Would catching Osama make a difference?

[Xard]

If one really wants to destroy terrorism you must destroy roots that causes it, such as poverty, economic and social problems, and try to reach equality between people to name few.

[Walsingham]

It is in my opinion a nonsense to talk about fighting terrorism. That's like talking about fighting swimming. It's a technique of fighting. But we can fight a single guy who has chosen to pursue terrorsit goals, using the rule of law to try and avoid nobbling innocent people. We can also try to nobble terrorist operations, by tying their shoelaces together etc. But terrorism is emphatically not going to go away.

 

On the other hand, if we fail to successfully prosecute our existing terrorist targets, and bring people like Bin Laden visibly to justice then we will only see a rise in this technique.

 

And as Meta so kindly observed, that was my point. We've removed the Talibs from the capital and many other areas, but until we give the PBA (poor bloody Afghans) some sort of alternative to a subsistence/tribal/bandit economy then we can only expect trouble. This means actually spending some of the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid we promised them five years ago.

 

I'm not saying prosperity is the whole answer, though. It's a complex problem and it needs a complex solution. I mean, hell, we have terrorists born and raised in the UK in quite comfy surroundings.

 

EDIT: Gfted1. I don't know anyone in the services above the rank of corporal who feels more indiscriminate firepower is the answer. That road leads ultimately to a war of attrition and genocide. Which while a technical possibility isn't going to involve either of our countries. Half measures on that road are the worst of all worlds. You have only to look at the 'both hands' approaches of countries like Turkey, Colombia, and the old apartheid South Africa to see that unfettered does not mean more effective. Generally it means more brutal and sloppy.

[Sand]

Nice sentiment, and I wish it can happen, Xard, but reality of it there is no way it ever will. It isn't within human nature.

 

Right on, Wash. If we focused on Afganistan instead of wasted resources and lives on Iraq things would be quite different I am sure.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Sand

[Xard]

And that's why war against terrorism is madness

[Jorian Drake]

GG America, you guys are sure popular.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly, and its even improving

[kirottu]

I think they should benchpress Osama.

[Sand]

Benchpress?

 

How would using Osama as device for weight training stop terrorism?

[Gfted1]

EDIT: Gfted1. I don't know anyone in the services above the rank of corporal who feels more indiscriminate firepower is the answer. That road leads ultimately to a war of attrition and genocide. Which while a technical possibility isn't going to involve either of our countries. Half measures on that road are the worst of all worlds. You have only to look at the 'both hands' approaches of countries like Turkey, Colombia, and the old apartheid South Africa to see that unfettered does not mean more effective. Generally it means more brutal and sloppy.

 

More brutal? Certainly. More sloppy? I suppose. One only needs to look at the complete annihilation of Germany to see with crystal clarity how an "idea" can be, while not completely destroyed, effecivly made to be moot.

[Xard]

Nazism and terrosim are totally different kind of things. You can't use same methods.

 

Besides, against Germany, it was open war. Against terrorism there can't be open war

[Jorian Drake]

Nazism and terrosim are totally different kind of things. You can't use same methods.

 

Besides, against Germany, it was open war. Against terrorism there can't be open war

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no open war is possible against something what doesn't have borders, thats like attacking flu

[Tale]

Nazism and terrosim are totally different kind of things. You can't use same methods.

 

Besides, against Germany, it was open war. Against terrorism there can't be open war

no open war is possible against something what doesn't have borders, thats like attacking flu

Obviously you've never gone to war with the flu. With futuristic miniaturization technology, we can bring modern weaponry and tactics into health care.

 

Why, I remember one battle me and my squad had in the body of a sick child with chicken pox just a few weeks ago. It was a fierce battle. We lost johnny, he was so young. He was killed by friendly fire from a white blood cell. That idiotic cell pulled the grenade and threw the pin.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

Nice sentiment, and I wish it can happen, Xard, but reality of it there is no way it ever will.  It isn't within human nature.

 

Right on, Wash.  If we focused on Afganistan instead of wasted resources and lives on Iraq things would be quite different I am sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hey! You know damn well I was/am behind the regime change in Iraq. I just wanted it doen after we'd finished the job in Afghanistan.

[astr0creep]

I just wanted it doen after we'd finished the job in Afghanistan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't worry. Canada is taking care of that cleanup.

 

 

 

I mean :'(

[Walsingham]

And a damn fine job you're doing too, if I may say.

[213374U]

GG America, you guys are sure popular.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly, and its even improving

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Found your twin soul, didn't you?

[alanschu]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I said no such thing. In fact, I made no implication whatsoever about my stance on the situation. You could not have concluded anything of the sort.

Edited January 17, 2007 by alanschu

[metadigital]

Nice sentiment, and I wish it can happen, Xard, but reality of it there is no way it ever will.  It isn't within human nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would someone who doesn't do "What If" scenarios be able to definitively make such an outrageous claim?

[Laozi]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

The biggest problem for Iraq is that the average citizen doesn't support the system of government that the U.S. is trying to impose there. Only a bit under 7% of citizens polled last spring would support a free market economy, where as about 65% would prefer a largely-state controlled economy. Without the support of the average citizen all efforts in Iraq are sure to fail.

 

 

But that neither here nor there, this thread is about Bin Laden and his capture and/or death. It would be difficult to argue that the capturing of Bin Laden would validate our efforts in the eyes of alot of people, but its not like all terrorist sit at a big table with Bin Laden at the head.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Laozi

[Sand]

Nice sentiment, and I wish it can happen, Xard, but reality of it there is no way it ever will.  It isn't within human nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would someone who doesn't do "What If" scenarios be able to definitively make such an outrageous claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A careful review of the last 5,000 years of human history.

[metadigital]

Nice sentiment, and I wish it can happen, Xard, but reality of it there is no way it ever will.  It isn't within human nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would someone who doesn't do "What If" scenarios be able to definitively make such an outrageous claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A careful

[Sand]

So, are you saying that the majority of human history hasn't been full of misery that we have caused ourselves? That it is replete of milk and honey? There have been individuals that have broken the norm of human behavior but we, as a people, have largely preyed upon each other for power, greed, and just general intolerance.

[metadigital]

No, I just question that you are qualified to make any logical conclusions about anything, as you start with an a priori conclusion and then look for evidence to support it (coincidental correlation with reality, notwithstanding).

[Sand]

You are good to question, because I am not.

 

I just like a good argument, win or lose. :D

[Purgatorio]

So, are you saying that the majority of human history hasn't been full of misery that we have caused ourselves?  That it is replete of milk and honey?  There have been individuals that have broken the norm of human behavior but we, as a people, have largely preyed upon each other for power, greed, and just general intolerance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a rather depressing view to take, if humanity was that bad we would have wiped ourselves out long ago..... problem solved.

 

Capturing him wont make any difference, and he is more likely to be shot. But if he was found his fate would depend on who caught him. I am sure they made contingencies for what to do if their leader gets killed, I mean they are the greatest threat to democracy eva. No the only way to stop them is to commit barbaric slaughters of their own people in their name.

Then we could move on to more important things like undermining governments to expand democracy. Yay! Democracy!

No, I am not referring to the government of Iraq.

[Sand]

That's a rather depressing view to take, if humanity was that bad we would have wiped ourselves out long ago..... problem solved.

 

Nah. There is a counter to that. Sex. For the human being sex is very enjoyable and we do like to do things that give pleasure. Also add in our relative short pregnancy cycle we can spread out in a large population in a few decades.