CIA Shuts Down "Bin Laden" Unit

[Starman]

After all the "Dead or Alive" tough talk by our President, I was wondering how other members here feel about this latest apparent failure of focus: killing or capuring the mastermind behind the thousands of American deaths that occured on 09/11/01.

[Zen900]

After all the "Dead or Alive" tough talk by our President, I was wondering how other members here feel about this latest apparent failure of focus: killing or capuring the mastermind behind the thousands of American deaths that occured on 09/11/01.

So you decipher the closing down of that unit as meaning the US is no longer hunting Bin Laden? Incredible!

[Starman]

So you decipher the closing down of that unit as meaning the US is no longer hunting Bin Laden? Incredible!

Actually, I was hoping for intelligent debate on this topic, rather than a simple outburst of disagreement.
Can you elaborate in a more mature fashion, sir?

[plinky]

After all the "Dead or Alive" tough talk by our President, I was wondering how other members here feel about this latest apparent failure of focus: killing or capuring the mastermind behind the thousands of American deaths that occured on 09/11/01.

"Failure of focus" is a mild understatement IMO...:rolleyes:

[ice-nine]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/04/cia.binladen.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/04/cia.binladen.ap/index.html)

Hmmmm …
So this group was started around 1995;
Maybe after the first world trade center bombings?
5 years before bush took office!
The group has been around for 10 years and has not delivered.
Maybe it is time to try something different?

[Starman]

Such as....?
I believe your suggestion should also be applied to the many failed policies set forth by this administration. Why this? Because it was created by the previous administration?
Personally, I'm very angry and frustrated that Osama Bin Laden has not yet been dealt with. I perceive this as a huge failure to bring him to justice, especially after all the bragging and macho posturing done by our President following the 9/11 attacks.
Mr. Bush dredges up 9/11 as a justification for practically every controversial move he makes, especially when it comes to his own perception of what executive power entails, and the resulting infringement of our rights and privacy.
If "It's not working, let's try something else" is the only argument being made to justify the disbanding of this unit, then why not apply that philosphy towards other unsuccesful tactics, such as the huge mess we have in Iraq?

[ice-nine]

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about shuttering, "Alec Station"

Apparently we are talking about Bush, Hitler, Diebold, Enron, Halliburton, the boogyman, et. al.

No point in that conversation.

Buh Buy

[Starman]

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about shuttering, "Alec Station"

Apparently we are talking about Bush, Hitler, Diebold, Enron, Halliburton, the boogyman, et. al.

No point in that conversation.

Buh Buy

I'm afraid I have no idea where you came up with "Hitler, Diebold, Enron, Halliburton, the boogyman, et. al." , but if you have nothing useful to contribute to this debate, then I appreciate you getting out of the way.
It is very difficult to discuss the closing of this special terrorist unit without involving an administration who's biggest claim to fame is protecting us from terrorism.
Is it erroneous to assume that if finding Bin Laden was truly a top priority of the "powers that be", then this unit should have been expanded instead of being shut down?

[Zen900]

I'm afraid I have no idea where you came up with "Hitler, Diebold, Enron, Halliburton, the boogyman, et. al." , but if you have nothing useful to contribute to this debate, then I appreciate you getting out of the way.

We get your point about hating the current administration We know you're mad Bush is in office. I just don't see the point in trying to explain to you that Bush probably has a couple of guys still hunting Bin Laden. But maybe you are right after all. Maybe not a soul in the military or CIA is looking for him. Maybe you're justified in being all wound up. I just don't share your disappointment.

[Starman]

Zen900 wrote:"We get your point about hating the current administration We know you're mad Bush is in office."

I'm sorry, but who is "we"? Do you presume to speak for anyone other than yourself? And please point out where I said anything about "hating the Bush administration" or being "mad Bush is in office". You are very illogically putting words in my mouth. Please address only what I actually say, and not what you fabricate.

Zen900 wrote:" I just don't see the point in trying to explain to you that Bush probably has a couple of guys still hunting Bin Laden."

No need to explain, I'm not stupid, and I certainly hope you are not insinuating that I am. But do you believe that "a couple of guys" is sufficient? Or is this your way of saying you agree that finding Bin Laden is no longer a priority for this administration?

Zen900 wrote:" But maybe you are right after all. Maybe not a soul in the military or CIA is looking for him."

Again you credit me with a statement that I never made. Can you please point out to me exactly where I ever said that "not a soul in the military or CIA is looking for him"? I am really quite mystified as to why you insist on making these things up. As a debate tactic it is quite childish.

Zen900 wrote:" Maybe you're justified in being all wound up. I just don't share your disappointment."

You are entitled to your opinion, sir. And I to mine. And I am very disappointed that this evil and dangerous terrorist mastermind is still at liberty to plot and scheme further ways to kill innocent Americans.

[Kestryll]

Let's make this plain and simple.
You were hoping to get a bunch of people to comiserate with you over the fact that Bush is the Pres. and share how evil the 'Neo-Cons', Repulicans and all other thing associated with this Administration really are. You're insinuating that the fact that Bin laden has not been killed by default means that Bush is in cahoots with him and all the other 'one-worlders' to subjegate us all.
As soon as someone did not agree you impune their 'maturity and intellect or refer to them as 'childish'. Since I am certain you will accuse me of 'speaking for you' or misconstruing your words all I can say is that if you truely need assistance in finding these concepts in your own writings perhaps you ought give more consideration to what you type.

You've made your position and intention perfectly clear.
Fear not, since I'm sure in your consideration I "..have nothing useful to contribute to this debate,(Roughly trasnslated, if you don't agree with me.)" I will be more than happy to oblige you by "getting out of the way."

We now return you to your thread, already in progress....

[Starman]

Kestryll wrote:"Let's make this plain and simple.
You were hoping to get a bunch of people to comiserate with you over the fact that Bush is the Pres. and share how evil the 'Neo-Cons', Repulicans and all other thing associated with this Administration really are. You're insinuating that the fact that Bin laden has not been killed by default means that Bush is in cahoots with him and all the other 'one-worlders' to subjegate us all.
As soon as someone did not agree you impune their 'maturity and intellect or refer to them as 'childish'. Since I am certain you will accuse me of 'speaking for you' or misconstruing your words all I can say is that if you truely need assistance in finding these concepts in your own writings perhaps you ought give more consideration to what you type.
You've made your position and intention perfectly clear.
Fear not, since I'm sure in your consideration I "..have nothing useful to contribute to this debate,(Roughly trasnslated, if you don't agree with me.)" I will be more than happy to oblige you by "getting out of the way."
We now return you to your thread, already in progress...."

I see that there is little hope for relevant discussion on this topic. So far all the responses except one have been focused on assumptions of what my "intentions" are instead of the subject at hand.
Allow me, then, to make an assumption of my own: that those who stand with this decision to disband the "Bin Laden" unit have absolutely no basis to defend it whatsoever, and therefore have no choice but to "attack the messenger" by bringing my motives and intentions into question.
Thank you, gentlemen, for in essence you have shown me that there is no defense for this regrettable action, and that to question the wisdom of this administration will only result in criticism and derision on this board.
When I first joined this community I was welcomed quite warmly and informed that I would enjoy the diversity and lively discussion amongst the members of Perfect Union.
Apparently your welcome does not extend to those who challenge the competency or agenda of the Bush administration, and "diversity" does not include those with liberal views.
Good day.

[cowboy117]

Here we go again!:rolleyes:

[Kestryll]

I see that there is little hope for relevant discussion on this topic. So far all the responses except one have been focused on assumptions of what my "intentions" are instead of the subject at hand.
Allow me, then, to make an assumption of my own: that those who stand with this decision to disband the "Bin Laden" unit have absolutely no basis to defend it whatsoever, and therefore have no choice but to "attack the messenger" by bringing my motives and intentions into question.
Thank you, gentlemen, for in essence you have shown me that there is no defense for this regrettable action, and that to question the wisdom of this administration will only result in criticism and derision on this board.
When I first joined this community I was welcomed quite warmly and informed that I would enjoy the diversity and lively discussion amongst the members of Perfect Union.
Apparently your welcome does not extend to those who challenge the competency or agenda of the Bush administration, and "diversity" does not include those with liberal views.
Good day.

When did diversity come to mean 'give my view credence even if you consider it wrong'?
You're welcome to your opinion and I have no issue with you having it but there is no way in hades that I will validate it or give it any more credibility then I feel it deserves. Sorry but your view is not mine and neither diversity, tolerance or whatever other catch-phrase of the week is not going to make me grant your views credence. Any more than they would cause you to grant my views that same credence. We all don't think alike nor do we share the same views, this is life.

As for questioning motives, let's take a walk down memory lane......
You ask that we "Please address only what I actually say, and not what you fabricate."
Okay, let's look at the words in this thread.

"After all the "Dead or Alive" tough talk by our President..."
"...this latest apparent failure of focus"
"..the many failed policies set forth by this administration..."
"...all the bragging and macho posturing done by our President "
"Mr. Bush dredges up 9/11 as a justification for practically every controversial move he makes, especially when it comes to his own perception of what executive power entails, and the resulting infringement of our rights and privacy."
"...an administration who's biggest claim to fame is protecting us from terrorism."
You also state "I'm not stupid, and I certainly hope you are not insinuating that I am." And yet you expect that no one will be sharp enough to pick up on your all-to-obvious undertone, we're not stupid either.

Let's take a look at a few more of your words, shall we?
'...have absolutely no basis to defend it whatsoever, and therefore have no choice but to "attack the messenger" '
Hmmm.. where have we seen this tactic...
"I was hoping for intelligent debate on this topic"
"Can you elaborate in a more mature fashion"
"if you have nothing useful to contribute to this debate,"
"As a debate tactic it is quite childish."
Do we then discount your arguments and statements based on your own criteria?
"I see that there is little hope for relevant discussion on this topic. So far all the responses except one..."
Can you now see where the question of and interpretation of your motives comes from? Based on your own words you made a post anticipating agreement with your view, only one person met your expectations. With this outcome "...there is little hope for relevant discussion..." becomes the result.

I believe I have not been, "..very illogically putting words in your mouth." to paraphrase. In fact everything here in italics are your own words. You will note the last quote is not italicized since I paraphrased your statement.



As I said, diversity means we're not all going to agree, hence the root word 'diverge', we do not all think alike. People are going to disagree and call you to the mat, that's life on an internet forum. Present your views, stand by them and be ready to take the hit from those with other views.
I disagree with most of what a previous member stood for and thought some of it was downright looney but he stood behind it and didn't waver. Wrong, looney, misguided or right his conviction could be respected independent of his views.

[Starman]

Kestryll, your entire post consists of quoting me and questioning my motives and the intent of my statements. There is absolutely nothing there that pertains to the subject of this thread.
You continue to "attack the messenger" because you cannot defend your position, which I can only assume is in disagreement with mine, because you do not address the subject directly.
As to my conviction, I continue to believe that it was a huge mistake to close the "Bin Laden" unit, and shows an incredible lack of focus towards bringing a dangerous terrorist to justice. That is my position and I stand by it.
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing about things, and the discussion of our disagreements are what I had hoped for here. But you sir, for some reason, insist on fixating on my "undertone", or my motives, and now you are accusing me of lacking in conviction.
Obviously you have no convictions of your own, or you would address the issue instead of continuing your obsessive critique of my every sentence.
Do you have anything at all to say about the closing of the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit, or must we all suffer through several more paragraphs of your apparent self-assigned mission to undermine my credibility?

[Kestryll]

Kestryll, your entire post consists of quoting me and questioning my motives and the intent of my statements. There is absolutely nothing there that pertains to the subject of this thread.
You continue to "attack the messenger" because you cannot defend your position, which I can only assume is in disagreement with mine, because you do not address the subject directly.
As to my conviction, I continue to believe that it was a huge mistake to close the "Bin Laden" unit, and shows an incredible lack of focus towards bringing a dangerous terrorist to justice. That is my position and I stand by it.
I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing about things, and the discussion of our disagreements are what I had hoped for here. But you sir, for some reason, insist on fixating on my "undertone", or my motives, and now you are accusing me of lacking in conviction. Obviously you have no convictions of your own, or you would address the issue instead of continuing your obsessive critique of my every sentence.
Do you have anything at all to say about the closing of the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit, or must we all suffer through several more paragraphs of your apparent self-assigned mission to undermine my credibility?

Actually you are correct, I've not stated a position in the Bin laden portion of our show. I am addressing the fact that when the first post responding to your original statement was not in agreement with you you question his maturity and intellect, in essence attacking the messenger.
In this regard I have no position to defend thus my 'attacking the messenger' is merely pointing out that this had already happened and the entire 'defense of my position'. I do note that you fail to address the facts presented in my previous post taken from your own words.
"Obviously you have no convictions of your own" Oh the subtle poniards carefully woven into a seemingly innocent phrase.

"and now you are accusing me of lacking in conviction." I was not insinuating that you lacked conviction, in all honesty your return to the fray does merit a measure of respect. *bow*

For the last point of the evening I choose...
"...must we all suffer through several more paragraphs of your apparent self-assigned mission to undermine my credibility?"
I say of course it is self-assigned! Do you think there is an agency issuing these orders!?! of course not! I freelance!
I have no interest in undermining your credibility, your words will either bear it out or undermine it on their own. However when your first response to a differing view is to question his intellect and maturity and then lament that someone is 'attacking the messenger' well, this calls out for redress!
So Commence le' sufferage!
(I already ordered the ballons)



As for the whole Bin Laden situation I feel he is safely tucked away somewhere in France, we know it but can't do anything without an outright confrontation of the french Govt. so why expend the resources.
Either that or more likely if we convince him we've stopped looking we may have a better chance.

[Starman]

Kestryll wrote:"Actually you are correct, I've not stated a position in the Bin laden portion of our show."

So in fact 99% of what you have posted has been completely irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Deliberately "hijacking" a thread is considered rude and bad form, is it not?

Kestryll wrote:" I am addressing the fact that when the first post responding to your original statement was not in agreement with you you question his maturity and intellect, in essence attacking the messenger.

Post #2 by Zen900 was hardly a viable response to the subject. One sentence (again misrepresenting me) ending with the word "Incredible!" is indeed a rather shallow and immature response, and I politely asked him to try again with a bit more substance and maturity. How is it "attacking the messenger", as you accuse me of, when he had no message?

Kestryll wrote:"In this regard I have no position to defend thus my 'attacking the messenger' is merely pointing out that this had already happened and the entire 'defense of my position'."

You are completely wrong in your assumptions (which you call "facts"), therefore completely wrong about my intentions. The post I referred to as the only one pertinent to the subject was post #5, by Ice-Nine, where he provided a link to information about the CIA, and brought up the theory that it was closed because it was old and "not working, so let's try something else." I responded with the question "Such as...?" and suggested the use of his theory on other failed programs. Thus a debate ensued, if only for two posts. At least it was on subject.

Kestryll wrote:" I do note that you fail to address the facts presented in my previous post taken from your own words."

Another completely incorrect presumption on your part. For one thing, what you refer to as "facts" are only your own guesses as to my motives, which are entirely based on inaccurate assumptions. Secondly, I do not "fail" to address your pointless attacks on my intentions, I choose to ignore them in my attempts to keep this thread on topic.
I say your attacks are "pointless" for two reasons: First, they have nothing to do with the thread, and second, what difference does it make what my opinions of the Bush adminstration are, or whether my views are on the liberal side? It has nothing to do with the subject, so your holding up all my statements, pointing at them and proclaiming me biased as if you are exposing some great secret is rather pointless, is it not?


Kestryll wrote:"For the last point of the evening I choose...
"...must we all suffer through several more paragraphs of your apparent self-assigned mission to undermine my credibility?"
I say of course it is self-assigned! Do you think there is an agency issuing these orders!?! of course not! I freelance!"

So you freely admit that all your efforts in this thread have been directed towards undermining my credibility, and to hell with the subject matter. And you have the unmitigated gall to question my intentions? You sir, should be ashamed of yourself. Your motives are indeed nefarious and reprobate.

Kestryll wrote:"I have no interest in undermining your credibility, your words will either bear it out or undermine it on their own. However when your first response to a differing view is to question his intellect and maturity and then lament that someone is 'attacking the messenger' well, this calls out for redress!
So Commence le' sufferage!
(I already ordered the ballons)"

Again you contradict yourself, quite shamelessly, I may add. You profess to have "no interest in undermining {my} credibility" yet you have expounded on paragraph after paragraph fixating on just that. Then, in a pseudo-intellectual attempt to sound scholarly by using French, you proclaim "begin the suffering!" and even flippantly suggest balloons to accompany your continued ranting and thread-jacking. You sir, have done nothing but show an incredible lack of respect, not only towards me, but towards everyone that may have been interested in seriously debating this topic.

Kestryll wrote:""Obviously you have no convictions of your own" Oh the subtle poniards carefully woven into a seemingly innocent phrase."

Again, your point is...?


Kestryll wrote:""and now you are accusing me of lacking in conviction." I was not insinuating that you lacked conviction, in all honesty your return to the fray does merit a measure of respect. *bow*"

You did very plainly insinuate that I lacked conviction. And if you had any respect at all for me, you wouldn't have wasted this entire page with piles of accusatory drivel obsessively bent on asassinating my character.



Kestryll wrote:"As for the whole Bin Laden situation I feel he is safely tucked away somewhere in France, we know it but can't do anything without an outright confrontation of the french Govt. so why expend the resources.
Either that or more likely if we convince him we've stopped looking we may have a better chance."

So finally, after mountains of whining about my "undertone" and my motives, you address the subject at hand.
What makes you "feel" Bin Laden is in France? Do you think the French are protecting him? Why would they do such a thing, to merely reinforce the stereotypical image of the French that has been projected since they refused to participate in the Iraq invasion?
Your second theory is much more valid, though why "pretend" to stop looking for him when it is obvious to anyone that finding Bin Laden may be the only thing capable of boosting Bush's dismal poll numbers? Because it is my opinion that this administration considers it's own political image more important than bringing terrorists to justice.

[Kestryll]

I wish I could address this point by point but my time here is limited while at work so we'll just hit the high points.

Kestryll wrote:"Actually you are correct, I've not stated a position in the Bin laden portion of our show."

So in fact 99% of what you have posted has been completely irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Deliberately "hijacking" a thread is considered rude and bad form, is it not?

Kestryll wrote:" I am addressing the fact that when the first post responding to your original statement was not in agreement with you you question his maturity and intellect, in essence attacking the messenger.

Post #2 by Zen900 was hardly a viable response to the subject. One sentence (again misrepresenting me) ending with the word "Incredible!" is indeed a rather shallow and immature response, and I politely asked him to try again with a bit more substance and maturity. How is it "attacking the messenger", as you accuse me of, when he had no message?
Zen asked you a question and since it wasn't what you were hoping for you attacked him. By your own words his question was '..no message' and dismissed his question as "hardly a viable response".

Kestryll wrote:"In this regard I have no position to defend thus my 'attacking the messenger' is merely pointing out that this had already happened and the entire 'defense of my position'."

You are completely wrong in your assumptions (which you call "facts"), therefore completely wrong about my intentions. The post I referred to as the only one pertinent to the subject was post #5, by Ice-Nine, where he provided a link to information about the CIA, and brought up the theory that it was closed because it was old and "not working, so let's try something else." I responded with the question "Such as...?" and suggested the use of his theory on other failed programs. Thus a debate ensued, if only for two posts. At least it was on subject.

Kestryll wrote:" I do note that you fail to address the facts presented in my previous post taken from your own words."

Another completely incorrect presumption on your part. For one thing, what you refer to as "facts" are only your own guesses as to my motives, which are entirely based on inaccurate assumptions. Secondly, I do not "fail" to address your pointless attacks on my intentions, I choose to ignore them in my attempts to keep this thread on topic.
I say your attacks are "pointless" for two reasons: First, they have nothing to do with the thread, and second, what difference does it make what my opinions of the Bush adminstration are, or whether my views are on the liberal side? It has nothing to do with the subject, so your holding up all my statements, pointing at them and proclaiming me biased as if you are exposing some great secret is rather pointless, is it not?
My 'facts' are your own words, used at your request. If you wish to dispute them be my guest but you then are left to question yourself.


Kestryll wrote:"For the last point of the evening I choose...
"...must we all suffer through several more paragraphs of your apparent self-assigned mission to undermine my credibility?"
I say of course it is self-assigned! Do you think there is an agency issuing these orders!?! of course not! I freelance!"

So you freely admit that all your efforts in this thread have been directed towards undermining my credibility, and to hell with the subject matter.
Again, I have only addressed your own words, if these undermine your credibility then you have other issues to address.
And you have the unmitigated gall to question my intentions? You sir, should be ashamed of yourself. Your motives are indeed nefarious and reprobate.
I've been called far worse but I do like your wording. I may have to redo my sig line!

Kestryll wrote:"I have no interest in undermining your credibility, your words will either bear it out or undermine it on their own. However when your first response to a differing view is to question his intellect and maturity and then lament that someone is 'attacking the messenger' well, this calls out for redress!
So Commence le' sufferage!
(I already ordered the ballons)"

Again you contradict yourself, quite shamelessly, I may add. You profess to have "no interest in undermining {my} credibility" yet you have expounded on paragraph after paragraph fixating on just that.
After several post condemning 'interpretation' it seems that it is all in the eyes of the beholder. Quaint.
Then, in a pseudo-intellectual attempt to sound scholarly by using French, you proclaim "begin the suffering!" and even flippantly suggest balloons to accompany your continued ranting and thread-jacking.
Well, at least you caught the flippancy of the balloons even if you re so far gone into your 'victimization' that you missed the sarcastic silliness of he rest of it. And I'll have you know that there is absolutly nothing intellectual about my pseudo! But thank you for asking.
You sir, have done nothing but show an incredible lack of respect, not only towards me, but towards everyone that may have been interested in seriously debating this topic.
I refer you to the comment regarding respect below and remind you of your own admonishment of speaking for others. You grant me far too much power if you feel my words can prevent others from posting. Does this power come with a cape?I think I'd look quite dashing in a cape.

Kestryll wrote:""Obviously you have no convictions of your own" Oh the subtle poniards carefully woven into a seemingly innocent phrase."

Again, your point is...?
Well made, thank you.


Kestryll wrote:""and now you are accusing me of lacking in conviction." I was not insinuating that you lacked conviction, in all honesty your return to the fray does merit a measure of respect. *bow*"

You did very plainly insinuate that I lacked conviction. And if you had any respect at all for me, you wouldn't have wasted this entire page with piles of accusatory drivel obsessively bent on asassinating my character.
Respect is earned, not given. I have no belief whatsoever that you have one iota of respect for me and that is as it should be. I don't know you and you don't know me. Until either of us earns the respect of the other to expect is folly.
I have done you the courtesy of not calling you names and of agreeing to your request to judge you only on your words. Yet again I am only addressing and using your own words, if these are assassinating your character then you may want to contemplate what that implies.



Kestryll wrote:"As for the whole Bin Laden situation I feel he is safely tucked away somewhere in France, we know it but can't do anything without an outright confrontation of the french Govt. so why expend the resources.
Either that or more likely if we convince him we've stopped looking we may have a better chance."

So finally, after mountains of whining about my "undertone" and my motives, you address the subject at hand.
What makes you "feel" Bin Laden is in France? Do you think the French are protecting him? Why would they do such a thing, to merely reinforce the stereotypical image of the French that has been projected since they refused to participate in the Iraq invasion?
*sigh* Sadly it seems you are too fixated to recognize sarcasm when it's dressed up and wearing lipstick.
Your second theory is much more valid, though why "pretend" to stop looking for him when it is obvious to anyone that finding Bin Laden may be the only thing capable of boosting Bush's dismal poll numbers? Because it is my opinion that this administration considers it's own political image more important than bringing terrorists to justice.
If you honestly feel that ANY politician or political party has any higher priority their own image you have been woefully mislead.


Possibly more later if I have the time or inclination.