Osama Bin Laden. Did the White House just give up?

[ProudAmerican]

But four days later, on 10 April 2002, army secretary Thomas White said that one of America’s ‘strategic objectives’ in Afghanistan is ‘to get bin Laden…and we are pursuing that’ 3. Asked if the war on terror could only be hailed a success once bin Laden was found, White said yes – claiming that ‘no one said it was going to be easy’ 4.

‘I truly am not that concerned about him’, said President George W Bush on 13 March 2002, after being asked the million-dollar question ‘where is bin Laden?’ once too often 5.

and that says we have stopped looking for him where?

nice try but you failed misserably.

funny, weve stopped looking for him but I saw some marines on the military channel just the other day that were assigned to the war on terror in Afghanistan at the border of Pakistan.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Well, I had to since no one's talking about Bin Laden anymore. Go figure, the point of my thread.

you would have to ask the mainstream media why they arent talking about him.

odds are its because they would rather focus on other issues like Dick Cheney, and Scooter Libby, and Abu Grahb.

you know, anything negative that they can throw together to try and discredit the president.

now that I mention it.....if we had called off the search for Bin Laden the media would be all over it.

 

[MSgt]

Well, I had to since no one's talking about Bin Laden anymore. Go figure, the point of my thread.

I'll talk about Bin laden......

There are two types of terrorists. The “practical” and the “apocalyptic.” The practical terrorist may be phsycologically unbalanced, but he does not disregard the value of human life entirely. A practical terrorist does not want to die: they want to change the world, not destroy it. His or her concerns are external, they have to do with the plight of his or her people, real or imagined. He may commit grand gestures in frustration or desperation, but he continues to see himself as the representative of an earthly agenda, not as a divine missionary. His hellish counterpart, the apocalyptic terrorist is mentally divorced from our world and it's values. The apocalyptic terrorist is different: he has internal rather than external discontents. This terrorist is unhappy with himself and blames others for his misery. The practical terrorist has dreams, but the apocalyptic is lost in a nightmare. Practical terrorists may see acts of retribution as a tactical means, but apocalyptic terrorists view themselves tools of a divine and uncompromising retribution against unbelievers. The terrorists "martyrs" of 9/11 will forever be remembered by Islamic historians and by generations of Muslim children as heroes in the struggle for true religion and justice. This makes it all the more vital that we kill Osama Bin Laden, destroy Al-Queda, and any other government that would support these types of organizations – like we did the Taliban. If Bin-Laden survives to thumb his nose at an "impotent superpower", he will attract legions of other Muslims support and sympathizers. This is why, if he is dead, he will not be declared unless we declare it. He is an apocalyptic terrorist of the worst kind and his superficial agenda of deposing the Saudi government and expelling U.S. troops from the Middle East, is nothing compared to his compulsion to slaughter and destroy.

Although his vision is closer to the grimmest passages of Revelation than to anything in the Koran, Osama has been able to convince countless Muslims that his vision is of the purist and proudest Islamic form. This should be a huge warning flag to the west about the spiritual crisis in the Middle East. This battle is being fought within the realms of the emotions and soul, not of the intelligent. We face a situation that is so perverse that it is as if tens of millions of frustrated Christians decided that Kali, the Hindu Goddess of death and destruction, embodies the true teachings of Jesus Christ. One cannot have much sympathy with Osama bin Laden, whose vision of a vengeful god, thirsty for infidel blood, is utter blasphemy. Nor could any decent human being excuse the acts of terror committed by his followers, or by Palestinian suicide bombers or by any of the morally crippled youths who murder in the name of their religion.

Bin-Laden, like so many others, is a product created and used by his Arab masters for people that would rather sympathize or "understand" instead of face. Corruption and hypocrisy may be elements of the human condition, but Arab elites have developed them to a superhuman extreme. If they could, they would steal the air itself and charge the poor for breathing.

Preventing as many attacks as we can, killing or capturing terrorists, destroying terrorist organizations - are essential goals, but they focus on surface tumors while ignoring the cancer beneath. The security environment will improve as Osama and his most virulent supporters are killed. Eliminating terrorist operatives, masterminds and terror supportive dictators (Saddam) brings vital results. But we will never reduce Islamic terrorism to nuisance levels unless we address the greater evil behind the deadly strikes. It is possible to recognize that the majority of the lower-rank terrorists whose lives their overlords throw away so callously have been set up psychologically by the corruption and hopelessness of their societies - and those societies have been wrecked by Arabs and other Muslims to whom we cling as partners and whom we even imagine to be our friends. For what I know about Bin-Laden and for all the blood on his hands, Osama has higher ethical standards than our Arab "friends", despite the fact that they created him.

 

[MSgt]

and that says we have stopped looking for him where?

nice try but you failed misserably.

funny, weve stopped looking for him but I saw some marines on the military channel just the other day that were assigned to the war on terror in Afghanistan at the border of Pakistan.

Not to mention that I am due to replace another Marine in Afghanistan in April. I guess since the search was called off, I'll be roaming the mountains by myself.

 

[shuamort]

and that says we have stopped looking for him where?

nice try but you failed misserably.

funny, weve stopped looking for him but I saw some marines on the military channel just the other day that were assigned to the war on terror in Afghanistan at the border of Pakistan.

And that states that we're looking for them? You have proof that we're still looking for him or not?

you would have to ask the mainstream media why they arent talking about him.

odds are its because they would rather focus on other issues like Dick Cheney, and Scooter Libby, and Abu Grahb.

you know, anything negative that they can throw together to try and discredit the president.

now that I mention it.....if we had called off the search for Bin Laden the media would be all over it.

Why not ask the White House why they're not talking about him anymore too?! It's easy to shift the blame to the media to suit your purposes.

 

[MSgt]

Why not ask the White House why they're not talking about him anymore too?! It's easy to shift the blame to the media to suit your purposes.

Damn, man. It's like you don't care for the answer, because it doesn't suit your personal campaign. An excert from my last post......

"Preventing as many attacks as we can, killing or capturing terrorists, destroying terrorist organizations - are essential goals, but they focus on surface tumors while ignoring the cancer beneath. The security environment will improve as Osama and his most virulent supporters are killed. Eliminating terrorist operatives, masterminds and terror supportive dictators (Saddam) brings vital results. But we will never reduce Islamic terrorism to nuisance levels unless we address the greater evil behind the deadly strikes. It is possible to recognize that the majority of the lower-rank terrorists whose lives their overlords throw away so callously have been set up psychologically by the corruption and hopelessness of their societies - and those societies have been wrecked by Arabs and other Muslims to whom we cling as partners and whom we even imagine to be our friends. For what I know about Bin-Laden and for all the blood on his hands, Osama has higher ethical standards than our Arab "friends", despite the fact that they created him."

We are currently in Iraq and we have never left Afghanistan. We are trying to address both issues - that of the individual terrorists and that of the civilization from where they come. Why can't you see this and applaud it? Never mind what the President say's on public TV. He can only say so much, before he travels into the realm of the "unpolitically correct" and anger the entire Muslim world unnecessarily.

 

[shuamort]

Damn, man. It's like you don't care for the answer, because it doesn't suit your personal campaign. An excert from my last post......

Take it easy, I typed out my response to ProudAmerican and yours wasn't there as I was typing.

"Preventing as many attacks as we can, killing or capturing terrorists, destroying terrorist organizations - are essential goals, but they focus on surface tumors while ignoring the cancer beneath. The security environment will improve as Osama and his most virulent supporters are killed. Eliminating terrorist operatives, masterminds and terror supportive dictators (Saddam) brings vital results. But we will never reduce Islamic terrorism to nuisance levels unless we address the greater evil behind the deadly strikes. It is possible to recognize that the majority of the lower-rank terrorists whose lives their overlords throw away so callously have been set up psychologically by the corruption and hopelessness of their societies - and those societies have been wrecked by Arabs and other Muslims to whom we cling as partners and whom we even imagine to be our friends. For what I know about Bin-Laden and for all the blood on his hands, Osama has higher ethical standards than our Arab "friends", despite the fact that they created him."

Killing Osama is far from the answer and in fact will only create more of him. A fair trial is the only solution.

 

[MSgt]

Take it easy, I typed out my response to ProudAmerican and yours wasn't there as I was typing.

Killing Osama is far from the answer and in fact will only create more of him. A fair trial is the only solution. [/QUOTE]


Bin Ladden is a living "martyr." As long as he lives, he is a hero to the youthful futureless masses in the Middle East. He is the epitomy of how to deliver a devastating blow to America and survive. Even in the Arab world, death and destruction is not a matter of martyrdom after the act. Sure, there will be followers that remeber him in death, but if he is captured and brought to trial, he will inspire many in the Middle East during his trial and his sentence will call for all of "Allah's" soldiers to take revenge. I think the best thing is for him to be killed before this.

Also, as we have seen from the acts of our own people regarding Gitmo, it's best for us if we can kill all of these zealots before they have a chance to surrender.

 

[ProudAmerican]

And that states that we're looking for them? You have proof that we're still looking for him or not?

I guess all those guys could be on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan to play tiddly winks......

but I doubt it.

 

[akyron]

And in the meantime we gather intelligence on his orginization and twart his attempts of terror. Better to know your enemy and keeep an eye on him and his movements and the people he deals with. Learn the structure of his orginization. Kill him and someone we don't know may assume leadership. Basic cold war intelligence SOP.


/

Absolutely. The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't....

 

[tecoyah]

Because we are not omnipresent and we do not have an all seeing eye to give us perfect locations. Sattelite pictures do not give perfect coordinates to individuals unless we know where that individual is. He is surrounded by men who are loyal to the death. He knows his country and those mountain ranges with intimacy. We don't even know if he is even alive. In the mean time, we are searching for a ghost and spending money and man power doing it. The only way to get into many areas in those mountains is by walking or by flying. Because there are so many crevices, tight canyons, and long bottle necks, any attempt to get in is deadly. You see, these all act as ambush sights. Even helicopters must fly through them, because they can only fly so high. Remember the two helos that got shot down earlier this year? This would have been an attempt to fly through one of the thousands of areas like this. This would be more of that critical ignorance I scoffed at earlier. :roll:

Expert? I've more than been there. I've studied it for a decade. I, presently, work at a higher HQ, where they crunch numbers and deal with higher intel and planning reports. I see the deployed units. I know the locations. I've been to 6 countries within the Middle East and have conducted a plethora of study for other individuals. I have seen combat in Somalia, consulted in Ethiopia, seen combat in Iraq, and I am scheduled for Afghanistan in April. I currently write commentaries. I have a book not yet published, because I have enough material for two books and have been having trouble cutting it down. Expert? I never claimed to be an expert. There are people that go to school to learn the things I experience. They would be the "experts."

Original thought? Bright one, where do you think this President has gotten all of his verbiage? He has gotten it from the largely ignored military. The same military that has been warning about Bin Ladden since the mid 80's. The same military that has been warning of the future problems that will come out of this civilization if left unchecked since the early 90's. Clinton knew it. He just didn't act on it. He left it for the next guy to start. It will be in no way finished with this President. Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute the bulk of what is necessary in this "war on terror." Al-Queda, Bin Laden, Saddam, Khudafi, and plenty of others are mere symptoms of decay.

The President is right. He is not a priority. He is one man. We'll get him when we get him. His "cause" has been deeply hurt due to our actions and due to his own people's actions. With every new attack on Muslim civillians and the more Muslims find out about it, he is making more enemies. The Muslims in the Middle East will not support America, but steadily they are not supporting Al-Queda either. Ask the seperated Sunni of Iraq that used to collaborate with Al-Queda forces before the last few months. Ask the people of Jordan, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. There is a faction in Syria that do not approve of Zarqawi and agree to Bush's want for change in the Middle East, but do not want us in their country. These individuals (reformacists) are being locked up or running for their lives for speaking against the reigning Baathist Party. With Bin Ladden's death, terrorism will not end and this civilization that acts as a recruitment pool for organizations everywhere will not cease to be oppressed. You are looking for quick and immediate fixes where there are none. Bin Laden has not been forgotten. He is simply not the source of Islamic extremism.

Rediculous? Show us. Show me what you know about terrorism. Tell me of the different category of terrorists. Tell me of the terrorists in Indonesia. Tell me of the Arab elite mentality. Tell me about our foreign policy in the Middle East and what and why it's involvement has helped along the social problems in this region. Tell me about the social issues inside Syria and Iran. Tell me why the intel is not calling for a ground assault on Iran. Tell me about the oppression that is region wide. Tell me about Bin Laden and what kind of man he his.

Why don't you tell me again about how "the likelyhood of an undeployed, non commisioned, closed minded soldier having more information, and a better understanding of the implications layed out in our failure to apprehend Bin Laden are quite slim." -by the way, it's Staff Non-Commissioned and I'm not a "soldier."

That was excellent...I am serious. I was hoping to get you to go beyond the one line reply, as I have seen it in here before, and was impressed.....Thank You, Such insight is very hard to come by.

 

[MSgt]

That was excellent...I am serious. I was hoping to get you to go beyond the one line reply, as I have seen it in here before, and was impressed.....Thank You, Such insight is very hard to come by.

!?!?!?! When have you not known my posts as being less than insightful? Have you not read any of my prior in depth commentaries?

 

[SKILMATIC]

That was excellent...I am serious. I was hoping to get you to go beyond the one line reply, as I have seen it in here before, and was impressed.....Thank You, Such insight is very hard to come by.

!?!?!?! When have you not known my posts as being less than insightful? Have you not read any of my prior in depth commentaries?

Seriously, gunny has been proven time and time again to be one of the most insightful and intelligent persons on this here forum. Even look at the "who do you think is the best debater in the forum" thread in the off topic portion of this forum. You will see his name mentioned several times as being the best debater in this forum.

I on the other hand haven't seen yours in that thread. Not that I am implying anything. However, you should know a little about someone before marking them off as idiotic.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, I had to since no one's talking about Bin Laden anymore. Go figure, the point of my thread.

In case you didnt know the white house still has the bounty of osama up(and still remains the most wanted man stated by the state department and the every known intelligence agency in the world), so I cant understand why you think the white house gave up? Also even though IYO you think the white house gave up still doesn't substantiate your argument very well by resurrecting 2002 articles. Just a thought

 

[shuamort]

In case you didnt know the white house still has the bounty of osama up(and still remains the most wanted man stated by the state department and the every known intelligence agency in the world), so I cant understand why you think the white house gave up? Also even though IYO you think the white house gave up still doesn't substantiate your argument very well by resurrecting 2002 articles. Just a thought

Well, has Bush rebuffed his statement about not caring about Bin Laden? Has he said anything that would lead you to think differently? In Bush's speech about the war against terror he gave just recently, did he mention Bin Laden? If he's public enemy number one, why isn't the White House being more vocal about it?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Some people seem to think that if America had focused on Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, Osama would have been caught by now.

But then I think that Osama is pretty good at hiding in caves around the Afghan-Pakistan border. So I think you could have 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan and it would make any difference.

Bush didn't send in enough troops to capture Bin Laden when he had a better chance of capturing him in late 2001 early 2002.

Now the hunt for Bin Laden needs to be coordinated by the CIA. Problem is Bush doesn't seem to be putting any pressure on the CIA to get Bin Laden.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, has Bush rebuffed his statement about not caring about Bin Laden? Has he said anything that would lead you to think differently? In Bush's speech about the war against terror he gave just recently, did he mention Bin Laden? If he's public enemy number one, why isn't the White House being more vocal about it?

Why would they need to recap who is the most wanted man around the globe? I think weveryone gets the hint by now. If they dont then they are mental cases. Its like me saying to a group of people after I just got done explaining in every detail and manor that a ferrari is a better car(performance wise)than a ford pinto. And then after which someone stands up(shuamort) and asks "can you please state which car is better between the ford pinto or the ferrari?" Its kinda rediculously redundant dont you think? If people dont know by now that osama is the most wanted man then I really dont know what to say. Its kinda pitiful IMO.

 

[ANAV]

They were right. The war didn't last that long. Even they didn't fully appreciate what a "war on terror" meant. Iraq is only a battle ground.

...and Osama is still being hunted. The media just doesn't care to cover it like they do Iraq and Bush contriversey.

Gunny, the media would eat up any story on the hunt for OBL and that's the problem. It would be published throughout the region thus showing our hand. We just choose not to divulge the information for security purposes. The hunt for OBL has never lessened from day one. One of the major goals in the hunt to to win the trust of remote tribal leaders that can help us. How did we find Saddam? A local tipped us off.

I don't know how many people on the forum have been to Afghanistan (I have not myself). But my brother-in-law has told me stories of how remote and vast the area is. I have no doubt we will find him, and his number two man.

How long did it take to find the guy who was hiding in the hills of North Carolina? The one who bombed abortion clinics and the Olympic Park. We had a hard time finding somebody in our own country, but we did get him. Just like we will get OBL.

 

[tecoyah]

Seriously, gunny has been proven time and time again to be one of the most insightful and intelligent persons on this here forum. Even look at the "who do you think is the best debater in the forum" thread in the off topic portion of this forum. You will see his name mentioned several times as being the best debater in this forum.

I on the other hand haven't seen yours in that thread. Not that I am implying anything. However, you should know a little about someone before marking them off as idiotic.

You are correct....my apologies....Definately wont happen again.

Just trying to ....ahhh...nevermind.
And yes....the implications are clear....sorry to bother.

 

[cnredd]

Some people seem to think that if America had focused on Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, Osama would have been caught by now.

But then I think that Osama is pretty good at hiding in caves around the Afghan-Pakistan border. So I think you could have 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan and it would make any difference.

Bush didn't send in enough troops to capture Bin Laden when he had a better chance of capturing him in late 2001 early 2002.

Now the hunt for Bin Laden needs to be coordinated by the CIA. Problem is Bush doesn't seem to be putting any pressure on the CIA to get Bin Laden.

From an earlier post...

My theory is that he is, indeed, in the mountains of Pakistan...
here's the issue...

That area is home to tribal groups that live as if they are not
under Pakistani rule...They are Fundamental Radicals when it
comes to Islam. If they could, they would overthrow Mushareef
in an Islamabad minute...

If he were to go into that region with force, the locals would
consider it an invasion, which would result in a civil war and
a possible overthrow(which, by the way, would mean access to nukes).

Mushareef is avoiding this because of the long term interests
of the US(the nukes), but alot MORE for his own interests(survival).

He knows that giving up Bin Laden to the US might mean giving
HIMSELF up to his local enemies. Keeping him "contained" is what
is keeping himself alive...barely...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=69484&postcount=30

 

[teacher]

Absolutely. The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't....

Yea, we are done here. Next?

 

[teacher]

!?!?!?! When have you not known my posts as being less than insightful? Have you not read any of my prior in depth commentaries?

you suk....

 

[shuamort]

Why would they need to recap who is the most wanted man around the globe? I think weveryone gets the hint by now. If they dont then they are mental cases. Its like me saying to a group of people after I just got done explaining in every detail and manor that a ferrari is a better car(performance wise)than a ford pinto. And then after which someone stands up(shuamort) and asks "can you please state which car is better between the ford pinto or the ferrari?" Its kinda rediculously redundant dont you think? If people dont know by now that osama is the most wanted man then I really dont know what to say. Its kinda pitiful IMO.

Ahh, so it's wrong to keep asking about Bin Laden then too. I get it. Since the president has failed in bring him in we should just put our hands in our pockets and whistle away. :roll:

Luckily, I'm not the only one who disagrees with you.

Any news organization that has a chance to directly query the president, or Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, for that matter, at a press conference or in an interview, is derelict if it does not bring up bin Laden. Never mind whether it elicits a newsy answer. It is important to keep the president's feet to the fire.

Why is Osama bin Laden still a threat to America two years after President Bush promised to capture him "dead or alive"?

What ever happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? Rarely do you hear the name Osama anymore. The talking heads of the media rarely question his whereabouts. The Long Island Light Brigade of Hannity & O’Reilly, the Fat Cracker Brigade of Limbaugh & Hastert; the Wailing Wall Brigade of Perle & Ledeen; the Frantic Fraulein Brigade of Coulter & Parker hardly seem bothered by his fugitive status.

Have we forgotten that the aim was to arrest bin Laden?On September 17th President George Bush declared that the capture or death of Osama bin Laden was his prime objective. "I want justice", he said, "There's an old poster out West I recall that said, 'Wanted Dead or Alive.'" He also said that the purpose of going to war in Afghanistan was to "smoke him out".

I guess Bush has flip-flopped after 9/11 now.

 

[shuamort]

And you say we shouldn't worry bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

-Darryl Worley.

 

[MSgt]

You're complaining to complain.

The cold hard truth is that Bin Ladden will be caught when he makes a mistake - not when we "find" him. He has an entire world to hide in and we have an entire world to search. He is (as far as we know) contained in one region. The search goes on, the Afghani democracy is growing (though slower than it should), the Taliban is no more, Al-Queda is so fractured and damaged that it has succumbed to attacking fellow Muslim civilians (soft target) over military targets (hard target) as it once did before 9/11 sealed their fate, there is still a bounty, and I'm sure there is as much effort as can be given by the CIA. There is a point, when searching for one thing, that any extra effort becomes senseless. The "War on Terror" must continue beyond the search of one man and it has. Iraq is not the only front. We are militarily in the Phillipines, aggressively persuing diplomacy against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and India. There is more to this war than what most are focused on.

Could it be that President Bush has given the impression to the world that we are solely focused on Iraq and the Middle East and not Bin Laden to relax that situation? After all, even criminals in America are caught when they slip up and the police are tipped. It is obvious as hell that he has not been "forgotten." I have Marines in Afghanistan and there is a substantial dollar amount going to that country.

I quote myself from another thread...."No President has ever condemned (publicly) the Arab oppression that runs throughout the Middle East and the extremists and terrorism it creates. It would not be in any American's interests or the countries well being, for any President to stand in front of an internationally broadcasted airing and declare all that is wrong with this civilization and how the result of our looking away for our oil has aided this civilizations failures. It would further be a huge mistake to declare the Arab elite as the true culprit of why Islamic extremism is so tasteful to so many of the futureless youth and that they are why the Muslim world hates the west and Israel. It would be an even bigger mistake to tell the world that the blasphemous version of Islam, which is not practiced outside of the Middle East but is spreading, is not what the Prophet Muhammed preached. One also could not tell the Arab world that their governments are the one's that has oppressed them and they have used said religion to do it, while using the western world as a scapegoat. There is no way to say these things in a way that will not anger the Muslim world, infuriate the Middle East, or encourage support for dealing with it. The general american does not and will not understand the menatility of this region and are very much only interested in how many Nukes a person has. I believe that is why WMD was hammered the way it was. Keep in mind that in the mean time, we receive a substantial amount of oil from these bastards which affect our lifestyles and interests. Either way, we had to topple Saddam. He was one symptom among the many and his country posed as the only one that could not change on its own through any kind of "peaceful" diplomacy."

My point is that President Bush has taken a lot of heat regarding this "War on Terror" because he has to. I don't believe he is stupid. I believe that regardless of any prior planning to hit Saddam, since 9/11 he has listened to his military advisors. The experts who have studied this region. However, the things he hears from these advisors and other experts of the region, can not be repeated to the international public for said reasons. Any President that decided to once and for all deal with, what at least three Presidents before him was aware of, would have to deal with the heat that comes with the effort. Mainly, because he can not say all of the "truthful" things behind our actions even though most know. There must be a sense of diplomacy involved to secure American interests as we tackle this undertaking that many Americans are too obtuse to see. Sadly, I believe that many do see it, but are torn between what they percieve as "lies" and the pictures of war so they refuse to support anything that is going on. It's frustrating for everyone.