Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on April 13, 2004, 09:11:26 AM
-
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qa’ida members -- including some who are US citizens --have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa’ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
-
I ignore it all and plan an invasion of Iraq?
-
Go on a vacation?
-
Buy a pony?
-
Resign and leave that mess to Al Gore !
-
Get me a turban.
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/busharab.jpg)
-
Nuke everything within 1500 nm of Mecca.
-
Round up all the suspected al queda drones in the US and deported them.
Well try at least, but the ACLU would be a thorn.
-
Launch an unprovoked war of choice against Iraq even though it posed no threat to the US or anyone else in the world.
...-Gixer
-
Insert a clause in the brief which says:
"All references herein to "Osama", "Bin Laden", "Al Qaeda" or other similar terms or words shall in fact be references to "Iraq" and/or "Saddam Hussein", and the reference in the last paragraph to "explosives" shall in fact be a reference to "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction""
-
ask the UN for help - LOL
-
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives
Immediatley detain, as many as we can, know matter how far along their investigation, anybody related to the "70 full field Investigations" Question them extensively, until they tell us what they know, If they don't answer their questions, ship them back to where ever they came from.
I imagine at least some of these 70 investigations, involved some of the 9/11 hijackers.
Of course this is all Hindsight, but the question that Hortland posed can only be based upon hindsight.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ask the UN for help - LOL
Ironic, considering how now the US is wanting the UN to help with the mess created in Iraq and as many other countries as possible.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Ironic, considering how now the US is wanting the UN to help with the mess created in Iraq and as many other countries as possible.
...-Gixer
It's only ironic if you believe the US is in Iraq for purely selfish reasons. Some of us believe it was necessary and beneficial to not only the US but Iraq and many others. I also recall that great effort was expended to unite the UN (admittedly unsuccessfully) in ousting the madman Hussein.
-
What would I do?
Try to figure out which one would actually happen out of the 1500 other threats handed to me.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ask the UN for help - LOL
More like, 'Ask the Whitehouse for the entire brief...
http://www.iht.com/articles/117157.html
Whatever the definition, the document is the innocuously named President's Daily Brief, a 10- to 12-page report produced overnight by the CIA. In recent weeks, it has become the hottest property in Washington.
What the commission got was a slightly redacted version of two pages. If you look at an image of those pages you'll see at the bottom of each there's a redacted line where normaly you'd see 'page one of...' That doesn't mean I think that that is the only answer, but it does raise the question of the documents totality.
I'm not convienced that there are another 10 pages of the PDB but given the fact that this administration is the most secretive of any in my lifetime, this kind of action is understandable.
All in all, I think that the release of this document was bumbled and brought too much attention to the administrations several instances of stonewalling the 911 commission for what I see as purley politcal purposes.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
given the fact that this administration is the most secretive of any in my lifetime, this kind of action is understandable.
Even more secretive than Clinton's?
-
mmmm get them to check carry on luggage the same way they do in Europe......very, very carefully.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Go on a vacation?
what would you do, not did do.....
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Even more secretive than Clinton's?
Absolutely!
The parallels to the Nixon presidency in regards to Bush's secrecy are unmistakeable. Read John Dean's 'Worse than Watergate' for info if you want...pretty damning.
-
"It is Aug 6th 2001, YOU are the president, here is your intel brief, what do YOU do?"
Assure all attending the meeting that .....
"Well if Condi says there's not specificness in there. Then we're ok. Nobody messes with Texas. We'll redefine the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment. But should someone be bad. Do anything offensible to America. We'd rain nOOklear bombs on em. For we will be victoriant. With our stupendous use of superior strategery. We will make America what we want it to be — a more literate country and a hopefuller country. Stay the course. OK now. Enough of this work crap. I'm beat. Who wants to get a Whattaburger with me?"
-
Ok that's just scary enough to be vaguely true!!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's only ironic if you believe the US is in Iraq for purely selfish reasons. Some of us believe it was necessary and beneficial to not only the US but Iraq and many others. I also recall that great effort was expended to unite the UN (admittedly unsuccessfully) in ousting the madman Hussein.
Funny I thought the attempts to unite the UN was for WMD"s and his immediate threat to the world, not ousting a dictator.
...-Gixer
-
I said madman, not dictator. The kind that wars with peaceful neighbors and murders his own. You know, kinda like Hitler?
-
'Nuke' them...
-
ops...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I said madman, not dictator. The kind that wars with peaceful neighbors and murders his own. You know, kinda like Hitler?
But why was it that prior to 9/11 Powell himself was quoted as saying that Sadam wasn't a threat and was contained.
When he was attacking his neighbours in the 80's and having gased the kurds why wasn't there a big protest then by the administration in charge instead of continuing to support him?
There are so many holes in the stories and spin since 9/11 on Iraq that it's amazing anyone can still argue for the war.
...-Gixer
-
doh...
-
What do I do? I toss a tomahawk missile or two at a camp somewhere sandy and hot while hoping one or more of them don't go off course and hit Iran or Turkey. Oops. If it looks like I need more help, I get my wife to say something that makes it sound like she's going to be setting policy on a hotly contested subject, maybe abortion, health care, or education. Then based on the polls, I either support her, or have an affair showing that I don't support her stand on that controversial subject. If necessary, I ask someone to leak to the press that my daughter is either pregnant or just lost her virginity, or something to that effect.
If it gets too bad, I hold a rally supporting veterans and find someone elses medals to either symbolically throw away or pin on someone, depending on if the polls say veterans should be proud or pissed off that week. Then I find ANY decision that a political opponent recently made, and make a media soundbite to the effect of "Only HE would come up with a childish idea like that... He should have asked a few experts first." regardless of what the decision was.
I'd also send out some memos to the CIA and FBI telling them to "take care of things" regarding the persistent but non-specific threats. There are a lot of Muslim countries and even some countries with hardcore communist insurgencies so I'm sure they can generate a few headlines in some of them. I'll make darn sure they don't focus on the Phillipines though, because they're determined to wreck their own country before getting to ours so that's just a waste of effort and good PR opportunities. At the next round of budget talks, I'll force through a small but noticable funding increase for those who I've told to "do something", just to prove that I increased funding for the groups responsible for national security. Cutting aid to countries who aren't outwardly hostile but who aren't part of "the club" can help pay for the CIA budget increases.
Then I try to make sure I don't support or object to the policies of any other country until the last few months of my term. Status quo is my watchword.
I almost forgot - make my party's nomination for the next term look like a fool, and then sell my stocks right after the opposing party's candidate wins. Buy low a few years later and ride the wave through retirement.
Anything I miss?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Launch an unprovoked war of choice against Iraq even though it posed no threat to the US or anyone else in the world.
...-Gixer
Except the citizens of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
mmmm get them to check carry on luggage the same way they do in Europe......very, very carefully.
As though they would have done anything had they found a plastic friggin Spork in a carry on.
-
immediatly force something that allows only members of my family to be elected president then abdicate the throne and spend the rest of my money on taiwanese potatos...
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Ironic, considering how now the US is wanting the UN to help with the mess created in Iraq and as many other countries as possible.
...-Gixer
Hell, all the money the UN made off the oil for food program you think they'd want to help.
-
There are so many holes in the stories and spin since 9/11 on Iraq that it's amazing anyone can still argue for the war.
So what should we have done?
-
Keep sending the Taliban millions in aid to reward them for their success in the War on Drugs.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
There are so many holes in the stories and spin since 9/11 on Iraq that it's amazing anyone can still argue for the war.
So what should we have done?
Slash,
Since I've had it pointed out in the past, since I'm not from the US my opinon dosn't count but just for you..
Finish the job in Afghanistan would of been good, along with putting in alot more resources to rebuild that country so it can have elections and install it's own government.
Work with Pakistan in attempting to shut down Al Qaeda, or atleast making it very difficult for them to operate successfully anywhere from within that region.
Terroism can't be defeated, that's been proven throughout history the best you can do is manage it. Imagine how much management you could pay for with the money spent on Iraq. 5 billion a month would certinly pay for alot.
Unfortunetly the two main reasons for invading Iraq. WMD's and Support of Bin Laden have proven to be incredibly false. As well as all the adverse points caused by the invasion of Iraq and circumstances since. Along with the incalculable cost in human lives.
Another incalculable cost is the major fractions and breakdowns we have now between previous long standing alliances and cooperation in the world and the serious damage to US credibility. Which will take decades to restore.
These breakdowns will make any further actions for the war on terroism in any part of the world so much more difficult and costly if not impossible to carry out. As even the US can't go it alone in the war on terror. Having a coalition is criticle.
I've heard the argument for the war in Iraq is to create a honey pot so to speak for terroisits to get drawn to and then crushed with military force, which is a simple and excellent idea. True good to keep them busy in Iraq and fight them there.
However when you look at the broader and long term picture, one seriously wonders if the reverse to the honey pot strategy is actually happening.
I'm not anti US, just hate to see a long standing ally and friend alienating itself from the world.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Finish the job in Afghanistan would of been good, along with putting in alot more resources to rebuild that country so it can have elections and install it's own government.
Since it is August 2001 and we have yet to be attacked in Manhattan and Washington, and we have just read the August 6 PDB ....You propose we launch an unprovoked attack on Afganistan and depose its leadership? ... You propose we rely upon our intellegence gathering ability and possibly kill thousands of innocents? Then embark on nation building?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Since it is August 2001 and we have yet to be attacked in Manhattan and Washington, and we have just read the August 6 PDB ....You propose we launch an unprovoked attack on Afganistan and depose its leadership? ... You propose we rely upon our intellegence gathering ability and possibly kill thousands of innocents? Then embark on nation building?
NO, Slash was asking me what I would of done after 9/11
Well that was my understanding.
...-Gixer