• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

New reports are now starting to emerge that the secret CIA "Hit" plan was to target Al Quieda "Sympathizers" throughout the world. (reported by MSNBC last night)
How scary is that?? (unleashing "The gang the couldn't shoot straight" (masterminded by GW Bush) to kill almost anyone they wanted....with no oversight)
If these reports turn out to be true, would any Bush apologists care to defend such a program? (who decides what a "Sympathizer" is?...Do we have the right to kill people based on their thoughts? (George Orwell's "Thought Police")
 
New reports are now starting to emerge that the secret CIA "Hit" plan was to target Al Quieda "Sympathizers" throughout the world. (reported by MSNBC last night)
How scary is that?? (unleashing "The gang the couldn't shoot straight" (masterminded by GW Bush) to kill almost anyone they wanted....with no oversight)
If these reports turn out to be true, would any Bush apologists care to defend such a program? (who decides what a "Sympathizer" is?...Do we have the right to kill people based on their thoughts? (George Orwell's "Thought Police")

How about posting a link, so that any response can be to the actaul wording and not your paraphrases.
 
New reports are now starting to emerge that the secret CIA "Hit" plan was to target Al Quieda "Sympathizers" throughout the world. (reported by MSNBC last night)
How scary is that?? (unleashing "The gang the couldn't shoot straight" (masterminded by GW Bush) to kill almost anyone they wanted....with no oversight)
If these reports turn out to be true, would any Bush apologists care to defend such a program? (who decides what a "Sympathizer" is?...Do we have the right to kill people based on their thoughts? (George Orwell's "Thought Police")

In the days following 9/11, Bush made it very clear that we would kill the enemy, no where he was and there be no distinction made between the enemy and the people who supported him and gave sanctuary.
 
New reports are now starting to emerge that the secret CIA "Hit" plan was to target Al Quieda "Sympathizers" throughout the world. (reported by MSNBC last night)
How scary is that?? (unleashing "The gang the couldn't shoot straight" (masterminded by GW Bush) to kill almost anyone they wanted....with no oversight)
If these reports turn out to be true, would any Bush apologists care to defend such a program? (who decides what a "Sympathizer" is?...Do we have the right to kill people based on their thoughts? (George Orwell's "Thought Police")
So your criticism of the hit plan is not that it involved killing Al Qaeda sympathizers, but that it involved members of the Bush administration planning to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers?

If Dear Leader decides to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers, are you ok with that?

Which law allows Dear Leader to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers while making it a crime for members of the previous Administration to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers?
 
So your criticism of the hit plan is not that it involved killing Al Qaeda sympathizers, but that it involved members of the Bush administration planning to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers?

If Dear Leader decides to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers, are you ok with that?

Which law allows Dear Leader to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers while making it a crime for members of the previous Administration to kill Al Qaeda sympathizers?

That what it all boils down to.
 
I do think that #1 is a very good question. I don't see why something like this would need to be kept secret from Congress.
Classified information is on a "need to know basis". No exceptions. Moreover, simply being a congressman or senator doesn't mean one is capable of obtaining a security clearance. Congressman and senators are equally as likely if not greater to be the target of foreign espionage attempts. They are probably more susciptible to foreign espionage attempts such as blackmail and money laundering.
 
How about posting a link, so that any response can be to the actaul wording and not your paraphrases.

Get a hold of Keith Olberman's "Countdown" program for last night. (not sure which story it was but it was in the first 1/2 hr)

Edit: I think this may work [ame]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31930917[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the Liar?

Watch the "Countdown" link preceding your post
Can't watch video on my phone. I'll have to watch it when I get home.

But note that we've been killing violent AQ leaders and sympathsizers since 9/11. That is what that whole multi-national Afghanistan force is there for. Are you saying all of the forces in Afghan are part of this assassination squad or do you just cherry pick the occasions when leaders are killed and assumel that it was the assassination squad?
 
I hope I'm not alone as a "non-right winger" in saying I'm damn glad we at least tried to do something like this.

Look, this is what our government should have been doing post-911. The invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake. But assembling teams of covert operators to go after our enemies wherever they were hiding...that was a damn good idea. Unfortunately the planning and execution seems to have been fairly poor, but in my mind I wish they would have been more successful, that they would have expanded the program, and that we would have never found out about it.

Sword of Gideon comes to mind.

I can't stand Cheney or Rumsfeld, not at all. But on this matter, the only thing I see they did wrong was trying to micro manage it. It should have been a joint CIA/Pentagon operation that drew upon resources from every corner. Had there been better logistical and operational planning this thing may have been a true success story that quietly protected our nation.

Far from beating Cheney up about this specific program, we ought to be quietly applauding him for at least trying. God I feel dirty saying that.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

But note that we've been killing violent AQ leaders and sympathsizers since 9/11.

We would be justified in killing Al Quieda terrorists because they committed acts of terrorism against us. We would NOT be justified, nor has it ever been U.S. (KNOWN) policy to kill people who simply don't like us.

Do you think we would be justified to kill people we simply disagree with, who have never actually done anything but hate us? (I'll remind you that an Al Quieda supporter is not necessarily a terrorist himself/herself. Support is a thought process, not an overt act itself)
If you have never read George Orwell's "1984".......I suggest you do so because what you are espousing is the acceptance of real-life Orwell's "Thought Police"
 
Last edited:
I hope I'm not alone as a "non-right winger" in saying I'm damn glad we at least tried to do something like this.
Really. I'm not at all sure what the issue is.
:confused:
 
Re: Will the Liar?

We would be justified in killing Al Quieda terrorists because they committed acts of terrorism against us. We would NOT be justified, nor has it ever been U.S. (KNOWN) policy to kill people who simply don't like us.

Do you think we would be justified to kill people we simply disagree with, who have never actually done anything but hate us? (I'll remind you that an Al Quieda supporter is not necessarily a terrorist himself/herself. Support is a thought process, not an overt act itself)
If you have never read George Orwell's "1984".......I suggest you do so because what you are espousing is the acceptance of real-life Orwell's "Thought Police"

You mean like the attacks on Al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan by Obama. I believe a number of innocent people have died in those drone attacks authorized by Obama. Maybe they liked us and maybe they didn't, but they certainly supported terrorists.

Do you want Obama put on trial for these attacks??
 
Re: Will the Liar?

You mean like the attacks on Al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan by Obama. I believe a number of innocent people have died in those drone attacks authorized by Obama. Maybe they liked us and maybe they didn't, but they certainly supported terrorists.

Do you want Obama put on trial for these attacks??


Our obvious intention was to kill terrorists, so I would consider those attacks legitimate. Innocent people die in every war & that is unavoidable. The obvious difference is when a country deliberately targets innocent people, or people who merely support our enemies. Once you start doing that, you are no better than the terrorists you are fighting.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

You mean like the attacks on Al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan by Obama. I believe a number of innocent people have died in those drone attacks authorized by Obama. Maybe they liked us and maybe they didn't, but they certainly supported terrorists.

Do you want Obama put on trial for these attacks??

That is the problem with drone attacks. The concept is awesome, execution is problematic. When you are trying to be precise there is no substitution for an operator on the ground with target confirmation. Logistically difficult to be sure, but the alternative often results in innocent casualties and other collateral damage.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

The obvious difference is when a country deliberately targets innocent people, or people who merely support our enemies. Once you start doing that, you are no better than the terrorists you are fighting.
"Innocent people" and "those that support are enemies" are mutually exclusive groups, especially when the enemy is the Islamofascist terrorist.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

"Innocent people" and "those that support are enemies" are mutually exclusive groups, especially when the enemy is the Islamofascist terrorist.

Have to agree with you on this. If you decide to harbor Al Qaeda you've chosen a side and become part of their logistical support base.
 
Keith Olberman is a Jackarse and he isn't a Real New's Reporter so this story is just another fancy ratings game by MSNBC.

Just like Sean Hanity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox.

Agreed Olbermann is not a news reporter, but his producers are, and his program relies on content from NBC News, which is real news.
 
I cite this from the Wikki Page,

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

It is customary to list a link and/or specify WHICH wikki page or source you have cited. Please don't make us search for it.

The page you cited is here:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden[/ame]
 
Re: Will the Liar?

We would NOT be justified, nor has it ever been U.S. (KNOWN) policy to kill people who simply don't like us.
I think even Dickey Cheney agrees with that.

Do you think we would be justified to kill people we simply disagree with, who have never actually done anything but hate us? (I'll remind you that an Al Quieda supporter is not necessarily a terrorist himself/herself. Support is a thought process, not an overt act itself)
No one has said that we should kill people because of ideology alone. That's is 100% anti-american.

If you have never read George Orwell's "1984".......I suggest you do so because what you are espousing is the acceptance of real-life Orwell's "Thought Police"
I suggest that you not create strawmen so you don't continue to waste my time or yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom