Mansoor Ijaz: Bin Laden in Iran

Fox

[Dog]

Mansoor Ijaz just reported Bin Laden is in Iran as of July.

[Shermy]

Like Pervez? He went from commenting repitiously that usama was dead or not in Pakistan to usama is alive and in the mountains near the border of Afghanistan. Hmmm... does makes you wonder.

It's salesmanship and money. Afstan, Pakistan fear that if Osama isn't there, Americans will lose interest.

They're right.

[section9]

Understand something, the Iranians have much more at stake in a deal with us than they can get from helping Binnie fulfill his addled fantasy life.

Bin Laden ONLY hangs out in the lawless undying lands. Afghanistan, the Northwestern Frontier states, and the wastes of Sudan are attractive to him: each one of had or have weak or distracted governments.

Iran has a strong central authority. If Binnie went in there, the Iranians could let him hang around for a while, set up shop, then send in the Pasdaran to round up the whole gang. Then Khameinei would place a call to GW and start the process of merchant bargaining.

The Iranians could name their price, and would find a way to leak the information in order to put pressure on Bush to deal.

Bin Laden would never place himself at the mercy of the Shi'a mullahs. To do so would be madness on his part. Binnie is in the Northwestern Frontier states, where there is no law and where his money can go a long way.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[mhking]

Remember the AQ has suitcase nukes claims, AQ has chem/bio weapon claims, UBL will be caught in two weeks claim, etc., etc.??

I don't remember Ijaz with those claims; sounds more like Debka's than anyone else.

[LS]

If you read "Losing Bin Laden," that guy places GREAT credibility in what Mansoor Ijaz says---all the more important because he noted that Ijaz was a Clinton supporter, but that he "came to Jesus" (joke) when he realized that Der Schlickmeister wasn't doing anything about OBL.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

More importantly...

MONSOOR IJAZ told us the Day after the Attacks of September 11, 2001 on the FoX News Channel that the CLINTONS had refused 3 Offers he negotiated with the Sudan during the 1990's to hand over OSAMA bin LADEN to us on a Silver Platter.

Since then both the Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S. representing the Sudan President during these 3 Offers as well as the CLINTONS' own White House Political Advisor, DICK MORRIS, have confirmed what MONSSOR IJAZ told us 2 years ago...

...I hang onto everything MONSOOR IJAZ has to tell us. And I think the BUSH White House does also.

...And so does the Democrat Party...for very different reasons.

MONSSOR IJAZ =

The Most Feared Man in America by Democrats

[Pan_Yans Wife]

iranians like to call themselves perrrsians (sounds so benign), and not arabs, however they can't deny they are islamofascists.

Iranians are Persian, not Arab. And in fact, most prefer to be called Persians instead of Muslims.

Kind of like Americans like to be called Americans, and not Christians.

The words have different meanings.

[LS]

Again, the author of "Losing Bin Laden" places great credibility in Ijaz, and basically said that OBL doesn't CARE that people know where he is, because often (not always) he think's he's invulnerable. He swings between paranoid evasions (like nearly crashing his private jet on takeoff then leaping into another one that taxied up next to him, convinced the first was bugged) to havind a house in Somalia that he lived at regularly for years.

[Dog Gone]

Perhaps the sources are suspect, not Ijaz.

Then he would be a fool for describing them as "not impeachable."

I'm not arguing that Bin Laden couldn't be in Iran, although I'm still pretty sure he's dead. I just think that Ijaz running circles around our intelligence agencies is awfully implausible. Who would tell him reliable information knowing full well that it would be broadcast on Fox News the next day? And why would Ijaz choose to reveal such information publicly? It makes no sense.

[contessa machiaveli]

i hope mansoor is well protected by bodyguards he can trust.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

This is like Bill Gertz, (last winter, I think), when he "broke" the story on Drudge that al Qaeda was going to attack submarines at Pearl Harbor, and the attack was imminent.

To me, this is an error in sourcing, not reporting.

But, I don't think that Ijaz is suspect. I imagine he has been extremely well vetted. That wouldn't concern me at all.

[Dog Gone]

Binnie is in the Northwestern Frontier states, where there is no law and where his money can go a long way.

If he's alive at all, I'm sure that is where he is.

[cgk]

I sent Fox a not so nice letter yesterday. Again. It doesn't matter as it won't change their coverage, but it made me feel better. I'd post it here, but I've been ridiculed before and don't have the time for flame wars from the Laci/Scott/Kobe/MJ/Rita lovers.

Glad I'm not the only one who could care less at this point about all the tabloid crud they're covering.

I faithfully watch Brit Hume because I can actually LEARN something about the news on his show.

[michigander]

It makes no sense.

$25,000,000

[txhurl]

...And so does the Democrat Party...for very different reasons.

Thanks for this.... sheds a lot of light.

[Indie]

WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS?!! Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian. The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan. The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001. The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western interests ,,,,,etc ad nauseum.

See article here from August: ARTICLE

Someone tell me this is an untrue statement from the one you guys are saying is such a good source. Or is this statement a lie perpetrated by the tabloid type website from which it originated?

[Dog Gone]

I don't think he's trying to help the terrorists, either, based on what I've seen. But it's hard to explain why he's telling Fox News viewers, and the rest of the world, information which could help the US defeat terrorists if we knew the information, and they didn't know that we knew.

[cgk]

could have the same effect as when that big mouth lawmaker (Senator Hatch, was it?) broadcast how we were tracking usama via his satellite phone...

Or Rita Cosby blowing it during the opening days of the war talking about the kind of phone Saddam & family were using and how it was being tracked. Oops!

[arasina]

I agree with you about Mansoor Ijaz. He has a number of good connections/sources and he reports information in a professional yet very down-to-earth and understandable fashion.

[BushMeister]

Obviously, we can't seal the borders of any Middle-eastern nations we occupy, only attempt to contain the influx of foreign fighters. So if we invaded Iran, we would continue to have to fight for control of Afghanistan (easily infiltrated from Pakistan) and Iraq (Syrian incursions)

If we strike into Iran, we'd need at least 200,000 ground troops. And we would probably have a nice buildup in Afghanistan- probably not for Iran-bound troops- but to pacify Afghanistan itself.

Teheran itself is in the north-central of Iran (slightly west of center), near the Caspian Sea. It's about 500 miles from the Afghan border, so invading troops would almost certainly come from Iraq. Another front could be opened from the Persian Gulf. Here's a good physical map of Iran:

This is probably all mental onanism. It's extremely unlikely that we will actually invade Iran. If there is a "grand plan" to take out these terrorist nations one-by-one, Syria would probably be next.

If we do invade either Syria or Iran, the stability of Pakistan and control of its nuclear weapons becomes a crucial consideration.

[halfdome]

There's been a $25 million reward for bin Laden out for over two years, and he's still running al Qaeda, and presumably directing at least some of these terrorist attacks. I'd hardly say he lost.