Bin Laden didn't think U.S. would react militarily after 9/11

[heartsurgeon]

i thyink when the entire report gets posted somewhere...maybe it's out, i haven't read it yet..

there's gpoing to be lots of stuff that's unsaviory...

i thought this finding was intrigiung...

Mr bin Laden, who had repeatedly pressed to bring forward the date of the attacks, disregarded fears among his advisers and the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan that the US would respond with a military attack

gee...i wonder if Clinton's treating the USS Cole bombing as a "FBI/Law Enforcement" issue gave him that belief...makes you wonder how Kerry's assertion that terrorism should be primarily dealt with as a Law Enforcement issue rather than military, would play into future Bin Laden plans...

food for thought..

dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i thyink when the entire report gets posted somewhere...maybe it's out, i haven't read it yet..

there's gpoing to be lots of stuff that's unsaviory...

i thought this finding was intrigiung...

Mr bin Laden, who had repeatedly pressed to bring forward the date of the attacks, disregarded fears among his advisers and the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan that the US would respond with a military attack

gee...i wonder if Clinton's treating the USS Cole bombing as a "FBI/Law Enforcement" issue gave him that belief...makes you wonder how Kerry's assertion that terrorism should be primarily dealt with as a Law Enforcement issue rather than military, would play into future Bin Laden plans...

food for thought..

dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

And how long was Clinton in office after the USS Cole was attacked?

Also, do you have a link to the story you pulled the quote from? It sounds like an interesting read.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i thyink when the entire report gets posted somewhere...maybe it's out, i haven't read it yet..

there's gpoing to be lots of stuff that's unsaviory...

i thought this finding was intrigiung...

Mr bin Laden, who had repeatedly pressed to bring forward the date of the attacks, disregarded fears among his advisers and the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan that the US would respond with a military attack

gee...i wonder if Clinton's treating the USS Cole bombing as a "FBI/Law Enforcement" issue gave him that belief...makes you wonder how Kerry's assertion that terrorism should be primarily dealt with as a Law Enforcement issue rather than military, would play into future Bin Laden plans...

food for thought..

dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

To argue otherwise, from your lack of vision, would be to side with Bin Laden. Not everybody is so myopic.

 

[glenn1]

n/m

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year, but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year, but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

Talk with a lot of terrorists, do you?

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year,

Yep, exactly what I think.

but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

Like what?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year, but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

Amen

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i thyink when the entire report gets posted somewhere...maybe it's out, i haven't read it yet..

there's gpoing to be lots of stuff that's unsaviory...

i thought this finding was intrigiung...

Mr bin Laden, who had repeatedly pressed to bring forward the date of the attacks, disregarded fears among his advisers and the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan that the US would respond with a military attack

gee...i wonder if Clinton's treating the USS Cole bombing as a "FBI/Law Enforcement" issue gave him that belief...makes you wonder how Kerry's assertion that terrorism should be primarily dealt with as a Law Enforcement issue rather than military, would play into future Bin Laden plans...

food for thought..

dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

Great, more insane ramblings from our own human crap factory:roll: How about the Bush administrating acting like the USS Cole never happened? They didn't take any action at all. They didn't capture the those responsible until May 1st, 2003!!! OOOH, timely capture guys. It was a problem they inherited from Clinton, and like all problems inherited from Clinton, they ignored it.

It should be obvious that bin Laden WANTED a millitary response. In his mind, that wasn't a waring, it was a blessing. All he needed was a western power to invade a muslim country to give fervor to his movement. Here's a hint, somehow words carry more weight when they aren't completely bullsh1t. So Bush, as a result of his own incompetence, gave the average muslim the reason they needed to Heed bin Laden's word. We haven't even gotten to Iraq yet. Remember how many people (including americans!!) went to Afganistan to fight the US army?? Sounds to me like bin Laden was gaining clout. Then Iraq happened, and it must have given that bastard a priapism that persists until this day. Considering it was the biggest bone anybody had ever thrown Al Qaida. No amount of funding could have strenghthened that movement any more than our continuing blunders there. Not to mention our ultra-thin spread millitary gave him and his buddies another playground to blow up cars in.

If Kerry approaches the WOT as a law enforcement issue, then it immediately takes the weight from bin Laden's words. If we are BRINGING PEOPLE TO JUSTICE (note to the right-wingers justice!=torture, it's not an eye for an eye in the real world), instead of invading foreign powers that are KNOWN TO NOT HARBOR TERRORISM, then suddenly bin Laden's words become as empty as Bush's whenever he talks about domestic policy.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Also, do you have a link to the story you pulled the quote from? It sounds like an interesting read

'Bin Laden overruled Taliban leader to order assault'

Law enforcement to "solve" the terrorist problem...

they tried that with the first WTC bombing...
they tried that with the Cole....
they still haven't convicted Zacharias Moussaoui of anything, and they've had him from BEFORE 9/11,
do you wish to rise now and state you believe Moussaoui is an innocent?

use the courts to convict terrorists? you obviously have no actual knowledge of how the courts work in this country...the simplest of matters can take years to get resolved...as i indicated Mousaoui was apprehended before 9/11/2001....it's now 6/17/2004.....QED

 

[kylebisme]

of course he thought we would react militarily, that was obviously his motive.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Also, do you have a link to the story you pulled the quote from? It sounds like an interesting read

'Bin Laden overruled Taliban leader to order assault'

Law enforcement to "solve" the terrorist problem...

they tried that with the first WTC bombing...
they tried that with the Cole....
they still haven't convicted Zacharias Moussaoui of anything, and they've had him from BEFORE 9/11,
do you wish to rise now and state you believe Moussaoui is an innocent?

use the courts to convict terrorists? you obviously have no actual knowledge of how the courts work in this country...the simplest of matters can take years to get resolved...as i indicated Mousaoui was apprehended before 9/11/2001....it's now 6/17/2004.....QED

It takes years? Oh gee what a terrible problem that is. We need vigilante justice to speed things up. It is a fool who thinks that his freedoms are guaranteed who has no respect for the rights of others.

 

[Infohawk]

how come the media isn't playing this finding up??

Why do you want them to play this finding up more than it has been? Are you looking for a particular "spin." Respectable news is supposed to present facts, not spin them like Rush.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

how come the media isn't playing this finding up??

Why do you want them to play this finding up more than it has been? Are you looking for a particular "spin." Respectable news is supposed to present facts, not spin them like Rush.

Ah, just like they merely presented the facts of the prisoner abuse?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

how did they twist the prisoner abuse scandal? It seems to me like the gov't was trying to spin the situation to make it seem like only a few bad apples were to blame when the real problem lied further up in the chain of command.

 

[NeoV]

Bin Laden was never quoted as saying he didn't think we would respond with military force - it would appear to me he was simply telling the Taliban Sheep herd to quit worrying - I don't think, despite all of the things you can say about OBL, that he is/was stupid - of course we would react with military force - this wasn't blowing up a small boat in the side of a US ship, this was crashing airplanes into major US cities.

Amazing how Heart-wannabe-surgeon can look at everything as a right > left situation.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
how did they twist the prisoner abuse scandal? It seems to me like the gov't was trying to spin the situation to make it seem like only a few bad apples were to blame when the real problem lied further up in the chain of command.

That God-Damned Liberal Media made the prisoner abuse out to be a bad thing. We all know our soldiers were getting vital security information out of those murdering terrorist dogs, and sodomizing them is the best way to do that. For all we know God was whispering in those soldiers ears, telling them to put Iraqi untermenschen on leashes, just as God whispers into Bush's ear.

Zephyr

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tallest1
The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

Amen

Stupid argument. I'm sure 90% of the world would rob from the innocent if given the chance. I don't look to international majority to guide my sense of wrong vs. right.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tallest1
The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

Amen

Stupid argument. I'm sure 90% of the world would rob from the innocent if given the chance. I don't look to international majority to guide my sense of wrong vs. right.

Oh so Mr. Elitist here is in the worldwide 10% of moral supermen.

Zephyr

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Oh so Mr. Elitist here is in the worldwide 10% of moral supermen.

I'm not saying that, but I can think for myself (unlike the majority of liberals) and don't look for majority rule to tell me what's right. (And I don't see the title of Elitest as an insult.)

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year, but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

Or something very right.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
dare i say that pre-emption and a aggressive millitary posture willl prove to be a discouragement for other countries to host Bin Laden. To argue otherwise is to side with Bin Laden's reasoning....

The fact that the terrorist view George W Bush as their single greatest threat ought to tell you he's doing something right.

You'd think, given the opinions of the genius liberals on this forum, that the terrorists would be THRILLED to have G W back in office next year, but they seem to be doing whatever they can to make that not happen. Hmmmmmmm.

The fact that the entire world views George W Bush as their greatest threat ought to tell you hes doing something wrong

Or something very right.

So, uh, Hitler did the right thing by leading Nazi Germany?

 

[NeoV]

why is it that when more than one liberal opinion is shared, they can't think for themselves, but when conservatives align their ideas, the same thing doesn't apply?

Packistan appears to be hosting Bin Laden now, so I'm not sure the whole "pre-emptive" strike thing is a big deal to them...besides, after Osama is gone, people will still be plotting against us in countries that don't even know they are there...I think Bush is doing much to fuel that hatred too, of course not intentionally, but it is there nonetheless

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
....Bin Laden didn't think U.S. would react militarily after 9/11

and he was right. we didn't.

we attacked the taliban - who were just pawns or sidekicks who got suckered into a bad deal by providing OBL a staging post

we attacked Iraq and turned up nothing there... no WMD. no links with AQ... zilch

most of his money and 19 of the 20 hijackers came from Saudi.
the marines are still out there guarding the royal family of Saudi...
he himself is probably in Pakistan, who we just elevated to 'non-NATO ally' ... what a joke..!


boy..was he right or was he right?

 

[heartsurgeon]

and he was right. we didn't.

Please try reading the article (link provided) before posting. It might improve the relevance of what you chose to say.

relevance of this post to the current thread - 0