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.

[Papewaio]

Go the way the Brits did in Northern Ireland and the way New York cracked down on crime.

So it requires well trained, professional troops on the ground in massive numbers particularly in the hotspots.

So more money needs to be spent on basic infantry not cruise missiles... I wonder what the exchange rate is? How many infantry troops can you fully equip for the price of buying and maintaining (and the infrastructure to fire and control) a single cruise missile is.

[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.

[Tachikaze]

Thats called representative government.

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

Bush has committed a far more serious crime than lying to Congress about an extramarital affair. He isn't even being threatened with impeachment, let alone imprisonment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

Bush has committed a far more serious crime than lying to Congress about an extramarital affair. He isn't even being threatened with impeachment, let alone imprisonment.

Indeed, the CinC must weigh such matters on a more than infrequent basis.

At the time of the "go" decision, the Bush administration felt that taking Iraq out of the hands of Saddam and establishing a semi-functional (or better) democratic state there would complement the actions in Afghanistan and "bracket" the greatest threat (and terror supporter) in the region -- the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That end result is still possible, assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan proceed towards a greater degree of stability (though admittedly, forecasting stability in Iraq in the near future is something of a pipe dream).

Thus the goal was in line with long-term U.S interests and the long-term success in the War on Terror.

What galls me is the poor planning tactically. I think some of the administration's decision makers assumed that we'd kick apart the apple cart quickly (true, Saddam's forces hadn't a chance) and then the repressed people of Iraq would spring toward democracy (and tolerance of the USA) without a hitch -- obviously step two was poorly thought out. As I have said numerous times before, there are no "force multipliers" for an occupation -- you need boots.

However, none of this is criminal. Bush broke no laws in pursuing this policy, gathered the support of Congress along the way, and acted as in his role as commander in chief. Is he culpable for the costs as well as the outcomes? Absolutely. Can you argue that his chosen policy is operating, due to poor execution, against the very long-term goals he sought to achieve? Yes. But there has been nothing criminal there. We lost thousands of casuaties at Tarawa because of poor decisions and the Brits lost most of their paratroops at Arnhem because of poor intelligence decisions leading up to an operation. The leaders who make such decisions have to live with them, and they may well lose their opportunity to lead -- but it is not a crime. They convicted McVey unfairly for losing the Indianapolis, labeling Bush a "criminal" over Iraq is just as innacurate.

If you want to nail Bush, go after him over Padilla -- an American citizen denied counsel after being apprehended, unarmed, on US soil -- you have far better grounds.

[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]

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

I found it to be a very well-sourced book, although not exactly an enjoyable read.

[Tribesman]

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)
You mean they had a plan ??????
I thought it was just a bunch of muppets making it up as they went along .

[yesdachi]

[B]You mean they had a plan ??????
I thought it was just a bunch of muppets making it up as they went along .

I would consider the governments monitoring of international bank transfers and the warrantless surveillance of calls to be “plans”. Maybe not very good ones but certainly better than the New York Times plan to defeat terrorists by telling them everything we are doing.

[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.

[Tribesman]

And there was me thinking that in the land of the free its citizens should have a right to know if the people who represent them are breaking the law .
But hey , I know you can't comprehend that .
So....... I have issues with us spending so many lives, time and $$$ on stabilizing a country rather than fighting terrorists.....try and comprehend this .
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
Though of course that would require a plan , and plans ain't the administrations strong point are they , they focus instead on blind optimism and knee-jerk reaction , with a good measure of crazy patriotism and anyone not waving the flag in the "right" manner is a traitor thrown in for the fun of it .
And you end up with

[Redleg]

I found it to be a very well-sourced book, although not exactly an enjoyable read.

Yes indeed very well-sourced - and I don't think he meant it to be enjoyed but to inform. I personally liked his writing style - critical and informative without resorting to angry rethoric.

What I found distrubing in one chapter where the discovery of a plan to attack some targets in New York was halted not my the United States but under direction of Doctor Z. (not going to try to spell right now).

It kinds of fits with the CIA analyst that stated that Bin Laden was actually sending the election message to keep Bush in office.

[rotorgun]

I was wondering if anyone has watched the recently aired CNN doucumentary In the Footsteps of Bin Laden? It was a very informative program with many interviews with people who have known Bin Laden in the past. I highly recommend taking a look at the oncur presentation this weekend if one can take the time. It was cleary shown that the first WTC attacks were not the work of Al Queda, but rather some Egyptian cleric named Al Zarhawi (or something like this) and his followers. As for the Clinton administration doing nothing, I agree to a point.

The Clinton administration became involved with Bin Laden more after the bombings of the USS Cole and the American embassy in Kenya. 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.

It was after the Cole attack that they responded with the poorly executed cruise missle attacks against the alleged Sudanese training camps. Sudan then essentially expelled Bin Laden and his followers who went back to Afghanistan. After the Kenya bombing, the Clintonians narrowly missed Bin Laden with more cruise missle attacks against the real training camps in Afghanistan. Only the chance decision of Bin Laden to travel to Kabul that day saved him.

Don't misundestand me-I have no love for Clinton, originator of the ridiculous "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that has begun the downfall of the military, along with his drastic defense cutbacks IMHO. I just wanted to remind us of the actual facts as presented by Christiane Amanpour during the documentary.

As for what he will attempt next I cannot say. That he will encourage his foolish believers to try is beyond doubt. That we completely bungled the effort to get him during the Tora Bora campaign is true. At the time, there were no more than 50 or 60 American soldiers involved, even though a battalion of Rangers or Special forces was requested to help cut off the escape routes into Pakistan. If a tenth of the effort we have expended in Iraq had been used then, Bin Laden would be just another bad memory.

Regards,

[Hepcat]

I think that the world is becoming a bit distracted with lots of other things and consider Osama old news. Nobody talks about the war on Bin Laden anymore after the Iraq war and the Iran nuclear program and the Israeli-Lebanon conflict and North Korea and their missiles.

I am not saying that American agencies aren't doing a good job but I just think that people have lost interest in the whole affair, and it will be a while for another attack, but it will be when everyone thinks the threat is gone.

[yesdachi]

And there was me thinking that in the land of the free its citizens should have a right to know if the people who represent them are breaking the law .
But hey , I know you can't comprehend that .
So....... I have issues with us spending so many lives, time and $$$ on stabilizing a country rather than fighting terrorists.....try and comprehend this .
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
Though of course that would require a plan , and plans ain't the administrations strong point are they , they focus instead on blind optimism and knee-jerk reaction , with a good measure of crazy patriotism and anyone not waving the flag in the "right" manner is a traitor thrown in for the fun of it .
And you end up with

I don’t think the people who represent me are breaking the law.

Just because I have issues with it doesn’t mean I disagree with it, I just don’t think it has been done correctly, hindsight is best I guess. I do completely agree with you that the more stable we make places the fewer terrorists we will have to fight. Bringing stability is good, bringing it with a plan is even better and it is regrettable that I agree with you again that our administrations strong point is not planning.

The enemy is clearly terrorists but it seems that half of the US, heck, half of the world only wants to attack Bush rather than the real threat. If the misdirected would but as much zeal behind their efforts to defeat the enemy rather than make (borderline treasonous) pot shots at the administration we could be talking about Bin laden in a historical sense rather than preparing for his next attack. Not everyone criticizing our leaders is a traitor but there are definitely people walking a fine line that wouldn’t have ever been tolerated in the past, especially members of the media.

[Brenus]

“You’ are 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.”
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He had no link with Al Qaeda.

“the Bush administration felt that taking Iraq out of the hands of Saddam and establishing a semi-functional (or better) democratic state there would complement the actions in Afghanistan and "bracket" the greatest threat (and terror supporter) in the region -- the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Bush choice to go against Iraq was for other reasons… To attack Afghanistan and to destroy the Taliban Regime hosting the Terrorists was legitimate. To attack another country under false accusations and pretending it could, perhaps, maybe it could give nuclear weapons or WMD to the terrorist (weapons we know now Saddam didn’t possessed) was a deliberate act of deception towards to American people. This lie (or these lies) put US soldiers’ lives at risk with no clear reason than to revenge dad, and perhaps to built new unneeded military bases in Iraq against Iran.
In doing that, Bush created the impression (already in back of the mind of Muslims) that his aim was war against them, as Muslim.
I would agree that the Muslim forget easily that the last time NATO intervened as such was to help Muslims in Europe (Bosnia and Kosovo). But because they are European Muslims, they probably not considered as real Muslims by the others…

However, in term of objective, Bush diverted the USA from the real danger. He made a common mistake of changing aims during action… Due to arrogance, he brushed away all others opinions, ignoring all warning, even from allies as Israel. I perfectly remember one Israeli saying it took them 48 hours to take Gaza and after 30 years they still can’t control it… All different opinions were just dismissed as cowardly and treachery…

Thus the goal was in line with long-term U.S interests and the long-term success in the War on Terror.” This war is just jeopardising the War on Terror. Bush alienated his allies, UK citizens included. With a minimum of diplomacy Bush would have retain (almost) all the world sympathy after 9/11. Look what happened with Lebanon. The same countries which either refused to sent troops in Iraq or withdraw from Iraq are now sending troops (France, Spain, and Italy). Bush could have achieved that with less disdain…
If you think I will forget (as French) and forgive easily the “Surrounding Cheese Eaters Monkeys” and “We will forget Russia, forgive Germany and punish France”, you are actually making a HUGE mistake.
Especially when every point made by the French proved to be right…
So, Bush not only run on the wrong target but just spoiled all what was gained before…

“However, none of this is criminal.” I would disagree on this point. Bush lied to the Congress. He is now telling he was not aware that the Intelligence reports were wrong… Well, I am not convinced by this one.
When you pretend in one of YOUR speech something and then declare that if fact you didn’t wrote the speech so what is in it don’t reflect your opinion, I wonder what should be your mark at school or university. I don’t know in your country, but in mine if I present a text which isn’t mine, well, we call that a “triche (in French in the text)” a lie. And it is illegal.
The UN Security Council was ready to issue a Veto against US/UK/new Europe attack against Iraq. They did and THAT is illegal. US, UK and new Europe do not have the right to decide what the UN wants.

“With Bush out of office we leave Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorists get to resume their attacks on America.” Yep, and with Bush (or Administration) they save the plane tickets. The mountain is coming to Mohamed. The US soldiers are coming on their grounds as targets (not easy one) for training, and Bin Laden, after trying to convert you to Islam as it is his duty, will resume his activity… USA had more people killed and injured (never forget the injured) in Iraq than in the 9/11 attack has it?
If you don’t understand that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq just gave more strength to Bin Laden (more frustration =more followers) you failed to recognise the problem.
The Muslim world (even if I hate this kind of generalisation) did understand the retaliation against the Taliban. They resent the attack on Iraq. It is illogical, Saddam was burning alive Muslim Clerics, but it a fact.

[Pannonian]

The UN Security Council was ready to issue a Veto against US/UK/new Europe attack against Iraq. They did and THAT is illegal. US, UK and new Europe do not have the right to decide what the UN wants.

It was widely recognised that a 3/5 UNSC majority would legitimise the action, even if the 2nd resolution was vetoed. What most Iraq war supporters forget is that the resolution wasn't vetoed - the backers didn't care to put it to the vote when it became clear they wouldn't even get a bare majority even with all the bribery and threats (whipping) the US could muster. IIRC the US/UK bloc could only rely on 4-5 votes including themselves, with the others almost certain to vote against. If the 2nd resolution did indeed get a simple majority, most British people would have supported the invasion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tony Blair appeared on Newsnight on 6 February where he was quizzed by Jeremy Paxman and a panel of voters about the Iraq crisis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/2732979.stm

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, would anyone else like to have a question?

FEMALE: Yes, I would like to ask do you believe that the people of your country are behind you at the moment?

TONY BLAIR: I think that, I think if there were a second UN resolution then I think people would be behind me. I think if there's not then there's a lot of persuading to do.

FEMALE: Because I don't, I don't share any confidence that the people are behind you at the moment. Everybody that I've spoken to within my circle oppose what's happening at the moment.

APPLAUSE

TONY BLAIR: Supposing there were a second resolution then, would that make a difference?

FEMALE Yes.

TONY BLAIR: Well.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Prime Minister but you said, in your view, it may be necessary to go to war without a second resolution.

TONY BLAIR: Well I said that in one set of circumstances.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, an unreasonable veto, as you put it. But if that happened, would you be prepared to go to war despite the fact that apparently the majority of people in this country would not be with you?

[Brenus]

“It was widely recognised that a 3/5 UNSC majority would legitimise the action”: Er, no. It was recognised in US and UK and it didn’t make it legal. We are speaking legality here. If only ONE on the member of the Security Council put a veto, the UN resolution is blocked, so no UN backing… And because Us/UK/new Europe went on, nobody know how de facto Russia, China and France would have vote…