Killing Osama B Laden.

[twindouble]

First, those that are against the war in Iraq, state they went along with going after Osama in Afghanistan, correct?

Second, granted we may have had a chance to get him in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Bush bashers say we missed because we didn't' use our spec forces to do the job. Now, my thinking is Osama is no dummy we had him on the run so I think spec forces or not, he had a way out. Now keep that in mind, the fact he got away, what would be your position if he ended up in Iraq working with Saddam? He did find safe haven in Pakistan, right? knowing very well Congress gave Bush the green light to go where ever to get him. Remember, " Anyone who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist," So, the question is, would you go along with invading, Iraq, or Syria, or Pakistan or Iran to get Osama and his henchmen? Or would you just say oops we missed him in Afghanistan then just forget about him thinking he'll be a good boy now?

T.D.

[Buckeye]

Get him wherever he is. All opposed . . . :cool: Don't think he'll live through the second term of Bush.

[rrpic6]

Now that's more like it. It frustrated the hell out me that we have lost sight of the person that caused all of this mess. I would have supported Bush if he had turned Afghanistan upside down to get OBL. The division and hatred within our own country, and on this board, certainly would have been less.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hatred on this board? Now I think you're pushing things too far. I don't agree with a lot of what some people post here, but I certainly don't hate anyone, or deny their right to post their thoughts, as long as they aren't posting simply to "flame"

I'm sure most others feel the same way.

[twindouble]

Hatred on this board? Now I think you're pushing things too far. I don't agree with a lot of what some people post here, but I certainly don't hate anyone, or deny their right to post their thoughts, as long as they aren't posting simply to "flame"

I'm sure most others feel the same way.

The only thing that I hate about this board is all the intellectuals we have here using those dam big words I have to look up all the time. The have no mercy on me. :mad: To top it off, I learn the darn words but I would feel like a phony using them. :bang:


T.D.

[Secretariat]

So, the question is, would you go along with invading, Iraq, or Syria, or Pakistan or Iran to get Osama and his henchmen? Or would you just say oops we missed him in Afghanistan then just forget about him thinking he'll be a good boy now?

T.D.

Of course you'd go after him no matter what country he is in. He is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. Even if he's in North Korea or Russia you go after him.

[twindouble]

Of course you'd go after him no matter what country he is in. He is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. Even if he's in North Korea or Russia you go after him.

Sec, how do we go about doing that? That's the big question, ESP when those that support him are in, the country's I mentioned, do we just cut of the head of the snake or go for all?

T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course you'd go after him no matter what country he is in. He is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. Even if he's in North Korea or Russia you go after him.

Let me play devil's advocate once again.

You say Osama is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. On what do you base this opinion?

Do you base it on US intelligence (ie. Bush Administration intel)? Do you base it on world consensus? Did OBL ever actually claim responsibility for the attacks? I seem to remember him certainly praising the attacks, but I'm not sure if he ever actually claimed responsibility. I could be wrong. And of course, audio and video tapes can be doctored.

So I eagerly await your response as to how you know for sure that OBL was the guy who gave the orders to attack us on our soil (and by this, I assume you are referring to 9/11).

Based upon your answer, I will of course have an interesting follow-up question.

[Buckeye]

I have no problem getting rid of him. He is responsible or he was not. I have no problem for good reason. Guess what that is. Ever hear of the concept of deterence? Thought so.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If we wanted Lad we would have gotten him. ALQ is easier to fight with Oso than with no global structure.

[Buckeye]

dead is the best place for him from our standpoint. The fight will not end with his death but it will not be hindered by it. We will finish this in our favor.

[Secretariat]

Let me play devil's advocate once again.

You say Osama is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. On what do you base this opinion?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:21:01 EDT
CBC News
QATAR - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.


Do you base it on US intelligence (ie. Bush Administration intel)? Do you base it on world consensus? Did OBL ever actually claim responsibility for the attacks? I seem to remember him certainly praising the attacks, but I'm not sure if he ever actually claimed responsibility. I could be wrong. And of course, audio and video tapes can be doctored.

Since both the admisntration, Congress, the CIA, and FBI and Osama himself claim responsibility, and the men on the plane were Al Queda as witnessed on the boarding videos, one would kind of think that yeah, Osama was responsbile.[/QUOTE]



So I eagerly await your response as to how you know for sure that OBL was the guy who gave the orders to attack us on our soil (and by this, I assume you are referring to 9/11).

Based upon your answer, I will of course have an interesting follow-up question.

[twindouble]

dead is the best place for him from our standpoint. The fight will not end with his death but it will not be hindered by it. We will finish this in our favor.

Here again Buck, no one is answering my questions. Where do we go to finish the job??

T.D.

[rrpic6]

Hatred on this board? Now I think you're pushing things too far. I don't agree with a lot of what some people post here, but I certainly don't hate anyone, or deny their right to post their thoughts, as long as they aren't posting simply to "flame"

I'm sure most others feel the same way.
Most of the division and hatred would be in the real world. Its easy to see who takes which side here on board. Hatred is an emotion fueled by frustration brought on by realizing that others do not think, believe, or act like the way we want them too. Its healthy to write about it. That's why I come on here, to vent about the problems of war,politics,or horseracing, as I see it. The cheap shots that follow should be humourous, not personal attacks on character.

[Buckeye]

TD

Where he is. We did not get to be on top any other way. I wouldn't bet against us that's for sure.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:21:01 EDT
CBC News
QATAR - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

I wonder why it took him nearly 3 years to claim responsibility....odd


Since both the admisntration, Congress, the CIA, and FBI and Osama himself claim responsibility, and the men on the plane were Al Queda as witnessed on the boarding videos, one would kind of think that yeah, Osama was responsbile.

Interesting that you can claim comfort in the fact that a multitude of agencies and the man himself admit to being responsible, YET, you now find it impossible to give President Bush the same leeway on the issue of WMDs in Iraq, when, in fact, the FBI, CIA, Congress, and the rest of the world, as well as prior administrations all believed he had massive stockpiles of WMDs.

How do you reconcile this obvious incongruity? You pound down on Bush for invading Iraq, because no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. Yet multiple US and world intelligence agencies all claimed Saddam had possession of these weapons. Kind of like how you put faith in the fact that OBL gave the order for 9/11....based on multiple US intelligence agencies.....

Weird, eh? I would have thought your trust in US intelligence would have been shaken by this whole WMD debacle, yet you seem pretty resolute in believing their assertion that OBL gave the order....I'm not saying OBL didn't give the order, I'm just pointing out a bit of an oddity with your position.

[Secretariat]

I wonder why it took him nearly 3 years to claim responsibility....odd




Interesting that you can claim comfort in the fact that a multitude of agencies and the man himself admit to being responsible, YET, you now find it impossible to give President Bush the same leeway on the issue of WMDs in Iraq, when, in fact, the FBI, CIA, Congress, and the rest of the world, as well as prior administrations all believed he had massive stockpiles of WMDs.

How do you reconcile this obvious incongruity? You pound down on Bush for invading Iraq, because no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. Yet multiple US and world intelligence agencies all claimed Saddam had possession of these weapons. Kind of like how you put faith in the fact that OBL gave the order for 9/11....based on multiple US intelligence agencies.....

Weird, eh? I would have thought your trust in US intelligence would have been shaken by this whole WMD debacle, yet you seem pretty resolute in believing their assertion that OBL gave the order....I'm not saying OBL didn't give the order, I'm just pointing out a bit of an oddity with your position.

lol...I knew this would be your response. Well, the main thing is the criminal Bin Laden admitted he ordered the act.

Saddam Hussein denied having stockpiles of weapons, and Blix from the UN confirmed there were no stockpiles. The people feeding info about WMD's were Chalabi and exiled Iraqis who had an agenda.

The issue is we were attacked by a man who admitted it and gloated about it. Instead of following up and going after him, we decided to argue with the UN about a WMD threat which GW later admitted saying "I never said imminent threat."

Nice try, but not quite.

[Tom]

Of course you'd go after him no matter what country he is in. He is the guy who gave the orders for the attack on our soil. Even if he's in North Korea or Russia you go after him.

Twice today we agree on something! :eek:

You not only ago after him wherever he is, you go after him with wahtwever it takes to get him. Pakistan is harboring him and I could care less how many Pakistanis we have to kill to get him. Even if it means taking out the whole POS country. Nukes, napam, chemicals, whatever it takes to kill OBL is justified.

[JustRalph]

I would say PA hit a home run.............you walked into it.............

[Tom]

:confused:

[ljb]

I will continue to "pound on Bush for invading Iraq", while allowing Osama to run free. His invasion of Iraq has made things worse. If he had continued in his pursuit of Osama and eventually got him, I for one would have supported his efforts. It was when he diverted attention and went into Iraq that i became more vocal in my dislike of his activities.
This is not to say I approved of Bush at any time. I voted against him every chance I got and would do it again. I was against him to begin with because I thought he was incompetent for such a job. What has happened in the world since he has been President seems to prove me corrrect in my initial assesment.
And yes I think we should go to any country and do what is needed to eliminate Osama but, I think it will be of little consequence now. There are many radical islamics waiting to take his place.

[ljb]

lol...I knew this would be your response. Well, the main thing is the criminal Bin Laden admitted he ordered the act.

Saddam Hussein denied having stockpiles of weapons, and Blix from the UN confirmed there were no stockpiles. The people feeding info about WMD's were Chalabi and exiled Iraqis who had an agenda.

The issue is we were attacked by a man who admitted it and gloated about it. Instead of following up and going after him, we decided to argue with the UN about a WMD threat which GW later admitted saying "I never said imminent threat."

Nice try, but not quite.
You nailed it here Sec, just don't call Tom a dittohead. He has expressed his innermost Democratic thoughts and feelings here many times. ;)

[twindouble]

You nailed it here Sec, just don't call Tom a dittohead. He has expressed his innermost Democratic thoughts and feelings here many times. ;)

What's your answers to my post? Just curious.


T.D.

[ljb]

Read previous post, I think I answered your question there.

[twindouble]

I will continue to "pound on Bush for invading Iraq", while allowing Osama to run free. His invasion of Iraq has made things worse. If he had continued in his pursuit of Osama and eventually got him, I for one would have supported his efforts. It was when he diverted attention and went into Iraq that i became more vocal in my dislike of his activities.
This is not to say I approved of Bush at any time. I voted against him every chance I got and would do it again. I was against him to begin with because I thought he was incompetent for such a job. What has happened in the world since he has been President seems to prove me corrrect in my initial assesment.
And yes I think we should go to any country and do what is needed to eliminate Osama but, I think it will be of little consequence now. There are many radical islamics waiting to take his place.

Ok, so I can take that to mean, we are justified invading any country that harbors Al Quida members be it Syria, Packistan, Iran, or Iraq. Unless your saying the war on terror will end when we get Osama, if not just who do you think we are fighting?

T.D.

[Secretariat]

Ok, so I can take that to mean, we are justified invading any country that harbors Al Quida members be it Syria, Packistan, Iran, or Iraq. Unless your saying the war on terror will end when we get Osama, if not just who do you think we are fighting?

T.D.

This is a really good question.

We are justified invading any country that harbors an enemy that invades us. However, remember that some of these countries are allies, and hopefully we will work with them. For example, if Osama was in Britain, we certainly would ask Blair for assistance before nuking London to get him.

We were invaded by Al Queda, at Bin Ladens orders. Bin Laden is not the leader of any nation, but his headquarters during the invasion of 911 was Afghanistan and done under the approval of the Taliban who were the rulers there. The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden (which could have saved a lot of lives) and we rightly invaded skattering Taliban and al Queda to Iran, Pakistan, wherever.

Now after we invaded Germany and WW II ended, many Naizis fled, some to South America. We did NOT invade Argentina simply because Nazis lived there, but efforts were made to track down these Nazis. In other words just because some fugitive Al Queda or Taliban are hiding in another country doesn't necessarily mean we nuke the nation who may not even be aware of their whereabouts. That doesn't mean we don't go after them though as we should, but there are smarter ways than invading a whole nation for a few rats.

Your main question though is extremely important - what defines the end to the war on terror? The death of Bin Laden? Hardly. Terrorism has been prevalent since as far back as time. Bin Laden though is the man who dictated the attack on America. His capture or death is akin to capturing Hitler. By capturing Bin Laden we will not stop terorrism, but we will be bringing to justice the man who gave the orders to strike America. That is why the War on Terror is the wrong label because it is perpetual fighting. The War is the War to Avenge 911. When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we dealt with the forces that ordered that specific attack. We didn't attempt to kill every Jap soldier still out there, and likewise with Al Queda.

The War on Terror, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs are general in nature, and to totally eliminate them is impossible. However, avenging 911 against the men that ordred the attack is specific and doable. That's where we should have always been placing our focus.

We must deal with WMD's, but we were not attacked by WMD's on 911, and the linkage that the Bush admisntration has done to justify the Iraq war as a tie in to Bin Laden and al Queda has been misleading from what our objective should have been all along. Bin Laden and Al Queda leaders.

[PaceAdvantage]

And yes I think we should go to any country and do what is needed to eliminate Osama but, I think it will be of little consequence now. There are many radical islamics waiting to take his place.

Holy Cow, you make it seem as though eliminating OBL would put an end to radical Islam! How naive!

Do you actually think that a perfectly timed take down of OBL at Tora Bora would have put an end to terrorism? There weren't any radical islamics around back then to take his place? Only now they are waiting in line?

You can't possibly believe this!?! If anything, it may only serve to bolster the movement....making OBL a martyr....

"Attack Free Since 9/11" is my motto. England, Spain, and a host of other nations can't claim this. THANK YOU President Bush. THANK YOU for finally putting AMERICAN MUSCLE behind the words you spoke when you stood shoulder to shoulder with that NYC fireman atop the WTC rubble.

[PaceAdvantage]

We must deal with WMD's, but we were not attacked by WMD's on 911, and the linkage that the Bush admisntration has done to justify the Iraq war as a tie in to Bin Laden and al Queda has been misleading from what our objective should have been all along. Bin Laden and Al Queda leaders.

Actually, we're addressing the whole package this time around. We're going after Al Queda leaders, Bin Laden and all the other worthy targets in that part of the world. Iraq is a perfect staging area if you ask me....

After all, where else were we going to set up our base of operations? You guys fail to see the bigger picture.

[ljb]

Holy Cow, you make it seem as though eliminating OBL would put an end to radical Islam! How naive!

Do you actually think that a perfectly timed take down of OBL at Tora Bora would have put an end to terrorism? There weren't any radical islamics around back then to take his place? Only now they are waiting in line?

You can't possibly believe this!?! If anything, it may only serve to bolster the movement....making OBL a martyr....

"Attack Free Since 9/11" is my motto. England, Spain, and a host of other nations can't claim this. THANK YOU President Bush. THANK YOU for finally putting AMERICAN MUSCLE behind the words you spoke when you stood shoulder to shoulder with that NYC fireman atop the WTC rubble.
You totally mis read my post. I in no way said eliminating Osama bin forgotten would put an end to terroism. quite the contrary, I suggested any benefit from eliminating him has been greatly reduced because we dropped the ball and put our resources to eliminating a non-threat (Saddam) while Osama continued to plan attacks on America. Had we quickly completed the elimination of Osama his following may have decreased not increased as it has done since 9/11.

[Tom]

We need to take out OBL, then whoever moves up in his place, and so on.

I agree we ask for help before "nuking" anyone, but so far Pakistan has refused/been unable to comply. We've waited long enough.

Same goes for any other country harboring Al Qeda people - ask once - wait reasonable long enough, then go in and take them out. Troops, missles, drones, whatever it takes.

For crying out loud - did anyone listen #2's tape yesterday - theses terrorists have the support of the islamic masses. They are being hidden by people we can hardly call "innocent victims."

[PaceAdvantage]

You totally mis read my post. I in no way said eliminating Osama bin forgotten would put an end to terroism. quite the contrary, I suggested any benefit from eliminating him has been greatly reduced because we dropped the ball and put our resources to eliminating a non-threat (Saddam) while Osama continued to plan attacks on America. Had we quickly completed the elimination of Osama his following may have decreased not increased as it has done since 9/11.

Now you're softening up your stance. Before, you implied that there weren't many radicals waiting to take OBLs place, had we "gotten" him in the months after 9/11. On what do you base this claim?

Now you say his following "may have" decreased, which also means it "may not have" decreased had we quickly "gotten him."

I don't think I "totally" missed your point, but whatever.

[twindouble]

The subject of the war on terror has taken a turn here, now we are into the meat of who are enemys are, where they are, the numbers, who supports them in any way, along with those that drum hatred into the minds of the young through out the middle east. This has been going on for many years and has nothing to do with the Bush administration.

In my mind what's in bold is more important than capturing or killing Osama, that would just make us feel better nothing more.


T.D.

[ljb]

Now you're softening up your stance. Before, you implied that there weren't many radicals waiting to take OBLs place, had we "gotten" him in the months after 9/11. On what do you base this claim?

Now you say his following "may have" decreased, which also means it "may not have" decreased had we quickly "gotten him."

I don't think I "totally" missed your point, but whatever.
Whatever ?

[Secretariat]

The killing or capturing of Bin Laden is critical because he ordered the attack on our soil. It was his order that put in motion an attack AGAINST America. That cannot go unpunished.

Will someone replace him in Al Queda? Of course. Will terror go on? Of course. It has been going on well before we've all been born, and will be around well after we're all dead. The concept the "war on terror" or the "war on poverty" are attempts to reign in problems, but they cannot eradicate all poverty or all terrorism. Our war on terror should be to prevent terrorism against America. We cannot afford to be the world's policeman as GW promised in his 2000 debate, but now wants to be the world's policeman after 911. I understand that change, but it is simply not sustainable financially long term. It is already causing increasing fiscal deficits. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and many terrorist organizations will continue to operate. The KKK in our own country was a terrorist organization for years simply because they didn't like the color of people's skins. Terror will always be prevalent. We must be vigilant in the defense of our nation, but not finance and fight the battles of every other country in the world. It is already creating a change in the direction of this country - cutting funds to the elderly, cutting funding for those who seek knoweldge via higher education, and cutting health care to the poor. This is just the beginning. It also is weakening our own ability to effectively deter. Iran is already saber rattling, and one wonders if we engage in war with Iran while maintaining Iraq's stability, and a country like China decides at that time to simply take Taiwan or North Korea decides to challenge S. Korea or Japan, or terrorism occurs within the US or South America erupts into violence, one has to aks is where is our limit in our ability to effectively respond short of nuclear annihilation, and what does that set off?

Bin Laden must be brought to justice simply because HE is the man who authorized the attack on the US. That fundamentally is what triggered this whole sad chain of events.

[Tom]

As Nick used to say, "Very well put."


No matter what, this guy must die and we must pose with the body, like a big fish.