Would catching Osama make a difference?

[Eddo36]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I mean why would catching him benefit in a tactical sense? Someone else will just take his place. And someone after that.

[Pidesco]

It would give a huge popularity boost to the Prez. It's not about tactics, it's about politics.

[Sand]

Demoralization.

 

Osama is a figurehead that gives motivation to those under him. Cut off that head and you can bleed that motivation. Thing is we not only need to capture Osama but we need to destroy him completely. Destroy his dreams, his hope, his convictions, and everything he believes is right. We need to rip out his sense of self and once he is a shell of his formal self show him to his follower then execute him.

 

Okay, was that a bit over the top?

[Jorian Drake]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*Insert other conquered Nation's name, like Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Cuba, France, Canada or whatever comes next

 

 

 

You can't controll a nation in longterm with small number of troops, and sending more makes it only much worse. Trying to change the goverment can help, but after that they should be on their own feet. (This way you have atleast a (not so) succesfull Puppet State for long (somewhat) term existance)

[Guest The Architect]

I thought Bin Laden was already dead but. I heard a while ago that there was some report on Al Jazeera news that this Egyptian paper called al-Wafd had an article which said that an important official in the Afghan Taliban movement announced the death of Bin Laden, stating that he had suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. Apparently he had (or has, if he is still alive) kidney problems and Hepatitis C as well.

Edited January 17, 2007 by The Architect

[alanschu]

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}>

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

[Sand]

So, you are saying that it is okay to have threats against the US go unchecked, Alan? Interesting view.

[metadigital]

No, they are saying that any discussion with you is just a nightmare of spam.

[Sand]

That's not how I interpret it.

[astr0creep]

Terrorism.

 

The way terrorism is fought now is like trying to catch all rain water with a glass during a storm.

 

Terrorism is worldwide all the time. There are terrorists in every country, all the time.

Imo trying to fight terrorism one country at a time, or one man at a time is useless. So what if Iraq is Democratic and terrorist free? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Canada, France, Belgium, Norway, Australia, Congo, Angola, USA, etc all harbor terrorists, wether they know it or not.

 

The only way to truly fight terrorism is a real world war, where every single country participate, as one, in the war efforts specifically to counter terrorism.

Everywhere, at all times.

 

Is catching one man going to solve the terrorist threats everywhere?

 

I don't think so.

 

[Sand]

True enough Astromech. The problem with Terrorism is that it starts with an ideology and you can't fight ideology with guns.

[Jorian Drake]

True enough Astromech.  The problem with Terrorism is that it starts with an ideology and you can't fight ideology with guns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that only strenghtens it

[Sand]

Yep.

[Gfted1]

^Not if that ideaology is blown out of the back of your head.

[Sand]

Yes, but who is to say that ideology was alredy shared by two other people? Who would then share it it with two more people each, then two more people each, and so forth and so on. Sure you can kill one person but ideas can travel faster than any soldier.

[Jorian Drake]

and if you kill one, others begin to think about that maybe he was right...

[Gfted1]

and if you kill one, others begin to think about that maybe he was right...

 

 

Thats pure speculation. I could just as easily counter that it could make them think man, Id really like to keep my brains in my skull, I better lay off.

[Gfted1]

Yes, but who is to say that ideology was alredy shared by two other people?  Who would then share it it with two more people each, then two more people each, and so forth and so on.  Sure you can kill one person but ideas can travel faster than any soldier.

 

 

Thats pure lip service Sand. You dont need to kill the "idea" if you kill enough people who will act on the idea to drive it underground and make it a non-factor.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Gfted1

[Xard]

 

Or maybe best way would be destroy roots of terrorism instead of marching from one country to another with teh army.

[astr0creep]

Yes, but who is to say that ideology was alredy shared by two other people?  Who would then share it it with two more people each, then two more people each, and so forth and so on.  Sure you can kill one person but ideas can travel faster than any soldier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats pure lip service Sand. You dont need to kill the "idea" if you kill enough people who will act on the idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Someone else. To kill an idea for sure, you need to kill everyone that exists.

 

To kill or reduce terrorism, like Xard said, you need to kill it's source.

I thought cutting the funds was a good way, making it more difficult or impossible for them to obtain ressources.

 

I think the key is in covert intelligence, not military might.

Terrorists operate in the shadows of society and it is there that they must be fought imo.

Edited January 17, 2007 by astr0creep

[Gfted1]

 

Or maybe best way would be destroy roots of terrorism instead of marching from one country to another with teh army.

 

Ah yes, that old dog and pony show. We just dont "get" them so of course the only possible action is to blow stuff up.

[Sand]

In any case we can all see where Gifted1's little exercise in killing would get us. Its called Iraq. Soldiers are a poor tool to use to combat terrorism.

[Gfted1]

No, the problem in Iraq is that we have to be mindful of civilians and cannot properly raze locations that harbor terrorists. You cant win a fight with one hand tied behind your back.

[Sand]

And you can't go on a murder spree either.

[Jorian Drake]

you can't fight terrorism, you can only defend against it, you never knew who a terrorist is, and they never see themselves as terrorists. If you try to fight terrorism then you harass civilians who are no terrorists too, and if you do that its very possible they really turn into your enemy.