Osama bin Laden is dead...

[V-R4NG3R]

well wished they killed justin bieber or someone too though!

[macheteman]

justin bieber, lady gaga, the jonas brothers... the list goes on...

actually, something i have been thinking about, and i don't actually believe this, but hear me out anyways, just for fun. ok, so the USA sustains an attack on the trade towers pentagon etc... it is a terrorist attack, so there is no clear enemy to fight. if you are the USA government you quite possibly could want a single man to lay the blame on so the the citizens of your country have someone to direct their hate at. so we pick a random Al Qaeda guy and tell everyone that he was the mastermind, and then go after him in Afghanistan, with the support of most of the people.

the reason i don't believe that: if we really did invent the fact that he was the mastermind, a story about his death would also have been engineered to bring closure much much sooner. as in, while it is still fresh in peoples minds. it makes no sense to create a villainous persona who runs around free for the next 10 years.

[ununtrium]

Agreed! ...and it is a good thing that this nemesis is finally dead. Now it would be a very good time to open a new dialogue with Middle Eastern countries, don't you think?

I mean, the US tried to fight terrorism and help other countries. Having accomplished a victory with one thing, why not focus on helping and trying to reach a cultural common ground now, a way to get along?

Maybe eschewing violence altogether is not practical. It may even be a bit self-righteous. BUT - and this is a big BUT - using violence because you don't have the patience or strength of character to go for a peaceful solution is just as self-righteous and cowardly. What does it say about you, if you feel secure only with the bigger weapon?

I guess weapons are just like cars. The bigger they are, the "smaller" the people who own them...

Cheers, NRA

[FM]

Well, since Bin Laden continued to infest the emdia with video-threats, a fake story about his death (and one of those long, drawn-out plots about evil masterminds having doubles, etc...) was likely to table back quickly, and that would then WITHDRAW the trust the people put n the government in the first place. No, they had to wait out on this one. They got him in the "conveniently right" time, I think, since the war hype has been cooling down, and this is gonna light up the spark again, saying that the tax dollars used in the offensive WERE put to good use, after all. If anything else, as far as conspiracy theories go, I'd say it was better to "save" Bin Laden for killing at another time, so, if I were a conspiracy-freak, I'd actually sutain the US DID know where to find him for a while now, they justo chose not to. I'm not too keen on wacky theories, though, so I just credit it to thoroughness. It's hard to hide nowadays if the right people REALLY want to get you, period.

[jdizzy001]

Maybe eschewing violence altogether is not practical. It may even be a bit self-righteous. BUT - and this is a big BUT - using violence because you don't have the patience or strength of character to go for a peaceful solution is just as self-righteous and cowardly. What does it say about you, if you feel secure only with the bigger weapon?

2 points.
First, I think you need to expound on this a bit. It sounds like you're saying the United States was not justified in defended themselves against a man who declared war on them in 1995 and who killed 3,000 of their civilians.

Second, and this goes for EVERYONE, so pay attention. I'm going to teach you something: One of the best ways to prevent/win a war is to make yourself look so lethal that no one will want to fight you because it would cost them WAY too many resources to do so (by resources I mean capital, natural, and human). So yes, security and safety comes from carrying an ENORMOUS weapon. Speak softly and carry a cruise missile. That's what I say!

[macheteman]

Second, and this goes for EVERYONE, so pay attention. I'm going to teach you something: One of the best ways to prevent/win a war is to make yourself look so lethal that no one will want to fight you because it would cost them WAY too many resources to do so (by resources I mean capital, natural, and human). So yes, security and safety comes from carrying an ENORMOUS weapon. Speak softly and carry a cruise missile. That's what I say!

based on your definition, the terrorists are in the better position.  it costs us WAY too much money, equipment, personnel, to carry on this "war against terror" (a war you can't win in this world.)  whereas for the terrorists, they believe dying in combat sends you to the highest heaven. and by definition terrorists don't give a #$&*@! how big our military penis is.

[Legolis]

But...
-wtk

P.S., Thanks Rashard.

The only thing is that most American's have heard him preach his hatred and death to America since 1995 when he started his bombings of the US Embassy's and declared war on America. There is a lot of video of him training his jihadists to kill Americans at all costs even if its at the loss of their life. Now don't get me wrong Americans have done some pretty underhanded things too over the last 50 years or so over in the Middle east. Nobody is perfect but I think this can be a turning point towards peace once the initial retaliations are over with. Americans are expecting it so the shock won't be as great when it does happen. Also after seeing how a raid should be instead of sending an entire army to get one man we can drop from birds out of the sky with 20 or so and get it done a lot cheaper with a bullet instead of a cruise missile from now on. Of course I would hope that when this settles down some we can start settling things in a peaceful manner with open ears and open minds.

[Mythdracon]

bin Laden was bedridden with kidney disease and walked with a cane when they killed him. Apparently he was unarmed and "resisted" though details aren't clear on how he did. Part of me worries they just got in there and killed him since they had the "authority" to do so, according to a White House spokesperson.

Still, I'm glad he's dead. Nasty piece of work, that leader. Al Qaeda is weakened because of his loss, and hopefully their other remaining leaders will be hunted down.

[Gate Troll]

...and hopefully their other remaining leaders will be hunted down.

But they won't. And the war on terror will go on and on until we realize that we can't invade every country that harbors extremist muslims. After all, Indonesia has training camps, Saudi Arabia gave 18 out 19 of the suicide bombers of 9-11, and Iran hates our guts, and would cheerfully dance in the streets if we got nuked, or something like that. And Pakistan harbored Osama for years. The middle east isn't a big game of whac-a-mole. I've actually become rather anti-war* after all this Bush stupidity (now Obama stupidity, but hey, at least O brought some closure with Bin Laden's death) as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (technically police actions- but hey, that's what they called Korea and Vietnam) seem to be dragging on, and on, and on. Y'all remember what happened last time a super-power invaded Afghanistan?
And can you believe we want to intervene in Libya?  Idiot politicians.

*anti pointless wars that is. I'm fine with the War for Independence and WW2.

[FM]

GT, seeing your reply made my day. If one of the most stubborn people to discuss with, EVER, can have that growth of mind in topics regarding an age-old discussion, then discussion is NOT pointless after all. I couldn't agree with you more, like I said, if my country was ruled by a Dictator and HE got killed in a rebellion, heck, I'd dance over his grave. But it's different.

[jdizzy001]

@MM: Your right, based on my definition the terrorists are in a better position. What does that tell you about the way the United States has been "waging" war? Another lesson about war: You must match or exceed your opponent's intensity to win. The terrorists are participating in an all-out religious war (give or take a few groups). In order to even come close to succeeding we have to match their ferocity, we have to wage all-out war.

Granted, this conflict is not a nation vs. nation combat so it has to be fought differently as it was mentioned we can't keep playing "middle east whack-a-mole." The tricky part is balancing diplomacy and military action. For example: we could have waged all-out war in Pakistan since Osama was harbored there. In fact the objective of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. We could have bombed Pakistan back to the stone age killing every single terrorist (and everyone else) in that country. However, that is not very diplomatic. On the flip side we could send emissary after emissary entreating peace and pleading for permission to search for Osama and all the Pakis would have to do is say, "sure go ahead, but you can't look here, here, or there." and our efforts would be thwarted.

Summary: We have to match/exceed the enemy's level of intensity if we want to come out on top. MM made a good point, the terrorists are doing a much better job at walking quietly and carrying a cruise missile, but if we match their intensity they wouldn't stand a chance. However, matching their intensity would result in the death of LOTS of civilians. Carpet bombing anyone?

[Gate Troll]

@MM: Your right, based on my definition the terrorists are in a better position. What does that tell you about the way the United States has been "waging" war? Another lesson about war: You must match or exceed your opponent's intensity to win. The terrorists are participating in an all-out religious war (give or take a few groups). In order to even come close to succeeding we have to match their ferocity, we have to wage all-out war.

Granted, this conflict is not a nation vs. nation combat so it has to be fought differently as it was mentioned we can't keep playing "middle east whack-a-mole." The tricky part is balancing diplomacy and military action. For example: we could have waged all-out war in Pakistan since Osama was harbored there. In fact the objective of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. We could have bombed Pakistan back to the stone age killing every single terrorist (and everyone else) in that country. However, that is not very diplomatic. On the flip side we could send emissary after emissary entreating peace and pleading for permission to search for Osama and all the Pakis would have to do is say, "sure go ahead, but you can't look here, here, or there." and our efforts would be thwarted.

Summary: We have to match/exceed the enemy's level of intensity if we want to come out on top. MM made a good point, the terrorists are doing a much better job at walking quietly and carrying a cruise missile, but if we match their intensity they wouldn't stand a chance. However, matching their intensity would result in the death of LOTS of civilians. Carpet bombing anyone?

So what would you have us do? Because carpet bombing isn't going to solve anything, except perhaps to aid Al-Qaeda's recruiting drive.

[sickofpalantirs]

Spies.  Lots and lots of spies.  And ops like the one that just took out Osama.

[jdizzy001]

That is the million dollar question Gate Troll. What should we do because you're right, carpet bombing isn't going to help. It may eliminate the "problem," but at the same time it would create a new one. The best answer (thus far) has been (as SoP suggests) spies, lots of spies and special ops.

Fighting a war against someone who doesn't pertain to a specific nation, for example Nazi Germany (not to be confused with modern day Germany) is for all intents and purposes a "new" problem. There are no answers yet. The best thing we can do is define a mission goal and accomplish it the best we know how. Which is something we are learning now: Don't go in without a plan. That includes an exit strategy.

[TheJord]

Even when Great Britain was fighting Nazi Germany, Churchill ordered carpet bombing of Berlin and other major cities to stem the invasion of Britain. It worked, as Hitler retaliated by carpet bombing London, and it halted the plans to invade.

I can't say I am very proud of Churchill's decision. Civilians living in Nazi Germany were not Nazi's themselves. However, it reminds me of the (unconfirmed) quote by Churchill that we can live our normal lives because "rough men stand ready to do violence against those that would harm us". Perhaps certain people are more capable, and can live with, the idea of such acts.