Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation

[ReverendHellh0und]

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation - wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden had no idea the U.S. would hit al-Qaida as hard as it has since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a former bin Laden associate tells WTOP in an exclusive interview.

"I'm 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen," says Noman Benotman, who was head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000.

"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."



"I've spent time in the front line engaging with the enemy more than bin Laden and [Ayman Al-]Zawahiri and the entire group of al-Qaida."

Zawahiri laughed when he warned those at the 2000 meeting that the U.S. response would be swift, hard and long, Benotman says.

Benotman attributes al-Qaida's overconfident attitude to the United States' response to al-Qaida attacks on its in embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.

Zawahiri, according to Benotman, expected only a missile attack.

"When they attacked the embassies in East Africa, they estimated the U.S. launched 75 cruise missiles and eight people got killed. So they said this time, maybe they will launch 200 and they laughed about this."

So as we can see, Inaction by the Clinton administration fueled the confidence of Osama and AQ. This is not actually news to some of us. We often state that one needs to respond harshly to these attacks....


Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.

 

[Moon]

So as we can see, Inaction by the Clinton administration fueled the confidence of Osama and AQ. This is not actually news to some of us. We often state that one needs to respond harshly to these attacks....


Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.

That's been my view as well. I read somewhere a few years ago that bin Laden saw our failure to respond adequately after Mogadishu in 1993 led him to believe we lacked the will to fight if attacked. I think he was correct, up until he decided to go forward with the attacks on 9/11. All I can say is thank god Al Gore didn't win the election, or I think we'd have seen a different reaction.

 

[rivrrat]

So as we can see, Inaction by the Clinton administration fueled the confidence of Osama and AQ. This is not actually news to some of us. We often state that one needs to respond harshly to these attacks....


Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.

Wrong. Insane, power hungry, ****tards like bin Laden and his ignorant, foolhardy followers led directly to the 911 attacks.

If someone chooses not to defend themselves, they are not to blame for being attacked. The attackers, and the attackers ALONE are to blame for their actions.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Wrong. Insane, power hungry, ****tards like bin Laden and his ignorant, foolhardy followers led directly to the 911 attacks.

If someone chooses not to defend themselves, they are not to blame for being attacked. The attackers, and the attackers ALONE are to blame for their actions.

They are partially responsible if they failed to elminate the threat. :shrug:

 

[spud_meister]

U.S. response would be swift, hard and long

:lol::mrgreen:

 

[justabubba]

so unlike how regan and bush the first responded to the terrorism in the blast of the beirut military barracks:
(from wiki)

U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against ever having stationed U.S. Marines in Lebanon, said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy. ... U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."

and the actual result

In the meantime, the attack gave a boost to the growth of the Shi'ite organization Hezbollah. Hezbollah denied involvement in the attacks but was seen by Lebanese as involved nonetheless as it praised the "two martyr mujahideen" who "set out to inflict upon the U.S. Administration an utter defeat not experienced since Vietnam ..." Hezbollah was now seen by many as "the spearhead of the sacred Muslim struggle against foreign occupation".

10/23/83 the deadly terrorist blast
02/26/84 - four months later - the Marines are withdrawn
yep, that republican president, and future republican president, and father of the subsequent republican president, sure showed the terrorists how we would not be cowed and would fulfill the pledge to keep US armed forces in lebanon

 

[misterman]

Naturally, hyperpartisans like some on this thread will have selective memories. But can you show that there was a strong push by Republican leaders for a much bigger response than Clinton's at the time?

And of course, nearly all Democrats supported Bush's initial response (invading Afghanistan) to 9/11. Speculating that Gore wouldn't have done the same is lame guesswork.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Irrellevant. Bin Laden was looking at current events in his time, and specifically clintons inactions were the ones mentioned.


If you have a problem with that. Take it up with bin ladens associate, not me. :shrug:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Naturally, hyperpartisans like some on this thread will have selective memories. But can you show that there was a strong push by Republican leaders for a much bigger response than Clinton's at the time?

And of course, nearly all Democrats supported Bush's initial response (invading Afghanistan) to 9/11. Speculating that Gore wouldn't have done the same is lame guesswork.

Anything on the topic or are we starting the shennenigans early this thread? :roll:

 

[misterman]

Don't blame Clinton - Joe Conason - Salon.com

Conservatives who once ridiculed and obstructed the former president's aggressive efforts to fight terrorism are now trying to pin Sept. 11 on him. They have a lot of nerve

Sullivan asserts that Clinton "got his warning about Islamist terrorism very early on" in the first World Trade Center bombing, because "the investigation found links to Osama bin Laden." He adds that "the State Department confirmed" bin Laden's complicity in the killing of American soldiers in Somalia.

Sullivan thereby implies that Clinton should have acted against bin Laden immediately, when in fact nobody knew about the Saudi millionaire's alleged involvement with the WTC bombing or the Mogadishu murders until at least three years later. In 1993, U.S. authorities were scarcely aware of bin Laden's existence, and al-Qaida had not yet been formed. Conservative journalists, such as the New Republic's Fred Barnes, were then suggesting that the likeliest perpetrator of the World Trade Center bombing was Iran. Even now, hard evidence linking bin Laden to those earlier events remains scarce.

Perhaps the most sensational charge against Clinton to emerge in the months since Sept. 11 is the dubious claim that he somehow let an offer from Sudan to turn over bin Laden slip through his fingers. Sullivan blatantly misrepresents a definitive article that appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 3, 2001, on this topic. "The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States," Sullivan writes. "Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down." But that phony accusation is exploded by the very first sentence of the Post article, which says only that Sudan offered to "arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody."

etc.

 

[misterman]

Anything on the topic or are we starting the shennenigans early this thread? :roll:

This is 100% on topic.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

All I see you doing Misterman is playing the "anything but taking responsibility" partisan hack position.


This is what BIN LADENS RIGHT HAND MAN SAID.


Anything on that topic or not?

 

[Redress]

I give you credit for being consistent Rev. Obama studies Afghanistan strategy, you take glee in reporting troop deaths to score political points. Terrorist blames America for 9/11, you take glee in using it to score political points.

 

[misterman]

Irrellevant. Bin Laden was looking at current events in his time, and specifically clintons inactions were the ones mentioned.

From the article I just posted:

nobody knew about the Saudi millionaire's alleged involvement with the WTC bombing or the Mogadishu murders until at least three years later. In 1993, U.S. authorities were scarcely aware of bin Laden's existence, and al-Qaida had not yet been formed.

Don't go making up your own history.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

From the article I just posted:



Don't go making up your own history.

Did you even read the article? Please stop derailing my thread with your nonsense.


Bin Laden's right hand man stated that bin laden thought we were a paper tiger and would simply lob "200 cruise missiles" at us based on what Clinton had done in the 90's.


Now please address the topic, your derailing will not be tolerated.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I give you credit for being consistent Rev. Obama studies Afghanistan strategy, you take glee in reporting troop deaths to score political points. Terrorist blames America for 9/11, you take glee in using it to score political points.

Whatever chick. It's not glee. its a freaking discussion. why don't you grow up and try to discuss something without your mouth foaming.



If you want to lie about me. At least do it where I can respond how I would like to. You have some nerve. stating I take glee in reportng troops deaths. But I guess being a support personel type, you wouldn't get how you trying to score debate points with big mouthed antics suggesting I take glee in my brothers and sisters death might piss me off.

 

[misterman]

Bin Laden's right hand man stated that bin laden thought we were a paper tiger and would simply lob "200 cruise missiles" at us based on what Clinton had done in the 90's.

What do you think Clinton should have done instead?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

What do you think Clinton should have done instead?

I think he should have taken bin laden when he was offered, and I think he should have went into countries that harbored terrorists.

Put a little fear into Osama, obviously what he did, just emboldened him.


Now, I don't think clinton did anything in this particual instance with malice, I think he simply took the wrong response, there was no way for him to know for sure, but actions and inactions have consequences. In this case, it emboldened OBL according to his right hand man, into 911.

 

[Redress]

Whatever chick. It's not glee. its a freaking discussion. why don't you grow up and try to discuss something without your mouth foaming.



If you want to lie about me. At least do it where I can respond how I would like to. You have some nerve. stating I take glee in reportng troops deaths. But I guess being a support personel type, you wouldn't get how you trying to score debate points with big mouthed antics suggesting I take glee in my brothers and sisters death might piss me off.

Do you want me to link that lovely thread Rev? You did it. Sorry that is inconvenient. You know full well if this guy, a terrorist, blamed Bush, you would both not have linked it, and called his words a lie if some one else had linked it.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't get this article. This is the opinion of somebody who has been having a rift with Al-Qaeda and is interested in making them look weak. Why are we supposed to take his opinion as credible?

 

[misterman]

I think he should have taken bin laden when he was offered, and I think he should have went into countries that harbored terrorists.

From the article I posted:

Perhaps the most sensational charge against Clinton to emerge in the months since Sept. 11 is the dubious claim that he somehow let an offer from Sudan to turn over bin Laden slip through his fingers. Sullivan blatantly misrepresents a definitive article that appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 3, 2001, on this topic. "The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States," Sullivan writes. "Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down." But that phony accusation is exploded by the very first sentence of the Post article, which says only that Sudan offered to "arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody."

And which countries? Remember, al Queda didn't even exist yet.

At the time, the idea of the U.S. intervening in the middle east with troops on the ground was unthinkable, even to most Republicans. The last time we had tried that, it was the Marines in Lebanon. That was the kind of experience we wanted to avoid.

Hindsight is 20/20, and it's really lame to go back in time and pretend you were smarter than everyone else.

Now, I don't think clinton did anything in this particual instance with malice, I think he simply took the wrong response, there was no way for him to know for sure, but actions and inactions have consequences. In this case, it emboldened OBL according to his right hand man, into 911.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20. You're welcome to note what Clinton should have done, just don't try to lay all the blame on him or make this political, okay?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Do you want me to link that lovely thread Rev? You did it. Sorry that is inconvenient. You know full well if this guy, a terrorist, blamed Bush, you would both not have linked it, and called his words a lie if some one else had linked it.

Go ahead, see what happens. You made that asinine contention, we supposedly reconciled what each of us meant. But I guess a dishonest person like you, tends to forget that in an attempt to slam someone.



As to your asinine contention. I think Bush dropped the ball as well, by not taking the threats seriously. While your searching why don't you look for that as well.


Now are you done with your big mouthed baiting/flaming or are you going to continue to try to derail this thread with your nonsense.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Which countries? Remember, al Queda didn't even exist yet.

At the time, the idea of the U.S. intervening in the middle east with troops on the ground was unthinkable, even to most Republicans. The last time we had tried that, it was the Marines in Lebanon. That was the kind of experience we wanted to avoid.

Hindsight is 20/20, and it's really lame to go back in time and pretend you were smarter than everyone else.



Like I said, hindsight is 20/20. You're welcome to note what Clinton should have done, just don't try to lay all the blame on him or make this political, okay?

Did you even read what I posted?


Here I'll post it again so you don't look so silly in your responses:

Now, I don't think clinton did anything in this particual instance with malice, I think he simply took the wrong response, there was no way for him to know for sure, but actions and inactions have consequences. In this case, it emboldened OBL according to his right hand man, into 911.

 

[misterman]

Did you even read what I posted?

Did you read what I posted in response?

And can you just once have a discussion that's not full of anger and accusations and insults?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Did you read what I posted in response?

Yes, it had nothing to do with my position. Sorry.

And can you just once have a discussion that's not full of anger and accusations and insults?

***yawn*** that didn't happen.