Everyone seems to be accepting that Osama bin Laden is the guy, and it is being reported that he is the focus of the investigation. What I am concerned about is the possibility that he is not the guy (or perhaps not the ultimate guy), but that the investigation will be so locked into him that all else will be discounted. (An example of this is the Wen Ho Lee case).
The Taliban have claimed that OBL does not have the ability to pull of an act of this magnitude. The media has reported that Israeli intelligence agrees with this, and think that Iraq is behind it, utilizing OBL. (The US has supposedly ruled out the Iraqi connection). I heard an analyst on the radio quoting some counterterrorism expert as having said (before these bombings) that the US has blown OBL to mythic proportions. This would fit in with a pattern that would also apply to Marcos, Duvalier, Saddam et al.
I suspect that this may be more than usually possible in this instance. I’m no counterterrorism expert, but from what I understand, terrorist cells are rather loosely organized. A given terrorist may have had connections to numerous organizations over the years. It might be very easy to tie some of the suicide bombers to OBL in some manner or other. But the implication that the bombings are the work of OBL might not follow.
This could have tremendous ramifications, both in letting the real culprits off the hook, and in possibly attacking the wrong people. The US took a lot of flak over the bombing of the Sudan based on what appeared to be shaky or false intelligence. The actions taken in this instance are likely to be of far greater magnitude, making being right of even greater importance.
The Taliban are hardly qualified to have an informed opinion on whether or not OBL had the ability to pull off this act.
OBL by his own admission is clearly guilty of sponsoring terrorism, even if his hands are completely clean in this case, he’s still guilty of other crimes that would at best leave him life in prison. The US already made one past attempt on his life and there is a $5 million dollar bounty on his head.
Osama bin Laden is a terrorist who’s organisation has been responsible for numerous acts of terrorism in the past decade. There is already a substantial bounty on his head, I believe in the neighbourhood of four million U.S.
Many nations of the world have joined the U.S. in declaring war on terrorism and bin Laden’s name is at the top of the list. We are going to have to look under a great number of rocks to find all the people responsible for Tuesday’s crime. Some will get escape.
If he is not THE guy he is still guilty of other acts and as such, deserves to be punished in the most extreme manner. He certainly has knowledge of Tuesday’s events.
We should still be making a polite, one time request for the Taliban to hand him over to authorities as well as any other members of his organisation that might be receiving shelter in Afghanistan.
Similar requests should also be made of other nations that are known to harbour terrorist organisations, they too should demonstrate complete cooperation.
So even if bin Laden isn’t the guy, we should at least be able to ask him who the guy is.
An undertaking of this magnitude will take the resources and cooperation of many nations, I believe that Muslim nations will be instrumental in bringing many of these criminals to justice and fighting a common enemy can only bring us closer as human beings.
If he is not the guy he has still contributed in the past to acts that led up to Tuesday’s events. Therefore, I see no problem with punishing him. After all, this is a war against terrorism, not just one specific terrorist. I say we punish anyone that we can connect to any terrorist act.
OSB said he did not do it & no newscast I have watched & carefully looked at the words said that he specificially DID do it.
Funny thing, in local news they always say ‘allegedly’ e.g. ‘a woman allegedly pushed her husband’ but never say that Osama ‘allegedly’ was behind this.
Could be a side faction of his doing it;but anyway, I think that it was too complex for him & that anyone who did it had secret information in order to do it & I do hope they catch them. Im pretty sure some of them are still in the US.
If he weren’t the guy, at first this might seem like Richard Jewell on a much larger scale, but that analogy ultimately would not be appropriate. Osama Bin Laden was already a murderer on the FBI’s Most Wanted List before the recent attacks. His terrorist network killed hundreds of innocent people in and around U.S. embassies in Africa.
A statement that we should go after bin Laden even if he had no part in this may be justifiable, but the OP specifically notes a second, worse, problem. If bin Laden is not “the guy,” then “the guy,” is still out there plotting more.
If we rush to judgement that bin Laden did it, then there is a very real possibility that if we succeed in destroying him (and his rolling HQ) without actually investigating him, we may settle back, thinking our mission had been accomplished, and open ourselves to the next attack.
I seriously doubt that he had anything to do with the ordering, planning or execution of this attack. However, the guilty parties are very likely to have been trained and sponsored by him and his devote following. Also, the man has been working hard for many years to inspire in people the kind of hatred that he knows will drive them to acts of this sort.
I don’t think he gives direct orders at all. In the company of his zealots, all he has to say is, “Allah would smile upon someone who would do this.” Then, when the act is carried out, he can claim innocence.
Good point, Tomndebb. But I saw an interview with some intelligence guy on TV last night–I don’t recall exactly who; I think it was the director of the FBI–and he said that they are very aware of this problem. While they are pretty sure bin Laden had some involvement in this, they are not concentrating solely on him for precisely the reasons you stated.
I agree that (if we can) it’s time to deal with bin Laden whatever his involvement with Tuesday’s attacks.
BTW, IzzyR, I’m not doubting you, just curious: where did you hear that we had ruled out the Iraqi connection?
I have to disagree with those who say, in effect “OBL is a bad guy, why not just kill him anyway”? I agree that a pinpoint takeout of OBL is not a bad idea in any event. But the military operations being discussed at the present are on a far larger scale (possibly involving ground forces). It is likely that some civilian casualties will ensue, as well as some American ones. It would be tragic to have it turn out that the evidence that justified these was faulty.
I haven’t seen anyone say that ObL is just “a bad guy.”
He is a known terrorist, sponsor of terrorism, and trainer of other terrorists. If we are embarking on a war against all terrorism, then he is one of the key players we must eliminate in order to remove the support network from terrorists worldwide. He is guilty of orchistrating murders around the globe. And the Taliban is sheltering him. These players have got to go.
exactly so. and this ‘war on terrorism’ is an interesting concept as well, since for example, the Palesitinians pro’lly consider the Musad terrorists, and the aforementioned IRA are also so described, depending on who’s talking.
And, if indeed, as has been spouted both in this thread (Vinnie) and in others, the ‘war on terrorists’ also gives us the ‘permission’ , if you will, to also attack those in close proximity since collateral damage is an assumed risk in war, and of course, they ‘pro’lly shoulda known’ their next door neighbors were up to no good etc, then we should expect, should we not, also to have landing party in Dublin? And Boston, Hamburg & Florida since all three areas seemed to have had terrorist cells in operation.
Izzy you and I are agreeing too much lately. It’s the 4th sign of the Appocolypse.
Catching and bringing to justice the people responsible for this act will be a small piece of the action to be taken by the U.S. government and its allies (which will be many, especially since Article 5 of NATO has been invoked). This will be a war against terrorism.
Before this is over many of the governments that exist today, will no longer be standing. This will be a conquering war with take-over and occupation of the like that has not been seen since World War II.
This view offered by Tymp is confirmed by people taking part in a Panorama special on BBC television about one hour ago.
A one time colleague of Osama bin Laden also confirms that the major turning point in his life comes when the Saudi government accepts the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.
Apparently Osama bin Laden cannot believe that an infidel presence in Saudi is being countenanced at that time (1991), and he turns his back on his country.
Ever since then he is an implacable enemy of the US, and is the sponsor of known outrages against the US on foreign soil, or water.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. The two pilots who flew planes into the World Trade Centre apparently could not resist five rounds of vodka in a bar the previous night.