Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

75% Of Al Quida Killed Or Captured

Recommended Posts

I can promise you that the reputation of Iran in the United states is not something that has developed in the last three years, nor is it something GWB has cultivated.

 

Maybe it looks that way from the outside but withing the US there has been a very deep seated hate, mistrust, and suspicion of Iran for a long time. The stereotypical American hates Iran. Come hang out in a typical backyard BBQ or in a local tavern and bring up Iran, you will hear a lot of hate that has nothing to do with recent events. People don't generally understand why really, at least not in any real sense, it is nonetheless true.

 

(in mine and that of many others opinions)

Yes, but not all. An opinion does not make something true. You may feel that way, but just as equally I don't nor do many others. Frankly, people are fairly divided on it, so it is hardly conclusive.

 

 

The two became one? I am sorry you see it that way because it isn't true. It hasn't been sold that way either. There are a certain number that see it that way that I consider fairly ignorant, but there are equally ignorant views at the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

So you believe the US is going to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran? I guess time will tell. Do you have a time frame in this prediction? I wonder what odds the bookies will give on that one. I simply highly doubt that will happen. It would seem to just be inflamatory rhetoric, it's just so outside the realm of possibility in my view.

 

As far as attacking Iraq, yes, that could happen. I don't think the stage is nearly set for such a thing but if we extrapolate wildly it could happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no time frames other than the feeling that if anyone would do it, it would be George/ No facts or conclusive evidence either, only fears.

 

Time will tell and I only hope you are right and I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I hope so too.

 

If you are being honest and that is a real fear for you then I think it speaks loudly. Fear is insidious and can be highly infective. It can in fact produce self fulfilling prophesies.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tis has been a long and most of the time an interesting thread.

 

So I looked into my Crystal Ball and have seen the following headlines in the newspapers next Monday.

 

Missing Explosives found.

 

Osama bin Laden captured

 

WMD's found.

 

All terroists captured.

 

All coalition troops home by Christmas.

 

Bush for President?? anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got the Al Queda under control eh? Where is Osama... he seems to still be an after thought and the one responsible for 9/11. The excuses for not finding him after all the technology and man power spent over there are wearing THIN.

 

As long as he is running around free there will NEVER be any justice for the victims of 9/11. They can capture these folks all day long but NONE of them would bring the satisfaction most Americans would feel if OBL was in custody just as Saddam is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True.

 

I remember there were some predictions on this forum, I don't remember who made them, that Osama would be captured right before the elections, that there was political motivation involved in the timing and they were holding off.

 

Time is growing short for the conspiracy theorists on this one.

 

The same prediction was made regarding Saddam, but we already got him so that theory kind of dissolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is not going to use "nucular" weapons on terrorists. It's like swatting flies with a sledgehammer and Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to try that.

 

We still have a week to go before the election, who knows what's going to happen. A few months ago Tom Ridge came out and said they had evidence that terrorists were going to try and disrupt the US elections, but now they've backed off that claim and it turns out most of it was based on pre-9/11 information squeezed out of Guantanamo guests.

 

Fear *is* insidious, and the thought that Bush will keep America safe is the fear driving some people to vote for him. What worries me is that the safest state in some ways is a police state. Saddam's Iraq had a heck of a lot more order than today's version. We are giving up civil liberties in return for protection against the rare potential of a terrorist bombing. I think Ben Franklin had a quote about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand some may vote Bush because of fear, but I think far fewer than implied.

 

That's not whay I am voting for him and although there is much talk of fear mongering I have never actually heard of anybody voting for Bush due to fear.

 

Have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although there is much talk of fear mongering I have never actually heard of anybody voting for Bush due to fear.

 

Have you?

Sure, people don't say "I'm scared" but they do say "I'm voting for Bush because he'll keep us safe" or "Bush has stopped the terrorists from attacking us again." They are willing to put their safety above all else, including the civil rights of people they do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is a good example. He has slowly, yet surely demonised the country over the last 3 years and is softening up your populace for the inevitable strike. I hope I am wrong and that the strike isn't nuclear.

Iran is a bad example...nobody in this country thinks to highly of Iran....even the Iranians. This isnt something new either, Im young but I cannot remember a time when Iran wasnt listed as supporting terrorism and or a terroristic nation.

 

The perfect example would be the shift in US relations with Pakistan since the war on terror started. They went from a terrorist supporter to a friend in 3.5 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got the Al Queda under control eh? Where is Osama... he seems to still be an after thought and the one responsible for 9/11. The excuses for not finding him after all the technology and man power spent over there are wearing THIN.

 

a quick question...would you actually feel safer if we killed Osama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, people don't say "I'm scared" but they do say "I'm voting for Bush because he'll keep us safe" or "Bush has stopped the terrorists from attacking us again." They are willing to put their safety above all else, including the civil rights of people they do not know.

I have never heard anybody say that either.

 

Have you really heard that?

 

 

EDIT:

 

In fact, that is only what I hear Bush detractors saying that Bush supporters say. I have never actually heard anybody say it.

 

Frankly, that's not what I believe and is not why my vote is for Bush.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick question...would you actually feel safer if we killed Osama?

not really directed at me but no, i wouldn't feel safer either way. at this stage, what difference does it make? 10 times the number of people who perished in 9/11 will die of the flu n related problems this season....n' in alcohol - related car accidents.

 

so who's safe? i have no doubt that the "fear" bush has instilled is a political ploy for votes. i also think that 'we' are less safe now than 3 years ago what with the new Al-Quida in Iraq....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC has been running a townhall series all week in reference to the election in the U.S. Tonight they are in Pennsylvania.

 

Interestingly , some are saying tonight that they are voting against Bush out of fear. One woman stated that she felt that the U.S. is less safe now than ever before. She went on to say that immediately after 9/11 , the U.S. had the support of the entire world .

 

Even when the U.S. went into Afghanistan , the world supported the action.

 

She felt that circumstances changed when the U.S. went into Iraq . The majority disagreed , hence making the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick question...would you actually feel safer if we killed Osama?

I for one certainly would feel safer if he were captured.

 

I would feel much safer knowing Bin Laden was in custody. He is after all personally responsible for attacks on the United States, attacks that killed thoudsands of US citizens, yet someone in their idiotic lapse of judgement decided to go on a wild goose chase in Iraq, destablizing the whole region, creating a whole new ever growing number of terrorists and people who dislike the US in the process, a process that is costing the US soldiers their limbs and lives, and costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars that we simply do not have to spend, burying us deeper and deeper into debt everyday.

 

I would like to give all the limbs back to our soldiers, Iwould like to give all the sons and daughters back to their mothers and fathers, I would like to give Saddam back to Iraq, I would like to trade it all to see Bin Laden in custody, but that will not happen as long as he is not the primary concern of this administration, that will not happen as long as all our rescources are misdirected and diverted to a war that should not have happened in the first place.

 

Yes I would ceratinly feel safer if Bin Laden was in custody, a man who plotted to attack, has the finacial backing to attack, and has proven he can and will attack whenever he wants. He will attack again, it is not a question of if he will attack, but rather when will he attack.

 

A quick question.

 

Do you feel safer knowing he is still out there?

 

3 million illegal immigrants waltzed into this country this year. I wonder how many terrorists waltzed in with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick question...would you actually feel safer if we killed Osama?

I am not worried about my sefety now and I never have been, to capture Osama would be a victory in the fact that it will bring closure to all of those who lost loved ones in 9/11.

 

I want him caught so those who lost loved ones can feel some relief, and those who have been fighting for our freedom can see some results, it will have little affect on terrorism as a whole but symbolically it would be a great victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

"Are you implying that there was warranted fear in the Middle East that the US would use Nukes against Iraq?"

 

No - I am STATING as fact that many Russians feared (and some still fear) America as an aggressive military presence, ready to interefere in other countries business when it suits them politiclaly, economically or both.

 

Is that fear well-founded? I don't know - my perspective is probably a lot different to most Russians perspective in that I have lived in the US and have family and loved ones there.

 

Similarly my perception of Russia is probably very different from most Americans becaasue I have lived in Russia and have family and loved ones there, too.

 

The Russian TV stations show a LOT of Hollywood movies - and you may be surprised to find that a lot of American movies are aggressive and violence-filled. This is not the tradition in Europe.

 

Also in MOST Hollywood movies, the enemy is usually some mythical (or real) eastern bloc country. Heavily accented overweight women-beating bad guys - and most of the people in Russia I know are savvy enough to know that, whilst most Americans are intelligent enough to realise their counterparts no more fit the stereotype than the fat, overly be-jewelled, badly dressed ignorant tourist stereotype of Americans fits most Americans, nevertheless the stereotype persists in contemporary movies.

 

And if you ar going to hate somoeone, the laziest way to get your information on your "enemy" is through the media stereotypes. Makes them easier to de-humanize.

 

 

"I don't believe that fear of a US nuclear attack is truly representative of the situation."

 

Me neither. Nevertheless, the US has a history of invasion. It even invaded Grenada and embarrassed the Brits when it did. (I THINK they had not been told beforehand an invasion was going to happen).

 

I am not sitting in judgement on whether or not those invasions were justified - maybe you even find the word "invasion" unpalatable.

So let's use the word "actions" instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you are going to hate somoeone, the laziest way to get your information on your "enemy" is through the media stereotypes. Makes them easier to de-humanize.

I say , old chap, steady on, what ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Though there are other nuclear powers, we are the only one that understands the responsibility from the standpoint of having used them. Frankly, it is some of the others that worry me."

 

I really don't understand this. Of course you are right that America is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in anger, but what does your statement MEAN?

 

Are you suggesting that, because America is the only nuclear power to have used them, that it somehow knows better than any other the nation the effect of the devastation? I respectfully suggest the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know a little more about it than anybody else of whatever nationality.

 

And other nations have seen the effects and so are aware of the devaastation and repsonsibility.

 

Are you saying America learned how awful it must be to make the decision to drop bombs of devastating power on other nations?

 

Don't you credit ANY other nations with enough knowledge and imagination to understand the repsonsibility? MAYBE that is why no other nation has ever used nuclear weapons?

 

I have the power to kill somebody else - the fact that I haven't doesn't mean I have any less understanding of the repsonsibilty I owe to refrain form doing so - I don't need to kill in order to learn how awful killing is.

 

Me - I credit politicians with enough sense (or concenr for their political future) not to start lobbing radioactive missiles in each others directions. I AM concerned about terrorists getting hold of such devices.

 

 

Incidentally on BBC today there was an AMerican academic (missed his name) who claims approximately 50 suitcase sized nuclear weapons are unaccounted for in Russia. He suggests GWBs "war on terror" is focused in the wrong arrea. Instead of looking for bin Laden he should be looking for lost weapons / nuclear material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would feel safer with Osama caught or killed.

 

He is a near mythic symbol of resistance against western values. Killing or capturing any hero diminishes the stature of that hero. Killing or capturing him will not end terrorism and it will not end his many cells of terror that have grown up to follow in his foot steps but it will create a temporary power vacuum. It will demonstrate that you can run but not hide. It may provide valuable intelligence. It will reduce his cult like status. It may provide a symbolic victory against terrorism. It will reinforce the belief that the US can achieve its mission.

 

How can Osama not be our highest priority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard anybody say that either. Have you really heard that? In fact, that is only what I hear Bush detractors saying that Bush supporters say. I have never actually heard anybody say it.

 

Yep, saw two people on the CBS news say almost those exact words about a week ago. I don't know where they find these folks, or how many there are out there, but they easily found two they could put on TV and that tells me there are more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing or capturing any hero diminishes the stature of that hero.

I respectfully disagree. A living hero is a step below a martyr killed by the forces of evil (as perceived by his appreciators). Osama's ability to run rings around us in out pathetic efforts to capture him is, I am sure, a great source of pleasure to his followers. His death however, will take his name onto a whole new level.

 

I still say we should find and kill the bum though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can Osama not be our highest priority?

Depends on what you mean by 'our'. The main goal of any government is to stay in power. Sure they have ideological goals but they will disguise or lie about them if necessary to become elected; apologies can come after the election if needed. And I'm not just talking about Bush here.

 

I think Afghanistan emboldened the Bush administration, making them think that it would be just as easy in Iraq. It hasn't turned out that way. In a few more years we'll be able to get enough of the story in the rear view mirror and figure out why.

 

"The first step to a successful revolution is destroying all competing revolutionaries." -- New Radicals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think Afghanistan emboldened the Bush administration, making them think that it would be just as easy in Iraq. It hasn't turned out that way. In a few more years we'll be able to get enough of the story in the rear view mirror and figure out why."

 

I agree. Personally I think that this is incredibly poor judgment and I don't mean in retrospect.

 

To compare Afghanistan which is sparsely populated, mostly agrarian, historically ruled by warlords, worn down by years of fighting with the USSR, with some favorable thoughts/feelings toward the US because we helped the insurgents in the fight for liberation from the USSR, working against a very recently imposed, very unpopular, brutally oppressive regime and that is politically isolated.

 

In contrast Iraq has large cities that are densely packed, the population aggregates into a few very large population segments, the population has not had a favorable relationship with the US for almost 1 generation, the population was harmed by the the US for over 10 years with war, then sanctions. The population has a had the same government for 20 years, the government was stable and relied upon an extensive network of spies and murders to exist.

 

I just don't see why one would think that these are similar situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. A living hero is a step below a martyr killed by the forces of evil (as perceived by his appreciators). Osama's ability to run rings around us in out pathetic efforts to capture him is, I am sure, a great source of pleasure to his followers. His death however, will take his name onto a whole new level.

 

I still say we should find and kill the bum though :P

What if he's already dead?

 

What if the US got in there, did the deed and then the media were asked to keep quiet? Precisely because he might just become a martyr?

 

He hasn't been seen on film for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...