Sly Bald Guys Forum
Various Non-Bald Discussions => General Discussion => Topic started by: Brkeatr on October 21, 2008, 06:27:06 AM
-
Watching the History Cannel right now and they are showing a documentary on Osama Bin Laden and the hunt for him since 9/11.
Man, this guy is a real piece of work and I can't figure out why we can't catch him. I mean, we seem to be able to get everyone else that we go after but not him.
What's going on?
Do you think we will ever get this guy?
What's your opinion of his ability to keep eluding everyone?
-
I can't help but see he the historical parallel's between capturing him and capturing Viet Cong or the British trying to capturing American Revolutionaries. It is his turf, he knows the area. He has the grass roots support (or the fear of reprisals) on his side as well. In addition American is and has been woefully ignorant of other cultures. Hard to fight an enemy you don't understand.
-
I sometimes wonder if it would really matter if we get him or not. I figure he'd be replaced by someone equally as bad.
If our president gets assassinated, our country will not collapse. He would be replaced by the vice president who likely shares the same views and ideology as the president.
Those terror organizations are like the internet. You can unplug server after server, but the internet is still there.
In my opinion the best way to combat terror is to not give them a reason to hate in the first place. There are plenty of countries with the same ideals and freedoms as the US that Bin Laden could care less about. I think he actually said once that it's not freedome he hates; Sweden is just as free and he doesn't attack them. Another issue is the Middle East cultural mindset of terrorism. Culture is very hard to change.
-
You can find out one of the reasons why bin laden hates us by reading about Charlie Wilson. But the real reason is that he is a tyrant and tyrants like to go after targets that will give them the most exposure possible, hence the US and Britain.
-
Amen brudda.
-
I'm sure we'll never really understand all the reasons behind his actions. He and his followers have a totally different mindset on world affairs than we do. I couldn't understand why someone would attack us just for the sake of doing it (for attention or whatever). Maybe that's what he does. There are probably greater things he's trying to accomplish, and I bet we (the American public) don't know the half of what really goes on or the reasons behind it.
I wouldn't mind sitting down with the guy for a chat (or maybe a phone call would be safer!). Not to condem him or anything, just to talk and try to understand his thoughts behind his actions. Of course I'd love to see him and his organization eliminated for good, whatever way possible.
-
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I would imagine there is alot more to this than the general public will ever know. Personally I think he has already been dead for a while but then thats just my opinion. I am far more worried about the potential of a president coming into office that will be soft on terrorists and take the "can't we all just get along" line of thinking.
-
I completly agree, I think Bin laden has long been dead
-
Well, it sure is interesting to hear all your opinions... :)
-
In my opinion the best way to combat terror is to not give them a reason to hate in the first place.
Fanatics don't need a reason to hate.
There are plenty of countries with the same ideals and freedoms as the US that Bin Laden could care less about. I think he actually said once that it's not freedome he hates; Sweden is just as free and he doesn't attack them.
Sweden is not a world power and there are no points to be scored by attacking them. Whether or not Sweden is as free as the USA is debatable.
Another reason the US is hated in the Middle East is because we (rightfully) support Israel.
I wouldn't mind sitting down with the guy for a chat (or maybe a phone call would be safer!). Not to condem him or anything, just to talk and try to understand his thoughts behind his actions.
The reasons and thoughts behind his actions are a matter of supreme indifference to me. There's no justification for the mass murder of innocent civilians. I don't care why people do evil things; I only care about stopping them and making an example of them to deter others from attempting to copy them.
-
I am far more worried about the potential of a president coming into office that will be soft on terrorists and take the "can't we all just get along" line of thinking.
I just want terrorism to stop. I don't care if it's by peaceful negotiation or all-out military action. Whatever works. It seems that military action gets the most media attention, and a lot of people by default see that as the most effective solution. No president wants to see terroristic acts on our country. Sometimes I think the public sees an absense of military action being "soft," when in reality there may be actions taken that could be just as or more effective that we just never hear about.
Fanatics don't need a reason to hate.
Unless they are just plain crazy (which I don't think bin laden or saddam are/were crazy), they always have a reason. It's just that their reasons SEEM crazy to us. What if I wore my pink shirt while visiting another country and get attacked for it. I think they must be crazy for attacking me for no reason (I mean, it's just a shirt, right?). But what if it's a serious violation of their religion and culture? The best solution would be for me to just not wear my pink shirt.
-
In my opinion the best way to combat terror is to not give them a reason to hate in the first place.
Fanatics don't need a reason to hate.
There are plenty of countries with the same ideals and freedoms as the US that Bin Laden could care less about. I think he actually said once that it's not freedome he hates; Sweden is just as free and he doesn't attack them.
Sweden is not a world power and there are no points to be scored by attacking them. Whether or not Sweden is as free as the USA is debatable.
Another reason the US is hated in the Middle East is because we (rightfully) support Israel.
I wouldn't mind sitting down with the guy for a chat (or maybe a phone call would be safer!). Not to condem him or anything, just to talk and try to understand his thoughts behind his actions.
The reasons and thoughts behind his actions are a matter of supreme indifference to me. There's no justification for the mass murder of innocent civilians. I don't care why people do evil things; I only care about stopping them and making an example of them to deter others from attempting to copy them.
Right on Raz! good points. If I had a chance to see this guy face to face, believe me, it wouldn't be for a "chat"! :x!
-
I don't believe it will ever change. It started back in ancient Egypt and has come all the way to Hitler and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and Joe Stalin and on and on.
-
I don't believe it will ever change. It started back in ancient Egypt and has come all the way to Hitler and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and Joe Stalin and on and on.
i agree, there will always be nutjobs.
-
Unless they are just plain crazy (which I don't think bin laden or saddam are/were crazy), they always have a reason. It's just that their reasons SEEM crazy to us. What if I wore my pink shirt while visiting another country and get attacked for it. I think they must be crazy for attacking me for no reason (I mean, it's just a shirt, right?). But what if it's a serious violation of their religion and culture? The best solution would be for me to just not wear my pink shirt.
A better solution would be to avoid visiting places where it's acceptable to attack people for wearing certain colors.
-
A better solution would be to avoid visiting places where it's acceptable to attack people for wearing certain colors.
Sometimes I think the US government should take that advice as well.
-
I'm reading The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, Vintage Books, 2007, that is a detailed examination of Al Qaeda and bin Laden. It's a very complex history, full of nuance and varying interests, but a real page turner. This isn't easy reading but very rewarding on the man, the movement and other people and influences. It doesn't put any soft corners on the hard issues that our country, the world--the West, Middle East etc. face. I recommend it to all Sly Brothers.
-
it started in ancient Egypt
I think it started before that. People have been beating each other up one way or another since the human race developed ways to express an opinion and disagree with each other. The scale of bigotry and conflict has changed.
we (rightfully) support Israel
[/quote/
Right and wrong are relative terms. They very much depend on which side of the fence your sitting. There's a lot of displaced Palestinians that would disagree with the creation of an independent Jewish state in 1948.
Unfortunately it appears that people in large groups are not particularly tolerant of one another and seem to be fairly happy to exploit someone if they get better off as a result (western consumerism supports child labour and exploitation in India and China by buying cheap goods).
The ideal would be for everyone to compromise a little and get on with other, recognising everyone as a fellow human being with basic rights.
-
we (rightfully) support Israel
Right and wrong are relative terms. They very much depend on which side of the fence your sitting. There's a lot of displaced Palestinians that would disagree with the creation of an independent Jewish state in 1948.
Right in the sense that they are the only stable democracy in the region.
-
Good to see someone can get quotes to work. :-[
Purely as Devil's Advocate in this instance:
What makes Democracy the right political ideology?
How stable and fair a democracy is Israel (again, ask a displaced Palestinian that isn't allowed to vote)?
Positions of right and wrong also seem to vary. USA (and Britain) supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
-
I have to say that my principles lean more towards Dave's viewpoint. I personally agree that deomcracy is right, but who am i to say. I can only say in the balance of probability that democracy is the best way, for all i know the future may dictate otherwise. It rather reminds me of a debate that I heard on the radio the other night where aetheists in the UK are planning on taking out adverts on the side of buses that say, "God probably doesnt exist, so just enjoy life" or something to that effect. That elicited all kinds of angry people phoning in saying of course he does etc etc. But the underlying point was that although people can have complete faith, no one can honestly say that they know beyond all doubt either way and I suppose this is very much the same with right and wrong. In my view, what is right and what is wrong can only be proved retrospectively.
On the whole Bin Laden thing though. I must say that I find everything that man stands for to be utterly abhorrent, however I do think it is all too easy for us to sit here and be critical without looking a little closer to home at some of the horrific acts sanctioned by our respective Governments. Whilst for instance in Iraq I can kind of see that overturning Saddam may eventually have some benefit to the people of Iraq, I do feel that my support was sought under false pretenses and that as a nation, our leaders have also been responsible for killing thousands on innocent civillians.
You could also argue for instance that by consistantly avoiding commitment to environment targets that Mr Bush is damaging the entire planet. I am personally ashamed of some of the decisions taken by my Government over the past few years and will find it difficult to vote in our next General election with any conviction or desire to see anyone take office at all.
-
Good to see someone can get quotes to work. :-[
Purely as Devil's Advocate in this instance:
What makes Democracy the right political ideology?
Because it works better than any other system of government. Also, when was the last time that two democracies went to war with each other?
How stable and fair a democracy is Israel (again, ask a displaced Palestinian that isn't allowed to vote)?
It's more fair and more stable than any other country in the region. The displaced Palestinians may not be able to vote there, but they aren't able to vote in most, if not all, of the other countries in the Middle East.[/quote]
Positions of right and wrong also seem to vary. USA (and Britain) supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
That was done in order not to tip the balance of power too much in favor of either nation. It was the right thing to do at the time.
-
I have to say that my principles lean more towards Dave's viewpoint. I personally agree that deomcracy is right, but who am i to say. I can only say in the balance of probability that democracy is the best way, for all i know the future may dictate otherwise.
What other systems of government would you like to live under?
-
when was the last time that two democracies went to war with each other?
Um, 1939.
Adolf Hitler was the democratically elected Chancellor of Germany.
I've got to agree that generally a well run democracy would seem to be the fairest and best system for government. However there are quite a lot of unfair systems around the world that use the name democracy and aren't very democratic.
The displaced Palestinians may not be able to vote there, but they aren't able to vote in most, if not all, of the other countries in the Middle East.
That hardly makes Israel a fair democracy, does it?
I'd love to see a true world wide democracy, where everyone has an equal right to be heard and their best interests represented. Decisions should then be made based on all information. Unfortunately this will mean a degree of compromise. Whilst some people in poorer nations will undoubtedly be much better off, others in rich nations will be worse off.
Whilst human emotions can get involved there is always the chance that any political system can be abused. If those that actually wield power care for everyone and are truly selfless about it I think any political system can work, be that oligarchy, monarchy or democracy. The sharing of power between a greater number of people that truly represent the requirements of the public would reduce the tendency for self interest.
There is always a chance that some nutter can get to the top of the pile. 1930's Germany a good example. In this case the system will fall apart.
Whilst there is any form of inequality in the world there will be uprising of one sort or another. It may be a democratic uprising against a perceived unjust system (the French revolution?) or it may be a small group targeting another group or individual for their own cause regardless of the rest of the populace. I believe that the actions of Bin laden under the banner of Al Qaida fall into the latter category.
-
when was the last time that two democracies went to war with each other?
Um, 1939.
Adolf Hitler was the democratically elected Chancellor of Germany.
I've got to agree that generally a well run democracy would seem to be the fairest and best system for government. However there are quite a lot of unfair systems around the world that use the name democracy and aren't very democratic.
Germany can't be said to have been a democracy at that point, in any meaningful sense of the word. Opposition parties had been outlawed and Hitler was a dictator by 1939.
The displaced Palestinians may not be able to vote there, but they aren't able to vote in most, if not all, of the other countries in the Middle East.
That hardly makes Israel a fair democracy, does it?
[/quote]
I'll take it over any other government in the region.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you over the benefits of democracy. If implemented properly it should be the fairest form of government. However there are clear examples that show it to be open to abuse. Hitler was elected in 1933. Although things had changed dramatically by '39, it was as a result of the acts of the democratically elected government. Like I said, if a nutter gets themselves to the top of the pile all bets are off.
The Israeli version of democracy may be acceptable to you, but it is unacceptable to those that are oppressed. Once again, right and wrong depend on your personal side of the fence.
One man/one vote is the ideal. Unfortunately there are too many people looking out for their own interests for this to be a reality. Can anything less truly be deemed to be a democracy?
-
I have to respectfully disagree with MR. ARGYLE......I do not in any way believe that MR. BUSH has in any way harmed our planet any more than say, AL GORE.,,,GLOBAL WARMING is another political football much like GLOBAL COOLING was back in the 1970's As for bin laden, he for many of HIS twisted reasons attacked the U.S. and killed thousands of innocent people. I know that there is a HELLFIRE missile with his name on it.
-
for many of HIS twisted reasons attacked the U.S. and killed thousands of innocent people. I know that there is a HELLFIRE missile with his name on it.
Well said.....
......and lemme just add: the idea that RIGHT and WRONG are relative terms...is COMPLETE AND UTTER BALDERDASH.
g@@4
That means that in a RELATIVE sense....what Bin Laden organized and carried out by his sand-vermin maggot followers on 9/11 could be 'viewed' as RIGHT. Someone might say, "Well...it was right to them.".....ok I'll grant that....but those slime balls believed it was SO RIGHT...that upon being incinerated upon impact with those buildings, they would be rewarded by "Allah" in paradise with 70 virgins for eternity (or whatever the damn number is).
Is that the way the universe works?? ?? ?? ??
Sorry folks....while the "YOU-HAVE-YOUR-RIGHT AND WRONG-AND-I-HAVE-MINE" is a nice polite POLITICALLY CORRECT sentiment....it simply doesn't play out in real life.
I don't care what your religion or non-religion is.....if someone walked up to your mum, dad...son or daughter and smashed them in the side of the head with a freakin tire iron....killing them or putting them in a coma.....are you tellin' me that whether or not that was RIGHT or WRONG is FREAKIN RELATIVE ?? ?? ??.....
TOTAL AND UNADULTERATED POPPYCOCK!!!! :Xo!
-
I know that there is a HELLFIRE missile with his name on it.
That's what I'm talkin' about, and thanks for getting back on topic, b and Rob. O0
-
......and lemme just add: the idea that RIGHT and WRONG are relative terms...is COMPLETE AND UTTER BALDERDASH.
You pick an extreme example, but yes. The scum that carried out those terrorist atrocities (and all others that went before or after them, regardless of the flag they were carried out under) probably believed that they were right.
As an example, Razor believes that Israel's democratic system is right. I merely point out that there are some that live oppressed under that system that would disagree very strongly. I would imagine that every nation entering into a war since time began could justify to themselves why they were right. Historically it would seem that only the eventual winner was correct.
-
He has not been captured because the do not want to.Bin Laden's family was flown out of the US on the very day of September 11. This is documented and a known fact. Why was his family taken care of? The family of the so-called terrorist who is responsible for the 911 attacks suddenly gets carte blanche. Has anyone put this together? George W. Bush has put it together all to well and the American public and media have let it pass so easily. This is an outrage. British snipers had him in there sights and were ordered down by the americans, Why
-
If all that is true, I have no answer that's for sure....we don't know half the things that go on in this world.... :-\
-
This is an outrage. British snipers had him in there sights and were ordered down by the americans, Why
This was during the Clinton administration, not Bush's - pre-911.
-
A new documentary just released claims that French Special Forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights on more than one occasion in the last 3 years; however their US superiors never ordered them to fire.
A French soldier in the documentary says "In 2003 and 2004 we had bin Laden in our sights. The sniper said 'I have bin Laden,'".
-
A new documentary just released claims that French Special Forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights on more than one occasion in the last 3 years; however their US superiors never ordered them to fire.
A French soldier in the documentary says "In 2003 and 2004 we had bin Laden in our sights. The sniper said 'I have bin Laden,'".
Why would "US" commanders "ORDER" the "French" to fire???
-
Because in some conflicts you are under there jurisdiction. Wnen you are a sniper you can not just shoot at the enemy you have to radio back with usually your observer to say you have target in sight.Then and only then can you shoot, it is not like in films.
-
Because in some conflicts you are under there jurisdiction. Wnen you are a sniper you can not just shoot at the enemy you have to radio back with usually your observer to say you have target in sight.Then and only then can you shoot, it is not like in films.
I guess I just do not see the French asking for our 'permission' to shoot.
-
It was the special forces who had him, a ordinary soldier might have fired.Killing or capturing OBL could become a rallying point for radical islamists. If he is killed he becomes a martyr and boosts the cause. If he is captured it could trigger outrageous attacks aimed at forcing his release. It' probably more advantageous to let him live out his days shivering in a cave.
It could also shed light on the fact the George W. Bush let him go when he was trapped at Tora Bora.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
It could also shed light on the fact the George W. Bush let him go when he was trapped at Tora Bora.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm, could have sworn that was actually National Security Advisor Sandy Berger under the Clinton Administration.
Not arguing, just point of fact.
-
The Battle of Tora Bora was a military engagement that took place in Afghanistan in December 2001. U.S. forces believed that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding in the rugged mountains.
-
Well, I stand corrected.
However, the US conflict with Bin Laden began well before GWB took office, Birdman.
-
the American operation in Afghanistan has been heavy-handed and bloody, long on firepower and short on results. By failing to capture bin Laden, the Bush administration has become increasingly vulnerable to criticism. The administration's bellicose reaction, declaring its intent to prosecute the "war on terror" on new fronts, is a worrying byproduct of this failure. That the war has so far been conducted in such a haphazard and overblown manner would seem to indicate that certain forces have something to gain from prolonging this impotent war strategy. In the long run, this strategy is not beneficial for the safety of the average American citizen – nor for citizens of other countries. And it is not promising for any realistic hope of capturing Osama bin Laden.
-
the American operation in Afghanistan has been heavy-handed and bloody, long on firepower and short on results. By failing to capture bin Laden, the Bush administration has become increasingly vulnerable to criticism. The administration's bellicose reaction, declaring its intent to prosecute the "war on terror" on new fronts, is a worrying byproduct of this failure. That the war has so far been conducted in such a haphazard and overblown manner would seem to indicate that certain forces have something to gain from prolonging this impotent war strategy. In the long run, this strategy is not beneficial for the safety of the average American citizen – nor for citizens of other countries. And it is not promising for any realistic hope of capturing Osama bin Laden.
Nice plagiarism - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso35.html
-
the American operation in Afghanistan has been heavy-handed and bloody, long on firepower and short on results. By failing to capture bin Laden, the Bush administration has become increasingly vulnerable to criticism. The administration's bellicose reaction, declaring its intent to prosecute the "war on terror" on new fronts, is a worrying byproduct of this failure. That the war has so far been conducted in such a haphazard and overblown manner would seem to indicate that certain forces have something to gain from prolonging this impotent war strategy. In the long run, this strategy is not beneficial for the safety of the average American citizen – nor for citizens of other countries. And it is not promising for any realistic hope of capturing Osama bin Laden.
Nice plagiarism - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso35.html
Yes, I see that in the very last paragraph....
-
Nice plagiarism - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso35.html
Nice catch, Tyler.
-
Nice plagiarism - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso35.html
Nice catch, Tyler.
Thought so too. Sounded like he took it right out of a magazine to me.