http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200402/22/eng20040222_135465.shtml
Can't seem to find any more coverage from legit news agencies though. It would be good if there is truth in the article.
Bin Laden cornered in Pakistan's northwest?
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200402/22/eng20040222_135465.shtml
Can't seem to find any more coverage from legit news agencies though. It would be good if there is truth in the article.
Heard this earlier. Possible, I guess, but news agencies would not jump on it like you'd expect--if they said bin Laden was captured or about to be captured and they were wrong, it'd be a serious gaffe.
it was hypothesized... the pakistani and us reps both said they were going to employ a pincer type movement to catch him and showed the region they believed him to be in...
considering gaffe's baron
they were almost ALL wrong about dean in the first primary... everyone of the big experts was wrong and the polls were wrong and everyone else of note was wrong... but no repurcusions
such is the luxury the media enjoys...
considering gaffe's baron
they were almost ALL wrong about dean in the first primary... everyone of the big experts was wrong and the polls were wrong and everyone else of note was wrong... but no repurcusions such is the luxury the media enjoys...
Fox News was running it early this morning.
If Bin Laden is caught, how much impact will it have on Al Qaeda operations overall? Personally I have no idea, but I'm curious if others think it could demoralize the organization or if Bin Laden is some terrorist mastermind who's irreplacable when it comes to planning attacks.
If Bin Laden is caught, how much impact will it have on Al Qaeda operations overall? Personally I have no idea, but I'm curious if others think it could demoralize the organization or if Bin Laden is some terrorist mastermind who's irreplacable when it comes to planning attacks.
John Reynolds said:
I question the effect it would have on the organization itself, as it's seemingly in utter disarray at any sufficiently higher level up on its hierarchy. As Charles Krauthammer recently posited, Why haven't there been more attacks post-9/11? He offered several answers, but one looking at the known facts is drawn to the conclusion that Al-Qaeda's leadership and hierarchy have been injured to an irreparable level which has caused a fracturing to localized control and operations, ergo the attack's we've seen.
But, another possibility is the psychological one in that I'd imagine the persona, the external draw to the mystic of Al Qaeda bravely fighting the western world, being irreparably harmed by this action. The man has become the personification of Al-Qaeda to much of the world, he is the 9/11 attacks, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings. Once he is gone, I question if the global draw to the cause will survive or if it will fall back into the darkness of obscurity with the local terror sect’s further picking up the pieces.
Not to mention the intense localized pressure the United States has imposed on said causes/movements with the formation of America’s virtual client state in a democratic Iraq. Iraq shouldn’t be forgotten or diminished as it shall be considered one of America’s greatest achievements, and the beginning of the downfall of the regimes and movements we’re actively fighting post-9/11. Or perhaps it’s just the birth of contemporary humanity in the region… It shall be an interesting time for historians.
Vince said:
Thanks for the reply, but I do have to comment that as much as I'd like to agree with the above I think it's a bit too early to make such grandiose statements.
Concerning Iraq, I hope Bush isn't in too much of a rush to get out, or our potential "greatest achievement" may degenerate into a "one of our greatest fiascos". Now that we've gone in and deposed the Baathists, we've gotta stay to make absolutely sure they get a stable government that guarantees human rights to their citizens. For example, the recent calls for Iraqi law to be based on Shari'ah are disturbing, and need to be defeated.
JohnReynolds said:
See, I'd consider comments such as fbg1's to be micro-managing/tactical problems. Historians looking back, with all probability, aren't going to single out any of these issues that the partisian politic is raising. Is it possible? Sure, anything is; but it's highly unlilkely.
What I do consider of paramount importance has already happened, the United States has invested tremendous resources - be them political, economic, or other - to create a virtual client state in the Middle East. The actual road to democratization is irrelevant, for the grand strategic shift on the American's part has been made. The rest is micromanaging and nationbuilding, and a hole shit load of partisan politics and finger-pointing.
When 1 fanatic dies or gets captured another 50 pop up.
If Bin Laden is captured it's just going to give cause for more hatred and a lot more fanatics.
I can only see it get worse, not better.
Al-Quada operate in cells. Each cell is independent from the others.
I'm not exactly sure but I believe Bin Laden is nothing more than a PR machine. When a PR machine dies another will take it's place.
If Bin Laden is captured it's just going to give cause for more hatred and a lot more fanatics.
I can only see it get worse, not better.
Al-Quada operate in cells. Each cell is independent from the others.
I'm not exactly sure but I believe Bin Laden is nothing more than a PR machine. When a PR machine dies another will take it's place.
K.I.L.E.R said:
Great one-liner, but care to prove it?
More cause for hatred? So, the Arabs dying by the hand of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and their brothers watching them from around the Middle East are going to get even more pist?
I know this, but Al-Qaeda's strength is that it's cell's weren't totally autonomous but rather supported by a hierarchial and international design which supplied funding, directives, intelligence, support, manpower, etc. They were practically a virtual state at the peak of their power in the '90s. Now their hierarchy is dead or hiding afraid of a special operator bursting down the door and killing them, their funding is drying up, they have none of the former safe bastions they once did like Afghanistan.
They are becoming more autonomous, but because their centeralized functionality is dead or decapitated. And they have the enemy in their proverbial backyard, it's not looking good.
I don't know if capturing Bin Laden would really make a difference concerning security. It definitely would be a huge political success for the current administration. Maybe Bin Laden is already dead. Who knows? A fanatical like him has probably recorded thousands of his propaganda speeches that still continue to surface..
horvendile
Regular
Vince said:
I agree nothing of the same scale has happened, but we have the Bali bombing, one or a couple of SAM incidents in Kenya, probably that ship bombing in the Red Sea (?), and some poisonous activity in London - though I don't know what became of that. I'd be very happy if A-Q was destroyed, but I fear it's still a little early to open the champagne. As IRA has pointed out in the past, terrorists only need to get lucky once - we all the time.
That said I think capturing bin Ladin would be a Good Thing - and I don't even particularly fancy Bush!
