Bib Laden Planning Another Attck?

[Tachikaze]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/osama.poll/index.html

This seems like a good time to ask the question again: who was a bigger threat to US security, Hussein or Bin Laden?

While I didn't support either the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the pursuit of Bin Laden certainly made a lot more sense. Those efforts were half-hearted whereas the US has spent billions of dollars and as many US lives as Bin Laden took in New York and Washington DC to (according to the Bush Regime) get Hussein.

Let's see, now we given anti-American groups even more reasons to attack us, and the guy who supposedly masterminded the 2001 attacks is still active.

I would say this whole affair was very badly handled, wouldn't you. I would even say it was criminal.

For the record, my contention was that Bin Laden probably would develop another plot, not using aircraft. I also said that Bush's mishandling of the situation ensured that Bin Laden would attack again. Bush endangered us.

[Keba]

Well, you have one advantage ... he now has a target that is closer and easier to strike than he did before. I doubt that Bin Laden will launch another attack on the US ... but it is not impossible, and if it does happen, it probably won't be planes ... that tactic has been tried and is known ... the terrorists will invent something new.

Like maybe a former Soviet nuke or something.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd' imagine he's learnt that plotting causes far more disruption than following through. Get some committed idiots to make a lot of noise and a country can be shut down for a week with ease. As there's little to find masses of time and money is spent trying to find what in fact doesn't exist.

[Xiahou]

Of course he's planning attacks- he's a terrorist, it's what they do. There's been several attacks thwarted since 9/11 and are doubtless more in planning.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know how you could possibly oppose our actions in Afghanistan and simultaneously claim we need to protect ourselves from terrorism. You could claim that there was/is no terrorist threat, and then I could understand you. But to see dozens of active terrorist training camps with maps and building plans for all the major landmarks in the USA and Western Europe scattered throughout Afghanistan, to know that those who planned 9/11 were being protected within it's boundaries by a regime that was brutally repressing it's people and openly threatening the West with future attacks.... Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree on Afghanistan.

But I do agree with you that the decision to go into Iraq has limited our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're seeing a resurgent Talbeban and we've got our own relative inactivity to thank. Frankly, if I hear one more time that the Taleban, let alone the Iraqi insurgents, are on their last legs, I'm going to scream. They've been on their last legs for close to 5 years now and they're stronger now then they have been at any time since early 2002.

Criminal? I don't know. Incredibly short-sighted and over confident to the point of being foolhearty? Yes.

[Xiahou]

But I do agree with you that the decision to go into Iraq has limited our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're seeing a resurgent Talbeban and we've got our own relative inactivity to thank. Frankly, if I hear one more time that the Taleban, let alone the Iraqi insurgents, are on their last legs, I'm going to scream. They've been on their last legs for close to 5 years now and they're stronger now then they have been at any time since early 2002.

Criminal? I don't know. Incredibly short-sighted and over confident to the point of being foolhearty? Yes.

I tend to think that, initially, the difficulty of the occupation was underestimated. I also think the underestimation caused mistakes in early decision-making that allowed the insurgency to build more than it may have otherwise....

Regardless, I think what would truly be folly would be pulling out without a reasonably stable central government. I can't imagine how anyone -despite what they thought of the decision to go to war- could think that it's in US interests to leave Iraq to sort itself out.

[Don Corleone]

Goodness, no, I am not suggesting we pull out of Iraq prematurely. We are there for better or worse and we owe the Iraqi people a stable government, some form of security and a government that exists on the prinicples of self-determination where the majority decides but with protections for the minorities.

The time for me to play armchair quarterback with our decision to BE in Iraq ended when we actually showed up there. My issue is now more with the gameplan we're employing there. I hate to say it, but frankly John McCain has been right all along. We're underfunded and we're understaffed in Iraq. We allowed the insurgency to ferment and grow and now are in the undesireable position of putting it down, as opposed to blocking its spread in the first place. Now, as we continue to pour resources into Iraq, our attention has been directed away from Afghanistan, and as a result, I see things starting to go south there as well.

Frankly, we need to put more men on the ground in both theaters, we need to put an end to all of this foolishness and then we need to start formulating exit strategies, be they for 1 year or 5 years down the road. We cannot stay there forever and it would be much better for us, and honestly for them, for us to leave on our terms in our own time.

[Tachikaze]

Criminal? I don't know. Incredibly short-sighted and over confident to the point of being foolhearty? Yes.

I added the criminal part because of the costs of his actions. He makes his moves on the lives of other people. I wonder if he would have invaded Iraq if he had to sacriface his own life or even some important body parts.

If a civilian caused as many deaths through similar carelessness and disregard for human life, he would be prosecuted as a criminal.

[Papewaio]

Thats called representative government.

[yesdachi]

Bush endangered us.

Your so right, he should have sat on his thumb while just accepting that the terrorists would have been content with their actions on 911 and left us alone after that.

[Tachikaze]

Your so right, he should have sat on his thumb while just accepting that the terrorists would have been content with their actions on 911 and left us alone after that.

Those were the only two choices he had: an invasion of Iraq or sitting on his thumb?

[yesdachi]

Those were the only two choices he had: an invasion of Iraq or sitting on his thumb?

Maybe it is a topic for another day but I think the invasion of Iraq was a good decision (invading Afghanistan was a better decision), But what we have done since invading is where we have made a mess of it. I have issues with us spending so many lives, time and $$$ on stabilizing a country rather than fighting terrorists, but I am sure our conviction in Iraq is required least our previous efforts be for nothing.

The only criminal element I see is the treasonous actions coming from people calling for impeachment and criminal prosecution of our leader (and the media exposing of our plans and tactics), it’s not going to happen and it just bogs down the system. Incidentally I also thought the witch hunt of Clinton over is extramarital affairs were uncalled for, the exposure of his deeds was enough to show to the world what kind of man he is. Constructive criticism and electing desired representatives rather than I’m not getting my way cries for impeachment would be much more respected and would be much more “American”. It’s funny that you want the same thing that Bin Laden wants, Bush out of office.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It’s funny that you want the same thing that Bin Laden wants, Bush out of office.

Bin Laden wants dead Americans, he couldn't care less about who's president. It was during the Clinton administration that he first tried to blow up the WTC - in what was it, 1994? 1995? - and it was under Clinton that he plotted 9/11.

He hates the US for the same reason they all hate it: America is rich, big and has a superiority complex, whereas anti-Americans share the superiority complex but are otherwise a bunch of petty backward losers. Which frustrates them to no end.
Don't fall into the trap of overestimating the effect America's political choice has on its relations with those who hate America. The root causes of anti-Americanism run much deeper than a concern about the finer points of distinction between liberals and conservatives.

This is a fallacy and one that both the pro- and the anti-Bush camp are guilty of. The anti-Bush camp may be in for a nasty surprise if they ever manage to defeat the Republicans again. While the pro-Bushites are guilty of the gross injustice of accusing liberals of un-patriotic treason, by the rationale that their anti-Bushism is a shared ideology with America's enemies. Whereas in fact no terrorist could care any less.

[Redleg]

Ah - I just happened to finish reading a book entitled "The One Percent Doctrine, Deep inside Americia's Pursuit of its enemies since 9/11" by Ron Suskind. An interesting book that details some of the actions of the administration both positive and negative in its pursuit to prevent another attack on the United States.

Interesting, critical, insightful, and worthy of a read regardless of your views about the adminstration and its conduct in the War on Terror.

[yesdachi]

Bin Laden wants dead Americans, he couldn't care less about who's president. It was during the Clinton administration that he first tried to blow up the WTC - in what was it, 1994? 1995? - and it was under Clinton that he plotted 9/11.

He hates the US for the same reason they all hate it: America is rich, big and has a superiority complex, whereas anti-Americans share the superiority complex but are otherwise a bunch of petty backward losers. Which frustrates them to no end.
Don't fall into the trap of overestimating the effect America's political choice has on its relations with those who hate America. The root causes of anti-Americanism run much deeper than a concern about the finer points of distinction between liberals and conservatives.

This is a fallacy and one that both the pro- and the anti-Bush camp are guilty of. The anti-Bush camp may be in for a nasty surprise if they ever manage to defeat the Republicans again. While the pro-Bushites are guilty of the gross injustice of accusing liberals of un-patriotic treason, by the rationale that their anti-Bushism is a shared ideology with America's enemies. Whereas in fact no terrorist could care any less.

You are correct that terrorists want dead Americans but you are sooooo wrong in that it doesn’t matter to them who is in charge of the government, and you completely made my point for me… It was under the Clinton administration that the first WTC attack was and it was under the Clinton administration that they plotted the 911 attacks BUT it has been under the Bush administration that he has been on the run from ever since. With Bush out of office we leave Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorists get to resume their attacks on America.

[Lemur]

It’s funny that you want the same thing that Bin Laden wants, Bush out of office.

Two thoughts:

(1) If criticism of a leader during wartime is treason, then the entire Iraeli nation is engaged in mass treason right now. And they're in a much more preacrious position than the U.S. of A.

(2)If anything, it appears that Bin Laden prefers Bush. His statement just prior to the 2004 election was taken by most analysts as a back-handed plug for the incumbent. Make of it what you will, but Bush seems to be UBL's preferred opponent.

[Crazed Rabbit]

While I didn't support either the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the pursuit of Bin Laden certainly made a lot more sense.
...
I also said that Bush's mishandling of the situation ensured that Bin Laden would attack again. Bush endangered us.

You didn't support the invasion of Afghnistan? And yet you say Bush mishandled the situation by, seemingly, not focusing enough on Afghanistan?

Those efforts were half-hearted whereas the US has spent billions of dollars and as many US lives as Bin Laden took in New York and Washington DC to (according to the Bush Regime) get Hussein.

Let's see, now we given anti-American groups even more reasons to attack us, and the guy who supposedly masterminded the 2001 attacks is still active.

Are you suggesting that Osama did not plan the attacks?

Prior to that, Bin Laden was in Sudan, where he was offered up to the administration by the Sudanese, no longer enamored with him, at the time. That they didn't accept the offer is a blunder in retrospect, but they didn't actually have a valid legal reason to detain him, and they didn't want to upset the Saudi government by arresting one of their (admittedly estranged) citizens.

A collosal blunder. Why not accept, and then simply make him disappear?

A stable country doesn't tend to produce many terrorists , so the more stable you make the places the less terrorists you have to fight , and strangely the more places you destabilise the more terrorists you create to have to fight .
Wierd isn't it

And the old tradition of supporting the stable dictators has worked out so well, hasn't it?

And sometimes a representative must weigh the benefit of an action against the cost in human life. What was the benefit of invading Iraq?

What was the benefit of bombing the **** out of Bosnia, with less restraint than practiced in Iraq (though against white Europeans, so its okay)?

Crazed Rabbit

[Fragony]

Of course he is planning another one, it is all said in the Tar oh ryst Ah tahk.