chevysoldier

Thats awesome. Brings back a lot of memories!

They always seemed to get out of the way for me when they saw my M88 roaring up on them. FTW!

I was asking if they ran off JP-4 not JP-8 because I thought it was 4. Did some research, its 8 so i deleted the post.

lol oh ok all good.

Ftw!!

So that's where the dumb ass mayor of Cincinnati got the idea. He's trying to push street cars too.

lol thats funny

No, I meant it. It's a good article. International sources tend to be less biased. Not 100%, but less.

I know Bush wasnt perfect, neither was Clinton. Everyone makes mistakes but I think Obama is making a lot more, and will continue to do so because he is inept, ignorant, and just a moron. He came to the conlusion we would pull out of the middle east very quick after he took office, then later he said " O wait, maybe I should talk to the generals on ground first." Duh. It's stuff like this that he does. He's a bonehead.

Never done that. But...

Cinnamon Toast Crunch FTW!!!

Thats good, because if I get that 1125R with side fairing kit, I was worried I'd have to find some no name painter with unknown rep to paint the fairings for me. It's hard to find people that do good work. Just don't spray them shitty because my breath smells like black cock.

Good article chevy, international no less.

I dunno what to say Hindsight is 20/20... the only rebuttal is right in the article:

I would tend to think it was a little more complicated than "No, thanks we don't want him". Regardless, we don't have to worry about that now though, since we have the Patriot Act. Suspension of habeas corpus would allow us to get Bin Laden and detain him indefinitely with no questions asked.

I just don't like that they can do the same thing to the rest of the citizens.

Yeah, people in London wrote it, so it didn't happen.

I don't have a gas light.

Me neither. My gas light is when I twist it and it doesn't move faster.

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.

Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility.

A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal, according to Washington sources. Details of the offer are still unclear although, by one account, Turki offered to help to place a tracking device in the luggage of Bin Laden's mother, who was seeking to make a trip to Afghanistan to see her son. The CIA did not take up the offer.

Richard Shelby, the leading Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help although, under rules protecting classified information, he was unable to discuss the details of any offer. Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration."

Clinton met those guys? Please cite sources.

Just wanted to make you do some research

But really. You can bring up Bush, So I can bring up how Clinton let him get away.

"President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Want to move to Bush Sr.?

Jrmiiii TAKE OBAMAS COCK AND BALLS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! BUSH IS GONE GET THE FUCK OVER IT

Say what you really feel.

So, wait... this is a big deal NOW, when the article said it's nothing new... and had been doing the same thing in Iraq when Bush was in office?

It's all Obama's fault, now. Got it.

It's all Obama's fault that the bill gives the commanders the discretion to authorize the use of these funds for this type of policy.

So, Obama's a "fucking retard" because he's spending your tax money on this program rather than bullets and soldiers.. when this is one of the most cost effective (and I'm guessing safer) alternatives. Right. Got it.

Because when Clinton met with Sadam and Bin Laden, they talked peacfully and everything was resolved.

It doesn't stop. I was just asking what you thought the difference was. I don't think we should pay them. I think we should either kill them or pull out and let them kill each other.

Yeah, no difference. Still wrong. But with this ^we are on the same page. Although I like the idea of using some nukes to create Lake Iraq, Lake Afghanistan....

i'd rather have them spend the money on machine gun parts.

See, now THAT makes sense. Rep to you sir.

That was Strickland, the governor of Ohio. Coleman is the mayor of Columbus.

I knew strickland said that, I just thought Coleman was for the casinos as well. I dunno.

Uh.. what's the difference between paying them to fight the Soviets and paying them to fight for us?

None. Don't think thats right either. Money is not a loyalty. meaning if I pay you 10 bucks, the next guys says heres 20, wheres it stop?

Didnt Coleman threaten if we didnt pass the casino, more stuff would be cut? Or am I mixed up?

SERIOUSLY? I AM GOING TO PAY THE TALIBAN TO SWITCH SIDES? FUCKING STUPID DUMB FUCK COCK BRAINED MOTHER FUCKER.

+1 for you description of Osama. err Obama

this thread is fail

Bump. If you are interested, this is going on right now until 2:00pm. Get there while you can.

:ttiwwop:of said lightbulbs

Uhh, like psycho said... you use better techniques. Torture doesn't yield results. I'm not going to dig through all my links again, but I believe I read that the best results were yielded when you befriended the terrorist to the point where they saw that their 'enemy' wasn't really that bad - and as trust and rapport is established, the information and communication gateway is open. This method is much better at yielding ACCURATE information than torture.

You can't see how ignorant the stance is on using torture to gain intelligence? If I was getting sodomized by the worlds largest horse and it started becoming painful and you screamed at me "Tell me where my family is and the horse will stop".

1) If I'm innocent, I have no clue about your family, so what's the right answer? If I say "I don't know" you assume I'm a liar and punish me more. So, I'll makeup information just to get the torture to stop.

2) If I'm guilty, how would you know? You can't PROVE it, I'll just act like I'm innocent and we'll repeat situation 1. Even if you're absolutely SURE I'm guilty, and terrorist worth their salt isn't going to cave - they'll continually send you on while goose chases, wasting YOUR time and resources as you investigate every potential lead, until you decide to kill them. And what do you benefit by killing them? Nothing other than to serve your own petty emotions of vengeance, as they're the only ones who knows where your family is. Besides, they're already prepared to die for their cause or they wouldn't be in that situation to begin with.

So, once again, tell me how much great information we ever got by torturing people? Mr. Salem Witch.

I agree torture isn't always effective, just wanted to see what your alternative is. but not every terrorist is worth their salt.