PDA

View Full Version : Embassy Bombings: 1998


PygmyPlaidGiraffe
13th April 2003, 09:20 AM
Saddam's defeat is Bin Laden's victory: How so?


On August 7, 1998, a truck bomb destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Moments later another truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania. The bombings killed 213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania. The investigation led investigators to alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden and his followers.

http://www.cnn.com/LAW/trials.and.cases/case.files/0012/embassy.bombing/ (http://)

The Clinton Administration's response for the deaths of 24 Americans was a pre-emptive strike with around 6 dozen or more Cruise missiles.

The retaliation had an air of a knee jerk reaction, resulting in a lot of collateral damage. Many of the targets were questionable, with little or no collaborative intelligence confirming that these targets were indeed part of al Queada's network.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98082001.htm (http://)

The whole incident was a welcome distraction for Bill, considering his legal problems and possible impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/impeachment.primer/

In an address from the Oval Office just three days after he spoke to the nation about the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Clinton said he acted to "counter an immediate threat" of more terrorist acts.

http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1998/08/21/world_nation/wn2/


The Clinton Administration did not declare war on Afghanistan or Sudan before retaliating:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/crs98091.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfacts-sudanstrikes.html


sorry about the pop-ups by the way.


Bin Laden and al-Queada payed attention all right, but they did not cower. They observed the collateral damage as a result of the US's pre-emptive attacks.

It is speculation, but I would suggest that Bin Laden formulated a loose plan which would involve more terrorist attacks to illicit similiar heavy handed responses from the US. The collateral damage would play right into Bin Laden's plans. The death of Muslims would incense Muslims. The US would be demonized. Manipulation is Bin Laden's objective.

Come 9/11, bringing the terrorism to US soil, Osama fully expected the US to retaliate. Bush's Administration did not react as Osama wanted. Bush's administration was onto this game.

The response that did come had focus. Afghanistan. The international community was largely supportive.

Bin Laden's organization and the Taliban were busted up, but Bin Laden escaped.

Bush's administration must be commended up to this point as they were reserved and focused and used diplomacy and multilateralism.

In 2002, the focus on Terrorism shifted. The Bush administration set its sights on Iraq. All reason bon the part of Bush's administration appears to have been abandoned at this point. The world community is split on the issues surrounding Iraq. The US takes a unilateral approach to Iraq. It commits to a pre-emptive strike.

Bin Laden is observing this. The objectives of 9/11 were not immediately met, but Bin Laden has succeeded in manipulating the US.

Saddam's defeat is Bin Laden's victory.

corplinx
13th April 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

It is speculation, but I would suggest that Bin Laden formulated a loose plan which would involve more terrorist attacks to illicit similiar heavy handed responses from the US. The collateral damage would play right into Bin Laden's plans. The death of Muslims would incense Muslims. The US would be demonized. Manipulation is Bin Laden's objective.

Saddam's defeat is Bin Laden's victory.

I agree that there could be some element in truth in the first part. However, I don't necessarily think it supports your conclusion.

Saddam's defeat is Bin Laden's defeat also. Some of the terrorist groups who were harbored in Iraq had close ties to Bin Laden. These sort of vis-a-vis links were trumpeted as "links between Saddam and Bin Laden" quite wrongfully although later the administration stopped with that line.

Bin Laden now cannot coordinate terrorism through its allied or friendly groups that were based in Iraq.

Also, apparently Al Qaieda had a camp running in North Iraq. If this report is true and we did clean it out, then that means there is one less place for them to hide.

The muslim world has always been against us for our support of Israel. America is "the great Satan". I don't know if collateral damage will do as much to taint our reputation as you think.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe
13th April 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


I agree that there could be some element in truth in the first part. However, I don't necessarily think it supports your conclusion.

Saddam's defeat is Bin Laden's defeat also. Some of the terrorist groups who were harbored in Iraq had close ties to Bin Laden. These sort of vis-a-vis links were trumpeted as "links between Saddam and Bin Laden" quite wrongfully although later the administration stopped with that line.

Bin Laden now cannot coordinate terrorism through its allied or friendly groups that were based in Iraq.

Also, apparently Al Qaieda had a camp running in North Iraq. If this report is true and we did clean it out, then that means there is one less place for them to hide.

The muslim world has always been against us for our support of Israel. America is "the great Satan". I don't know if collateral damage will do as much to taint our reputation as you think.

BTW, I've not been up to speed on the gathering of evidence of links between al-Queada and Saddam's Regime. My understanding was no evidence has been found or presented yet.

More speculation: bin Laden may have been hoping that the collateral damage incense moderates in the Moslem World. The fundies are already "converted".

Remember, terrorists are civilians, live among civilians, live in apartments. Target a terrorist with Cruise missiles, and you hit his civilian neighbours who may be just "Joe" Muslims.