Did We Forget About Bin Laden?

[srawas89]

If Bin Laden is actually dead then I wouldn't be surprised that we still dont know about it since it is the whole thing that is backing up the War on Terror. If Bin Laden is dead support would be questionable from there on out whether we should continue the war. As for Bush....I hate him he was way too headstrong and emotional that he went into a country without being logical or reasonable. We now are wasting the lives of American Soldiers in a land that is not our own and in a land were the "enemy" knows each place within the city. Sure they are using unconventional and immoral tactics but until we do the same they will not be defeated I guarantee that their radical Islam keeps them from doing that and the brainwashing that occurs in those areas keeps their resources for fighters practically limitless. And for those that say that Obama will ruin the U.S. and give extremes on the consequences if he is President are dumb if you are going to argue against him use practical consequences like...he will have no effect on the country or he will not be able to change the country the way he says he will etc. Same goes for the American conspiracy into 9/11. I don't believe that however I can see a conspiracy to go into Iraq. Anyway that is my 2 cents.

[oolatec]

He's been dead for a few years... even so, letting him fade away into nothingness sure beats him becoming a martyr, or giving him the ability to take our judicial system for a circus ride.

[oolatec]

If Bin Laden is actually dead then I wouldn't be surprised that we still dont know about it since it is the whole thing that is backing up the War on Terror. If Bin Laden is dead support would be questionable from there on out whether we should continue the war.

Don't worry. Smart people know the war doesn't stop with Bin Laden. With him gone, there will still be cars torched daily in the Paris suburbs. Hezbullah will still control Lebanon, Pakistan will still be training terrorists like Ford puts out the Focus on an assembly line, the horn of Africa will still be a haven for Jihadists, and known terrorists will be living off the Government's teet in England.

[liquidglass]

Man we got a bunch of Bush haters up in here. Have some respect for the man that kept your ass safe for the last 7 years. If Kerry was in office we would all be closer to socialism, and god help us if Obama (that socialist seperarist). But i guess if you like being forced into government programs like national healthcare and allowing the government to control your life, then he's your man.

Bush may not be the brightest man, but he was able to get reelected for a second term and protect this nation. He was the only one with the balls to go into the million years war and try to settle it. I applaud him.

John McCain in 08'

Bin Laden is dead, our boys have torched every hole in the middle east. His body was probably too mangled/destroyed to figure it out.

Lol looks like someone ate the Republican grits and had 2nds. Either that or you're not only putting shisha in your hookah.
Just like someone that's so extreme into a political party they can't even see the follies of their logic. Calling democrats socialists, you probably don't even believe Democrats believe in God or go to church. (2 weeks ago I saw a reporter (can't remember his name) on Fox news saying he couldn't believe there was a democrat on tape saying that they believe in God and they trust His will, and he had never in his life heard of such a thing)


Protecting this nation? Lol more American's have died under his 'watch' than the last 20 years or more. He was cleaning up after his dumb ass father who didn't get the job done either, but his dad was smart enough to know when enough was enough.

The only reason he got elected a second term is because of what? OH YEAH the war. Without that he would have lost the popular vote....again.
He's not the brightest man, he's a puppet just like all political candidates (more republican, but all parties to some extent) - with everything this administration has told us I wouldn't doubt if they came out and revealed G W Bush was actually a female (just post op) and one ugly ass female at that.

Republicans love to preach about Democrats being socialist. Let's look at this for a minute. Would you rather have democrats who say "hey we want to do this and this with the govt" or would you rather have republicans who do whatever they want (to control your life) and keep it under the radar by giving the illusion of freedom.
I mean not like any of our freedoms have been taken away, or restrictions put on us during the last 7-8 years....nooo none.

In fact, since you know so much about the administration and apparently only republicans give us freedom, please name even one policy put into place during his 2 terms that gives us more freedom rather than take it away.


You can't, so don't stress your brain washed head too much.

[liquidglass]

He's been dead for a few years... even so, letting him fade away into nothingness sure beats him becoming a martyr, or giving him the ability to take our judicial system for a circus ride.

Good point. I had seen the tape before and all that jazz but that would be a good reason to let him fade.

[srawas89]

I am quite insulted that you are calling me dumb really I am. How do you think the war on terror started? Bin Laden and 9/11. However the war on terror will never work because it is a war on Ideology which needs words and 100's of years to fix. On top of that it can not be forced on to people they have to see it for themselves so it requires patience and violence/war only in defense. As for Hezbullah controlling Lebanon. I think that they do not control Lebanon but they have a MAJOR influence on what happens because they actually do help protect Lebanon granted their recent actions have hurt Lebanon. Because of Hezbullah southern Lebanon has protection from Israel. Note that they formed after Israel started meddling within Lebanon during the civil war. They have kept Israel out of Lebanon and for that I thank them however I do not condone their firing of missiles into Israel. If I keep talking about this this thread will no doubt be jacked. If you want to discuss this further PM me.

[oolatec]

He's been dead for a few years... even so, letting him fade away into nothingness sure beats him becoming a martyr, or giving him the ability to take our judicial system for a circus ride.

Good point. I had seen the tape before and all that jazz but that would be a good reason to let him fade.

No actual video of him since 2004... think about it...

srawas... I wasn't calling you dumb... but I was calling the thought that this fight ends if Bin Laden is taken out of the picture... a dumb idea. If you don't think that, then you are smarter than 90% of the people on this planet.

But like you said, it's a fight against an ideology... one that cannot be questioned or scrutinized with any sort of honesty... anyone that does question it is labeled a "bigot"... an "Islamophobe"... etc.

[oolatec]

Protecting this nation? Lol more American's have died under his 'watch' than the last 20 years or more.

Too bad 9/11 was in the planning stages before Bush 2 took office. Too bad Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996 and got away with it. Narf.

Bet you had no clue that 6900+ troops died during Clinton's 8 years... did you?

[srawas89]

srawas... I wasn't calling you dumb... but I was calling the thought that this fight ends if Bin Laden is taken out of the picture... a dumb idea. If you don't think that, then you are smarter than 90% of the people on this planet. smile.gif

Ok I understand where you are coming from however if Bin Laden is dead and it is reveled to the public here those who are against the war will have so much ammunition about why we should not keep putting money into this war and such. Now I know the fight probably will not end after Bin Laden is dead or it is revealed that he is dead but Bush would have lost significant support and if he actually died in 2004 than it could or could not have had a negative effect on Bush's re-election campaign especially since he was supposedly murdered by someone in his own organization. That would mean that the war on terror will not end soon since there would then be a power shift and a new leader and a new person to find etc. So if he is dead it is understandable why Bush would have kept it secret but now so he will not receive backlash or any potential impeachment for keeping that information secret it will probably be revealed in about 5-10 years from now depending on the situation in Iraq especially

[liquidglass]

Protecting this nation? Lol more American's have died under his 'watch' than the last 20 years or more.

Too bad 9/11 was in the planning stages before Bush 2 took office. Too bad Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996 and got away with it. Narf.

Bet you had no clue that 6900+ troops died during Clinton's 8 years... did you?

Lol I've heard that before, and while I was aware of the fact, where are your sources on it? Besides a wiki or a yahoo answer?

But if you want to go down that road, we can list all the solider/american related deaths under Bush's Father as well. Like Father, Like Son.

Ok it was in the planning stages before (not like something that big could be winged (excuse the pun)...but did it get stopped? And with evidence of the 1993 bombing not being stopped since it was in planning during his dad's presidency...I'd say the apple didn't fall very far, would you?

But if you would like to show me evidence that the prior administration knew about the attack being planned, dare I say MORE evidence than the current administrations then you're argument might hold some water, other that that, you're just a leaky bucket.


Edit: Even if you somehow still have confidence in our unintelligent president and you want to argue that Clinton was oh so terrible.
Here's basically what is going to put Bush at one of the lowest president approvals ever. The economy (don't give me the BS about economic cycles either, I've studied them, and only a 4 year old would believe something like that, etc etc)
Bush's BIGGEST problem is he didn't know how to manage the economy. By going to war he hurt the economy....badly. Now given there were some things that were out of his control. Like Enron and other companies that followed suit. But taking resources and spreading them thinly across the globe sucks for the economy. He thought he could get in and out, no problem, but as history has taught us, that never works. So the economy suffers ever so badly. Another problem is the oil. Ok Bush owns oil refineries and stock, so yes he has a vested interest in it, but that's not the biggest issue. The fact that we are still building our stockpiles of oil which kicks up the price even more on top of our taxes paying for more storage facilities is outrageous.

The Clinton admin. was smart about it. Yes they preformed some acts of war, etc etc. They dealt with the attack on the WTC. But they located our resources across the earth and drew them back in to our economy. Which allowed them to circulate upon themselves and built a much stronger economy than we had seen in decades, with a lower national debt as well.

It's not about luck, it's about strategy.

[oolatec]

Protecting this nation? Lol more American's have died under his 'watch' than the last 20 years or more.

Too bad 9/11 was in the planning stages before Bush 2 took office. Too bad Bin Laden declared war on us in 1996 and got away with it. Narf.

Bet you had no clue that 6900+ troops died during Clinton's 8 years... did you?

Lol I've heard that before, and while I was aware of the fact, where are your sources on it? Besides a wiki or a yahoo answer?

http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf

Ok it was in the planning stages before (not like something that big could be winged (excuse the pun)...but did it get stopped? And with evidence of the 1993 bombing not being stopped since it was in planning during his dad's presidency...I'd say the apple didn't fall very far, would you?

But if you would like to show me evidence that the prior administration knew about the attack being planned, dare I say MORE evidence than the current administrations then you're argument might hold some water, other that that, you're just a leaky bucket.

Yet more evidence of the incompetence of the previous administration for not being aware of such plans/threats against us. Despite a declaration of war against us in 1996... perhaps you remember it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/inte...fatwa_1996.html

Beirut? Mogadishu? Ah yes... running away... I mean... withdrawing... would make us safer! Nyuk.

Thanks for proving that point.

Edit: Even if you somehow still have confidence in our unintelligent president and you want to argue that Clinton was oh so terrible.
Here's basically what is going to put Bush at one of the lowest president approvals ever. The economy (don't give me the BS about economic cycles either, I've studied them, and only a 4 year old would believe something like that, etc etc)
Bush's BIGGEST problem is he didn't know how to manage the economy. By going to war he hurt the economy....badly. Now given there were some things that were out of his control. Like Enron and other companies that followed suit. But taking resources and spreading them thinly across the globe sucks for the economy. He thought he could get in and out, no problem, but as history has taught us, that never works. So the economy suffers ever so badly. Another problem is the oil. Ok Bush owns oil refineries and stock, so yes he has a vested interest in it, but that's not the biggest issue. The fact that we are still building our stockpiles of oil which kicks up the price even more on top of our taxes paying for more storage facilities is outrageous.

Yeah... one man controls the US economy. The rest of the world matters not. Good "studying" there.

By going to war he hurt the economy? How so, exactly? )

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

[liquidglass]

Edit: After this post, I just realized I'm thread jacking arguing with someone who has no clue what they're talking about. So if you would like to plague me rather than these good people with your terribly formed points then you can message me and I can verbally tear your argument apart from there.


No one man doesn't control the economy but I don't have the time and however frivolous your arguments might be I don't want to waste your time listing the various people and organizations that do have the majority of the effect on the economy. Instead I chose to list the "figure head" of all those people to make it more simple. But obviously you couldn't even make the connection. I hate that for you.


I am glad you actually have a few sources, but seriously, The New York Post? Lol I trust that about as much as the validity of The Onion. (while it's funny and makes good points, it's not true) Or do you not remember all the debates about the authenticity of the paper's articles?


Didn't you listen to ANYTHING? Did I blame war for the economy? No I blamed hoarding oil and stretching resources. Some if not most of those resources go towards the war, thus stretching them. Which from skimming your article that's about what it said. Thanks for proving my point ace.

I said a 4 year old could understand them, but I guess I was mistaken with you simply reinforcing what I said.

example:

The high price of oil is largely the result of strong demand, notably from China and India, pressing against a limited supply.

So if we're hoarding oil, and using more oil for war....how is that NOT hurting the economy? You really have to think things through here bud.

Ok it was in the planning stages before (not like something that big could be winged (excuse the pun)...but did it get stopped? And with evidence of the 1993 bombing not being stopped since it was in planning during his dad's presidency...I'd say the apple didn't fall very far, would you?

But if you would like to show me evidence that the prior administration knew about the attack being planned, dare I say MORE evidence than the current administrations then you're argument might hold some water, other that that, you're just a leaky bucket.

Yet more evidence of the incompetence of the previous administration for not being aware of such plans/threats against us. Despite a declaration of war against us in 1996... perhaps you remember it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/inte...fatwa_1996.html

Beirut? Mogadishu? Ah yes... running away... I mean... withdrawing... would make us safer! Nyuk.

Thanks for proving that point.

So fill me in exactly how your withdraw statement fit with the one you quoted of mine? The rest of it, yeah it fits. But your withdrawing statement Lol, that's a terrible stab even for your weak argument. If you're going to debate at least keep with the program.


But if you do want to go down that road. Then let's look at the logic. Ok let's say the previous admin should have known about an attack because of a declaration made 3 years after the last 'attack'. So then shouldn't the current admin have had at least 4 years to know what the hell they were going to do once they got into place?

But even with the 'declaration' when did the WTC's get attacked? Oh yeah 2001. So since the previous administration was OUT OF OFFICE somehow they were supposed to be ready for the attack. Who says they weren't...until the Bush admin took over? (seeing as how it didn't happen until the Bush administration took over)

By the way beyond that one link you didn't show any evidence that they should have known about any attack. It showed they were threatened. Not that anything happened, or there was specific evidence of anything happening, just "hey this is war" (Personally I'd take someone writing me a letter saying they're going to 'get me' any day over someone shooting me. While the 2nd one would give me an opportunity to retaliate it'd be better if it didn't happen at all.) Back to my previous comment, if they had at least 4 years warning and then the 'chatter' elevated pointing towards September 11th and plane hijackings (which is much more specific than "i'm going to hurt you") then why didn't they do anything then? According to your they're more competent right?


I'm sure you're going to sit there going: well they should have know blah blah blah. The bush admin DID know, and they DIDN'T act.

[liquidglass]

So to stick with the topic, I'm still with my original position. Bin Laden is dead, saw that video a while back.

But I will state that Bush admin. Did NOT kill Bin Laden, they just didn't want to admit it.

[oolatec]

But if you would like to show me evidence that the prior administration knew about the attack being planned, dare I say MORE evidence than the current administrations then you're argument might hold some water, other that that, you're just a leaky bucket.

You aren't following... Not surprising. War was declared on us in 1996. AQ should have been completely decimated right then and there. That's what I am saying. But AQ wasn't taken seriously, and they were treated as a nuisance. And look at what we got in return.

And no. The Bush Administration did not kill Bin Laden. Neither did the Clinton Administration.

The creep is dead due to his own devices.

At least we can agree on that. OBL is no more.

But I do not agree that the Bush Administration wants us to think he is still alive. Why would the PoTUS himself have said it's not a priority to "find" him, then?

I believe they know more than we do... of course they do. But to come out and say "Hey, we killed him... here's the evidence!" would make him a martyr. It's best, IMO, to let the animal fade into history like is happening.

[liquidglass]

Well in reference to the AQ, what about the murder attempt on Bush's father? I think that would have brought about a harsher response than a verbal threat.

The reason I didn't "follow" your ill placed logic is because you went off on your own tangent when we were dealing directly with 9/11. Which your evidence didn't support.

If we were talking about knowing AQ was a threat that would trace back to G. Bush Sr. not the Clinton admin. So that's not a path you want to argue.

However, finished with all that.

I COMPLETELY agree with you, Bin Laden is dead, and honestly I don't care who did it, as long as it happened (although getting 25 million would have been nice )- maybe the reward money helped finance the stimulus checks lol.

I didn't say the Bush admin wanted us to believe he was alive, I just don't think they wanted to come out and say "Yeah....someone else got him" because it wouldn't be a total failure but on the other hand it wouldn't be a total success. They're just going to take Saddam as the trophy and go with it. Which like I said before, doesn't matter to me, as long as BL is dead. So fading into history is fine with me too.

[Bulldog_916]

Oolatec, you are forgetting that the minute Bush took office they got ALL of the intel that the Clinton administration got. In July and August of '01, terrorist chatter elevated to its highest level. The administration didnt (by their own saying) take it as seriously as they should have. Even Condoleeza Rice said that. Bush could have told the airports to have security confiscate weapons or potential weapons before anyone unusual boards a plane. But he didnt.

[mobbed]

osama's dead Edited July 5, 2008 by mobbed

[J-thehookaholic]

Catching Bin Laden doesn't serve the Neo Con agenda. They need a continued, prolonged war to errode civil liberities and complete a facist shift in this country. Finding or killing Bin Laden does not help this, in fact it would greatly undermine their push for a "permenant majority". With out Bin Laden, support for a war on terror wanes, bc as we're begining to see you can't have both guns and butter; we tried that in the mid 60's and the 70's it didn't work out well then and its not working out well now. Anyway I digress. Bin Laden is being used as boogey man to stir up fear and distract us from our ever eroding privacy and constitutionally garunteed rights. FYI Bush can have you locked up as an enemy combatant on his say so alone, without any evidence. And yes this does apply to American citzens. Everything aside though, I find funny it that we take him seriously when he says he's going to attack us, even his november election video releases get play... and yet when he says we're defyling the Islamic holy land, no one listens. Bin Laden probably is dead, but we'll never hear about it, it doesn't serve a purpose. Dead or not I'll bet money theres another "new" Bin Laden tape before the Elections.