Bin Laden 50 today? By Saeed Ali Achakzai
Sat Mar 10, 4:29 AM ET



Osama bin Laden, if he's alive, celebrates his 50th birthday on Saturday, and his friends in the Taliban prayed for his long life.

The al Qaeda leader's long silence has fueled speculation that the world's most-wanted fugitive may have died, though many in the international intelligence community reckon Islamist militant Web sites would circulate word of his death.

"He is alive. I am 100 percent sure," Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayatullah Khan told Reuters, adding that senior leaders were in touch with bin Laden, reinforcing a widely held view that he is hiding near the rugged Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Khan said special prayers were offered by Taliban fighters in camps in Afghanistan to mark bin Laden's birth on March 10, 1957, in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah.

"We prayed that Allah may give him 200 years to live," Khan said," by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location.

"When we woke up today, we offered collective and long prayers for him because he is a great mujahid (holy warrior)."

The most recent videotape of bin Laden was released in late 2004 -- subsequent tapes released were identified as old footage -- and around half a dozen audio tapes surfaced in the first half of 2006.

But a long silence since then has fueled rumors that bin Laden is unwell, or dead, though the United States fears that the al Qaeda network he founded is rebuilding its base in Pakistani tribal lands, and has forged ties with affiliates in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Dead or alive, bin Laden is revered by some as the symbolic leader of a global jihad, or holy war, against the United States, following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that killed more than 3,000 people.

"He is the man who raised voices against excesses being committed on Muslims all over the world," the Taliban spokesman said.

The Taliban were ousted from power by U.S.-backed forces in late 2001 after their leaders refused to surrender bin Laden following the al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

The attacks triggered the largest manhunt in history, with over 12,000 U.S.-led troops scouring the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan for over five years.

The United States also announced a $25 million reward for any information leading to the arrest or death of bin Laden, but leads on his whereabouts have been few and far between.

Intelligence on the movements of his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al Zawahri, is gathered more frequently.

Consensus is, he was never caught.

I hope Binny thanks Bush for another year alive and free.

If you understood the delicate nature of the situation and the possible ramifications of invading Pakistan to get him, you wouldn't be making such irresponsible remarks.
Or is this just typical Bush-bashing?

Seems to me we wouldn't have to invade Pakistan if the administration had just done their job all those years ago when he wasn't in Pakistan.

If you understood the delicate nature of the situation and the possible ramifications of invading Pakistan to get him, you wouldn't be making such irresponsible remarks.
Or is this just typical Bush-bashing?

obl is dead as a doorknob, id bet the farm on it

I'm talking about the administration who's president (Bush) stood on top of WTC rubble surrounded by fire fighters, yelling into a megaphone talking about how we were going to get the guys responsible for this.... So we hung Saddam.

Yes, we failed to get Bin Laden back in 2002. The mistake we made was putting our trust in the Pakistanis (and their relationship with the local tribal leaders) to seal off his escape route out of Tora Bora. Now he's either dead or hiding in a protected area that the Pakistanis have cut a deal with. If we go in with our military we endanger Musharref's Presidency and risk having a nuclear Islamic country fall into the hands of extremists. It's a tight-rope we are walking on in this situation. It would be nice to just go in there and finish the Taliban and all the other jihadists off, but politically it's very complicated.

Based on the output of soldiers we're sending to Iraq, it really doesn't seem that Bush has too much of a problem sacrificing Americans. So I mean, we might as well go to Pakistan.

Pete's got a point.

He has no point if he understood what it would mean if Pakistan's government fell to the extremists in that country.

He's got a point if you truly believe that President Bush is "sacrificing" American lives. He has no point if he understood what it would mean if Pakistan's government fell to the extremists in that country.

He's got a point if you truly believe that President Bush is "sacrificing" American lives. He has no point if he understood what it would mean if Pakistan's government fell to the extremists in that country.