Where's Osama?

[Votingisanillusion]

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oussama_Ben_Laden

<< D'après l'expert français Eric Denece, les commandos français en Afghanistan ont eu pendant la première quinzaine de septembre 2004 Oussama Ben Laden de visu dans leurs jumelles longue distance. Cependant, prévenues, les forces étatsuniennes leur auraient demandé de ne pas intervenir. >>

On the french equivalent of PBS (France 5; and later on the french equivalent of NPR: France Inter), Eric Denécé, the french intelligence expert most interviewed by the french media (because he unofficially represents the french Dod, having worked there as an intel expert, and now heading a special ops journal for the french DoD) said that french commandos saw Osama Bin Laden through their long range googles in september 2004, but US forces asked them not to intervene.

I saw Eric Denécé when he said this (on the serious politics talk show "C' dans l'air"). I was not really surprised. Osama has too much to say about the CIA and the talibans and their drug deals, the Bush family's business links with his family, the CIA and ISI and 9/11,...
Just like Saddam: still no public trial to let him talk about how the CIA helped him rise to power, how Rumsfeld and the US military industry helped him build a very powerful army back in the days, how the US told him he could invade Koweit without fear of retaliation,...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Give what up? You're losing it, Cyclo. You have yet to answer your contradictory stance.

So now I'm not allowed to have a nuanced position? Hypocrite.

Answer the question, Cyclo.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts

Interesting, then we shouldn't have killed Saddam's son's?

We should've left Saddam in his snake pit hole?

Gotcha, more like "selective man-hunts".

:thumbsup:

The killing of Saddam's sons were carried more out of revenge/zeal than anything. There was no clear/established connection between Uday and Qusay to the post-war mayhem. Yet they were killed in a "shootout" and their bodies paraded on tv as an illusion of the U.S. military gaining the upper hand amid the chaos.

If this war has taught the people of the world anything, it's that America's foreign policy is grade-one hypocrisy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: dahunan
Osama was all that Bush and the Neocons needed to Rape Iraq...

He has no value whatsoever anymore.. he is only important when Bush needs some support at the voting booth or some help in the Polls

Interesting to see how you forget to mention the fact that it was Saddam who literally raped his country for decades. Also interesting to see that you don't mention that we liberated the rape rooms, we freed the children who were imprisoned and we have set up a democratic government.

We have more good for Iraq than the loud mouth Europeans or the corrupt UN could do all these years.

Since when did Americans give a fsck about the Iraqi's? Americans didn't support the invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi's, Americans supported it because the Dub and his cronies misled us into believing that he was a legitimate threat to the US along the lines of Bin Laden. Now we have Conservatives like Cyco Wizard and the likes stating that he doesn't care if we ever capture Bin Laden. Why, I guess because he already served his purpose and got Americans outraged enough to buy into the Neocons BS and set in motion our take over of Iraq and our domination of the Middle East.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
So now I'm not allowed to have a nuanced position? Hypocrite.

Answer the question, Cyclo.[/quote]
You want to act like a child? I asked you first. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Again, hypocrite.

 

[conjur]

:roll:


Answer the question, Cyclo. Why are you taking contradictory stances re: containment of bin Laden vs. Saddam?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

Answer the question, Cyclo. Why are you taking contradictory stances re: containment of bin Laden vs. Saddam?

He'll never answer your question. All he knows how to do is spew personal rhetoric.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Since when did Americans give a fsck about the Iraqi's? Americans didn't support the invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi's, Americans supported it because the Dub and his cronies misled us into believing that he was a legitimate threat to the US along the lines of Bin Laden.

Now we have Conservatives like Cyco Wizard and the likes stating that he doesn't care if we ever capture Bin Laden.

Why, I guess because he already served his purpose and got Americans outraged enough to buy into the Neocons BS and set in motion our take over of Iraq and our domination of the Middle East.

:thumbsup:

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Give what up? You're losing it, Cyclo. You have yet to answer your contradictory stance.

So now I'm not allowed to have a nuanced position? Hypocrite.

Why can't you answer my simple question? You've posted four times without adding anything. Is it really that hard to use your brain? Surely you haven't been waxing intellectual all this time when, in reality, you've simply been regurgitating talking points from the latest political book?

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At least I'm willing to admit that I (and probably even our own gov't) has no clue as to what OBL's plans and/or capabilities are. You on the other hand, seem to be convinced that he has been effectively neutralized. I think that to be on the safe side, we should assume he's still very, very dangerous. It's the only logical thing to do.

You still haven't suggested what we should do with him if we were to catch him. I'm of the opinion that it's likely better that we just keep him holed up in nowheresville. You can have a different opinion, but mine isn't going to change until someone can present a good outcome of us actually catching the guy.

err...stopping other potential attacks?
if we dont know where he is and what he is doing, there is no secure way to keep more plans being enacted.
obviously, i recognize this man isnt All of Terrorism...but it would be, you know, good to get the guy who plotted and executed an attack on the unites states, on our soil, aimed at civilians.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Since when did Americans give a fsck about the Iraqi's? Americans didn't support the invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi's, Americans supported it because the Dub and his cronies misled us into believing that he was a legitimate threat to the US along the lines of Bin Laden.

Now we have Conservatives like Cyco Wizard and the likes stating that he doesn't care if we ever capture Bin Laden.

Why, I guess because he already served his purpose and got Americans outraged enough to buy into the Neocons BS and set in motion our take over of Iraq and our domination of the Middle East.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Since when did Americans give a fsck about the Iraqi's? Americans didn't support the invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi's, Americans supported it because the Dub and his cronies misled us into believing that he was a legitimate threat to the US along the lines of Bin Laden.

Now we have Conservatives like Cyco Wizard and the likes stating that he doesn't care if we ever capture Bin Laden.

Why, I guess because he already served his purpose and got Americans outraged enough to buy into the Neocons BS and set in motion our take over of Iraq and our domination of the Middle East.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

I sense a Moonbeam moment coming. 😉

 

[conjur]

Records Show Man in LAX Plot Gave U.S. Key Terrorist Details (Ressam)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,6364275.story?coll=la-home-headlines

SEATTLE ? The would-be millennium bomber who crossed the border from Canada with a trunkload of explosive materials to blow up Los Angeles International Airport has instead blown holes in his former terrorist network, court documents and interviews show.

Since his conviction in 2001, Algerian expatriate Ahmed Ressam, 37, has provided information on more than 100 suspected terrorists, helped shut down clandestine Al Qaeda cells and exposed valuable organizational secrets of the global terrorist network.

[...]

Interviews with investigators and counter-terrorism officials, as well as documents filed by federal prosecutors, confirm significant details entered in the court record by Ressam's lawyers. Much of the defense argument about the value of information Ressam provided is undisputed by prosecutors in their briefs.

Defense lawyers offered more details than prosecutors in their campaign to win a reduced sentence for Ressam. In one memorandum, they suggest that before Ressam began cooperating in the summer of 2001, U.S. authorities incorrectly focused on Osama bin Laden as the sole mastermind of all Islamic terrorist operations against the U.S.

"It is our understanding that based on Mr. Ressam's information, the intelligence-gathering community confirmed for the first time that the Afghanistan training camps did not operate under the sole authority of Osama bin Laden, but rather, involved a number of leaders and groups with similar objectives," defense lawyers said in documents arguing that Ressam's assistance warranted considerable leniency from the judge.

"This was important news to the intelligence community and was relayed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence," the lawyers said.

One U.S. counter-terrorism official familiar with the case confirmed that Ressam provided the FBI, CIA and other authorities with names and job descriptions of numerous terrorist leaders, who, like Bin Laden, were "emirs" who helped operate Afghan training camps to prepare their soldiers for jihadist missions in their homelands.

"That was one of the changes we had to look at," the U.S. official said. "He separated out the myth that everyone was Al Qaeda. Everyone [in the U.S. government] wanted to say everything was Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Ressam told us it wasn't like that, that it was different bunches of guys that wanted to go off and do their own [stuff]."

The U.S. official cited Abu Musab Zarqawi and London-based Abu Doha as examples of such leaders. But he said there were others, and that many of them remained at large and intent on attacking U.S. interests here and abroad.

So, even before 9/11 happened, this administration was aware the bin Laden was not the sole architect behind terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. Yet, after 9/11, all we heard from the Propagandist was Osama, Osama, Osama and how we were going to "smoke him out" and catch him "dead or alive". This administration *knew* how dangerous Zarqawi was and even had *multiple* chances to capture or attack him at that camp in Northern Iraq that was in Kurdish territory and protected by the northern U.S. no-fly zone. Oh, the MIHOP and LIHOP folks are going to have a *field* day with this! Sure does seem to point a tainted finger at this administration as far as what it knew and when.

They also indicate that senior Bush administration law enforcement and intelligence officials remain convinced that Islamic terrorist organizations pose a grave threat to U.S. interests here and abroad despite four years of aggressive measures.

In an interview, Assistant U.S. Atty. Robin Baker said she could not comment on any aspect of the Ressam case given the pending sentencing hearing, and other prosecutors and defense lawyers also have declined to make statements.

For the last four years, authorities have shielded even the most routine details of Ressam's cooperation agreement from public disclosure. It was signed several weeks after his conviction in Los Angeles on charges that could have brought 130 years in prison.

Of course, keep all of this on the down-low. The American people don't need to know the truth about the "wars" being waged.

Ressam started by naming specific terrorists in Al Qaeda and other groups, including some ? like recently convicted Zacarias Moussaoui ? whom he recognized from his stints at two training camps in Afghanistan.

One of those camps was supervised by Doha, who was in charge of sending Al Qaeda recruits to Afghanistan from Europe, Ressam said. The information was used by the Justice Department to indict Doha in the summer of 2001, the documents show.

Ressam told authorities how terrorist groups financed their activities, recruited and trained operatives, and maintained global networks of sleeper cells, his defense lawyers said in their court papers.

By midsummer 2001, Ressam began providing intelligence of a more general nature about how Al Qaeda was preparing an attack on U.S. soil, at a time when the CIA was insisting that all of its intelligence pointed to a strike somewhere overseas.

Ressam's warnings didn't say when or where such an attack or attacks would occur, according to court briefs, but they were credible enough ? and sufficiently alarming ? to be included in the now-infamous briefing paper given to President Bush five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

It was Ressam's information that supported the briefing paper's title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

After the suicide hijackings killed about 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, Ressam became the object of more intense interest to the FBI, CIA and foreign governments concerned about possible attacks.

What? This administration knew more detailed information behind that Aug. PDB and *still* did nothing to track down terrorists in this country? Well, Ashcroft did his part, though. He started flying private jets instead of flying commercial.

Hmmmm.....

 

[StageLeft]

Since when did Americans give a fsck about the Iraqi's? Americans didn't support the invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi's, Americans supported it because the Dub and his cronies misled us into believing that he was a legitimate threat to the US along the lines of Bin Laden.

That is true, and pretending that people do care abotu Iraqis is a coping measure to rationalize the fact that the US went to war with a country that posed no immediate or even semi-immediate threat to the US.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At least I'm willing to admit that I (and probably even our own gov't) has no clue as to what OBL's plans and/or capabilities are. You on the other hand, seem to be convinced that he has been effectively neutralized. I think that to be on the safe side, we should assume he's still very, very dangerous. It's the only logical thing to do.

You still haven't suggested what we should do with him if we were to catch him. I'm of the opinion that it's likely better that we just keep him holed up in nowheresville. You can have a different opinion, but mine isn't going to change until someone can present a good outcome of us actually catching the guy.

Why does it matter what we do when we catch him? The whole POINT is catching him in the first place. My guess is we'd either: A) Disappear him somewhere into a military prison, B) Put him on trial and throw his ass in jail forever, or C) Put him on trial and execute him.

I suppose you're entitled to your misguided opinion concerning the alleged containment of Bin Ladin, however I would remind you that Clinton probably thought he had OBL contained in Afghanistan and that he was more or les marginalized there.

How wrong of an assessment was that?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:


Answer the question, Cyclo. Why are you taking contradictory stances re: containment of bin Laden vs. Saddam?

I asked you first. I learned how to be a stubborn idiot from the best - you. If you can't answer my simple question, I'm not going to give you the pleasure of answering yours. Mine was a much easier question - shouldn't take more than two or three lines. Of course, this assumes you can think for yourself. I have yet to observe this behavior from you, which is why I put the question forth in the first place. You're not the only one with a huge e-penis here - it would do you good to learn some humility the way you try to teach it to others. If you're not going to, then chew on your and begone.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why does it matter what we do when we catch him? The whole POINT is catching him in the first place. My guess is we'd either: A) Disappear him somewhere into a military prison, B) Put him on trial and throw his ass in jail forever, or C) Put him on trial and execute him.

Because what we do with him when we catch him is exactly what matters. These actions will have a very dramatic impact on subsequent events, with respect to Muslims and the community at large. People here are claiming they want to catch him for the sake of justice. How do any of your proposals achieve justice?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why does it matter what we do when we catch him? The whole POINT is catching him in the first place. My guess is we'd either: A) Disappear him somewhere into a military prison, B) Put him on trial and throw his ass in jail forever, or C) Put him on trial and execute him.

Because what we do with him when we catch him is exactly what matters. These actions will have a very dramatic impact on subsequent events, with respect to Muslims and the community at large. People here are claiming they want to catch him for the sake of justice. How do any of your proposals achieve justice?

A Public Stoning in Times Square. Trust me the Muslims will understand.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:


Answer the question, Cyclo. Why are you taking contradictory stances re: containment of bin Laden vs. Saddam?

I asked you first. I learned how to be a stubborn idiot from the best - you. If you can't answer my simple question, I'm not going to give you the pleasure of answering yours. Mine was a much easier question - shouldn't take more than two or three lines. Of course, this assumes you can think for yourself. I have yet to observe this behavior from you, which is why I put the question forth in the first place. You're not the only one with a huge e-penis here - it would do you good to learn some humility the way you try to teach it to others. If you're not going to, then chew on your and begone.

What question? I've been pointing out your contradiction throughout this whole thread yet you continue to divert.

Oh yeah, what else would a self-admitted troll do? Why do I bother wasting my time with worthless drecks like you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:


Answer the question, Cyclo. Why are you taking contradictory stances re: containment of bin Laden vs. Saddam?

I asked you first. I learned how to be a stubborn idiot from the best - you. If you can't answer my simple question, I'm not going to give you the pleasure of answering yours. Mine was a much easier question - shouldn't take more than two or three lines. Of course, this assumes you can think for yourself. I have yet to observe this behavior from you, which is why I put the question forth in the first place. You're not the only one with a huge e-penis here - it would do you good to learn some humility the way you try to teach it to others. If you're not going to, then chew on your and begone.

What question? I've been pointing out your contradiction throughout this whole thread yet you continue to divert.

Oh yeah, what else would a self-admitted troll do? Why do I bother wasting my time with worthless drecks like you?

Same reason he wastes his time with you. Attention.

 

[conjur]

Nope...I'm just trying to get him to answer a simple question. I'd truly like to know his justification for supporting containment of bin Laden but not of Saddam.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
What question? I've been pointing out your contradiction throughout this whole thread yet you continue to divert.

Oh yeah, what else would a self-admitted troll do? Why do I bother wasting my time with worthless drecks like you?

The same thing I asked you back on page 1 of this thread before you started with your grand diversion. The same thing that started your grand diversion, since you couldn't answer it without saying "blah blah blah Bush sucks." You waste your time with me because you want to see what it's like when someone actually puts a cogent response together, something you've never accomplished in all your years here.

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it? It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

You posted some BS link to the White House. I asked for YOUR logical response rather than you simply passing the buck to someone else for them to do your thinking for you. Until you can respond to this, piss off.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Nope...I'm just trying to get him to answer a simple question. I'd truly like to know his justification for supporting containment of bin Laden but not of Saddam.

If you guys ignored each other like you say you were going too threads like this wouldn't turn into a personal sh!t slinging match as often as they do.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
What question? I've been pointing out your contradiction throughout this whole thread yet you continue to divert.

Oh yeah, what else would a self-admitted troll do? Why do I bother wasting my time with worthless drecks like you?

The same thing I asked you back on page 1 of this thread before you started with your grand diversion. The same thing that started your grand diversion, since you couldn't answer it without saying "blah blah blah Bush sucks." You waste your time with me because you want to see what it's like when someone actually puts a cogent response together, something you've never accomplished in all your years here.

I answered your question to me in the post RIGHT AFTER it!

Are you blind?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
What question? I've been pointing out your contradiction throughout this whole thread yet you continue to divert.

Oh yeah, what else would a self-admitted troll do? Why do I bother wasting my time with worthless drecks like you?

The same thing I asked you back on page 1 of this thread before you started with your grand diversion. The same thing that started your grand diversion, since you couldn't answer it without saying "blah blah blah Bush sucks." You waste your time with me because you want to see what it's like when someone actually puts a cogent response together, something you've never accomplished in all your years here.

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it? It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

You posted some BS link to the White House. I asked for YOUR logical response rather than you simply passing the buck to someone else for them to do your thinking for you. Until you can respond to this, piss off.

He didn't respond because I answered your BS that is not in the form of a question really:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts

Interesting, then we shouldn't have killed Saddam's son's?

We should've left Saddam in his snake pit hole?

Gotcha, more like "selective man-hunts".

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
I answered your question to me in the post RIGHT AFTER it!

Are you blind?

You said "No, it wasn't", then posted some link. Why don't you try to explain WHY I'm wrong? Is it really that hard?

This is like me answering your question "Why do you support containment for bin Laden and not Saddam" with "Because."