Osama Dun Bin Forgotten

Ok, but if you'll be opening the door....

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
[ If you'd like to try and prove that only minor efforts or incompetent efforts are being taken to catch OBL, go ahead.

Oh, goodie. This is one of my personal favourites.

I assume that you are trying to change the subject from a position you cannot defend. Now, you have indicated that you can prove the above assertion, and I would like to see you do that.

0 Replies

Has bin Laden bin forgotten?

America's ever-shifting attitude towards bin Laden tells us far more about the confused war on terror than about bin Laden himself.

by Brendan O'Neill

POSTED APRIL 25, 2002 --

?'The goal has never been to get bin Laden', said General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002. President George W Bush might have declared on 17 September 2001 that bin Laden was ?'Wanted: Dead or Alive' - but Myers told CNN that a far more important aim than bin Laden's head on a platter was the ?'capture, killing and scattering' of ?'mid-level al-Qaeda operatives' 1. ?'The goal [in Afghanistan] was never after specific individuals', he claimed 2.

But four days later, on 10 April 2002, army secretary Thomas White said that one of America's ?'strategic objectives' in Afghanistan is ?'to get bin Ladenand we are pursuing that' 3. Asked if the war on terror could only be hailed a success once bin Laden was found, White said yes - claiming that ?'no one said it was going to be easy' 4.

?'I truly am not that concerned about him', said President George W Bush on 13 March 2002, after being asked the million-dollar question ?'where is bin Laden?' once too often 5. ?'Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all', said Bush, brushing bin Laden off as ?'a person who has now been marginalized' 6.

But a week later, on 21 March 2002, US commanders claimed that bin Laden and co are ?'still a threat in the new Afghanistan'. Major-general Frank Hagenbeck warned that ?'there are al-Qaeda operatives in Paktia right now, who are going to great lengths to regroup' 7 - while CIA director George Tenet claimed that bin Laden remains an ?'immediate and serious threat' 8.

On 8 April 2002, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said bin Laden's threat had been ?'neutralized'. ?'Our goal was to stop terrorism to the extent that we could', said Rumsfeld - claiming that ?'enough pressure' had been applied to al-Qaeda leaders to make them ?'so busy surviving' and ?'moving from place to place' that they no longer have time to plot terrorist attacks 9.

But on the same day, one newspaper claimed that ?'bin Laden managed to escape hours before a joint team of FBI and Pakistan commandos raided an al-Qaeda hideout in Faisalabad in the Punjab province on 28 March, which resulted in the capture of his lieutenant Abu Zubaydah' 10 - leading to concern in the ?'American camp' that bin Laden is ?'safe and well and planning new terror attacks' 11.

What's going on? Is bin Laden still the big bad threat to world peace that President Bush once wanted ?'dead or alive' - or has he been ?'marginalized' out of the picture? Has al-Qaeda's threat been ?'neutralized' - or are they plotting further terrorist attacks and ?'secret guerrilla warfare'? Is getting bin Laden one of America's ?'strategic objectives' - or was it never a priority in the first place?

Since the start of 2002, America's hunt for bin Laden has verged on the farcical. On 7 January 2002, an exasperated military spokesman said the USA would stop ?'chasing shadows', after yet another round of ?'where's bin Laden?' questions from assembled journalists 12.

Read More here... http://www.cursor.org/stories/binladenforgotten.htm

0 Replies

My assertion was not that we aren't trying to catch him at all, Brandon; it's that the priorities of the president have changed, and this is reflected in his speech. How hard is that to understand?

When Bush gives a speech outlining his priorities and doesn't mention OBL, then it's not a priority to him. This is a problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My assertion was not that we aren't trying to catch him at all, Brandon; it's that the priorities of the president have changed, and this is reflected in his speech. How hard is that to understand?

When Bush gives a speech outlining his priorities and doesn't mention OBL, then it's not a priority to him. This is a problem.

Cycloptichorn

You're asserting that there is no longer a serious effort to catch OBL, and, perhaps, that it has not been implemented competently. Support this assertion with evidence, or stop making it. The fact that it's not mentioned a lot doesn't prove anything at all. It could have a hundred meanings or none.

0 Replies

You want evidence? We haven't caught him yet, and we've mired ourselves in Iraq.

That, plus the fact that we refuse to go after the terrorist's home base (Saudi Arabia) shows just how much resolve we have on this issue.

If it was still considered a big deal to catch Bin Laden, Bush would say so. He doesn't say it, so either it isn't a big deal to him anymore or he's too embarassed to bring it up - don't want voters thinking about your failures right before an election.

I don't think it can have a hundred meanings or more. I think apologists like yourself will find any justification for what Bush does on military issues.

There is my evidence; I will continue to assert that Bush is avoiding the topic completely. His speeches back me up. As for his reasons for doing so, who cares? As my public servant, he has a responsibility to answer whatever question asked of him, and he's not doing so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon, did you read squinney's post?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Has bin Laden bin forgotten?

America's ever-shifting attitude towards bin Laden tells us far more about the confused war on terror than about bin Laden himself.

by Brendan O'Neill

POSTED APRIL 25, 2002 --

?'The goal has never been to get bin Laden', said General....from assembled journalists 12.

Read More here... http://www.cursor.org/stories/binladenforgotten.htm

When you give me a link to 20 things that someone else, not you, took the time to assert in an opinion peace, it forces me to take 5 hours and run them all down, which I have no intention of doing, since it is not even your words.

I can give you a link to five books that say Bush is a fabulous president, and then declare you the loser if you refuse to refute every assertion made in those books.

Do you or do you not know what the government is doing now to pursue bin Laden? You certainly can't judge it inadequate if you don't. If you wish to use your article as a source, pick your top one or two pieces of evidence. If you do, I will respond to them.

0 Replies

Do you know, Brandon? Then how can you defend them without any knowledge of this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hey B, before your head explodes, maybe you could rethink what exactly it is that people are saying on this thread. Nobody is claiming to know what the government is doing to pursue bin Laden.

If your problem is that squinney's post has too many facts in it then I don't know how to fix that. Maybe you could start by arguing with the General in the article.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You want evidence? We haven't caught him yet, and we've mired ourselves in Iraq....

The first proves nothing unless the degree of difficulty is taken into account, and the latter is irrelevant to a debate on whether we are working hard to find bin Laden.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...That, plus the fact that we refuse to go after the terrorist's home base (Saudi Arabia) shows just how much resolve we have on this issue.

Do we think OBL is hiding in Saudia Arabia? I'm sure that if we did, we would request his extradition. Are you proposing invading Saudia Arabia to catch OBL? It sounds like you are.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If it was still considered a big deal to catch Bin Laden, Bush would say so. He doesn't say it, so either it isn't a big deal to him anymore or he's too embarassed to bring it up - don't want voters thinking about your failures right before an election.

This is speculation in the absence of knowledge. You appear to have no knowledge whatever of the methods that are being employed to search for bin Laden, and for all you know, they might be very significant.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't think it can have a hundred meanings or more.

Why do you think this?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think apologists like yourself will find any justification for what Bush does on military issues.

This is not evidence that we are not trying hard or not trying competently to catch bin Laden.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is my evidence; I will continue to assert that Bush is avoiding the topic completely. His speeches back me up. As for his reasons for doing so, who cares?

Your "evidence" is that Bush doesn't talk about it much, which is no evidence at all.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As my public servant, he has a responsibility to answer whatever question asked of him, and he's not doing so.

First of all, you have not mentioned a question that he didn't answer. Secondly, it would be foolish for him to discuss specific approaches being taken in the hunt. Thirdly, you have no knowledge whatever of what is being done in the hunt for bin Laden. All you have is the fact that Bush doesn't mention him much which does not mean that the hunt for him isn't in earnest.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you know, Brandon? Then how can you defend them without any knowledge of this?

Cycloptichorn

My only assertion here is that in the absence of information about the topic, you cannot assert that little is being done to catch OBL. Your assertion applies to Bush's actions, mine is a critique of your logic.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

...If your problem is that squinney's post has too many facts in it then I don't know how to fix that. Maybe you could start by arguing with the General in the article.

When you make some negative assertion about Bush, I can simply reference the titles of 5 books that say he's a great guy and then declare you the loser if you don't track down every assertion in every book. That is cheating. If you want to defend your position, make a few assertions that the other person has some possibility of responding to.

0 Replies

I don't think anyone is asking you to track down the facts in the article. If you just go by the quotes you'll see our point. If you want to fact check it, that's your business but I don't think it came out of the National Enquirer.

And personally, my position has been defended as I wasn't asserting anything that isn't obvious.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't think anyone is asking you to track down the facts in the article. If you just go by the quotes you'll see our point. If you want to fact check it, that's your business but I don't think it came out of the National Enquirer.

And personally, my position has been defended as I wasn't asserting anything that isn't obvious.

Then don't present long articles as responses to my positions, so that I "lose" if I don't spend hours analyzing words you didn't take the time to write yourself. Reference whatever you want, but your argument needs to be presented in your own words. By "you," I mean any of you, not you personally.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I don't think anyone is asking you to track down the facts in the article. If you just go by the quotes you'll see our point. If you want to fact check it, that's your business but I don't think it came out of the National Enquirer.

And personally, my position has been defended as I wasn't asserting anything that isn't obvious.

Then don't present long articles as responses to my positions, so that I "lose" if I don't spend hours analyzing words you didn't take the time to write yourself. Reference whatever you want, but your argument needs to be presented in your own words. By "you," I mean any of you, not you personally.

Oh good lord. squinney posted the article which I thought presented rational for our statements. I didn't know this was a game where you 'win' or 'lose'. I thought it was a conversation. The article wasn't that long, and it's called a reference. As in, 'I think this because I read this and it makes sense to me'. References back up arguments. The argument being presented here is, correct me if I'm wrong, OBL is no longer a priority to this administration and the republicans are strangely quiet on the topic of him altogether. I didn't think that was something that needed a bibliography.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I don't think anyone is asking you to track down the facts in the article. If you just go by the quotes you'll see our point. If you want to fact check it, that's your business but I don't think it came out of the National Enquirer.

And personally, my position has been defended as I wasn't asserting anything that isn't obvious.

Then don't present long articles as responses to my positions, so that I "lose" if I don't spend hours analyzing words you didn't take the time to write yourself. Reference whatever you want, but your argument needs to be presented in your own words. By "you," I mean any of you, not you personally.

Oh good lord. squinney posted the article which I thought presented rational for our statements. I didn't know this was a game where you 'win' or 'lose'. I thought it was a conversation. The article wasn't that long, and it's called a reference. As in, 'I think this because I read this and it makes sense to me'. References back up arguments. The argument being presented here is, correct me if I'm wrong, OBL is no longer a priority to this administration and the republicans are strangely quiet on the topic of him altogether. I didn't think that was something that needed a bibliography.

If you don't think that people on this board think in terms of winning and losing, then you are very naive indeed. It is a common technique of debate to support a losing position by taking a few minutes to link the people you are debating to a long article by someone else, so that the other person has to spend hours and hours investigating and refuting some laundry list of points. The portion of the article he posted is not very long but the entire article is. I can do this to you just as easily as you can do it to me any time I am on the losing end of a disagreement. Citations are good, but very long citations as the whole answer are not a valid response.

Now, unless someone can state in his own words, a few pieces of evidence indicating that the pursuit of OBL is minor or incompetent, I will conclude that you (the collective you) are unable to back up your assertions.

0 Replies

Brandon, don't confuse filibustering with winning a deabate. The fact of the matter is Bush had an ooprtunity to capture Oama at Tora Bora (sp?) and blew it. He was Public Enemy Number One now he is The Unmentionable.

0 Replies

Dang! Didn't realize I caused a stir by posting the truth!

I thought it was good to post a source of proof for a claim, rather than just stating what would have otherwise been taken as just my opinion. Sorry to have strained your brain there, Brandon, by requiring you to know what you are talking about.

Did you notice the date on the article?

0 Replies

Osama Dun Bin Forgotten

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know