It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bin Laden was within our grasp

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Bin Laden was within our grasp


www.cnn.com

A report released by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blamed the Bush administration for failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when the al Qaeda leader was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountain region in December 2001. The report, released Sunday, said the situation in Afghanistan presented greater problems today because of the failure to nab bin Laden eight years ago.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
At least another small step for mankind.

Now I just look for the Bush Administration to go to jail !
But will they ever be put to justice ??
In Denmark we have never been in doubt that the whole war is a fake (exept our government

Well, I guess this had to be disclosed some time - which is now

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
He's X-CIA..they are not gonna bother him...besides I thought he died a while back of kidney failure? or some rumor like that. You sure can't beleive what the Telly tells us.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Why are the Dems in an uproar?
What's worse is that Clinton also had Bin Laden in his cross hairs but for some reason he couldn't pull the trigger.
I believe the reason was becaause Bin Laden was at the time with one or two Saudi leaders that were preparing to purchase a few F-16's and killing them all would have blown the deal.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I wonder how many tall arabs in the middle east the US has bombed or gunned to death thinking it was Bin Laden, only to find out it was just a few civilians since this debacle?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AUM68
 


I would like to ask these idiots wdf!! why are they telling this now? It was already told many years ago. What's the point of repeating the same old info. The previous administration were on a series of miscarriage throughout their term. Sue them and put them in jail if you want to make news and if you wanna do the right thing.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
very weird. i doubt the validity of this, and it really makes me question even more what's going on.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Yeah me too, but ever since 9.11 and the "poor" powell in the UN
with what should be "prove" of Saddams missiles, with those funny drawings, I have been sick of their evasice maneuvers




Fools...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
I wonder how many tall arabs in the middle east the US has bombed or gunned to death thinking it was Bin Laden, only to find out it was just a few civilians since this debacle?


Probably the same number, per ratio of soldiers, that any other country with soldiers in the area has.

Cool profiling.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Why are the Dems in an uproar?
What's worse is that Clinton also had Bin Laden in his cross hairs but for some reason he couldn't pull the trigger.
I believe the reason was becaause Bin Laden was at the time with one or two Saudi leaders that were preparing to purchase a few F-16's and killing them all would have blown the deal.




Well gee... Did OBL kill thousands of Americans while Clinton was in office?

The fact you even went there say a lot....

Purchasing a few F-16's


So the government should make sure contractors interests are priority #1?

really man - far gone on this one



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by AUM68
 


I would like to ask these idiots wdf!! why are they telling this now? It was already told many years ago. What's the point of repeating the same old info. The previous administration were on a series of miscarriage throughout their term. Sue them and put them in jail if you want to make news and if you wanna do the right thing.


If the point is having a government accountable to the people and not living above the law I would say this is pretty important. Hopefully we make an example of them, teach future tyrants the consequences.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I agree with you, but it's frustrating seeing the same news going in circle but nothing done about it.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Usama bin Laden is a myth. A stupid, sick joke. Capturing the mythical Bin Laden will do as much good for the world and the "war on terror" as it would to fart into the wind.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I seem to recall something like this being on the news back in 2001. Basically, the Military were using local warlords to help capture him. One of the warlords had him, but UBL paid him to let him escape. It was a long time ago, and I'm sketchy on the details.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




Originally posted by Janky Red

Well gee... Did OBL kill thousands of Americans while Clinton was in office?



No he didn't, but all the planning was certainly done while Clinton was in office, and even you would agree that if Clinton had taken OBL a little more seriously, 9-11 probably could have been avoided, but of course he was also too busy with the chunky devil with the blue dress.

...btw, here is the source I was referring to in my previous post.



Although the Dubai ports controversy may be disappearing, questions linger about the role high-ranking United Arab Emirates officials played in supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida in the years leading up to Sept. 11.

In fact, some U.S. government reports suggest that the United States lost a clear opportunity to kill bin Laden because he was too close to U.A.E. officials traveling in his entourage – officials Clinton security adviser Richard Clarke may have thought were too important to harm.

On Feb. 8, 1999, the Pentagon and the CIA were preparing a military strike on a luxury hunting camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden had been sighted.

There were problems, however.

Satellite imagery revealed the presence of a military aircraft belonging to the U.A.E., and "policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by," according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Who were these U.S. "policymakers" mentioned in the 9/11 report who thwarted the opportunity to kill one of the world's most wanted men?

The report does not say.

Coincidentally, the Clinton administration National Security Council advisor, Richard Clarke, had just returned to the United States from consultations with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, chief of staff of the U.A.E. armed forces, regarding a proposed sale of F-16s to the Gulf state as well as counter-terrorism issues, according to the report.

GlobalSecurity article



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Of Course we didn’t catch him..

after 911, we told the world he was alqaeda. He was the leader and this attack occurred under his bidding.

Remove Bin Laden, you remove Alqaeda, all of a sudden your trying to sell the public a war based on

'' saddams a bad guy, and may have weapons ''

instead of

'' saddams a bad guy, may have weapons, and colludes with alqaeda, remember them? They attacked us! IMMINENT THREAT ''

Secondly, to believe that the government would release all the details and aspects of a possible assassination that never occurred is stupidity at its finest.

IF, indeed what they say is true, and they had bin laden in their scopes but couldn’t take him out because he was standing next to some rich dude, what do you think happened next?

Did we pack up our heli's and fly home? Hell no, we followed him. And im sure there would have been multiple opportunities to send a specops man in to slit his throat without anyone knowing.

during this time in 1999 bush was running. You know Bush don’t you? He's the guy that managed to rig an election and take power over the USA. This mans father was the CIA. This mans vice president was considered the corporate figurehead of America, the same corporate figurehead over the military industrial complex.

911 was known from the get go, Bin Laden was always 'the guy'... these few men, were not going to allow some hot headed, horney president to wipe out decades of planning with one 'holy-art-thou' missile strike!

Think about it, they are the CIA, Military industrial complex and the elite. They let him go then, like they did in Tora Bora. Hes to important to their plans alive.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
UBL was on the CIA payroll during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's. The CIA thought that UBL was a good source (middleman) to get Stingers and other equipment into the hands of "freedom fighters" to help defend the region from the soviet threat. (Funny how the Mujihadeen was re-worded as into Al quaeda later on for obvious reasons) The CIA paid millions of dollars to the Mujihadeen and to UBL and promised to help them get stablized after the invasion was over. This didn't happen and today we have Al queada as a direct result of that failure of the CIA to keep it's follow up commitment. The name of Al quaeda was given to them by the US and they actually adopted it which surprised many in that they did.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Bill Cooper talked about CNN reporters interviewing OBL three months prior to 9/11. Seeing how Bush went to the extent to infringe on the people's rights to tap your phones and what not.. you'd think the UN would have taken OBL out right then and there. Osama does not exist. If he does exist, he's nothing but an actor playing out his NWO script. You're all watching a bloody movie on the tube of the reality they (elites) want you to believe.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Does no one realize that if bin laden was caught it could unravel
the whole shebang? All the way to WW2 and prescott bush?

No way they are going to let that happen.
I thought this was common knowledge.


There was never an exit strategy even considered.....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join