Is Bin Laden Winning?

[clocker]

Every breath that bin Laden takes, or every day that he is not conclusively proven to be dead, is a victory for him.
Having been iconized by Bush as the human face of terrorism, his very existence is proof to his followers that Islam ( at least Islam as they define it), can stand up to the West and flourish.
Another tactical error by the current administration.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@9 December 2003 - 03:42
Every breath that bin Laden takes, or every day that he is not conclusively proven to be dead, is a victory for him.
Having been iconized by Bush as the human face of terrorism, his very existence is proof to his followers that Islam ( at least Islam as they define it), can stand up to the West and flourish.
Another tactical error by the current administration.

Curiousity question, Clocker:

What would you think if the Church committee hadn't sterilized the CIA back in the '70s, and the level and quality of intelligence had remained high?

I know you aren't a fan of the CIA, but are you of the opinion better intel would have helped?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@9 December 2003 - 00:58

Curiousity question, Clocker:

What would you think if the Church committee hadn't sterilized the CIA back in the '70s, and the level and quality of intelligence had remained high?

I know you aren't a fan of the CIA, but are you of the opinion better intel would have helped?

Of course better intelligence would have helped, j2, although the quality of pre-Church committee information is debatable...remember the Bay of Pigs?

That was not the thrust of my point, however.

Bush, everfond of polishing his image as a tough guy ( insert pics of carrier landing here) raised bin Laden to the status of "official face of terrorism" and milked it for months. Me against him, as it were.
The failure of our forces to find him has only made his continued existence a PR goldmine for other terrorist groups.

And where is Saddam anyway?
Another "I'm going to take down that bully" stance gone awry...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@9 December 2003 - 17:11
And where is Saddam anyway?
Another "I'm going to take down that bully" stance gone awry...

You think so ? I beg to differ.

I would suggest that saddam has quite comprehensively been taken down. If he has any influence left, which I seriously doubt, it is as naught to that which he held before.

The same goes for the entire regime which ruled a country through terror (and had the manuals to show how to do it).

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+9 December 2003 - 11:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 9 December 2003 - 11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@9 December 2003 - 17:11
And where is Saddam anyway?
Another "I&#39;m going to take down that bully" stance gone awry...

You think so ? I beg to differ.

I would suggest that saddam has quite comprehensively been taken down. If he has any influence left, which I seriously doubt, it is as naught to that which he held before.

The same goes for the entire regime which ruled a country through terror (and had the manuals to show how to do it). [/b][/quote]
I disagree.

Hardly a night goes by that we are not faced with more images of US soldiers ambushed by remnants of Saddam&#39;s forces ( or their sympathisers). Often, this imagery is accompanied by the question of whether or not Hussien is in fact still directing the resistence from his hideout.

Again, his actual involvement is irrelevant in my opinion.
The fact that the possibility exists is a plus for those arrayed against us.

Bush made a big deal about overthrowing the Baathist regime and bringing it&#39;s leaders to justice.
Saddam is still at large and several high ranking officials of his regime have actually been retained by US forces in positions of power.

The administration was responsible for directing attention specifically to these two men rather than focusing on the nebulous ( and sound byte unfriendly) subject of terrorism in general.
Thir inability to actually follow through and produce the bodies ( either living or dead) of these two enemies of the free world makes them ( and us, by extension) appear ineffectual and weak.
Bush picked the targets, why shouldn&#39;t he be held accountable for missing them?

[spanishpete]

winning what the man is dying in agony from kidney failure. he has turned the peaceful world against islam . in fact that man has set back the cause of islam back to the middle ages where it belongs. that filth has bought the name of islam into disgust. truth no opinion.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+9 December 2003 - 19:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 9 December 2003 - 19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@9 December 2003 - 11:23
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker

@9 December 2003 - 17:11
And where is Saddam anyway?
Another "I&#39;m going to take down that bully" stance gone awry...

You think so ? I beg to differ.

I would suggest that saddam has quite comprehensively been taken down. If he has any influence left, which I seriously doubt, it is as naught to that which he held before.

The same goes for the entire regime which ruled a country through terror (and had the manuals to show how to do it).

I disagree.

Hardly a night goes by that we are not faced with more images of US soldiers ambushed by remnants of Saddam&#39;s forces ( or their sympathisers). Often, this imagery is accompanied by the question of whether or not Hussien is in fact still directing the resistence from his hideout.

Again, his actual involvement is irrelevant in my opinion.
The fact that the possibility exists is a plus for those arrayed against us.

Bush made a big deal about overthrowing the Baathist regime and bringing it&#39;s leaders to justice.
Saddam is still at large and several high ranking officials of his regime have actually been retained by US forces in positions of power.

The administration was responsible for directing attention specifically to these two men rather than focusing on the nebulous ( and sound byte unfriendly) subject of terrorism in general.
Thir inability to actually follow through and produce the bodies ( either living or dead) of these two enemies of the free world makes them ( and us, by extension) appear ineffectual and weak.
Bush picked the targets, why shouldn&#39;t he be held accountable for missing them?[/b][/quote]
You genuinely feel that saddam may still be alive and may be organising "resistance" equates to a man whose word was absolute law within a country.

Who was so tyrannical that he could order the death of thousands of Kurds, with no argument. Whose people lived in absolute terror and disappeared without a word. Whose families couldn&#39;t even find out what happened to them, for fear of their own lives.

Whose secret police ruled by absolute terror amongst the populace. Who made videos of them blowing living people up. Who tortured and murdered with impunity.

Whose sons had rape squads and would pick women at random from the streets. Then take them away from their husbands, who could do nothing. Who set starving dogs on a woman who refused to consent. Who extracted their own soldiers teeth with pliers, on a whim.

One of the biggest, cruelest tyrants in the world may now be organising resistance against the allied forces.

Like I say, I beg to differ.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

Although I don&#39;t disagree with one word of your description of Saddam&#39;s regime I think it over-simplifies the Iraq political landscape to say that the Iraqi people with one voice rejoiced over his departure. The scenes of jubilation at the fall of Baghdad are a case in point - for such a huge city very very few took to the streets. Whereas the streets of Paris where thronged with flowers and rejoicing women and children Baghdad had a rampage of a few thousand looters and muggers. It was not an auspicious start.

Saddam is, as you point out, pretty much universally hated by the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. Most of his atrocities were carried out on these ethnic groups. Like many dictators of the past, he was a charismatic man who could be generous to those he favoured. Many in the Sunni areas really did love him. They were raised to love him and did so without question. Likewise these people still fear a future Iraq without his protection for their tribal groups. Iraq is in flux and there are probably many groups taking to arms to secure their little bit of the power cake regardless of what Saddam does or says now.

I don&#39;t think Saddam is organising resistance but I do think he is still alive and is a rallying point for anti-coalition fighters and focal point for pro-coalition fears. He is, however, in his late 60s and is unlikely to form the basis for any long term anti-coalition strategy. I suspect his mantle will pass (if it passes on - who knows we may succeed) to whoever welds the forces of disorder in Iraq into a cohesive body.

In a country where tribe is more important than political parties it will not be easy to install a stable government. We could be bankrolling a pro-west government in Iraq for years and still see it crumble before our eyes in acrimony and in-fighting. However, perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic - I did, however, think Ian Paisley&#39;s days were over and consequently am somewhat wary of claims that peace and reconcilliation are just around the corner..

[J'Pol]

Biggles

I didn&#39;t say that the people rejoiced as one. Given the position, no right thinking person would have expected them to. They were used to being the subjects of a despot with absolute power. One would not expect them to rejoice his removal within a few days of it happening. They simply would not have believed it.

I merely responed to the concept that the bully had not been taken down. A position which I reject unreservedly. In order to do this I attempted to compare (juxtapose if you will) the position as was, to the position now. He may still have some influence, I really don&#39;t know, however it is as nothing to that which he had before. He is at best a toothless tiger and a figurehead. To me the bully has been taken down.

If my previous efforts were unclear I apologise.

[Biggles]

Fair point - I perhaps mis-read your position

He certainly isn&#39;t washing in gold bath tubs anymore (unless he has one stashed away in whatever bunker he is hidden in). I agree that he is unlikely to figure in Iraqi politics in any significant way in the future - although sometimes these figures have an influence beyond their shelf life.

I think Clocker does make a valid point regarding an over-emphasis by both Bush an Blair on the targeting of Saddam (and Omar and OBL come to think of it). By and large, we have not been particularly successful in tracking these people down.

On a seperate note, I see I spoke too soon regarding gung ho bombing in Afghanistan and that a further six children were killed yesterday in another abortive raid. According to the report I read, Afghan officials in Kabul are becoming increasingly worried about the effect these incidents are having on their attempts to convince the village populations to stop supporting the Taliban.

Are we snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?