why can't US capture/kill OBL

mammasan

sapperskunk wrote:

The fact that we haven't found Bin Laden isn't a hit against the Administration. It's a hit against the Green Berets, Delta Force and SEALS that are activley searching for him.


It's called Task Force 20.

I wouldn't pin it on Task Force 20. How much are they expected to accomplish if they aren't even allowed to set foot in the region where the man is hiding.

wolfamongwolves

jlew24asu wrote:

you really dont get it. el queda is much more the a small, disorganized and ramshackle band of renegades. they have the will and ability to do some unspeakable bad things. why would you take them so lightly?

It's actually you who doesn't get it. The notion that al-Qaeda is a global co-ordinated network of terrorists with cells in every country etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy. al-Qaeda up until and even after 9/11 consisted of a hardcore group of maybe a dozen or so men. Beyond that, there were many disparate groups who were connected to bin Laden and his associates, but in no way were they under allegiance to him nor was he their leader. And then there is the loose radical Islamist ideology that others who think like bin Laden subscribe to, and call themselves "al-Qaeda" - not in the sense of being a huge unified organisation, but in the sense of the literal meaning of the word - "foundation", "principle, "maxim". While many of these people might look up to bin Laden, to think that he controls them or their actions, that he is their boss, that they even have the same ideas or methods - and crucially, to think that "cut off the head and the body will die" - is to profoundly misunderstand the nature of radical Islamist militancy.

sapperskunk

mammasan wrote:

I wouldn't pin it on Task Force 20. How much are they expected to accomplish if they aren't even allowed to set foot in the region where the man is hiding.

He hasn't always been in the same place.

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

1. Symbolic of what, exactly?

islamic extremism

wolfamongwolves wrote:

2. The chances of it having any significant impact on global affairs (except for the probable brief intensification of violence in retaliation) is almost non-existence.

really says who? you?

wolfamongwolves wrote:

3. Bin Laden is not in control of what you think al-Qaeda is

again, how the fuck do you know?

-

wolfamongwolves wrote:

and al-Qaeda is not what you think it is.

this is just to name a few..

* 2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.
* 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
* 1994: Investigation of the WTC bombing reveals that it was only a small part of a massive attack plan that included hijacking a plane and crashing it into CIA headquarters.
* 6/1996: Truck bomb explodes outside Khobar Towers military complex in Saudi Arabia; 19 American servicemen killed, hundreds of others injured.
* 8/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed including 12 Americans.
* 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S. Other Algerians subsequently arrested were "Afghan alumni."
* 12/1999: Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists.
* 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
* 9/11/2001: Destruction of WTC, attack on Pentagon.
* 4/11/2002: Explosion at ancient synogogue in Tunisia leaves 17 dead, including 11 German tourists.
* 5/2002: Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
* 6/2002: Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
* 10/2002: Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens.
* 10/2002: Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16.
* 5/2003: Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
* 5/2003: Four bombs kill 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
* 8/2003: Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
* 11/2003: Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17.
* 11/2003: Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The following week a British bank in Istanbul is bombed.
* 3/2004: Ten terrorists bombs explode almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. A Moroccan affiliate of al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
* 5/29–31/2004: Terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, then take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound. After a stand-off, three of the four assailants escape, leaving 22 people dead, all but three of them foreigners.
* 6/11–19/2004: Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nearly a week after his capture, photos of his body are posted on an Islamist website. Saudi security forces find and kill four suspected terrorists, including the self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, after they are seen dumping a body.
* 12/6/2004: Militants, believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda, drive up to the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, storm the gates, and kill 5 consulate employees, none of whom were American. Saudi security forces subdue the attackers, killing four.
* 7/7/2005: Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
* 10/1/2005: 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
* 11/9/2005: 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

4. He did not create al-Qaeda, in any sense.

you kidding right? who did then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

al-Qaeda or al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida (Arabic: القاعدة al-qāʕida, trans. 'the base') is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

5. He doesn't need to be replaced - he's been replicated

this is the dumbest attempt I have ever seen at trying to sound clever. nice try

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Go do some research.

who me?

Arctangent

jlew24asu wrote:

because he is hiding in an area US isnt allowed to go.

most likely here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan

yeah, cos like that's ever stopped the US in the past!

Kann wrote:

surface area of a man = 0,2m²
surface of the earh = 510 067 420 km²

osama is about 6' 3" and hiding in a nation where the average height is 5' 7". he should stand out like dogs bollocks! and he has dodgy kidney's which means he need dialasis every few days. he shouldn't be that hard to spot. if anyone REALLY wanted to find him.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

What's significant about him? He was the leader of a small, disorganised and ramshackle band of renegades, who managed to pull off an admittedly huge and horrifying terrorist act, but if you think he's got any sort of real pull amongst most of the very disparate and unrelated groups who've all gone calling themselves "al-Qaeda in X,Y & Z" since 9/11, then you're very much mistaken.

tell that to all the people who did on the madrid underground. and the london underground. and in the bali bomb. all people loyal to al-Qaeda and ultimately mr bin laden. the people in the uk who perpertrated the underground bomb on 7/7 and the failed attempt 2 weeks later had all been to al-Qaeda training camps in pakistan. they weren't there to get a sun tan. if you call them disorganised and underestimate them you are in big trouble.

and don't forget the nazi's started off as a bunch of ramshackle band of renegades with a leader that people failed to take seriously.

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

It's actually you who doesn't get it.

I get it just fine. come up with something more original next time

wolfamongwolves wrote:

The notion that al-Qaeda is a global co-ordinated network of terrorists with cells in every country etc, etc, etc is a complete fallacy. al-Qaeda up until and even after 9/11 consisted of a hardcore group of maybe a dozen or so men.

you are good at pretending to know what you are talking about.

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Beyond that, there were many disparate groups who were connected to bin Laden and his associates, but in no way were they under allegiance to him nor was he their leader. And then there is the loose radical Islamist ideology that others who think like bin Laden subscribe to, and call themselves "al-Qaeda" - not in the sense of being a huge unified organisation, but in the sense of the literal meaning of the word - "foundation", "principle, "maxim". While many of these people might look up to bin Laden, to think that he controls them or their actions, that he is their boss, that they even have the same ideas or methods - and crucially, to think that "cut off the head and the body will die" - is to profoundly misunderstand the nature of radical Islamist militancy.

Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.

Al-Qaeda differs significantly from more traditional terrorist organizations. It does not depend on the sponsorship of a political state, and, unlike the PLO or the IRA, it is not defined by a particular conflict. Instead, al-Qaeda operates as a franchise. It provides financial and logistical support, as well as name recognition, to terrorist groups operating in such diverse places as the Philippines, Algeria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kashmir. Furthermore, local groups may act in the name of al-Qaeda in order to bolster their own reputation—even if they are not receiving support from the organization.

jlew24asu

Arctangent wrote:

yeah, cos like that's ever stopped the US in the past!

are you suggesting we invade pakistan?

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

because he is hiding in an area US isnt allowed to go.

most likely here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan

yeah, that's stopped us in the past.

wolfamongwolves

Your research consists of Wikipedia?! Very reliable, I must say.

Again, all of those - sorry most of those - attacks you list are claimed by people calling themselves "al-Qaeda something or other" ie. there is usually a qualifying title. That does not mean they are a part of a centralised network. For example, the group calling itself "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was run by al-Zarqawi, a man with little if any links to bin Laden. IT IS NOT THE SAME ORGANISATION! Same with the (conveniently) "self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia" that you quoted (or copy&pasted), or whatever. These are disparate, unconnected groups set up after 9/11, but sharing similar broad ideologies. As for the 1993 WTC bombing, the term al-Qaeda was not used once in the FBI investigation that followed. Why? Because, it simply didn't exist in the sense that we now think of al-Qaeda.

And don't you think it's peculiar that bin Laden himself never used the term al-Qaeda until 2001, after the US media had started using it?

Do some real research

mammasan

sapperskunk wrote:

He hasn't always been in the same place.

True, but he has kept to the same region. I don't care how good our specials ops are, if we don't have access to the region where he is hiding no amount of men, technology, training, etc... is going to help us get him.

wolfamongwolves

Arctangent wrote:

tell that to all the people who did on the madrid underground. and the london underground. and in the bali bomb. all people loyal to al-Qaeda and ultimately mr bin laden. the people in the uk who perpertrated the underground bomb on 7/7 and the failed attempt 2 weeks later had all been to al-Qaeda training camps in pakistan. they weren't there to get a sun tan. if you call them disorganised and underestimate them you are in big trouble.

and don't forget the nazi's started off as a bunch of ramshackle band of renegades with a leader that people failed to take seriously.

maybe you should go back and read my post a little more carefully. These are all independent groups calling themselves al-Qaeda. They are not under a centralised organisation or any single leader.

wolfamongwolves

jlew24asu wrote:

I get it just fine. come up with something more original next time


you are good at pretending to know what you are talking about.

I'm not pretending. I have an MSc in International Relations and Development and I've been studying this shit for years.

jlew24asu wrote:

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces.

Al-Qaeda differs significantly from more traditional terrorist organizations. It does not depend on the sponsorship of a political state, and, unlike the PLO or the IRA, it is not defined by a particular conflict. Instead, al-Qaeda operates as a franchise. It provides financial and logistical support, as well as name recognition, to terrorist groups operating in such diverse places as the Philippines, Algeria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kashmir. Furthermore, local groups may act in the name of al-Qaeda in order to bolster their own reputation—even if they are not receiving support from the organization.

Yes, this is all for the most part true, but a prime financier does not a leader make.

and this:

jlew24asu wrote:

Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.

is partly true but based on the common misperception that there is a single leadership overseeing everything. There is not.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

yeah, that's stopped us in the past.

again, are you suggesting we invade pakistan?

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I'm not pretending. I have an MSc in International Relations and Development and I've been studying this shit for years.

obviosuly that costly education isnt paying off

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Yes, this is all for the most part true, but a prime financier does not a leader make.

and this:
is partly true but based on the common misperception that there is a single leadership overseeing everything. There is not.

ok good so all of what I said is true.

wolfamongwolves

and jlew24asu, as for my not understanding what I'm talking about, you seem to have suddenly gained an awful lot of authority for someone who couldn't spell al-Qaeda 10 mins ago

wolfamongwolves

jlew24asu wrote:

ok good so all of what I said is true.

No - "most" does not mean "all".
But I suppose ostriches can't hear very well when their heads are buried in the sand.

Most of what you pilfered wholesale from some other source has a lot of truth in it but there remains the underlying fact that Osama bin Laden is not the sole head of some unified organisation.

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

and jlew24asu, as for my not understanding what I'm talking about, you seem to have suddenly gained an awful lot of authority for someone who couldn't spell al-Qaeda 10 mins ago

yea my arabic is a little shaky. i'm workin on it

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

No - "most" does not mean "all"

Most of what you pilfered wholesale from some other source has a lot of truth in it but there remains the underlying fact that Osama bin Laden is not the sole head of some unified organisation.

he is the symbolic leader and well as the founder.

wolfamongwolves

jlew24asu wrote:

he is the symbolic leader and well as the founder.

Fine. Believe what you want. You're clearly not someone who who listens to other people, or to reason. Just decide what you want to believe, whether there's any basis in fact for it, and pretend there's no one who might actually know more about stuff than you. It's a waste of my time and patience trying to have a rational debate with someone who has decided everyone is wrong except them. I'm outta here.

jlew24asu

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Fine. Believe what you want. You're clearly not someone who who listens to other people, or to reason. Just decide what you want to believe, whether there's any basis in fact for it, and pretend there's no one who might actually know more about stuff than you. It's a waste of my time and patience trying to have a rational debate with someone who has decided everyone is wrong except them. I'm outta here.

who me??? nahhhhhhhh


Osama bin laden is the symbolic leader and well as the founder. that is fact


see ya later