No. 2 Al Qaeda leader dead from drone strike

[therealUT]

Absolutely not.

Imagine, a massive super power negotiating with some nut job that lives in a freakin' cave with no sustainable army? No we wouldn't come across as total p@ssies.

Do you think China or the Russians would've negotiated with Osama if he were attacking them. Fawk no.

Yeah, how did that work for Russia...

How is it working for us?

 

[rjd970]

I suggest you read Ron suskind and bob Woodward books. Unless they were complete fairytales from beginning to end then it is evident that all options were not exhausted before we went into Iraq and the intel was flimsy at best. CIA analysts were let go when they questioned any of the intel that was to go in front of the president.

As for invading Afghanistan, every terrorist organization in the world minus one were very quick to deny responsibility of 911 because they knew what was going to happen. Retaliation and punishment was the only recourse. Any other pacifist reaction would have encouraged other attacks, if for nothing else, knowing it would bring the US to the table to talk. A show of force telling everyone that such attacks will not ge tolerated was the best negotiating position.

 

[rjd970]

Given your stance here trut, what is your position on mutually assured destruction? If Russia really believed nuking us would further their political goals as opposed to ending in their own destruction, do you think war would have been avoided?

 

[therealUT]

I suggest you read Ron suskind and bob Woodward books. Unless they were complete fairytales from beginning to end then it is evident that all options were not exhausted before we went into Iraq and the intel was flimsy at best. CIA analysts were let go when they questioned any of the intel that was to go in front of the president.

I know that the evidence was flimsy; however, when they first received it, why do you think they should have taken the time to make sure that it was not flimsy? At first, the evidence seemed very strong, it was only over time (and still well before the invasion) that it began to look thinner and thinner. But, if the first hint made it look like a catastrophic threat was looming, why would you have waited in this instance, when you did not think that any time could be put aside for negotiations with the Taliban?

As for invading Afghanistan, every terrorist organization in the world minus one were very quick to deny responsibility of 911 because they knew what was going to happen.

This is patently false. 1. Non-AQ organizations did claim credit; and, 2. AQ and bin Laden denied involvement until 2003 or 2004.

Retaliation and punishment was the only recourse. Any other pacifist reaction would have encouraged other attacks, if for nothing else, knowing it would bring the US to the table to talk. A show of force telling everyone that such attacks will not ge tolerated was the best negotiating position.

Retaliation and punishment are not self-defense; that is vengeance and retribution. Therefore, they were not our only recourse. Moreover, you continually pull-out this unfounded adage that negotiation would only encourage more attacks; we do not know what it would do because we do not negotiate.

 

[therealUT]

Given your stance here trut, what is your position on mutually assured destruction? If Russia really believed nuking us would further their political goals as opposed to ending in their own destruction, do you think war would have been avoided?

Are we having this discussion as if the U.S. never stockpiled massive amounts nuclear weapons and ICBMs?

If so, then the Soviet Union would not have; they needed money and every weapon they made sunk them deeper and deeper economically.

If not, then I do not even understand how this question works.

 

[rjd970]

I'm saying show of force makes us safer in the long run than capitulating to our enemy's demands. You seem to be disagreeing.

And it isn't vengeance, it is deterrent. My kid behaves himself because he knows he will get a timeout if he doesn't, not because I've negotiated with him on what is and isn't acceptable. When he does something wrong I don't bribe him to be good, I make it clear doing the wrong thing will result in an unpleasant experience.

We don't negotiate with the al quaeda after 911, we use it to serve as a warning that attacks of that sort to anybody else that may be planning it will result in their destruction. Iraq didn't do anything to us, so the comparison doesn't apply.

On a side note, we negotiate with north Korea and by all accounts they have only strengthen their nuclear and offensive capabilities. So there is an example of where negotiation hasn't worked, and assumiing it would with a non state terrorist organization is ludicrous.

 

[volger]

OBL had been the on FBI 10 most wanted list years before 9/11. Late nineties iir. Chalk that up to intel or lack there of. 9/11 was totally preventable.

 

[therealUT]

I'm saying show of force makes us safer in the long run than capitulating to our enemy's demands. You seem to be disagreeing.

I am saying that the jury is still out; and, while the jury is out, we might as well try not to spend billions of dollars, have our soldiers kill, and kill others in the process if we can avoid it. I am saying that the effort should have been made, and it would have been reasonable to do so: we should not have military bases in Saudi (nor anywhere else outside the U.S.); we should not be allies with Israel (what benefit do we receive from this alliance); and, we should have at least taken the opportunity to call the Taliban's bluff on their offer to hand bin Laden over to be tried. We did none of that; we resorted to war immediately (it was not a last resort).

And it isn't vengeance, it is deterrent.

Is it a good deterrent? If we could simply eradicate the terrorists, then maybe it would be a good idea (this would not be a deterrent, it would actually be completely getting rid of the threats); however, most of the top military minds (particularly, Petraeus, Nagl, McChrystal, etc.) are of the opinion that every single time we kill a civilian we are most likely creating new enemies that want to kill us. That does not seem like a deterrent.

My kid behaves himself because he knows he will get a timeout if he doesn't, not because I've negotiated with him on what is and isn't acceptable. When he does something wrong I don't bribe him to be good, I make it clear doing the wrong thing will result in an unpleasant experience.

When you punish your child, how much money does that cost you, how many soldiers are killed, and how many others are killed? If we were talking about just dropping soldiers into Afghanistan and Pakistan to go around punching individuals in the face (and nobody would be killed), then your analogy would hold; however, there is an infinite gap between physical injury and death and, therefore, there is no analogous relation.

We don't negotiate with the al quaeda after 911, we use it to serve as a warning that attacks of that sort to anybody else that may be planning it will result in their destruction.

Yet, we are creating more enemies in doing so, which actually might make us more prone to attacks and we cannot police the entire world.

On a side note, we negotiate with north Korea and by all accounts they have only strengthen their nuclear and offensive capabilities. So there is an example of where negotiation hasn't worked, and assumiing it would with a non state terrorist organization is ludicrous.

We have never "negotiated" with North Korea; we have had a hardline stance from the beginning: no nuclear weapons. That may be talking, but it is not negotiating. Individuals that are open to negotiation are open to compromise.

Further, our stance on North Korean nuclear weapons is absurd. We have nuclear weapons; why can't North Korea have them? Hell, we dropped two atomic bombs in their neighborhood. North Korea, like every other sovereign nation, understands that the possession of nuclear weapons might make them safer from attack. Moreover, nuclear power, once in place, is cheaper and more efficient than most other power sources. Negotiations, not talks and lectures, with North Korea should look like this: we will allow you to produce both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, if you allow us (or the UNAEA) to monitor the production and to keep tabs on your arsenal. We will allow the UNAEA the same access to count our arsenal.

 

[hog88]

It was the terrorism and the bad faith on both sides that caused the Camp David Accords to fail, and fail miserably.



Prevented, as in prior to 9/11 (or, even prior to 1993)? Well, if we would have killed all the terrorists, they would, obviously, not have attacked us; however, we would have killed them for an attack that we thought would happen.

On a serious note, I am not sure if negotiating, seriously negotiating, with the terrorists (i.e., taking OBL's grievances seriously) would have prevented 9/11; however, it might have and we would have been no worse off had we tried. These were bin Laden's grievances from his 1998 Fatwa:



I do not think it would have been absurd to attempt to negotiate with bin Laden and offer to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, end the air campaign over Iraq, and end our alliance with Israel. That would put the ball in bin Laden's court; if he then attempted to attack Americans after that, then maybe we resort to war in Afghanistan.

How do you negotiate with a madman. In reading what you posted there was no negotiating with him or AQ. Say we relented and pulled pack, then he would have attacked Saudi Arabia then threatened to attack us if we helped. Plus nowhere have I read anything from OBL where he condems muslim on muslim killing.

He had dictator desires and no amount of apeasment would have been enough.

 

[therealUT]

How do you negotiate with a madman. In reading what you posted there was no negotiating with him or AQ.

Are we speaking of bin Laden or Kim Jung-Il? The Taliban had offered to hand bin Laden over to a third-party country; we did not even see how that would play out. As for Kim Jung-Il, he had every right, as the premier of a sovereign nation, to develop nuclear weapons.

Say we relented and pulled pack, then he would have attacked Saudi Arabia then threatened to attack us if we helped. Plus nowhere have I read anything from OBL where he condems muslim on muslim killing.

If Saudi Arabia wants to fight for their defense, then they can fight for their defense. I do not see why it is the role of the U.S. to defend every other nation.

As for bin Laden and Muslim-on-Muslim killing, again, why is it our role to police the world?

He had dictator desires and no amount of apeasment would have been enough.

Had we looked at the grievances and agreed to remove our military forces from Saudi Arabia and let Israel go it alone, bin Laden would have probably focused his efforts on wiping Israel off the map. That is not America's problem; that is Israel's problem.

 

[gsvol]

That's why we must educate them. They'll believe whatever you tell them. The lack of educated people in this country is staggering. Only about 15-20% can read.

:salute:

Too bad we felt compelled to burn the Bibles that were printed in the local languages.

Here are some excerpts and commentary on what perhaps is a more rational approach to dealing with islam, Geert Wilders:

Fantasy Islam vs. Islam | The Brussels Journal

Because it so perfectly encapsulates the point at which sparkly-brittle delusions about Islam crack up against obdurate reality, this interview is well worth revisiting, if only to bear witness to the plight of the determined delusionist as he gathers his shards of fantasy and retreats to a vaccuum where he will reassemble them, far from the buffeting facts.
------------------

Geert goes on to explain why Islam "should not be compared so much with other religions like Christianity or Judaism" but rather "to other totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Fascism. If we acknowledge that fact then you don’t have to treat it like a religion and a lot of problems can be solved....
-------------------------

("Israel is a canary in the coal mine...a beacon of light in total darkness.. I believe we should all support Israel ... in this "jihad against us all"....)
----------------------

Talking about "people" is one way to steer the debate away from ideology, history and political theory -- dangerous territory for the Islamic apologist-cum-fantasist -- and toward a more squishy, personal, emotional level. It is here where the appalling, anti-humanity imperatives of Islamic doctrine are supposed to recede among visions of ordinary, every day folks, people, kids ...
----------------------

"Don't let anybody fool you who says Islam can be moderated," Wilders says. "There are not two Islams; there is only the Islam of the Koran, the Islam of the life of Mohammed, and the Islam of sharia law."
------------------

This Islam -- call it Islam No. 2 -- is totally and completely separate, they fervently believe, from Islam No.1 -- the Islam That Wants to Detroy Us. The only problem is that No. 2 doesn't exist, not in the Koran or any of the other sacred writings and traditions of Islam.
------------------------

And apostates, according to Islamic law, must be killed. Indeed, as Geert points out a little later in the interview, a recent poll in Egypt shows that 84 percent of Egyptians want apostates from Islam to be killed.
----------------------

This is a bizarro attitude on many levels, not least of which is the reflex not to protect the liberty of the West -- doable -- but rather, as "outsiders," to mix into and imagine it possible to reshape Islam to our own uses -- impossible.
-------------------------

What this whole exchange underscores is the terrible danger we have exposed ourselves to: We in the West have become so estranged from the truth that we have no relationship with facts; they have become foreign objects to be spurned. Our main goal now is to build our walls high against them, and woe to anyone who brings them into the citadel-psyche of pretend.

James Madison himself asserted that the First Amendment does not protect sedition masquerading as religion!

It is the only conclusion supported by the facts. Islam is a military, judicial, economic, social and political ideology of absolute domination with a false religious veneer to infect the simple and the foolish. It is more virulent and pestilential than National Socialism and demands butchery and moral travesty of its adherents. It obliterates the progress of the Enlightment and is an immediate existential threat to the West.

And with the exception of a few intolerable idiots, the countless thousands of United States military personnel who have seen the blood and murder of Islam up close are a future domestic political force to be reckoned with.

The problem with concluding that the majority of Muslims are “law abiding”, is that the law of Islam is that when they live in the House of War (countries where Sharia is not yet in force), they are to posture and live in general compliance with local laws and customs. However, every Muslim knows that that the instant they achieve sufficient strength, then they must be fully faithful Muslims.

Part of being a fully faithful Muslim is obeying the Sharia law that demands they kill any apostate. Further, this law claims that anyone who has ever been born a Muslim cannot leave Islam without being liable for execution.