How about Bin Laden's head in a box?

P

progunner1957

Moderator
In the August '05 issue of Soldier of Fortune (p.36), we read that CIA operatives were ordered to "kill Bin Laden and bring me his head in a box of dry ice."

Now in my humble, unprofessional, insensitive, 'Angry American' opinion..........
That's one H*LL of an idea! Problem is, the mission never was completed which brings up a question or two -
1. Is any one still on this assignment?
2. If not, WHY NOT???

"They" think he is hiding in Pakistan. WHY has "our" governmnet not told Pakistan's government: "Turn him over to us NOW or we will come and get him ourselves. Oh and by the way, if you make us come in and get him, we guarantee you that you WON'T like it."

What's it going to take? Another 3000+ dead Americans?



"BRING ME THE HEAD OF BIN LADEN"
The CIA sent a team to Afghanistan days after 9/11 with orders to kill Osama Bin Laden and bring back his head, a former agent has revealed.
Gary Schroen flew out soon after the attacks on New York and Washington, helping to set up the 2001 invasion, he told US National Public Radio.

He recalled his orders from the CIA's counter-terrorism chief.

"Capture Bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back in a box on dry ice," he quoted Cofer Black as saying.

As for other leaders of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan, Mr Black reportedly said: "I want their heads up on pikes."

Contacted by the radio network, Mr Black would not confirm that these were his exact words but he did not dispute Mr Schroen's account.

I don't know what I'll do about dry ice to bring the head back - but we'll manage something
Gary Schroen to his commander

The agent told NPR he had been stunned that, for the first time in 30 years of service, he had received orders to kill targets rather than capture them.

But he says he replied: "Sir, those are the clearest orders I have ever received.

"I can certainly make pikes out in the field but I don't know what I'll do about dry ice to bring the head back - but we'll manage something."

One more mission

Mr Schroen, 59 when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, had just begun the CIA's retirement transition programme but he was asked to put it on hold two days after the attacks of 11 September 2001.


MISSION EQUIPMENT
Laptops and hand-held radios
$3m in $100-bills
Instant coffee

As a former station chief in both Kabul and Islamabad, he was considered to be ideally placed for the Afghan mission.

According to NPR, there was no doubt at CIA headquarters that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Bin Laden.

Mr Schroen was given a double brief, it reported: to liaise with anti-Taleban warlords on the ground as preparation for the overthrow of the regime, and to then assassinate Bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda figures.

The agency allowed Mr Schroen to pick his own six-man team and, exactly one week after 9/11, they were on a plane flying to the region, equipped with laptops, hand-held radios, instant coffee and $3m in $100 bills.

Mr Schroen has released memoirs called First In, a reference to the fact that he and his team were the first US government personnel on the ground.

He says he is surprised that the CIA has still not managed to track down Bin Laden after nearly four years.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4511943.stm

Published: 2005/05/04 10:27:32 GMT

© BBC MMV
 
Way more Americans are killed every year by drunk drivers. Should we go kill all them and put their heads on poles?

Seems a little excessive to me. If what you reallly care about is the dead Americans, why shouldnt we go stick the heads of drunk drivers who have killed on posts, that would sure as hell keep a whole lot of people from doing it.

I am not saying it is a bad idea. I just feel that if we were going to do that we should applicate it in an area where it will actually have a positive effect. Putting Osama's head on a pole? Seems to me that would only incite further terrorist attacks on American soil, turning them away from their focuses in the Middle East.

I mean seriously it is easy to say things like that out of anger. But to me, I feel drunk drivers are a greater threat to my safety then a bunch of towelheads eating sand sandwiches in some cave. If what we really cared about was keeping Americans alive (which should be the bottom-line) stupid orders like the above wouldnt be made. Put more Americans at a greater risk just because it will give some sort of sick vindication to the military leaders? If he is dead, he's dead, there is nothing more to that. He will no longer be directing terrorism, for he will be dead. Death is about as extreme you could get, anything else is just asking for trouble from all sides (but who gives a **** about Nato right?)

Anyways, my main point is:

Drunk drivers and terrorists need to have examples made that will help reduce or stop the behavior. But I would argue that this radical method of scare tactics would be best applied to drunk drivers who are in fact murdering more Americans rather then to terrorists as it will not help anything. Just the death of Osama will have effect enough.

Like some "guy" said. If you stoop down to their level, you become like them. Is that something we want? To be no better then some sandy guy in a shack with a video camera sawing away at some poor guy's head?

Appalling.
 
Progunner

I wonder if they are watching Bin Laden and his fanatics to gather intel on them. Maybe they could kill him anytime they want to, but perhaps he is worth more to the intelligence community alive.

I would rather contain him and control his movements, than cut off only one head of the Hydra. :cool:

We also need a whole lot of time to rebuild the intel organizations after the Liberals wasted their effectiveness to do their work. :mad:


powderedonuts

Yes, to beat them we need to stoop to their level and be willing to do anything it takes to beat them. We cannot do that openly and that was a job reserved for the special ops and intel people. The Liberals have cut off their hands.

It is, I grant you, a dichotomy, and it would be much better if we lived in a better world where that sort of thing wasn't required.

If we had neutralized Hitler's threat OR even assassinated him there might never have been all the devastation of WWII because Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor in the Pacific without the Nazis distracting us in the Atlantic.

I don't like it anymore than you do but...

I think I'd rather WIN. :D
 
or........

The jack in the box idea is real fine but here are a list of reasons it could backfire.........


1. The media would be out to uncover the government who ordered such a awful and unhuman act.
2. World view of the U.S. would get worse? Well, that's a stretch.
3. Our legal system would have to figure out a way to send those responsible for the jack in the box to court. The trial would take years and no outcome but lots of $ would be spent.
4. The U.S. Government would have to store the box forever in Cuba. It couldn't be brought in the United States because if it was it would have to be given special Jack-In-The-Box rights. ;)
5. A special monument by the world (NATO) and the (UN) would have to be constructed in memory of such a fine person it once was hooked to. We also know that the U.S. would end up paying at least 95% of the cost.
6. If such thing was done then certain persons would claim the war was over and all our military would have to go home and they would all become unemployed.
7. And last........ If the Jack-In-The-Box thing flew.......the world would be in peace forever and ever more............ :D
 
He says he is surprised that the CIA has still not managed to track down Bin Laden after nearly four years.
Click to expand...

You know, even for the Christians In Action this is remarkably clueless.

This guy was a
...former station chief in both Kabul and Islamabad...
Click to expand...
and he didn't learn a thing about the people?

Judas Priest.

There are ironclad rules of hospitality among the hill clans. As long as bin Laden doesn't directly threaten kin, they're bound to give hm shelter and protection.

Nobody in the hills is going to violate the sanctuary laws, because to do so means not only the death of the headman, but potentially the death of everyone in the clan.

Something that Johnny CIA would have learned within his first week in-country, if he had been paying attention.

LawDog
 
+1 on what LawDog said - I learned that even in an article in National Geographic... if CIA station chiefs don't even know enough to try to learn something about the foreign country they are operating in, then we are in real trouble. I have always assumed that the Central Intelligence Agency, had something to do, at least, with intelligence.

I think it's a lot harder than some people may assume to just go into another country and find someone who has operated sucessfully as a guerilla leader for years, who has the support of much of the populace, and the cultural convention of protection as LawDog said.

Furthermore, if you learn much about Pakistan, one of the first things you'll learn is that it is a country that is nuclear armed, with an unstable government, full of radical groups. The president is fairly moderate and cooperates with the US to a fair degree, but has already survived two assassination attempts by radical groups who disagree with his policies and who think he is a US puppet. What do you think is going to happen if we violate Pakistani soveriegnty in order to try to more aggressively pursue Bin Laden? We'll have another Iraq on out hands, and I am still not convinced we'd actually find Bin Laden.
 
Something else too. I don't think Progunner's taking into consideration the lay of the land there. That area includes some of the ruggedest, most desolate, extreme landscape in the world. Lots of caves too. Combine that with uncooperative people and you have the proverbial needle-in-a- haystack.
 
Capt: Yes, and Bin Laden was a big hero of the Afghan resistance to the Russian military during the 80's. I am sure that the Russian army and KGB would have liked to have found him, and they had a communist government in Afghanistan at that time as well that cooperated with the Russians. They never got him. Doesn't mean it's impossible of course... but it sure isn't easy.
 
According to press in the 90's Clinton was offered Bin Laden 3 times by the Sudan government but refused by saying we had no legal basis to detain him. WHAT THE !!!!!!!! After all the attacks like the Cole and the embassy bombings and terrorist acts and training camps funded and headed by Bin Laden. But the same BUBBA Clintin had legal basis to attack a compound in Waco? Just think how different things would be before 9/11 if we had a leader who used his pair for something other than personnal gratitude. My take on things is after the attempt by Saddam on Bush 41 Clinton decided he didnt want any of that and played it safe. I just recently read in the news that guards converse with Saddam and that he thought Clinton was a good president, gee I wonder why!
 
"Capture Bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back in a box on dry ice,"
Click to expand...
Probably nothing more than heat of the moment macho posturing from the head bravadeer in charge of a group of very macho, very pissed off men
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top