The USA had plenty of chances to kill Bin Laden...

Am I reading this correctly?

Parrot, who was once the chief falconer for the Shah of Iran and who has worked for the royal families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, still has extensive contacts in Iran and the falcon world. One of those contacts, described as a warlord from the north of Iran and disguised in a balaclava, reveals in the film that he has met Bin Laden six times on hunting trips inside Iran since March 2003. He says the Al Qaeda leader is relaxed and healthy and so comfortable that "he travels with only four bodyguards."

Parrot said Bin Laden was renowned as an avid falconer who captured most of the falcons around Kandahar to raise funds to support his terror efforts. Each spring wealthy Arabs from the Gulf would fill military cargo planes full of specially equipped Toyota Land Cruisers and other equipmentand fly to the falcon camps in Afghanistan. "Usama would arrive and presented the falcons as gifts," Parrot said. "In return, the wealthy princes would leave the cars and equipment with him when they left, giving Al Qaeda a considerable material advantage over others, including the Taliban."

Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism expert at the White House through two administrations, has admitted in interviews and before the 9/11 Commission that on one of the three occasions the United States was able to place Bin Laden, he was in a falcon camp set up by falcon hunters from Dubai. The CIA requested a cruise missile strike against Bin Laden. Clarke said he stopped the government from firing at the camp because "it didn't look like an Al Qaeda camp."

Edit: Oh yeah, I guess the source would help :P

Any one of these:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/03/usama-bin-laden-living-comfortably-iran-documentary-asserts/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7680557/Osama-bin-Laden-living-in-luxury-in-Iran.html

http://www.news.com.au/world/bin-laden-living-a-relaxed-comfortable-existence-in-iran-apartment-documentary-claims/story-e6frfkyi-1225862175752

http://www.iranian.com/main/news/2010/05/05/osama-bin-laden-living-luxury-iran

Source?

Yes there were several times. I forget which country, but some Arab commandos had tracked him down and were ready to take him out but the CIA called off the whole thing due to some BS.

Yes, several times the CIA had planned to kill him but were called off.

We also came incredibly close to capturing him during the assault on Tora Bora,but the government refused to stage a large scale attack with American forces and instead used local militias. Unsuprising, he slipped past the militiamen who were suppose to be stopping his escape into Pakistan.

I just don't understand... what is the reasoning of keeping this guy alive? Isn't he the most wanted man in the world by the USA?

"Clarke said he stopped the government from firing at the camp because "it didn't look like an Al Qaeda camp.""

Yup, Looks like you read that right. Probably didn't want to deal with all the "Oh, You bombed Civilians" etc...Garbage.

For those asking for the source, it was on ABC news. That's where I read it, at least.GHlegend77

ah ok. I have heard of several times we have had a chance to bag this guy, just not this one. I will def go over to ABC and check it out.

Are you saying you want our officials to bomb places that look like civilian camps just because Bin Laden might be in them? :|

Are you saying you want our officials to bomb places that look like civilian camps just because Bin Laden might be in them? :|

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Are you saying you want our officials to bomb places that look like civilian camps just because Bin Laden might be in them? :|

BMD004

"Clarke said he stopped the government from firing at the camp because "it didn't look like an Al Qaeda camp.""

Yup, Looks like you read that right. Probably didn't want to deal with all the "Oh, You bombed Civilians" etc...Garbage.

Snipes_2

You clearly don't understand. Its got to be a Hollywood ending.Wilfred_Owen

Bin Laden used to work for the US government.Nauron-

I just don't understand why things like this aren't bigger news..

Politicians = biggest liars and salesmen

The US had a chance to kill Bin Laden dating back the the Clinton administration, but he stopped the operation as the target was being lased.

The US had a chance to kill Bin Laden dating back the the Clinton administration, but he stopped the operation as the target was being lased.

WhiteKnight77

You clearly don't understand. Its got to be a Hollywood ending.Wilfred_Owen

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

The US had a chance to kill Bin Laden dating back the the Clinton administration, but he stopped the operation as the target was being lased.

Snipes_2

We don't need to kill him, just incarcerate him. Incarceration is worse than death.

Bin Laden is clearly unstoppable. Until he dies of old age or a disease, he won't be killed.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

The US had a chance to kill Bin Laden dating back the the Clinton administration, but he stopped the operation as the target was being lased.

SaudiFury

The problem is Clinton did know as the original attack on the WTC in 1993 was done by Al Qaeda. Anyone with half a brain could figure out he would try again.

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] This is true. Clinton could have actually had him, too bad he canceled it though. WhiteKnight77

The problem is Clinton did know as the original attack on the WTC in 1993 was done by Al Qaeda. Anyone with half a brain could figure out he would try again.

Bin Laden is clearly unstoppable. Until he dies of old age or a disease, he won't be killed.

face_ripper

Yes, several times the CIA had planned to kill him but were called off.

We also came incredibly close to capturing him during the assault on Tora Bora,but the government refused to stage a large scale attack with American forces and instead used local militias. Unsuprising, he slipped past the militiamen who were suppose to be stopping his escape into Pakistan.

UnknownSniper65

I just don't understand... what is the reasoning of keeping this guy alive? Isn't he the most wanted man in the world by the USA?

BMD004

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"] that's true, just... who the hell knew this was going to be a huge problem for the US at the time. know what i mean?Snipes_2

The problem is Clinton did know as the original attack on the WTC in 1993 was done by Al Qaeda. Anyone with half a brain could figure out he would try again.

Really? because i recall 9/11 being a keystone change in attitude the US and the world had to terrorism. the attitude and thinking back before 9/11 was that Terrorism was more of a nuisance then a grave problem. To pin it all on Clinton for not having seen the future is rather silly and dishonost, when comparing to how EVERYONE pretty much thought of terrorism.SaudiFury

The war on terror has been going on alot longer than most people think. Just because we are seeing alot of what's being done now doesn't mean it wasn't going on before.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

The problem is Clinton did know as the original attack on the WTC in 1993 was done by Al Qaeda. Anyone with half a brain could figure out he would try again.

SaudiFury

Taking of hostages in Tehran, Achille Lauro, Beirut, discos in Germany, Navy Seal during a hijacking, Pan Am Flt 103, USS Cole are all examples of attacks on Americans dating back to when Jimmy Carter was in office actually and have spanned many Presidents. With the exception of Beirut and Tehran, we went after those who attacked us, one way or the other. Clinton lobbed a couple of cruise missiles into Afghanistan that didn't hit anything worthwhile, but when presented with the chance to take decisive action, he didn't. At least Jimmy Carter tried to rectify the situation.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

Yes, several times the CIA had planned to kill him but were called off.

We also came incredibly close to capturing him during the assault on Tora Bora,but the government refused to stage a large scale attack with American forces and instead used local militias. Unsuprising, he slipped past the militiamen who were suppose to be stopping his escape into Pakistan.

Link334

I just don't understand... what is the reasoning of keeping this guy alive? Isn't he the most wanted man in the world by the USA?

BMD004

Collateral damage is a bad thing and the U.S. Military tries to avoid it.

I just don't understand... what is the reasoning of keeping this guy alive? Isn't he the most wanted man in the world by the USA?

BMD004

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

The US had a chance to kill Bin Laden dating back the the Clinton administration, but he stopped the operation as the target was being lased.

Snipes_2

Collateral damage is a bad thing and the U.S. Military tries to avoid it.

ImaPirate0202

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

Collateral damage is a bad thing and the U.S. Military tries to avoid it.

Sajo7

Read the last four words of my post over and over until they sink in.

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

Collateral damage is a bad thing and the U.S. Military tries to avoid it.

Sajo7

The bombs are accurate, accuracy isn't the problem. Its the Taliban's fighting methods and the fact that the West doesn't have the backbone to do what is necessary to win a war is the major problem . The enemy knows what the rules of engagement are and they use it to their own advantage. The taliban know if they use positions occupied by innocent civilians NATO troops cannot do anything about it without killing civilians. A Large amount of the innocent civilians that have been killed were killed while being used as human shields by the Taliban. The gloves need to come off and we need to start fighting to win. Why are the Taliban sitting (with a captured American soldier) in Pakistan largely unharassed by ground forces? All we have to attack the Taliban in Pakistan are unmanned drones and even then the world cries afoul whenever we use them.

In the words of Douglas MacArthur "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."

If we aren't willing to win at any cost then we should simply leave and not waste anymore lives.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

Collateral damage is a bad thing and the U.S. Military tries to avoid it.

UnknownSniper65

The bombs are accurate, accuracy isn't the problem. Its the Taliban's fighting methods and the fact that the West doesn't have the backbone to do what is necessary to win a war is the major problem . The enemy knows what the rules of engagement are and they use it to their own advantage. The taliban know if they use positions occupied by innocent civilians NATO troops cannot do anything about it without killing civilians. A Large amount of the innocent civilians that have been killed were killed while being used as human shields by the Taliban. The gloves need to come off and we need to start fighting to win. Why are the Taliban sitting (with a captured American soldier) in Pakistan largely unharassed by ground forces? All we have to attack the Taliban in Pakistan are unmanned drones and even then the world cries afoul whenever we use them.

In the words of Douglas MacArthur "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."

If we aren't willing to win at any cost then we should simply leave and not waste anymore lives.