Frankie Boyle

[SuperMikey]

On hunger strike along with Julie Christie over the continued imprisonment of Shaker Aamer in Guantanamo Bay.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jul/19/frankie-boyle-joins-guantanamo-hunger-strike

 

Have to say, fair play to him. It's a cause worth fighting for and I have the utmost respect for people who use their fame to highlight issues such as this.

[Turkish]

Seems a bit pointless, plenty of others things he could have done. Does anyone care he's on hunger strike? How do we know he's not sneaking a cheeky bowl of coco pops in in the comfort of his own home when no one is around?

[scotty]

We're talking about him on here aren't we, and he's been on the news this morning because of it.

 

I'm sure that aspect wouldn't have occurred to him though.

[pap]

Boyle will get some publicity from this, but the most important thing is that Guantanamo gets the publicity it deserves. It's a concentration camp.

[OldNick]

after his tasteless comments on the death of Margaret Thatcher i really dont mind if he stays on it for good

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah, that'll make a difference.

[Micky]

He's fasting for a week - perhaps he should realise that for many people in this country who live in poverty, what he's doing is pretty much their norm.

[Saint in Paradise]

Big Deal, as Micky said above and what about the rest of the world ? I have great

sympathy with the worlds poor kids as we used to sponsor a couple but that shower

in Guantanomo ? I don't give a stuff.

[scotty]

Big Deal, as Micky said above and what about the rest of the world ? I have great

sympathy with the worlds poor kids as we used to sponsor a couple but that shower

in Guantanomo ? I don't give a stuff.

 

Which shower? The camp itself, the Americans who oversee it, or the people being held there?

[Window Cleaner]

Never heard of him anyway.

[trousers]

Who?

[aintforever]

Fair play for standing up for something he believes in but I couldn't care less about Guantanomo. It's not an ideal situation but is necessary, without it Bin Laden would still be at large.

[pap]

Fair play for standing up for something he believes in but I couldn't care less about Guantanomo. It's not an ideal situation but is necessary, without it Bin Laden would still be at large.

 

They were never interested in killing Bin Laden while prosecuting their wars on terror. They needed a mythic boogeyman for people to rail against. Even before 9/11, Bin Laden was apparently one of their most wanted. Every arm of the US state department turned up empty in tracking Bin Laden down.

 

Perhaps they should have enlisted the help of the CNN reporters who managed what no arm of US authority achieved; tracking Bin Laden down and getting an interview in 1997.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOslH6aM1E

[RedWillie]

Self publicist useless comedian

[aintforever]

They were never interested in killing Bin Laden while prosecuting their wars on terror. They needed a mythic boogeyman for people to rail against. Even before 9/11, Bin Laden was apparently one of their most wanted. Every arm of the US state department turned up empty in tracking Bin Laden down.

 

Perhaps they should have enlisted the help of the CNN reporters who managed what no arm of US authority achieved; tracking Bin Laden down and getting an interview in 1997.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOslH6aM1E

 

Don't ruin another thread with one of your loony theories. None of what you say makes sense. Why would the US make it all up just to spend billions on a war in Afganistan?

[pap]

Don't ruin another thread with one of your loony theories. None of what you say makes sense. Why would the US make it all up just to spend billions on a war in Afganistan?

 

There are two possibilities really.

 

1) Either those tracking Bin Laden were utterly inept, unable to achieve what a reporter on a CNN expense budget was able to.

2) They didn't really want him dead, at least, not then.

 

What do you reckon?

[aintforever]

There are two possibilities really.

 

1) Either those tracking Bin Laden were utterly inept, unable to achieve what a reporter on a CNN expense budget was able to.

2) They didn't really want him dead, at least, not then.

 

What do you reckon?

 

The answer is screamingly obvious. CNN didn't track him down, Bin Laden wanted to get his mug on TV to further his cause so he found them.

[JackFrost]

A total of 779 prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay since it opened in January 2002.

 

600 have been released without charge.

 

It's a gulag that's become a political disaster for the Yanks.

[pap]

The answer is screamingly obvious. CNN didn't track him down, Bin Laden wanted to get his mug on TV to further his cause so he found them.

 

Oh aye? From the bloke who conducted the interview.

 

I went to my bosses at CNN with a suggestion: that we try to interview bin Laden at his new headquarters in Afghanistan.

In fact, it turned out that bin Laden had no direct role in the first Twin Towers attack (even though its ringleader, Ramzi Yousef, had trained in a camp on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border where Al Qaeda had dispatched some of its earliest recruits). But bin Laden would, of course, prove to be a key to unlocking the puzzle of worldwide jihadism. Getting to him wasn’t easy, but, after months of negotiations and a certain amount of hassle in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we finally met him in the spring of 1997. He was not the table-thumping revolutionary I had expected; he had a retiring demeanor and comported himself more like a cleric. Yet his words were full of rage against U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, and he promised revenge for them.

http://peterbergen.com/chasing-al-qaeda/

 

Is the answer still screamingly obvious?

[scotty]

Don't ruin another thread with one of your loony theories. None of what you say makes sense. Why would the US make it all up just to spend billions on a war in Afganistan?

 

Indeed.

 

In fact, its laughable that the US could possibly have had any other motive. Next thing you know, they'll be inventing mythical WMD's just so they can spend billions on invading Iraq in order to disarm a threat they know doesn't exist.

[aintforever]

Oh aye? From the bloke who conducted the interview.

 

I went to my bosses at CNN with a suggestion: that we try to interview bin Laden at his new headquarters in Afghanistan.

In fact, it turned out that bin Laden had no direct role in the first Twin Towers attack (even though its ringleader, Ramzi Yousef, had trained in a camp on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border where Al Qaeda had dispatched some of its earliest recruits). But bin Laden would, of course, prove to be a key to unlocking the puzzle of worldwide jihadism. Getting to him wasn’t easy, but, after months of negotiations and a certain amount of hassle in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we finally met him in the spring of 1997. He was not the table-thumping revolutionary I had expected; he had a retiring demeanor and comported himself more like a cleric. Yet his words were full of rage against U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, and he promised revenge for them.

http://peterbergen.com/chasing-al-qaeda/

 

Is the answer still screamingly obvious?

 

Yes, considering the CNN video you posted says they met up with Bin Laden's media advisor first.

[aintforever]

Indeed.

 

In fact, its laughable that the US could possibly have had any other motive. Next thing you know, they'll be inventing mythical WMD's just so they can spend billions on invading Iraq in order to disarm a threat they know doesn't exist.

 

They invaded Iraq for Oil, what was the motive for Afganistan if it wasn't to deal with Al Qaeda?

[Jonnyboy]

A total of 779 prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay since it opened in January 2002.

 

600 have been released without charge.

 

It's a gulag that's become a political disaster for the Yanks.

 

This. It's disgusting. This last UK guy has been cleared for release for years, they've got nothing on him.

 

 

They've got some kid who was 14 or something locked up for 10 years without charge. WTAF?

[pap]

Yes, considering the CNN video you posted says they met up with Bin Laden's media advisor first.

 

Let's recap, shall we.

 

You say that OBL would never have been "got" without the information from Guantanamo, and this is somehow justification for it being open.

 

I say that OBL could have been dealt with at any time, and was not, largely to keep an identifiable bogeyman out there to justify pre-existing plans. If OBL had been killed in 2002, there would have been ZERO appetite for war in Iraq. I also make the point that if a CNN camera crew was able to track them down, then the US authorities should have been able to do so.

 

You paint OBL as someone eager to get his message out, without any thought or research ( dude, Google is your friend, sometimes ) and come back with your imagined idea of how it all went down.

 

You're then confronted with an account from the person who actually tracked him down, which conflicts massively with the argument-winnin' scenario.

 

You come back with "they met his press officer first".

 

Tell me something. When CNN reporters conduct interviews with famous people, who do you think they get to speak to first? The person they want to interview, or some middle-man who decides whether the interview is going to happen?

 

Is this really your strongest counter-argument?

 

I'd suggest that the only reason that things are screamingly obvious to you is because you want them to be. For all the "looney" tags you want to attribute me with, you're the only one who is fantasising here.

[pap]

They invaded Iraq for Oil, what was the motive for Afganistan if it wasn't to deal with Al Qaeda?

 

Have you ever heard of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline? It's a project that was first mooted in the mid 90s, aimed at getting gas out of former Soviet republics without having to use the Russian pipeline system. The Taleban weren't willing to play ball. Now due for completion in 2017.

 

Have you ever heard of heroin? It's a highly addictive and lucrative drug derived from the poppy, and grows best in Afghanistan.

 

Have you ever heard of the Iran Contra scandal, part of which involved US officials setting up a drugs corridor for the Contra rebels?

 

Have you ever heard of locations of strategic importance? That's when a force has long term objectives on getting into a certain place, but cannot do so immediately. In these instances, other places tend to get invaded first so your eventual target is easier to get to. This happened a lot in the Second World War, whether it was the US snaking across the Pacific or the Allied Forces in Europe taking places on the way to Berlin.

 

Now I suppose if you hadn't heard of any of these things, the invasion of Afghanistan might look a bit motiveless.

[SuperMikey]

[Sour Mash]

Let's recap, shall we.

 

You say that OBL would never have been "got" without the information from Guantanamo, and this is somehow justification for it being open.

 

I say that OBL could have been dealt with at any time, and was not, largely to keep an identifiable bogeyman out there to justify pre-existing plans. If OBL had been killed in 2002, there would have been ZERO appetite for war in Iraq. I also make the point that if a CNN camera crew was able to track them down, then the US authorities should have been able to do so.

 

You paint OBL as someone eager to get his message out, without any thought or research ( dude, Google is your friend, sometimes ) and come back with your imagined idea of how it all went down.

 

You're then confronted with an account from the person who actually tracked him down, which conflicts massively with the argument-winnin' scenario.

 

You come back with "they met his press officer first".

 

Tell me something. When CNN reporters conduct interviews with famous people, who do you think they get to speak to first? The person they want to interview, or some middle-man who decides whether the interview is going to happen?

 

Is this really your strongest counter-argument?

 

I'd suggest that the only reason that things are screamingly obvious to you is because you want them to be. For all the "looney" tags you want to attribute me with, you're the only one who is fantasising here.

Surely the simple point is though that for the CNN interview, Bin Laden wanted to be found, when the American forces came after him he didn't want to be found. Plus wasn't the CNN interview in '97?

[Smirking_Saint]

Here we go again.....

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Oh Lordy, who set pap off again?

 

Surprised this hasn't hit Obama harder considering the huge noises he made about closing it down (not Boyle, GB itself).

 

Couldn't give a stuff about that crass loudmouth Fankie Boyle. Disgusting offensive little man that thinks him calling himself a 'comedian' means its ok to say what he wants - missing the point that comedy that close to the bone should make a point, which he rarely does. Just kicks people often not in a position to kick back. Horrible and unfunny little man.

[JackFrost]

I think we should make this Pap's new avatar.

 

[pap]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the hunt for Osama Bin Laden was immediately de-prioritised in favour of making some link, any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. When that couldn't be credibly established, a significant proportion of effort was instead placed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (dodgy dossier, etc). Incidentally, it took them a fraction of the time to hunt down and execute Saddam Hussein.

 

What really makes me laugh, especially in light of the mild ribbing I've received on here, is the very low burden of proof you're prepared to accept. OBL's death is a great example. Apart from the video of OBL getting gunned down in his jim-jams, you've nowt. They could have easily brought him into custody, made an example of both him and the way that democracies are supposed to prosecute justice. This was the international crime of the century. Why wasn't he pulled up in an international court? We're supposed to care about protecting civilians from further harm. Why no effort to debrief him, to pull information on the menacing Al Qaeda that could potentially prevent further atrocity? These are questions one could reasonably ask, but there's no decent answer to, apart from "dead men tell no tales".

 

Returning to Guantanamo, I'm amazed at the attitudes of some people on here. I get the sense that not only will you accept tyranny when it comes knocking at your door, but you'll have pre-emptively placed yourselves over a barrel pre-greased.

Edited 21 July, 2013 by pap

[scotty]

They invaded Iraq for Oil, what was the motive for Afganistan if it wasn't to deal with Al Qaeda?

 

Somebody had to get a kicking. Afghanistan isn't a country in the sense that we would see it, the great american public would know nothing about the place except what their government and media fed them, hey presto!!.. a villain. Job done.

[scotty]

edit, double post. Poxy touchscreens

Edited 21 July, 2013 by scotty

[Verbal]

Surely the simple point is though that for the CNN interview, Bin Laden wanted to be found, when the American forces came after him he didn't want to be found. Plus wasn't the CNN interview in '97?

 

Exactly so. I'm afraid complexity doesn't come into pap's world. Bergen wanted an interview. To get try and get it, he called Ahmed Rashid, a Cambridge-educated Pakistan journalist based in Lahore. Rashid had not only interviewed bin Laden a few times, he'd also spent a decade fighting in the nationalist movement in Balochistan. Even so, Rashid was no friend of bin Laden, and felt his life was in danger during some of his encounters. But he knew how to get a request to bin Laden.

 

Bin Laden agreed to the interview because he wanted to make a very public declaration of war by the then newly formed al Qaeda against the US occupation of "Muslim lands". Who better to do with with than a CNN journalist? Despite the fact that bin Laden at the time was living in very squalid old farm buildings in the valleys below the Tora Bora range, his media advisors arranged for him to be interviewed by Bergen in and around a mountain cave, with all the guerrilla-chic that went with it.

 

A few months later, al Qaeda conducted its first major "operation" - the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It was only after that that bin Laden was declared "most wanted" by the US. The al Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole followed in 2000. And then for all non-paranoids, 9/11 was al Qaeda's third strike against the US.

 

So yes, the interview was very much on bin Laden's terms.

[pap]

The chronology of the CNN interview is a fair point. Ceded.

 

I still maintain that OBL was gettable, and for political reasons, was not got.

[aintforever]

The chronology of the CNN interview is a fair point. Ceded.

 

I still maintain that OBL was gettable, and for political reasons, was not got.

 

..until they got him.

[View From The Top]

OBL would have been dead long ago in the Tora Bora mountains if the yanks hadn't insisted it was they, with their Afghan allies, that capture/kill him and not us Brits who tracked and found him.

 

As for GitMo, it's an utter, utter disgrace and a stain on democracy.

[scotty]

..until they got him.

 

They needed a reason to invade another country entirely unassociated with 9/11, bin laden was a useful hate figure together with saddam. Shortly before the coalition invasion, US polls showed 55%+ of the US population as believing that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. When they actually wanted to get bin laden, they somehow, astonishingly, found him. Do you still believe the b*llocks they fed us about Iraq being on the verge of wiping out the West?

[aintforever]

They needed a reason to invade another country entirely unassociated with 9/11, bin laden was a useful hate figure together with saddam. Shortly before the coalition invasion, US polls showed 55%+ of the US population as believing that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. When they actually wanted to get bin laden, they somehow, astonishingly, found him. Do you still believe the b*llocks they fed us about Iraq being on the verge of wiping out the West?

 

I don't believe a word of what we have been told by our governments over Iraq, we invaded for oil, pure and simple. Afganistan is a different story though.

 

BinLaden was a very wealthy man with many loyal people around him. Plus it was not like he was an effective commander whilst in hiding so there was no huge urgency to find him. It's no surprise it took ages to get him.

[Verbal]

I still maintain that OBL was gettable, and for political reasons, was not got.

 

The heart wants what the heart wants. But your maintaining something to be the case doesn't make it any more credible. You operate with the implicit view that the US is the Great Satan, with unimaginable, unmatchable powers. It isn't. You evidently think it can do what it wants. It can't. Very powerful, yes; capable of terrible blunders, absolutely; and brought low by asymmetric warfare, repeatedly. Besides, Afghanistan in the crosshairs of powerful competing regional interests, including Iran, Pakistan, India and the proxies of Russia. So much so that the oil/gas pipeline negotiations in the mid-nineties were between the US and the Taliban, precisely because it wanted to work around some of these interests (notably Iran).

 

As for "getting" bin Laden, they almost didn't. It was a close-run thing after the helicopter accident and looked at one point like it might go the way of Carter's disastrous raid in Iran to rescue the hostages. And if your read the leaked Pakistani inquiry report into the elusiveness of bin Laden until that point, it turns out that the most likely explanation for his continued freedom all those years was that good old standby, hopeless incompetence.

 

The US would still dearly like to "get" Zawahiri (the actual mastermind of the 98 attack and the present head of AQ) and Mullah Omar. They haven't "got" either.

 

Just about the least likely counter-explanation to all this is that the US simply decided at one point not to get him and at another decided the opposite. If you actually believe this, what's the evidence - I mean credible evidence, not just more musings.

[pap]

You may buy pure incompetence as a reason for OBL eluding the authorities. I'm not such an easy customer.

 

I'm not suggesting that the US is all-powerful, or indeed whether it happens to be the Great Satan. Such comments are unhelpful when you're trying to have a serious discussion. Besides, it's only complete morons who conflate the actions of an administration ( or in our case, majority party forming a government ) as reflecting the will or intent of a people. I am suggesting that in prosecuting a global manhunt, particularly prior to any invasion of Afghanistan, that is was uniquely empowered to get OBL. Not only did the US have its usual impressive array of forces, but it also had the sympathy of the world.

 

Let's recap the OBL capture plan:-

 

1) Invade Afghanistan (because we think he's there, and the Taleban won't hand him over)

2) Invade Iraq (he's definitely not there, but we're saying that they're involved, and our buddies the Brits are backing us up)

3) (Ten years later) Send special forces team into execute, not capture, OBL.

 

It doesn't sound like a particularly straightforward capture to me. Sounds more like OBL was being used as justification for other things they wanted to do anyway, like invade a load of countries.

[sussexsaint]

It doesn't sound like a particularly straightforward capture to me. Sounds more like OBL was being used as justification for other things they wanted to do anyway, like invade a load of countries.

 

 

Don't usually buy into conspiracy theories but have thought this for years.

 

Bush was wounded by 9/11 and wanted to lash out but needed a hitler figure to focus the hate on. What continues to amaze me is how the majority of the Yanks I talk to still don't understand why anyone would want to hurt the US. I kid you not they use the phrase 'but we are the good guys!'

[Smirking_Saint]

Ill stick my hand up pap and say that it is probably one of the more believeable theories that are out there.

 

I did often wonder how it was so difficult to find the man with all the money, intelligence and manpower that the US had. Perhaps there were two sides. Find him and monitor him anonamously in order to help take down his middle management, also maintain a hate figurehead to drum up public support. When finally you have run out of use for him jump in and remove him from the world ?

 

That said it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the US are THAT incompetant they just couldnt manage it.

[pap]

Well, for the crime of the century, the standard of investigation afterward was p!ss-poor.

 

Bush and co had to be pilloried by the families of the victims for two years before he agreed to a commission on the subject, and like many "early doors" investigations, the scope of the report, along with its findings, can be considered massively deficient in light of all we know. Building 7, the one that fell down by itself, wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

There is also this little beauty:-

 

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.

Little practical significance? Excuse me, but hasn't "follow the money" been a tool of the trade of investigators everywhere, for centuries?

[CB Saint]

So how's he doing?, Any secret midnight trips to Maccy D's? Any chance he is going to share a cloud / furnace with Maggie?

[Special K]

So how's he doing?, Any secret midnight trips to Maccy D's? Any chance he is going to share a cloud / furnace with Maggie?

 

Don't know meself. I used to follow on twitter, but, like most "celebs" on twitter he's so far up his own arse, i sacked it off.

 

I'd wave a fried mars bar under his nose, that would break the ****.

[SuperMikey]

So how's he doing?, Any secret midnight trips to Maccy D's? Any chance he is going to share a cloud / furnace with Maggie?

 

Frankie Boyle ‏@frankieboyle2h

Still not hungry enough to eat at Frankie and Bennys

 

[aintforever]

You may buy pure incompetence as a reason for OBL eluding the authorities. I'm not such an easy customer.

 

I'm not suggesting that the US is all-powerful, or indeed whether it happens to be the Great Satan. Such comments are unhelpful when you're trying to have a serious discussion. Besides, it's only complete morons who conflate the actions of an administration ( or in our case, majority party forming a government ) as reflecting the will or intent of a people. I am suggesting that in prosecuting a global manhunt, particularly prior to any invasion of Afghanistan, that is was uniquely empowered to get OBL. Not only did the US have its usual impressive array of forces, but it also had the sympathy of the world.

 

Let's recap the OBL capture plan:-

 

1) Invade Afghanistan (because we think he's there, and the Taleban won't hand him over)

2) Invade Iraq (he's definitely not there, but we're saying that they're involved, and our buddies the Brits are backing us up)

3) (Ten years later) Send special forces team into execute, not capture, OBL.

 

It doesn't sound like a particularly straightforward capture to me. Sounds more like OBL was being used as justification for other things they wanted to do anyway, like invade a load of countries.

 

1. The Afgan War was never just to capture OBL, it was to remove a government that openly supported attacks like 9/11. That's why it wasn't just the US but about 50 other countries that took part in it.

2. OBL was never used as a reason to invade Iraq

3. I expect executing OBL has always been the plan

 

Face it, you have zero evidence for your theory, as always.

 

I see the Boston bomber you said would never speak again has spoken in court. Not sure how this fits in with your other hair-brained theory.

[pap]

1. The Afgan War was never just to capture OBL, it was to remove a government that openly supported attacks like 9/11. That's why it wasn't just the US but about 50 other countries that took part in it.

 

So why hasn't the US invaded Iran, who they claim fund terrorism, or as they have frequently misquoted as wanting to "wipe Israel off the face of the map"? How well do you think they've achieved their objective, given that most observers have acknowledged that the Taleban are still going to be around post-withdrawal. Is the world a safer place as a result of this action, or have we simply created more trouble for ourselves?

 

The Afghanistan invasion can at best be described as an over-reaction, and if OBL had been hiding out somewhere else, somewhere less convenient, it's highly doubtful that the US would have invaded said country to prosecute a manhunt. You may want to ignore it, but the US were perfectly happy dealing with the Taleban when it looked like they'd be the conduit for their non-Russian gas pipeline.

 

Long time ago, so perhaps people have forgotten. The Taliban offered to hand over OBL in October 2001.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

 

Their price? A bit of evidence, for the US to stop bombing them and for OBL to be transferred to a third impartial country. Not a tall order for the world's most wanted man. You have to wonder why it wasn't taken up.

 

2. OBL was never used as a reason to invade Iraq

 

Only because every time the administration tried to spin that line, they were firmly rebuffed by experts on the area.

 

3. I expect executing OBL has always been the plan

 

Of course it was. They didn't want him in an international court for the same reason they didn't produce a bit of evidence when the Taleban asked for it. They had their story. Scrutiny was not only irrelevant, but dangerous.

 

Face it, you have zero evidence for your theory, as always.

 

You've got some front, aintforever. I don't know if I've got the ball to ask someone for evidence on the same thread where I'd been caught instantly inventing stuff to make your point, but kudos to you for having them.

 

Interesting, this evidence thing, isn't it?

 

I see the Boston bomber you said would never speak again has spoken in court. Not sure how this fits in with your other hair-brained theory.

 

I was merely repeating what his surgeon was saying. I believe I even posted a link so that people got the full context.

 

I read an interesting post about Tsarneav turning up on the cover of Rolling Stone. The message very much seems to be "the terrorist next door" now, which is some progress from "madman in a cave".

 

Welcome to the Second Weimar Republic

[Smirking_Saint]

Pap, you need help pal