Your comment makes no sense at all. Who gives a shit what Bin Laden is doing if he can't pull off an attack? And who gives a shit if we kill Bin Laden if there's always someone to step into his shoes and keep plotting? Killing him was always about revenge, not making us safer from terrorists.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
How exactly would you be getting intelligence about Bin Laden's location?
Hope is the denial of reality
How do you know he's even still alive? Would that matter, if what we're really fighting is an ideology? And what sense does it make to use military force to combat an ideology?
What ideology is that? If you're going to say Islamism, I want to know why Islamism is inherently supportive of terrorist attacks against the US. The reality is that we're up against specific groups that happen to share an interest in expelling the US from the Middle East, and those groups could be weakened militarily. Unfortunately, those groups enjoy a good degree of popular support, which means that the foot soldiers are easily replaceable.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, it was about revenge. That's what I expect of my government.
But letting him meander around a lawless frontier doesn't exactly empower us.
No, the ideology is "Terrorism" as a way to get what they want. By hook or by crook. Whatever "it" is that terrorists want.
The reality is that "we" are up against certain groups that simply hate America, for whatever reason (and there are many).
(Others hate that the US is an Israeli ally in the middle east, but that's its own thread.)
Really? You expect our government to send our soldiers into combat, to find and kill Bin Laden, as revenge for 9/11? That would mean empowerment for us?
Absolutely. It's the primary thing I've wanted from my government with regards to Afghanistan. Secondarily, I wanted them to bring something better and sustainable to Afghanistan.
So far we haven't even completed the first goal. This is the main reason I didn't vote for Bush in 2004.
Really? If Bin Laden weren't a future threat (though I think it likely he was and is), I think the only reason to hunt him down in an expensive manner is deterrence - essentially serving notice on the heads of other terrorist organizations that it's a bad idea to mess with us. I don't think revenge should enter into it at all. (If it were easy/cheap to get him, I'd say we should do it for justice as well.)
Who the fuck are you talking to?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It makes no difference at all if your intent is to prevent more attacks. If anything, invading Afghanistan ultimately played into his hands. It had no real affect on terrorist effectiveness and it severely weakened the US. And you seriously expect your government to take unnecessary, poorly thought out acts of revenge that cost trillions of dollers we don't have, kills thousands of innocent people, recruits many more terrorists to attack us and ultimately weakens our nation? Well fuck me but I expect my government to be a little less idiotic.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Actually, you won't find many political analysts who don't think that al-Qaeda has been severely weakened as a result of the Afghan war. I really don't think having his organization become operationally irrelevant is what bin-Laden had in mind.
Hope is the denial of reality
I seriously doubt killing him would have deterred anyone. Martyrdom seems all the rage in that circle of friends. And worse, our complete and very public failure has spectacularly done the opposite.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I'm not looking either, so that works out nice genius.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
What ever happened to questioning your own beliefs, especially when they're blatantly contradicted by something called facts? Why does everyone keep assuming that the only thing any terrorist wants is for America to suffer? I would imagine Bin Laden wants to be the one making America suffer, not cheering on some Yemenis.
Hope is the denial of reality
Martyrdom only goes so far. Israel has been very successful at modifying the behavior of terrorist leaders by specifically targeting them. The rank and file are pretty interchangeable, but the leaders are both valuable to the organization, interested in their own well-being, and important political symbols.
Fair enough. Do you really believe killing Bin Laden would make a difference? I think maybe if they got him in 2001, but likely not at all today. Note, I think it's even odds he has been dead for years....
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Bin Laden is probably dead. You can't have end stage renal disease and live in a cave for a decade, no matter what the media says. His death may not weaken his "apostles" at all. I wonder if recent bursts of terrorist activity are actually a screen blip upward, where they're testing their resolve for their cause.
edit
When the leader of a cause dies, the followers try very hard to show that the leader was simply the inspiration, but the cause itself will live. Then they proceed to find a new leader.In decentralized and disorganized groups, the absence of a leader can end the whole thing fairly fast. However, if followers have been introduced to a surrogate, and accepted him as their new leader......the "cause" may continue.
That's probably why intelligence focuses on certain people within the accepted circle of power, and what their hierarchy is. Makes me think of the mafia, actually.
Last edited by GGT; 11-24-2010 at 11:37 AM.
Bin Laden is basically irrelevant. We've no evidence he's even alive, and the absence of such evidence tells us that even if he is alive he is irrelevant.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
And yet we occupied a country to get him and ensure no new camps get built. He is irrelevant and the camps have multiplied elsewhere. So what's the point of continuing the Afghan fiasco again?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I think there's a fundamental disconnect here. AFAIK the Afghanistan war was not started to hunt down Bin Laden (though of course that was an ancillary goal), but to shut down AQ networks and training camps, and degrade their operational flexibility (while at the same time depriving global terrorists of one of their favorite countries to hide in). That doesn't mean catching or killing Bin Laden wouldn't have a salutatory effect on CT activities, even today, but it's not the main reason we invaded.
Also, we've caught or killed a remarkable number of senior operatives in AQ and affiliated organizations. Whether we get #1 or not, we're having an effect on their leadership structure and behavior.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Oh, wait, never mind.
But the dead leaders have been replaced, new affiliates have sprung up in other countries, this kind of entity cannot be decapitated. And we can't occupy even the first country they set up in, much less three more.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Terrorist groups can rarely be eliminated until their reason for existing is gone (sometimes this is impossible, as in the case of the existence of us infidels). But they can be managed (though occupation is not necessarily the best way to do it). I don't think we're doing a great job on this front, but the basic building blocks are there to use.
Yes and no. Can you completely kill it? No. Can you severely degrade its effectiveness? You bet. Which is a very worthwhile effect to pursue. They lost most of the organizational and training cadres which allowed them operate at a level where they could achieve high-profile successes. They can and have been rebuilding those with time, but we're also still taking them out. They've lost a lot of "institutional memory" and skill, and that would not have happened if we hadn't moved into Afghanistan. Problems of scale mean it is easier to make terrorist attacks than it is to secure yourselves from them, and an Afghanistan where the Taliban still had general operational control would have been exceedingly difficult for us to penetrate for smaller-scale attacks which would cause any significant damage to Al-Queda's base network. If we hadn't gone into Afghanistan, I think it very likely we would have seen more than three major attacks on Western targets
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Thank you. That is the general conclusion of the western world, where protests have led to some countries, the Netherlands for instance, planning to pull out their supporting troops. After revealing documentaries, the Danish movie "Armadillo" among others, Wikileaks reports etc., most people are not just having second thoughts, they're regretting ever having taken part in the war.
What has been done cannot be reversed, yet I would actually like the US to be straight out selfish and just withdraw, leaving Afghanistan to the Afghanistan people. If they wish to do propaganda, build up a massive force, then they'll have to isolate themselves. As mentioned in the thread, it is a poor country with frail connections within. Perhaps the cruelty of a victorious war lord is what might bring finally bring stability, as they are not feinted to follow counterproductive morals to achieve a task which requires decades of work. In the end further US engagement will only make things worse, and the US got more pressing matters to attend to. So be selfish, swallow the pride which is completely insignificant, and let there be shed blood on their own account. A terrorist threat can be created by any country, as you really do not need more than a few extremists with explosives and being okay about being killed in the process of an attack.
I might be shot down with water proof, concrete examples which go against, as it's a complex situation above all, but yet I think most would agree that participating in the war brings more negative aspects than positive ones.
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
Revisionist much? Anyone not living under a rock at the time knew that Weapons of Mass Destruction were the "reason" for invading Iraq, remember that?
The coalition of the willing? A coalition of the blind would be more apt.
As for Afghanistan, it was always doomed to end badly and based on Afghan history we all knew it - but being distracted by Iraq was so stupid as to be reminiscent of Nazi Germany attacking the Soviets, once Iraq became the focus we dropped the ball in Afghanistan and will eventually retreat and no doubt suffer more loss before we withdraw.
Was Iraq a success? Did we achieve those things that Wiggin says were the reason we sent our soldiers to Iraq?
Could Afghanistan have been different if we didn't drop the ball back then?
Did we handle Pakistan wisely?
Has a decade of war achieved anything tangible?
Such is Life...
Is Iraq a better place to live today than it was 8 years ago?
Hope is the denial of reality
Not really. Not sure about Afghanistan.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
And you're basing this on what? Sure there's violence, but there was just as much violence perpetrated by the Hussein regime. The economy might not be in great shape, but it's at least moving in the right direction. People are more able to express their views without getting killed (though obviously not as much as we'd like to see). There's a relatively free media, and people have the ability to get rid of politicians they don't like.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote