Fearing and fighting terrorism. Helluva way to live your life, don't you think?
President Clinton didn't go after Osama bin Laden when he had the chance after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
President Bush did, though.
If President Obama's track record is any indication, and a 9/11 type of attack happened during his term, he wouldn't have.
My hat goes off and my heart goes out to our military that has sacrificed so much in the search for and killing of Osama bin Laden, Al Queda and other terrorists. If people want to chant "USA, USA, USA" they have every right to, but they need to know that winning this battle doesn't mean that we've won the war against muslim extremists.
I don't think Osama bin Laden should be given the sanctity of being buried at sea either. He should be cremated, mixed in concrete and poured at every major entrance of the New World Trade Center. Why? In mulsim culture, showing someone the bottom of your feet is considered offensive and what better way to say "Screw You" than to have every person walk on his remains before entering? What better way to say "We saw what you destroyed, grieved over our losses, rebuilt and 'Kept on, keeping on'."
12 comments
William, I believe Hussein f@#$d up big time in burying OBL at sea. His body should have been kept on ice for all to see, islamic traditions be damned.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 9:02:00 AM EDT
The emotional part says "Hell yeah", the logical part is starting to think
"Osama bin Laden is better off at the bottom of the ocean".
Let all his follows drown trying to retrieve his body.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 10:19:00 AM EDT
I think you're a bit wrong on your facts there. The World Trade Center attacks never happened on Clinton's terms, he left office in January of 2001, Bush took office then, and the attacks happened in September of 01. If you're talking about the first attacks, the bombing in 93, that was done by a separate terrorist group that claimed responsibility, the Liberation Army was responsible for that attack, not Al-Quaida. And also, all 6 individuals of the liberation army that WERE responsible for that bombing were captured, within a year, under Clinton's administration, much less time than it took Bush's administration to do.
I'm not trying to berate you on your post, but it doesn't seem right to belittle a president who didn't have ANYTHING to do with Bin Laden in his entire term, and say he did nothing....
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 12:59:00 PM EDT
I think burying OBL at sea is because of Geneva convention code, stating a person must be buried based on their religious beliefs, which in Bin Ladens faith, requires quick burial. I know crossing Geneva code is a serious offense as is, especially for such a high profile case.
That said, another part of me kinda believes that this is just a cover story, and easy excuse, to tell the world and hide the rest. Part of me wants to think they still have the body in custody, or even moreso, Bin Laden himself, and tell the world he's dead, so they can do what they want with him from here out to extract needed information.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 1:13:00 PM EDT
Geneva convention aside, where ever bin Laden's body is will become a "mecca" or target for his followers. "Mecca" as with Saddam Hussein's grave, target for vandalism, or even a target for terrorism.
As to religious beliefs, there is some debate to that. Some Muslim scholars question Bin Laden's sea burial as disregarding Islamic traditions.
To be honest, Osama bin Laden could either be dead or "dead", as long as he's "contained" I, and a whole lot of other people feel better.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 2:44:00 PM EDT
One has to wonder why, then, Osama bin Laden would take credit for the 1993 WTC bombing. http://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2010/12/al-qaeda-attacks-on-west.html
Also, according to Bill Clinton's own words, he "warned" Bush 43 about bin Laden.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 2:51:00 PM EDT
Well, the facts of what Clinton had brought to him about Osama then could still be looked at as evidential at best. i mean, you have to consider, the president probably gets hundreds, if not more, of terrorist and activists plots and people yearly, they have to base their assertions for finding a person on more than a slim connection or whatnot, If not, our country would be spending billions of dollars, and man hours, yearly, chasing after less than fully gathered facts. What would our country be like if EVERY person in the world that made a threat against America were to be hunted down or looked into?
I mean, seriously, it's still basically saying "Bin Ladens name was at ONE point in an 8 year presidency, mentioned to Clinton, and Clinton did nothing" Of course, if I were president, and got the same intel, with no basis fact to back it up, i'd probly end up overlooking it too, in light of more serious and immediate threats, there's a priority level that takes effect, and basic threats of an unknown party (i'm assuming that PRIOR to the 1993 bombings, the name Osama Bin Laden was NOT an internationally known name at all) have to take less precedence than immediate threats from within the country already. I definately wouldn't be wasting manpower and public relations and money, chasing down a target that at BEST had the connection of owning a place a terrorist stayed. And even then, that would have required us going across diplomatic borders, I don't think that excuse woulda worked with them....
Don't forget, this wasn't the only major terrorist thing Clinton dealt with in his office, there was Oklahoma City, and Dharhan, which was orchestrated by Hezbollah, There are PLENTY of anti-american terrorist groups out there, in the end, it really comes down to threat priority of who we target. Al-Quaida itself, from my understanding, didn't really become a large terroristic threat to America until roughly 1999-2000. This wasn't much time before Clinton left office, by then, any major changes in policy could have caused some political issues with the elections, so i'm sure that factored in.
As for Obama, yes, I agree he just was in the right place at the right time, but I also feel that beefing up our troops in Afghanistan is a large point too. I always felt we needed to focus there, more than Iraq.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 3:01:00 PM EDT
The US government did know of Al Qaeda prior to Clinton's presidency, and maybe more.
Conspiracy theory? I don't know.
Oklahoma City Bombing: An al-Qaeda Connection?
"In his report The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection? (pdf), International Relations Committee chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R - California), presents evidence suggesting that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols may have been assisted in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by 'Middle Easterners' and 'a German national living at an extremist compound in eastern Oklahoma.' "
Did Nichols and Yousef meet?
"A close analysis of Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef timelines creates a compelling, if still circumstantial, case — and offers clues to where the smoking guns may be found"
We do know that the information from PBS can't be too anti Clinton.
Brief History of al Qaeda from PBS Bill Moyers
al-Qaeda from Wikipedia
Timeline: Major attacks by al Qaeda from Hindustantimes.com
Is there a Hezbollah & Al Qaeda connection? There could be some cooperation between the two groups.
The Al-Qaeda-Hezbollah Relationship
Terror Alliance Has U.S. Worried; Hezbollah, Al Qaeda Seen Joining Forces (pay to read)
Hezbollah aids Al Qaeda
Since you brought up the increase in troops, Obama sent 30,000 after he was told by General Stanley McChrystal and Ambassador Said Jawad, the Afghanistan's ambassador to the US, "any less than 40,000 troops will not do the job." Again, the cynic in me says that Obama didn't send more because he didn't want to anger his base and risk losing them come re-election time.
Iraq is a different story. I firmly believe when someone like Saddam Hussein makes public statements that they plan terrorist attacks with weapons that he had used before on Iraqi civilians and Iranian forces, you do your best to confirm if he had the capability. When someone like Saddam Hussein makes that task impossible, you become suspicious. The more suspicious you are you are apt to do two things; cower in fear or attack in fear. The call to invade Iraq is being looked through 20/20 hindsight.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 4:09:00 PM EDT
As for Al-Quaida connections, you can keep going through the net ALL you want and pulling up jacked link theories, a crazy enough conspiracy theorist, or nutjob, could connect Tom Brady to Al-Quaida if given enough time. The fact is, all of that information is literally just that, heresay information and theories trying to place blame and smear mud. The fact is, if someone wants to make people look bad, they WILL make them look bad by trying to find whatever they can to link. I'm skeptical of any of that stuff I read, just as i'm skeptical of anything Michael Moore produces, it's ALL one sided, it's ALWAYS one sided. I don't like reading or seeing just one story side, one of the many reasons I don't watch Fox news or MSNBC news.
In other ends, even if, again, Clinton had news of these relations, again, it's a serious standing matter that you have to think on. Using the Osama stay with the governor, and the potential chance they had to catch him then, as an example, do you even stop to think the seriousness of Diplomatic relations acts like that could cause? Americans like to think that if we have a problem, we just go in, guns blazing, and deal with the rest later, but the system doesn't work that way. Even if they DID know Osama had been there right there and then, without hard proof, what do you think would happen had they done that? Heck, us going into Pakistan like we did to get him could have even turned up wrong had this not been played right, thankfully, Pakistan was co-operative.
Better yet, let me put it in perspective to you, what if some third foreign country, lets' say Iraq, sent an elite unit into OUR country, broke into Governor Nathan Deals private home, kidnapped one of his guests of honor, regardless of their reason against them, and possibly killed people or innocents in the process? Do you THINK the U.S. would just sit by and watch? That's my point, taking steps of ANYTHING against terrorism outside of U.S. territory can have serious diplomatic and political consequences. It can strain, or break, diplomatic relations, or even start a war, World War 1 started over the single assasination of a prince, wars have started for even LESS than that. it's NEVER as simple as saying "ok, we know where he is, let's get him."
I'm just saying, i know it seems easy to point fingers, and lay blame, and try to make all the connections and conspiracy theories you can about this or that. But you have to stop and think of how serious these things impact the entire world, not just us in the U.S., and these are the decision ANY president has to make EVERY day, the one day he pulls the wrong string, or makes the wrong choice, could literally send America down a very bad road.Some may say an opportunity was passed on Osama, they could say the same for Bush Sr when we went to war with Iraq the first time, and how he could have known of Osama, or why he let Hussien go, the fact is, no one is standing in their shoes to make that very serious choice in the end. And no one but them, knows why they didn't make that choice, but I do have enough faith in our government, to believe that they had info strong and credible reason at the time not to make that call.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:24:00 PM EDT
That is a fact.
Posted on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 8:27:00 PM EDT
Good Job William, I like your idea on the placement of the body. Maybe one of the boys saved a piece to use for that hahahahahha.... Symbolism is important for sure. Semper Fi,
You handle the snipes pretty well too.
Posted on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 8:38:00 AM EDT
Semper Fi and thank you Gunny.
Posted on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 8:45:00 AM EDT