Bin Laden possibly dead...

[ ] war against terror is won now

Quote:

Original post by maximAL [ ] war against terror is won now

Yeah, just like the allies lost WWII when Roosevelt died.

Quote:

Original post by maximAL [ ] war against terror is won now

Nope. Bush already said he doesn't care about OBL. The War on Terror will still be fought so long as someone can score political points with it.

Quote:

Yeah, just like the allies lost WWII when Roosevelt died.

If it happened in 2002, it would have been more like the Allies winning in Europe when Hitler died.

Quote:

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

Paralysis of his internal organs? So far I haven't been able to find any online medical references that describe that result from typhoid.

Typhoid Fever, Paratyphoid Fever, Typhoid and paratyphoid enteric fevers.

I did find these earlier obits - well, sort of obits.

FBI Official Thinks Bin Laden Is Dead (July 17, 2002)
Bin Laden, Dead? (October 25, 2001)
Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
Jihadist website: ‘Bin laden dead’ (April 29, 2005)

If it was true, I think Bush and his cronies would be crowing about it at the top of their lungs as this is an election year here in the US and the GOP has become quite unpopular and could use a boost like this. On the other hand, that he died before they could catch him wouldn't be much for them to get excited about.

Quote:

Original post by SticksandStones Nope. Bush already said he doesn't care about OBL. The War on Terror will still be fought so long as someone can score political points with it.

Indeed. After all, if you want to keep your war-on-terror going, you don't want a win-condition that is so easily and conclusively fulfilled.

google news lists 455 articles on the topic already: link

Looks like it will be in this mornings newspaper in Seattle: France looks into bin Laden death report - that's and Associated Press story.

So if Bin Laden is truly dead, what reason does the United States have for gracing Iraq with its presence? It was clear from the start that Democracy in Iraq was only a bonus for US occupation, not the means for being there in the first place... In the case that he IS dead, it will be interesting to see what kind of response the Bush administration gives for their reasoning for staying put.

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 So if Bin Laden is truly dead, what reason does the United States have for gracing Iraq with its presence? It was clear from the start that Democracy in Iraq was only a bonus for US occupation, not the means for being there in the first place... In the case that he IS dead, it will be interesting to see what kind of response the Bush administration gives for their reasoning for staying put.

How about a peacekeeping operation to keep the area from falling into a full blown civil war that could then lead to the other countries in the reigion carving it, and its population, up into little bits for themselves.

im willing to bet money that bin laden has been dead for years. even in 2001, doctors reportedly said that he was in very poor health and was likely to last maybe a year at best.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Quote: Original post by Rain 7 So if Bin Laden is truly dead, what reason does the United States have for gracing Iraq with its presence? It was clear from the start that Democracy in Iraq was only a bonus for US occupation, not the means for being there in the first place... In the case that he IS dead, it will be interesting to see what kind of response the Bush administration gives for their reasoning for staying put. How about a peacekeeping operation to keep the area from falling into a full blown civil war that could then lead to the other countries in the reigion carving it, and its population, up into little bits for themselves.

Peacekeeping? Not sure if you are keeping score, but very little has changed for the better since the US has occupied Iraq. The 3 sovereign groups in Iraq are merely biding their time while the democratic process appears to be treading water. Meanwhile, there is more killing occurring between the 3 groups than ever before. It isn't the US place to go in and maintain an entire region simply because there is a possibility of civil war, even when they may served as a catalyst to its birth in the first place. Frankly, US occupation isn't doing anything to ease the possibility of civil war and I believe its a bit naive to think otherwise. In the event that civil war breaks out in Iraq, it could be argued that the very presence of the United States (along with their willingness to meddle in the political affairs of other nations) upset the balance of powers between the 3 sovereign bodies. This inadvertently may lead to civil war.

I realize its a positive thing for the US to try to do the right thing by introducing Democracy in the war torn region, but I am not sure anyone stopped to think whether it was feasible goal from the very beginning. What works for the United States politically doesn't automatically work for everyone else.

[Edited by - Rain 7 on September 23, 2006 8:04:49 AM]

If this turns out to be true. . .
Death is terrible, even the death of a monster. But, I hope it gives some of his victims some closure.

It'll be interesting to see if he actually is dead -- that would mean he was hiding in Pakistan, like a lot of people stated around 9/12, and would make the entire Afghanistan mess completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya It'll be interesting to see if he actually is dead -- that would mean he was hiding in Pakistan, like a lot of people stated around 9/12, and would make the entire Afghanistan mess completely irrelevant.

Afghanistan was irrelevant from the beginning. We could have had him sent to a neutral nation, but we didn't. We decided it would make more sense to start two wars and get thousands of soldier (and hundreds of thousands of civilians) killed instead.

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 Quote: Original post by Talroth Quote: Original post by Rain 7 So if Bin Laden is truly dead, what reason does the United States have for gracing Iraq with its presence? It was clear from the start that Democracy in Iraq was only a bonus for US occupation, not the means for being there in the first place... In the case that he IS dead, it will be interesting to see what kind of response the Bush administration gives for their reasoning for staying put. How about a peacekeeping operation to keep the area from falling into a full blown civil war that could then lead to the other countries in the reigion carving it, and its population, up into little bits for themselves. Peacekeeping? Not sure if you are keeping score, but very little has changed for the better since the US has occupied Iraq. The 3 sovereign groups in Iraq are merely biding their time while the democratic process appears to be treading water. Meanwhile, there is more killing occurring between the 3 groups than ever before. It isn't the US place to go in and maintain an entire region simply because there is a possibility of civil war, even when they may served as a catalyst to its birth in the first place. Frankly, US occupation isn't doing anything to ease the possibility of civil war and I believe its a bit naive to think otherwise. In the event that civil war breaks out in Iraq, it could be argued that the very presence of the United States (along with their willingness to meddle in the political affairs of other nations) upset the balance of powers between the 3 sovereign bodies. This inadvertently may lead to civil war. I realize its a positive thing for the US to try to do the right thing by introducing Democracy in the war torn region, but I am not sure anyone stopped to think whether it was feasible goal from the very beginning. What works for the United States politically doesn't automatically work for everyone else.

You are missing the point. The US went in there are CAUSED what could lead to a civilwar if they are not there to keep things from going totaly to hell. Had they not been there, then Saddam Hussein would have kept the 'peace'.

If you run into someone's house and start remodeling without being asked, don't you think you should stay till the job is done, and not duck out while you have all the walls torn down?

Quote:

Original post by Talroth You are missing the point. The US went in there are CAUSED what could lead to a civilwar if they are not there to keep things from going totaly to hell. Had they not been there, then Saddam Hussein would have kept the 'peace'. If you run into someone's house and start remodeling without being asked, don't you think you should stay till the job is done, and not duck out while you have all the walls torn down?

I'd probably feel like a dumbass for doing something so stupid, and the homeowner will probably call the cops and get me arrested, and hire someone else they can actually trust to do the repair job. Or they might end up doing something entirely different with the property if it seems to infeasible to rebuild it back up to something comparable to what it was before.

[edit]My main point being that analogies are sometimes not a very good way to make an argument. My secondary point being that as I described in the analogy, I do believe we should be punished for our actions, and I believe that being obligated to finish the job seems like a rather idiotic and inappropriate punishment.[/edit]

FYI, as of a few days ago the Afghanistan/Iraq death toll exceeded that of 9/11.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya FYI, as of a few days ago the Afghanistan/Iraq death toll exceeded that of 9/11.

Stay the course. It is clearly working.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth You are missing the point. The US went in there are CAUSED what could lead to a civilwar if they are not there to keep things from going totaly to hell. Had they not been there, then Saddam Hussein would have kept the 'peace'.

...What I am saying is that the US very presence is doing nothing to promote peace within the 3 peoples. Besides, there are plenty of civilians in Iraq who could give you accounts of terror on behalf of US soldiers...including abduction, rape, murder and general sadism. What the hell is so peaceful about that? Are you going to sit there and tell me that Iraq is better off now? I agree that there seems to be more of a sense of freedom and personal liberty in Iraq but that will be very shortlived I reckon, especially when our troops begin to withdraw... There is still a great deal of unrest and unhappiness within that region and this will be true with or without the US contributions.

edit: War Has Worsened Terrorist Threat

Quote:

Original post by TalrothIf you run into someone's house and start remodeling without being asked, don't you think you should stay till the job is done, and not duck out while you have all the walls torn down?

...No. lol

[Edited by - Rain 7 on September 24, 2006 12:53:06 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya FYI, as of a few days ago the Afghanistan/Iraq death toll exceeded that of 9/11.

That's been in the news here too but you know, that's all about whitewashing the deaths of Iraqis and Afghanis. If you take those deaths into consideration, the 9/11 toll was passed quite a long time ago and has been repaid ten-fold if not a hundred-fold.