900,000 hits.

Going after OBL and al Qaeda with military force, as the US is supposedly doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, is like trying to kill a fly with a baseball bat. You'll cause a lot of destruction but you won't kill the fly, the fly in this case being the Muslim movement against the USA. The US State Department has told us recently that al Qaeda is in fact growing, and the CIA has told us it's because of the excessive force the US uses.

The demonization of Osama bin Laden is an old ploy used by the US to stoke the war fever. Hitler, Tojo, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam, Ahmadinejad -- they've all been portrayed as bogeymen to personalize a great American effort, an effort that is really meant to extend US hegemony and increase profits. It makes no difference if OBL lives or dies, the US effort to extend hegemony will continue unchecked. The killing of Saddam Hussein and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi in Iraq have not made one whit of difference to US war aims.

Anyhow terrorism, statistically, is a minor, even miniscule, threat to the average American. Bath-tub slips are a greater threat. The effort against terrorists should be one of intelligence and policing, not one of military force.

Some experts agree:
General Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that fighting terrorism is a police problem (which means the "Global War on Terror" is a bogus mistake):

"People talk about, 'Are you winning?' First, you have to define: What is winning? And I don't mean to be glib about that. Winning in this war on terrorism is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function.

"Example. Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else."

Donald Rumsfeld agreed: : "At the present time -- we've used the phrase 'global war against terror,' which I find not perfect. I think that it is really a long struggle, as opposed to a war, which implies armies, navies, air forces and Marines contesting each other. It is irregular, it's asymmetric, and it is not against terrorism per se; it is against these violent extremists who use terrorism, but they also could use other things."

Yeah, how many more pathetic voice-over, still-video releases will we have to endure before someone admits Bin Laden's dead? Then can we point out that Al Qaeda is nothing more than a list of people who attended a hotel-based summit that got inflated and twisted into some SMERSH type organisation? Outside of Iraq you've gotta figure more people are dying of bee stings and lightning than terrorists...

Headlines we'll probably never see:

US SCRAPS CARRIERS, SUBS, PLANES & TANKS AS USELESS IN GWOT

SURVEY REVEALS TERRORISM EXPERTS OUT-NUMBER TERRORISTS

PALESTINIANS REQUEST APACHE GUNSHIPS, CITE SUICIDE BOMBER SHORTAGE

TERRORISM EXPERT SAYS GUY IN CAVE IS A WUSS

GUY IN CAVE SAYS TERRORISM EXPERT KNOWS BEANS

BARNEY RUBBLE STICKS UP FOR CAVE-DWELLERS

US HAS 2.3 MILLION IN PRISON BUT NO TERRORISTS -- WHAT GIVES?

WORLD'S LEADING TERRIST HANGED; BUSH HAS NO FINAL WORDS

According to an US military official, five Tomahawk cruise missiles
were launched to kill this one insurgent leader in Somalia along
with a dozen "collateral damage" of civilians. That's how US fight
terrorists?

My god, Sue, that is beyond bizarre. What is wrong with these people?

This was not a top leader that was killed, and what it will do, of course, is that a lot of people who were on the fence, who were not militant, will now take up arms, along with other nationalists who are already fighting the US-supported Ethiopian takeover of their country. And then it will be "See, these are violent head-chopping terrorists. You can't reason with them."

We've already gone through this in Iraq and Afghanistan with only increased violence and decreased success. Meanwhile, all the blah-blah-blah about Osama bin Laden who "is at his most vulnerable point since 2001," when in Somalia soaring food prices and a worsening drought are causing a deteriorating humanitarian situation with about 2.6 million Somalis now needing assistance, and all this will be worsened (again) by US aggression.

Somewhere along the line, these people just faded out of the big picture of life, to steal (and sort of butcher) a line from THE CHEYENNE SOCIAL CLUB, the greatest cowboy movie of all time.

I agree that there is a strong possibility that Osama bin Laden
died some time ago. The alleged Osama videos released in
2004 and 2007 show a man wearing jewelry and flashy silken
mantles -- both of which are extremely un-Islamic for a
fundamentalist imam.

If Osama is still alive -- why do all executive activities in al
Queda seem to be coming from al-Zawahiri? More importantly,
why was Osama's only significant activity in the past seven years
the release of a video effectively endorsing John Kerry four days
before an extremely close presidential election? Walter Cronkite
(and others) have pointed to this as the critical event that caused
late-deciding voters to break for Bush in '04.

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think OBL is safe and sound in a US Military Medical facility, in Bahrain, just like he was in July, 2001. The release of his videos, especially the timing, makes OBL seem more like a deep cover CIA asset than someone Das Bush and Co. is seriously pursuing. OBL's parents and Das bush's parents are both a lot richer today than they were on 9/10. What a farce!!!

OBL?-he's alive, he's hiding in some villa type compond somewhere that he arrived at in the middle of the night, never has to leave and his loyal minions bring him what he needs, he really doesn't have to do much more than that...Bush/Cheney have done more for the cause of al Qaeda than he could ever have imagined!

As comedian Chris Rock says, he's more concerend about Al Cracker than Al Qaeda.