Cia Cancels Bin-laden Search

[JMHX]

NEVER FORGET 9-11

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

---

So much for learning the lessons of September 11th. The fun never ceases when you're dealing with the most inept administration in American history.

[stafffighter]

By this point he's been rendered into an icon and out of any functionary use which is a form of victory slightly less effective and much less satisfying than actually eliminating him. In a conflict which most americans refuse to see is based and fueled on icons the impact will be fact, if they ever hear of this and don't just assume he's still merly uncaught.

[Thespus]

The plan they're using now, search for Al-Quaeda members based on region, and not just bin Laden since he's not really in control anymore, isn't a terrible one. That group was getting nowhere anyway. It wasn't like they were on the brink of finding him and then disbanded. But if that were the case, we'd know Bush's motives, not just how inept he is.

[SolInvictus]

wow i love how this supports what i think about how 9/11 happened.

[wesdood]

bin laden wasn't even there. he's hiding in my garage.

[FightingForFreedom]

I find it intensley humurous that:

We don't bother to find the mastermind behind 9/11.
We don't take military action against two nations that admit to have nuclear weapons and express a threat to use them against us.

[rainmaker]

I feel like crying...
Until I drown in this God-forsaken land.

[rainmaker]

I posted that before I read the link.
Whew. It's still a negative, counterproductive thing to do, but to give up on it completely would be so incoherently fucking stupid. I was about to be dissamayed to claim them as "my government."

[BigBlueBalls]

Yep that's what happens when you deviate from the so-called "war on terror" and start attacking Iraq over WMDs that don't exist. If the U.S. flooded Afghanistan with troops, in the same way as Iraq, they'd have probably found Osama by now. Instead the U.S. had a lackluster force in Afghanistan and spent all their money starting a war on a country that doesn't mean dick all. I mean heck the U.S. pretty much found everyone they were looking for in Iraq, didn't they?

Next time, when you start a war looking for a guy like Osama bin Laden, finish the damn war and do it right, don't go off doing other useless shit and try to convince Americans that it's somehow related to the War on Terror. No Bush fucked up and this is just one more example of this failed administration.

[WolvenBear]

At 7/5/06 10:33 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So much for learning the lessons of September 11th. The fun never ceases when you're dealing with the most inept administration in American history.

Al-Quida has changed and so have we to combat them. It's obvious by the post, you didn't even read the article. No more commenting from you.

At 7/5/06 11:11 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: I find it intensley humurous that:

We don't bother to find the mastermind behind 9/11.

Yea the whole Afghanistan thing never happened...

We don't take military action against two nations that admit to have nuclear weapons and express a threat to use them against us.

Gee, North Korea has a million soldiers (more than us), and Iran can strike our allies. What WERE we thinking?

At 7/6/06 02:47 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yep that's what happens when you deviate from the so-called "war on terror" and start attacking Iraq over WMDs that don't exist.

We've found the WMDs and are tracking more down. We know for a fact now they did exist and every single thing Bush told us was true.

If the U.S. flooded Afghanistan with troops, in the s: ame way as Iraq, they'd have probably found Osama by now. Instead the U.S. had a lackluster force in Afghanistan and spent all their money starting a war on a country that doesn't mean dick all. I mean heck the U.S. pretty much found everyone they were looking for in Iraq, didn't they?

Um, no. Good try. This is the whole "too much here, not enough there" bullshit the left uses these days. Afghanistan was where bin Ladin was originally hiding, so unless you get that, stop commentating in this forum.

Next time, when you start a war looking for a guy like Osama bin Laden, finish the damn war and do it right, don't go off doing other useless shit and try to convince Americans that it's somehow related to the War on Terror. No Bush fucked up and this is just one more example of this failed administration.

Nope, it's really not. And your pathetic inability to grasp how we can be theatened by more than one person shows a ridiculous lack of grasp by you.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 7/6/06 03:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/6/06 02:47 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yep that's what happens when you deviate from the so-called "war on terror" and start attacking Iraq over WMDs that don't exist.

We've found the WMDs and are tracking more down. We know for a fact now they did exist and every single thing Bush told us was true.

Let's not engage in complete hyperbole here because they found some pre Gulf War I sarin and mustard gas shells. Not everything that the administration said was true, and some of it has even been proven false. Iraq was not the greatest threat at the time, and the downing street memo's at least show that Britain was of the opinion that they were not. Iraq was not seeking yellow cake uranium from nigeria as Plame's husband as well CIA analysis of the supposed proof proved before it was even mentioned. The so called mobile chemical weapons factories are now believed to most likely have been used to produce hydrogen. Contrary to what was said pre invasion, we did not have exact co-ordinates of active wmd factories and laboratories. Could Saddam have been making WMD's without anyone knowing? It's possible, but let's not pretend that the discovery of some decaying shells which the pentagon didn't even make too big a fuss over prove that the administration was 100% accurate in its claims.

Um, no. Good try. This is the whole "too much here, not enough there" bullshit the left uses these days. Afghanistan was where bin Ladin was originally hiding, so unless you get that, stop commentating in this forum.

Actually, I think part of the problem may have been that the operation switched from CIA controll to military control half way through the mission. There was also the problem that they sent in paid afghani militia who may have also had loyalties to Bin laden.

Nope, it's really not. And your pathetic inability to grasp how we can be theatened by more than one person shows a ridiculous lack of grasp by you.

This one I will grant you.

[Altarus]

They never really tried to catch him after the Afganistan war ended anyways. This is just one more indication that the Bush admin doesn't care about catching Osama.

And this is what is so funny about all these Republican claims about Bill Clinton failing to catch Osama. I wonder what the Republicans will say when we see Osama's smiling face on tape after another major attack.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/6/06 02:47 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: If the U.S. flooded Afghanistan with troops, in the same way as Iraq, they'd have probably found Osama by now.

Last place he was reported is Pakistan and guess what. We cant go in there.

At 7/5/06 11:11 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: We don't take military action against two nations that admit to have nuclear weapons and express a threat to use them against us.

OK, you think that one through and you tell me when you think thats a good idea.

[ReiperX]

At 7/6/06 03:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/5/06 11:11 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: I find it intensley humurous that:

We don't take military action against two nations that admit to have nuclear weapons and express a threat to use them against us.

To FightingForFreedom, only one of those nations has Nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't. North Korea has only threatened to use them if the US hits them with a pre-emptive strike.

Gee, North Korea has a million soldiers (more than us), and Iran can strike our allies. What WERE we thinking?

Actually the US has more active soldiers than North Korea does bit a decent bit. North Korea has more in reserves, but they spend so little on their military compared to the US, and their equipment more than likely is pretty much outdated that in a war against the US, not to mention our allies that would fight against North Korea if they attacked anyone, North Korea wouldn't stand much of a chance. Their nuclear capabilities aren't that great, and their ICBM as was shown earlier this week is very unreliable.

[JMHX]

At 7/6/06 04:12 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/6/06 02:47 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: If the U.S. flooded Afghanistan with troops, in the same way as Iraq, they'd have probably found Osama by now.

Last place he was reported is Pakistan and guess what. We cant go in there.

Because I trust Pakistan.

[Proteas]

I read this article and thought that it was just GREAT that there is enough freedom of the press in this country to undermine the Government's efforts to be taken seriously in the world...

but who am I kidding?

*shrug*

[Memorize]

Wow. Just completely skip over YoureAllStupid's post.

Way to go.

[Proteas]

At 7/6/06 03:12 PM, AccessCode wrote: Wow. Just completely skip over YoureAllStupid's post.

Way to go.

If anything, tal-con just illustrated the myopic view of this bbs and society in general; no one is going to care WHAT the government is doing in regards to finding Bin Laden after they read the overblown headline of "CIA Cancels Bin Laden Search."

It's not reporting the news or what actually happened, it's sensationalist bullshit.

[rainmaker]

At 7/6/06 03:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Gee, North Korea has a million soldiers (more than us), and Iran can strike our allies. What WERE we thinking?

If you are suggesting, in any way that, North Korea and Iran combined could combat the U.S. Military, you're simply quite pathetic.

Gee, the U.S. Gee, the U.S. actually has more active troops than North Korea. You really shouldn't just make shit up. So, the numbers game is eliminated.
And I'm ABSOLUTELY sure that Iran can compete with the U.S. and our allies in not only size, but technology. Iran could TOTALLY whoop our ass any day of the week. They're just fighting what is obviously the strongest military force in the world.

Besides, combined, while they DO have more troops, and MAYBE, MAYBE equal technology, their military is not as organized, and I can assure you that they do not have the .combat support that the U.S. has.

Ignorance is total bliss.

[JMHX]

At 7/6/06 09:26 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote:

At 7/6/06 03:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Gee, North Korea has a million soldiers (more than us), and Iran can strike our allies. What WERE we thinking?

If you are suggesting, in any way that, North Korea and Iran combined could combat the U.S. Military, you're simply quite pathetic.

Iraq is doing a fine job.

[rainmaker]

At 7/6/06 09:39 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Iraq is doing a fine job.

...I presume you mean Iran?

How so?

[Demosthenez]

At 7/6/06 09:26 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: If you are suggesting, in any way that, North Korea and Iran combined could combat the U.S. Military, you're simply quite pathetic.

To many would die and for you not to realize that is why America would never try to pick a war with a nuclear power and a harldine Muslim government that is the most powerful country in th region, you are quite pathetic.

Just because we can beat someone doesnt mean we would win the war. aka Vietnam. You pick your battles, not just arrogantly fight everything because you are the 300 pound gorilla. Even infections can kill gorillas.

[JMHX]

At 7/6/06 09:47 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote:

At 7/6/06 09:39 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Iraq is doing a fine job.

...I presume you mean Iran?

How so?

They're certainly giving us a pain in the neck with a makeshift international insurgency.

[rainmaker]

At 7/6/06 10:21 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Just because we can beat someone doesnt mean we would win the war. aka Vietnam. You pick your battles, not just arrogantly fight everything because you are the 300 pound gorilla. Even infections can kill gorillas.

Oh, I didn't say ANYTHING about winning, I said combat. The idea of my statement was more for military action than war, per say.

[rainmaker]

At 7/6/06 10:30 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: They're certainly giving us a pain in the neck with a makeshift international insurgency.

Yes, but to compete with the U.S. Military, combat-wise, is not possible. I'm not talking about the intelligence behind winning a war, I'm talking about face-to-face combat. To compete with the U.S. Military is a stint of the imagination, by far. To compete with the U.S. Government, and the common citizen, is not.

[Nylo]

At 7/5/06 11:17 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote: "Cancels" is definitly a misleading way of putting it.

Don't you wish you could hit reason into people sometimes?

I know I do.

[JMHX]

At 7/7/06 12:27 AM, -Rainmaker- wrote:

At 7/6/06 10:30 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: They're certainly giving us a pain in the neck with a makeshift international insurgency.

I'm not talking about the intelligence behind winning a war, I'm talking about face-to-face combat.

You're sixty years too late.

[WolvenBear]

At 7/6/06 03:45 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Let's not engage in complete hyperbole here because they found some pre Gulf War I sarin and mustard gas shells. Not everything that the administration said was true, and some of it has even been proven false. Iraq was not the greatest threat at the time, and the downing street memo's at least show that Britain was of the opinion that they were not.

Yet no one said that Iraq was the "greatest threat at the time". So nop,e try again.

Iraq was not seeking yellow cake uranium from nigeria as Plame's husband as well CIA analysis of the supposed proof proved before it was even mentioned. The so called mobile chemical weapons factories are now believed to most likely have been used to produce hydrogen.

Plame's husband was proven false. Try again.

Contrary to what was said pre invasion, we did not have exact co-ordinates of active wmd factories and laboratories.

When did ANYONE say we had co-ordinates? Last I recall...they didn't.

Could Saddam have been making WMD's without anyone knowing? It's possible, but let's not pretend that the discovery of some decaying shells which the pentagon didn't even make too big a fuss over prove that the administration was 100% accurate in its claims.

Let's see, the government said "Saddam did not destroy his weapons of mass destruction and is trying to make more." Well, we proved the first part right. And the fact that we know that they were trying to deal with both France and Russia to look the other way while they bought more proves the 2ND part right too.

Actually, I think part of the problem may have been that the operation switched from CIA controll to military control half way through the mission. There was also the problem that they sent in paid afghani militia who may have also had loyalties to Bin laden.

What?
All I can respond to here is : When the military invaded they got control. DUH. The rest I'd like you to link.

At 7/6/06 03:58 AM, Wyrlum wrote: They never really tried to catch him after the Afganistan war ended anyways. This is just one more indication that the Bush admin doesn't care about catching Osama.

And this is what is so funny about all these Republican claims about Bill Clinton failing to catch Osama. I wonder what the Republicans will say when we see Osama's smiling face on tape after another major attack.

Yea, those stupid Republicans....killing al Quida in Iraq. The hell are they thinking.....killing the group that bombed us....
Yea you have nothing.

At 7/6/06 09:26 PM, -Rainmaker- wrote: If you are suggesting, in any way that, North Korea and Iran combined could combat the U.S. Military, you're simply quite pathetic.

Number one: I didnt even remotely suggest NK and Iran would team up. I reread my post 6 times. No one who read it would even remotely come up with that, so you pulled that out of thin air.
HOWEVER. Iran would kill a ton of our soldiers. Not saying they'd win, but they'd kill a lot of us because they have no problem with sacrificing their people by the million to kill us. We'd smoke them in the end, but heaven forbid an insurgancy came about.... And with the current anti-war climate in the US, NK would easily defeat us. Hell, we think 2000+ soldiers dead in 3 years was bad....NK would give us something to cry about. We'd lose 300 in a week or so, and the anti-war lobby would pull us home.

And I'm ABSOLUTELY sure that Iran can compete with the U.S. and our allies in not only size, but technology. Iran could TOTALLY whoop our ass any day of the week. They're just fighting what is obviously the strongest military force in the world.

Wow, you so totally owned me. Because even though I never even remotely suggested that Iran could fight us on any scale...you read through to the subtext of my words....Iran can beat us...Shut up.

Besides, combined, while they DO have more troops, and MAYBE, MAYBE equal technology, their military is not as organized, and I can assure you that they do not have the .combat support that the U.S. has.

Ignorance is total bliss.

I'm sorry, but someone needs to take a 101 course on American culture and war. Iran is dangerous because they have nuclear technology and a complete lack of care for their citizenry. NK is even worse. Before you wish to challenge me, go back and read all the anti-war stuff prior to our engagement with Afghanistan, and then pre-Iraq. A majority of the country is anti-war right now, even though we were justified going in. And we were terrified about SADDAM using WMDs on us. What if we know the country has nukes, or nuclear technology?

[Guitarmy]

At 7/7/06 12:45 AM, Nylo wrote:

At 7/5/06 11:17 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote: "Cancels" is definitly a misleading way of putting it.

Don't you wish you could hit reason into people sometimes?

I know I do.

I'd say it's possible, we beat Christianity into natives. Why couldn't we beat reason into people?

[JMHX]

It was funny, Bush recommitted to catching bin Laden on Larry King last night, but made no mention that the hunt was called off.