BF2S Forums What will be the Down side to killing or capturing Bin Ladden?

Major_Spittle wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Well, if I have an itch, I usually put cream on it.  Meaning, I don't completely ignore it, but I fight against the itch in another way, instead of with pure force.

Exactly. To fight the cause rather the effect would be more effective in the long run. Americans rarely understand this. It's generally a case of 'Yeehaw we blew dem sons o' bitches inta next week. Wooo! USA! USA! USA!". Honest Question: Do ye hawks really think US military action against them will change them or make them stop? Get real.

Boy isn't this dumb and dumber.  Touchy feely you must first walk in their shoes and find away to appease them BS.  They are RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THAT CUT OFF PEOPLES HEADS IN GODS NAME, put some cream on that itch.

To fight the cause vs effect????  WTF do you want to do, parachute Mormons into the middle east to convert the region, oh wait Christians are worse in your opinion.  Gee, maybe by taking out governments that allow sanctuary for terrorists and instating Democracys you are getting at the root cause of Islamic Terrorist.  (oh, but that is just forcing Democracy on people and we can't do that, nor bomb them, nor occupy the country and protect citizens from terrorist........)  Nothing will please you Libs in you warm fuzzy place unless a Dem. does it. 

Fact of the matter is that if a Democracy stands in Iraq and people start exercising their rights and become educate, get freedom of religion (or freedom FROM religion) things will turn around in that region and Democracy will spread and Islamic rule will die out like the Monacracys of Europe did.

This is what Bush is trying, now you tell me your great plan of fighting the cause of Terrorism.  Because the simple facts of what is going on in Iraq with this war is obviously beyond your comprehension if you think the US is "itching to hard" or "just our hunting terrorist without a plan". 

Quick run and hide, someone stated facts that show how stupid you two are.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-06-11 19:29:22)

Well, you know, the whole itch thing was something we call in english, a "metaphor".

Itch = Terrorist
Scatch = Using an Army to occupy a country, when it's real purpose is to kill enemies
Cream = Extreme Special Forces operations, from around the world, to freeze accounts, locate and assassinate enemy leaders, funding and training those we see as allies, tracking money and equipment, to find it's source.  The list can go on and on.  And it's what Clinton and everyone else had been doing since Vietnam.  And it worked quite well.

What about Africa?  Millions dying every year and yet Bush hardly even acknowledges them.  Babies freakin thin as skeletons.

My point is, if you're going to use that bull to say "Oh, we're occupying them to help them protect themselves from terrorists," then I think Africa should've been first on the list.  Genocide and terrorism is 10x bigger in some African areas than in Iraq.

Last edited by coke (2006-06-11 20:17:42)

Xietsu wrote:

Because, despite Osama Bin Laden's shenanigans, there are most likely some legitimate, commercial dealings going on with the rest of his family. They are rich'uns, yannow?

schakl wrote:

I think Bin Laden is dead for quite a while and US just 'keep him alive' to be able to keep freedom low.
Also Bin Laden is not the problem. If you kill the leader the next one will pop up. There is a social problem which 'generates' such people.

CameronPoe wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Exactly. To fight the cause rather the effect would be more effective in the long run. Americans rarely understand this. It's generally a case of 'Yeehaw we blew dem sons o' bitches inta next week. Wooo! USA! USA! USA!". Honest Question: Do ye hawks really think US military action against them will change them or make them stop? Get real.

Boy isn't this dumb and dumber.  Touchy feely you must first walk in their shoes and find away to appease them BS.  They are RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THAT CUT OFF PEOPLES HEADS IN GODS NAME, put some cream on that itch.

To fight the cause vs effect????  WTF do you want to do, parachute Mormons into the middle east to convert the region, oh wait Christians are worse in your opinion.  Gee, maybe by taking out governments that allow sanctuary for terrorists and instating Democracys you are getting at the root cause of Islamic Terrorist.  (oh, but that is just forcing Democracy on people and we can't do that, nor bomb them, nor occupy the country and protect citizens from terrorist........)  Nothing will please you Libs in you warm fuzzy place unless a Dem. does it. 

Fact of the matter is that if a Democracy stands in Iraq and people start exercising their rights and become educate, get freedom of religion (or freedom FROM religion) things will turn around in that region and Democracy will spread and Islamic rule will die out like the Monacracys of Europe did.

This is what Bush is trying, now you tell me your great plan of fighting the cause of Terrorism.  Because the simple facts of what is going on in Iraq with this war is obviously beyond your comprehension if you think the US is "itching to hard" or "just our hunting terrorist without a plan". 

Quick run and hide, someone stated facts that show how stupid you two are.

I think Major Spittle's definition of a 'liberal' is basically 'someone who doesn't want to blow the shit out of everything'. That seems to be what I can gather from most of his posts.

1) Afghanistan is the country where Al Qaeda were trained and operated from, yet there is a fraction of the troops there than there is in Iraq, a country whose government had no ties with Al Qaeda.
2) Do you really think Iraqis are pleased that the USA have turned their country into an eternal magnet for foreign extremists and a hotbed of sunni/shia ethnic violence. I'm sure they're glad to be rid of Saddam but the alternative doesn't seem to be all sunny walks in the park and sipping tea on verandas...
3) Terrorists cannot be combatted by a conventional militray force. Due to their difficult to pinpint nature collateral (civilian) casualties are inevitable, further enraging the citizens of the occupied country and producing more terrorists.
4) Nobody, repeat NOBODY, likes it when their country is being occupied by some trumped up do-gooder telling them how to run their country. If the US had a proper post-war plan that sorted the country in less than two years then everything would have been AOK. The longer it draws on with no real benefit being experienced by the ordinary people the more disgruntled they get - hence the violence in the until-now peaceful region around Basra.

Basically: Terrorists cannot be fought conventionally. It's too late to change the mistakes in Iraq now but next time you invade some nation that needs their oil emancipated try infiltration, assassination, asset-freezing and winning the hearts and minds of the local populace.

My advice: Afghanistan is and always has been a failed state where the true heart of Al Qaeda lies. Try throwing more than just a token force at that country.

Case-in-point: The brits NEVER defeated the IRA. Are you prepared for a 30 year minimum stay in Iraq?

Also: the imposition of a particular model of government on another people isn't always ideal. The politics of a country evolves over time and the best political system wins out. Democracy in an artificial country such as Iraq, with so many ethnic divisions, MAY not be suited to pure democracy as we know it. Maybe the country needs to be carved up into different sub-countries.

PS Your black and white view of the world astounds me. I am at least open to reasonable argument.

Late edit: You talk about when Iraqis 'get educated'. The Iraqis were well educated and a sizeable middle class of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. existed under the Saddam regime. That's not to say I'm endorsing the regime but to say what amounts to USA 'bringing education' to the Iraqis is laughable and arrogant.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Many people have been waiting out the Hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

Just like the hunt for Saddam Hussien
His sons and all his henchmen.

With the recent capture or death of many top level terrorist we have been informed by the American Media that

" Decapitating the enemy's command structure is not a good thing in a War "

" it is of little consequence to the big picture"
 
" no Blow to the Enemies morale when they realize even their leaders are not safe from coalition forces."

So my question is, What will be the Down side to killing or capturing Bin Ladden.

Or how will they Spin it ?



* in a previous post I put it to the suggestion that it would be better to forgo the propaganda coup and hide his capture or death from his followers. See below.
1.   If you a put him to death.

He is seen as a Martyr for his Cause. Something l suspect he has little interest in Really doing.
He is seen by his Followers as Faithful to his words. Something I suspect he is not.
His followers rally to his example in an orgy of suicide attacks.

As a by product another man steps up to take his place.
Perhaps this one is more clever, a better leader and more political minded
when it come to manipulating the western worlds fears.

2.   If you put him on trial.

His followers engage in a Spree of kidnapping, hostage taking and wanton destruction in an effort to get him released.
As a by product another man steps up to take his place.
Perhaps this one is more clever a better leader and more political minded when it come to manipulating the western worlds fears.

3.  Or You detain him clandestinely in a remote, quite and secure place.

Forgo the brief and fleeting satisfaction you may get by parading him around for the
world to See "ALA Saddam Hussein "

The Left wing Media chided Bush on his " Failure to Capture Saddam " 

( as if it was his responsibility to go out there with a .20 gauge looking for him personally )

When the Soldiers tasked with the Job accomplished it and captured Saddam Hussien.
They refereed to him as " A helpless, poor old man who resembles Santa Claus. "
And just as quickly forgot about The Triumph as it ran counter to their Cause.

No one can call him "a Martyr for the Cause "
No one dares step up to replace him because " what if he does reappear? "
These people do not handle political rivals with kid gloves.
No Spree of kidnapping, hostage taking and wanton destruction in an effort to get him released.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-13 17:44:36)