9/11 5-years later
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 10:28 AM
Lighteningrodd
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. Either his health problems caught up with him or his cave in Afghanistan got bombed.
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 10:34 AM
DorianGreyed
from the article -

Although the hunt for bin Laden has depended to a large extent on technology, until recently unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were in short supply, especially when the war in Iraq became a priority in 2003.

Simple but effective means of hiding
In July 2003, Vine said that U.S. forces under his command believed they were close to striking bin Laden, but had only one drone to send over three possible routes he might take. "A UAV was positioned on the route that was most likely, but he didn't go that way," said Vines. "We believed that we were within a half hour of possibly getting him, but nothing materialized."
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 11:56 AM
Scotty
I almost wish that the democrats are successful in the election this year, so they can show us just how quickly they are going to catch Bin Laden, and arrange a successful ending to the war.

Since they really don't have a plan, I guess it is going to be very hard to do, but fun to watch.
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 12:25 PM
Dwight

quote:
I almost wish that the democrats are successful in the election this year, so they can show us just how quickly they are going to catch Bin Laden, and arrange a successful ending to the war.

Since they really don't have a plan, I guess it is going to be very hard to do, but fun to watch.

Scotty, I sincerely hope that your remark is an off-the-cuff response given without careful thought.

We're talking about the search for the terrorists who plotted and killed some 3,000 people and your only comment concerns hoping for inept Democrats?

In this article at least 11 writers and researchers have presented a rather in-depth look at the effort to find these monsters. No comments on the search itself; no comments about lost opportunities and poor planning? No suggestions about how the effort can be enhanced?

I'm sorry but in this vital effort, the fight against terrorists who are trying to destroy us, I think we have to plan better and think smarter. I think it is well past time to quit thinking that this effort can continue without all of us working together to beat these people before they can strike us again.

Dwight
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 01:37 PM
FredPuli
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
I think Osama bin Laden is dead. Either his health problems caught up with him or his cave in Afghanistan got bombed.[/QUOTE

The Pakistanis think him alive. If he is dead his death has made no difference to the world. Now isn't that a surprise !

Here we are claiming a victory or a success every time some al Qaeda leader is caught or killed yet nothing changes. That does rather point up the idiocy of thinking that this is a war with identifiable enemies lead by identifiable leaders, so if you kill enough it'll end.And of thinking that terrorism if committed by muslims is the same the world over, with identical motives, or that the same leaders are behind it all.
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 01:40 PM
DorianGreyed
"I almost wish that the democrats are successful in the election this year, so they can show us just how quickly they are going to catch Bin Laden, and arrange a successful ending to the war." - Scotty

If, by "the war", you mean Iraq, most people, including the administration, realize that bin Laden has very little to do with the war in Iraq. If, by "the war", you mean the war against terrorism, most people, including the administration, realize that capturing or killing bin Laden will do little to end terrorism. In either case, your comments show a significant lack of understanding of what the US is facing.

Of course, neither may be the case, as Dwight suggests and hopes. It may be that you view your fellow Americans with so little regard that you would joke about the death of some 3000 of them, plus the deaths of those answering their country's call by searching for him in Afghanistan just so it would make you feel good about your political position.
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 02:24 PM
Scotty
Dwight, actually I was being a little sarcastic. I realize how inept the democrats are, and not very good at all in the defense of this Country. I guess this was just frustration about the democrats running their mouths off without having a better plan of action.

I certainly do not want to see the dems in power.
**********************************************************************
09-10-06, 02:27 PM
Scotty

quote:
Of course, neither may be the case, as Dwight suggests and hopes. It may be that you view your fellow Americans with so little regard that you would joke about the death of some 3000 of them, plus the deaths of those answering their country's call by searching for him in Afghanistan just so it would make you feel good about your political position.



All that I can say about this utter nonsense is Geeeeez. Roll Eyes
**********************************************************************
09-23-06, 07:45 AM
soaringhorse
Ignoring the off subject post, Roll Eyes, I just wanted to say if Osama Bin Laden is dead than I am surely happy that the low life is gone. Here is the latest news report:

Bin Laden Dead
**********************************************************************
09-23-06, 11:39 AM
newnickname
Bin Laden Not Dead?
**********************************************************************
09-23-06, 12:38 PM
Scotty
Dead? Not dead? Is it going to change things, one way or the other? I don't think so.
**********************************************************************
09-23-06, 05:22 PM
FredPuli

quote:
Originally posted by Scotty:
Dead? Not dead? Is it going to change things, one way or the other? I don't think so.



Exactly.When the USA's leadership understands that they are fighting an ideology, perverse but far more attractive than it ever was to ordinary muslims since the cack-handed and crude use of force, and that al Qaeda and numerous similar groups are not dependent on one leader or one hierarchy, this becomes obvious enough. It's a pity that this was not understood at the outset.
**********************************************************************
09-23-06, 10:29 PM
newnickname
Maybe Bin Laden is the side-show now:

'A new classified US intelligence report has concluded that the war in Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the September 11, 2001, attacks, The New York Times reported on its website.

The findings contained in the National Intelligence Estimate appear to be in stark contradiction with claims by President George W. Bush and other top administration officials, who insist that Iraq is and will remain the central front in the war on terror.

Citing unnamed officials who have read the final document, the newspaper said that the intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began and represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services inside government.

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," the paper quotes one of the officials as saying.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year, The Times said.'

If only Iraq hadn't been invaded. Bit of a mistake that, eh?
**********************************************************************
09-24-06, 12:46 AM
DorianGreyed
State Department figures have show that world-wide acts of terrorism have increased markedly since bush invaded Iraq. Of course, there are those that will blame Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Ray Nagin, Al Sharpton, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, activist judges, Charles Darwin, fluoridated water, or even me. Meanwhile, we are getting closer to "Peace with Honor" as more die in the "not a civil war." Heck of a job, george.
**********************************************************************
09-24-06, 12:50 AM
newnickname

quote:
Is it going to change things, one way or the other? I don't think so.

This Atlantic Monthly article suggests declaring victory over al Qaeda. Of course there's still a threat of terrorism, from many sources - but the article says that maybe Americans will just have to learn to live indefinitely with that background threat, just as so many Europeans have.

Declaring victory would then perhaps allow a saner foreign policy to be followed by the US.

If Iraq hadn't been invaded, maybe Bin Laden's death (if he is dead) would have marked the end of something;

'Fanatical hatred has nowhere to go beyond a bigger bomb, and the bigger the bomb the greater the revulsion from those on whom the bomber depends. Al-Qaida has terrified Americans but not achieved a political goal - beyond inducing America to make itself more unpopular. Those to whom I talk about these things claim plausibly that, had the west not overreacted to 9/11, Bin Laden and his organisation would now be dead. As the American terrorism expert John Mueller points out in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, the "omnipresent terrorist threat" has been greatly exaggerated for political ends. As a result, "the massive [$100bn] homeland security apparatus ... may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.' www.guardian.co.uk

Of course that billion dollar figure is one reason the War On Terror can't end.

[i]'Take for example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet another sprawling, ill-organized, inefficient bureaucracy established after 9/11 and not likely to do anything but grow in our lifetimes. Around it has sprung into existence an anti-terrorism homeland-security industry (thank you, Osama bin Laden!) of staggering proportions. "Seven years ago," writes Paul Harris of the British Guardian, "there were nine companies with federal homeland security contracts. By 2003 it was 3,512. Now there are 33,890."

Think about that. They are there to divide a terrorism/security pie that has, since 2000, resulted in about $130 billion in contracts and now, according to USA Today, is a $59 billion a year business globally - one based on that surefire bestseller, fear, whose single major customer is, of course, the DHS.

Not surprisingly, around those 33,000 companies, has sprung up a whole network of Washington-based lobbyists (including the lobbying firm of our previous attorney general, the Ashcroft Group), a plethora of security conferences and trade magazines; in short, the full panoply of a thriving business world. Already at least 90 officials have left the Homeland Security Department to become lobbyists or consultants in the business that surrounds it, including Tom Ridge, the first head of the department. After only five years, the homeland-security business, according to USA Today, has already eclipsed "mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue."'[i] www.tomdispatch.com

Another reason that the 'war' can't end is that Bush still sees electoral advantage for the Republican party in it. He also needs to it to force through legislation protecting himself personally from prosecution for his part in the counter-productive over-reaction - Bush's 'Dirty War' Amnesty Law.

Bin Laden's (possible) death may be significant in pointing up how badly Bush has mismanaged things.
**********************************************************************
09-27-06, 09:52 AM
newnickname
Another 'declare victory' suggestion;

There Is No War On Terror

I think both sides of the political divide in the US would have trouble saying the al Qaeda threat is over. The Republicans find the threat politically convenient, and the Democrats would hate to imply that Bush had finally succeeded at something.

How much of a threat was there ever? Backed by Saudi millions, al Qaeda managed to pull off a handful of devastating attacks - and that's it.

Thanks in part to Bush & Co's bungled and misdirected over-reaction in invading Iraq, the name 'al Qaeda' might have a warped attraction for a certain kind of person, and self-appointed 'franchises' might still spring up anywhere - but is al Qaeda itself actually finished?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,