Haven't the Terrorists Already Won? (suspect, death, Canada, independence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is my opinion that Bin Laden is long-since dead - as in, years ago dead. Even so, there are hundreds (thousands) of radicals clamoring to take his place.
Did the Radical Fundamentalist Muslim Terrorists win? NO. They're goal was to take down The Great Satan. That has not happened.
You say that it is your opinion that he is dead. OK, you are certainly entitled to an opinion. However, in the last video that Al Qeada released to the media with Bin Laden in it he has mentioned and talked about current events. The CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies have said it was authentic. So I am just curious as to why you think he is "long since dead?" What do you base your opinion on?
Of course. Why was this not obvious to everyone. In September 01 it was not the terrorists who closed the stock exchange for a week---it was the SEC. It wasnt terrorists who canceled major league baseball games for two weeks, it was MLB. It wasnt terrorists who grounded all airline flights for a couple of days, it was the FAA. Is wasn't terrorists who passed the Patriot Act, it was the US Congress.
The war lasted less than an hour, and the terrorists won, with a loss of only 19 men. The US government then started another war, and the first victim was the American people, whose country was occupied by new terrorists, and the American people surrendered immediately. So two separate wars were conducted by different terrorist groups in a matter of days, and the American people lost both of them.
I agree 100%. We lost the war decisively, and Bin Laden is chuckling in his mountain hideaway, or whatever city or country he is in, as we speak.
Interesting points. One thing I find rather strange is that the US has not captured Bin Laden yet. I know that the military has captured or killed many of the leaders of Al-Qeada but capturing Bin Laden would be a huge idealogical victory for the US.
With all of the latest technology available to the military I find it hard to believe that they cannot locate him. It almost makes one think that for some reason the powers that be in this country want him alive.
The day that I first got the idea that Al-Qeada had perhaps achieved it's objectives is when I took my family to visit the Statue of Liberty and we were not allowed to enter the statue because of security concerns.
I think that it is completely possible for the US military to capture Bin Laden and then get serious in Afghanistan and Iraq and deal the Taliban and Al-Qeada the crushing blow that they deserve. For some reason that was not the objective of the Bush administration and sadly it does not seem to be the objective of the Obama administration either.
I believe Bin laden died years ago one way or another. But it is in the best interest of both sides to keep up the pretense that he is alive.
AL Qeada wouldn't want word to get out that Bin Laden is no longer alive. His image is that of the strong, central leader of the movement. He is the rally point. Sure there would be a brief flare-up of attacks and new membership joining the cause but in the long run support would wane as Al Qeada would be viewed as weaker, disorganized and losing its edge.
Why would the U.S. government really want him dead? As long as he is believed alive the military machine keeps rolling at taxpayer expense. Once word was out that he was dead the U.S. public loses interest and refuses to back wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The whole terrorism sentiment/phobia dries up along with the its funding. The U.S. would need another excuse to flex its muscle (i.e. N.Korea, Iran, Venezuela).
The only thing that could be worse for the U.S. than a dead Bin Laden would be a captured one. What do you do with a live Bin Laden as a prisoner? Try him and execute him? That would make him a martyr and rejuvenate Al Qeada to new heights. Imprison him forever? The American public would not be supportive of this. It would be felt that life imprisonment would be too good for him and that all those that have fought and died on 9/11, in Iraq, in Afganistan did so in vain. The next military excursion would be a hard sell to the American public after that.
No it is in everyone's best interest to keep Osama Bin Laden "alive". But how many more years can this ruse go on?
You say that it is your opinion that he is dead. OK, you are certainly entitled to an opinion. However, in the last video that Al Qeada released to the media with Bin Laden in it he has mentioned and talked about current events. The CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies have said it was authentic. So I am just curious as to why you think he is "long since dead?" What do you base your opinion on?
Again, it's opinion.
BinLaden talks about current events kind of like Nostradamus predicted the future and like horoscopes tell you what's going on today. So that's iffy, at best.
Second, Bin Laden's appearance - in these videos - hasn't changed in almost 10 years.
Third, kids with computers "doctor" pictures and videos all the time. My daughter, for instance, creates some unbelievable videos - and that's just with her iBook.
Fourth, I don't know that I trust the CIA. They need to keep bin Laden alive, for PR purposes.
I don't know how many times I've heard people screaming about the Patriot Act stripping them of their personal liberties. But when pressed, they have no idea what the Patriot Act actually is. Nor can they name anything that has changed in their life as a result of it.
Here in New York City when the government decides that the threat level is high they station police in the subways near the entrances. You cannot get on the train unless you allow a police officer to open your bag to make sure you are not carrying any bombs or expolosives. You can refuse but then you cannot ride the subway. This is a clear violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
When people put forth the "If you are not doing anything wrong than you have nothing to hide" argument in favor of such violations of our rights it saddens me to no end. It essentially says that if you are not a criminal than you should have no problem with giving up your rights guarunteed by the Constitution.
I believe Bin laden died years ago one way or another. But it is in the best interest of both sides to keep up the pretense that he is alive.
AL Qeada wouldn't want word to get out that Bin Laden is no longer alive. His image is that of the strong, central leader of the movement. He is the rally point. Sure there would be a brief flare-up of attacks and new membership joining the cause but in the long run support would wane as Al Qeada would be viewed as weaker, disorganized and losing its edge.
Why would the U.S. government really want him dead? As long as he is believed alive the military machine keeps rolling at taxpayer expense. Once word was out that he was dead the U.S. public loses interest and refuses to back wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The whole terrorism sentiment/phobia dries up along with the its funding. The U.S. would need another excuse to flex its muscle (i.e. N.Korea, Iran, Venezuela).
The only thing that could be worse for the U.S. than a dead Bin Laden would be a captured one. What do you do with a live Bin Laden as a prisoner? Try him and execute him? That would make him a martyr and rejuvenate Al Qeada to new heights. Imprison him forever? The American public would not be supportive of this. It would be felt that life imprisonment would be too good for him and that all those that have fought and died on 9/11, in Iraq, in Afganistan did so in vain. The next military excursion would be a hard sell to the American public after that.
No it is in everyone's best interest to keep Osama Bin Laden "alive". But how many more years can this ruse go on?
Excellent post!!! That's why I gave it some reputation!!!
I just think that if Osama Bin Laden was killed too many people would now about it, therefore making it hard to make it appear that he is still alive.
It would be too difficult for that many people to remain silent and compliant.
i believe bin laden died years ago one way or another. But it is in the best interest of both sides to keep up the pretense that he is alive.
Al qeada wouldn't want word to get out that bin laden is no longer alive. His image is that of the strong, central leader of the movement. He is the rally point. Sure there would be a brief flare-up of attacks and new membership joining the cause but in the long run support would wane as al qeada would be viewed as weaker, disorganized and losing its edge.
Why would the u.s. Government really want him dead? As long as he is believed alive the military machine keeps rolling at taxpayer expense. Once word was out that he was dead the u.s. Public loses interest and refuses to back wars in iraq and afganistan. The whole terrorism sentiment/phobia dries up along with the its funding. The u.s. Would need another excuse to flex its muscle (i.e. N.korea, iran, venezuela).
The only thing that could be worse for the u.s. Than a dead bin laden would be a captured one. What do you do with a live bin laden as a prisoner? Try him and execute him? That would make him a martyr and rejuvenate al qeada to new heights. Imprison him forever? The american public would not be supportive of this. It would be felt that life imprisonment would be too good for him and that all those that have fought and died on 9/11, in iraq, in afganistan did so in vain. The next military excursion would be a hard sell to the american public after that.
No it is in everyone's best interest to keep osama bin laden "alive". But how many more years can this ruse go on?
Here in New York City when the government decides that the threat level is high they station police in the subways near the entrances. You cannot get on the train unless you allow a police officer to open your bag to make sure you are not carrying any bombs or expolosives. You can refuse but then you cannot ride the subway. This is a clear violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
When people put forth the "If you are not doing anything wrong than you have nothing to hide" argument in favor of such violations of our rights it saddens me to no end. It essentially says that if you are not a criminal than you should have no problem with giving up your rights guarunteed by the Constitution.
Would you rather have them do nothing?
And by the way, when there is an increase threat level, it absolutely is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment for police to search people boarding the subway. What it really is, is common sense.
And by the way, when there is an increase threat level, it absolutely is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment for police to search people boarding the subway. What it really is, is common sense.
The founders wrote the 4th Amendment precisely to prevent the government from arbitrarily declaring that a search is reasonable because of some vague "increased threat level. A search must meet a standard of reasonable, including, as the amendment states, "particularly describing the place to be searched".
The courts have also repeatedly ruled that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes the right of the people to move their person and their goods from place to place freely and without hindrance. If a police officer stops you while walking down a public street, he has no right to detain you without probable cause. You are free to just walk away.
If you are walking down the street with a backpack, and a cop stops you and asks what in the pack, you have a right to say "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk to you right now" and just keep walking. If the cop insists, you have a right to say "Am I being detained, and if so, for what probable cause?"
If you think such a search is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment, at what point would it become a violation?
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you on this. I've stated my opinion and explained why I think that way.
And by the way, when there is an increase threat level, it absolutely is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment for police to search people boarding the subway. What it really is, is common sense.
There is no provision in the fourth amendment that allows for random searches or "common sense" searches:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
