Would catching Osama make a difference?

[Eddo36]

Osama is only one man. If he gets killed or captured, some other fanatic is just going to rise and take his place. Why the effort for just one man?

[Oerwinde]

Osama is only one man. If he gets killed or captured, some other fanatic is just going to rise and take his place. Why the effort for just one man?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It won't make a difference to al qaeda. But to a whole lot of Americans it will be huge morale boost.

[taks]

Osama is only one man. If he gets killed or captured, some other fanatic is just going to rise and take his place. Why the effort for just one man?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no other fanatic currently has quite the pull in fanaticist islam as ben hidin. he's become a symbol more than anything else (heck, he's a saudi for crissakes). taking him out renders a serious blow to their over-inflated egos.

 

taks

[Laozi]

Capturing Bin Laden will finally put an end to the threat of terrorist attacks we are all confronted with everyday. Just like how executing Saddam Hussein ended the resistance in Iraq U.S. forces where faced with.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Laozi

[Lare Kikkeli]

like you'll ever manage to get him. it's been 5 years and counting. just give up already.

[Tale]

Yeah, terrorism is just like 7-11 heists. Sure, you can catch the guys who do it, but who cares? Someone else will do it. Let 'em both run around free.

 

Why put out effort to catch a mass murderer? Because he's a damned mass murderer. It doesn't need to be any more complex that that.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Tale

[Surreptishus]

If all efforts to catch Bin Laden were ceased it would basically be an invitation to to more attacks.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Surreptishus

[Calax]

he's good right now as a symbol. If the government actually let him get away on purpose the reason wouldbe that if they caught him the population would loose all desire to go after any of bushes proposed targets. So in this hypothetical letting him get away on purpose senario, Osama would get away, Bush would claim he went to Iraq, we invade Iraq, and now that public opinion is again receeding it might be a good idea "capture" him.

 

Again, hypothetically.

 

the only difference it would make now would be to get the public to view bush as having succeeded in his pet war.

[Sturm]

GG America, you guys are sure popular.

[Walsingham]

Yeah, terrorism is just like 7-11 heists.  Sure, you can catch the guys who do it, but who cares?  Someone else will do it.  Let 'em both run around free.

 

Why put out effort to catch a mass murderer?  Because he's a damned mass murderer.  It doesn't need to be any more complex that that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Points for this man. That's precisely the point in my opinion. No, it's not going to stop all terrorism. He's already known to be occupying a largely inspirational/ceremonial role. He's like Col. Sanders is to KFC.

 

But yes, it would be worth doing, I feel.

[metadigital]

So ... if we get Osama, then KFC will get rid of the transfats?

 

At last, a cause that all mankind can get behind!

[Sand]

Osama and his terrorist organization is more of a threat to the US than Saddam and Iraq ever was. Who does Bushie go after and who did he ignore?

[Gfted1]

Osama and his terrorist organization is more of a threat to the US than Saddam and Iraq ever was.  Who does Bushie go after and who did he ignore?

 

 

*fails save vs flamebait*

 

You do realize there is a war and manhunt going on in Afghanistan right? How is that "ignoring" him?

[Walsingham]

I'd have to agree though, that going after Iraq at the same time was somehwat similar to operation Barbarossa. For heaven's sake people, it's military science 101. Don't have wars on two fronts.

[kirottu]

Osama and his terrorist organization is more of a threat to the US than Saddam and Iraq ever was.  Who does Bushie go after and who did he ignore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Walsingham]

Mmmm... broken pizza. *drools*

[Sand]

It might be a broken record, kirottu, but it is a record that Bush failed to play. As Walsingham said, you don't make a war on two fronts if you don't have to but by splitting the attention of our military instead of focusing and "staying the course" on Afganistan Osama was able to slip through and allowing Al Qaeda/Taliban gain strength in that nation. It just simply proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that Bush and his administration are incompetent.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Sand

[Gorgon]

I doubt that the Taliban are strengthened because they coudn't find Osama. More likely the Taliban never left, but simply waited and regrouped. Osama is a symbol, a symbol that works equally well whether he lives or dies.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Gorgon

[kirottu]

It might be a broken record, kirottu, but it is a record that Bush failed to play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh now I get it. He ditched you at a date, right?

[Gfted1]

It might be a broken record, kirottu, but it is a record that Bush failed to play.  As Walsingham said, you don't make a war on two fronts if you don't have to but by splitting the attention of our military instead of focusing and "staying the course"  on Afganistan Osama was able to slip through and allowing Al Qaeda/Taliban gain strength in that nation.  It just simply proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that Bush and his administration are incompetent.

 

 

What in the world are you basing that on? You somehow "just know" that if we werent involved in Iraq, Bin Laden would have been captured? Because more people on the ground = instant capture while completely ignoring the actual fact of the situation? You know, pesky thinks like his ability to slip back and forth across borders that our troops cant, receiving support throughout the region and having an entire mountain range worth of cave networks to hide in.

[metadigital]

Osama and his terrorist organization is more of a threat to the US than Saddam and Iraq ever was.  Who does Bushie go after and who did he ignore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*fails save vs flamebait*

 

You do realize there is a war and manhunt going on in Afghanistan right? How is that "ignoring" him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*save vs flamebait: critical fail*

 

What he meant to say was that those Afghans don't really want peace, because they have a different culture.

[Walsingham]

We don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. A failure to successfully prosecute Afghanistan has lanced the boil in such a way that it festers worse.

[metadigital]

We are unanimous in that.

 

Mind you, I think the Coalition needs a bit of Walsingham Policy Insight©® to aid in that fight, too: buy up all the poppy crops for the next ten years and help the farmers change to another crop, instead.

[Gfted1]

^Elaborate please. What was the "failure to prosecute" you refer to, the sucessufl toppling of the Taliban? The institution of an elected government? The wholesale destruction of unnumeral terrorist training facilities?

[metadigital]

I think (if I may be so bold) Wals is more observing the failure to complete the job; sure the Taliban were ousted (the USSR took the enemy flag within hours of their attack of Afghanistan), but the lack of infrastructure is hampering the prosperity of peace.