The above quote came from one of the Saddam threads over in MPSIMS. I really hope it was tongue-in-cheek.
So, capture two people, and you think magically the Middle East is going to become America’s (and Britain’s) number one fan? Nope, bombings, terrorism etc will continue and escalate throughout the 21st century, and there’s bugger all anyone can do about it.
It’s a depressing thought, but can anyone seriously tell me I’m wrong? The heavy-handed way the West has gone into Afghanistan and Iraq will surely only serve to make the coming century one of increased division between Islam and Christianity, between east and west. As we type, millions of children are being raised to mistrust and hate - both in the UK and US, to perceive Muslims as terrorists; and in the Middle East, to hate the West.
What future can there be apart from an ever increasing spiral of violence? Anyone?
Osqama bin Laden’s capture or death would not make an end to terrorism. It would, however, be a major positive advancement in the War on Terrorism, because bin Laden, unlike a certain other person, actually is a terrorist leader. Suppose we capture him tomorrow. Would some Al Queda cells somewhere keep on fighting? Probably so, but there ability to do so would be hurt. From what we know, bin Laden is instrumental in coordinating movements between different cells and in providing them with all the money they need. Take him out and organization takes a major hit.
Well… you would have 2 muslim martyrs instead of 1 ?
I agree with the notion that they are small steps and not major advancements to improve the Middle East. Its no good taking down a dictator and a terrorist leader if your creating way more tension and inciting terrorism than before.
Bin Laden’s capture would be a bigger political coup for Bush, and Osama certainly has a lot more to do with terrorism than Saddam does. It would do little or nothing to weaken Al Qaeda or anti-Americanism or terrorism. He’s probably incommunicado and not planning the day-to-day operations (if anyone is, and if he ever did just that). I hope it wouldn’t strengthen those thigns, but that’s possible too.
If you assume that bin Laden represents mainstream Muslim views, then no, it won’t stop terrorism at all.
Personally, I don’t believe bin Laden represents Muslim views at all, and I don’t think people who do realize what a dangerous idea that is. That’s practically a justification for a war against Islam.
No, adaher, of course I do not believe that. But the fact remains that there are always going to be plenty of crazy people that will kill and die for what they perceive to be religion.
In the wider picture, I can’t see how peace can ever be established in the world as long as religion still exists. Humans are stupid creatures who will do anything if they believe that “God is on their side”. It’s about time the human race cut the apron strings and recognised that religion is the biggest con job, and biggest cause of misery, in existence.
Well, one thing that I think we learned from Communism is that “religion” is not the only thing that makes us irrational and violent. Most humans need to believe in something or feel a part of something, and they also need to have an “other” that is the enemy. I do think that liberty and democracy have a strong mitigating effect on that natural human impulse, and it’s been borne out by the almost total lack of armed conflict among democratic governments. So if there’s a silver bullet to stop conflict, that’s it. And that’s precisely what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How much would the capture of bin Laden help? Hard to say. It depends on how much control he still has, and whether or not his capture would demoralize his followers. On one hand, some people say that Arabs have a healthy respect for force and tend to get behind whoever is stronger. If the US demonstrates strength, the theory goes, even if they hate us they won’t act against us. On the other hand, some people say it could stiffen resolve by making bin Laden a martyr, assuming he isn’t taken alive.
I think that if bin Laden was captured in Saddam-like fashion it would tend to have a demoralizing effect. Yet another Arab terrorist icon chickens out and doesn’t do what he’d been telling others to do. Who would join Al Qaeda after that embarassment?
It’s hardly the fault of ‘religion’ - which I have to say was a bit of a sweeping generalisation, at best - that people use it justify their own actions or to incite others to their own ends. Don’t forget that ‘religion’ provides a lot of comfort to a lot of people. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but people do get offended by comments like ‘biggest cause of misery in existence’ when applied to their deeply-held beliefs…
Cheers.
The “alternative” would be to quit chasing the terrorist who felled the World Trade Center and killed some 3,000 innocents in the process…or maybe just “forgive him” and move on.
Sorry-- there is no version of reality in which that’s ever gonna happen.
I am not saying he shouldn’t be caught, it’s just that I question the importance of him being caught. It’s not like it’s going to end the “War on Terror”, whatever that is.
And yes, the religion rant was a bit of a generalisation, but I do think the world would be a lot better off without organised religion. Of course, people kill others for a whole lot of reasons - race, ideological differences, and of course poverty. A world without religion or poverty - now that would be worth the wait.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone seriously claim that OBL’s capture (or death) would “end” the “war on terror”-- which is, in itself, a bit of a clunky name for the ongoing effort. The importance of getting a final resolution on him can’t be overstated, though, in my opinion.
Police forces surely know that pursuing individual murderers isn’t going to magically “end murders”… yet still they follow leads and try to catch up to them— wonder why that is?
Hmmm. Those radical religious nuts in Japan who invented the concept of flying aircraft into living Americans seem to have come around. We only firebombed and atom-bombed their arses, in addition to rounding up their relatives in the US and putting them into camps.
Guess anything is possible, to refute the OP premise.
IMO, it would be a blow to the people who matter most. I’m sure there is a nearly infinite supply of eighteen year olds who are willing strap on a bomb and martyr themselves for the cause. There is definitely a finite supply of millionare/billionares who are willing to become USA enemy number one. It needs to be clear that if you fund/organize terror attacks against the west you will be hunted down and imprisoned or killed. It’s not an accident that armies consist mostly of 18-21 year olds.
It won’t end the problem of terrorism any more than arresting any single criminal ends the problem of crime. But we still go after criminals, don’t we? We still prioritize which ones we go after, don’t we?
Osama led the organization that plotted to kill, and actually killed, 3000 of us. It’s up to us to go get him. No excuse for lack of diligence in that is acceptable. There’s no doubt that there are and will be other terrorists out there, but they haven’t attacked and killed any of us, so far anyway. Getting Osama isn’t the entire problem, or even all that large a piece of it, sure - but it’s the most urgent for us, and has been for over 2 years now. Being a clear act of, if not justice, then at least retribution, it also doesn’t seem likely to radicalize any real number of other people into becoming anti-Western terrorists who aren’t already, so a numbers argument is weak.
Why is there any debate about it? Why the willingness to let Bush off the hook for his failure to achieve even partial progress lately in what should be his top goal?
No, getting Bin Laden won’t end terrorism. It would be a temporary blow, and that’s all. As long as enough people out there hate the U.S. with enough fervor to be willing to kill themselves, there will be a threat. And as technology continues to improve, the threat will get worse. Getting Bin Laden would win like winning a battle in a much bigger war.
That’s why Bush was right to go after Saddam. Because in the end, the only thing that will ensure the safety of the free world is to get rid of the last dictatorships and tyrannies that create the conditions that makes monsters.
It’s also why an equitable solution to the Palestinian problem is so important.
We can’t win this war militarily. We can fight the battles militarily. But the war won’t be over until the middle east is a peaceful, thriving area where people can use something other than violence to improve their lives.
I think Osama is already dead. And, even if he isn’t, I don’t think the powers-that-be would tell us if and when he finally is killed.
Why? Because admitting we killed OBL would turn him into a martyr of biblical proportions. True, it would be good PR over here to know that he is dead, but he could become even more of a symbol to those perverted terrorist fucks.
I think that the government would be better off keeping the terrorists as confused as possible as to whether or not he is dead.