Jimbo 0 #101 May 21, 2003 Quote>Ummm...remember who "Made" Bin Loser . . . Uh, Reagan made Bin Laden (and funded the creation of Al Qaeda) by giving millions to the Mujahideen so they would kill Russians in Afghanistan. I agree Clinton did little to contain the threat thus created, but let's give credit where credit is due. Bill, did you read the rest of Clay's post? Did you miss the part after "remember who "Made" Bin Loser", I'll help you by reposting it: Clay said: QuoteUmmm...remember who "Made" Bin Loser a hero to the entire radical Islamic world. Yep...Bill Clinton. I've bolded the part you missed, I thought it might help. Yes, we all know that Reagan 'made' Bin Laden, but that's not what Clay seemed to be referring to in his post. If you're going to quote people you need to keep things in context. Don't you agree? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #102 May 21, 2003 QuoteIn closing, Richard, I've taken your argument apart and destroyed it from every aspect you've cared to present you just intimidate the shit out of me, now you done went and got me all shook up. crawl back in your hole, go add to your jump numbers, do sometrhing. now, run along and play with your little friends. bye now.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #103 May 21, 2003 QuoteClinton did little to contain the threat thus created how about the 4 times clinton had a chance to nail him and didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #104 May 21, 2003 >crawl back in your hole . . . Cut it out. No personal attacks. (And yes that's a personal attack, not part of a discussion.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #105 May 21, 2003 >how about the 4 times clinton had a chance to nail him and didn't. Good point. So Bush is following in Clinton's footsteps when he says that finding Bin Laden is not a priority. I'd say that's a mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #106 May 21, 2003 Bush will get him unlike clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #107 May 21, 2003 QuoteBush will get him unlike clinton. What makes you think so? It's been a year and a half and we're no closer to catching him today than on September 11. As a matter of fact, we may be further removed since he's had a chance to escape and we now don't have a clue as to where he is. Also, it may be politically advantageous to not catch him until just before the 2004 elections.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #108 May 22, 2003 I thought I'd add a few comments about OBL and his funding, activities, and timeline so all are aware as to what actually transpired in the development of this most incredibly evil man. In 1979, during Carter's administration, Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. Something like 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 different Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's decade+ fight between 1982 and 1992. These mujahadin were actively working to repel a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Carter, according to some sources, gave the green light for black budget ops funding to the CIA for Afghanistan as early as June, 1979. If offical sources are accurate, the US supported several fundamentalist extremist groups throughout the 1980s and into the early 90s with training, cash, and weapons somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-6 billion. The secret Black Budget of the CIA is said to have grown to $36 billion per year when Reagan became president in 1980, but only some of this money went to support secret operations in Afghanistan. In March 1985, President Reagan authorized military aid to the mujahadin indirectly through the ISI. The goal was clear and concise: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan ISI met with, trained, and funded the rebels. However, they were assisted by (and indeed perhaps trained, as well) the CIA. They did not directly, as far as I can determine, train or fund the mujahadin (covert ops, dontcha know)... OBL came into town primarily because the Soviet invasion offended him and his strident muslim views. He was, in effect, a mercenary. He brought a group of men with him and contributed sizeable amounts of his personal fortune (reportedly some $300 million, although reports vary to as little as $200 to as much as $500). At that point, and I can't find my notes right now, he connected with a spiritual leader who was assassinated in 1989, and also forged a strong alliance with Mullah Mohammed Omar (who became his right hand man). BTW, AQ was not founded until sometime in 1988, and was an offshoot of MAK ( Mahktab al-Khidmat). OBL left AFghanistan in 1989, returned to Saudi Arabia, and lived in various countries, including Sudan (1991-1996. He was expelled from the Sudan in 1996 (IIRC), because of the pressure the US placed on him due to suspected involvement in teh assassination of Hosni Mubarak. OBL had already been stripped of his Saudi citizenship, and was welcomed back into Afghanistan, where he brought money and jobs to them, in his creation and construction of highways and other infrastructure. From what I can see, there is no direct assocation between Reagan saying "hey, give OBL some $$ and see what happens"; rather, it was a foreign policy decision (right or wrong) which allowed support to the ISI (Pakistani intel) to distribute and train the mujahadin in an attempt to repel the Soviet troops. The attacks on the WTC (1993, Clinton), Khobar Towers (1996, Clinton), USS Cole (October 2000, Clinton, 17 killed), the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998, Clinton) involvement in the "Black Hawk Down" Somalia situation (1993, Clinton), suspected in 3 bombings targeted at US troops in 1992 (Clinton), and the attacks on US troops in Dharan, Saudi Arabia (1996, Clinton), as well as WTC (2001, Bush). There are several indications that OBL and AQ were involved in teh Bali bombing, and several other attacks since 9/11). In any event, funding for OBL/AQ cannot, imo, be attributed directly to Reagan only. Considering the amount of attacks during Clinton's years in office, and his several opportunities (and his refusal of said opportunities) to capture/apprehend him, I would say that far more liability lands on Clinton's head than can be laid on GWB. And certainly moreso on Clinton rather than Reagan (who I didn't like at all.). Just my take on it all... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #109 May 22, 2003 >Bush will get him unlike clinton. Then why do you figure he said that doing that just isn't a priority? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #110 May 22, 2003 QuoteBush will get him unlike clinton. no, he won't. QuoteThen why do you figure he said that doing that just isn't a priority? because he figures he's done just enough to win the next election, and judging by the political tempetures in this forum alone the silly bastad will win. ol' Wyatt's day is coming, and it's coming soon. we'll wait another 12 years or another world trade center travasty before we do anything again, why? because we can.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #111 May 22, 2003 Nice summary! I liked Reagan for the most part. I wonder if there are any books out on that time period..... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #112 May 22, 2003 QuoteUh, Reagan made Bin Laden (and funded the creation of Al Qaeda) by giving millions to the Mujahideen True Bill...but from all the interviews I have seen nobody thought much of him until Clinton made him a hero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #113 May 22, 2003 Hi, Bill... So, the only place where I can find Bush's statement of non-concern is in the March 13, 2002 press briefing. (You mentioned the date in a previous post here...Previous post). You mention the exact quote earlier in this thread, too...so I searched for it in context. The full transcript of the press conference is here: Full transcript Excerpted from above, including the question asked (in italics).... "Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make..." "BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means." "QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive? BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it -- either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things that's part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money. And we got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand -- that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that. I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. (End excerpt) I ran a word search, and didn't find the word "priority" there at all. You cite several quotes from him using that particular word, twice from the same day. But I honestly can't find it anywhere. When I run a search for your entire quote "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - Bush, 3/13/02" I turn up a lot of speculative postings from people at Freerepublic (shudder), and things like that, but no transcripts with specific word in it. Can you please link to a full transcript of that quote so I can read it in total? I appreciate it. I really looked, but couldn't find it. Thanks! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #114 May 22, 2003 Damn Bill...you have Michelle on your ass. Now you're in trouble.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #115 May 22, 2003 QuoteWhat makes you think so? It's been a year and a half and we're no closer to catching him today than on September 11. As a matter of fact, we may be further removed since he's had a chance to escape and we now don't have a clue as to where he is How do you know that? You don't, just because the US isn't broadcasting everything being done on the front page. Every week we see more and more of thier "power team" being rounded up. Also, it may be politically advantageous to not catch him until just before the 2004 elections. *** With the group the dems are fielding they don't have a chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #116 May 22, 2003 Very nice post Michele. Beer for you! FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #117 May 22, 2003 QuoteBut, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. Michelle, great post, though I have one question. If a large part of that reply is true, similar to the small part I quotes above, then why is the US on Orange alert? I OBL and AQ are only operating in the margins and really not that important anymore, then how can they still be such a threat? But yet the alert level is at its second highest level, due to AQ and its boss OBL. If they are such a big threat, then maybe catching him and truly destroying the organization should be a priority! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #118 May 22, 2003 Quote I OBL and AQ are only operating in the margins and really not that important anymore, then how can they still be such a threat? Dormant cells. besides, the orange alert is (sadly) nothing more than "aspirin for the masses" the real terror is not the destruction on 9-11, its the constant state of fear that these things can, may and do happen. this is something the orange alert (important in itself, if backed up by real messures) can't solve. then again, it might be living in an "orange alert" all my life that makes me say that O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #119 May 22, 2003 QuoteQuoteBut, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. Michelle, great post, though I have one question. If a large part of that reply is true, similar to the small part I quotes above, then why is the US on Orange alert? I OBL and AQ are only operating in the margins and really not that important anymore, then how can they still be such a threat? But yet the alert level is at its second highest level, due to AQ and its boss OBL. If they are such a big threat, then maybe catching him and truly destroying the organization should be a priority! Pinko liberal troublemaker - you shouldn't ask difficult questions like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #120 May 22, 2003 QuoteI OBL and AQ are only operating in the margins and really not that important anymore, then how can they still be such a threat? It's like this....It doesn't take much of an organization to field a suicide bomber. All you need is one guy.....a couple pounds of explosives....and voila'. Doesn't take a lot of planning or logistical support does it? It doesn't take OBL or millions dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #121 May 22, 2003 QuoteIt's like this....It doesn't take much of an organization to field a suicide bomber. All you need is one guy.....a couple pounds of explosives....and voila'. Doesn't take a lot of planning or logistical support does it? It doesn't take OBL or millions dollars. Clay I agree that that would be easy. But then the US better stay at Orange alert, because that risk will always be out there. This latest hightened alert is directly attributed to AQ and hence OBL. The same group and person who supposedly have been reduced to next to nothing and the leader of the group is not a priority. All I am saying is that if the group can still have such an effect on the US, maybe it should be a priority. I keep getting the idea that AQ and OBL have been and continue to be a far greater threat than Iraq. Hence I do wonder (see Anvil, I just wonder about this, it's a question) why so much more money and effort has been spent on Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #122 May 22, 2003 QuoteHence I do wonder (see Anvil, I just wonder about this, it's a question) why so much more money and effort has been spent on Iraq. Well...IMHO...we did what we did in Iraq for one reason. WMD's....the Iraqi's had every reason in the world to produce them and sell them to AQ or anyone else they thought might use them against the US. However, there's the flip side...it's not like the Iraqi's are overly friendly with all the terrorist groups out there. Saddam was MUCH too paranoid for that. Apparently for good reason too. I was suprised at how little press coverage Abu Nidal's death got. See...he died in a hotel somewhere in Iraq. From what I heard it was the Iraqi Secret Police that killed him. Cetainly made me ask some questions..... QuoteBut then the US better stay at Orange alert, because that risk will always be out there. Well...the intel types have learned to recognize patterns in commo traffic between AQ types. They don't have to know exactly what they are saying.....just the mere fact that certain elements are talking tells you a lot. When they see enough of this...it's time to raise the alert level. Wish I could be more specific....but I can't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #123 May 22, 2003 QuoteHow do you know that? You don't, just because the US isn't broadcasting everything being done on the front page. Every week we see more and more of thier "power team" being rounded up. Simple. There are only two truths possible in this situation; we want to capture him but can't find him because we don't know where he is or we know where he is but it's advantageous for the Administration to string this episode out further, risking the live of the American public for its' political gain. You tell me which one you want to believe. Either the Administration has failed in its' attempts to find and capture Bin Laden or they are risking American lives by delaying the process. There's no third way.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #124 May 22, 2003 QuoteWell...the intel types have learned to recognize patterns in commo traffic between AQ types. They don't have to know exactly what they are saying.....just the mere fact that certain elements are talking tells you a lot. When they see enough of this...it's time to raise the alert level. Wish I could be more specific....but I can't. Clay, I agree with that. I am using it as an example where there seem to be two standards. In one instance the comment is that AQ and OBL are not that important anymore, that they have been pushed to the margin. On the other hand, the fact is that AQ and OBL continue to have a profound and negative influence on the US and hence certainly seem to be perceived as a big threat. Those two things, in my mind, do not jive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #125 May 22, 2003 Basically we have cut off the original heads of AQ. The problem is...new ones are springing up every day. It's a very fluid organization. As I said earlier...terror ops don't take an extreme amount of logistics to carry out. So it's not like they need a genious to run things. Leaders in terror organizations are easily replaceable. That's the real problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
