PDA

View Full Version : Is Osama Bin Laden back?


Arcesious
03-21-2008, 03:15 AM
This has not been confirmed, but there is apparently a new video message from Osama Bin Laden, as shown here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/20/binladen.message/index.html

So... What are your thoughts and such on this matter?

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 03:29 AM
Well, unless you think "Lil'" Bush and "Darth" Cheney are hiding Bin Laden over for an October surprise, does it even really matter? Does anyone believe that getting bin Laden is going to stop anything? Afterall, where was he when the terrorists were active in the 70s? Like anyone in a movement, he's ultimately expendable. Furthermore, there's still al Wazihiri (sp), who's been referred to as the true mastermind. Besides, does anyone know where he really is anyway? If so, are you willing to possibly invade another country to secure his capture?

Weiser_Cain
03-21-2008, 03:31 AM
There's a little thing called revenge I believe I was promised...

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 03:33 AM
At what further price are you going to subject the world for your "pound of flesh"?

Weiser_Cain
03-21-2008, 03:45 AM
Assassinations are a lot cleaner than wars. We don't need to invade Pakistan en masse to find him (it's better no to if only to avoid having to fight the tribes and to keep him from going further underground). Track the tapes, send a drone.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 05:04 AM
If it were that easy......OBL's head would have been on a pike 6 years ago.

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 05:14 AM
Not necessarily. And certainly not during the middle of not one but two wars.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 05:19 AM
Nah, if the govt wanted OBL that badly and it were as easy as was being suggested, this particualr conversation wouldn't be taking place. So, the real question might just be......why has he been allowed to remain out there?

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 05:37 AM
That is a good question. I'm certain that if even one tenth of the effort put into Iraq were spent finding bin Laden, he'd be captured by the end of the month.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 05:43 AM
Frankly, I suspect he's in Paki or Iran if I had to guess. Either location makes going after him, even with a drone, a dicey proposition (at least politically).

mur'phon
03-21-2008, 08:01 AM
I'd go with paki, I don't think any sane suni extremist would want to hide in ultra-shia Iran.

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 08:09 AM
It's good to know who our allies are these days...

adamqd
03-21-2008, 08:34 AM
My thoughts go back to the early MM, I'm pretty sure a lot of this mess could of been avoided if the government would of taken his threats seriously, but anywho, if he is to be found and brought to justice I hope they use a bit more takt, than they did with SH, cut down on the needless civilian and military casualties

For the record try not to abbreviate "Paki"(stani), it's a racial slur against Indian and Pakistani's thats on a par with N word in the uk :)

Arcesious
03-21-2008, 10:17 AM
I do not approve of the civilian/american military casualities, but there is such a thing as 'acceptable losses'. Now i'm not trying to justify the civilian casualties, but I doubt it would have been a cheaper war effort if the u.S had not bombed the those cities, as instead they'd need to deploy a larger invasion force, which would mean more money, but even though that, money doesn't justify violation of the right to life.

No war is without it's fair share of casualties. We could have handled the war much better if other countries had been more supportive, and if our economy wasn't a mess in the first place. But, sadly, what's done is done, but in order to get terrorists to not be a threat to our country or any other country again, that is plenty of a reason to keep up with trying to take them down.

At least Turkey is willing to take over. Look at the two towers, and all the suicide bombings. (Those who are believe in the teaching of Islam please do not take offense to this next statement) Since Osama and other big-time terrorists are still alive, that means they still have resources, and can still get more Muslims to come to the radical teachings of 'true Islam', and they could easily attack again.

Just look at how well they're managing to merge into in western civilization- (I'm not saying that all muslims are terrorists, as the majority aren't, but even one radical islamic could easily do massive damage.) since we haven't found them yet, that doesn't mean they couldn't attack again. However I do admit that this is all our fault in the first place... Minus the destructive influence of 'true Islam' and the oppression of the original terrorist government to it's innocent citizens...

Ctrl Alt Del
03-21-2008, 11:36 AM
I'd have to agree with Totenkopf first statement. Bin Laden is more of importance by his symbolic value than of any material one. His fortune is either depleted on held somewhere away from him.

*Don*
03-21-2008, 11:41 AM
Osama's capture will never happen.
He's told his bodyguards to shoot him if the Americans get too close.

Second, his death will mark his rise to martyrdom and eventually become a rallying point for new revolutionists/jihadis. He's like the Fidel Castro of radical Islam.

JediMaster12
03-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Osama bin Ladin probably is already under surveillance and our govt. is keeping it a secret. Hell they kept Saddaam a secret until election time. Would make sense to me.

Arcesious: Forgive me for sounding callous but it is an inevitable occurrence should civilians be killed in war. It is a mean and nasty fact that the innocent do suffer as much as combatants. If it is not a bullet or a bomb that kills them, it is the effects of war like famine, starvation, persecution or occupation by foreign forces. That's the way it is. Civilians became a target the day the Germans dropped bombs from zeppliens on top of London during WWI. Fact of life and as much as we hate it we are like a leaky pail trying to hold water trying to stop it.
There will always be terrorists. My question is why are we so worried about terrorists over there when we have homegrown terrorists here in sleeper cells? And not just radical Islamic terrorists. There are also the other terrorists like eco terrorists and the extreme Christians who somehow twisted the original message. The goal of a terrorist is to strike terror. It knows no nationality or ethnicity. Hell I could be one should I decide to terrorize my brother. Then again siblings do that.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-21-2008, 01:46 PM
Forgive me for sounding callous but it is an inevitable occurrence should civilians be killed in war.
I think he stated that on:

I do not approve of the civilian/american military casualities, but there is such a thing as 'acceptable losses'.

Quanon
03-21-2008, 01:59 PM
So... What are your thoughts and such on this matter?[/QUOTE]

If I'm right he mentioned the Danish cartoons to be far worse then actually killing a moslim.
And he was more like warning Europe to be "smart".

I always wonder how smart it was to take away Saddam... in a sense Iraq was quite stable. And it was to expected to become a chaotice hell when the strong leader was gone.

And I'm sure it'll stay like this for many years to come... I can't imagine to have the dreaded dilemma of Living under strict dictatorship or have to fear everyday to get killed at a marketplace, when somebody blows up a car and himself.

urluckyday
03-21-2008, 04:57 PM
Osama Bin Laden is nothing anymore. He's so afraid to look out of his cave that he can barely keep in contact w/ his "brothers," and I even doubt the legitimacy of this video...could be anyone that looks like him...Osama might even be dead, but it doesn't matter anymore...he's not the one that everyone is looking for anymore...

*Don*
03-21-2008, 05:17 PM
Osama Bin Laden is nothing anymore. He's so afraid to look out of his cave that he can barely keep in contact w/ his "brothers," and I even doubt the legitimacy of this video...could be anyone that looks like him...Osama might even be dead, but it doesn't matter anymore...he's not the one that everyone is looking for anymore...

I would have to disagree.
Osama still has enough of a skeleton network left that he can remain in contact with his top lieutenants.
He still is a rallying point for jihadis accross the globe and, in addition to that, people in the Arabian Peninsula still have deep respect for him.

JediMaster12
03-21-2008, 05:27 PM
Clt_Alt_Del: Arcesious said acceptable losses. If you were to ask military personnel, acceptable losses do not include civilians. In fact to some no losses are acceptable. It's easy to look at casualties by the numbers but on the human level it is a totally different story.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 06:17 PM
Unacceptable, maybe, but often unavoidable when the ballon goes up. People who rigidly see any losses as unacceptable under the circumstances are bound to lose against an opponent that doesn't share such a pov.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-21-2008, 08:16 PM
In fact to some no losses are acceptable.
Then he must either be an inexperienced commandeer or a plain idiot. Any war that includes a civilian populated area among it's battlefield is deemed to have unwanted casualties - or, as Toten pointed out, unavoidable. ;)

Arcesious
03-21-2008, 09:03 PM
The problem with the terrorists in the war is this- We've attacked them, but that makes them all the more eager to fight back. So, they inflitrate our country, forming many sleeper cells we do not know of because our homeland security is pretty weak after the massive military spending, even with our actual tightening of secuity protocols. We pull out of Iraq- the terrorists will grow back up in power. And the other countries aren't willing to take over our operation in Iraq in a large enough manner to take down the terrorists.

All the other countries want to do is send a few guards and such into Iraq to replace the U.S troops, but they don't want to make a commitment to keep up our plan and track down the terrorists... If we don't pull out and refocus our funding on homeland security, and we give them a better opportunity to build up more here, they'll attack us here covertly in our own country... We're kinda stuck...

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 11:02 PM
Here's the problem with homeland security, though. How do you carry it out w/o serious disruption of the economy? Our freedom of movement is both one of our greatest strengths and our achille's heel. We don't yet have the technology or intelligence assets to ensure complete security, nevermind that such a concept is likely chimerical. Add to that the haphazard manner in which govt bureaucracies attack the problem and you've got a pretty big nightmare on your plate. Compound this further with the interconnectivity of mass communications and computer networks on a global scale and you can almost wonder how any conscientious person could ever get any sleep confronted by this conundrum.

This is basically the advantage of David vs Goliath in asymetrical warfare. He (OBL and company) can hide and do hit and run tactics, employing the strategy of "a death of 1000 cuts". Given the gutting of America's field intelligence capabilities in the 70s and the increased oversight and attempts by congress at micromanagement in a war zone, we are at a serious disadvantage. We're fighting them w/1 or even 2 hands tied behind our backs. As for the Europeans, I suspect that after two attempts to rip the world apart (or a least each other) in the span of a generation, many (not all) of them no longer have the will to fight.

Arcesious
03-22-2008, 12:21 AM
You are definitly correct. We also need some new, more responsible, smart leaders to replace the bad ones.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-22-2008, 09:19 AM
All the other countries want to do is send a few guards and such into Iraq to replace the U.S troops, but they don't want to make a commitment to keep up our plan and track down the terrorists...
What did you expected, though? You attack a country without the UN consent, and you expect the other countries to take the unstable hydrogen bomb that's Iraq today, as if it were their problem?

Arcesious
03-22-2008, 01:31 PM
It could easily become their problem. They're even closer to Iraq than our country is. I don't doubt that the terrorists have a skeleton sleeper cell network in Europe and Asia, waiting to strike too. Indirect tactics- attack an ally of your primary enemy, distracting the ally, then attack the distracted enemy.

Rev7
03-22-2008, 01:56 PM
Its generally guerilla warefare. They really don't, as far as I know, attack in LARGE numbers.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-22-2008, 02:11 PM
It could easily become their problem. They're even closer to Iraq than our country is. I don't doubt that the terrorists have a skeleton sleeper cell network in Europe and Asia, waiting to strike too. Indirect tactics- attack an ally of your primary enemy, distracting the ally, then attack the distracted enemy.
Their main quarrel is with the US and the European countries that supported the invasion. They don't give a damn to, let's say, my country.

Totenkopf
03-25-2008, 11:22 PM
Should they succeed, that would change. Remember, the radical jihadi's want sharia to be everyone's law.

mimartin
03-26-2008, 05:10 PM
Their main quarrel is with the US and the European countries that supported the invasion. They don't give a damn to, let's say, my country.Yes, main is correct, but that is not their only quarrel. If it was that does not explain al-Haraka al-Islamiyya located in Southeast Asia. Patience they will get around to your country too.