why can't US capture/kill OBL

123468

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    wolfamongwolves wrote:
    It's truly depressing that such mind-numbingly naive and barely-formed understandings of what's actually going on in the Middle East are still being bandied around on this thread as if they were objective facts.


    such as?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    such as?

    yeah, please enlighten wolf.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    you know, i was watching a show the other day-could be wrong-but apparently special forces had Bin Laden pegged, his exact location, everything, on 6 or 7 different occasions. And orders from Washington came not to strike every time. who knows why...maybe he is worth more to the US alive. Maybe its hard to maintain a war on terror when all the bad guys are dead.


    just so I can keep it real. I will say that you may very well be right. but I disagree with the fact that osama is better to the US government alive then dead. Bush, or anyone, would much rather be known as the guy that got bin laden then not.
  • wolfamongwolves
    wolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    jlew24asu wrote:
    such as?

    I've said it all already. You just chose to ignore anything that you didn't already agree with.
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    :D
    http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=39244032&blogID=233846302&Mytoken=BB0C4B45-400C-4CAC-A497E32212272D561522285
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • wolfamongwolves
    wolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    :D
    http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=39244032&blogID=233846302&Mytoken=BB0C4B45-400C-4CAC-A497E32212272D561522285
    Wow
    just... wow...


    I'm so glad someone's on the psychic case. I knew Georgie would consider it blasphemous, so I was really worried it'd be neglected, because it's such a crucial line of enquiry. Go Blair! Psyche him out of hiding..... what would we do without the Daily Mail?




    :rolleyes:
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    wolfamongwolves wrote:
    I've said it all already. You just chose to ignore anything that you didn't already agree with.

    I didnt ignore anything. I owned everything you had to say until you put your tail between your legs and left
  • wolfamongwolves
    wolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I didnt ignore anything. I owned everything you had to say until you put your tail between your legs and left

    your arrogance is as infantile as your arguments.
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    wolfamongwolves wrote:
    your arrogance is as infantile as your arguments.

    hehe

    well to let everyone know.

    I say... Osama bin laden is the leader and founder of the terrorist organization el queda. who is responsible for thousands of deaths around the world.

    you say, he is neither and el queda is just a small band of thugs robbing little old arab ladies of the purse.


    we can let the audience decide.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    jlew24asu wrote:
    hehe

    well to let everyone know.

    I say... Osama bin laden is the leader and founder of the terrorist organization el queda. who is responsible for thousands of deaths around the world.

    you say, he is neither and el queda is just a small band of thugs robbing little old arab ladies of the purse.


    we can let the audience decide.

    Sayyid Qutb was the founder of Al-Qaeda IMO

    I see Al-Qaeda as a network of smaller factions that operate mostly on their own will but with common goals.

    What we need is to get rid of all this ideology and religion.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    icarus wrote:
    the US would never invade/bomb pakistan, at least in this current situation. the US government can't afford to lose musharraf. if we conducted any strikes within pakistani territory, there's no doubt musharraf would be overthrow. the pakistani public is extremely hostile to musharraf's closeness with the west/america. we can't afford to lose musharraf, especially since it would be to radicals who would then have a nation with nuclear weapons. we can't afford for that to happen, even if it means losing bin laden.

    Where did they get the nukes from? The Soviets?
    wikipedia wrote:
    During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s Pakistan was a crucial US ally, but relations soured in the 1990s, when sanctions were applied by the US over suspicions of Pakistan's nuclear activities. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent War on Terrorism have seen an improvement in US–Pakistan ties, especially after Pakistan ended its support of the Taliban regime in Kabul. In January 2004, founder of Pakistani nuclear program A. Q. Khan confessed of nuclear proliferation to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On 5 February 2004, the president Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned A. Q. Khan. At present, A. Q. Khan is ailing and under house arrest.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Smart guy.
    thanks. I hope you learned something.

    Ahnimus wrote:
    hmm, who gave permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Did Saddam say "Hell yeah, come here and kick my ass please!!"?
    the american people did.


    Ahnimus wrote:
    Personally I don't think you should have fucking gone anywhere, but you did, now you are justifying it by trying to play-down the involvement of Pakistan with "Because I said so"s and "they won't let us" crap.

    you dont seem to understand the region very well. and of course you dont think afganistan should be attacked. you probably stood and cheered on 9/11. but the besides the point. america had a very justifiable reason to attack the taliban. el queda was operating from that country. OBL called it home and the taliban allowed it. they had to be taken out.

    just because some of the terrorist are born in saudi arabia doesnt mean it justifies an invasion. the government and the people had nothing to do with 9/11

    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yes, go to the source, cut off their logistics. That's how wars are fought.
    maybe thats why you lose all the fights you are in. so you want to justify invading and taking out a government because you think they provide logistics? think about what you are saying.
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda is still alive and well?
    really? where? are they doing better or worse without a base of operations in afganistan? alive and well? what does that mean? why dont they having training camps then? why isnt OBL and all his leaders playing dominoes and a cafe in Kabul? el queda may be alive but they arent well.

    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yes, how is it any different?

    o man. I need to explain the difference between el queda training camps in afganistan(PRE-9/11) vs terrorists living in america? (you dont see a difference)

    I cant. you win :rolleyes: we will let the people decide this. I dont know where or how to begin.


    Ahnimus wrote:
    Oh, does the queen live in Pakistan? I don't get why that matters. Again, Saddam didn't say you could invade Iraq, did he?
    no saddam didnt. the UN and the united states congress gave approval.



    Just to recap your insanity. In October 2001 president ahimas would have...

    Invaded saudi arabia because a few terrorists where born there

    Invaded Pakistan because money came from there (as if it was the only place in the middle east giving terrorist get money)

    but let afgahistan alone. left the taliban in power. left the training camps running. let OBL and his leaders sit around the round table in broad daylight and scheme up something new.

    UNBELIEVABLE
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Dude, I wouldn't have invaded any country!

    I probably wouldn't have needed to either.

    It just makes no sense, obviously going to Iraq was for OIL. Anyone can see that.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    call it a bullshit reason all you want but even the big bad USA isnt going to invade a country with 170 million people with nuclear weapons just to get one guy.

    I say this would fall under the "excuse" category....
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    I say this would fall under the "excuse" category....


    so its not a valid reason?

    the reason is, Pakistan says we can not go in their country. the US congress would never allow, nor would the UN. nor would the world.

    but you see these as excuses why we wont invade pakistan to get bin laden?

    just say i'm right and your wrong and we can move on to something else
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Dude, I wouldn't have invaded any country!
    then dont suggest it


    Ahnimus wrote:
    It just makes no sense, obviously going to Iraq was for OIL. Anyone can see that.

    Oil is a factor. of course it is. oil is important. but its not the only factor
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so its not a valid reason?

    the reason is, Pakistan says we can not go in their country. the US congress would never allow, nor would the UN. nor would the world.

    but you see these as excuses why we wont invade pakistan to get bin laden?

    just say i'm right and your wrong and we can move on to something else

    if it means that much to you....

    you're wrong...

    Pakistan is an supposed to be an ally...right? So, since they are an ally, we should be able to enter and hunt down OBL....

    if they aren't an ally, a.k.a."with us" , they they are an enemy , a.k.a. "against us"....therefore they should be treated as such...

    If find it interesting that you don't want to get bin laden, what gives...? are suddenly some sort of terrorist sympathizer...?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    if it means that much to you....

    you're wrong...
    am I? let me try to bring you to reality.
    inmytree wrote:
    Pakistan is an supposed to be an ally...right?
    not the greatest but yes they are. they have hunted down many terrorists

    http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1280&Itemid=2

    http://english.people.com.cn/200403/20/eng20040320_138039.shtml

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4781925.stm

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D61439F93AA15750C0A965958260
    inmytree wrote:
    So, since they are an ally, we should be able to enter and hunt down OBL....
    wrong. why does being any ally equate to letting us have free reign on their own soil? musharraf is our ally not the country of pakistan. big difference. one you dont see very clearly. there are 170 million people who wouldn't allow it. the US government can't afford to lose musharraf. if we conducted any strikes within pakistani territory, there's no doubt musharraf would be overthrow. the pakistani public is extremely hostile to musharraf's closeness with the west/america. we can't afford to lose musharraf, especially since it would be to radicals who would then have a nation with nuclear weapons. this is why bion laden is where he is. he knows this. he is in an area that is protected from government troops, the outside world, anybody. outsiders do not go into the tribal areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan
    inmytree wrote:
    if they aren't an ally, a.k.a."with us" , they they are an enemy , a.k.a. "against us"....therefore they should be treated as such...
    o really George W ? treated as such? what do you mean? we should invade? see my above answer. dont make such stupid comments that you completely disagree with just to try and prove me wrong. it wont work.
    inmytree wrote:
    If find it interesting that you don't want to get bin laden, what gives...? are suddenly some sort of terrorist sympathizer...?

    good one tree.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    icarus wrote:
    inmytree, the US won't go into Pakistan to get bin laden unless something new happens (major terrorist attack organized out of Pakistan).

    why....?

    I mean, the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is 9/11...and we have an idea where the 'mastermind' behind it is, and we do nothing about it...

    again, why...?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    why....?

    I mean, the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is 9/11

    we are not in Iraq because of 9/11. we are there because someone thought they had WMDs. sure a possible link was mentioned but that is not the main reason why we went there. it was WMDs and violation of UN resolutions.

    regardless, the US sees what a mistake it was to march into a country and take over. you think we can just march right into a country that is 10 times the size of Iraq just to get one guy?

    inmytree wrote:
    ...and we have an idea where the 'mastermind' behind it is, and we do nothing about it...
    nothing? you really believe that? just because we havent invaded pakistan you think we are doing nothing?

    why is a full out invasion (any US soldier stepping foot in pakistan would be considered so) the only option for you?

Categories