Bin Laden associate surrenders.
07-13-2004, 06:35 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Bin Laden associate surrenders.
I know the war on terror may never be won based on the fact we're fighting "terror" in itself.
But aren't we making progress in the right direction? Terrorists, such as, Khaled al-Harb "a big fish" and Othman Hadi Al Maqboul al-Amri (No. 21 on the U.S. most-wanted list) have already turned themselves in and are encouraging other militants to follow suit.
It's been said that Khaled al-Harb, and other terrorists that've taken amnesty provided by King Fahd, have had a direct link to 9/11 in one way or another. Granted the link isn't as strong as US officials suggests but it's still a step in the right direction for intel on other militant's whereabouts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125550,00.html
Other lesser known terrorists have been captured since by our forces. One less terrorist in the sandbox is better than having the same amount of terrorists known to exist pre 9/11. It's just like the war on drugs... there will always be a the occasional crack dealer on the corner but why not try to significantly rid them of the neighborhood?
So far we've managed to capture, detain and/or kill a large number of known terrorists, destroyed Saddams dictator regime and provided an infrastructure for Iraq.
So what's the problem?
My question's for you...
Do you think think there's something else here regarding Iran's "amnesty" period? Is Iran in bed with the al Qaeda network regarding terrorism? I have always thought this was the case...
If they aren't, then why won't they hand them to U.S. officials?
If Iran turns out to be majorly involved, should they be on the Bush "to-do-list"?
But aren't we making progress in the right direction? Terrorists, such as, Khaled al-Harb "a big fish" and Othman Hadi Al Maqboul al-Amri (No. 21 on the U.S. most-wanted list) have already turned themselves in and are encouraging other militants to follow suit.
It's been said that Khaled al-Harb, and other terrorists that've taken amnesty provided by King Fahd, have had a direct link to 9/11 in one way or another. Granted the link isn't as strong as US officials suggests but it's still a step in the right direction for intel on other militant's whereabouts.
"We think this guy does know a great deal of information on Bin Laden's operation ... what he knows is more structural info ... recruiting methods, his contacts may be useful to tell us more about what safehouses may be protecting these terrorists and what routes they are using to get in/out of Afghan."
"This shows the Al Qaeda organization is not nearly as structured as it use to be,"
"This shows the Al Qaeda organization is not nearly as structured as it use to be,"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125550,00.html
Other lesser known terrorists have been captured since by our forces. One less terrorist in the sandbox is better than having the same amount of terrorists known to exist pre 9/11. It's just like the war on drugs... there will always be a the occasional crack dealer on the corner but why not try to significantly rid them of the neighborhood?
So far we've managed to capture, detain and/or kill a large number of known terrorists, destroyed Saddams dictator regime and provided an infrastructure for Iraq.
So what's the problem?
My question's for you...
Do you think think there's something else here regarding Iran's "amnesty" period? Is Iran in bed with the al Qaeda network regarding terrorism? I have always thought this was the case...
If they aren't, then why won't they hand them to U.S. officials?
If Iran turns out to be majorly involved, should they be on the Bush "to-do-list"?
07-13-2004, 06:47 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,152
I just wish we had spent $87B on nailing OBL instead of a certain other operation.
I'm sure Iran is full of terrorists. But is it really worth another $100B to go in there and root them out? What did 9/11 cost us directly? Has anybody even bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis?
I rule out human cost-benefit analysis because 9/11 killed about 3k people and Iraq + Afghanistan killed something on the order of 15,000. So there better be a hell of a good economic justification or else we are just pissing our money away.
That said, if they ever catch OBL I will dance a frikking jig and get hella drunk.
I'm sure Iran is full of terrorists. But is it really worth another $100B to go in there and root them out? What did 9/11 cost us directly? Has anybody even bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis?
I rule out human cost-benefit analysis because 9/11 killed about 3k people and Iraq + Afghanistan killed something on the order of 15,000. So there better be a hell of a good economic justification or else we are just pissing our money away.
That said, if they ever catch OBL I will dance a frikking jig and get hella drunk.
07-13-2004, 06:55 PM
#3
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
That said, if they ever catch OBL I will dance a frikking jig and get hella drunk.
If timed properly, that would be the best election tool EvAR!
07-13-2004, 07:01 PM
#5
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
I gotta admit I would have to reconsider voting for Dubya if he can produce OBL. As long as he promises not to start any more wars or raise federal spending.
If he produced Osama, the man we've been trying to get from the beggining, imagine his ratings.
/me puts buys stock in Reynolds Wrap.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
1
12-13-2004 10:31 AM
Unregistered
Teh Politics Forum
1
11-01-2004 06:04 AM
Max Xevious
Bay Area
5
08-26-2004 01:53 PM
Max Xevious
Teh Politics Forum
16
07-25-2004 11:21 PM