"Would killing Bin Laden end terrorism? "


It will help end inspiration for suicide bombers imo. If I'm on the right track then it will also help marginalize the fanatics as shown recently by Egypt and Saudi Arabia denouncing Hammas.

30 days after the court's decree on Saddam the sentence has to be carried out according to Iraq law. I figure it will be telecast in Iraq. Can't figure if it will be in the US? The ACLU is probably scheming already on who they can sue over telecasting a necktie party.

The claim that Clinton "broke some laws that he was elected to uphold is pure crap". These were dubious (and the investigation proved it) claims about suposed wrong doing on Clinton's part from a business deal that had happend 30 years before he was elected. The republican operatives who started the witch hunt were quite clear on pursuing a strategy to get Clinton at any cost. The ultimate failure of this investigation was to pursue idiotic claims about Vince Forster and the Lewinsky relationship.

For balance, perhaps they ought to assign a special procecutor to bush to pursue all of his business deals? I think the outcome would be interesting. More to the point, this administration has oughtright broken laws and violated treaties. This would be a more relavent investigation.

The double standards that fly around are just over the top.

Both Clinton (Serbia, Kosovo. Sudan) and Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan) could be tried for war crimes.

I'd like to see concurrent trials, one in Texas and one in Arkansas.

"The republican operatives who started the witch hunt were quite clear on pursuing a strategy to get Clinton at any cost."

if you say so

Ken Starr didn't find enough to guarantee a conviction is a clearer understanding imo.



There were many ties to scandals but not enough to secure a conviction. If no conviction then it would have morphed into "witch hunt" rhetoric by the Dems. The Clintons are pros imo.

Chinagate.. the $ for missiles scandal.

Missing billing records.

Cattlegate.. the $100k investment profit in less than a yr.

Healthcare-gate.. when she had illegal closed door meetings.

Travelgate.. the firing of career White House travel employees.

Filegate.. the illegal collection of FBI files on Rep members of Congress.

Money-for Silence scandal.. when Webster Hubbell got a payoff of about $1m

The Vincent Foster's office ransacking after he died.

Campaign-gate.. when she was using the Air Force to ferry her to NY

that's all I can remember now.

For goodness sakes...he was caught red-handed and plea-bargained his way down to paying off the complaintant and losing his ability to practice law.

I cannot believe you can justify any elected official lying under oath...much less the President.

Killing bin Laden would be about as effective as invading Iraq - in other words it would only inflame people more and draw more martyrs to the cause.

The administration seeking to consolidate its power base by creating a "wartime society" would be best off with the OBL figurehead "out there" to make it easier to justify "wartime" tactics and expendatures. In other words, it's easier to quell the concerns of those pesky civil liberties types if you can point to the conflict and say "well, it's different right now. . . we're at WAR!" Gets those annoying Constitutional issues out of the way. Ditto on basic founding principles and American ideologies. You can just say "oh this is temporary" and then take advantage of the short attention span of the public long-term.

That's honestly what I think this war is about - domestic power and control. . . along with an opportunistic way to make affiliated wealthy interests even more wealthy. There's simply no other hypothesis I've heard to explain it that makes a shread of sense. Ockham's Razor. Plain and simple.

FWIW I think the U.S. knows absolutely where bin Laden is - perhaps he's even under constant surveillance - however they're not willing to finish the job and kill or capture him because they can gain so much more in the way of power/wealth/control by having him be a figure "at large". It has the added bonus of making it a machine that feeds itself. . . bin Laden is NOT "Al Qaeda" and this point was (correctly) made in the early days after the 9/11 attacks. However the administration has villified him and made it SEEM to a non-critical and rather vapid/stupid public that he IS the same as the organization. He's not. The reality is that taking him out wouldn't do squat to Al Qaeda other than piss them off. However most of the chest-beating knuckle-draggers out there don't accept this and say "Hell yeah! Kill that S-O-B and let's get back to the good old days when the U.S.A. was #1! We'll show them!" In so doing, bin Laden's "value" in terms of justifying a mission/purpose to attacks on civil liberties at home and international treaties/reputation internationally is magnified to those that benefit by it (most notably Cheney, Bush and affiliated cronies).

In any case, capturing or killing bin Laden would "end" the war to the majority of the dumbass American public out there and undermine the legitimacy of the efforts to exploit the war for personal, political or partisan gain - which is what I think this is REALLY about at its core. That neocon puppet Bush could stand up there and yap about how "the capture of bin Laden does NOT end the war on terror!" until he was blue in the face, but the perception would not agree with this statement and just like with the capture of Saddam Hussein, public support for the effort would decay shortly thereafter, leaving us exposed and vulnerable to a barely-weakened adversary - who would gladly exploit our own stupidity to attack us again.

The only thing I believe in more strongly than the ill-intentions of this adminstration is the idiocy of the American public. It's a sad situation for all that exposes only the worst all parties involved have to offer.

But to answer the original question "would capturing OBL end the 'war on terror'?" Not a chance. It would "end" the war in the minds of a short-sighted public here at home. It would end the ability of the administration to exploit the "war" for their own ends but it most certainly would NOT end the war for Al Qaeda and set the stage for a much more violent and deadly attack a few years down the road.

That sort of thinking got us into this war, tough talk, pride in avenging our honor.

While the rest of the world would not have anything to do with what we wanted to do, so we made fun of them, we change French Fries to Freedom Fries.

The window to kill Bin Laden closed 4.5 years ago. The message that had to be sent is if you attack something like the WTC and Pentagon you will die shortly thereafter.

That message has not been sent. He directly attacked then thumbed his nose at the USA and got away with it. Even if he gets killed just before the next elections (my prediction) it will not matter anymore. Every day after the WTC attack was a day too many.

First point: While that might be true with nations, we are instead talking about criminals.

Second point: I completely disagree. Most of the nations of the world were with us -- including France -- when we attacked Afghanistan.

We are talking here about killing OBL, not the GWB jerkoff in Iraq.

am I correct to assume you are referring to OBL as a criminal ?


i'm a little slow today.... thx

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1158542698.jpg

Even killing him five years later is retribution.

Some of the posters in this thread would have let this guy go free, I guess.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1158545047.jpg

9-11 was not OBL's (or other terrorists) first attack on US citizens by a long shot. Why is it only important to have retribution for an attack during a conservative administration when they were given a pass for the previous 8 years?

So the cruise missiles Clinton ordered launched against suspected Al Qaeda facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 were a "free pass"?

Good to know you think of cruise missiles as a free pass. Maybe we should deliver one to your front door and see if you still think the same way when you see that sucker bearing down on you. . .

Here's a link (one of many) for anyone interested - preferably those that don't fart out their mouths about "free passes":

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

Later on in tonight's neocon circle-jerk, they're going to roast s'mores, burn a copy of the Federalist Papers and figure out a way to blame Clinton for the 33% decline in really great donkey porn over the last six years. . .

I don't think killing Bin Laden would do much. Might cause a temporary problem with the higher level organization... but...


... I think the problem with terrorism is much MUCH more deeply rooted.

Just look at how the 'peace loving' muslims reacted to what the Pope QUOTED.

Now that is funny! Of course it was a free (albeit expensive) pass. Your link would be convincing if it were not the same week he admitted he had sex with Monica Lewinski (good distracting, wag the dog type attack where no one is hurt) or if the military had not already advised him that Bin Laden was not there. There was even a link to an article (printed 7 days earlier) on the link you posted that showed that the camps were known to already have been evacuated. Sure, send a few missiles to my house 7 days after you were notified by CNN that I have moved. It will not scare me a bit. LOL!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/13/bombing.bin.laden/

Worse yet, the article clearly reminds us that it was no secret that:
So by 1998, he had been given a "free pass" by Clinton for 5 years!

If I'm not mistaken, Bush's voice called the loudest for retribution. Everyone else was too busy looking for dead relatives and friends in the WTC attack, or trying to emerge from shock.

I agree with bringing Bin Laden to justice. I was at the Pentagon that day and probably am more eager than most for payback. But, liberals are only using it as a political ploy. They did not see it as very important to chase Bin Laden when they were in office. No one in the administration has forgotten Bin Laden...he will get his due.... but there are active terrorists out there (not hiding in womens clothes) that also need to be dealt with.

I don't disagree with you, Fint about Dem Presidents being somewhat powerless against terrorism. But on the subject of magnitude, WTC Attack II was much larger than WTC Attack I, and others, like the Cole, which took place off U.S. soil. I don't think anyone is making excuses for Clinton, just as no one made excuses for Carter's ineffectiveness with Iran in 1979. In fact, IIRC, Carter was criticized for his ineffectiveness by Democrats as well as Republicans back then. The fact is, if a Dem was in office now and the same scenario were occuring with OBL, the criticism would be just as loud for the Dem as the current Rep.

I guarantee that if a Dem wins the presidency in '08, and this war on terror carries on as it has been, and OBL is still at large, the ire will be deep and unrelenting for that president, particularly if that president is a "she."

Actually they are (not you). You must have missed that post.

The first attack on the WTC (designed to bring the entire tower down) was very ambitious...just not very successful. The lack of response in Somalia, WTC 1 and the Cole all led to the WTC 2 IMHO

The point is, Bin Laden was not in hiding before...and was an easy target. He has literally vanished from the face of the earth now. Believe me...if I had any idea where to find him, I would immediately be there with friends. A share of $25M buys a lot of Porsche parts.