| 0 |
Subject: Hunting Osama bin Laden
Posted by: James K Polk
- [4455731] Fri, Sep 14, 00:56
For anyone interested, this is an incredibly comprehensive, well-done package produced by PBS Frontline. There is a lot of information here. Background on him, interviews about his fatwahs, descriptions of his terrorist network, profiles of two of his terrorists, interviews with intelligence officials ... it's really great stuff.
Hunting Bin Laden |
| 1 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 33732119
Fri, Sep 14, 01:57
|
What a goddam hypocrite. This is from his interview with an American journalist.
"But, and in spite of this, our retaliation is directed primarily against the soldiers only and against those standing by them. Our religion forbids us from killing innocent people such as women and children."
Does their religion allow them to cheer the death of those same innocents they aren't allowed to kill??? What a plague...
|
| 2 | Doug
ID: 0737311
Fri, Sep 14, 02:49
|
If you get a chance, watch the show on PBS (the site and show contain similar materials... with more depth if you want it available on the site, but more context provided from watching the show). I saw it tonight and thought that is was very well done and informative, much more so than anything your going to get from a typical news channel. I'm sure that there are other good online and print resources too, but for those that are glued to their TVs, look for the PBS Frontline show on OMB. Required viewing. ;-)
|
| 3 | Roo
ID: 665497
Fri, Sep 14, 07:33
|
Well, it's better than the CNN profile/propaganda that I've just been subjected to.
It at least mentions the CIA, though it does state that (use official sounding voice) "Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded."
The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism sees it differently:
"In what was hailed at the time as one of its most successful covert operations, America’s Central Intelligence Agency launched a $500 million-per-year campaign to arm and train the impoverished and outgunned mujahedin guerrillas to fight the Soviet Union. The most promising guerilla leaders were sought out and “sponsored” by the CIA. U.S. official sources are understandably vague on the question of whether Osama bin Ladin was one of the CIA’s “chosen” at that time. Bin Ladin’s group was one of seven main mujahedin factions. It is estimated that a significant quantity of high tech American weapons, including “stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, made their way into his arsenal. The majority of them are reported to be still there."
Also, no mention that the CIA "worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban". (I never thought I'd link to that site!)
As Catfish wrote in another thread:
"There is a sense among some that chickens have come home to roost."
|
| 4 | Roo
ID: 665497
Sat, Sep 15, 06:12
|
In its understandable rage for justice, America may be tempted to overlook one uncomfortable fact. Its own policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him.
|
| 5 | Harkonnon
ID: 50230315
Sat, Sep 15, 06:21
|
thanks again Roo for your excellent links
I had some with similar info, but I had some doubts that these articles in German language could be helpful for the audience here. ;-)
keep it coming Roo
thanks
Hark
|
| 6 | Promize
Donor
ID: 30848116
Sat, Sep 15, 09:34
|
His most recent interview I think he finally said that US is Satan, and they viewed all people military and civilians as satan. And all would be affected by attacks.
Also amazes me, that if his beliefs are so strong and believes so highly that it was the right thing to do. Then why hasn't he stood up and taken credit for his crime. Shouldn't they be rejoicing over their victory so to speak?
My point is, these people are cowards and they are doing what cowards do best, run and hide. They are hiding behind a country so to speak right now.
=======================================
On a different subject, i'm getting sick of the reporters and what these people are about. I'm absolutely tired of them trying to point the finger at Bush and Chenney for using smarts to keep them safe. Why in gods name, if terriost are crashing planes in the capitol would you want your president to go directly to the front of the attacks! From what I remember learning in history as I grew up, the first thing to do in time of war or attack on US is to get the president in a safe spot. And one of the safiest is US1. What is bad about seperating the president in Washington and Vice President in Camp David?
@#%!* reporters make me sick to my stomach. In my opinion they are just a step above these terriost in the list of scum of the earth...
Like that old song "Dirty Laundry" is all they care about. No emotions, no shame, no nothing... As long as they get the scoop at any expense.
Hey I got an idea, lets report every military action we have plained. Where the vice president and president is every single minute.
!#$!@ idiots...
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Sat, Sep 15, 09:48
|
I don't understand the reporters questioning Bush's actions either. Frankly, I doubt that it was his choice, more than likely a Secret Service decision and they never discuss those kinds of decisions.
Good stuff on bin Laden. Another example of American money coming back to bite us in the ass. Hard. Hussein, Iran (revolutionaries came to power because the people were tired of the US-propped Shah), bin Laden--it just keeps coming around. Foreign policy changes are also in the future for the US with regard to foreign aid. It better be!
pd
|
| 8 | katietx
ID: 17821423
Sat, Sep 15, 10:07
|
I have long maintained that we send money to foreign govenments for ridiculous reasons. I can understand helping to rebuild Europe after WWII. And,I can under stand helping to rebuild some countries in the Middle East.
One thing I have never understood is the giving of $$ to countries that clearly hate us and would do anything to destroy us. Just doesn't make any damn sense.
Hopefully, PD, you are right and foreign aide will be looked at very hard. We need the $$ at home, especially since we are about to launch war.
Make no mistake about it people, we are going to war.
|
| 9 | Seattle Zen
ID: 37241120
Sat, Sep 15, 12:49
|
Promise
I hope your revulsion with the press is not simply because they have been critical of the President in time of crisis. There absolutely has to be a voice in this nation that will question every move in a time like this. Without a critical eye, the powers that be have carte blanche to roll over our civil liberties and the human rights of people outside our borders.
I hope your argument is not the "America - love it or leave it" type. People were critical of the press all through the Vietnam War, saying that the press didn't whip the American public into enough support to maintain the level of moral it takes to slaughter a entire people. Without the press leaking the Pentagon Papers, who would have known stateside that we had invaded Cambodia?
I agree that questioning GW's flight patern was trivial and trite, however, I certainly expect complete critical coverage of every request for military authority and action. No silent wars. No covert actions. If we are going to brutalize a region of this world, Americans need to know every detail and be allowed to discuss it on the merits. I refuse to say, "Go ahead, George and Dick, do what you need to, I'll just stand here and wave my flag." That could lead to an escallation of the war in Columbia while we are in our war mongering mood.
Mr. Prez, please pipe in. Defend journalists, even though what we have witnessed recently doesn't actually endear them in my heart.
|
| 10 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 56202214
Sat, Sep 15, 13:06
|
S.Z. -
For once, we agree.
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Sat, Sep 15, 13:14
|
Mr. President has been very busy fighting back the anti-press sentiments on other threads.
I think the press has been doing a very good job getting what information they can to us information-starved citizens. I thought questions during press briefings to be inane, pointless, and derogatory at times. But, as Mr. President stated, this is how it is at briefings and I must admit I've witnessed very few and maybe this is just how it is.
I find it fascinating to see the press presenting news that I've just witnessed first-hand at these briefings. Except for some minor points ("maybe 800 dead at the Pentagon" for instance) we've gotten pretty decent coverage considering the enormous amount of information out there.
But just as the Press' job is to ask critical questions of our leaders, it's our job to ask critical questions of the Press. It's very cool to see the process at work.
pd
|
| 12 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 33732119
Sat, Sep 15, 13:33
|
Gotta take the good with the bad. For every "General, can you tell me where the next surprise attack will be held?" type questions there are the good questions and coverages that let us know what is going on around the world.
I'd rather just ignore the stupid questions and have ALL the information than have reporters not report something out of fear of "insensitivity"...
|
| 13 | Doug
ID: 0737311
Sun, Sep 16, 03:08
|
Maybe they should have "Press Pool" survivor... where after each press briefing, whoever asked the most inane question is voted out by his/her peers... and they are no longer allowed to attend those briefings (White House, Pentagon, etc.)... at least for a certain small period of the time, say a week or a month. Whoever asks the best question gets immunity so that the next time they ask "Is there a covert operation going on?" they are spared from their temporary banishment. =-)
|
| 14 | James K Polk
ID: 42911423
Sun, Sep 16, 04:10
|
Right on, Seattle Zen. There absolutely does have to be an entity taking a critical look at all the angles during a time like this. During any time, for that matter.
You've already expressed examples of why exactly the press has to be willing to play a role that makes it look ugly sometimes. And in this case, I think questioning what exactly was going on with the president in those first few hours was appropriate.
When I first became aware of the attacks Tuesday morning, one of my first questions was: Is the president safe? That was my thinking as a citizen, not a journalist, and I imagine I was not alone. Then as time went on, and we learned about Bush being routed everywhere but the White House, that certainly didn't alleviate those concerns. And at that point, as a citizen, I was torn, worrying that maybe officials knew that there was a plot to get at Bush, and also wanting to have the nation's leader speaking to the country from its seat of power, even if only for symbolic importance.
Again, I don't think I was alone there. Especially because, as the nation worried about the well-being of its president on that first day, there was virtually no reassuring word or explanation from the government. The White House sent out a communications aide to basically say, "The president's safe, don't worry about it," but no more. And she didn't answer any questions. It's not good enough after the fact to say that, well, they were just doing what they had to do. Americans had just been kicked in the gut like they'd never been kicked before. They were frightened and confused. They had every right to look for reassurance, and they deserved it. Congressional members came out worried about Bush he was staying virtually invisible, as did foreign leaders.
Now, as a member of the media, I think it's part of our duty to look into things like this. If there in fact was a threat on the president, the American people should know. Because in that case, they would surely understand why he went low-profile. However, if our president was being overruled by the Secret Service as he tried to return to D.C., that's a power struggle of interest to Americans as well. One that they may not be entirely comfortable with. And if there was confusion or problems with communication as our leaders tried to deal with this crisis, America ought to know that as well.
For those reasons, it's not trivial or trite to ask just what the heck was going on with Bush flying from Florida to Louisiana to Nebraska before heading back to D.C. In fact, it's not only appropriate, it's vital. Remember, this is a president who most Americans had questions about regarding his leadership capabilities. And he's facing a huge test right now. (The general consensus seems to be that he got off to a shaky start, but he's come out strong since then, especially with his speech at the National Cathedral and his visit to the WTC.)
And by today, if you'll note, the questions about Bush's flight plan have pretty much died down. The White House provided an answer -- although it was quite cryptic and pretty blatantly an attempt to make the questions stop. Even if it's true, it merits following up, because I want to know what evidence they had of threats on Air Force One, and I'm sure everyone else does too. But that will take time, and there are plenty of other issues to cover right now.
---------------------------------
Now, I need to step back and point one other thing out here. There is a distinct line between questioning what was going on and criticizing what was going on. There is a place for both, of course, but I don't think it's too much to ask that people differentiate between news reporting and news commentary.
Journalists are the ones on a mission to inform you, and despite a few small mistakes we've had to correct, we've done a damn good job this week. Commentators are the ones on a mission to engage you, to get you involved in discourse, riled up because you agree or disagree with what they're saying. Apparently, at least on this issue, they've done a good job this week too.
But when you disagree with the commentary out there, that doesn't mean you toss out the news reporting as well. That would be absurd. Most commentary, of course, is obvious by nature -- when you hear someone saying flat-out that Bush "should" have done this or "shouldn't" have done that, it sure ain't news reporting.
When it comes to the real reporting, though, the problem is that when people disagree with something, they often assume that simply raising the question is implicit criticism. It's not, of course, even if a source is critical. Because presumably, that source is either a relevant expert, or is representative of a decent segment of the population.
But this still puts reporters in sort of a bind. To do their job right, they have to ask the questions. When they ask those questions, some people are going to assume they're idiots or biased or worse. But hey, we didn't go into this job for the money. And I'm pretty sure not many of us went into the job because we thought it would make people like us.
---------------------------------
Press briefings. I've been thinking a lot about these since steve houpt and others raised some criticisms the other day. And like Perm Dude, but from the other side of the coin, I find it really interesting to see news presented shortly after the public has also gotten to witness the press conference.
Like I mentioned in that previous thread, it's sort of awkward because the news-gathering process isn't pretty. Sometimes questions do sound stupid. Sometimes they are repeated, in various permutations. But this doesn't mean they're worthless.
I previously used as an example the questions to Ari Fleischer about the specifics of "declaring war" on terrorism. Sure, they may have sounded like worthless questions at the time, but in fact, there were important distinctions to be drawn. Declaring war as we've done with our "war on drugs" is one thing, and most of our lives wouldn't change a bit. But a literal declaration of war is quite another thing, and raises all sorts of civil liberties issues.
That's just one example, and of course it doesn't mean that all question are smart ones. But most journalists -- aside from local TV people, anyway :) -- wouldn't be able to do what they do if they were really as stupid as people think. So it might be worth withholding judgment until you see a finished product.
Another thing I think is worth noting: If you get a chance, watch how the press interaction at a news conference changes based on who is answering the questions. The White House runs Ari Fleischer out there for a specific reason: He is very good at providing only a set amount of information, and then if he needs to, "answering" questions without saying anything else. The questions you will hear the press ask Ari Fleischer have to be the way they are, almost like lawyering. Try to pin him down on an issue, from whatever angle you have to come from, and hope you at least get a little something that you can follow up elsewhere. Trying to get actual information out of someone like Ari Fleischer is unbelievably frustrating.
Contrast that with the recent news conference with Colin Powell. He is a very straightforward speaker, and was honestly there to provide information. The questions asked were varied and insightful, and the media walked out with not only leads to follow up, but a lot of information as well.
To me, at least, the difference between the Fleischer and Powell news conferences was striking. It's an interesting dance to watch.
|
| 15 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 10434285
Sun, Sep 16, 07:26
|
I totally agree with the free press argument.
But there are also times when even the Holy
press can not be the final word.
It's easy to second guess Bush's actions from
a chair in a studio or days later at a computer.
What actual difference did it really make? I for
one, after finding out that the Pres was ok and
AF1, turned my attention to the problems at
hand. Only a media obsessed self serving
politician would try to make himself the center
of attention by returning to Washington while
it's under attack for a photo op. Or to appease
the press.
They set down in LA to assure the people that
he was still alive. So KH wouldn't answer any
questions....the attacks were still a work in
progress. Would it have been better to hold a
press conference during this, so we could all
be fed information that could be even more
damgerous (ie wrong?). Hey why not throw out
some misinformation instead. Then get
skewered for not having it right.
The press and many folks here for that matter
seem to feel that it is their divine right to know
everything instantly, even if it's wrong, or even
if it endangers the country.
I am no Bushie.... but if his biggest
shortcoming is that he comes off poorly on
television, then so be it. I am very thankful that
we have him, primarily because of the men
and women he has around him. Powell,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Daddy Bush, Rice, and all
of the other grownups that now occupy the
Cabinet are a great comfort.
My linking prowess is not good....so try rhis:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/0
91301.html
Some excerpts:
As shocking as the four-pronged attack was, it
shouldn't have been quite so surprising. Only
seven months ago, a congressionally
mandated federal commission released a
prophetic report predicting this kind of terrorist
assault on U.S. soil, concluding that the
question was not if a terrorist attack on
America could happen but when.
The U.S. Commission on National Security,
headed by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, found that "despite the end of the
Cold War threat, America faces distinctly new
dangers, particularly to the homeland" and
identified "homeland security as a primary
national security mission."
Don't feel bad if you didn't hear about this
report. Despite its far-reaching implications,
very few people read it. Indeed, very few
reporters read it. Or, if they did, very few of
them reported that they had read it. In fact, the
Hart-Rudman report received practically no
play either in print or on television.
"What happened this week," Hart told me,
"ought to call into question what is important
in our society and how the media cover it. But
no one is asking this on TV, and I'd be
amazed if there was a single discussion on
the board of any newspaper asking: Did we do
our job? There seems to be no self-reflection,
no understanding by the media that they have
a job under the direction of the Constitution to
inform, not just entertain, the American
people."
Unfortunately, the American press's penchant
for rigorous reporting is rapidly disappearing,
a victim of corporate pressure to build the
bottom line and not rock the highly profitable
status quo. Muckraking has been replaced by
smutraking, with the media hunting down the
latest sensation as opposed to the hard
stories that are essential to maintaining our
freedom and democracy.
|
| 16 | steve houpt
ID: 208461016
Sun, Sep 16, 21:05
|
Gangman - the Hart-Rudman commision had a meeting (or press conference) Friday. Was covered by C-Span. It was on this morning. Do not know if it was originally covered live.
One note: Sen Rudman said if government (and media) had taken immediate action on (and reported on) everything in their report, it could not have stopped events of 9/11.
Other than C-Span, have not seen a clip of that meeting anywhere all weekend. Or either Senator on any show.
Here is link to your article.
A Wake-Up Call For The Media Oligarchy?
|
| 17 | Makisupa
Donor
ID: 19133810
Tue, Sep 18, 08:10
|
Hunting Osama bin Laden...literately.
|
| 18 | patjams
ID: 14851711
Tue, Sep 18, 09:35
|
Link doesn't work Mak.
|
| 19 | Makisupa
Donor
ID: 19133810
Tue, Sep 18, 09:45
|
Not sure why this is *sometimes* working.
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Tue, Sep 18, 11:46
|
roflmao Maki!!!! thats TOOOOOOOOOO good!!!!!!!!!
(spent WAY to much time on that. bstrd only made it cross the screen maybe 3 times. *w*)
|
| 21 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Tue, Sep 18, 18:20
|
CBC currently running a program 'the hunt for bin laden'...
|
| 22 | Madman
ID: 68361122
Tue, Sep 18, 23:16
|
I don't understand the sentiment that US aid has come back to bite the U.S. hard here. The US got what we wanted from Bin Laden and the other mujadin. Over time, bin laden's motives and goals have changed. The political landscape changes. Friends become enemies, enemies become friends. This is life, not getting "bitten hard".
I suppose that we should now regret having supplied the USSR with technology and logistical support to beat Germany in WWII?
Imagine the mess we would be in right now if we hadn't successfully broken the Soviet Union. If anything, this set of terrorist acts illustrates how critical breaking the Soviet Union ASAP was going to be, and thus how important it was to supply the Afghans with support. It's not like Osama Bin Laden is operating in a vacuum here; he's the terrorist with the highest profile, but this war is much, much bigger than the training of this single man.
Regarding the idea that he took all our weapons and stored them away for this eventuality, I think history largely indicates that this naive. They have been in perpetual war for decades. Not so coincidentally, the opposition leader was assassinated on the exact same day the WTC was attacked. The Taliban appear to have finally conquered the entire countryside. But there was no way to predict that the Northern Alliance wouldn't win this battle; from what I hear, it was excessively pathetic Generalship that cost them the Civil War. Furthermore, back in 1988, there was no way to even predict that a Northern Alliance would battle a group like the Taliban. The idea that one of these groups that has been struggling for its life would sit on a stockpile of valuable weaponry and NOT use it while its' very existence is at stake is pretty silly.
Of course, some of the weapons, like the Stingers in particular, have little value in recent years since there have been few aircraft to fire upon. So a few might still be around. But of all the problems and issues we have to overcome, I doubt that the Pentagon is most worried about a handful of decades old Stingers that have been mothballed in a mountain base somewhere. Thus my perception is that this is a misquito bite if you insist on the "biting" analogy.
|
| 23 | Roo
ID: 1183030
Tue, Sep 18, 23:48
|
"The Taliban appear to have finally conquered the entire countryside. But there was no way to predict that the Northern Alliance wouldn't win this battle"
Having CIA money and Pakistan's ISI against them probably didn't help their cause.
"It's not like Osama Bin Laden is operating in a vacuum here; he's the terrorist with the highest profile, but this war is much, much bigger than the training of this single man."
"The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets." he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."
|
| 24 | James K Polk
ID: 288131219
Wed, Sep 19, 00:03
|
Orrin Hatch agrees with Madman on this one. I guess we can leave it up to Madman to decide whether that's a good thing :)
Here's an excerpt from this column on our help for bin Laden coming home to roost:
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said.
"Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said.
|
| 25 | James K Polk
ID: 288131219
Wed, Sep 19, 02:02
|
After all the discussion of freakish numerical coincidences revolving around the number 11, devil faces in pictures of WTC smoke, etc., I ran across this item in another forum ...
...check this out:
- Open up a blank document in Word.
- Change the font size to 72.
- Type: NYC (must be in CAPS)
- Now highlight it and change the font to Webdings and see what you get.
- Then highlight it again and Change the font to Wingdings
|
| 26 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Wed, Sep 19, 08:09
|
You mean... YOU MEAN!?!
Bill Gates really IS the evil?
|
| 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Sep 19, 08:15
|
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!!? HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN!?!?
|
| 28 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 4444938
Wed, Sep 19, 08:18
|
Sorry to disappoint you, bili, but it works in WordPerfect too.
Very strange.
|
| 29 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Wed, Sep 19, 08:20
|
Mark L, Microsoft owns WordPerfect now (seriously!). ;)
|
| 30 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Wed, Sep 19, 08:20
|
Dang. Just when I had justice and retribution at my fingertips. ;)
|
| 31 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 4444938
Wed, Sep 19, 08:27
|
KKB, I thought Microsoft bought into Corel - was not aware it was an outright purchase. Hard to believe DOJ would let that pass, but under Bush you never know.
|
| 32 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Wed, Sep 19, 10:19
|
Mark L, you're correct that it's not an outright buy, but it's close enough. From the information I can find, Corel (CORL) has 73.8M shares outstanding. With Microsoft buying 24M of those, according to this ZDNet article, they've positioned themselves quite nicely within the company without coming out and saying, "We're taking over!" Still, according to this ZDNet opinion article, the move was more of a "payoff to close some unresolved legal issues between the two companies" than anything else. Interesting how you can pay someone off and still get something in return. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with the move as Corel has been floundering for a while. Their graphics program, CORELDraw, has quite a following, but that's about the only people that buy it. Most people within the graphics community use Adobe (Illustrator) and Macromedia (Freehand) products due to their clear superiority. The only thing Corel really had going for it was WordPerfect and even that couldn't compare to Word's popularity. IMO, this move just temporarily put of the inevitable: Corel going bankrupt.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 488481411
Wed, Sep 19, 10:28
|
Madman No one is saying that we did not get short-term benefits from the training and financial support of bin Laden against the Soviets. And hindsight here is also 20-20, which means we can see clearer than the Soviets were bankrupting their country at the same time they were half-heartedly trying to fight a costly, vicious war.
But the list of blowback episodes which involve covert (and not so covert) international political funding is getting quite long.
pd
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|