Why is Bin Laden not a priority?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-09-18 01:22pm

Why do you think that the man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks that killed 3000 American citizens on homesoil and gloated about it afterwards is still alive? Why do you think this administration from almost day one has tried to take Bin Laden out of the equation?

My guess is that if the Administration 'got' Bin Laden relatively early on, say the Invasion of Afghanistan, that this war on Terror that Bush has waged would have lost a massive amount of support from the American public.

By making this war more than just Bin Laden they can do just about anything and justify it as yet another aspect of the war on terror (Remember the ridiculous "If you smoke pot you're supporting Terror" commercials?)

What are your thoughts? Is it just sheer incompetance? Criminal neglect? What do you think? Why is the single greates mass murderer of American citizens in a single day still alive and walking free?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-09-18 01:24pm

Why is the single greates mass murderer of American citizens in a single day still alive and walking free?

Because he managed to escape us by the skin of his teeth at tora bora and moved into the Wazaristani regions of Afghanistan/Pakistan, which is lawless, anarchaist, and tribal; where more people support him than they do either the Afghan or Pakistani governments.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-18 01:28pm

Why do you think this administration from almost day one has tried to take Bin Laden out of the equation?

Because he didn't matter from day one. He didn't matter ever, particulary, as it could've been anybody else who'd dare to attack U.S. in a massive terrorist act like this. He was sufficient to scare people with - an omniscient evil uberman. Quickly, under this ruse, his bogeyman was used to construct the support for expansion in ME.

Is it just sheer incompetance? Criminal neglect?

Neither. Conscious strategy in a quest of great power and game of great power. IMHO. The recent farce with the Bin Laden-searching "group" which hasn't received any funding or clues the last 2 years is contributing to me being quite sure in this. Bin is good as he is - an unbeatable, uncatchable bogeyman.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-18 01:29pm

They fucked up, lost him, can't find him now, and so they're trying to minimize their incompetence by playing down the importance of catching him. To a certain extent, it's true--catching Bin Laden won't stop Islamic terrorism. But like all liars, they've taken a little bit of truth and used it as the cornerstone for a huge lie. Saying that catching Bin Laden isn't important because it won't stop terrorism is like saying it's not important to catch the mugger who killed your wife because it won't stop muggings or murder. Even if there's absolutely no strategic value to be had by catching him, there's still justice for 3000 dead Americans to consider.

But then again, the thought of justice for the people responsible for thousands of dead Americans might make the Wonder Chimp and the rest of his maladministration uncomfortable.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-09-18 01:30pm

Because finding him would deprive the US of their boogeyman they use to frighten the children.

Also, it didn't cost them their last election, so why bother?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-18 01:30pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Why do you think this administration from almost day one has tried to take Bin Laden out of the equation?
Because he didn't matter from day one. He didn't matter ever, particulary, as it could've been anybody else who'd dare to attack U.S. in a massive terrorist act like this. He was sufficient to scare people with - an omniscient evil uberman. Quickly, under this ruse, his bogeyman was used to construct the support for expansion in ME.
Is it just sheer incompetance? Criminal neglect?
Neither. Conscious strategy in a quest of great power and game of great power. IMHO. The recent farce with the Bin Laden-searching "group" which hasn't received any funding or clues the last 2 years is contributing to me being quite sure in this. Bin is good as he is - an unbeatable, uncatchable bogeyman.

It has been .. Refunded.. as of last month.. 200million worth..

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-09-18 01:31pm

Because finding someone with followers and resources who wants to stay hidden and can do so in countries you can't overtly attack is pretty close to impossible. Remember Saddam? He didn't have a nuclear armed 'allied' state to flee into. If they emphasised the hunt for Bin Laden more, they'd simply look more pathetic as he continued to elude them.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2006-09-18 01:35pm

theski wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:
Why do you think this administration from almost day one has tried to take Bin Laden out of the equation?
Because he didn't matter from day one. He didn't matter ever, particulary, as it could've been anybody else who'd dare to attack U.S. in a massive terrorist act like this. He was sufficient to scare people with - an omniscient evil uberman. Quickly, under this ruse, his bogeyman was used to construct the support for expansion in ME.
Is it just sheer incompetance? Criminal neglect?
Neither. Conscious strategy in a quest of great power and game of great power. IMHO. The recent farce with the Bin Laden-searching "group" which hasn't received any funding or clues the last 2 years is contributing to me being quite sure in this. Bin is good as he is - an unbeatable, uncatchable bogeyman.
It has been .. Refunded.. as of last month.. 200million worth..

After it's lack of funding hit the news. Not a coincidence, I suspect.

I expect that the Bush Admin not only wants Bin Laden out there as a bogeyman, but is hoping for another successful 9-11 scale attack. Another bloody shirt to wave, and it's not like the death of Americans bothers these people.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-18 01:49pm

Maybe not, because should a terror attack occur, people would be divided. After all, Bush's main (althoug bullshit) line is that "we fight them there so they don't come here". Nothing will shake the 30% he always has, but the others may fall off from the Bushites forever.

Of course, he can always blame it on the liberals, after all, it's not so hard to do for his ilk with just about anything, no matter how nonsensical, including 9/11 itself as recent TV shows demonstrate.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-09-18 02:02pm

Stas Bush wrote:Maybe not, because should a terror attack occur, people would be divided. After all, Bush's main (althoug bullshit) line is that "we fight them there so they don't come here". Nothing will shake the 30% he always has, but the others may fall off from the Bushites forever.

If another attack occurs, I guarantee that the line will be, "Congress didn't give us enough slack to fight terrorism", not "We failed at fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." EDIT: That's not to say the spin will work, but that's what they're going to say to downplay the contradiction to their flawed strategic argument.

As for the OP, there are several reasons bin Laden is no longer a priority for the government: as noted, continuing to pursue him makes the administration look bad; the claim that it won't stop terrorism is true; but I would also submit that the Administration, or at least Bush, has, literally, moved on: it strikes me that the fight against bin Laden has, in the minds of the Administration, morphed into a struggle to spread democracy throughout the world. Since bin Laden has marginalized himself, he's no longer important in this bigger struggle, so they no longer focus on him.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-18 02:05pm

Because the maladministration needs its own Emmanuel Goldstein to frighten the sheep with —that beyond its sheer incompetence in handing the "war".

JLTucker · Post by **JLTucker** » 2006-09-18 02:08pm

Well, according to today's The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-18 02:11pm

JLTucker wrote:Well, according to today's The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

and Bin laden paid for it all!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 03:46pm

It's not important to find Bin Laden because success is infeasible without an enormous expenditure of time, money, and manpower and would probably not solve America's foreign relations problems anyway.

Too bad nobody in this administration ever realized that the same is true for Iraq.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2006-09-18 04:24pm

Honestly, I think the White House dumbfucks actually believe that the threat has diversified away from OBL. Since he's not directly responsible for fucking shit up in Iraq, which obviously is the main front in the War on Terror, he's not important. Who cares if he's one of the few people who can really claim to be a spiritual leader for a lot of these extremist groups? Who cares if he can still provide logistical support and advice to various groups affiliated with his brand of Islam? If he can't excersize direct control, how influental can he really be?

Basically, Bush and his ilk are career bureaucrats who are looking at the War on Terror, well, bureaucratically. They obviously don't understand the value of OBL as a symbol, and they don't understand how guerrilla movements work. What OBL is practising is classic guerrilla warfare, and the Bush White House has essentially ceded the initiative to OBL and let OBL and his followers set the table for the public relations battle. Just look at Islamo-Fascists. Seriously, what the fuck kind of language is that? Feingold nailed it the other day in his speech when he said that terminology gives the impression that these extremists are actually representative of Islam in some way. It's this kind of stuff which is handing Bin Laden a commanding position in the Islamic world, and which is facilitating his ability to communicate effectively with a wide array of extremists.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2006-09-19 12:38am

I'd agree with the boogyman theory as the primary reason. Clinton's more responsible security advisors were after Bin Laden too, but somehow he never acted.

Apart from the logistical difficulty in tracking down Bin Laden, there is also the question of finding a suitable replacement if his chips were cashed.

The petit hydra that is radical Islam might spawn a more effective successor than Bin Laden, who is pretty much reduced to iconic status. His martydom would allow a successor with a less well-mapped out network and less predictable agenda to cash in on his legacy.

I'd stray way into left field and say that Bin Laden and Al Queda are useful stooges, semi-autonomous Islamic constructs of the West from the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union.

Even if the American and most of the Western public are beginning to now have doubts, the tar-baby propaganda campaign around Bin Laden/Al Zarqawi/Al Queda has been successful to the point where now Al Queda in Iraq might be a real nuisance to the indigenous Sunni moderates who actually dominate the Iraqi resistance, especially with the sectarian attrition of Saddam-era operatives who would know better.

The Iraqi Resistance didn't play these paper tigers up; the Western media did. You never hear anything about Juba, The Baghdad Sniper, although if one wanted to deomonize (or lionize?) a member of the Iraqi resistance, and send recruits to his organization, it woud be this guy. But of course, Juba is likely the real thing.

Like Special Agent Al Zarqawi, those 'inspired by' Bin Laden are useful loose cannons planted amidst the chosen enemy, while the false-flag network itself is sufficiently manageable, more like an abattoir for Islamic martyrs. They are very determined to kill Iraqis; not so good at targeting Coalition forces.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2006-09-19 04:17am

He's not a priority because you simply can't get him. Bin Laden is either in the moutains of Pakistan or China surrounded by loyal guards. If America was to perform an operation inside Pakistan (which is very heavilly Muslim, anti-west, and pro-Taliban) it could possibly cause enough domestic turmoil to cause a coup, giving Nuclear Weapons to exactly the people we don't want having Nukes. I wont go into the difficulties of trying to get Bin Laden if he's in China, mainly because they're so obvious.

That being said, what is he doing right now anyway beyond making a video every couple months? Is it really that important to change him from a delusional nut who can't do anything but rant at you and call you names into a martyr for Islamic Radicals?

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-19 04:42am

General Brock wrote:I'd agree with the boogyman theory as the primary reason. Clinton's more responsible security advisors were after Bin Laden too, but somehow he never acted.

Every case I've seen and read about where Clinton has delayed action, it was because there was too great a risk of collateral damage (in some cases including politicians or royalty from certain "friendly" nations). After shit like the Embassy bombings they started going a lot harder after him, but he'd gone to ground.

Now with him firmly on every intel force in the worlds snatch/shoot list, I'm not surprised that no-one has had a shot at him. I too would be hunkering my little arse down somewhere surrounded by the most fanatically and insanely loyal people I could find.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2006-09-20 01:51am

weemadando wrote:
General Brock wrote:I'd agree with the boogyman theory as the primary reason. Clinton's more responsible security advisors were after Bin Laden too, but somehow he never acted.
Every case I've seen and read about where Clinton has delayed action, it was because there was too great a risk of collateral damage (in some cases including politicians or royalty from certain "friendly" nations). After shit like the Embassy bombings they started going a lot harder after him, but he'd gone to ground.

Now with him firmly on every intel force in the worlds snatch/shoot list, I'm not surprised that no-one has had a shot at him. I too would be hunkering my little arse down somewhere surrounded by the most fanatically and insanely loyal people I could find.

That's assuming he wasn't permanently interrred at Tora Bora anyway. Buried alive... such an unpleasant way to go...

Sure, there have supposedly been taped messages, but nothing definite.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-20 03:48am

I thought that there had been a video not too long ago?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-09-20 06:50am

Because the US can't invade Pakistan

thejester · Post by **thejester** » 2006-09-20 07:49am

Because he's irrelevant. Why waste time and money hunting for someone who is increasingly isolated from his own organisation and is being replaced by a younger generation? Take for example the correspondence between Zarqawi in Iraq and Zaharwi/bin-Laden. They (and in this context 'they' is important - Zaharwi is just as, if not more, important than bin Laden) told him to pull his head in, and he basically told them to fuck off. As a figurehead, both in the West and the Islamic world, Zarqawi was well on his way to usurping Osama as the bogeyman/hero, and there are almost certainly going to be more like him. Osama had his 15 minutes and is now gone. Time to move onto bigger and better things, so to speak.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-09-20 02:28pm

NecronLord
Straha
Joe
thejester

are basically correct in their assessments.

It's going to take a while to find Osama, unless we really really really get lucky.

Linka to someone who eluded us for a while

Basically, this guy walked up to the CIA entrance at Langley and shot people with an AK-47; then fled to Pakistan.

After four and a half years, he was captured. A reliable informant gave the information as to his whereabouts and arranged for Kansi to be in the hotel where he was captured. On June 15, 1997, Kansi travelled to the town of Dera Ghazi Khan in central Pakistan as part of a business venture to import Russian electronics into Pakistan. He was captured in an early morning raid led by the FBI and transported to Fairfax, Virginia to stand trial. Kansi suspected that he was set up by his business partners to obtain the reward money offered by the United States.

He was never officially extradited from Pakistan, and US officials have never stated the country in which he was captured. However, some sources say the FBI received both the permission for his arrest in a hotel room, as well as the extradition papers after the arrest and a helicopter flight to Islamabad, Pakistan.

I can't see Osama's pals betraying him like that, so unless we get really lucky tomorrow, like we accidentally pick up a live satellite phone transmission with Osama's voice on it; and there's a predator nearby....

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2006-09-20 04:00pm

I do agree that OBL and Al Qaeda make for convenient stooges. But some of the posts imply that OBL has been deliberately allowed to remain at large, and I don't believe that for a moment. There will always be other stooges at hand, and the political hay that GWB can make from parading a captured (or killed) OBL around is far to great for that possibility.

Instead, he has eluded capture, so the Bush Administration would be foolish to dwell on him thereby admitting their failure. They have moved on, but if they get the opportunity, suddenly OBL will be important again.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2006-09-20 04:48pm

This might be an off-the-wall question, but is there a potential intelligence value for keeping OBL alive and free? What I was thinking is that maybe the threat of OBL developing a seperatist movement in the tribal regions of Pakistan forces General Musharraf to solidify ties for intel sources and foreign backers like the United States. The US, thanks to closer ties with Pakistan, has a good avenue for intel gathering on Al Queda and other extremist movements, and the Paks get access to US signal intel and military weaponry. What sort of things would motivate the Paks into closer ties with the US?

I don't completely buy the boogyman theory as the sole reason for why the US hasn't shown much interest in capturing Bin Laden - that might be how the politicians choose to present their case to the country, but I don't think that it motivates their decision making process. I have a feeling there are tactical reasons that have nothing to do with the boogyman theory that dictate their response.