Osama Bin Forgotten

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
...comments on this forum just reinforce that Americans have no concept of patience or persistence.

True, but at least some of us know who the real enemy is.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by stuartj
Inaccessible? How did he get there?

By inaccessible, I mean inaccessible to the US. Clearly the hills of Wajiristan are pretty inaccessible to us.

It is also quite easy to hide.

It took over 20 years to find Ted Kazinsky and it was only his ego, and his brother that let them catch him. Eric Rudolph is another excellent example. As is the terrorist "Carlos" from the 1970s. It was almost 25 years before they caught him.

Hell, people didn't know where Dave Chappelle was for a few weeks.

Osama does not want to be found. He is surrounded by people that he trusts and THEY don't want him to be found. They do not use google, the internet, or even cell phones anymore, so
unless you are going to get an agent in there to penetrate that very tight inner circle, you are not going to find him unless he slips up.

However, ego is a funny thing...as with Kazinsky, I am betting it will be his ego, not some turncoat, that ultimately betrays Osama.

And like with any big fish...you've got be patient before you can reel them in. We should be prepared to wait 25 years like the French did with Carlos. Hopefully it will not take that long, but comments on this forum just reinforce that Americans have no concept of patience or persistence.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
...comments on this forum just reinforce that Americans have no concept of patience or persistence.

OBL has been a 'top priority' for over 1400 days, now.

It took less time to declare war on and ultimately defeat Japan in WWII.

[dd74]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Hopefully it will not take that long, but comments on this forum just reinforce that Americans have no concept of patience or persistence.

It's not as much about actually capturing OBL as it is the semantics of his capture, spoken by Bush after 9/11. Once, as Americans, we were led to believe he was the reason for the war on terror, and somehow we have it in the backs of our heads in lieu of the increasing death rates of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, that his capture will end the aggression, or at least somehow abate it.

I don't know, though; it seems what was the paradigm of a justified war has fallen into increasingly unjustified territory.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by dd74
It's not as much about actually capturing OBL as it is the semantics of his capture, spoken by Bush after 9/11. Once, as Americans, we were led to believe he was the reason for the war on terror, and somehow we have it in the backs of our heads in lieu of the increasing death rates of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, that his capture will end the aggression, or at least somehow abate it.

I don't know, though; it seems what was the paradigm of a justified war has fallen into increasingly unjustified territory.

I am not sure how you got that impression. I certainly never had that notion.

Quite frankly, I don't think I ever heard "Osama" and "Iraq" vocalized together unless it was by accident, as in the infamous Rumsfeld press conference.

And I don't know how his capture would mitigate losses in Iraq, when Zaqawari is clearly the main instigator there, not Osama.

The justification for the Iraq war was clearly WMD...which was bad intel...and not Osama. Now the justificiation for being there is to stabilize the country. And obviously, we are stabilizing it against terrorists.

Originally posted by Techweenie

OBL has been a 'top priority' for over 1400 days, now.

It took less time to declare war on and ultimately defeat Japan in WWII.

Ah T-Weenie...you prove my point about Americans being impatient. However, you are also incorrect.

OBL has been a "top priority" since the early 90's, which is a lot longer than 1400 days: WTC1, Embassy Bombings, Cole Bombing....remember?

But the analogy is completely apples and oranges anyway. By the same logic I could say "Well, it is significantly less time than it took for France to defeat England in the 100 Year Wars". And I'd be right...but it is clearly not a significant measure of success.

[Mule]

He's still running the liquor store.

[dd74]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
I am not sure how you got that impression. I certainly never had that notion.

Quite frankly, I don't think I ever heard "Osama" and "Iraq" vocalized together unless it was by accident, as in the infamous Rumsfeld press conference.

And I don't know how his capture would mitigate losses in Iraq, when Zaqawari is clearly the main instigator there, not Osama.

The justification for the Iraq war was clearly WMD...which was bad intel...and not Osama. Now the justificiation for being there is to stabilize the country. And obviously, we are stabilizing it against terrorists.

It's all a matter of what notion you are looking for. WMD, OBL, Sadam harboring terrorists. My point is whatever excuse was available to invade Iraq was used, leaving the president to vascilated at will as to why U.S. forces are present in the country.

One of the excuses for this so-called war on terror in Iraq is OBL.

Of course, it's also been proven that even if there weren't 9/11, we would have gone to Iraq anyway...

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Ah T-Weenie...you prove my point about Americans being impatient. However, you are also incorrect.

OBL has been a "top priority" since the early 90's, which is a lot longer than 1400 days: WTC1, Embassy Bombings, Cole Bombing....remember?

But the analogy is completely apples and oranges anyway. By the same logic I could say "Well, it is significantly less time than it took for France to defeat England in the 100 Year Wars". And I'd be right...but it is clearly not a significant measure of success.

Maybe if France had had infrared satellite spy satellite, GPS, cruise missile and cellphone tracking technology... it would have taken less time.

You see, there have been a few tech developments since the 100 years war that make your analogy ludicrous.

I never heard Clinton pronounce OBL a 'top priority' but I'll be happy to have you find that for me. He made a very strong effort to kill the guy but was ridiculed for it.

Now, there's nobody resisting the current administration's attempts to get OBL -- overtly.

I just don't think every effort is being made to get him. And you know, statements like:


don't exactly reassure.

[dd74]

LOL, Tech! Good post...

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by techweenie
Maybe if France had had infrared satellite spy satellite, GPS, cruise missile and cellphone tracking technology... it would have taken less time.

1. France either has, or has access to ALL those things. And its still took decades. It is well known that the weakness of the US intelligence is NOT it's technological base, but it's human intelligence. Sometimes there is no substitute for spys and turncoats. We are unlikely to get either close to OBL.

2. AQ no longer uses cell-phones, the internet or other high tech methods of communication. The occasional land line call through an intermediary or a video tape drop has been Osama method of communication for some time. This is also well known.

So the analogy stands.

Originally posted by techweenie
Now, there's nobody resisting the current administration's attempts to get OBL -- overtly.

Yeah...except Osama and the AQ. And they are really all that counts.

[dd74]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
So the analogy stands.

Which is...what? We have to wait 96 more years before we capture OBL? By then he'll have legend status - like Pancho Villa.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by dd74
Which is...what? We have to wait 96 more years before we capture OBL? By then he'll have legend status - like Pancho Villa.

Which is:

1. Americans don't understand patience.
2. Yes, it will take a while to catch him
3. Ego will probably give him away.

As summarized from my previous posts.

...and I think he already HAS legendary status with the people that admire him AND the people that hate him.

[techweenie]

Well, now everyone can have their way with him.

...if he gets stuck, drag him with your mouse.

http://www.little-planet.net/laden/index.htm

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
OBL has been a 'top priority' for over 1400 days, now.

It took less time to declare war on and ultimately defeat Japan in WWII.

Boy, that is really a powerful analogy...typical of "well thought out" liberal cliches....It would look great on a bumper sticker...

...So exactly which country would you have us drop the atomic bombs?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Maybe if France had had infrared satellite spy satellite, GPS, cruise missile and cellphone tracking technology... it would have taken less time.

You see, there have been a few tech developments since the 100 years war that make your analogy ludicrous.

I never heard Clinton pronounce OBL a 'top priority' but I'll be happy to have you find that for me. He made a very strong effort to kill the guy but was ridiculed for it.

Now, there's nobody resisting the current administration's attempts to get OBL -- overtly.

.......

Maybe you could explain why the Clinton administration could not ever capture Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber?

He went uncaptured for 5 years...even though he was known to live in a small town in North Carolina.

Seems like an equally "strong effort" was made to get him too.