Will we ever capture Bin Laden...

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

I don't think this administration or any future administrations are interested in catching Bin Laden.

I doubt it. he is still at the top of the list of most wanted men.

Saturnal wrote:

And to be honest, I'm not interested in catching Bin Laden either because that isn't going to solve the problem of terrorism against the United States. Bin Laden is just a symbol that a small percentage of Muslims identify with and are inspired by.

a small percentage? I dont think so. catching him would be very symbolic and would be a considered a great defeat to the leader and founder of the worst terror organization ever to exist. as far as extremist go, Bin laden is very savvy and smart. I dont think he can be replaced with someone of the same intelligence level.

BetterRadio

There could be a chance we already have him. If there's nothing to be afraid of then they aren't in control of the dumb american who thinks this is a war for freedom.

If they did they'd just find another terror scapegoat.

lukin2006

How does anyone know whether they got him or not? I doubt anyone will ever know if they get him or not.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

I doubt it. he is still at the top of the list of most wanted men.



a small percentage? I dont think so. catching him would be very symbolic and would be a considered a great defeat to the leader and founder of the worst terror organization ever to exist. as far as extremist go, Bin laden is very savvy and smart. I dont think he can be replaced with someone of the same intelligence level.

The reason there are Muslim terrorists hell-bent on destroying the U.S. has little to do with Bin Laden. There will always be someone to replace him as long as the same hatred for the U.S. remains. Capturing or killing Bin Laden isn't going to erase that hatred, and it's not going to reduce terrorism in the long run. If anything, it'd probably increase the risk of terrorism just like the invasions did of Iraq and Afghanistan did.

And the reason he's been rather successful at terrorism isn't really because he's so much smarter than the other terrorists...it's more because he's had more wealth and means to conduct his terrorist activities.

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

The reason there are Muslim terrorists hell-bent on destroying the U.S. has little to do with Bin Laden. There will always be someone to replace him as long as the same hatred for the U.S. remains. Capturing or killing Bin Laden isn't going to erase that hatred, and it's not going to reduce terrorism in the long run. If anything, it'd probably increase the risk of terrorism just like the invasions did of Iraq and Afghanistan did.

it would still be a symbolic victory for the US in the war on terror.

Saturnal wrote:

And the reason he's been rather successful at terrorism isn't really because he's so much smarter than the other terrorists...it's more because he's had more wealth and means to conduct his terrorist activities.

yes he has more wealth but he is also much smarter. his actions are much more planned out then your average jihaidist. too many of those idiots are interested in being rock stars like the leader of el queda in iraq who was killed.

bottom line is. he needs to be caught, preferably killed.

Rushlimbo

Bin Laden had been dead for several years.

jlew24asu

Rushlimbo wrote:

Bin Laden had been dead for several years.

o really? where did you get such good information?

Truthmonger

Anyone see this article where Michael Scheuer talks about how the U.S. has fucked up in Afghanistan ?

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/98470.php/US-will-never-find-a-more-willing-ally-than-Musharraf:-former-CIA-chief

An excerpt:

He said: "in future years, when America's defeat in Afghanistan is apparent, and if he survives, Gen Musharraf would be able to reflect on his relationship with President Bush and say - as President Lincoln said about Union General McClellan - "Poor George, I did all I could to help him, but he proved unable to do anything to help himself".

He said the way ahead in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border would ultimately lead to the defeat of US and NATO forces and the demise of the Hamid Karzai government.

"By failing to accomplish the only mission that had to be accomplished in Afghanistan, the US was now faced with a growing insurgency that probably already outnumbered the combined US-NATO force," he added. (ANI)

Collin

jlew24asu wrote:

a small percentage? I dont think so.

You think a big percentage of Muslims are inspired by Bin Laden and identify with him?

Rushlimbo

jlew24asu wrote:

o really? where did you get such good information?

or do you mean o reilly?? Same places as you do only I dont swallow it down with a cup of sugar like you.

Cosmo

I heard that O.J. was on the case... Bin Laden is number two on his list... right after the real killer of Nicole and Ronald.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

it would still be a symbolic victory for the US in the war on terror.

What good is a "symbolic victory" if it doesn't reduce the threat of terrorism? It wouldn't mean anything to me.

jlew24asu wrote:

yes he has more wealth but he is also much smarter. his actions are much more planned out then your average jihaidist. too many of those idiots are interested in being rock stars like the leader of el queda in iraq who was killed.

bottom line is. he needs to be caught, preferably killed.

I'm sure he is smarter than the "average jihadist", but there are plenty of smart people out there to take his place if he's ever captured or killed. That's the point. He's not a 1-in-a-million brainiac. His success has much more to do with his wealth and will than his brains.

El_Kabong

mammasan wrote:

We didn't catch Bin Laden because we sub-contracted the job to local Afghan militias. Their loyalty was not us but to whom ever paid them. Bin Laden was able to buy his way out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Had we sent enough troops to Afghanistan and did the job ourselves we porbabaly wouldn't be having this conversation right now. As far as him hiding in Pakistan, the Pakistani government will not allow our forces to cross into Pakistan to search for him. Now to me, and I could be wrong, that is harboring a terrorist.

well, it has been reported, i think in the wall street journal, the head of pakistani intel <isi> wired a lot of money to mohammed atta shortly before 9/11....it was also reported pakistan bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their name out of their report and instead just refer to them as 'a foreign government' or something like that

and then there;s the whole issue of that scientist selling nuke secrets....why are they are allies, again?

jlew24asu

Rushlimbo wrote:

or do you mean o reilly?? Same places as you do only I dont swallow it down with a cup of sugar like you.

same place as me? thats weird. I never heard bin laden was already dead.

great job and dodging the question and throwing in such a witty comment. be honest. you googled "whitty comments" before you wrote this.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

El_Kabong wrote:

well, it has been reported, i think in the wall street journal, the head of pakistani intel <isi> wired a lot of money to mohammed atta shortly before 9/11....it was also reported pakistan bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their name out of their report and instead just refer to them as 'a foreign government' or something like that

and then there;s the whole issue of that scientist selling nuke secrets....why are they are allies, again?

Pakistan also has many nuclear weapons, and they have tons of anti-American demonstrations held there all the time...yet Iraq is the focus of the "war on terror". That right there should make it obvious to people that we're not in Iraq to fight terror.

There is, however, one thing Iraq has a shitload of that Pakistan doesn't have much of.

mammasan

El_Kabong wrote:

well, it has been reported, i think in the wall street journal, the head of pakistani intel <isi> wired a lot of money to mohammed atta shortly before 9/11....it was also reported pakistan bribed the 9/11 commission to keep their name out of their report and instead just refer to them as 'a foreign government' or something like that

and then there;s the whole issue of that scientist selling nuke secrets....why are they are allies, again?

Pakistan asked our government that their country not be mentioned by name in the report, no offense but that's far from being a bribe. I know why Pakistan doesn't want us intruding into the tribal regions, that government is one mistep from a religious revolution. We have to abide simply because a military dictatorship, in Pakistan, is light years better thatn a fundamental Islamist theocracy. This would have never been an issues, or at least the probabality of it would have been slim, had we just did the job ourselves instead of farming out the work to local warlords and their militias, which is basically a bunch of unemployeed Afganies with cold war era Soviet AK-47s. The minute we depended on these people to do our dirty work and catch Bin Laden we failed in our mission.

Rushlimbo

jlew24asu wrote:

same place as me? thats weird. I never heard bin laden was already dead.

great job and dodging the question and throwing in such a witty comment. be honest. you googled "whitty comments" before you wrote this.

I found it here ----> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/witty. What does the white man have to do with this?

Cosmo

El_Kabong wrote:

...and then there's the whole issue of that scientist selling nuke secrets....why are they (Pakistan) are allies, again?

...
Because idiots believe in that idiotic statement, "My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend".
You'd think we'd have learned from the Usama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cases, that's just a bunch of horseshit.

Pearjamfanno1

I doubt he'll ever be captured. He was at and old age when he started running and there are no signs of anyone getting any closer. Maybe they should get that 'Dogg' bounty hunter guy to go lookin for him. From what i know theres still something like a 5mil bounty on him dead or alive.

El_Kabong

mammasan wrote:

Pakistan asked our government that their country not be mentioned by name in the report, no offense but that's far from being a bribe. I know why Pakistan doesn't want us intruding into the tribal regions, that government is one mistep from a religious revolution. We have to abide simply because a military dictatorship, in Pakistan, is light years better thatn a fundamental Islamist theocracy. This would have never been an issues, or at least the probabality of it would have been slim, had we just did the job ourselves instead of farming out the work to local warlords and their militias, which is basically a bunch of unemployeed Afganies with cold war era Soviet AK-47s. The minute we depended on these people to do our dirty work and catch Bin Laden we failed in our mission.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp


New Delhi, March 12: The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, The Friday Times has claimed.

The Pakistani weekly said its story is based on disclosures made by foreign service officials to the Public Accounts Committee at a secret meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday.

It claimed that some of the commission members were also bribed to prevent them from including damaging information about Pakistan.

The magazine said the PAC grilled officials in the presence of foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan and special secretary Sher Afghan on the money paid to lobbyists.

“The disclosure sheds doubt on the integrity and honesty of the members of the 9/11 inquiry commission and, above all, the authenticity of the information in their final report,” it said.

The report quoted an officer as saying that dramatic changes were made in the final draft of the inquiry commission after the lobbyists got to work. The panel was formed to probe the September 11 terror attack and make suggestions to fight terrorism.

After the commission tipped the lobbyists about the damaging revelations on Pakistan’s role in 9/11, they contacted the panel members and asked them to go soft on the country. The Friday Times claimed that a lot of money was used to silence these members.

According to the report, the lobbyists also helped Pakistan win the sympathy of 75 US Congressmen as part of its strategy to guard Islamabad’s interests in Washington. “US softened towards Pakistan only because of the efforts of the foreign office,” an official was quoted as saying in the report.

The Pakistan foreign office defended the decision to hire the lobbyists, saying it was an established practice in the US.

An observer at the Islamabad meeting said money could play an important role in buying powerful people. The remark came in response to comments made by some US officials after 9/11 that “Pakistanis will sell their mothers for a dollar”.

Pakistan had emerged as front-runner in the fight against terrorism unleashed by the US after the terror strikes. Washington pumped in billions of dollars to win President Pervez Musharraf’s support in launching a crackdown on al Qaida network thriving on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.