arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

'U.S. CRUISE MISSILES STRIKE SUDAN AND AFGHAN TARGETS TIED TO TERRORIST NETWORK'

Most of us never heard of Osama bin Laden before last August 21st but by saying he was "the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," President Clinton conjured up images of rage and random mayhem that seemed to justify swift, strong action.

We were told the main target of the missile attack was not just bin Laden, but: "...terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world...a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe." (NY Times, 8/21/98, p. a12. My emphasis)

This theme - that there is a terrorist organization which links the terrorist base in Afghanistan with a terrorist factory in Sudan - is repeated throughout the August 21st NY Times.

The Afghan "terrorist base" is of course Clinton's strong suit. A "terrorist base" is a place where terrorists prepare for war; a "terrorist base" is fair game. Factories, on the other hand, are a problem. Americans are squeamish about bombing factories and burning the skin off the workers' backs. The trick is: link the base to the factory.

Here's the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well. The U.S. has thereby sent a message to terrorists around the globe. They can read our missiles. They will be hunted down and destroyed without mercy. The U.S. is on the job.

This all has a mythical quality to it, very American, much like the theme song of those old Mighty Mouse cartoons:

"He's on the job on sea and land.
He's got the situation well in hand."

Or was it "in the air and on the land?" Anyway, it does all sound like Mighty Mouse. Same writers?

But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands?

It would be a bit awkward, wouldn't it?

If this was true, and if the Times knew it was true on August 21st, wouldn't the Times' failure to print this information on page one constitute a profound betrayal of trust?

How can you sling this crap? Look at the acts of terror that were visited upon the WTC and the Pentagon! You ignorant ass! Trying to paint Washington and the U.S. as the motivation behind bin Laden's acts is foolish and anyone can see it. Your motives are blatantly transparent.
Sure, blame the U.S. You have clearly demonstrated your politics and your shallow thinking (that's being generous).
bin Laden is a symptom of the racial hatred that has been festering in the Middle East for decades.

If these acts of terrorism were directed at your home you would be the first to come groveling for protection by the US. Without the US you wouldn't be writing this BS today, you would be lucky to be alive.

Wake up!

I'll hand it to you, you have a vivid imagination. However, your attempt to portray your wild ideas as fact comes across as extremely amateurish.

You should try to back up your news articles with fact, not fiction. The sad thing is that someone may actually believe what you write. It is just utter crap. I suggest getting off whatever drugs you are on.