View Full Version : Historic Perspective on Bush vs. Bin-Laden ...
02-01-2008, 11:08 PM
Every time I bring this up in conversations, people of all political leanings seem to say they "don't care" about it - don't care where he is. But I feel pretty strongly that about our failure to capture Bin-Laden has encouraged thrid-world Islam to idolize him, and hence, to embrace his philosophies.
So lemme poll the room ....
My thesis is: The United States' continuing failure to capture bin-Laden, the 9/11 criminal who knocked down the towers, is a Commander-in-Chief failure of historic proportion. I don't think we grasp the historic gravity of this failure in the short term, but it is a massive and unprecedented military/tactical/intelligence/law enforcement failure that bin-Laden is still free.
History will focus on our failure to capture him immediately as a prime motivator for the metastic growth of radical Islam globally in the first years of this century ... a kind of "Rome collapsed from within" kind of historic failure, especially when coupled with unchecked and largely tolerated illegal immigration.
Pakistan freely allowed US troops room to maneuver in the year after 9/11, so they could catch bin-Laden. Six years later, radical Islam is flourishing in this third-world nuclear state, and that flourishing has been spured by the continual presence of US forces - forces that shouldda found bin-Laden and his coterie, and been outta Pakista three or four years ago.
Capturing them immediately would have proven - for lack of a better saying - that crime does not pay. That radical terrorists would be hunted down and brought to justice - not permitted to remain at large with a dismissive wave of the hand.
02-02-2008, 12:01 AM
No not because your thesis is wrong ......I want Bin Ladin caught , still do today , but I am not under the illusion that it will slow down terrorism , only one thing will do that , foriegn policy change .......
where Bush went wrong was invading Iraq , we would have had alot more support if we had stayed in Afghanistan .....the War on these assholes is real , we need to take it serious , invading Iraq just created more terrorism .......
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Let me see if I can anticipate Lone Bolt here:
"Yeah, I know Bush said that getting Bin Laden was the most important thing in the world, and that Dubya later flip-flopped and said he didn't care about Bin Laden, but you have no conclusive evidence that Bush didn't really believe in his own mind that he was right in both instances, so there!"
I voted yes because I do think the Bush administration's failure to capture or kill bin-Laden will have far reaching consequences. but I'm not sure it opened the door to radical Islam. It is US imperialism that has fathered radical Islam in the West anyway.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-02-2008, 03:02 AM
I was calling for his head on a stick after 9/11, (before it became evident that Team Bush was bullsh*tting us about the attacks) but now I think I'd like to see him captured and interrogated so we can find out what he knows about both al Qaeda and the Bush Crime Family.
I just had a thought. If ben-Laden really wanted to bring down the USA and there was some government involvement in 9/11 surely he would tell all therefore one must conclude there is nothing to report by him. Maybe they promised him New Jersey if he kept his mouth shut.
02-02-2008, 02:05 PM
I voted yes .... but I'm not sure it opened the door to radical Islam. It is US imperialism that has fathered radical Islam in the West anyway.
Maybe "opened the door" was the wrong phrase. I should've said, "made radical Islam much more attravctive to tens of millions of young third-world Muslims who see bin-Laden remaining free. They take that freedom as a victory over the U.S." I think Radical Islam would have far, FAR fewer recruits had we captured him quickly.
Apparently OBL t-shirts are extremely popular in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan (even in North Africa and Indonesia), he's a rock-star type hero to the youth there, according to an Anderson Cooper report on 60 Minutes about a year ago. Had we captured him inside a year and brought him to trial, that would not be the case. And the reward is $25 Million or more ... so he must be held in pretty high regard to lots of rural Muslims there. These are simple-minded folks - not dumb, but simple-mided - and they all believe that OBL "beat" the United States. That kind of a victory, celebrated throughout any society, will mold the behavior and guide the choices of the youth of that society ... George Washington's Continental Army employed guerilla tactics to defeat the British, and we celebrate him to this day.
I completely agree with your clarification. One point however, if the the reward had been offered in virgins and goats instead of dollars we'd have ben-Laden in chains by now. ;D
Why do the troofers (LABF and gaffney) care about OBL? He didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
02-02-2008, 02:44 PM
Imagine this analogy:
1948, seven years after Pearl Harbor (AP) - The United States claims that despite searching the Pacific Ocean for more than seven years, they still cannot locate the rogue Japanese aircraft carrier group that attacked Pearl Harbor. "It's a big damn ocean," Admiral Halsey said, "we think the ships are hiding somewhere in the Indonesian Island groups, but the Islanders living there are sympathetic to them and help them remain hidden."
"I really don't think about them much," said president Roosevelt, "wherever they are, they can't get gas to refuel their planes, so I don't care really. We're more worried now about the war I started against another Asian country that is not Japan."
Mr. Roosevelt further stated that because Emperor Hirohito had denounced the attack, he is satisfied that Japan is no longer a terrorist state. The president added that the nation's number one priority would be "fighting global rogue aircraft-carrier battle group terrorism."
The opposition party continues in its opposition to the president's war against the Asian country that is not Japan. "We want our troops back home now. American lives are being lost there for no reason. Virtually none of the citizens there had any interest in joining rogue aircraft carrier battle groups before, but now some are becoming interested because they resent our long military occupation of their country. They're starting to hate us."
Associated Press polls conducted in the Asian country that is not Japan support this theory: 78% of residents there now say it is okay to kill occupying American soldiers. "We had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor," said one local man, "leave us alone!" Domestic politcal action groups opposing the president's war agree that the country had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, "we think the U.S. should not be meddling with the internal politics of another nation that did not attack us. Invading them and killing their citizens is a form of terrorism on our part."
"Wimps," the president countered. "My opponents are soft on global rogue aircraft carrier battle group terrorism."
02-02-2008, 03:12 PM
I set the over/under on Bin Laden's remaining life expectancy at 6 months back in Sept 2001. We failed.
All those 9/11 documentaries make people remember how we felt. It's just frustrating that some people's fire is redirected at Iraq and Muslims in general instead of the original targets of Bin Ladin, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. :pity:
02-03-2008, 06:53 PM
bump for more votes.
02-03-2008, 06:58 PM
bump for more votes.
repping vote whore ;D
Reping the guy reping the rep whore ;D