Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

2 years after - Do you feel safer? Options · View
elitfromnorth
Posted: Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:34:25 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,589
Location: Burrowed, Norway
It has now been a bit over 2 years since US special forces eliminated Osama bin Laden. The mastermind behind amongst others the embassy bombing and 9/11 is dead, but the question I wonder is; do you feel safer knowing that Osama bin Laden is dead?

Me, I don't at all. Not that I really feel like I'm in constant danger, however I can't say that I feel safer just because one dude is dead. Here's my arguments why: As they said on another documentary the last years of his life he hasn't really been that important to Al-Qaida in regards to the planning process. He has been the great leader and face outwards to the rest of the world, but just like the Queen of England he's had no real power other than a moral booster for his own troops.

Secondly, Al-Qaida isn't like a regular army when it comes to chain of command. It's mostly a group of splinter cells under one umbrella that gives them most of the funding and training, but they don't pick when and where the groups strike. Add to the fact that these cells are more than capable of functioning on their own.

Third, to be sucsessful a terrorist group doesn't have to make a new 9/11 scale bombing. Go into a mall, set off the bomb, make sure the Al-Qaida name is on it and you'll have people terrified for months. That's their goal, to make civilians scared, and they don't need a clear chain of command to do so.

So Lushies, how about you?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Highwayman
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:30:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/10/2012
Posts: 1,498
No, because the US deist doctrines are still in place. The US depends on the age old rhetoric that it's right, and can finance it's agenda against the horde. Even when it can't figure it out, and is still dependent upon the populace to be as equally fervent.

‎"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --Wilde
stickmancqb
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:03:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/6/2012
Posts: 91
Location: Texas, United States
No I do not. Since 9/11, the US federal government is more of a threat than any terrorist organization.
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:17:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
It has now been a bit over 2 years since US special forces eliminated Osama bin Laden. The mastermind behind amongst others the embassy bombing and 9/11 is dead, but the question I wonder is; do you feel safer knowing that Osama bin Laden is dead?


From the point of view of incapacitating Al Qaeda, Al Zawahiri was the more important leader. He was the real brains behind the operation and has a long history going back to a major part in the assassination of Sadat.

From the point of view of winding down the counterproductive war on terror and applying counter terrorism techniques that have proven most effective, I think it was a win. It seems more likely than not that Bin Laden had been allowed to escape the Torra Borra deliberately as he provided a useful pretext for advancing the neo-con crowd's broader imperial ambitions. It would have been much harder to invade Iraq with Bin Laden dead.

The Republicans were certainly very angry after Bin Laden was killed and they certainly put scant effort into doing it themselves. Now that Bin Laden is dead the US can close the remaining idiocies of Bush's misrule. The gulag in Guantanamo for a start.

Back in the 1970s the UK and German both faced a terrorist threat. The UK initially tried the 'Rambo' approach favored by the US post 9/11 and ended up fighting the Catholic community that the troops had originally been sent in to protect. Germany could not apply the same approach for historical reasons and was forced to treat the Baader Meinhof gang as purely a police matter.

By 1974 it was obvious that the German approach was more effective. Northern Ireland went from bad to worse while the Baader Meinhof gang was marginalized and on the run. The UK government formally switched to a policy of decriminalization and the number of deaths due to terrorism dropped to a third year on year and stayed there or lower. It was a big mistake for the US to ever create a special class of political prisoner as the Bush Admin did.

Warlock
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:33:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
The enemy is within...
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:08:11 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
No, I don't, but then, I didn't expect to. Killing that guy was of symbolic importance, and I get why. But I didn't feel like another attack was imminent before he got whacked, and I don't feel like we're insulated from it now that he's dead.

I am glad that bastard was made into fish food though, and I'm glad his last moments were those of a holed-up coward.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:20:53 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:


From the point of view of incapacitating Al Qaeda, Al Zawahiri was the more important leader. He was the real brains behind the operation and has a long history going back to a major part in the assassination of Sadat.

From the point of view of winding down the counterproductive war on terror and applying counter terrorism techniques that have proven most effective, I think it was a win. It seems more likely than not that Bin Laden had been allowed to escape the Torra Borra deliberately as he provided a useful pretext for advancing the neo-con crowd's broader imperial ambitions.




I don't like conservatism any more than the next guy (which, for many, means not at all), but is your whole worldview dependent upon the diabolical, dastardly Republicans and their evil plans? I'm sure you and I could rattle off a similar list of corporations, individuals, and conglomerates that supposedly rule the world and its money*. But at the end of the day, do you really believe that neo-conservatives could or would provide escape for Bin Laden in order to kill him later, in accordance with their political whims? Do you think maybe he was cool with that too, and they all had a few whiskey shots and laughed at the suckers who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the whole "9-11" bit? What a fool he was when they finally shot him, in that case.



*although, if you believe any of that 'the real power beyond the politics' narrative, you also know that the Democrats are no cleaner than the Republicans.
Warlock
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:09:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
Anyone who believes Bin Laden was the mastermind and undeniable leader of world terrorism is delusional.. he was a distraction..
Buz
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:47:18 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,189
Location: Atlanta, United States
We are not any safer, though many plots may have been foiled from the data the Seals recovered at the scene where bin Laden was killed. But many more plots are probably being hatched right now.

I scoff at the idea that the neo-cons have a more dastardly plan for the world than do the commie-libs. They are a two headed snake with one body.

Replace oil with a new energy source and Al Qiaida and their hatefilled ignorant part of the world will be rendered impotent.

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:21:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
LadyX wrote:

I don't like conservatism any more than the next guy (which, for many, means not at all), but is your whole worldview dependent upon the diabolical, dastardly Republicans and their evil plans? I'm sure you and I could rattle off a similar list of corporations, individuals, and conglomerates that supposedly rule the world and its money*. But at the end of the day, do you really believe that neo-conservatives could or would provide escape for Bin Laden in order to kill him later, in accordance with their political whims? Do you think maybe he was cool with that too, and they all had a few whiskey shots and laughed at the suckers who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the whole "9-11" bit? What a fool he was when they finally shot him, in that case.


Yes, I do believe that they wanted to keep Bin Laden alive:

1) They lied to us all about the invasion of Iraq.
2) The Neo-cons believed that 'real men want to go onto Tehran', i.e. they would invade Iran after Iraq.
3) Bush refused to deploy ground troops at the Tora Bora despite warnings that Bin Laden would escape.

Now we can argue the extent to which this was a desired outcome or merely an outcome that they saw a side benefit to. But they did far worse.

LadySharon
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:29:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/5/2007
Posts: 2,060
Location: The Tundra, United States
Not for one second.

The Roommates Trilogy:
Roommates with Benefits
Roommates with Benefits: Snowed In
Roommates with Benefits: The Working Vacation is now available for your reading pleasure

Look for the eBook version of Roommates with Benefits to come soon!
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:49:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
LadySharon wrote:
Not for one second.


Do you feel less safe now than we were during the cold war when the US and USSR came close to mutual nuclear annihilation a few times?

In the 1970s liberal democracy was limited to former parts of the British empire, countries liberated by the Western powers after WWII and a handful of regimes that mostly lasted only a few years before they were blotted out by military coup. The world was not a safe or secure place either. Pol Pot was murdering millions, the military juntas in South America were murdering tens of thousands and the Soviet Union was a murderous dictatorship.

Today there is only one regime left that is Stalinist, North Korea. NK is the only regime where there is a serious risk of a murder of millions of people or a Mao like mass starvation. There are a handful of brutal authoritarian states but they are all waning in influence. Iran has two friends left, one of which is on the losing end of a civil war, the other is only just emerging from a civil war. Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Caspian sea region are all pretty ugly but life for most people in the rest of the world is a lot more free than life for black people in the US during the 1960s.

I have lived with the threat of terrorism my whole life. I have not lost any family members but one was targeted in an assassination attempt. Next to the other threats the threat of terrorism is really small.

More people died in Newtown than in all the terrorist attacks in the US this year. More under 6s have died this year because their parents did not keep their guns locked up than died in Newtown.

The whole objective of terrorism is to have a disproportionate effect by making people worry about terrorists. To worry about it is to give in.

Metilda
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:03:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/10/2013
Posts: 754
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:


Do you feel less safe now than we were during the cold war when the US and USSR came close to mutual nuclear annihilation a few times?

In the 1970s liberal democracy was limited to former parts of the British empire, countries liberated by the Western powers after WWII and a handful of regimes that mostly lasted only a few years before they were blotted out by military coup. The world was not a safe or secure place either. Pol Pot was murdering millions, the military juntas in South America were murdering tens of thousands and the Soviet Union was a murderous dictatorship.

Today there is only one regime left that is Stalinist, North Korea. NK is the only regime where there is a serious risk of a murder of millions of people or a Mao like mass starvation. There are a handful of brutal authoritarian states but they are all waning in influence. Iran has two friends left, one of which is on the losing end of a civil war, the other is only just emerging from a civil war. Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Caspian sea region are all pretty ugly but life for most people in the rest of the world is a lot more free than life for black people in the US during the 1960s.

I have lived with the threat of terrorism my whole life. I have not lost any family members but one was targeted in an assassination attempt. Next to the other threats the threat of terrorism is really small.

More people died in Newtown than in all the terrorist attacks in the US this year. More under 6s have died this year because their parents did not keep their guns locked up than died in Newtown.

The whole objective of terrorism is to have a disproportionate effect by making people worry about terrorists. To worry about it is to give in.


No - the objective of terrorism is to exert your influence over political or other means by threats of violence - either suggested or acted upon.

It is not to make people worry about it . . . seems outright silly to suggest that. How are you to counter act anyone who's trying to do wrong if you're not worried in some slight bit?

Worry breeds awareness, safety and concern.

Seems that what you're wanting to say (perhaps) is that you shouldn't let it dictate your life to an infinitive degree . . . which defaults me into the 'fail' category seeing as how my family is military.

Available as an ebook through All Romance, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, iBooks, and others.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:54:24 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,188
Location: United States
There are still people planning terrorist attacks and plotting our destruction, but Osama bin Laden is no longer among them. The world feels like a better place without him to me. What I'd like to know is whether the Bush family and the bin Laden family are still close, and why, if bin Laden and fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi, did the Bush administration insist that it was Iraq's fault.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:12:02 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,589
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Metilda wrote:


No - the objective of terrorism is to exert your influence over political or other means by threats of violence - either suggested or acted upon.

It is not to make people worry about it . . . seems outright silly to suggest that. How are you to counter act anyone who's trying to do wrong if you're not worried in some slight bit?

Worry breeds awareness, safety and concern.

Seems that what you're wanting to say (perhaps) is that you shouldn't let it dictate your life to an infinitive degree . . . which defaults me into the 'fail' category seeing as how my family is military.


So you are all for the patriot act thingy, reduction of free speech, that the level for having a warrant for wire tapping your phone and knowing every site you visit on the interent, registiring every little file you download, is pretty much slim to none. Not to mention the fear of terrorism bringing on Guantanamo Bay and removing the human rights of people based simply on a "hunch".

All the freedoms that we have given up in order to be "safe" are in fact a series of victories for the terrorists.

And Ruthie, Osama bin Laden has pretty much been ostrochised from the rest of the family when he was branded as a terrorist. He also started going against the US after he saw his own country(Saudi Arabia) get in closer with the US, something he at all didn't like(mostly because his interests got lost when Saudi Arabia turned to the US after the Mekka attack).

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Metilda
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:24:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/10/2013
Posts: 754
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


So you are all for the patriot act thingy, reduction of free speech, that the level for having a warrant for wire tapping your phone and knowing every site you visit on the interent, registiring every little file you download, is pretty much slim to none. Not to mention the fear of terrorism bringing on Guantanamo Bay and removing the human rights of people based simply on a "hunch".

All the freedoms that we have given up in order to be "safe" are in fact a series of victories for the terrorists.

And Ruthie, Osama bin Laden has pretty much been ostrochised from the rest of the family when he was branded as a terrorist. He also started going against the US after he saw his own country(Saudi Arabia) get in closer with the US, something he at all didn't like(mostly because his interests got lost when Saudi Arabia turned to the US after the Mekka attack).


Interesting that you conjured this up from your imagination and then tried to apply it to my post - which pointed to none of the above.

Available as an ebook through All Romance, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, iBooks, and others.
kylie_kained
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:15:06 PM

Rank: Detention Seeker

Joined: 8/17/2010
Posts: 994
Location: Over your Knee Screaming and Kicking!, United King
I don't feel safe at all after Drummer Lee Rigby was hacked to death in Woolwich London by two Muslim extremists outside his own barracks wearing a help the heroes t-shirt. Where might they strike next?
















ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:15:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Metilda wrote:


No - the objective of terrorism is to exert your influence over political or other means by threats of violence - either suggested or acted upon.

It is not to make people worry about it . . . seems outright silly to suggest that. How are you to counter act anyone who's trying to do wrong if you're not worried in some slight bit?

Worry breeds awareness, safety and concern.

Seems that what you're wanting to say (perhaps) is that you shouldn't let it dictate your life to an infinitive degree . . . which defaults me into the 'fail' category seeing as how my family is military.


Since someone brought up tin foil hat theories a while back, it seems a good time to point out that I know Joe Nye quite well. He is one of the three chairs of the trilateral commission that gets talked about rather a lot in tin foil hat circles.

Nye is best known for his concept of 'soft-power'. The gist of the idea being that it is impossible to explain the flow of world history by military power alone since most of the time conflicts are settled without war. So there is another ingredient that has to be considered, the US has outsided influence beyond its military capability because of Hollywood and Wall Street and the work fo the State department and so on.

Terrorism is a strategy of groups that are weak in hard power. The whole of Al Qaeda at its peak was barely 300 fighters they have light arms and not much else. Their ability to influence governments comes from soft power - the fear that their attacks on civilians creates.

When I say don't worry I mean that the general public should keep calm and carry on, not that governments should ignore terrorist attacks and do nothing about them. But governments also need to make sure that they act in the right way and that they don't compromise their own soft power by taking actions that are hasty like the disastrous internment order of Ted Heath back in 1971 or the Patriot act or invading Iraq.

Robbyreign
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:49:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2010
Posts: 149
Location: United States
Media propaganda... Not sure he is dead probably held in some secret prison that's what I would have done with him. He may have not been of major importance to Al Qaeda but his links to them were a high value.
Kitanica
Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:14:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 883
Location: The Sprawl, United States
was I supposed to feel unsafe before his death? I've never lived a day of my life afraid of something like that lol.
Muslim extremists aren't much worse than our Westburo extremists. Just louder..

alqaeda was never in a position to destroy america. Anyone who fears terrorists is playing into their game 1 and 2 simply silly for believing in a bierded turban wearing boogeyman. Terrorism: there's a -app- drone for that. Your more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. I'd rather have alcohol gone than spend millions funding a war over some worthless patch of holy dirt on the otherside of the earth to get rid of people who have different views. People living in Afghanistan, Yemen, and other hotbeds have way more to worry about than we do. I'm not in any danger, they're the ones who are forced to live in fear. It's sad.

But I guess I'm getting off track, no I don't feel any safer, because I never felt threatened in the first place. It's impossible to feel safer if I already feel 100% safe.

kylie_kained wrote:
I don't feel safe at all after Drummer Lee Rigby was hacked to death in Woolwich London by two Muslim extremists outside his own barracks wearing a help the heroes t-shirt. Where might they strike next?


Most likely London again. All the crowd did was watch and videotape it. There just as guilty as the 2 men that killed him for doing nothing. It's evident to criminals you can get away with pretty much whatever you want over there considering no ones going to even try to stop them. If the bad guys polite enough they'll stand and have a concersation with him as hes chopping someone up. angry7 it's shameful.

If you go and watch the videos that arent edited a woman walks by him covered in blood
nonchalantly. Sprang even care that he has two knives. That angered me more than the murder.
wjackl
Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:04:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 6/11/2011
Posts: 54
Location: United States
For one I believe he is dead and am glad for it. My only regret was his death was fast and easy, far better than he deserved. Vermin need to die!
ByronLord
Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:17:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Kitanica wrote:
Most likely London again. All the crowd did was watch and videotape it. There just as guilty as the 2 men that killed him for doing nothing. It's evident to criminals you can get away with pretty much whatever you want over there considering no ones going to even try to stop them. If the bad guys polite enough they'll stand and have a concersation with him as hes chopping someone up. angry7 it's shameful.

If you go and watch the videos that arent edited a woman walks by him covered in blood
nonchalantly. Sprang even care that he has two knives. That angered me more than the murder.


They also called the police. Calling the police and taking video and doing nothing else is exactly what the London authorities would want people to do in that situation.

They certainly do not want unarmed members of the public trying to apprehend someone who is obviously violent and dangerous.

One woman asked if she could try to save the soldier's life but it was clear he was already dead.

Taking video of a murderer caught red handed would seem to me to be exactly the right thing to do. Armed police arrived promptly and had no difficulty arresting the suspects.

DLizze
Posted: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:21:30 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,521
Kitanica said, "It's impossible to feel safer if I already feel 100% safe."

I tend to agree. I worry more about being hit by lightning that being the victim of a terrorist action. And I worry a great deal more about being the victim of some stupid anti-terrorist or some other drummed-up excuse for vitiating my Constitutional rights.

In other words, I am far more fearful of the United States government than any other organization or nation. Then again, look at the eras I lived through: McCarthyism; the Vietnam "Police Action" Draft; Nixon's famous BS, "I am not a crook"; the deaths of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. So which incident should make me feel more fearful: an attack on a couple of buildings, far removed both in income and physical location from me, or the draft notice I received on April 2, 1963?

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Guest
Posted: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:49:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
stickmancqb wrote:
No I do not. Since 9/11, the US federal government is more of a threat than any terrorist organization.


The US Government is the worst threat to Americans, followed by the state governments and LEOs.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:29:17 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
Bin Laden died @ Tora Bora in December 2001.

Stick that in your tin foil pipe and smoke it.

I didn't feel any more in danger on 09/12/2001 - from Bin Laden than I do now. He was a CIA asset in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the good bad guys or the bad good guys - or what the fuck ever. Why was his entire family allowed to fly out of the USA while the rest of the US domestic air fleet was grounded?

It's the US Government I worry more about than any other individual or government on this planet.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:22:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Bin Laden died @ Tora Bora in December 2001.

Stick that in your tin foil pipe and smoke it.

I didn't feel any more in danger on 09/12/2001 - from Bin Laden than I do now. He was a CIA asset in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the good bad guys or the bad good guys - or what the fuck ever. Why was his entire family allowed to fly out of the USA while the rest of the US domestic air fleet was grounded?

It's the US Government I worry more about than any other individual or government on this planet.


Bin Laden was never CIA your sources are wrong.

When Carter first began discussions with the Saudis on funding the Afghani rebels, the Saudis said they would match the US dollar for dollar. The Saudis needed a bag man to carry the money into Afghanistan. Since no Saudi Prince would do anything so close to actual work Bin Laden got the job.

There was never a reason for the CIA to send money through Bin Laden. They had their own clients.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:17:00 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
ByronLord wrote:


Bin Laden was never CIA your sources are wrong.

When Carter first began discussions with the Saudis on funding the Afghani rebels, the Saudis said they would match the US dollar for dollar. The Saudis needed a bag man to carry the money into Afghanistan. Since no Saudi Prince would do anything so close to actual work Bin Laden got the job.

There was never a reason for the CIA to send money through Bin Laden. They had their own clients.


Everybody else is wrong, and only you with your vague assertions - are correct?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/afghanistan.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/28/bin-laden-and-the-cia/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/10/gordon-duff-classified-cia-transcript-counters-bin-laden-terror-role/

Google: Bin Laden CIA asset - and 12 pages of returns comes up. Many repeat the same basic assertion, often repeated since 2002. Several will insist that the CIA had nothing to do with Bin Laden, I assert that those are CIA plastered websites.

I prefer to believe the 2nd version I've listed above from Alexander Cockburn's site.

But then again, I haven't rubbed shoulders with all the movers and shakers of world politics as you have constantly implied that you have, Forrest.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:08:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


Everybody else is wrong, and only you with your vague assertions - are correct?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/afghanistan.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/28/bin-laden-and-the-cia/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/10/gordon-duff-classified-cia-transcript-counters-bin-laden-terror-role/

Google: Bin Laden CIA asset - and 12 pages of returns comes up. Many repeat the same basic assertion, often repeated since 2002. Several will insist that the CIA had nothing to do with Bin Laden, I assert that those are CIA plastered websites.

I prefer to believe the 2nd version I've listed above from Alexander Cockburn's site.

But then again, I haven't rubbed shoulders with all the movers and shakers of world politics as you have constantly implied that you have, Forrest.


Try this book http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669

The fact that people repeat a claim does not make it accurate. The story of how Bin Laden became involved in Afghanistan was reported at the time. His role was not a secret.

The Global Security piece you quote backs my claim. The only reference made to Bin Laden is quoting administration and CIA sources denying a link. The counterpunch piece is obviously a polemic written by someone without first hand or even second hand knowledge and he is spouting a tin foil hat theory that Bush wanted Bin Laden kept alive so as not to annoy the Saudis. Which is obvious nonsense for reasons I'll get to.

Ask yourself why the man moving the Saudi money into Afghanistan would have any use for more cash? His problem was not having enough people who could make use of what he had.

Bin Laden's change of course came when he came home from Afghanistan. He came home to find himself on the fringes of government circles, not being a member of the royal house and not having a role in the family business. He came to view the Saudi government as corrupted by Western influences. And he came to see the US bases on Saudi soil as a symbol of that corruption, besides which they would make it rather hard for Bin Laden to replace the House of Saud in the coup he began planning.

At the time the counterpunch piece was written, Bin Laden was under a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. He had declared war on the regime before his declaration of war on the US. The idea that Bush would be keeping Bin Laden alive as a favor to the Saudis is ludicrous, they wanted him dead long before 9/11. It was Bush who needed a convenient bogeyman to play off.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.