Bin Laden lived 9 years undetected in Pakistan, fathered 4 children, wife says

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/30/bin-laden-lived-nine-years-undetected-in-pakistan-fathered-four-children/

Yea, Pakistan didn't know about it, at all, sure.

Bin Laden lived 9 years undetected in Pakistan, fathered 4 children, wife says

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden entered Pakistan across the Afghan border during the early months of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then spent nine years on the run in Pakistan living in several safe houses and fathering four children.

Testimony from bin Laden's youngest wife -- the 29-year-old Yemenite Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah -- before a joint investigation team in Pakistan reveals the Al Qaeda kingpin fled over the border into Pakistan early in 2002, just after the U.S. launched attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan.

In the testimony -- first cited Thursday by the Pakistani newspaper Dawn -- Abdulfattah told investigators that she married bin Laden in 2000 because she wanted to marry a mujahid, or holy warrior.

Her account of bin Laden's movements in the nine years leading up to his death in May 2011 raises further questions about what exactly Pakistani authorities knew.

It also threatens to further strain relations between Pakistan and the U.S., just days after U.S. military commanders held high-level meetings with their Pakistani counterparts in an attempt to repair ruptured relations between the two nations.

Abdulfattah said the family separated and fled from its base in Kandahar following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. She traveled to Karachi, and was eventually reunited with bin Laden in Peshawar in 2002.

During her testimony, Adbdulfattah said the family's movements and accommodation in Pakistan were organized by "some Pakistani families" and Saad, one of bin Laden's sons.

After the family was reunited in Peshawar they traveled to the Swat Valley, close to the Afghan-Pakistani border, where they lived for eight or nine months.

After that the family moved to Haripur for two years, and later to Abbottabad. They stayed in Abbottabad for almost six years, until U.S. Navy SEALS raided bin Laden's home there in May 2011.

Abdulfattah was shot in the leg during the successful unilateral U.S. operation, but survived. Bin Laden's son Khalil, 20, was among four people killed in the raid.

Abdulfattah gave birth to four children by bin Laden while in Pakistan -- two in a government hospital in Haripur and two further children in Abbottabad.

She is now being held by Pakistani authorities in a house in Islamabad alongside two of bin Laden's other wives.

The widows, and two of bin Laden's daughters -- Maryam, 21, and Sumaya, 20 -- are expected to be charged Monday with breaking Pakistan's immigration laws. The offense carries a possible five-year jail sentence.

An editorial published in the Dawn newspaper Friday said Abdulfattah's testimony should force Pakistan to "take a long, hard look at its record against terrorism."

"For nine years the world's most wanted terrorist survived in the country after fleeing the U.S. attack on Tora Bora [in December, 2001]," it said.

"What is clear is that the judicial commission looking into his presence and the raid in Abbottabad can no longer limit its probe to those topics. In light of this investigation report, the commission now needs to expand its focus to encompass bin Laden's presence in the country since 2002," it added.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/30/bin-laden-lived-nine-years-undetected-in-pakistan-fathered-four-children/#ixzz1qbMaMin4

**Hazardous Harry**

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a Pakistani authority or two that had knowledge regarding this and kept it under wraps. But that the Pakistani government as a whole wilfully collaborated on this and risked angering one of the most powerful nations on earth (which had just invaded the country next to it), for little to no gain at all?

Nonsensical. Which is what I've come to expect, really.

**PhantomViper**

The Pakistani government actively supports the Taliban in Afghanistan, so why is it such a stretch to think that they also knew where BL was and actively protected him?

**Hazardous Harry**

PhantomViper wrote:The Pakistani government actively supports the Taliban in Afghanistan, so why is it such a stretch to think that they also knew where BL was and actively protected him?

Awesome story, friend. Just some evidence, if you please.

**dogma**

PhantomViper wrote:The Pakistani government actively supports the Taliban in Afghanistan, so why is it such a stretch to think that they also knew where BL was and actively protected him?

Parts of it do (the ISI and parts of the military mostly) but the whole of it doesn't. Their government is a mess.

**Howard A Treesong**

I just don't agree that 'Pakistan' supports the Taliban, it's far more likely that parts of the ISI do independently of the government. Their security services cannot be trusted. Taliban sympathisersare certainly among their ranks. There are still questions about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto for example. That some would help Bin Laden isn't too much of a stretch.

**Lone Cat**

Pakistani governments actually follows "Bishops and Bootleggers" doctrine. in this scenario. they 'officially' aligned themselves with the US. while in reality, they provided shelters to Talibans, Al Quaeda, and anyone being the bane to the U.S. and for what?
The U.S. paid Pakistani juntas for billion dollars, hoping that they will drag those bandits to justice. (yes. peferably execution by the most horrible methods, in front of public). the Pakistani govt. however, keeps those terrorists alive and turned a blind eye on them (or even cooperate with, it is said that many terrorists attack in India comes from, or officially backed by Pakistani govt.) so they can make wealth on american taxs. there's a rumour that they even double dealin' with China so those crooks can further leech more foreign aid!
simple. Bin Laden got the safe haven in Pakistan is due to a very unhealthy rate of corruption there. if a professional thief cracked their safe and takes those wealth with him/her, i'd appreciate him/her for 'fight a good fight'.

**purplefood**

Lone Cat wrote: there's a rumour that they even double dealin' with China so those crooks can further leech more foreign aid!

Can i ask where you heard this?

**Kid_Kyoto**

Makes you wonder what the Bush administration knew or did for 7 years.

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:
Lone Cat wrote: there's a rumour that they even double dealin' with China so those crooks can further leech more foreign aid!

Can i ask where you heard this?

They let China study our stealth helicopter. We needed an old school Marine bombardment to deal with that properly.

**fluffstalker**

Only four? Pffft. With that many wives, I'm sure I could make dozens of the little buggers. The hard part would be making them paint all my unpainted armies.

**Hazardous Harry**

fluffstalker wrote:Only four? Pffft. With that many wives, I'm sure I could make dozens of the little buggers. The hard part would be making them paint all my unpainted armies.

Tallarn, of course.

**Ouze**

Listen, I don't know if Pakistan was treacherous and harbored Bin Laden for years, or simply incompetent in detecting him for years, but in neither situation do I see them as being a valued ally in the Global War On Terror© and deserving of billions of dollars in US largesse.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:Listen, I don't know if Pakistan was treacherous and harbored Bin Laden for years, or simply incompetent in detecting him for years, but in neither situation do I see them as being a valued ally in the Global War On Terror© and deserving of billions of dollars in US largesse.

It is scary when Ouze and Frazzled agree so closely on a post. If the world going to end? Well it is 2012...

**sirlynchmob**

Pakistan just jailed 3 of his widows and 2 of his daughters for being in the country illegally though.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:Pakistan just jailed 3 of his widows and 2 of his daughters for being in the country illegally though.

like that means

.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:Pakistan just jailed 3 of his widows and 2 of his daughters for being in the country illegally though.

like that means .

no see, it means they would of arrested bin laden if they knew he was there

It couldn't just be a PR stunt now could it?

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:Listen, I don't know if Pakistan was treacherous and harbored Bin Laden for years, or simply incompetent in detecting him for years, but in neither situation do I see them as being a valued ally in the Global War On Terror© and deserving of billions of dollars in US largesse.

It is scary when Ouze and Frazzled agree so closely on a post. If the world going to end? Well it is 2012...

Nah, we agreed on other stuff too. You wanted single payer, right? NHS style, or at least something in that vein? Not to threadjack.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:Listen, I don't know if Pakistan was treacherous and harbored Bin Laden for years, or simply incompetent in detecting him for years, but in neither situation do I see them as being a valued ally in the Global War On Terror© and deserving of billions of dollars in US largesse.

They're a valued ally in the war against failed states with nuclear weapons and terrorist ties.

**Ouze**

So the state of our relationship with this "ally" is the unspoken threat that they'll sell their nukes under the table unless we continue shoveling billions of dollars at them?

OK, maybe I should rephrase this, because I think you probably have valuable insight into this. What do you think we should do with Pakistan?

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:So the state of our relationship with this "ally" is the unspoken threat that they'll sell their nukes under the table unless we continue shoveling billions of dollars at them?

Well, not "they" in a collective sense regarding the whole nation, but some of the people with power in that nation that we want to keep beneath the people in power that are with us.

AQ Khan is a brutal precedent, and one of the reasons lots of people I know in the "business" consider Pakistan a much more serious threat than Iran.

Ouze wrote:
OK, maybe I should rephrase this, because I think you probably have valuable insight into this. What do you think we should do with Pakistan?

Do our level best to keep the present government in power. Not to the point of military intervention, we don't have the money or manpower, and it would only solidify the notion that the relative secularists are US pawns (they basically are, but no one needs to know that). The ugly truth is that, as expensive and damaging as a nuclear terrorist strike would be, it would still probably be cheaper than a full on invasion of Pakistan. There might, however, be merit to the idea of securing nuclear sites in the invent of a coup, but the planning and execution of that is beyond my knowledge base.

To add context:

I think killing bin Laden was a misstep in terms of foreign policy, but may have been outweighed by domestic concerns ("I got bin Laden." is a powerful message). Sure, a good public relations boon, but it hurt Zardari who had few, if any, options but to react to the attack with offense while also looking weak. I suspect this was known beforehand, and accepted. Like every White House, the Obama White House is replete with smart people.

I also think the drone attacks are mistaken. I blame Bush for this more than Obama because once Bush began the practice there was little reason not to continue it. In essence, the damage was done. We were pot committed.

And, going all the way back, we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. This is, of course, hindsight which is 20/20 as we all know. And, moreover, not invading would likely have been tantamount to political suicide, so expecting that turn of events is unrealistic. Still, it shouldn't have been done.