Bin Laden did not expect America to strike back after 9/11

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Lue C Fur, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Interesting:

    Osama bin Laden did not expect the United States to strike back at al Qaeda as hard as it has following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., WTOP Radio in Washington, D.C. reported Tuesday, citing a former bin Laden associate.
    “What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination,” Noman Benotman, who was the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000, told WTOP in an interview.
    Benotman said al Qaeda was overly confident based on the U.S. response to the terror group’s attacks on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
    “I’m 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen,” Benotman said.
    A former CIA official, on the condition of anonymity, backed up Bentoman’s assertions.
    ”Several captured terrorists have said publicly that al Qaeda never expected the towers to fall. Their goal was to frighten people and impact the U.S. economy, so they really didn't plan for the massive response the U.S. launched," the official said.


    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...aliation_M122q3hweQzXAl46cWiu8J#ixzz0mccOlNBp

    And here:

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1943289
     
  2. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I don't know, I haven't seen where he's apologized or anything - "Hey guys, I didn't mean to cause all this trouble, I was just trying to scare a few people". I'm pretty sure he didn't expect us to attack Iraq though, probably still scratching his head over that assuming he's still alive. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that he's been dead for some time.
     
  3. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    I was thinking he is dead also but maybe the #2 guy in charge does not want anyone to know. I think it was rumored early on that he had kidney problems...maybe he suffered alot before he died.:wink2:
     
  4. p228

    p228 Member

    bin Laden was likely expecting a few cruise missiles to be fired at a location he was at hours before, like after the USS Cole. It was pretty obvious he didn't expect a full on invasion since he was exactly where we expected him to be, in the mountains of Tora Bora.

    The book "Kill bin Laden" is a good read about the battle in Tora Bora and how close Delta came to killing him. At one point, toward the end of the battle, they intercept a communication from bin Laden in which he apologized to his men for getting them in this and gave them permission to surrender if they so desired. The ground fighting was done entirely by the mujahideen under the direction of Delta. The Delta boys were only allowed to call in air support, so they made up for it by dropping several thousand bombs in the mountains.

    http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Bin-Laden-Commanders-Account/dp/0312384394
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  5. SWORDFISH

    SWORDFISH New Member

    I think Osoma is a figure head. Not a real person and probably died many times in the last decade. :whiteflag:
     
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    More and more people inside and outside of gov't are coming to that conclusion. The question is who keeps the myth alive and who benefits?
     
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Isn't this story about 6 years old? Or is the story that someone else is now saying it?
     
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Clearly Al Queda.
     
  10. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Clearly war profiteers on all sides.
     
  11. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Clearly your war profiteers on our side do not benefit as much from this type of war as they would building large warships, air to air stealth aircraft, stealth helicopters, nuclear missiles, new tanks, and on, and on, and on. Having a large nation like the former Soviet Union would be much more profitable. Clearly the other side benefits from the thought of having a leader that has stood up to the great American power and lived and/or evaded capture given the high number of leaders in their organization that have been killed or captured. There have been many communications that have been captured that show clear chaos in their ranks and a strong need to have a leader of some constance to hold up.

    On our side there is no need for a bogeyman for the government to profit. I hold up SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and the federal funding of education as examples. The government will use it's force to take what it wants from us no matter how the people feel or how stupid the idea is.
     
  12. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of our situation.
     
  13. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Av, you act like I think war profiteering is a bad thing. I don't. I'm capitalist and if they've created a market for themselves, then so be it. Would anyone know anything about Haliburton if not for Cheney, this war and the hoardes of cash they've been raking in? How about Blackwater? Would anyone ever hear about all the war effort functions that are contracted out? Hey, war is big business and a lot of money is being made. So again the question, who benefits from the figure head of Al Queda still at large? Honest answer: War profiteers on all sides.
     
  14. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Being a capitalist doesn't mean accepting war profiteering as a good thing. I certainly don't think it is.
     
  15. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    I guess I just don't put a label of good or bad on it. I'm beyond thinking this war is about liberty, or justice, or the American way of life. Beyond the ideals it's time to follow the money.
     
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member