10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

However, Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran—the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter so decisively in the 1980 election in part because of the hostage crisis.

Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

In September 1987, after the previous spring's escalation failed to produce results, Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze met with Secretary of State George Shultz to tell him that Gorbachev planned to pull out of Afghanistan soon. He asked Shultz for help in containing the spread of "Islamic fundamentalism." Shultz had nothing to say. Most Reagan officials doubted Gorbachev would really withdraw, and they interpreted the warnings about Muslim radicals as a cover story for the Soviet Union's military failure.

By this time, Reagan and Gorbachev had gone some distance toward ending the Cold War. The dramatic moment would come the following spring, during the summit in Moscow, when Reagan declared that the U.S.S.R. was no longer an "evil empire." At the same time, though, the U.S. national-security bureaucracy—and, in many ways, Reagan himself—continued to view the world through Cold War glasses.

After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

From..

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/
http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/

Übergeek 바둑이: He beat the intelligence system via low tech. So much is reliant on electronic devices and he made them useless.

Czuch: It was in one the attached articles to the main story of the killing on the BBC news site. From August in 2010 they "concluded it was being used to shelter a 'high-value target', perhaps even Bin Laden."

From what I have read, there was only a high percentage chance it was Bin Laden and of the three proposals it was decided to send troops in as at least then they could identify who was there.

I think in the end it was a case of find out if is... if not.. look elsewhere. That might explain why non lethal weaponry was not engaged at the time of capture.

According to Bin Laden's wife, they were in that house for 5 years. Most of that time they spent in a single room. They never went out, or met anyone. The question is, who knew about this? American intelligence agencies are trying to make Pakistan's intelligence look corrupt. That is probably true. However, did anyone in the Bush or Obama administration knew? I find it hard to believe that if the guy was there for 5 years, nobody in the American intelligence system ever heard about it. Either Bin Laden was that good, or the CIA was that bad, or the CIA knew at some point and never bothered to do anything about it until now. It raises questions as to how the Bush administration completely failed to locate the man when he was in a rather exposed location. We can blame Pakistan of corruption, but then one must blame the CIA of neglect, lack of due diligence, or plainly concealing the location of the man for a long time.

Czuch: someone wanted to be a hero?

(V): I would have thought that the CIA were able to watch Bin Laden for monthsrather than "16 Hours" (less than one day) suggests information gathering on who Bin Laden was communicating with. That time I would have thought beats a few hours of waterboarding any day of a minor official.

In the end.. a decision over how much longer to watch and when to kill is something to think about. He wasn't exactly going to escape.. unless it is implied that the CIA are that rubbish they can't keep track of one man who doesn't leave one room.

I had not heard anyone talking about this.... but I was wondering the same thing? At this point.... what is the harm in more surveillance?

rod03801: the Libs would be acting the same exact way,


LOL..... You have come a long way since the last time I saw you post! ;)

Artful Dodger: Don't they teach clean killing when it comes to hunting. Isn't it considered bad form to torture an animal in the act of killing?

War is part of our world.. we have to live with that.

I know sometimes you have to kill someone. But if we think we should not treat animals cruely... how is it possible that a sane person thinks it's then ok to torture a human.

By whose standards.. Conservatism here supports the NHS... yet Conservatism in the USA says they do not.

.. After all Democrats use to be Republicans,, the progressives were in the Republican party. Reminds me of talk after the UK's civil war many centuries ago.

Artful Dodger: They must obey their master... George Soros

Artful Dodger: It was a job well done by the Navy Seals. Period. You are right. Obama did nothing. Except give the go ahead. Woopty doo. JUST THINK if he hadn't? Just think what would have happened then. He really had no choice. (Or the alternative would have been stupid choice and a nail in his coffin. No matter HOW great that would be).

The aggravating thing for me is that if this was reversed somehow, the Libs would be acting the same exact way, and would find it all just as offensive. Ubergeek is definitely right about how polarized everything has become. I'm just as guilty lately.

Artful Dodger:

> BTW, it was under Bush's efforts that intel led finally to Osama's hideout.

Like I said, some people think Obama can do nothing right. Even when he does something right, he does it wrong, or it was not him who did right but somebody else.

In reality it is not different from the Bush administration. To many on the left everything that Bush did was wrong.

I suppose it is a reflection of how polarized American politics has become. What started as bipartisanship has become a political vendetta. Neither party can see each other in the eye and they work not for the benefit of the country but to block each other. The end result is that the USA is mired in political inertia. The USA has become incapable of political change because when change is proposed both parties go to each other's necks, rahter than working constructively together to improve the system. The health care debate is a good example of that.

Now that Obama has done something right, nobody on the other side wants to admit that it was well done. When something goes badly, it is the president's fault. When something goes well, it is not because of the president but because of somebody else. It is a feature that started during the Clinton administration, carried on through the Bush administration, and now repeats itself in the Obama administration.

Love is in the air....can't ya just feel it?

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2009-02-01 19:41:18)

1. February 2009, 18:41:18
[Artful Dodger, United States, Brain Rook (forever), Male] Artful Dodger (hide)
show this user posts | show thread | link
Subject: Re:When the economy worsens, and when Obama's popularity falls, they will see we were right.
Bwild:Not in a million years. They'll blame Bush or the Republicans. I suspect some of the nuts on the left will find ways to continue to blame Bush even into the next decade!
Reply (box)

.................... does that not mean Bush can't take any credit either.. especially after another TWO more years??

I get confused here.. Republicans, especially Tea party members seem to keep changing their minds!!!!

Former George W. Bush administration intelligence and national security officials tell The Daily Caller that the intelligence President Barack Obama acted on when authorizing the mission to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was likely obtained during enhanced interrogations and/or at the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detention facilities.

....such official, Steve Yates, who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney until 2005, said the intelligence had to have come from detainees one way or another.....

....Cully Stimson, a former pentagon official during the Bush administration and current Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, told TheDC that he doesnt think its clear yet how the intelligence was obtained or where the detainees who provided important intelligence for the operation were held, and he isnt sure if it will ever be clear. I think the possibilities include the following: one, Guantanamo detainees, two, CIA detainees, but, remember, there were just under 100 of them, we only brought 14 to Guantanamo. It could have resulted from enhanced interrogation techniques. It could have resulted from waterboarding, which only three were waterboarded. It could have resulted from direct questioning by FBI agents early on....

I would have thought that the CIA were able to watch Bin Laden for monthsrather than "16 Hours" (less than one day) suggests information gathering on who Bin Laden was communicating with. That time I would have thought beats a few hours of waterboarding any day of a minor official.

In the end.. a decision over how much longer to watch and when to kill is something to think about. He wasn't exactly going to escape.. unless it is implied that the CIA are that rubbish they can't keep track of one man who doesn't leave one room.

"Trump, like every other potential GOP candidate, has been utterly overshadowed by the administration’s triumph in killing Osama bin Laden (forcing NBC, irony of ironies, to cut away from Celebrity Apprentice on Sunday night). But the impact may have been greater for The Donald because it made the issue he was loudly pursuing—Barack Obama’s birth certificate—seem so small."

I can see why there will be no end to the criticism of the president. Did he hesitate, did he not? Attorney general this or that ... For all the criticism, and the hatred of healthcare reform, and the birther crap, Obama still got Bin Laden. I wonder if this will do anything to his approval rating, and his chances of reelection. I think Donald Trump should stay in the Apprentice. When it comes to politics, Trump is an apprentice. Well, Republicans will have to do something to top this one, because if the current polls are right, Obama is assured of reelection. Two years is a long time for politics to change. That is how long Republicans have to come up with something. Criticizing the president at this point is just petty-minded jealousy. But then, there are those who hate everything the president does, even the good things.

1 New Yorker's web enterprise.. 10,000 units in 2 days.

CIA agents lived in spy house near Bin Laden's compound for MONTHS in most intricate operation in agency's history

The CIA spied on Osama bin Laden for months from its own top-secret safehouse in Abbottabad, it has been revealed.

In one of the most intricate intelligence operations in CIA history, spies moved in to a property next door to Bin Laden's fortified compound to establish his 'pattern of life'.

The surveillance operation was so extensive that the CIA was forced to go cap in hand to Congress in December to ask for tens of millions of dollars more funding, which was met by creaming money from a variety of other agency budgets.

U.S officials refused to reveal how many agents were part of the close-quarters surveillance team but were at pains to stress the remarkable levels of care required because Bin Laden would flee the moment suspicions were aroused.

They used every possible means to gather information, including Pakistani informants, satellite images, telephoto lenses and listening devices in an attempt to record Bin Laden and his cohorts.

However, Bin Laden was so adept at hiding that the CIA admit to admiring his commitment, having rejected the suspicious-looking trappings of bodyguards and vehicles.

According to Pakistan security officials, the al Qaeda leader spent the last five years living in the same room of his mansion where he was shot and killed by U.S. forces.

The claims were made by the terrorist leader's wife, who apparently told interrogators that she and her husband had not left the same room for the past half a decade.

Artful Dodger: You mean he's showing morals regarding war on terror. OMG what a propaganda result for the war against recruitment agents for Al Qaeda. That the USA government is following moral standards set out in the Bible and Qu'ran is going to annoy Americans!!

(V): ***Maggie has a title.... wow... hardly uncommon in the UK's system of government***

well the below aforementioned missed out.

Bernice: Brown.. yes. But Blair is a more complex case and there is tradition.

Blair was a major player in the end of the 'war' in Northern Ireland, he also persuaded Ghaddafi to stop his nuclear ambitions.. the idea of Ghaddafi having nukes at the moment... not nice.

One of my Grandparents was "nobodies, commoners, untitled, did nothing spectacular in life." .. well apart from a couple of little things.... He got invited to the Queen's Coronation.

.. A thorn in the memory of a political party of one Commonwealth country.

Maggie has a title.... wow... hardly uncommon in the UK's system of government.

why would Blair and Brown get invites to the wedding? They are nobodies, commoners, untitled, did nothing spectacular in life. At least Maggie has a title but then she was too sick to go. Did you get an invite?.....I rest my case.

Artful Dodger: 2000 years ago (roughly) didn't Christ offer another way.. or are we too irresponsible to be responsible?

Übergeek 바둑이: As in DeAtH.. no. Political suicide by the will of the people or their parties.. and some time removed (as happens) more will come out.

"Our leaders support fascists, dictators and despotic kings when it is politically and economically convenient."

I cannot dispute that.. I wouldn't try. Yet thankfully thanks to an invention by a UK national we can web it and/or it gets reported. So much has come out that regardless of the limitation of "remits" we can see around so much of the bull.

"Then we went to war, not to save Iraqi people, but to make sure our big oil companies made fat profits."

Not entirely true, as mentioned before I think Iraq was an easy victory for the American war machine, while Afghanistan is another Vietnam kinda combat. Blair truly thought Saddam was an evil person. Maybe a debt was thought after the uprising that was encouraged and then left about 250,000 Iraqi's in Saddam's hit list book.

And as you said.. oil.

Thankfully some people have come up with ways around that now to be archaic system of powering transport. Some guy in the UK for years has been for years making bio fuel at home from old chip fat.. nano batteries are just around the corner.

.. Give it time, we might even see the rise of the mighty eco companies in our lifetime

(V):

> Our countries do, that's why there have been several inquiries in to the Iraq war and it's
> legitimacy. That's why (or so the rumour goes) Blair and Brown were not invited to the
> recent royal wedding.

I am sure it really hurts not to sit there in a photo op with the royals. Let's contrast for a minute what happened with Slobodan Milosevic and his trial, against what our leaders face. Our leaders went to war and sent 400,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Afghans to their deaths. We have atrocities like Abu Graib. Bombings like the ones here in Lybia. Our leaders support fascists, dictators and despotic kings when it is politically and economically convenient.

Then they hold inquiries that find nothing worng. What a coincidence that the same governments that go to war also hold the inquiries. I am sure the government in the UK was really going to come out and say "Yes, we did manufacture intelligence to make Saddam look more dnagerous than he was. Then we went to war, not to save Iraqi people, but to make sure our big oil companies made fat profits." Then, the final veredict is that those people who ordered others to go to war don't get invited to a wedding? The truth is that our emperors face no real consequences for their actions.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry, but I find that an exaggeration.

"Then they want to put several Lybians on trial for crimes against humanity, but then, who judges the emperors?"

Our countries do, that's why there have been several inquiries in to the Iraq war and it's legitimacy. That's why (or so the rumour goes) Blair and Brown were not invited to the recent royal wedding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13252192

Tuesday:

Killing Bin Laden might be all OK. Everybody is happy to see an evil man get what he deserves. It still does not answer why nobody cares about the bombing of Gaddafi's family. Everybody cares about the killing of an old terrorist, but nobody cares about the killing of two two-year-old toddlers and a six-month-old baby. The media doesn't care. Politicians don't care. The military don't care. Nodoby cares, and nobody admits responsibility for it. Bin Laden's death completely hid the news from everybody's eyes. It is very convenient for those in power. It is why our western empires are no better than the terrorists, because we are incapable of admitting that a great wrong was done, and we still go on hating Gaddafi, even though we killed two of his sons and three of his grandchildren. I might have bought the Lybia crap, but all I see is how Nato has behaved and how they cowardly killed three innocent children, and then swept it under the carpet. Well, I have lost all respect for Obama. For all of his talk of change, he hasn't even had the decency to address the issue or admit responsibility. How easily he has hidden behind Bin Laden. He has proven to be as much an emperor as Bush was. Neither have David Cameron or Nicholas Sarkozy. Then they want to put several Lybians on trial for crimes against humanity, but then, who judges the emperors?

Artful Dodger:

> Frankly, I really don't know what would have been the best thing to do with his body.

This was a tough call. On the one hand, I understand that the administration tried to avoid making a difficult situation even worse by displaying the bullet-ridden body around for days on end. I can understand the desire to avoid confronting Moslems further. After all, the ultimate goal of all this mess is that we may have peace some day. While in anger I might say that they should have put the thumbscrews on him, I also think that in the long term that would be more destructive than constructive.

Burying it on land is a tough one. Which country would want that? Anywhere that his body went to would become a target for two groups. First, his followers would try to retrieve the body or build a shrine to a martyr. Second, those who hate him would try to desecrate his grave. Burying him on land anywhere was a lose-lose situation. Probably the only acceptable place for his followers would have been an Islamic country, and nobody in the Middle East would want to end up with that hot potato.

Burial at sea made the most sense, short of spreading his ashes somewhere. His head might point to the bottom of the Red Sea and not to Mecca, but at least nobody is going to try to get to his mortal remains.

Artful Dodger:

> I'm not a conspiracy thinker but this whole thing has too many questions.

I think the problem is that the administration jumped the gun. They announced everything too quickly. They should have said something like:

"We carried out an operation in which we are nearly certain that Osama Bin Laden was killed. We will confirm his identity with DNA analysis within one to two weeks. We treated his body respectfully and tried to follow Islamic customs; however, he was buried at sea to prevent extremists from creating a shrine around his grave. We will release photographs and proof of his death at a later date."

Instead they jumped to conclusions because they were too happy to have killed the guy. Now they have to sort out fact from fiction, and everyone is left wondering what is true and what is not.

Czuch:

I found in Wikipedia a description of the ritual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_funeral

* Bathing the dead body, except in extraordinary circumstances as in battle of Uhud.
* Enshrouding dead body in a white cotton or linen cloth.
* Funeral prayer.
* Burial of the dead body in a grave.
* Positioning the deceased so that the head is faced towards Mecca (Makkah Al-Mukarramah).

I suppose they took the time to bathe him. White cotton or linen is easy to find. Funeral prayers are easy if they have somebody qualified to say them. The last two points are trickier. Is the sea a grave? Which way is his head pointing when the fishies have finished their lunch?

Artful Dodger: The Islamic way, wrapped in a white sheet, and buried within 24 hours, I believe?

I suppose they could get DNA from his sons, both living and dead.

There is Omar Bin Laden who wanted to marry a woman in the UK. They were married but apparently he never got a visa. They lived in Egypt for a while, and then they tried to move to Spain. Their romance made it in an odd way, but he was 27 and she was 51 at the time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2056380.ece

http://www.ekimeeza.com/?p=2375

http://www.celebrifi.com/gossip/Osamas-Son-Omar-Bin-Laden-Wants-To-Date-Drew-Barrymore-3038832.html

Apparently he married another woman a year later or so. It seems that he has two wives. In September of 2010 he was living in Syria and described himself as "single", wanting to meet Drew Barrymore! If he volunteered DNA, they would have a sample to compare Y chromosome's with.

In 2009 a drone killed one of his son's in Pakistan. They could only be 80% sure that Saad Bin Laden was killed. If they truly killed him and they had a sample from that corpse they could compare Y chromosome's too. Difficult to do, because it was in a remote tribal area in Pakistan and sending somebody for just a DNA sample is a big risk. I suppose they could bribe a local to collect it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6724214.ece

Altogether, Osama Bin Laden apparently had 4 wives, and fathered from 12 to 26 children according to varied reports. Many of his children live in Iran under strict government control. I suppose that some of them could be sources of Y-chromosomal DNA.

One of his other sons, Khalid bin Laden, was also killed last week in the attack.

Some of his sons are jihadists, so there will be no shortage of replacements. I suspect it won't be lond before another Bin Laden, younger, healthier and full of hatred, will walk in his father's footsteps. I don't know if Hamza Bin Laden is alive, but apparently he is a true fanatic who recited poems of hatred against infidels. He grew up holding a kalashnikov.

Bwild: Why not a video sawing his head off with a dull blade?

I wonder if the Bush and cheney families will attend the services?

Czuch: Aye.. and if anyone has seen a DNA test on "who is the father" they can compare family DNA to his.

I think they should have taken him alive......strapped a bomb to his jihad ass....and video'd blowin him to Allah.

Czuch: Maybe I am confusing my sons???

Übergeek 바둑이: They have been collecting DNA from his family for years....not to mention that his two sons were recently killed, giving them more DNA.

I think that DNA testing is slowed only by the back log waiting to be completed? Make it number 1 priority, and it dosent take too long.

In addition to my last post: Bin Laden was unarmed when the Navy Seals found him.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-bin-laden-unarmed-confronted-killed-195126845.html

The only excuse they give for killing him is that he made threatening moves, and that the navy seals were acting on a split-second decision. However, he had no guns with him when the seals barged in on him. Well, the administration says that they might release a photo of him, even if it inflames anger among his followers.

If they had not killed him, they would have to interogate him. Telling everybody that he was killed makes sense if they want to discourage his followers from attempting a rescue.