Anyone remember Osama Bin Laden?

I don’t think there is much more Bush can do directly to hurt Al Qaeda; our military is powerful, but it’s a blunt instrument. We can’t kill every man in Pakistan to eliminate the small percentage that are direct Al Qaeda supporters. And it is hard to get good intelligence in that part of the world. We are not well-liked there.

Where I fault the administration is in the big picture: addressing the reasons Al Qaeda is successful in recruiting, and has so many sympathizers in countries like Pakistan or Yemen. Yes, we must make it hard for Al Qaeda to operate, but if we don’t change the background situation, new organizations will spring up to replace it.

It’s the Israeli situation. They will win every battle, but can they win the war? The demographics don’t favor them, and the terrorist attacks keep on coming…

splutter LOL!!! :D

How many terrorists are there? 1,000, tops? I fail to see how they’ll defeat us in a Zerg rush, or what demographics has to do with it.

I have no idea how many terrorists there are, but I think there are a lot more than a 1,000 muslims in the world who are at least sympathetic to bin Laden’s cause.

No, I don’t think they can “defeat” us. But if they are able to continue terrorizing us, wouldn’t that constitute a “victory” from their point of view? And can we really stop that? I don’t think we can, and the cost of even slowing them down is enormous.

My point is we need to address the root of the problem somehow – why are there so many crazed zealots willing to kill themselves to strike at us? – or it will likely continue, Bush saber-rattling or no.

The root of the problem is the crazed zealots. Say the western world completely pulled out of any country with a muslim majority. Do you honestly think the crazed zealots would stop killing themselves and others? They would just be redirected by their makers to internal targets. The Saudi royal house in particular would be a prime target. How about the Hindu-Muslim violence that plagues India? That pre-dates US foreign policy. Crazed zealots are crazed zealots, and always will be.

I think Bin Laden would love the world to believe that his organisation and planning have been irreparably damaged. But you have to admit that recent events have proven otherwise.

The world is full of Muslim radicals who are more than willing to carry the banner for Bin Laden even if they have had no prior association with his organisation.

There’s something to be said for the Inquisition and the idea of “recanting”.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&e=3&u=/ap/20021118/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_bin_laden

Obviously he’s not:

“WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence has concluded that a new audiotape of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) is an authentic, unaltered and recent recording of the al-Qaida leader, officials said Monday.”

Mostly I think that’s a non-analysis. How did they become crazed zealots? Why?

Oh, c’mon. You can do better than that. I hope.

Jebus, you don’t need a message board to answer that question, you need graduate-level courses in history, religious studies, psychology, and sociology. Even then you won’t find a definite answer.

Yeah, but I don’t feel like typing that much. If you want debate, go over to ourfaiths.org and join in on that fun. I’ll get you started with this nice quasi-rational discussion about the spread of Islam in India.

“Can we concentrate on a person who is verifiably even alive?”

Apparently not. Has anyone even heard a statement from Bush2?