Where's Bin Ladin?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Marina

If he's been dead since Tora Bora, don't we look a little stupid? Especially now - the Afghanistan surge, Karzai election, Pakistan double game, etc.

I hate to say this but I think I'm becoming an isolationist. Let the world take care of itself for a while.

Let's all go to Mexico!

How do you figure we look stupid? I can think (and I've posted) a lot of reasons to keep a lid on us killing the islamic coward known a bin laden.

Being "isolationist" is why this started, we should have killed him while bill clinton was in office receiving his BJ from monica lewinsky.

Have you forgotten who started this fight?

[Marina]

TS, respectfully, the rhetoric we use to justify war on terror rings hollow if Bin Laden is dead. If OBL is dead, then we won let's move on. We look naive by continuing to invest billions in re-making countries that play us in order to entrench their own corrupt leaders.

That's not to say we shouldn't assist foreign nations in developing their own indig capacity for representative government, economic growth, and internal security. It's time for a more selective approach to countering the threat of Salafi jihadis and regimes who use them against US interests.

But grand scale nation building is silly, expensive and ineffective. AFG and Iraq will progress in their own way on their own timeline.

We should re-direct some resources to near-term threats like narco terror in Mexico.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Marina

If OBL is dead, then we won let's move on. We look naive by continuing to invest billions in re-making countries that play us in order to entrench their own corrupt leaders.

Just because we declare victory doesn't mean that the enemy will accept it.

[Anevolution]

Originally Posted by Marina

TS, respectfully, the rhetoric we use to justify war on terror rings hollow if Bin Laden is dead. If OBL is dead, then we won let's move on. We look naive by continuing to invest billions in re-making countries that play us in order to entrench their own corrupt leaders.
That's not to say we shouldn't assist foreign nations in developing their own indig capacity for representative government, economic growth, and internal security. It's time for a more selective approach to countering the threat of Salafi jihadis and regimes who use them against US interests.
But grand scale nation building is silly, expensive and ineffective. AFG and Iraq will progress in their own way on their own timeline.
We should re-direct some resources to near-term threats like narco terror in Mexico.

You can't be serious. Or are your really that naive to think if he's dead the GWOT is over, like there are no other bag guys who wish us harm in that AO. Your logic is dumfounding.

V/r
Anevolution

[T-Rock]

IMO, it would be a grievous strategic error on our part to focus solely on the Salafist threat, adherents to the ideology of Shariah are our enemies…

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Marina

TS, respectfully, the rhetoric we use to justify war on terror rings hollow if Bin Laden is dead. If OBL is dead, then we won let's move on. We look naive by continuing to invest billions in re-making countries that play us in order to entrench their own corrupt leaders.

That's not to say we shouldn't assist foreign nations in developing their own indig capacity for representative government, economic growth, and internal security. It's time for a more selective approach to countering the threat of Salafi jihadis and regimes who use them against US interests.

But grand scale nation building is silly, expensive and ineffective. AFG and Iraq will progress in their own way on their own timeline.

We should re-direct some resources to near-term threats like narco terror in Mexico.

I agree with you there. I think we should have and continue to deal a serious ass-whooping to anyone that attacks us and then leave.
I don't believe in "nation-building" when the "collective intelligence" of the nation we're attempting to build is just above a troop of chimpanzees.
IMO Most ME islamic dictatorships are about 2-5 hundred years behind the US and I personally would like to see them stay there.

[Richard]

Pretty much what it all boils down to when you consider the historical record of it all...

One day an out-of-work mime is visiting the zoo and attempts to earn some money as a street performer.

However, as soon as he starts to draw a crowd, the zookeeper grabs him and drags him into his office.

The zookeeper explains to the mime that the zoo's most popular attraction, a gorilla, has died suddenly. The keeper fears that attendance at the zoo will fall off. He offers the mime a job to dress up as the gorilla until they can get another one. The mime accepts.

The next morning, before the crowd arrives, the mime puts on the gorilla suit and enters the cage. He discovers that it's a great job. He can sleep all he wants, play and make fun of people and he draws bigger crowds than he ever did as a mime.

However, eventually the crowds tire of him and he gets bored just swinging on tires. He begins to notice that the people are paying more attention to the lion in the cage next to his.

Not wanting to lose the attention of his audience, he climbs to the top of his cage, crawls across a partition, and dangles from the top to the lion's cage. Of course, this makes the lion furious, but the crowd loves it.

At the end of the day the zookeeper comes and gives the mime a raise for being such a good attraction as a gorilla.

Well, this goes on for some time. The mime keeps taunting the lion, the crowds grow larger, and his salary keeps going up. Then one terrible day when he is dangling over the furious lion, he slips and falls. The mime is terrified. The lion gathers itself and prepares to pounce. The mime is so scared that he begins to run round and round the cage with the lion close behind.

Finally, the mime starts screaming and yelling, "Help, help me!", but the lion is quick and pounces. The mime soon finds himself flat on his back looking up at the angry lion and the lion says, "Shut up you idiot! Do you want to get us both fired?"

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02

[greenberetTFS]

Anyone see todays paper?............. He's upset about Global Warming!!!!!!!

Big Teddy

[Marina]

Originally Posted by Richard

Pretty much what it all boils down to when you consider the historical record of it all...

"Shut up you idiot! Do you want to get us both fired?"

There's actually a book (fiction) about the war on terror with that theme, Outsourced. I read it a while back. Kind of takes you through the whole thing then ends up IIRC with the good guy and the bad guy in a tent in the Hindu Kush. The bad guy's a ruse to keep the government contracts flowing. The good guy ends up getting a fat contract to keep quiet.

[DevilSide]

I think the guy is dead, I dont have very much experience in this but if he were alive I think we would have a tougher challenge. Al-Qaeda is a cluster and the only thing I hear about is IED's and insurgents getting killed in firefights. I seen what Mujahideen did to the Soviets when they had stable leadership, even if it was supported by us at the time, and I believe Al-Qaeda would be more effective if he were around. Again, just my best opinion at the moment.

[spherojon]

http://www.military.com/news/article...l?ESRC=army.nl

April 15, 2010
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Under pressure from Republican critics, Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the U.S. still hopes to capture and interrogate Osama bin Laden but expects the al-Qaida leader won't be taken alive.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general was peppered with questions about terrorism issues, including the planned shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay detention center and where those suspects should be sent for trial. The hearing didn't have the confrontations that marked his appearance last month before House lawmakers, however.

During the earlier hearing, questions about what legal rights might be granted to suspected terrorists led Holder to tell lawmakers the chances of capturing the al-Qaida leader alive were very slim and "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden."

On Wednesday Holder again tried to deflect hypothetical questions about what would happen were bin Laden taken alive.

The committee's senior Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, insisted the U.S. needs a policy on how to handle bin Laden, particularly whether he should be read his Miranda rights - including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Holder said there would be no need to read bin Laden his rights if captured, because the warning is only legally required to allow the use of incriminating statements made by suspects after they are caught. In bin Laden's case, Holder said, there is a wealth of incriminating evidence making further statements unnecessary to convict him.

"We have sufficient information, statements from bin Laden, so that there is no reason to Mirandize him at all, and you can still bring his case," Holder said.

Since the capture and questioning of a Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas, many Republicans have argued that terror suspects should not be read their Miranda rights by FBI agents, but instead should be questioned by military or intelligence officials.

The Obama administration contends its policies are more effective in fighting terrorism than those of the Bush administration. Republicans charge that the Democrats are treating terrorists lightly by not subjecting more of them to military trials.

Holder said his remarks last month stemmed from reports that bin Laden's security guards are under instructions not to let him be taken alive if cornered by U.S. forces.

Shortly after he made those comments in March, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said it remains the goal of U.S. troops to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to justice.

Bin Laden has been an international fugitive for more than 10 years - yet government officials and lawmakers spent much of Wednesday's three-hour hearing debating how, not if, he will be captured.

Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin was unsuccessful in trying to pin Holder down on when the Guantanamo prison would be closed.

Holder said that depends in part on Congress providing money to build another facility. An alternative prison is currently planned for Illinois.

"We have to have an option, and that will require congressional support," he said.

Holder did get some public support from a longtime critic, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Graham has taken on an important negotiating role with the White House on terror issues, and said at Wednesday's hearing that he supports putting some terror suspects on trial in federal courts.

The senator got Holder to admit that the administration does not want to send any more terror suspects to Guantanamo. That presents a potential problem in how to deal with terrorists captured overseas.

"We are basically a nation without a viable jail," said Graham.

Holder said he wants to work with Congress on a new prison, which Graham called "music to my ears."

While the two stressed the areas where they agreed, Graham is so far the lone Republican willing to deal with the administration on the issue. It is less certain whether the administration can strike any deal on terror policies that has enough votes to pass Congress, particularly in an election year.

Republicans repeatedly pressed Holder over concerns he is risking U.S. security by placing some terror suspects in the federal criminal court system.

"Pretending that terrorists can safely be treated as common criminals will not make it so," said Sessions.

Holder announced last November that reputed Sept. 11 attack mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators would face trial in New York. The White House stopped that effort, and is now preparing to put those suspects before a military commission, as the Bush administration had originally planned.

The attorney general insisted that New York is still a possible site for the terror trial, though White House officials have privately said that won't happen.

Democrats were quick to defend Holder, saying Republicans were playing politics with terrorism in a way they had not when George W. Bush was president.

"I have never seen anything quite like this," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "The record is ignored. It doesn't matter that the Bush administration brought 200 terrorists to justice" in federal courts.

Well, at least he's optimistic.

[Ret10Echo]

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation
April 27, 2010 - 5:31am
J.J. Green, wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden had no idea the U.S. would hit al-Qaida as hard as it has since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a former bin Laden associate tells WTOP in an exclusive interview.
"I'm 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen," says Noman Benotman, who was head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000.
"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."
Sitting on the floor at bin Laden's compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan during a meeting the summer before the attacks, Benotman shocked bin Laden and more than 200 other international jihadist leaders by telling the al-Qaida leader his jihadi strategy was "a total failure."
Benotman, a highly regarded associate of bin Laden's at the time, says he surprised him again by rebuffing a plea for help.
"He asked for my help. Bin Laden asked me personally, you know. I responded immediately on the spot ...'No. I'm not going to help you.'"
Bin Laden was stunned.
"Because he used to like to sit next to me, you know. My right hand side," Benotman says.
The seating location meant he was someone bin Laden respected.
Benotman says he spoke frankly because his reputation allowed him to.
"I've spent time in the front line engaging with the enemy more than bin Laden and [Ayman Al-]Zawahiri and the entire group of al-Qaida."
Zawahiri laughed when he warned those at the 2000 meeting that the U.S. response would be swift, hard and long, Benotman says.
Benotman attributes al-Qaida's overconfident attitude to the United States' response to al-Qaida attacks on its in embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.
Zawahiri, according to Benotman, expected only a missile attack.
"When they attacked the embassies in East Africa, they estimated the U.S. launched 75 cruise missiles and eight people got killed. So they said this time, maybe they will launch 200 and they laughed about this."
Benotman's assessment is backed up by a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, who was active in the fight against al-Qaida.
The officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says "several captured terrorists have said publicly that al-Qaida never expected the towers to fall. Their goal was to frighten people and impact the U.S. economy, so they really didn't plan for the massive response the U.S. launched."
Bin Laden got more than one warning, says Benotman.
"I told him several times before the Sept. 11th attacks that if you do this, the U.S. is going to retaliate in a very harsh way. At least twice I reminded him about the serious orders he was given by Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban to stop fighting the U.S., and he disobeyed the order."
Now living in London and openly campaigning against organizations like al-Qaida, Benotman - according to some - is simply trying to avoid going to jail in his native Libya.
"I would like to believe that bin Laden was shocked and dismayed by what we did after 9/11, but I come hard up against an awful lot of evidence that that's exactly what he wanted," says Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit.
Scheuer questions whether Benotman is speaking out freely.
"Clearly, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is holding a hammer over his head," Scheuer says, noting some of Benotman's ex-LIFG colleagues are in prison and Benotman still has relatives in Libya.
Benotman, who still believes in the commitment Jihad requires, laughs at the notion he's afraid of being arrested.
"I'm not afraid of the Americans or any other country. My speaking out is a conscious decision and it's based on my entire experience and understanding of jihadism."
Not only does Benotman reject al-Qaida's ideology, but he says "killing civilians is a crime. I don't care if it's Jews, Christians, Muslims or anyone. It's a crime and we shouldn't help them (al Qaida)."

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation
April 27, 2010 - 5:31am
J.J. Green, wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden had no idea the U.S. would hit al-Qaida as hard as it has since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a former bin Laden associate tells WTOP in an exclusive interview.
"I'm 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen," says Noman Benotman, who was head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000.
"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."
"

If the al qaida cowards could acutally read they'd know the same thing was said long before........ not being able to read is a terrible thing.

"I Fear All We Have Done is Awaken a Sleeping Giant and Fill Him with a Terrible Resolve!"
Credited to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto


Stupid is as stupid does.

[Pete]

Anybody hear any wise statements from 'Ol Sammy Boy the past 10 days or so?



You'd figure he'd have something to say about events in Egypt.

[perdurabo]

Originally Posted by Marina

I hate to say this but I think I'm becoming an isolationist. Let the world take care of itself for a while.

Isolationism is a nice thought, but I don't believe that reality would pan out in our favor. Not everyone wants the style of governing that the US provides. Some people will gladly live under oppressive regimes for centuries.

We need to keep our hands dirty. I don't believe everything needs to be overt, though. SF, CIA, etc play a critical role. Think Pakistan, Egypt and Yemen.

Then again, I'm just a puke in an armchair who's never set foot in any of the aforementioned countries, so maybe you shouldn't pay me any attention.