Osama Bin Laden Is Dead Breaking News

[Quasit]

Without Osama as leader Al Qaida will be far more effective than with him. Now there are loads of leaders and if you kill one there are always others coming up. You have started a cycle with no visible end.

 

[Jak]

Re-ignite? It never stopped.

The argument of people saying 'it will motivate more people to become extremists now he's dead' seems a bit flawed in the sense that are they not already motivated enough to join anyway? Does the death of Bin Laden suddenly make a vast number of people to become extremists. I'm not too sure. If they wanted to become extremists surely they would have already done it/ will do it anyway, regardless of the death of him.

P.S The Janitor from scrubs was right! :O
[video=youtube;KhCdlygmSJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCdlygmSJ4[/video]

 

[Joel`]

Without Osama as leader Al Qaida will be far more effective than with him. Now there are loads of leaders and if you kill one there are always others coming up. You have started a cycle with no visible end.

He said Bin Laden's probable successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was "far less charismatic and not as well respected within the organisation", according to reports from captured al-Qaeda operatives. - BBC

Surely, while there's the threat of retaliatory strikes. There's also the possibility of this the beginning of the decline of the organisation?

 

[Montanaro]

Without Osama as leader Al Qaida will be far more effective than with him. Now there are loads of leaders and if you kill one there are always others coming up. You have started a cycle with no visible end.

Hate to break it to you, but Al Qaeda never had a single leader. Not to mention that Usama has probably been out of the game and unlikely to be calling any shots.

In reality we haven't really changed much except gathered new intel.

---------- Post added at 08:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

i use bold font to emphasise my point

Welcome to Public Speaking 101

 

[GodCubed]

Re-ignite? It never stopped.

Renew, give them added faith, make him a martyr, give them reason to keep fighting, give them an icon and figurehead even in death. That's what RTW meant, I assume.

 

[Quasit]

Well he was their "father" and he started Al-Qaeda so yeah I'd say he was their leader at least mentally. He was the figurehead althought he might not have been giving orders anymore.

 

[Montanaro]

Well he was their "father" and he started Al-Qaeda so yeah I'd say he was their leader.

In essence, not reality.

They have many cells throughout the world, he simply doesn't have the capability to control all. It's more of a confederation of leaders with Usama at the head of the table. Certainly no dictatorship.

 

[Joel`]

Well he was their "father" and he started Al-Qaeda so yeah I'd say he was their leader.

The supposed person who will take up leadership now has always been the brains behind operations, but he supposedly has less influence within the organisation. You contradict yourself too, you say there are loads of leaders, and then say bin Laden was the leader.

 

[Mike.]

Renew, give them added faith, make him a martyr, give them reason to keep fighting, give them an icon and figurehead even in death. That's what RTW meant, I assume.

I see what he means, but you could argue those kind of people never stopped trying anyway, only time will tell what kind of an effect it will have.

 

[Quasit]

Read it again. I thought you might not understand my point so I cleared it out for you.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

The supposed person who will take up leadership now has always been the brains behind operations, but he supposedly has less influence within the organisation. You contradict yourself too, you say there are loads of leaders, and then say bin Laden was the leader.

I meant as a figurehead leader.

 

[Sid]

Exactly, i think the killing of Bin Laden is more symbolic more than anything. Yes he was just one man, but he was one man who did so much (basically what you listed). It's a step in the right direction. We just need to eliminate the other leaders and disband the cells where the training of these extremists is happening. Obviously a lot easier said than done but we are on the right track with a long road ahead of us.
Sid please just stfu on things you know nothing about and have nothing to post.

Haha, I know stuff but i was really trying to cool down the arguments.

I agree with what you're saying about it being symbolic but like others I have fears that this may spark an attack of some sort and also the fact that they have been looking for him for 10 years and caused so many loss of lives just for one life is not right IMO

 

[Joel`]

I see what he means, but you could argue those kind of people never stopped trying anyway, only time will tell what kind of an effect it will have.

I think there's still greater risk of retaliation though, which is what I assumed RTW meant.

I don't see how this is going to cause more mass extremist recruitment, though. Surely the death of a man who leads an organisation you previously had no interest in, is not going to suddenly spark interest?

 

[Montanaro]

Haha, I know stuff but i was really trying to cool down the arguments.

I agree with what you're saying about it being symbolic but like others I have fears that this may spark an attack of some sort and also the fact that they have been looking for him for 10 years and caused so many loss of lives just for one life is not right IMO

Well the attack on Afghanistan was meant to push the Taliban out and destroy terrorist training camps, not necessarily to kill Usama.

 

[Mike.]

I think there's still greater risk of retaliation though, which is what I assumed RTW meant.

I don't see how this is going to cause more mass extremist recruitment, though. Surely the death of a man who leads an organisation you previously had no interest in, is not going to suddenly spark interest?

I agree there could be a risk of the former, but it's always the same, we have a success, they redouble their efforts. But its the "bring more people to the cause" that i dont agree with, if you weren't in before, why would the killing of the "leader" entice you? if anything it just serves to show even someone like him can be got at; that's more of a deterrent than anything.

It could also have demoralising effect; The taliban spring offensive is about to start so that could show the first signs of any effects good or bad

 

[Snypar]

Would love to see the winning kill-cam...
bet it was epic

apologies if i interrupted this discussion, but i just had to...

 

[Joel`]

Haha, I know stuff but i was really trying to cool down the arguments.

I agree with what you're saying about it being symbolic but like others I have fears that this may spark an attack of some sort and also the fact that they have been looking for him for 10 years and caused so many loss of lives just for one life is not right IMO

And what, we were going to live perfectly happy safe lives if we didn't kill him?

We haven't been fighting for 10 years JUST to kill this one man. We haven't killed civilians JUST to kill him. He has been killed in part of the process of this war. It's extremely naive to equate time and deaths to this one victory. And would you rather we stand down and let terrorism spread? The only thing we can do is stand up to it. Deaths will be caused either way, I'm sure as **** more comfortable knowing we're at least trying to prevent terrorism in legal warfare rather than the slaughter of thousands in no controlled way.

If you're going to cry about the injustice of the war, then why don't you offer the alternative that we should have taken? After all, how can you do the easy bit and criticise, and then not do the actual challenging bit of an alternative?

People seriously act like politicians want to be responsible for the murders of innocents abroad.

 

[Quasit]

Well terrorism has mostly spread because of actions of USA. Osama was just a sympton.

 

[Joel`]

Well terrorism has mostly spread because of actions of USA. Osama was just a sympton.

Al-Qaeda declared war on America first. And we wouldn't have Islamic extremism if not for religion.

 

[Quasit]

And why did they declare war on America?

 

[Mike.]

Well terrorism has mostly spread because of actions of USA. Osama was just a sympton.

lol what? I'm no fan of US policy but thats ridiculous

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

And why did they declare war on America?

You do realise this never started with the US, it started with Saudi Arabia