as per the reports on most news sites.
So that brings to close one ten year long campaign. What next?
.
Printable View
as per the reports on most news sites.
So that brings to close one ten year long campaign. What next?
.
Gadhafi's waiving white flag, so all price hikes will stop :D.
No, I mean what will the US do now?
The war against terror has majorly kept things moving in the US, as there was a tangible objective of eliminating bin Laden. Now that the objective has been accomplished, the campaign is likely to lose a lot of steam. Though it will be a big plus for Obama for his reelection bid, he must now substitute the hunt for bin Laden with an equally compelling and appealing objective.
.
Bet it won't stop one from having to take off one's shoes for the scanners at the airport.
Waiting for a reaction...
I have a question Related to this topic.
Do you think there will now be less terrorism in the world because he is dead ?
Or maybe someone will replace him that is worse ?
More likely someone will replace him. One likely reason is there are many who share his views and so will likely try to advance his views through words and actions. Second, probably less likely but scarier, reason is the US will need someone before long.
Assuming 9/11 didn't happen and the war on terror wasn't waged, where would the US be?
.
Hooray!!Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
I'm just afraid that someone less smart than Bin Laden will replace him.
Sure it is a major concern and Homeland security is on its feet 24/7 now more than ever before most probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
However, the message was sent - no one gets away with murders even if it takes 10 years!
Unfortunately the biggest problem as I see it is many "members" of AQ are so brainwashed they don't care much. :mad:
It's great that he's dead, but at the same time I hate to see the death of a misguided life celebrated so much.
Better off???Quote:
Assuming 9/11 didn't happen and the war on terror wasn't waged, where would the US be?
I agree. Imagine what he could've done if he put his energy into something other than murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Good answer!!Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I agree and I'm kinda wondering why they wanted him DEAD so much. Pretty sure they could have just captured him. And also, for a so powerful nation how could it take so long to get to him :pQuote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
It shows you how easy it can be to hide if you are wealthy and choose a good spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlaural
Indeed. They played a pretty long game of hide and seek.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
When there's a fire fight... you're not interested in not hitting the other side. When the other side started shooting, you shoot back (and I don't claim to know who or which side shot first... I'm just saying in general)... It becomes a game of shoot or be shot.Quote:
I agree and I'm kinda wondering why they wanted him DEAD so much. Pretty sure they could have just captured him.
Otherwise armies would outfit themselves with Nerf(tm) darts.
-tg
Have you ever seen Osama without an AK-47 within arms reach? ;)Quote:
I agree and I'm kinda wondering why they wanted him DEAD so much. Pretty sure they could have just captured him.
Pakistan had the intelligence of his whereabouts, but they played both sides for a long time...Quote:
And also, for a so powerful nation how could it take so long to get to him
I'm pretty sure they will soon find something else to have a reason to put fear in us.
I mean how else will they justify the billions of dollars they waste on the army?
I would guess that we are so much better off with him dead that the seal team wasn't told, "We want him ALIVE." I would guess that they were just told that we want his body, and it has to be recognizable, but nothing more.
As to the impact of this, I'm not as pessimistic as some of you, which is a bit different. Modern terrorism is so much about advertising that a public loss like that might very much weaken AQ. They aren't independent agents. They exist because people are willing to supply them with their necessities: Money, security, recruits, supplies, etc. The people doing the supplying aren't the people doing the dying. They are pretty much arm-chair backers. In fact, you could see them as investors. They have some position that they back, such that they are willing to invest certain things in it, but it isn't a cause that they are willing to give their lives for. Furthermore, they have lots of alternative organizations that are competing for their resources. The investor decides where they would get the most bang for their buck (which is more literally true in terrorism than elsewhere).
Therefore, the terrorist organizations are like any other NGO, competing for resources from a limitted number of independent investors. The attacks of 9/11 weren't an attempt to topple the US. There was no concerted effort to bring down the government, no follow-up, no timetable, nothing like that. It was a single, enormous attack which would be highly visible, and have a largely symbolic result. In other words, it was a high-profile advertising campaign, which vaulted AQ up to the top of the pile when it came to competing for resources.
If that is the case, then they have just suffered a VERY serious setback. It isn't that the rank and file will be any less motivated. They may even be MORE motivated, since vengeance is such a powerful motivator in our lives, but the organization has just taken a highly visible hit where it hurts the most: Right in the prestige. This could seriously impact their ability to compete for the independent investment resources that have allowed them to keep going. That impact could starve them back down to a second tier organization, which becomes a positive feedback loop. The loss drops their resources, making it harder to take effective action, which makes them appear weaker, which further drops their resources. After all, they have no core goal, just a few implausible platitudes (opposition to the west, and so forth, which is all vague and immeasurable).
I would expect one of two actions: A rather desperate attempt to strike back to prove they are still relevant, or a slide into obscurity (or both, I suppose).
I'm waiting on time to tell how significant this will actually be. I'm glad that he's gone, but at the same time I'm not sure if this one victory has been worth the lives and resources that went into it.
How 'bout "fix the economy!"? I think that will be more important to voters come election time. Osama's dead, can we bring some of those war funds back home now plz?Quote:
Though it will be a big plus for Obama for his reelection bid, he must now substitute the hunt for bin Laden with an equally compelling and appealing objective.
Binladen is the dead! You go girl... to hell.
10 years is also pretty much the time span of his planning of the bombing in the first place (rumor)Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
just because it's on the news doesn't make it real.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Fact: Someone with a beard was shot in the face, making the identification by that method impossible.
Fact: Before actual forensic proof of the body's identification could be determined, the body was whisked away hundreds of miles and dropped into the sea.
When you put this in front of you, you start to trace back all the "he's dead" statements and you see they all originated in the white house in a 10 minute speech by a president that 2/3 of the country thinks is Muslim anyway.
Even if he really is dead, the circumstances of this (in an election year!) are going to cause some serious fall-out.
Indeed, and it might be that some people still hold the grudge that may lead them to more broader terrism action.Quote:
Even if he really is dead, the circumstances of this (in an election year!) are going to cause some serious fall-out.
So far there have been no claims to the contrary, so I think we can safely assume it was bin Laden who was shot dead. If indeed it had been mistaken identity, the real bin Laden wouldn't have waited so long to proclaim the folly of the US forces.
About Al Qaeda, I believe it's an organization guided more by charisma than any other thing. This charisma was of bin Laden. With him gone, there's no other leader who will motivate and put into motion the entire framework of Al Qaeda (whatever remains of it). So as Shaggy Hiker put it, the people will try to strike back on their own and be annihilated in the process, or the whole framework will slowly disband over a period of time or both. Most likely it will resurface under some other name. There is a third, but quite remote possibility of someone taking bin Laden's place and reviving the outfit.
My question about the US was more to do with the plans for the future. Somewhere I believe the 9/11 and the hunt for Osama provided a reason for the US to be on the offensive, to mobilize its resources, to have a purpose. Now that the purpose is gone, it will have to be replaced with an equally strong one. While the bin Laden elimination scores big for Obama, he has the equally challenging task of turning around the nation's focus to some other areas. This was one campaign which most of the US citizens had backed, explicitly or implicitly. So I can say the whole nation was united behind this objective, and the result is now on the table. Can Obama, or some other president, unite the whole nation behind another equally significant objective?
.
Btw, this is the best news report on the incident.
Are you old enough to remember the world before this "war on terror"? The US was not involved in any wars for 25 years. Why? There was no need. you seem to be focused on violence. Not everyone is as violent as you believe. American movies do NOT depict what life is like in this country. This is a great place to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE!!!
Presumably you mean except the first Gulf war, in which the US was a direct participating party, or where they had a very definite presence in many others such as the Balkan war, the Somali civil war, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Libya in the 80's......Quote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
Sounds like you call safe guarding humanitarian aid and other unwarlike behavior a war . No wondoer we disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
MarMan, there's a good book I just read titled The Savage Wars of Peace. Basically, the US has officially declared war only a handful of times, but we have had troops engaged in firefights in foreign countries for most years that we have existed. The premise of the book was that we learned a HUGE amount about how to fight such wars, then in WWII, we largely shelved the information gleaned from those conflicts, which led to our largest undeclared war: Vietnam. It's a good read, not just for the history, but also the lessons learned from such conflicts.
However, your suggestion that we haven't engaged in warlike behavior is totally indefensible. During the window you mentioned, we did fight Gulf War I, and staged armed invasions of two different countries (Grenada and Nicaragua). You might claim that the former was "safe guarding humanitarian aid", but that would be seriously stretching the definition. The other two bear no resemblance to that phrase in any way. I would argue that the late stage of the Somalia mission, when the UN took over, was also much more warlike than you suggest.
I forgot about the gulf war so I was wrong there. However, it depends on how you define war. Peace mongers would call any conflict a war to bias the argument to thier plight. I don't call an invasion a war. That's why there are two different words, to supply two different meanings. A car is not a truck, although many people use the words incorrectly. The way zaza defines it, nearly every nation in the world is at war nearly every year. If you wish to stretch a definition like that, then it dilutes the word and makes it use almost meaningless.
The Savage Wars of Peace, sounds interesting. Whose point of view is it?
in world theres is 2 "especies":
- us... the good people;
-and the bad people... like Bin Laden and others.
that's true that we have very groups united or not, here or there. but the bad people too...
we can think "kill them all!!!"... but they can think in same way too.
i know that we are in "ligth path" and they are in "dark path". everyone defends their ways. but everyone is affected... inclued children and wemans too....
the question can be supid but have significate: why the humans think in very diferent paths?
(ok... we can "fight" with a friend, but in next day\hour it's everything ok)
I forgot about the gulf war so I was wrong there. However, it depends on how you define war. Peace mongers would call any conflict a war to bias the argument to thier plight. I don't call an invasion a war. That's why there are two different words, to supply two different meanings. A car is not a truck, although many people use the words incorrectly. The way zaza defines it, nearly any conflict in the world is a war. If you wish to stretch a definition like that, then it dilutes the word and makes it use almost meaningless. I certainly don't call bombing gadafi a war. Most require a war to have two sides hurting each other. The rebels are fighting gadafi, they are at war with them. NATO is helping them. Gadafi is NOT attacking NATO, yet some would say the US is at war with gadafi because it suits them. I am more interested in truth.
The Savage Wars of Peace, sounds interesting. Whose point of view is it?
A lot of it is due to selfishness or ignorance. Some people can not see any other point of view except their own. So they can not understand what the other people are really trying to do. They only understand what they "think" the other people are doing. And if they do not like it, they try to make it their way. The people that mind their own business often get caught in the crossfire.Quote:
Originally Posted by joaquim
if you try search something about the 2 Big Towers, you will see very things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
i have ear so many things and my friends have seen so many pictures, that normaly aren't showed . that's seems natural ask: what is truth?
Good question. It can be different things to different people. And they will fight and argue over which is right, when in fact, they both can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by joaquim
we are in 21st century. and we know respect everyone and their thot's. if we know respect our own thot's why not them? their brain works like ours... at least i think;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
i only have fraid of 1 of 2 things:
1 - when we catch a real alien invasion and we die by human ignorance.(to be honest i don't belive that we are alone in these infinite universe;))
or
2 - we die by wars and others bad things by human ignorance.(ok... the Natureza is anotherthing).
note: by die, i mean by extintion or something close.
Some people do not respect others. Others do not respect life. The ones that do you may pass by any day and there are no problems, so you may not notice. It is just the few who do not respect others that attract attention. It could be because they are not well in the head. It could be that they do not know how to be respectful, they could've been taught bad stuff. It is hard to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by joaquim
When someone sees an army kill osama, if they do not know what osama did, they think the army is bad. If they see what osama did, they think he is bad. If they already have prejudice either way, then their decision will be tainted. I am biased against murderers, so I am extra hard on them, maybe too hard, unfair to some of them. Sometimes the truth can be hard to find.
"Sometimes the truth can be hard to find." or deleted or even protected... that's why some truths are very complicated to findQuote:
Originally Posted by MarMan
Good point about Al Qaeda there Honeybee, although you do seem to talk of the US sometimes as a singular entity almost like its a person rather than a country. The US does not (like all countries) need any external factors, its reason for being or its Purpose is the people who inhabit it.Quote:
About Al Qaeda, I believe it's an organization guided more by charisma than any other thing. This charisma was of bin Laden. With him gone, there's no other leader who will motivate and put into motion the entire framework of Al Qaeda (whatever remains of it). So as Shaggy Hiker put it, the people will try to strike back on their own and be annihilated in the process, or the whole framework will slowly disband over a period of time or both. Most likely it will resurface under some other name. There is a third, but quite remote possibility of someone taking bin Laden's place and reviving the outfit.
My question about the US was more to do with the plans for the future. Somewhere I believe the 9/11 and the hunt for Osama provided a reason for the US to be on the offensive, to mobilize its resources, to have a purpose. Now that the purpose is gone, it will have to be replaced with an equally strong one.
Think of two Rival Football teams as an analogy, like Real Madrid & Barcelona. The Barcelona fans know that there team is better because they play better football then Real. The Real Fans know that there team is better because it is the biggest club in the world.Quote:
their brain works like ours... at least i think
Who is right? and even if the Barcelona Fan is right that they play better football will the Madrid Fan agree? Unlikely as football supporters are not always rational. In The End both Fans think they are right.
Now take that Scenario and insert it into years of military invention, and add a sprinkling of religion and bake until it reaches the right temperature.