Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: OSAMA Bin Ladin is finally Dead!
Thread: OSAMA Bin Ladin is finally Dead! This thread is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 · «PREV / NEXT»
baklava
baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted May 10, 2011 09:56 AM

You're right, of course, JJ.

@Doom
True. Compare the prices, though.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 10, 2011 10:02 AM

This is not a movie, no matter the perception of Elodin and other people with pathologically infantile reasoning. Al-Qaeda is not an organization as much as it is yet another way of thinking which, if considered emotionally, with "disgust" and so on, can never be understood and overcome. The position of the "disgust" and all other emotions which have something to do with such a huge issue suits people who can afford the luxury to sit comfortably half a world away from where the sh*t really happens and boast their self-righteousness. In the end it always boils down to what people think or are willing to think, everything else is just a consequence.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted May 10, 2011 10:30 AM
Edited by Salamandre at 10:31, 10 May 2011.

I fully agree. Considering them "scum" while a noticeable part of the world consider them heros fighting for freedom is implicitly affirming that all those millions of people are scum and potentially mass killers. We are far away from where it boils, thus we just throw away words.
____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2011 11:05 AM

That is complete and UTTER bull.
You CAN consider the IRA freedom fighters - they have or had a political and rather narrowly defined goal and something like a political arm, and it has had some results.
You can even consider HAMAS and palestinensian suicide bombers heroes and freedom fighters, since they have a political and narrowly defined goal as well, and THEY have a political arm as well.

Not so al quaida. They neither have a political and narrowly defined goal nor a political arm - instead they are the revenge instrument of one rich man who abuses religious motives to "steal" support. Their only aim is or has been to HURT, to SLAP, to HUMILIATE, to sow fear, and as a result, all the average muslims are viewed with distrust in all of the Western world.

They ARE scum, and we have no idea at all how al quaida is viewed in other parts of the world - the muslim world is in turmoil anyway. I would want proof for the claim they are viewed as heroes anywhere - I'm sure however, that there are reasons for a couple of countries to... tolerate them, but I don't think that has anything to do with freedom fighting or being heroes - think of the secret services: it may come handy to have killers to do a dirty job, if necessary, but you don't have to view them as heroes or freedom fighters to use them.

And this is no laid back view - it's the view of people who are indirectly affected. Terrorism has an effect on everyone, especially RANDOM terror, and that is EXACTLY the purpose.

So, frankly, I don't care whether there may be a couple of guys who clap their hands about them and drink on them. From my point of view it is vile to do what they do - as vile as gassing the Jews, whatever "good" reason they may have had, whatever plans and rationals have been behind that.
If there is no talking anymore with people, there are not many options left.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
baklava
baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted May 10, 2011 11:14 AM
Edited by baklava at 11:15, 10 May 2011.

Now you're partially right JJ.
But your rightness level is deteriorating.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2011 11:34 AM

It's fine that you have the gauge for that.
I'll give you a couple of hints.
It's not about being right.
It's not about sitting in front of your pc and working out the optimum strategy to make the world a better place or to find the optimum solution.
It's not about taking a superior and objective view either, considering all angles and what happened the last 10 million years, and it's not about doing justice to everyone and their dog.

It's just about killing random people in a most frightening and spectacular way as a means for some David to piss at some Goliath's leg, and I don't know about other people, but I don't appreciate it when people are used as piss and being killed to run down someone's leg and embarrass him.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2011 01:00 PM

We can moralize and celebrate as much as we want, but it doesn't change how things are. Navy Seals killed an aging man who hadn't done anything of consequence in ten years. Meanwhile, thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians have died in Afghanistan alone, not to mention the cost (over a trillion dollars for the US). (If you want to include the unnecessary mess that is Iraq, the casualty count is even higher.) There have been other consequences, too - you have to take off your shoes when you go through airport security, have severe restrictions on liquids on planes, increased anti-Muslim sentiment, the government can tap our phone lines without a warrant, increased use of torture, obsession with "national security"...

All to crack down on an organization with a thousand or so members? Even if the US military were to capture every member of al-Qaeda tomorrow, would it have been worth it? Thousands of soldiers and a trillion dollars vs. a thousand guerrillas with a tiny budget. I don't think we can call that winning.

I'll go further and ask this: who is worse - al-Qaeda or your government? Think about it. Of course al-Qaeda has killed many innocent people, as well as those rightly trying to put them to justice. But how much damage has al-Qaeda done to you personally, compared to your government? Yes, they bombed a few embassies and attacked the Twin Towers - but it is your governments that will jail you if you don't pay your taxes that fund their wars and corporate welfare. Government interventions have a much larger effect than a terrorist organization ever has in the first world. For example, the US government arrests non-violent drug dealers, keeps prostitution illegal, forces children to go through a substandard education system, prevents employers from hiring striking workers, sends soldiers to fight in non-defensive wars, and forbids the transportation of raw milk across state lines. In terms of real impact on the average person's life - much more than al-Qaeda. Our representatives are doing more harm than our enemies. (Of course, I recognize that if al-Qaeda and similar groups were allowed to do as they pleased, we'd be in an even worse situation, but we don't have to go to such lengths that we harm ourselves more than they harm us.)

And who benefits from these wars? Al-Qaeda, the military-industrial complex, and fearmongering politicians. Al-Qaeda did some damage with its hijacked planes - but it started a much greater chain reaction that lead to frightened citizens and power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats harming us even more. Of course, the military-industrial complex is happy - it means more money for them, more guns, tanks, and helicopters - money that would have otherwise been spent for creation, not destruction. And the politicians get more control over individual lives - warrantless wiretapping, more power to security forces (TSA, etc), and the like.

So, of course it's good that bin Laden was killed - though it would have been preferable to capture him, try him in court, and then execute him. But it wasn't worth the cost.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
shyranis
shyranis


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted May 10, 2011 02:43 PM

True Mvass, Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan to similar effect. He ground the superpower to a halt over a patch of rocky land and ruined their economy, spurring their collapse. The entire point of his attacks were to repeat the same tactic, and seeing the American economy coming so close to defaulting because of this waste, it looks almost like Osama is winning.

It's a terrible thing.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 10, 2011 03:02 PM

Quote:
We can moralize and celebrate as much as we want, but it doesn't change how things are. Navy Seals killed an aging man who hadn't done anything of consequence in ten years.



You mean Osama bin Laden hadn't personally been in the battlefield. That is because he was hiding, making the plans, and directing his band of mass murderers. He did the planning and his freaks did the killing.

Quote:

Meanwhile, thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians have died in Afghanistan alone, not to mention the cost (over a trillion dollars for the US).



Al-Qaeda is the organization of freaks that specializes in killing civilians. In any war of course there will be unavoidable collateral damage.

The war against terror has kept the freaks on the run and for the most part unable to carry out more mass murders in America.

Quote:

All to crack down on an organization with a thousand or so members?



You seem to be under-numbering them.

Quote:

I'll go further and ask this: who is worse - al-Qaeda or your government?



Al-Qaeda is a group of mass murdering freaks that wants all non-Muslims dead. Uncle Sam is not perfect but he is much to be desired over having those freaks carry out their plans.

Quote:

For example, the US government arrests non-violent drug dealers, keeps prostitution illegal, forces children to go through a substandard education system, prevents employers from hiring striking workers, sends soldiers to fight in non-defensive wars, and forbids the transportation of raw milk across state lines.



Drug dealing is a crime dude. You get to vote on politicians and can thus change the laws if you want to be a druggie. You don't get to vote on Al-Qaeda policies.

Prostitution: see above.

Nope. Parents can send their kids to private schools. I did. Also, see comment about drug dealing. You can vote for your state officials and local officials who control the quality of the public education system.

Nope. In the US states make most of the labor laws. In Texas an employer can fire an employee for any or no reason. If you walk off the job you can be replaced.

The war on terror is a defensive war. It mass murderers attacked us first. You've been listening to too much Michael Moore crap.

Raw milk: There is currently a lawsuit to get that FDA policy changed. Thank left wing politicians for such idiotic policies as they think they have the right to control everything you do.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 10, 2011 03:04 PM

Quote:
True Mvass, Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan to similar effect. He ground the superpower to a halt over a patch of rocky land and ruined their economy, spurring their collapse. The entire point of his attacks were to repeat the same tactic, and seeing the American economy coming so close to defaulting because of this waste, it looks almost like Osama is winning.

It's a terrible thing.


Left wing Marxist spending is what has America it debt. And the dems continue to want more and more and more spending and fight against the Republican efforts to cut the budget.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted May 10, 2011 04:35 PM

Quote:
Left wing Marxist spending is what has America it debt.


Last time I checked the Austrian school of economics was not marxist, and the Keynesian school has more or less never been used in USA.
So hence, it can't be socialist.
When was the last time the US goverment DEMANDED responsibility and acted preempathlive against the free marked to FIX issues, such as the recent bank crash?
What happened in the end was a bailout, which lacked enough conditions and harsh punishments to make sense.


Quote:
And the dems continue to want more and more and more spending and fight against the Republican efforts to cut the budget.


Who cares? All that is important is that you can axe the army budget by 3/5th and still not touch anything, and that is still a ludricrus amount of money.
Then you could do a few socialists polices like either axe medicare or fix it, or perhaps remove all tax loopholes?
I agree both sides are equally corrupt and there is no option to fix it either, because none of them wants to do that.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2011 07:42 PM

Elodin:
Quote:
That is because he was hiding, making the plans, and directing his band of mass murderers. He did the planning and his freaks did the killing.
Planning or no planning, he hadn't done anything of consequence in 10 years. Can you name something he did that had an effect in that time period? Killing a hundred civilians or a few soldiers does nothing as far as the big picture goes.

Quote:
In any war of course there will be unavoidable collateral damage.

The war against terror has kept the freaks on the run and for the most part unable to carry out more mass murders in America.
Yes, that's exactly it. There's unavoidable collateral damage - so is it worth it? Is it worth it to kill 10 innocent people to kill one guilty person? The damage is greater than the benefit.

As for keeping them on the run, do you really think it's having any effect? What we're doing there only slightly hampers their ability to attack us. The effect isn't really significant.

Quote:
You seem to be under-numbering them.
Am I?

Quote:
You get to vote on politicians and can thus change the laws if you want to be a druggie.
How is it better if my neighbors are choosing to oppress me? Look at Robert Nozick's "Tale of the Slave":
Quote:
Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?


Quote:
In the US states make most of the labor laws.
Except these. And even if it was the state government, it wouldn't change my point - the government is restricting your freedom.

Quote:
The war on terror is a defensive war. It mass murderers attacked us first.
So what does that have to do with Iraq?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 10, 2011 10:32 PM

Quote:

Planning or no planning, he hadn't done anything of consequence in 10 years. Can you name something he did that had an effect in that time period? Killing a hundred civilians or a few soldiers does nothing as far as the big picture goes.


1) His forces were being forced to be on the defensive rather than being able to go pure offensive.
2) Many of his plans were thwarted because we obtained more information by capturing murderers when we went on the offensive against the murderers.
3) The murder of innocent Americans may seem insignificant to you, but it is not insignificant to most Americans.

Quote:

Yes, that's exactly it. There's unavoidable collateral damage - so is it worth it? Is it worth it to kill 10 innocent people to kill one guilty person? The damage is greater than the benefit.



One of the few legitimate functions of the US federal government according to the Constitution is to protect American citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The war on terror is an attempt to do that. In taking on terrorists on their home turf unfortunately some civilians in the countries of origin of the terrorists will be killed due to the cowardly murderers hiding amongst civilians. We can't just say, "Oh well, we might accidentally kill a civilian while fighting the terrorists so lets just let forget about it and let them murder our people." It should also be noted that when the countries of origin fight the terrorists that arise from their ranks there is also collateral civilian damage. The countries in which the terrorists are based have proven either unwilling or incompetent in fighting the terrorists so our presence there is necessary.

Quote:

As for keeping them on the run, do you really think it's having any effect? What we're doing there only slightly hampers their ability to attack us. The effect isn't really significant.



You are wrong. If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded. And if Al-Qaeda managed to get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then death to US citizens on a massive scale would occur. At that point it would be too late to say, "Gee, I guess the government should have been fighting terrorists after all."

Quote:

Quote:

   You seem to be under-numbering them.


Am I?



Harper's Magizine appears to be a left-wing magazine. Untrustworthy.  Al-Qaeda itself likely has only a few thousand "official" members in the "core-organization" in various terror cells but there are also various offshoot groups. And the US is at war with multiple terrorists organizations that have similar goals and who cooperate. Successful terrorist attacks also inspire more terrorists.

Clicky

Quote:

Harper's Magazine
Left leaning monthly covering social, political, and cultural issues.



Clicky

Quote:

Al-Qaeda, an international terrorist network, is considered the top terrorist threat to the United States. The group is wanted for its September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as a host of lesser attacks. To escape the post-9/11 U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's central leadership fled eastward into Pakistan, securing a safe haven in loosely governed areas there. In July 2007, U.S. intelligence agencies found that the organization was regrouping and regaining strength in these tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, though targeted killings of senior al-Qaeda leaders have since diminished the group's command and control capabilities. In February 2009, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told lawmakers that the group's core "is less capable and effective than it was a year ago." The killing of al-Qaeda's top leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces in Pakistan in May 2011 served a significant blow to the organization, but analysts say al-Qaeda remains deadly with its networks spread all over the world. Plus, a number of affiliated groups have gained prominence in recent years, complicating the task of containing the organization.

....

Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere.
Is al-Qaeda connected to other terrorist organizations?

Yes. Among them:

   Egyptian Islamic Jihad
   The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
   Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
   Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad (Iraq)
   Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
   Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
   Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Algeria) (formerly Salafist Group for Call and Combat)
   Armed Islamic Group (Algeria)
   Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
   Jemaah Islamiya (Southeast Asia)

These groups share al-Qaeda's Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts also say that al-Qaeda has stepped up its cooperation on logistics and training with Hezbollah, a radical, Iran-backed Lebanese militia drawn from the minority Shiite strain of Islam.

Some terror experts theorize that al-Qaeda, after the loss of its Afghanistan base, may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out its agenda. Former intelligence chief, J. Michael McConnell, in his February 2008 testimony to the Senate, said al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch "remains al-Qaeda's most visible and capable affiliate."A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that al-Qaeda's association with al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, helped it to "energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks." U.S. military commanders believe the Iraqi al-Qaeda variant has been weakened by a sustained campaign against them. But the group remains capable of high-profile attacks.

In addition to AQI, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which is based in Algeria, remains one of al-Qaeda's most robust affiliates. Formerly known as the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, AQIM merged with al-Qaeda in September 2006, and has broadened its target list to include U.S., UN, and Western interests. In Yemen, the resurgence of al-Qaeda operatives since 2006 is also seen as a U.S. and regional security challenge. Known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), this regional affiliate seeks to destabilize the Al Saud regime in Saudi Arabia and eradicate a Western presence in the Gulf. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian suspect behind the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing aboard a U.S. airliner, confessed to receiving weapons training from al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. The group has also claimed responsibility for the September 2008 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, which killed eighteen people.
......

Bin Laden's death will serve as a deterrent for many wannabe radicals who were inspired by his notional invincibility, argues Jon Lee Anderson of the New Yorker. "Such vertical, quasi-religious death cults always rely upon the leader, because the leader's survival is the key to perpetuating the belief that utopia is possible," he says. Lawrence Wright, an expert on al-Qaeda, says the organization will have a difficult time finding a successor.

Bin Laden's death also comes amid pro-democracy uprisings across the Arab world that some analysts say have discredited al-Qaeda's ideology. CFR's Ray Takeyh writes the Arab revolt is a denunciation of radicalism in all its hues: whether autocrats ruling in the name of modernization or Islamists pledging redemption through terror.

But some experts express caution. CFR President Richard N. Haass says, "It is a milestone, not a turning point, in what remains an ongoing struggle without a foreseeable end." Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid notes the network has decentralized over the years with its philosophy becoming "one man, one bomb" (BBC), and remains deadly.

.....

The international crackdown that followed the 9/11 attacks greatly cut into al-Qaeda's resources and many of al-Qaeda's former leaders were captured or killed, leading experts to question the relevance of al-Qaeda's central leadership. In these years, al-Qaeda transformed from what was once a hierarchical organization with a large operating budget into an ideological movement. Whereas al-Qaeda once trained its own operatives and deployed them to carry out attacks, it is just as likely to inspire individuals or small groups to carry out attacks, often with no operational support from the larger organization. Experts say al-Qaeda is able to spread its ideology effectively through the Internet and al-Sahab, its media wing (NPR). As Blair noted in his 2009 assessment, al-Qaeda and its affiliates and allies "remain dangerous and adaptive enemies," keen on attacking U.S. and European targets.



Clicky

Quote:

Some of these "knock off" groups spring from pre-existing militant groups committed to some version of Islamist transformation of their society. In Algeria, for example, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is a new incarnation of another group, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which has had a long, and violent, commitment to overthrowing the Algerian government. The group's sudden commitment to 'Al Qaeda- style' global jihad should be taken with a grain of salt or, at the least, examined in light of its local history.
Among the groups presumed to be in the Al Qaeda network are:

   Al Qaeda—core organization: The original group headed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri

   Al Qaeda in Iraq: An organization founded after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, AQI has morphed several times since.

   The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Tanzim Al Jihad): Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded in the 1970s, and well known for its assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1981. It is a good example of an organization that has historically had a far greater interest in violent transformation of the Egyptian government than it has in a 'global jihad.'

   Ansar Al Islam:This Iraqi Kurdish organization was founded in 2001, and operates in the northern areas of Iraq and Iran. Its membership includes a number of members who trained or fought in Afghanistan, with bin Laden, and it is presumed to have close operational ties with Al Qaeda in the region.

   Al Jemaah Al Islamiyya: Al Jemaah Al Islamiyyah (The Islamic Group) is a southeast Asian group dedicated to bringing Islamist rule to the area. The United States suspects it of ties to Al Qaeda, but these seem tenuous on a large scale.

   Lashkar-i-Tayyiba:This Kashmir-based Sunni Pakistani group has historically directed its attacks at India. Leaders and members have demonstrated ties to some Al Qaeda members.

   Al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb: This Algerian group grew out of one dedicated to the overthrow of the Algerian government. Its name change was accompanied by a pledge to put Western targets in its sights.

   Abu Sayyaf: This Philippine group has been called an Al Qaeda affiliate, but there is little evidence of a meaningful operational tie. Indeed, the organization is more like a criminal network than one committed to an ideological goal.



This post is already quite long. I'll address your points about the government later.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted May 10, 2011 10:39 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 22:40, 10 May 2011.

Quote:

You are wrong. If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded. And if Al-Qaeda managed to get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then death to US citizens on a massive scale would occur.


Or not. You're just guessing, playing what ifs. No way to craft arguments, friend.

btw, you didn't answer my question about SIOP-62 - so let me ask again, any opinions on it? Would you also call that "collateral damage" if the plan was realized? Your "saint" country had plans of a nice nuclear holocaust for the world. Well, part of it. Scary, if you ask me.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2011 11:05 PM

Elodin:
Quote:
1) His forces were being forced to be on the defensive rather than being able to go pure offensive.
2) Many of his plans were thwarted because we obtained more information by capturing murderers when we went on the offensive against the murderers.
3) The murder of innocent Americans may seem insignificant to you, but it is not insignificant to most Americans.
Your first 2 points are little but speculation. We don't know what would have happened had we acted otherwise. If we had never intervened in the Middle East and central Asia at all, they wouldn't even care about us, probably. As for your third point - yes, they killed many innocent Americans, but compare that to how many die in car crashes. 9/11 deaths are small compared to that.

Quote:
We can't just say, "Oh well, we might accidentally kill a civilian while fighting the terrorists so lets just let forget about it and let them murder our people."
I understand that, but 14 to 34 thousand Afghan civilians have died as a result of the war - while only approximately 3000 died on 9/11. Do you understand? 5 to 11 times more Afghan civilians have died than Americans on 9/11. Did they not have the right to not be killed?

Quote:
If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded.
How many 9/11-type attacks had there been before 9/11? None. Maybe carrying out those kinds of attacks is inherently difficult, independent of our military actions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 11, 2011 03:08 AM

Quote:
Quote:

You are wrong. If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded. And if Al-Qaeda managed to get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then death to US citizens on a massive scale would occur.


Or not. You're just guessing, playing what ifs. No way to craft arguments, friend.



Nah, I'm not guessing. Al-Qaeda would have loved to have carrying out other attacks on US soil. Keeping them fighting on their own soil was an important factor in keeping the US safe. And of course every Al-Qaeda leader we killed diminished the terrorist organization's capabilities.

Quote:

btw, you didn't answer my question about SIOP-62 - so let me ask again, any opinions on it?  


Mutual Assured Destruction prevented a third world war. I assume you think if the Soviets had launched a nuclear attack on the US that the US should have just laid down and died. The Soviets knowing what would lay in store had they launched such an attack prevented it from ever occurring.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted May 11, 2011 05:08 AM
Edited by Seraphim at 05:10, 11 May 2011.

Quote:


Nah, I'm not guessing. Al-Qaeda would have loved to have carrying out other attacks on US soil. Keeping them fighting on their own soil was an important factor in keeping the US safe. And of course every Al-Qaeda leader we killed diminished the terrorist organization's capabilities.




Wow,killing 1 million iraqis really weakend al qaida.

If my family was killed in front of my eyes,I would not have any point in living on and many other terrible reasons.What would I do Mr Elodin?

A: Commit suicide
B: Continue living in a destroyed country (Afghanistan-Iraq).Said in a more poetic way,"Being left to rot".
C: "I dont know wht to put here".


America created more "Terrorissts" than it eleminated.

It is really awesome to think that people who opposed the taliban now support them,an amaizing success the Coalition achieved there.I heard these during some news.

Humans are bound to be biased,a sad thing to know.


Neither al qaida or the US can bring the dead back.All that death was caused needlessly.

Elodin,you should watch a movie called Collateral Murder,its really "Nice".
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 11, 2011 08:12 AM
Edited by Elodin at 08:17, 11 May 2011.

Quote:
]Your first 2 points are little but speculation. We don't know what would have happened had we acted otherwise.



Oh, come now. You can't honestly think that the terrorists planned to stop murdering after 9/11.

There were a number of terrorist plots that were thwarted that the public knows about. Or maybe you'll claim those were just made up by the government?

Quote:

I understand that, but 14 to 34 thousand Afghan civilians have died as a result of the war - while only approximately 3000 died on 9/11. Do you understand? 5 to 11 times more Afghan civilians have died than Americans on 9/11. Did they not have the right to not be killed?



1) Are you claiming that the US government killed up to 34,000 civilians in Afghanistan?

2) What is the source of your data and what is the basis of the body count and of assigning the body count?

3) Is that including the number of civilians killed by suicide bombers, the Taliban, and other anti-government forces. How was it determined who was a combatant and who was a civilian, since terrorists wear no uniform?

4) Your numbers seem to differ from the UN estimates

5) When terrorists based in other nations commit mass murder in the US do you think the US should combat the terrorists on their home turf or just write off the deaths of US citizens? At what number of  civilian casualties in the other country should the US stop fighting terrorism and just accept the murder of its civilians?

6) When the US homeland is attacked should the US refuse to attack the other nation because the other nation might experience civilian casualties? If not, what is the acceptable total of civilian casualties before the US should stop the offensive?

7) Were the Allies immoral pieces of **** for invading Germany since German civilians died in their offensive? Would it have been better if they had just surrendered to Hitler to save the lives of German civilians?

8) Can you name any war in which civilians have not died?
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 11, 2011 08:36 AM

People, can't we just stop to throw everything into the equation and concentrate on the actual stuff?

bin laden/al quaida is a deeply personal thing, obviously. It's a personal vendetta - there is no country at stake, like with the taliban in Afghanistan or with the Palestines. It's a very personal private war. Of course this is motivated by something, but as opposed to the other things, since it IS a personal thing, there ain't much to discuss. If, for example, the Bushs pissed bin laden off so much he went on a rampage, he should have aimed to kill the Bushs. If he sees the connection to US power politics, he should try to get at those behind that politics.
That would something be you can follow: look at the German terrorists, for example: they killed specific people they thought were responsible for a lot of crap. See, that is, in its own way, reasonable, and you can discuss it.
There is, however, no discussion about al quaida. That's just rabid madness, and a rabid dog is killed.

No matter, what Elodin says, though, this has nothing to do with what went down in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq. This has something to do with what somewhere down the line went wrong with US politics - you might call those countries the Fukushimas of US foreign policy -, and NATURALLY the US assumed that those countries were prone to serve al quaida as a hiding place.
Waltzing down on that countries was the wrong tactics from the start. Instead it should have been done with satellite technology and insurrection teams.
However, the US needed something to slap back at, at that point.
But this is not the point.

The point is, that there is no excusing bin laden and that he had it coming for a long time.
That the US went the wrong way to find him - ok.
That they did try to find and eliminate him and his bunch - ok, as well.
So everyone has his points here, and there is no reason to argue to the death. If an elephant is looking for the midget that stung it, it is prone to waltz down a couple of ant hives in his made stampeded to get it. It's not clever, and you may expect more from it, but if the elephant is stung at the right place... Well.

Why I say that? Because there is a reason the CoC warns against provocation. If the provocation is right, you can bring basically everyone to do everything, and that's of course what bin laden wanted. Of course the wars were a mistake - eliminating bin laden, however, was not.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 11, 2011 09:45 AM
Edited by Zenofex at 09:46, 11 May 2011.

Presuming that Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked because of the al-Qaeda and the terrorism is among the greatest propaganda bullsh*ts of the last 10 years. The Taliban regime reigned in Afghanistan since 1996, replacing civil war chaos with harsh peace and the world powers hardly cared about it until 9/11 (like they don't give a damn about the brutal treatment of the Myanmar/Burma goverment of its own population and many other). The attack against Iraq is just an example of the attitude of a superpower without a counter-balance - they did it because they wanted it and because they could do it, notwithstanding UNOs, international laws and other oratorical eyewashes. The strategical purpose of all this is debatable (I wouldn't say that the petroleum was the only or even the main motivation) but the fact is that these wars are just as ridiculous as the attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon - at least if you don't read between the lines and take only the official explanation into account. Bin Laden and his cronies are not even catalysts but excuses.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1585 seconds