Human Lawn Mower

[Old-T]

Moron, this rant is stupid even for you. You truly cannot understand that there are issues more complex than YES or NO. You are as closed minded as any human I have ever met, and when faced with arguments that make you feel uncomfortable you respond with delusions, lies, and non sequitors.

Speaking of non-sequitors, what does your having been in Afghanistan have to do with you being an unwitting tool of Al-Qaeda? (And I am glad you returned safely, I really am--I am glad when any American safely returns).

Please show me my "ignorant, venomous hatred of Christians and Christianity" as you claim. I am neither ignorant of Chritianity nor am I hating on Christians. I admit I DO loath the sizable minority of people who use the guise of Christianity to say things Christ would never condone--for example, "Christian" congregations who speak hate of any race, or who preach hate at the funerals of soldiers.

Let's look at your rant, "BTW, Rodriguez had the approval of the government; including your lying bitch Pelosi."
--First half of your post: please show me where I said Rodriguez did anything wrong (other than Kiss & Tell, which yes, I oppose), or where I said he did not have the support of the government? Oh, I didn't think you could point it out because it's another of you lies. You can't handle the truth so you lie--good ol' predictable IB Moron.
--As to the second half: So what if Pelosi agreed? She and her left wing extremists are no better than you and your right wing extremists. You are both are dangerous. But my point is more to comment on the warm,kindly, CHRISTIAN way you refer to her as a "lying bitch". Remember "and the greatest of these is love?" Can't say YOU are a shining example of Christian love.

FG: THIS is what makes it so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with I B Moron.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Moron, this rant is stupid even for you. You truly cannot understand that there are issues more complex than YES or NO. You are as closed minded as any human I have ever met, and when faced with arguments that make you feel uncomfortable you respond with delusions, lies, and non sequitors.

Speaking of non-sequitors, what does your having been in Afghanistan have to do with you being an unwitting tool of Al-Qaeda? (And I am glad you returned safely, I really am--I am glad when any American safely returns). 'Tools' of Al-Qaeda typically do not seek the destruction of other al-Qaeda operatives, Mr. 'Know-It-All'.

Please show me my "ignorant, venomous hatred of Christians and Christianity" as you claim . http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...9&postcount=75 I am neither ignorant of Chritianity nor am I hating on Christians. I admit I DO loath the sizable minority of people who use the guise of Christianity to say things Christ would never condone--for example, "Christian" congregations who speak hate of any race, or who preach hate at the funerals of soldiers.

Let's look at your rant, "BTW, Rodriguez had the approval of the government; including your lying bitch Pelosi."
--First half of your post: please show me where I said Rodriguez did anything wrong (other than Kiss & Tell, which yes, I oppose), or where I said he did not have the support of the government? Quote: "In favor of one citizen ['one' meaning 'alone' and inferentially meaning Rodriguez] being able to be judge and executioner, and given a medal for it." Oh, I didn't think you could point it out because it's another of you lies. You can't handle the truth so you lie--good ol' predictable IB Moron.
--As to the second half: So what if Pelosi agreed? She and her left wing extremists are no better than you and your right wing extremists. You are both are dangerous. But my point is more to comment on the warm,kindly, CHRISTIAN way you refer to her as a "lying bitch". Look in the mirror to see who is making 'assumptions'. Remember "and the greatest of these is love?" Can't say YOU are a shining example of Christian love.

FG: THIS is what makes it so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with I B Moron.

Your lack of intelligence is your true difficulty.

[Old-T]

Let’s take your babblings one at a time:

1. You say “'Tools' of Al-Qaeda typically do not seek the destruction of other al-Qaeda operatives, Mr. 'Know-It-All'”. Unfortunately you missed the very important word: "unwitting". I have never said nor do I believe you would knowingly support their agenda—but yes, I believe your actions do foster fear and repression and thus support terror indirectly.

2. You reference a post and claim I hate Christianity and Christians. So let’s look at that post. What did I actually say: “ALL religions are susceptible to wacko fanatics who truly believe god created us with brains intending us not to use them. ALL religions have wacko fanatics who confuse "love thy neighbor" with "kill the heretic". Where is that anti-Christian? It’s anti zealot whether they be Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, or any other religion.

3. Actually you are quite wrong—I was not referring to Rodriguez at all. I was referring to your support of the Florida law that says a person can “stand their ground” and shoot another based solely upon the shooter’s perception of being threatened. My apologies for not being clear.

4. Red herring alert!!!! I wasn’t making any comment about assumptions—that is a very different issue. I merely pointed out that calling someone a “lying bitch” isn’t a very Christian thing to do. And before you rant, it isn’t Christianity or Christians in general I am calling hypocritical on this point, just you. I stand by my oft stated comment that some of the most hateful people hide behind religion as their excuse—and ALL religions have their hypocrites in this way.

Zero for four, IB.

[Fast Gunn]

Alright, let's have a serious time out here before we descend to brass knuckles.

Tempers are flaring and insults are flying which is not doing neither side any good, but in fact serving only to further entrench the other side and no resolution can come from this acrimonious path.

Personally, I am opposed to the use of torture by the US since it then lowers us to their level.

We are supposed to stop the terrorists, not to become like them!

The way I see it, the entire Islam religion has slowly made captives of it's members instead of liberating them and that is the beginning of the problem.

. . .Once a religion has transformed their congregation to captives, then brain-washing is easy and people can commit all sort of crimes "for Allah" and no further discussion is even possible when you try to reason with them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Let’s take your babblings one at a time:

1. You say “'Tools' of Al-Qaeda typically do not seek the destruction of other al-Qaeda operatives, Mr. 'Know-It-All'”. Unfortunately you missed the very important word: "unwitting". I have never said nor do I believe you would knowingly support their agenda—but yes, I believe your actions do foster fear and repression and thus support terror indirectly.

2. You reference a post and claim I hate Christianity and Christians. So let’s look at that post. What did I actually say: “ALL religions are susceptible to wacko fanatics who truly believe god created us with brains intending us not to use them. ALL religions have wacko fanatics who confuse "love thy neighbor" with "kill the heretic". Where is that anti-Christian? It’s anti zealot whether they be Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, or any other religion.

3. Actually you are quite wrong—I was not referring to Rodriguez at all. I was referring to your support of the Florida law that says a person can “stand their ground” and shoot another based solely upon the shooter’s perception of being threatened. My apologies for not being clear.

4. Red herring alert!!!! I wasn’t making any comment about assumptions—that is a very different issue. I merely pointed out that calling someone a “lying bitch” isn’t a very Christian thing to do. And before you rant, it isn’t Christianity or Christians in general I am calling hypocritical on this point, just you. I stand by my oft stated comment that some of the most hateful people hide behind religion as their excuse—and ALL religions have their hypocrites in this way.

Zero for four, IB.

You have completely abandoned the original topic; you are just a zero, Old-goaT.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You have completely abandoned the original topic; you are just a zero, Old-goaT.

IB, out of respect for FG I will keep this factual and as unemotional as I can:

--By post #4 the theme of the thread was talking about who found him, how he was found, and who should get how much credit. I am not the one who took the line of comments in that direction.

--I was not the one who brought up Rodriguez

--I was not the one who turned it into a pro/con on Christianity

--You can't address the four factual statements I made so you choose to shift topics. I'm good with that. The readers can decide what to believe or not.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

IB, out of respect for FG I will keep this factual and as unemotional as I can:

--By post #4 the theme of the thread was talking about who found him, how he was found, and who should get how much credit. I am not the one who took the line of comments in that direction.

--I was not the one who brought up Rodriguez

--I was not the one who turned it into a pro/con on Christianity

--You can't address the four factual statements I made so you choose to shift topics. I'm good with that. The readers can decide what to believe or not.

How about this, Old-goaT: you are a liar. You have completely abandoned the original topic; you are just a zero, Old-goaT. Fuck off, Old-goaT.

[Old-T]

Dear IB,

Please kind sir, reread posts 48 and 51 on this thread.

I ask again, who was it who changed topics on this thread?

I would hope you could either answer the simple questions I asked, or please retract your vulgar comments about me.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Dear IB,

Please kind sir, reread posts 48 and 51 on this thread.

I ask again, who was it who changed topics on this thread?

I would hope you could either answer the simple questions I asked, or please retract your vulgar comments about me.

Who introduced 'W': dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced Zimmerman: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced Che Guevara: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced Rodney King: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced the Los Angeles Riots: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced a discussion of communism: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who introduced religion: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.
Who invited a discussion of Old-goaT's lack of credentials: dumb-fuck Old-goaT.

Who introduced al-Qaeda (BTW, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi are associated with al-Qaeda, dumb-fuck Old-goaT) and the 'U.S. effort' to assassinate bin Laden: the OP.

NOTE to dumb-fuck Old-goaT -- Rodriguez, et al., played an instrumental role in the 'U.S. effort' to capture or kill bin Laden; hence, he was relevant to the OP. Got that, dumb-fuck Old-goaT? Does that really require further explanation, dumb-fuck Old-goaT?

Again:

Identity of bin Laden’s courier

Identification of al-Qaeda couriers was an early priority for interrogators at CIA “black sites” and Guantanamo Bay detention camp, because bin Laden was believed to communicate through such couriers while concealing his whereabouts from al-Qaeda foot soldiers and top commanders. Bin Laden was known not to use phones, as the U.S. launched missile strikes against his bases in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 (Operation Infinite Reach) after tracking an associate's satellite phone.

By 2002, interrogators had heard uncorroborated claims about an al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (sometimes referred to as Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait). In 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [water boarded], the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda, revealed under interrogation [i.e., water boarding] that he was acquainted with al-Kuwaiti but that he was not active in al-Qaeda.

In 2004, a prisoner named Hassan Ghul told interrogators that al-Kuwaiti was close to bin Laden as well as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mohammed's successor Abu Faraj al-Libi [water boarded]. Ghul further revealed that al-Kuwaiti had not been seen in some time, which led U.S. officials to suspect he was traveling with bin Laden. When confronted with Ghul's account, Khalid Sheik Mohammed maintained his original story. Abu Faraj al-Libi was captured in 2005 and transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006. He told CIA interrogators that bin Laden's courier was a man named Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. Because both Mohammed and al-Libi [both water boarded] had minimized al-Kuwaiti's importance, officials speculated that he was part of bin Laden's inner circle.

In 2007, officials learned al-Kuwaiti's real name, though they will not disclose the name nor how they learned it. WIKI


The CIA revealed that American spies have also been watching many of bin Laden’s couriers for years. “One courier in particular had our constant attention,” a senior US government official said. “We identified him as both a protege of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488436/WikiLeaks-Osama-bin-Laden-killed-after-tip-offs-from-Guantanamo.html

The "opinions" [stated above] that you so readily dismissed above belong to people far more "expert" in the subject than yourself. Furthermore, those "opinions" were recently reaffirmed by former 30+ year CIA operative Jose Rodriguez during interviews and in his book. So, in comparison, it is your "ignorant opinion" that does not matter, dumb-fuck Old-goaT.

Again dumb-fuck Old-goaT, do you enjoy making a jackass out of yourself? MULTIPLE experts disagree with your asinine assumptions, but Rodriguez REMAINS the most authoritative. Get that through your jackass head, dumb-fuck Old-goaT.

[Old-T]

I am sorry you are so angry at the world. I really am trying to refrain from the name calling and focus on the substance, more precisely that your claims are quite incorrect.

I’m sorry you lost the train of logic as the thread evolved from one specific example of terror (the lawn mower) to a more general discussion of terror. As you are want to do I made reference to historical items (Che, King, etc.) pertinent to the topic of terrorism’s goals and methods (oppression, fear, etc.). I suspect you would not claim them to be “off topic” if they supported your point of view. The topic is terrorism, OBL, who and what deserves credit for killing him, and the like. This is a discussion board which by its nature has some degree of stream-of-consciousness. This thread has less than many others in the sandbox.

Rodriguez was part of the hunt for OBL. So was Bush. Therefore they are de facto relevent to the topic of the thread.

The OP was about terror, fear, and humans doing inhumane things to other human beings, it is a short step to the religeous attrocities that have been committed over the centuries. I never singled out any specific religeon to attack—though you keep saying I did. Are you now going to say religeon is not near the heart of Al-Qaeda’s terror attacks?

After all the conversations we have had on the topic I am certain you can make the link from fear to the whole Florida shooting situation.

What I said still stands: I did not take the thread off topic though it might have become difficult for you to follow. I did not attack Christianity. I did not even say Rodriguez was bad, evil, or misstated facts. I did say there are other senior, experienced people who have a different interpretation of the cause and effect. I am sorry that you feel only his/your interpretation is worthy of belief.

By the way, don’t you think calling me a dumb-fuck at least 13 times in one e-mail is a bit excessive? I suspect most the readers realized you were out of factual arguments by the third or forth “dumb-fuck”, and by the seventh or eighth one I’m quite certain they absorbed the idea that you don’t like me though you’ve never met me. As I said, I have been biting my tongue and refraining from insults since Fg called for a cease-fire on them, but you make it a little harder to stay civil when your blind angertakes control of your fingers that way. The least you could do is vairy your derogatory comments so the casual observer doesn’t get boared reading them.

[I B Hankering]

At post#53 you ask this:

Originally Posted by Old-T

I ask again, who was it who changed topics on this thread

Notice how you identify yourself as the culprit; thus, answer your own question at post #55.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I am sorry you are so angry at the world. I really am trying to refrain from the name calling and focus on the substance, more precisely that your claims are quite incorrect.

I’m sorry you lost the train of logic as the thread evolved from one specific example of terror (the lawn mower) to a more general discussion of terror. As you are want to do I made reference to historical items (Che, King, etc.) pertinent to the topic of terrorism’s goals and methods (oppression, fear, etc.). I suspect you would not claim them to be “off topic” if they supported your point of view. The topic is terrorism, OBL, who and what deserves credit for killing him, and the like. This is a discussion board which by its nature has some degree of stream-of-consciousness. This thread has less than many others in the sandbox.

Rodriguez was part of the hunt for OBL. So was Bush. Therefore they are de facto relevent to the topic of the thread.

The OP was about terror, fear, and humans doing inhumane things to other human beings, it is a short step to the religeous attrocities that have been committed over the centuries. I never singled out any specific religeon to attack—though you keep saying I did. Are you now going to say religeon is not near the heart of Al-Qaeda’s terror attacks?

After all the conversations we have had on the topic I am certain you can make the link from fear to the whole Florida shooting situation.

What I said still stands: I did not take the thread off topic though it might have become difficult for you to follow. I did not attack Christianity. I did not even say Rodriguez was bad, evil, or misstated facts. I did say there are other senior, experienced people who have a different interpretation of the cause and effect. I am sorry that you feel only his/your interpretation is worthy of belief.

By the way, don’t you think calling me a dumb-fuck at least 13 times in one e-mail is a bit excessive? I suspect most the readers realized you were out of factual arguments by the third or forth “dumb-fuck”, and by the seventh or eighth one I’m quite certain they absorbed the idea that you don’t like me though you’ve never met me. As I said, I have been biting my tongue and refraining from insults since Fg called for a cease-fire on them, but you make it a little harder to stay civil when your blind angertakes control of your fingers that way. The least you could do is vairy your derogatory comments so the casual observer doesn’t get boared reading them.

You are a 'boring' dumb-fuck, Old-goaT. And notice again how your questions have nothing to do with the OP, you dissembling fool.

So back to the OP:

Identity of bin Laden’s courier

Identification of al-Qaeda couriers was an early priority for interrogators at CIA “black sites” and Guantanamo Bay detention camp, because bin Laden was believed to communicate through such couriers while concealing his whereabouts from al-Qaeda foot soldiers and top commanders. Bin Laden was known not to use phones, as the U.S. launched missile strikes against his bases in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 (Operation Infinite Reach) after tracking an associate's satellite phone.

By 2002, interrogators had heard uncorroborated claims about an al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (sometimes referred to as Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait). In 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [water boarded], the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda, revealed under interrogation [i.e., water boarding] that he was acquainted with al-Kuwaiti but that he was not active in al-Qaeda.

In 2004, a prisoner named Hassan Ghul told interrogators that al-Kuwaiti was close to bin Laden as well as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mohammed's successor Abu Faraj al-Libi [water boarded]. Ghul further revealed that al-Kuwaiti had not been seen in some time, which led U.S. officials to suspect he was traveling with bin Laden. When confronted with Ghul's account, Khalid Sheik Mohammed maintained his original story. Abu Faraj al-Libi was captured in 2005 and transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006. He told CIA interrogators that bin Laden's courier was a man named Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. Because both Mohammed and al-Libi [both water boarded] had minimized al-Kuwaiti's importance, officials speculated that he was part of bin Laden's inner circle.

In 2007, officials learned al-Kuwaiti's real name, though they will not disclose the name nor how they learned it. WIKI


The CIA revealed that American spies have also been watching many of bin Laden’s couriers for years. “One courier in particular had our constant attention,” a senior US government official said. “We identified him as both a protege of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488436/WikiLeaks-Osama-bin-Laden-killed-after-tip-offs-from-Guantanamo.html

The "opinions" [stated above] that you so readily dismissed above belong to people far more "expert" in the subject than yourself. Furthermore, those "opinions" were recently reaffirmed by former 30+ year CIA operative Jose Rodriguez during interviews and in his book. So, in comparison, it is your "ignorant opinion" that does not matter, dumb-fuck Old-goaT.

[Old-T]

You either cannot grasp logic, or you refuse to.

Original post: (1) A-Q plans for terror, (2) hatred, (3) stopping OBL.

Let's take them one at a time:

The psycological war plan for terror: Guavara, King, LA Riots,Communists
Hatred/far: Religeous intolerance through the ages, Florida's "shoot if you're afraid" law
Finding OBL: W

So which of these is off topic? None. I'm sorry you continue to refuse to accept any thought or concept that dsagrees with your world view. I am trying to have an informed discussion with you and others, but you are resorting to a lot more slurs instead of ideas.

Seriously for a moment, you really should look at the whole logic form that takes a specific item/event/idea and tries to extrapolate to the core principle. You seem fixated on the single point (the human lawn mower) and unableto go from that to the sick ideology behind terrorist acts. You also seem to have difficulty acknowledging that even though they were evil, some Communists were skilled at what they do. Che was a very intelligent man who sadly put his mind towards supporting Communism. That doesn't mean he didn't say things worth learning. That is as stupid as saying Hitler was not a good orator because we don't like his message of hate. Hitler DID know how to inflam the populous, and Che DID understand the use of terror. Know thy enemy--for not to do so is to give them a needless advantage.

Try seeing the whole forrest once in a while.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You either cannot grasp logic, or you refuse to.

Original post: (1) A-Q plans for terror, (2) hatred, (3) stopping OBL.

Let's take them one at a time:

The psycological war plan for terror: Guavara, King, LA Riots,Communists
Hatred/far: Religeous intolerance through the ages, Florida's "shoot if you're afraid" law
Finding OBL: W

So which of these is off topic? None. I'm sorry you continue to refuse to accept any thought or concept that dsagrees with your world view. I am trying to have an informed discussion with you and others, but you are resorting to a lot more slurs instead of ideas.

Seriously for a moment, you really should look at the whole logic form that takes a specific item/event/idea and tries to extrapolate to the core principle. You seem fixated on the single point (the human lawn mower) and unableto go from that to the sick ideology behind terrorist acts. You also seem to have difficulty acknowledging that even though they were evil, some Communists were skilled at what they do. Che was a very intelligent man who sadly put his mind towards supporting Communism. That doesn't mean he didn't say things worth learning. That is as stupid as saying Hitler was not a good orator because we don't like his message of hate. Hitler DID know how to inflam the populous, and Che DID understand the use of terror. Know thy enemy--for not to do so is to give them a needless advantage.

Try seeing the whole forrest once in a while.

You have not displayed any 'logic', Old-goaT. You are arguing with yourself. At post#53 you ask this:

Originally Posted by Old-T

I ask again, who was it who changed topics on this thread?

Then you identify yourself as the culprit; thus, answer your own question at post #55.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I am sorry you are so angry at the world. I really am trying to refrain from the name calling and focus on the substance, more precisely that your claims are quite incorrect.

I’m sorry you lost the train of logic as the thread evolved from one specific example of terror (the lawn mower) to a more general discussion of terror. As you are want to do I made reference to historical items (Che, King, etc.) pertinent to the topic of terrorism’s goals and methods (oppression, fear, etc.). I suspect you would not claim them to be “off topic” if they supported your point of view. The topic is terrorism, OBL, who and what deserves credit for killing him, and the like. This is a discussion board which by its nature has some degree of stream-of-consciousness. This thread has less than many others in the sandbox.

Rodriguez was part of the hunt for OBL. So was Bush. Therefore they are de facto relevent to the topic of the thread.

The OP was about terror, fear, and humans doing inhumane things to other human beings, it is a short step to the religeous attrocities that have been committed over the centuries. I never singled out any specific religeon to attack—though you keep saying I did. Are you now going to say religeon is not near the heart of Al-Qaeda’s terror attacks?

After all the conversations we have had on the topic I am certain you can make the link from fear to the whole Florida shooting situation.

What I said still stands: I did not take the thread off topic though it might have become difficult for you to follow. I did not attack Christianity. I did not even say Rodriguez was bad, evil, or misstated facts. I did say there are other senior, experienced people who have a different interpretation of the cause and effect. I am sorry that you feel only his/your interpretation is worthy of belief.

By the way, don’t you think calling me a dumb-fuck at least 13 times in one e-mail is a bit excessive? I suspect most the readers realized you were out of factual arguments by the third or forth “dumb-fuck”, and by the seventh or eighth one I’m quite certain they absorbed the idea that you don’t like me though you’ve never met me. As I said, I have been biting my tongue and refraining from insults since Fg called for a cease-fire on them, but you make it a little harder to stay civil when your blind angertakes control of your fingers that way. The least you could do is vairy your derogatory comments so the casual observer doesn’t get boared reading them.

Now, at post #57, you are trying to defend yourself against the challenge you posed in post #53. You are a 'boring' dumb-fuck, Old-goaT. And again, your latest posts have nothing to do with the OP, you dissembling fool.

So back to the OP:

Identity of bin Laden’s courier

Identification of al-Qaeda couriers was an early priority for interrogators at CIA “black sites” and Guantanamo Bay detention camp, because bin Laden was believed to communicate through such couriers while concealing his whereabouts from al-Qaeda foot soldiers and top commanders. Bin Laden was known not to use phones, as the U.S. launched missile strikes against his bases in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 (Operation Infinite Reach) after tracking an associate's satellite phone.

By 2002, interrogators had heard uncorroborated claims about an al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (sometimes referred to as Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait). In 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [water boarded], the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda, revealed under interrogation [i.e., water boarding] that he was acquainted with al-Kuwaiti but that he was not active in al-Qaeda.

In 2004, a prisoner named Hassan Ghul told interrogators that al-Kuwaiti was close to bin Laden as well as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mohammed's successor Abu Faraj al-Libi [water boarded]. Ghul further revealed that al-Kuwaiti had not been seen in some time, which led U.S. officials to suspect he was traveling with bin Laden. When confronted with Ghul's account, Khalid Sheik Mohammed maintained his original story. Abu Faraj al-Libi was captured in 2005 and transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006. He told CIA interrogators that bin Laden's courier was a man named Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. Because both Mohammed and al-Libi [both water boarded] had minimized al-Kuwaiti's importance, officials speculated that he was part of bin Laden's inner circle.

In 2007, officials learned al-Kuwaiti's real name, though they will not disclose the name nor how they learned it. WIKI


The CIA revealed that American spies have also been watching many of bin Laden’s couriers for years. “One courier in particular had our constant attention,” a senior US government official said. “We identified him as both a protege of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488436/WikiLeaks-Osama-bin-Laden-killed-after-tip-offs-from-Guantanamo.html

The "opinions" [stated above] that you so readily dismissed above belong to people far more "expert" in the subject than yourself. Furthermore, those "opinions" were recently reaffirmed by former 30+ year CIA operative Jose Rodriguez during interviews and in his book. So, in comparison, it is your "ignorant opinion" that does not matter, dumb-fuck Old-goaT.

[Old-T]

I have spent numerous hours trying to talk reasonable with you. You have refused to make any attempt to read, reason, or discuss intelligently.

You are beyond reasoning with. I will not try to any more.

I will continue to ignore most of your posts, but where you spew garbage I will attack your garbage with absolutely no regard to educating you because you refuse to be educated or even sightly open to listen.

You may not be stupid, but you are knowingly, intentionally ignorant and that is far worse.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I have spent numerous hours trying to talk reasonable with you. You have refused to make any attempt to read, reason, or discuss intelligently.

You are beyond reasoning with. I will not try to any more.

I will continue to ignore most of your posts, but where you spew garbage I will attack your garbage with absolutely no regard to educating you because you refuse to be educated or even sightly open to listen.

You may not be stupid, but you are knowingly, intentionally ignorant and that is far worse.

YOU educate someone else!?! How laughable. And once again, you've added nary a word addressing the OP's original post. You are a boring, Old-goaT.