Will they finally go after the real terrorists?

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
Amid Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan



WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Why in the world would they resist going after Bin Laden and his fellow cockroaches, when they said they were committed to a "war on terror"?



But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

And they still aren't going after the real terrorists? This is what they should have done about the 12th. of September of 2001.

Just how bad has the situation been allowed to get?



Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

That's pretty bad, don't you think?

Of course, Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which we all know by now was a mistake of the first order, has made it more difficult to go after those who attacked this country:



Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.


Will the Bushistas finally and at long last do what should have been done seven years ago, or are they still hunting for those elusive nukular devices in Iraq?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/w...=th&adxnnlx=1214849764-QzVRyvVrCixu1QuO+ZhZPg

____________________________
The candidates keep talking about change. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we'll all be on the street corner asking for change.
 
Werbung:
Why in the world would they resist going after Bin Laden and his fellow cockroaches, when they said they were committed to a "war on terror"?





And they still aren't going after the real terrorists? This is what they should have done about the 12th. of September of 2001.

Just how bad has the situation been allowed to get?





That's pretty bad, don't you think?

Of course, Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which we all know by now was a mistake of the first order, has made it more difficult to go after those who attacked this country:






Will the Bushistas finally and at long last do what should have been done seven years ago, or are they still hunting for those elusive nukular devices in Iraq?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/w...=th&adxnnlx=1214849764-QzVRyvVrCixu1QuO+ZhZPg

____________________________
The candidates keep talking about change. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we'll all be on the street corner asking for change.

The real problem here is that Pakistan has stated that any such missions will be considered an act of war. The President of Pakistan must toe a delicate line here to maintain his own power. Further, if we basically walked into a war with Pakistan the extremist element in Pakistan would seize power with ease. But I suppose that is of no concern, after all Pakistan is simply a nuclear power.
 
Why in the world would they resist going after Bin Laden and his fellow cockroaches, when they said they were committed to a "war on terror"?

This has always been an appeaser red herring - Osama personally doesn't count for a tinker's dam. If Osama were offed (and he might already be dead because of US military action) al qaeda would simply replace him. What matters is al qaeda's worldwide organization, which has been decimated by the US and its allies. The appeaser attempt to fixate people on Osama is simply a way to distract people from this fact. If Osama WERE proven to be dead, the Bushophobes would simply change gears, and come up with a new bogus tactic.
 
This has always been an appeaser red herring - Osama personally doesn't count for a tinker's dam. If Osama were offed (and he might already be dead because of US military action) al qaeda would simply replace him. What matters is al qaeda's worldwide organization, which has been decimated by the US and its allies. The appeaser attempt to fixate people on Osama is simply a way to distract people from this fact. If Osama WERE proven to be dead, the Bushophobes would simply change gears, and come up with a new bogus tactic.

Except that it isn't just Bin Laden:

one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

Who did you think the "appeasers" are trying to appease, Bin Laden, or Musharrif?
 
Except that it isn't just Bin Laden:

Sorry - retired officers have no access to intelligence, and therefore don't know the current situation.



Who did you think the "appeasers" are trying to appease, Bin Laden, or Musharrif?

All of them - Ahmadminejad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, the north koreans, Chavez, Castro - basically any thug with a gun.
 
Sorry - retired officers have no access to intelligence, and therefore don't know the current situation.





All of them - Ahmadminejad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, the north koreans, Chavez, Castro - basically any thug with a gun.

You, on the other hand, have access to intelligence, and know that Al Qaeda isn't taking refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan and growing stronger and more numerous. That makes me feel so much better!

And, of course, appeasing thugs with guns is on the agenda of every true liberal on the planet, that is to say, anyone willing to acknowledge that invading Iraq has turned out to be a costly mistake and distracted us from the real war against radical Islam, aka the "war on terror."
 
You, on the other hand, have access to intelligence, and know that Al Qaeda isn't taking refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan and growing stronger and more numerous. That makes me feel so much better!

And, of course, appeasing thugs with guns is on the agenda of every true liberal on the planet, that is to say, anyone willing to acknowledge that invading Iraq has turned out to be a costly mistake and distracted us from the real war against radical Islam, aka the "war on terror."

See my above post on why all of this is basically irrelevant as to what is happening in Pakistan. We can not do anything without Pres Mushareff.
 
See my above post on why all of this is basically irrelevant as to what is happening in Pakistan. We can not do anything without Pres Mushareff.

Mushareff might just hoot and beat his chest to appease the factons in his own country who hate the US and want him out of power because he says he is a friend to the US. I don't think his hooting will amount to more than a lot of noise. What is he going to do against the forces of the US? Sure, it would be much better to have him on our side, but if he isn't, he isn't. Those tribal lands are only a part of Pakistan on the map anyway, not in any real sense do they show allegiance to Mushareff or to Pakistan.
 
Mushareff might just hoot and beat his chest to appease the factons in his own country who hate the US and want him out of power because he says he is a friend to the US. I don't think his hooting will amount to more than a lot of noise. What is he going to do against the forces of the US? Sure, it would be much better to have him on our side, but if he isn't, he isn't. Those tribal lands are only a part of Pakistan on the map anyway, not in any real sense do they show allegiance to Mushareff or to Pakistan.

Unless you want to occupy Pakistan then your logic makes no sense. If we incite anti-Mushareff factions in Pakistan he will lose power in a hurry. That brings in a much more radical regime. This is simply not acceptable to the United States because Pakistan is a nuclear power and we cannot afford to basically force Musareff out of power in favor of a more radical regime.

His hooting is not because he is going to oppose the US forces should we come in, it is because he will be outed from power in favor of a more radical regime, which we cannot allow.
 
Unless you want to occupy Pakistan then your logic makes no sense. If we incite anti-Mushareff factions in Pakistan he will lose power in a hurry. That brings in a much more radical regime. This is simply not acceptable to the United States because Pakistan is a nuclear power and we cannot afford to basically force Musareff out of power in favor of a more radical regime.

His hooting is not because he is going to oppose the US forces should we come in, it is because he will be outed from power in favor of a more radical regime, which we cannot allow.

So you think Mushareff has us over a barrel, afraid to do anything without his OK, which in turn depends on the radicals in his own country giving their permission for him to give his permission for us to go after the people who attacked us seven years ago.

Well, you may be right, and if you are, then we are in an indefensible position, aren't we?

Meanwhile, we're spending billions every day fighting in Iraq, and for what?
 
"I do wonder if it's in fact the case that al-Qa'eda has really reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say I seriously doubt that. Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they're not communicating and they're not moving around. I think they're symbolic more than operationally effective." -Ryan Crocker, US ambassador in Baghdad and former ambassador in Islamabad

I think killing or capturing Bin-Laden - PUBLICLY - would have horrible repercussions. We need to kill the dude, and never talk about it, which means you and I wouldn't know that it had happened.
 
"I do wonder if it's in fact the case that al-Qa'eda has really reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say I seriously doubt that. Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they're not communicating and they're not moving around. I think they're symbolic more than operationally effective." -Ryan Crocker, US ambassador in Baghdad and former ambassador in Islamabad

I think killing or capturing Bin-Laden - PUBLICLY - would have horrible repercussions. We need to kill the dude, and never talk about it, which means you and I wouldn't know that it had happened.

We need to capture Bin Laden, not kill him, at least not publically. The last thing we want is to give the cockroaches a martyr.
 
We need to capture Bin Laden, not kill him, at least not publically. The last thing we want is to give the cockroaches a martyr.

Did you ever watch the Nuremberg trials?

We don't want to capture him publicly either!

Seriously, think this through.... Bin Laden, on trial in the US, broadcast to billions of people in hundreds of nations, listening to him incite sympathizers to act against the US.

Since you don't want to give him martyrdom, I guess we cannot give him the death penalty for killing 3000+ Americans... Just gonna lock him up like any other 2 bit criminal?

Thats a really, really bad idea.
 
Werbung:
In summer 1971, Osama and Salem Bin Laden enjoyed a holiday in Sweden with some of their 55 brothers and sisters.
Yet within a few years, the two teenagers' lives had taken stunningly different turns.

As the world knows to its cost, Osama embraced Islamic fundamentalism and 30 years later was named the world's most wanted man. He is prime suspect in the murder of nearly 7,000 in the worst ever terrorist atrocities in the U.S. earlier this month.

Incredibly, Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush's home state of Texas.
Photos reveal the brothers on family holiday to the Swedish town of Falun, 150 miles north-west of Stockholm, when Osama was 14 and Salem around 19.

The brothers had recently inherited a fortune from their construction magnate father, Mohammed. He left millions to each of his 57 children by 12 wives after dying in a plane crash in 1968.

Osama and Salem first visited Falun in 1970, arriving in a blue Rolls-Royce flown to Copenhagen by private jet. They liked the town so much they returned with other family members a year later.

Learning that the Bin Ladens, originally from Saudi Arabia, were staying at the Astoria Hotel, a local photographer asked the unusual visitors to pose.

Astoria owner Christina Akerblad said last night: 'They were beautiful boys, so elegantly dressed. Everybody loved them.

'Osama played with my two boys, Anders and Gerk.

'What's happened since is absolutely terrible. The first time I realised Osama had turned into a terrorist was when I saw his photograph in a magazine article about the bombing. He and his brother were such nice boys.'

At that time the brothers both delighted in their enormous wealth. Salem - wearing a polo neck and slacks as he crouches three places from Osama, in jeans and a skinny rib jumper - put a large part of his money into business ventures, including Arbusto Energy.

Mr Bush was not long out of Harvard Business School when he started the company in 1978.

Salem watched it grow into a hugely successful business until his death in a microlight plane crash in Texas in 1983.

As he built his own business empire, Salem Bin Laden had an intriguing relationship with the president-to-be.

In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a close friend of Mr Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as his representative in Houston, Texas.

It was in that year that Mr Bath invested $50,000 (about �34,000) in Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed whether he was investing his own money or somebody else's.

There was even speculation that the money might have been from Salem. In the same year, Mr Bath bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of the Saudi Arabian multimillionaire. Three years ago, Mr Bush said the $50,000 investment in Arbusto was the only financial dealing he had with Mr Bath.

Last night a White House spokesman was unavailable for comment.

Before his death, Salem was married to Briton Caroline Carey, now 35.

She has never spoken about her brother-in-law Osama, who was disowned by the rest of his family in 1991 when he was expelled from Saudi Arabia for his anti-government activities.

Now living in luxury in a Cairo villa, she has married twice into the Bin Laden family - first to Salem, and now to a younger brother, Khaled. She has a daughter by each brother.

Three years ago a family friend said: 'She first met Salem when she was just a child - no more than five years old.

'He was a friend of the family but at that stage no one would have dreamed that they would end up marrying.

'When they met again as adults, Caroline was 20 and Salem twice her age.

'Salem was the head of the Bin Laden family as the oldest of all the brothers and sisters.

'He was a man with a powerful presence.'

They married and, after his death, Caroline decided to bring up her daughter in Saudi Arabia.

'Caroline was a widow for nearly ten years before deciding to marry Khaled,' said the friend. 'He is one of the younger brothers and very quiet and loving.

'She can never speak publicly about her marriage, or anything else for that matter, or she would be cut off from the family.'

Caroline's father, a retired psychology lecturer from Hampstead, said: 'My daughter is very happy with Khaled. She decided to stay on in Saudi Arabia because she found her family there to be so loving and supportive.'

Yesterday FBI agents swooped on a Boston suburb where around 20 of the wealthy relatives of Bin Laden live. They questioned them at a condominium complex in Charlestown. Agents even began visiting nightclubs to collect credit cards of younger members of the family.

Bin Laden's younger brother Mohammed, who is said to have moved back to Saudi Arabia with his wife and children several years ago, owns a ten-bedroom mansion in nearby Wayland.

Another younger brother, Abdullah, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School. The family has given it �2million in endowments to research Islamic law.

Most of Bin Laden's family have in the past strongly denounced the 44-year-old fugitive, now living in Afghanistan.

The FBI in Boston has long been aware of his extended family and began monitoring their activities after the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

The Bin Ladens still run one of the biggest construction companies in the world.
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_family_link_to_bush.html

My guess is they know and have always known where Osama is. And that he agreed to take the fall. Just a theory of course..

Just a theory..

Remember George W. begging his aides when they could invade Iraq? He was itching for an excuse at the get-go. He got one. 9-11

??? Nah! ?...

Scratch that theory, it's too difficult to entertain..
 
Back
Top