U.S. Denies Iran Report of Bin Laden's Capture

Reuters ^ | Sat Feb 28, 2004 06:44 AM ET | Staff

[Anti-Bubba182]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Defense denied reports by Iran's official IRNA news agency Saturday that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been captured.

IRNA quoted a story on Iran's state radio Pashtun service which reported "a very reliable source" as saying bin Laden had been captured in a tribal area of Pakistan.

A senior U.S. defense official denied the report, telling Reuters it was "another piece of stray voltage that's passing around out there."

Washington says Bin Laden masterminded the September 11, 2001 suicide hijack attacks in the United States, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

The Iranian correspondent responsible for the report told Reuters the radio had also reported bin Laden's capture a year ago. But said a new source had told him Friday the al Qaeda leader had been seized "a long time ago."

"It could be one month ago, it could be one year, but he has been arrested," he said.

While declining to reveal his source or how his source knew of the capture, he said: "My source said it and he knows it."

He said the reason U.S. officials had denied the report was so that they could time the release of the news of bin Laden's capture to help boost President Bush's chances of re-election at presidential polls in November.

The U.S. military said this month that U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan were moving toward coordinated operations along the border -- "a hammer and anvil approach" -- to prevent fleeing al Qaeda fighters from escaping simply by crossing from one country into the other.

Pakistan, a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terror, has stepped-up efforts in recent weeks against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as the 10,600-strong U.S. force in Afghanistan gears up for a spring offensive against Islamic militants.

[blackie]

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists and the democrats are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[WhiteGuy]

My color? please explain.............

Not objective?

How so?

My comment is directly objective.

Controlling the release of "foreign news" is a political imperative is it not?

[truthandlife]

Iran, shhhh. It is not October yet.

[windchime]

Bump!

[Imal]

Sure. They captured Osama on September 12, 2001, and are holding him until October 2004, when his arrest will become "formal" and will be announced to the world.

In the meantime, he's been recording tapes for Al Jazeera from his cell in Guantanamo Bay, and plays bridge on weekends with Jim Morrison, Amelia Earhart and Elvis.

[F14 Pilot]

I am sad because he is not in our HAND, DO YOOU UNDERSTAND?

[Iberian]

Great post, just freaking funny. good stuff

[Vision]

coo koo

[jongaltsr]

When did we transition to "Osama bin Laden" - OBL
from the original "Usama bin Laden" - UBL?
Is this anything like the transition to Sadam (soft a)
from Saddam (long a). In that case I understand the pronunciation difference and its meaning.
The same goes for the usage of Vietnam which was originally Viet Nam (two words). Has our press become lazy and/or ignorant of what word mean - even if they are from other countries and foreign to our ears.
How about the new pronounciation of the country "Niger". Which could be pronounced with the French slur or the Red Neck drawl What was wrong with the original spelling Nigeria? Is it another attempt at a backhanded political correctness move (what seems to be in reverse)?
Any linguist out there? I would love to hear from you.