India claims they told US where OBL was

[ugonow]

Maybe everyone wants a piece of the action-----articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-04/india/29508259_1_zawahiri-cantonment-area-indian-intelligence India had twice told US about Osama's likely presence close to Islamabad
Sachin Parashar, May 4, 2011, 01.41am ISTTags:Osama bin Laden
NEW DELHI: It now turns out that Indian agencies had twice warned their US counterparts about the presence of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in an urbanized and heavily populated area not very far from Islamabad – once in mid-2007 and again in early 2008 when they specifically mentioned his likely presence in a cantonment area. On both occasions, the Americans either did not take the Indian intelligence seriously or perhaps were too busy working on their own inputs about Osamas whereabouts.

The first time Indian security agencies gave this information to the US authorities was in mid-2007, soon after a Taliban meeting in Peshawar which was attended by Osamas No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. According to the information gathered by Indian intelligence operatives, this meeting was also attended by top leaders of Haqqani network and at least two ISI officials."

[Deleted]

This would fit in with what we were discussing yesterday on another thread re. the wikileaks stuff that leads to believe the US has known since 2005 where OBL is. I guess everybody knew except we, the people?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Does this mean India gets the reward? How does that work?

[Shirina]

We really don't know what kind of intelligence India gave the US or the context in which it was given. India could've given us Osama's location near Islamabad along with 50 other possible locations, and since one of them happened to be right, India is going to act as if they had Osama pinpointed all along.

It is unlikely we will ever really know.

[mmhmm]

When it comes to something like this, "we the people" don't need to know and it shouldn't be announced like a football game score. Covert means covert. We don't know, and won't know who knew what when. It's not like the average American citizen is going to go hell-bent for Pakistan to blow up bin Laden's compound based on a news report that he's in some large home near Islamabad.

The point is, he's dead and it's not really going to change much. There will still be terrorism, and there will still be worldwide strife.

[Deleted]

And there will still be widespread Bush bashing when it appears the USA has known for at least 6 years exactly where OBL is, and chose to take him down now because of wikileaks exposure.

[mmhmm]

The only one who's mentioned former President Bush so far, krickitt, is you. Personally, I'm not looking for someone to blame. Covert operations are covert for a reason and don't result in overnight solutions most of the time.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:03:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

When it comes to something like this, "we the people" don't need to know and it shouldn't be announced like a football game score. Covert means covert. We don't know, and won't know who knew what when. It's not like the average American citizen is going to go hell-bent for Pakistan to blow up bin Laden's compound based on a news report that he's in some large home near Islamabad.

The point is, he's dead and it's not really going to change much. There will still be terrorism, and there will still be worldwide strife.

The thing I disagree with this statement is the covert/secret part. If the government has top secret information that could save many lives but instead they decide not to because it might hurt the lively hood of some politicians or the finances of some corrupt business. Top secret and covert is a bunch of BS terms used for ignorant people that don't think politicians lie. I personally don't fear the truth and would rather have it, most people do fear the truth hence the uneducated population we have. We could be killing ourselves by doing certain activities for the past 50 years, but since it is top secret we don't need to know about it( sure the politicians would tell us about it, they care so much for our well being).

[Deleted]

Agreed, reasonfreedom. If Bush/Obama have been watching OBL all these years they sure let lots of terror attacks slip through the cracks. Have to wonder if they thwarted a few, but of course they won't be admitting that because to admit they were gathering info from OBL would not be a smart political move.

[Shirina]

Top secret and covert is a bunch of BS terms used for ignorant people that don't think politicians lie.

Do you believe that "the people" should know everything? Should we know every source, informant, and spy working on the government's behalf? And if we did, how long do you think we would continue having those sources, informants, and spies?

[mmhmm]

May 5, 2011 11:12:57 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

May 5, 2011 11:03:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

When it comes to something like this, "we the people" don't need to know and it shouldn't be announced like a football game score. Covert means covert. We don't know, and won't know who knew what when. It's not like the average American citizen is going to go hell-bent for Pakistan to blow up bin Laden's compound based on a news report that he's in some large home near Islamabad.

The point is, he's dead and it's not really going to change much. There will still be terrorism, and there will still be worldwide strife.

The thing I disagree with this statement is the covert/secret part. If the government has top secret information that could save many lives but instead they decide not to because it might hurt the lively hood of some politicians or the finances of some corrupt business. Top secret and covert is a bunch of BS terms used for ignorant people that don't think politicians lie. I personally don't fear the truth and would rather have it, most people do fear the truth hence the uneducated population we have. We could be killing ourselves by doing certain activities for the past 50 years, but since it is top secret we don't need to know about it( sure the politicians would tell us about it, they care so much for our well being).

It's not about you knowing, or not knowing. It's about keeping the operation secret until what needs to be accomplished is accomplished, freedom. If the location of who (or what) is being sought is announced openly, do you not think the who (or what) is going to know they've been located? Do you not think they're going to high-tail as soon as such an announcement is made? If they let us all know, they're telling the sought-after victim, too. That's not going to serve to further the mission, but rather to sink it totally. I have no issue with telling people, after the fact, how something went down; however, to let that information out while the mission is ongoing just isn't very smart.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:20:06 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Top secret and covert is a bunch of BS terms used for ignorant people that don't think politicians lie.

Do you believe that "the people" should know everything? Should we know every source, informant, and spy working on the government's behalf? And if we did, how long do you think we would continue having those sources, informants, and spies?

You wouldn't need them if everybody knew. /duh. If everybody were honest and didn't hide anything we would know how to deal with situations better. For instance this last mortgage crisis, if people knew the truth behind the scams the big bank/derivative companies were doing when they started, then they more than likely wouldn't have bought the mortgages. If they did buy them then they would be personally responsible because everybody else knew.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:21:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 5, 2011 11:12:57 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

The thing I disagree with this statement is the covert/secret part. If the government has top secret information that could save many lives but instead they decide not to because it might hurt the lively hood of some politicians or the finances of some corrupt business. Top secret and covert is a bunch of BS terms used for ignorant people that don't think politicians lie. I personally don't fear the truth and would rather have it, most people do fear the truth hence the uneducated population we have. We could be killing ourselves by doing certain activities for the past 50 years, but since it is top secret we don't need to know about it( sure the politicians would tell us about it, they care so much for our well being).

It's not about you knowing, or not knowing. It's about keeping the operation secret until what needs to be accomplished is accomplished, freedom. If the location of who (or what) is being sought is announced openly, do you not think the who (or what) is going to know they've been located? Do you not think they're going to high-tail as soon as such an announcement is made? If they let us all know, they're telling the sought-after victim, too. That's not going to serve to further the mission, but rather to sink it totally. I have no issue with telling people, after the fact, how something went down; however, to let that information out while the mission is ongoing just isn't very smart.

How do we know that them letting the information out that he is dead, didn't affect other covert op missions against terrorism. I think it is a 2-sided sword, but I would rather see the sword coming so that I can do something about it.

[mmhmm]

We don't know, freedom. We will never know, for sure, whether this has impacted other operations, or not.

Let's put this into a more familiar context. Say the company for which you work is in trouble. It's looking like they may have to lay a lot of people off, but they're fighting hard to turn things around so that won't be necessary. If they announce the problems they're going to start hemorrhaging people right away. That will pretty much guarantee they'll go under as they won't have the staff to save themselves. So, they keep the problem close to the vest and continue to work, in the background, to try to save the company. They may succeed, or they may fail. Telling people before they put into action the plans they've made to save the company will guarantee failure.

You'd like to know so you can "do something about it", you say. Just exactly what is it you'd plan to do if someone had told you bin Laden was in a large complex near Islamabad?

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:36:23 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

We don't know, freedom. We will never know, for sure, whether this has impacted other operations, or not.

Let's put this into a more familiar context. Say the company for which you work is in trouble. It's looking like they may have to lay a lot of people off, but they're fighting hard to turn things around so that won't be necessary. If they announce the problems they're going to start hemorrhaging people right away. That will pretty much guarantee they'll go under as they won't have the staff to save themselves. So, they keep the problem close to the vest and continue to work, in the background, to try to save the company. They may succeed, or they may fail. Telling people before they put into action the plans they've made to save the company will guarantee failure.

You'd like to know so you can "do something about it", you say. Just exactly what is it you'd plan to do if someone had told you bin Laden was in a large complex near Islamabad?

Actually, if I worked for that company and they told me I would work harder to prevent it. If it is inevitable at least it would give me time to be able to find another job.

What I would do? I would be aware of the situation and my surroundings.

[Shirina]

You wouldn't need them if everybody knew. /duh.

That's sort of like saying, "If I knew where my car keys were, I wouldn't have to look for them!"

Of course, they're still missing, so it comes down to the "if wishes were horses" axiom.

Naturally, if we knew were Osama was, we wouldn't need informants to tell us where he is ... but we didn't know, so we needed informants.

If people are going to put themselves in danger by revealing information to the military, they need assurances that they can simply fade back into the gloom once the storm passes. If they know their name and picture is going to be on the front page of every newspaper in the Western world, you can bet they're going to keep what they know to themselves, and America will be the worse for it.

This is why covertness and secrecy is sometimes required.

I'm not sure how far you're attempting to take this, but I would also prefer that our military technology isn't made public record, nor does the rest of the world need to know what our troops are planning to do before they actually do it (as mmhmm said).

Even if our entire government was filled with Jesus clones and no one was dishonest, secrecy would still be required in certain circumstances. You have every right to be doubtful about what the media tells us, and by default, what the government tells the media - but sometimes the lies and deceptions occur for a very good reason.

The only problem is that, because of the very nature of lies and deception, it's impossible to know when there is a good reason and when there isn't.

The truth is that our instant gratification society applies also to information. We want it, and we want it now. This is part and parcel of why the media so often gets its initial information wrong. They're in such a hurry to push out information to appease the news-hungry audience that they'd rather be wrong and correct it later than sit on the story and release it only when the facts are known. This makes the media appear as though it is either lying or incompetent, but the public has no one to blame but itself.

Sooner or later, the facts of what happened will all be revealed. Trust me when I say that historians will be sniffing for answers long after all of us here are dead, and they will get to the truth. It might suck a little bit that we won't live to see it, but there are many things in our own past that we are just now learning about.

The most cutting edge current event will eventually become history, and when it does, it will be just another topic for a grad student's thesis paper.

[Shirina]

Actually, if I worked for that company and they told me I would work harder to prevent it. If it is inevitable at least it would give me time to be able to find another job.

But someone else might decide to sabotage the company out of spite or, worse still, bring a gun to work one day and ...

[deziloooooo]

May 5, 2011 11:03:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

When it comes to something like this, "we the people" don't need to know and it shouldn't be announced like a football game score. Covert means covert. We don't know, and won't know who knew what when. It's not like the average American citizen is going to go hell-bent for Pakistan to blow up bin Laden's compound based on a news report that he's in some large home near Islamabad.

The point is, he's dead and it's not really going to change much. There will still be terrorism, and there will still be worldwide strife.

"The right to know"...we don't have it.

I am sure if the story on Indias's tip is true , it will be discussed, analized, nailed down if it was completly ignored, or just not clear enough to help or what ever and if mistakes were made , they will be addressed.

Your post is right on and siome information has come out that i wonder why, for example, it was mentuioned almost from the beginning of the story that he had not only some euro's sewn into his clothes , get away emergency funds, but also TWO phione #'s and I was wondering why mention that , especially o quickly, did they check them out already, find they were bogus, not petinent or what.

I notice on CNN, the one channel I watch a lot when news is on, they , commentators, are always pushing the knowlegable guests , especially if speaking for the gov't for more info, with the caveat of I know you can't say but , what about, huh, huh...


I am waiting for one of the guests to finally get fed up, stand up, and slap the one pushing silly on live TV, and admonish him/her with something along the lines of, "when I say no comment on those type of questions, I mean no comment on those kind of questions "..then stalk off the set, actually skip off with a s*** eating grin on their face because I know they would have been wanting to do that for years. Lose his job? It would be wiorth it.

"Right to Know", we don't have it ...Good post.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:41:58 GMT -5 Shirina said:

You wouldn't need them if everybody knew. /duh.

That's sort of like saying, "If I knew where my car keys were, I wouldn't have to look for them!"

Of course, they're still missing, so it comes down to the "if wishes were horses" axiom.

Naturally, if we knew were Osama was, we wouldn't need informants to tell us where he is ... but we didn't know, so we needed informants.

If people are going to put themselves in danger by revealing information to the military, they need assurances that they can simply fade back into the gloom once the storm passes. If they know their name and picture is going to be on the front page of every newspaper in the Western world, you can bet they're going to keep what they know to themselves, and America will be the worse for it.

This is why covertness and secrecy is sometimes required.

I'm not sure how far you're attempting to take this, but I would also prefer that our military technology isn't made public record, nor does the rest of the world need to know what our troops are planning to do before they actually do it (as mmhmm said).

Even if our entire government was filled with Jesus clones and no one was dishonest, secrecy would still be required in certain circumstances. You have every right to be doubtful about what the media tells us, and by default, what the government tells the media - but sometimes the lies and deceptions occur for a very good reason.

The only problem is that, because of the very nature of lies and deception, it's impossible to know when there is a good reason and when there isn't.

The truth is that our instant gratification society applies also to information. We want it, and we want it now. This is part and parcel of why the media so often gets its initial information wrong. They're in such a hurry to push out information to appease the news-hungry audience that they'd rather be wrong and correct it later than sit on the story and release it only when the facts are known. This makes the media appear as though it is either lying or incompetent, but the public has no one to blame but itself.

Sooner or later, the facts of what happened will all be revealed. Trust me when I say that historians will be sniffing for answers long after all of us here are dead, and they will get to the truth. It might suck a little bit that we won't live to see it, but there are many things in our own past that we are just now learning about.

The most cutting edge current event will eventually become history, and when it does, it will be just another topic for a grad student's thesis paper.

Well you can believe that lies and deceptions are good for you, but that is on your conscious not mine. If your husband cheats on you and lies to you, just remember that you think lies and deception are necessary. You can try and rationale that wrong is good all you want, but you are deceiving yourself not me. The more I know the better I am prepared for any situation, common sense if you ask me. I suppose if the Military had a cure for cancer that you wouldn't mind if they keep that secret too. Oh I am sure you are thinking that, no they wouldn't keep something secret like that. The majority of people or groups keep things secret because of greed, not the better welfare of the people.

[mmhmm]

May 5, 2011 11:46:27 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Actually, if I worked for that company and they told me I would work harder to prevent it. If it is inevitable at least it would give me time to be able to find another job.

But someone else might decide to sabotage the company out of spite or, worse still, bring a gun to work one day and ...

Some would, indeed, work harder to help. However, history will show that's not the norm. Most people begin immediately to locate other jobs. They just can't afford to take the risk; particularly, not in this economy. What "might" happen can't be the first order of business when confronted with this situation. You've got to work on what you know damned well is happening in the moment. While the leadership of the company is working on saving the company, they have to play it close to the vest or they're guaranteed to lose. That's just one of those ugly little facts of life, and that's why it's done the way it's done.

[mmhmm]

What I would do? I would be aware of the situation and my surroundings.

I'd hope you're aware of your surroundings now, freedom. I am, and make sure I continue to be. As to the situation, I'm not fool enough to believe there aren't a lot of situations that COULD involve me of which I'm not currently aware. That's something that isn't going to change. There is absolutely nothing I could have done if I'd known where bin Laden was. I think we all knew he was in Pakistan. That's been the word for some time. Knowing his exact location wouldn't have changed anything I have done, or would do.

[txbo]

May 5, 2011 11:24:21 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

May 5, 2011 11:20:06 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Do you believe that "the people" should know everything? Should we know every source, informant, and spy working on the government's behalf? And if we did, how long do you think we would continue having those sources, informants, and spies?

You wouldn't need them if everybody knew. /duh. If everybody were honest and didn't hide anything we would know how to deal with situations better. For instance this last mortgage crisis, if people knew the truth behind the scams the big bank/derivative companies were doing when they started, then they more than likely wouldn't have bought the mortgages. If they did buy them then they would be personally responsible because everybody else knew.

This all depends on your security clearance on top of that your need to know. The only politicians that know anything are the ones that have a need to possess this knowledge. The average senator or congressional representative should not be informed and have no right to know. You cannot keep a secret in Washington.
As far as the mortgage situation, anyone with just the slightest knowledge would have guessed that your neighbor earning $30K annually could not afford a $300K house. You could also surmise that your friend that makes the same amount as you could not afford the big vacation and the big boat unless he used his house as a piggybank.
I begged my stepfather to sell his house in CA and move to TX and warned him what was about to happen. He did not believe me and the house he purchased 15 years ago is now valued less than he paid.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 12:03:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

What I would do? I would be aware of the situation and my surroundings.

I'd hope you're aware of your surroundings now, freedom. I am, and make sure I continue to be. As to the situation, I'm not fool enough to believe there aren't a lot of situations that COULD involve me of which I'm not currently aware. That's something that isn't going to change. There is absolutely nothing I could have done if I'd known where bin Laden was. I think we all knew he was in Pakistan. That's been the word for some time. Knowing his exact location wouldn't have changed anything I have done, or would do.

I guess that all could depend on our abilities of what we can or can't do. No matter the information though, I always have something to gain on any information I procure but I could have lose on information I don't have.

[mmhmm]

While what you say is true of all of us, freedom, it doesn't follow that all of us are entitled to all information out there. We're not, and we're certainly not entitled to information which, if released, could endanger the lives of others, or endanger the success of operations (whether domestic or foreign) that could impact the lives of others.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 11:46:27 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Actually, if I worked for that company and they told me I would work harder to prevent it. If it is inevitable at least it would give me time to be able to find another job.

But someone else might decide to sabotage the company out of spite or, worse still, bring a gun to work one day and ...

At least everybody we be aware that this is possible and could prevent such tragedy. Now if you tried to keep it secret and it leaked to one or two of these dangerous people, just imagine what could have been prevented if you told everybody.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 12:31:28 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

While what you say is true of all of us, freedom, it doesn't follow that all of us are entitled to all information out there. We're not, and we're certainly not entitled to information which, if released, could endanger the lives of others, or endanger the success of operations (whether domestic or foreign) that could impact the lives of others.

How do you know for sure? How do you know if it was released, that the citizens in Pakistan wouldn't have taken justice into their own hands without endangering our military?

[mmhmm]

Freedom, everyone has been aware for a looong time that bin Laden was being sought, and was probably in Pakistan.

Now if you tried to keep it secret and it leaked to one or two of these dangerous people, just imagine what could have been prevented if you told everybody.

A huge amount more than if only one or two people MIGHT have gotten the information. If everyone knew, those dangerous people would be amongst them, wouldn't they? Yep ... along with who knows how many other dangerous people.

[Shirina]

Well you can believe that lies and deceptions are good for you

That's not what I said.

I said that lies and deceptions are sometimes necessary to protect something far more valuable than my "right" to know something. I've said this before, but it is worth repeating here: Sometimes the necessary thing to do is not always the right thing to do. That doesn't make it any less necessary. Our world is far from perfect, and while it remains so, there will be times - too many times - when all of us, including politicians, will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than between good and evil.

If your husband cheats on you and lies to you, just remember that you think lies and deception are necessary.

This isn't a very good example because the actions of my husband would be my business because it directly pertains to me. Who really told America where Osama was does not directly affect me (and 99.9999% of other Americans) in any way whatsoever. This kind of information would be used for message board posting, talk around the dinner table, or idle chat on a long car trip. It would be purely academic and has no practical relevance to my life.

The source of the information, however, could find himself (or his family) in extreme danger if Al Qaeda ever learned who was directly responsible. Not telling us directly affects the information source. So when it comes time to decide whether or not to withhold information from the American people, I think our right to merely know is trumped by the endangered lives that need to be protected.

I suppose if the Military had a cure for cancer that you wouldn't mind if they keep that secret too.

Again, a poor example since having the cure would have a direct impact on millions of people. This isn't merely knowing something. The knowledge has a practical, tangible effect on a large percentage of the population.

Oh I am sure you are thinking that, no they wouldn't keep something secret like that. The majority of people or groups keep things secret because of greed, not the better welfare of the people.

On the contrary. I wouldn't be surprised at all if cancer cures were withheld. Cancer is the cash cow of Big Pharma and Big Health. Why would they be quick to give it up by introducing a cure? A for-profit health industry makes money by keeping people sick and treating them over long periods of time, not by curing them.

[mmhmm]

How do you know for sure? How do you know if it was released, that the citizens in Pakistan wouldn't have taken justice into their own hands without endangering our military?

How do you know they would have done, freedom? The answer to that is easy. We don't know because we don't have enough information. It's waaay beyond our pay-grade. We're responsible for our own lives, and the lives of those closest to us. We're not informed enough to try to take responsibility for the lives of the world. Doing that is the job of those in authority who actually have access to information we don't have, and shouldn't have. If we take care of our own, we're doing all we can do.

[reasonfreedom]

May 5, 2011 13:10:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

How do you know for sure? How do you know if it was released, that the citizens in Pakistan wouldn't have taken justice into their own hands without endangering our military?

How do you know they would have done, freedom? The answer to that is easy. We don't know because we don't have enough information. It's waaay beyond our pay-grade. We're responsible for our own lives, and the lives of those closest to us. We're not informed enough to try to take responsibility for the lives of the world. Doing that is the job of those in authority who actually have access to information we don't have, and shouldn't have. If we take care of our own, we're doing all we can do.

No, what you are saying are the few people that have that pay-grade are responsible for our lives. I am sorry but I am not comfortable since the few people at that level more than likely deceive or lie to me.