Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85
  1. #1
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,896
    ROBERT A. PAPE: The End of Fear, The Beginning of Understanding

    Posted on September 3, 2011 by drovang


    CHICAGO – In the decade since 9/11, the United States has:
    • Conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

    • Compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

    • Deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc)

    • Imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

    • Waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new ins utions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

    • Killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

    Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?


    In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.


    In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.


    September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.


    Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.



    Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.



    American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.


    No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.



    WHAT WENT WRONG

    America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.



    But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American at udes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.


    The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: To transform Arab societies – with Western political ins utions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.



    The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.



    On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.


    Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.
    WHAT WE KNOW

    Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:


    • Occupation Causes Suicide Terrorism

    Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation
    • The More Occupation, the More Suicide Terrorism

    As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.


    • Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation
    The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.


    • Ending Occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

    Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.


    • Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism
    In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse — the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.



    • Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism
    In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.


    THE TIDE IS TURNING

    The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”



    And American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.
    In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.


    Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.



    Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.
    http://cpost.uchicago.edu/blog/2011/...understanding/

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Not a single mention of the MIC's secret SOCOM murderers garrisoning the planet? the MIC has quit catching, imprisoning, torturing and started simply murdering (and of course they never murder the wrong person, never any collateral murders). SOCOM is creating the terrorists to keep itself in eternal business.


    How many secret wars are we fighting?

    U.S. special ops forces are being deployed in more and more nations -- and the public has no idea


    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w..._american_wars

  3. #3
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,896

  4. #4
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Like the War On Drugs business, the Global War on Terrorism is a self-propagating business sucking $Ts out of taxpayer pockets for little or no benefit.

    Both businesses buy plenty of Congress critters to keep those tax $Ts flowing.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    New CIA chief Petraeus pledges to defend America


    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/0...e+Raw+Story%29

    ========

    He'll request $10Bs more from taxpayers, and he'll get it. The CIA will never live down allowing 9/11.

  6. #6
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    Good article. Unfortunately, the reality Pape presents has been brought up by others before him, only to be squashed by anti-intellectuals as examples of "blaming America."

    "They hate us for our freedom" is much easier for stupid people to get on board with.

  7. #7
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,896
    The blaming America contingent seems to be biting their tongues here. That's a dramatic change from just a few years back.

  8. #8
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    I loved Robert Pape the moment I read Dying to Win. That book blows away so many of the myths surrounding suicide terrorism.

    Very smart individual.

  9. #9
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”
    Wow that is actually heartening.

  10. #10
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Good read. Thanks for posting. Another reason why you want to empower local rebels to do the bidding, instead of deploying ground troops.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

    I'd say both are wrong.

    How about "they hate us" (as OBL said) because
    American troops and companies are have invaded their countries, are occupying their lands, taking their resources, and murdering innocent civilians?

    How would the NRA bubbas react if Mexico's drones were bombing drug cartel people (who dress and look just like Hispanic Americans) in USA and also killing 1000s of civilians?

  12. #12
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    14,938
    “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

    I'd say both are wrong.

    How about "they hate us" (as OBL said) because
    American troops and companies are have invaded their countries, are occupying their lands, taking their resources, and murdering innocent civilians?

    How would the NRA bubbas react if Mexico's drones were bombing drug cartel people (who dress and look just like Hispanic Americans) in USA and also killing 1000s of civilians?
    Don't you think all the above fits under "resent Western power and influence"???

    Do you even ing read any of the posts in a thread? It seems like you just read the le and then post some bull filled with acronyms and catch phrases.

  13. #13
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    http://www.slate.com/id/2303013/

    Simply Evil

    A decade after 9/11, it remains the best description and most essential fact about al-Qaida.

    By Christopher Hitchens


    The proper task of the "public intellectual" might be conceived as the responsibility to introduce complexity into the argument: the reminder that things are very infrequently as simple as they can be made to seem. But what I learned in a highly indelible manner from the events and arguments of September 2001 was this: Never, ever ignore the obvious either. To the government and most of the people of the United States, it seemed that the country on 9/11 had been attacked in a particularly odious way (air piracy used to maximize civilian casualties) by a particularly odious group (a secretive and homicidal gang: part multinational corporation, part crime family) that was sworn to a medieval cult of death, a racist hatred of Jews, a religious frenzy against Hindus, Christians, Shia Muslims, and "unbelievers," and the restoration of a long-vanished and despotic empire.

    To me, this remains the main point about al-Qaida and its surrogates. I do not believe, by stipulating it as the main point, that I try to oversimplify matters. I feel no need to show off or to think of something novel to say. Moreover, many of the attempts to introduce "complexity" into the picture strike me as half-baked obfuscations or distractions. These range from the irredeemably paranoid and contemptible efforts to pin responsibility for the attacks onto the Bush administration or the Jews, to the sometimes wearisome but not necessarily untrue insistence that Islamic peoples have suffered oppression. (Even when formally true, the latter must simply not be used as nonsequitur special pleading for the use of random violence by self-appointed Muslims.)

    Underlying these and other attempts to change the subject there was, and still is, a perverse desire to say that the 9/11 atrocities were in some way deserved, or made historically more explicable, by the many crimes of past American foreign policy. Either that, or—to recall the contemporary comments of the "Reverends" Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson—a punishment from heaven for American sinfulness. (The two ways of thinking, one of them ostensibly "left" and the other "right," are in fact more or less identical.) That this was an assault upon our society, whatever its ostensible capitalist and militarist "targets," was again thought too obvious a point for a clever person to make. It became increasingly obvious, though, with every successive nihilistic attack on London, Madrid, Istanbul, Baghdad, and Bali. There was always some "intellectual," however, to argue in each case that the policy of Tony Blair, or George Bush, or the Spanish government, was the "root cause" of the broad-daylight slaughter of civilians. Responsibility, somehow, never lay squarely with the perpetrators.

    So, although the official tone of this month's pious commemorations will stress the victims and their families (to the pathetically masochistic extent of continuing to forbid much of the graphic footage of the actual atrocities, lest "feelings" and susceptibilities be wounded), it is quite probable that those who accept the conventional "narrative" are, at least globally, in a minority. It is not only in the Muslim world that it is commonplace to hear that the events of 9/11 were part of a Jewish or U.S. government plot. And it is not only on the demented fringe that such fantasies circulate in "the West." A book alleging that the Pentagon rocketed the Pentagon with a cruise missile—somehow managing to dispose of the craft and crew and passengers of the still-missing Flight 77, including my slight friend Barbara Olson—was a best-seller in France, while another book about another 9/11 conspiracy theory was published in the United States by the publishing arm of the Nation magazine. Westminster John Knox Press, a respected house long associated with American Presbyterianism, published Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, which asserted that the events of that day were planned in order to furnish a pretext for intervention in the Middle East. More explicitly on the Left, my old publishing house Verso—offshoot of the New Left Review—published an anthology of Osama Bin Laden's sermonizing rants in which the editors compared the leader of al-Qaida explicitly, and in the context not unfavorably, to Che Guevara.

    So, for me at any rate, the experience of engaging in the 9/11 politico-cultural wars was a vertiginous one in at least two ways. To begin with, I found myself for the first time in my life sharing the outlook of soldiers and cops, or at least of those soldiers and cops who had not (like George Tenet and most of the CIA) left us defenseless under open skies while well-known "no fly" names were allowed to pay cash for one-way tickets after having done perfunctory training at flight schools. My sympathies were wholeheartedly and unironically (and, I claim, rationally) with the forces of law and order. Second, I became heavily involved in defending my adopted country from an amazing campaign of defamation, in which large numbers of the intellectual class seemed determined at least to minimize the gravity of what had occurred, or to translate it into innocuous terms (poverty is the cause of political violence) that would leave their worldview undisturbed. How much easier to maintain, as many did, that it was all an excuse to build a pipeline across Afghanistan (an option bizarrely neglected by American imperialism after the fall of communism in Kabul, when the wretched country could have been ours for the taking!).

    My solidarity with soldiers, cops, and other "responders" didn't make me a full convert to the police mentality. I was a named plaintiff in the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency, for its practice of warrantless wiretapping. I found a way of having myself "waterboarded" by former professionals, in order to satisfy my readers that the process does indeed cons ute torture. I have visited Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, those two grotesque holes of American panic-reaction, and written very critically from both. And I was and remain unreconciled to the stupid, wasteful, oppressive collective punishment of Americans who try to use our civil aviation, or who want to be able to get into their own offices without showing ID to a guard who has no database against which to check it. But I had also seen Abu Ghraib shortly after it was first broken open in 2003, and could have no truck with the moral defectives who talked glibly as if that mini-Auschwitz and mass grave was no worse. When Amnesty International described Guantanamo as "the Gulag of our time," I felt a collapse of seriousness that I have felt many times since.

    One reason for opposing excesses and stupidities on "our" side (actually, why do I defensively lob in those quotation marks? Please consider them as optional) was my conviction that the defeat of Bin-Ladenism was ultimately certain. Al-Qaida demands the impossible—worldwide application of the most fanatical interpretation of sharia—and to forward the demand employs the most hysterically irrational means. (This combination, by the way, would make a reasonable definition of "terrorism.") It follows that the resort to panicky or degrading tactics in order to combat terrorism is, as well as immoral, self-defeating.

    Ten years ago I wrote to a despairing friend that a time would come when al-Qaida had been penetrated, when its own paranoia would devour it, when it had tried every tactic and failed to repeat its 9/11 coup, when it would fall victim to its own deluded worldview and—because it has no means of generating self-criticism—would begin to implode. The trove recovered from Bin Laden's rather dismal Abbottabad hideaway appears to confirm that this fate has indeed, with much labor on the part of unsung heroes, begun to engulf al-Qaida. I take this as a part vindication of the superiority of "our" civilization, which is at least so cons uted as to be able to learn from past mistakes, rather than remain a prisoner of "faith."

    The battle against casuistry and bad faith has also been worth fighting. So have many other struggles to assert the obvious. Contrary to the peddlers of shallow anti-Western self-hatred, the Muslim world did not adopt Bin-Ladenism as its shield against reality. Very much to the contrary, there turned out to be many millions of Arabs who have heretically and robustly preferred life over death. In many societies, al-Qaida defeated itself as well as underwent defeat.

    In these cases, then, the problems did turn out to be more complicated than any "simple" solution the theocratic fanatics could propose. But, and against the tendencies of euphemism and evasion, some stout simplicities deservedly remain. Among them: Holocaust denial is in fact a surrep ious form of Holocaust affirmation. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was a direct and lethal challenge to free expression, not a clash between traditional faith and "free speech fundamentalism." The mass murder in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not the random product of "ancient hatreds" but a deliberate plan to erase the Muslim population. The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fully deserve to be called "evil." And, 10 years ago in Manhattan and Washington and Shanksville, Pa., there was a direct confrontation with the totalitarian idea, expressed in its most vicious and unvarnished form. Let this and other struggles temper and strengthen us for future battles where it will be necessary to repudiate the big lie.

  14. #14
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    I loved Robert Pape the moment I read Dying to Win. That book blows away so many of the myths surrounding suicide terrorism.

    Very smart individual.
    It is astonishing what one learns by actually gathering data, as opposed to sucking up forwarded emails as gospel.

  15. #15
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Wow that is actually heartening.
    True.

    However, all it takes is ONE attack again on American soil and we will regress further than we ever have.

    Which begs the point.

    As much as we need to realize that occupying their lands begets suicide bombers, I hope the bombers and their masters are putting the pieces together that suicide bombers beget our military on their lands.

    , before 9/11 they had fewer than 20,000 of our troops on their lands. How'd that whole suicide bomber strategy work out for THEM?

  16. #16
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    OBL still won, and wins still.

    He said he knew he'd get only one chance, and he made it pay off 1000x.

    OBL suckered the US into foreign lands (with help from dubya and head and other neo-cons chasing oil) where the US has wasted $Ts and 100s of 1000s of lives, including many 1000s of US lives.

    How'd that work out for OBL? Fantastically.

    (to say nothing of the police/suveillance state the US has installed for $100Bs of guns while cutting back on butter everywhere)

  17. #17
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    As much as we need to realize that occupying their lands begets suicide bombers, I hope the bombers and their masters are putting the pieces together that suicide bombers beget our military on their lands.
    It's been 10 years, and the suicides have only increased. Heck, you can go back to way more than 10 years in the Israeli conflict.

    Their endgame is "unless you GTFO, you wipe us out or we wipe you out". Ask Israel.

  18. #18
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    OBL still won, and wins still.

    He said he knew he'd get only one chance, and he made it pay off 1000x.

    OBL suckered the US into foreign lands (with help from dubya and head and other neo-cons chasing oil) where the US has wasted $Ts and 100s of 1000s of lives, including many 1000s of US lives.

    How'd that work out for OBL? Fantastically.

    (to say nothing of the police/suveillance state the US has installed for $100Bs of guns while cutting back on butter everywhere)

    Seriously?

    Al Queda is in shambles; Taliban completely uprooted; Sure plenty of people hate us, but what was it OBL was trying to accomplish. Did he want us out of the middle east?

    That certainly didn't work.

    If his goal was to make sure my wife couldn't carry her glasses repair kit on the ferry to the Statue of Liberty, or make us all take off our shoes to board an airplane, then great, however, I don't think this is what he wanted.

    Not to mention the cap his got busted into his own ass. And don't say he didn't care about dying; there were plenty of bombs he could have strapped to himself, after all.

  19. #19
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    I would argue that what OBL wanted was the US in the ME. I think after working up Russia they had the feeling they could take on anybody on their terms and in their place.

  20. #20
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    I would further argue that it was more difficult to brainwash followers that America=evil when America didn't have a direct presence in the area (thus projecting through Israel).

  21. #21
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    To that extent, he got what he wanted.

  22. #22
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    He also got a bullet in his skull, which was well deserved.

  23. #23
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "Seriously?"

    absolutely. For under $500K and 19 lives, OBL, in "assymetric warfare", got the USA to blow $Ts and 1000s of US lives.

    His goal was to sucker US into foreign wars. If US were winning and Taleban/AQ were truly destroyed, they why is the US remaining, bleeding $Ts and lives, in Afghanistan and Iraq for as far as anybody wants to extrapolate?

  24. #24
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "America didn't have a direct presence in the area"

    WTF? US military boots were occupying OBL's sacred Saudi Arabaian sands, 1990 - 2003.

  25. #25
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    "America didn't have a direct presence in the area"

    WTF? US military boots were occupying OBL's sacred Saudi Arabaian sands, 1990 - 2003.
    The Saudi government consented to the presence of the troops. It's a lot easier to make a point when you show up uninvited.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •