Hardknock

Something I though about on the way home from work last night....

What of Osama is already dead? Wouldn't that mean that this whole war on terror thing would be for nothing? Of course, you couldn't let any information like that out because for one, you would make a martyr out of him and all of his followers would try and kill the infidels to avenge his death and eventually, a new leader would emerge. However, if they all think that he's still alive and just in hiding, they will just carry on with their current actions and the war goes on.

If this were true, then where would this leave the US government? Killing osama would by no means mean the end of al- quieda just like killing one roach would mean the end of the species. However, since the government has propelled him up onto a pedestal that now seems to be unreachable, he's now seen as a "psychological" goal that if here were killed, the "war or terror" would be over.

Did Bush and company put us in a difficult situation starting this war? Kill osama, let the word get out and you will create hundreds if not thousands of more osamas. Don't kill him (or al least make it look like you didn't) and this "war" will go on forever.

Thoughts?

(Note, I had this in paranoia but I'd like some serious discussion on this and since I've gotten little response, I'm putting it here.)

ziadel

It doesn't matter one bit if he is dead. He's a priority target because he's the ring leader, but theres lots of other high priority targets we need to neutralize as well.

They'll get him eventually, unfortunately I have my doubts that it will be our armed forces that apprehends him, we know where he is, and don't want to violate pakistani sovereignity, so I think ultimately it will be private security forces that apprehend him.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

OFKU0

If he's alive it's because the U.S wants it that way.

If he's dead, you will told he is alive because the U.S wants it that way.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Marvelous Marv

I don't understand that statement. Could you expound on why the war on terror would be for naught?

They will do so whether or not he's alive.


According to whom?

Looks like I need still another explanation. How did "Bush and company" put us into the situation of needing/not needing to kill him?

Hardknock

Ok. Osama was supposed to be the target from day one. But we all know he shifted it to Iraq to avenge daddykins. What would be the purpose of the war on terror if he was dead? There wouldn't be "anyone" to go after anymore.


True, but I predict that if word got out that he's been killed, al-quidas recruitment numbers will jump significiantly so people sympathetic to him would help avenge his death because from their point of view, the infidels killed one of their freedom fighters. And that would make things worse.



According to Bush. When the target was osama that is. What was it? September 13 that Bush blamed it on Osama and declared war on al-quida? That caused our media to focus on him as if he alone carried out the attack himself. We all know that isn't the case, but our media didn't make that abundantly clear.



Reading this makes me think that you are either playing dumb just to see what type of response you'll get or you actually been hiding under a rock for the past 3.5 years. To answer your question, Bush declared war on him and his followers! Americans wanted to see him dead. You know, our lustrous thirst for revenge? Dead or alive rewards were issued in the aftermath of the attacks.

Dragonlich

Do you honestly believe that if Osama is dead, the terrorists will stop attacking us? Of course they won't, another leader will step up to replace him. And Osama will become a martyr for "the cause", inspiring revenge attacks the world over.

But you knew that already, because:

Exactly. So why would that make the war on terror for nothing? As long as the evil ideology behind the terror isn't taken care of, this war will not end.

The target was never only Osama. Osama was to be brought to justice, as the mastermind behind 9-11. But that never meant that taking out Osama was the sole purpose of the war on terror. AFAIK, Nobody said that, and nobody even implied that.

Bush declared war on Osame, his followers, and any nation supporting them and their ideology. Americans want him dead, but not just him; they want every terrorist and terror-supporter dead. Thirst for revenge and all...

Where have *you* been in the past 3.5 years? Al-Qaida has evolved from being a mere terror group to being an inspiration to other terrorists world-wide. Not because the US started fighting them, but because they pulled off 9-11 style attacks, and had a good "P.R. department".

kutulu

He's a big roach in the war but only one piece of the puzzle. Ultimately, unless we are willing to negotiate to some extent the war on terror will be a bigger failure than the war on drugs. Not direct negotiations, but doing things to appease the would-be future terrorist.

These people are not afraid to die and it's not as if we have the means to kill the potential 100's of millions of people that could become terrorists without using nukes (which are obviously out of the quesiton).

We have definitely made a mistake by elevating Osama to the level of the boogeyman.

Dragonlich

Appeasement never has, and never will work. It will only encourage these "would-be terrorists" to demand more.

Are you suggesting that 100's of millions of muslims are willing to become terrorists? Might that not be interpreted as racism?

Osama has been famous in Muslim countries for years now, for his actions against the Russians in Afghanistan. We didn't make him famous, he did it himself. 9-11 only exposed him to the rest of the world.

Locobot

Well it was the U.S. who funded, armed, and trained Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We also know that there are close family ties between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. We also know catching him is "not a priority" and that Bush is not willing to commit troops to his capture.

Apparently someone in the U.S. believes him to be more valuable at large than caught. Bin Laden operates as a Goldstein in the war on terror, giving a heirarchy and a face to an otherwise amorphous and disparate group-terrorists. Does al qaeda actually exist? Or is al qaeda operate simply a clearinghouse for Western fears and a funnel for worldwide aggression? Groups calling themselves al qaeda have taken credit for virtually every disaster over the past 4 years including the 2003 New York blackout.

Marvelous Marv

Your post is exactly what I would have said. I'm not sure how someone can claim we have a vendetta solely against OBL.

Marvelous Marv

This statement is pretty amazing, considering that from "day one," Bush has been talking about a worldwide organization of terrorists, and saying the struggle would be a long one.


You missed the news reports on the Taliban?

Which is why I still can't see the logic in your statement that Bush put us into the position of needing to kill him, oh wait, not needing to kill him, okay, maybe we should kill him.

OBL attacked US! I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary in months. The president had the choice of a) ignoring the attack, like Clinton, or b) putting a price on his head, dead or alive.

What problem do you have with that?

Lead543

I've always wondered this too. I mean... Osama is OOOOLLDDDD! And plotting to destroy America and other parts of the world can't be easy on ones health.

Hardknock

THe problem I have is that he's no longer the target anymore. The problem of terrorism is no longer the target anymore. It's all about Iraq and the problem of terrorism is just getting worse and worse. In other words, Bush's priorities are misguided.

djtestudo

That assumes that Iraq has passes terrorism in the minds of the Administration.

All we really know is whayt is being reported in the media, and honestly, what is more interesting; small squads searching for terrorists in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq?

Of course, it COULD have become secondary, but we really don't know.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Marvelous Marv

Although this is not well known, it is not classified information.

Due to the successful work of our special forces, there are two new special forces teams (that I know of) being created. Their underlying purpose and training is different from their predecessors, since "we are now fighting networks, not countries."

For what it's worth.

Dragonlich

Are you suggesting that the US cannot fight both wars? I.e. fight against terror, *and* fighting in Iraq? If it's all about Iraq, why are there still US special forces running around in Afghanistan?

ObieX

Aren't "we" gonna be boosting forces in Afghanistan? The Brittish were supposedly going to shift about 6k troops from Iraq to Afghanistan before the London Bombings? (bombings maybe a message to "stay out" or a way to make them want to stay in Iraq or pull out all together instead...?)

__________________
We Must Dissent.