Bin Laden - will he live?

[Dippers Donuts]

Will Bin Laden survive this war?
Personally, I doubt it. For starters, there is the very real chance that a US missile will blow him out of his rathole, much like what happened to one of his deputies.

Aside from that I am convinced that the yanks will take him out if they catch up to him face to face. Bin Laden, alive, could severely embarrass the US, not just because of his links to the CIA etc during the soviet invasion. Bin Laden could severely embarrass George W by exposing further the links between the Bush and the Bin Laden family (it's a long, murky story - essentially Bush family members and Bin Laden family members have been principal stakeholders in defence contracting companies over the years).

Much easier to take him out in an "act of war".

If I were Bin Laden I would be cranking up the video camera and filming a couple of late night tell alls for distribution upon his demise.

Nope, dead men don't tell tales, so one way or 'tother I reckon it's goodnight Osama.

 

[play on]

He won't live if the Americans catch up with him. I heard last night that Bin Laden has ordered the soldiers that surround him wherever he goes to kill him if the Americans catch up with him. He has said in the past that he will not be caught alive.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by play on
He won't live if the Americans catch up with him. I heard last night that Bin Laden has ordered the soldiers that surround him wherever he goes to kill him if the Americans catch up with him. He has said in the past that he will not be caught alive.

If that's the case play on that is pretty gutless.
So much for dieing for the cause, martyrdom and all that. I thought though for these extremist moslems that killing your own/suicide was a fundamental no no. Far better to die a glorious death waging war with the infidels etc than to essentially "top" yourself.

Would his lieutenants do it I wonder?

 

[Briedis]

I would not be surprised if he doesn't turn up. I seriously would doubt if he is still in Afghanistan....bloody idiot if he is!

 

[The Hitman]

Bin Laden won't survive. His world and allies are crumbling around him...

The Hitman

 

[Shinboners]

The Americans will be hoping that Bin Laden either gets killed in combat OR commits suicide. If Bin Laden was to get captured, then the Americans will be in a bind.

Consider this. George Bush has approved the use of military courts to try acts of terrorism (which has led to questions about how this impinges on civil liberties). The establishment of proof of crime is less strict than what is required in civilian courts and there is no route for appeal. Military courts are also closed, so there will be no public scrutiny of proceedings. It's likely that Bin Laden will be found guilty and executed, but in the Islamic world, it will only make him a high profile martyr and there will be the perception that he was found guilty in a kangaroo court.

The alternative to the military court is the civilian courts. Under the US legal process, if he is found guilty (and that is no certainty) and sentenced to death, legal appeals could have him sitting on death row for up to 20 years. It's not hard to imagine Islamic extremists starting another terrorist campaign in an effort to free him. And that doesn't include Dipper's comments on Bin Laden's tales of CIA help back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

 

[iceman]

i doubt that he's even in Afghanistan - i think he wouldve left when the bombing started

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners
The Americans will be hoping that Bin Laden either gets killed in combat OR commits suicide. If Bin Laden was to get captured, then the Americans will be in a bind.

Consider this. George Bush has approved the use of military courts to try acts of terrorism (which has led to questions about how this impinges on civil liberties). The establishment of proof of crime is less strict than what is required in civilian courts and there is no route for appeal. Military courts are also closed, so there will be no public scrutiny of proceedings. It's likely that Bin Laden will be found guilty and executed, but in the Islamic world, it will only make him a high profile martyr and there will be the perception that he was found guilty in a kangaroo court.

The alternative to the military court is the civilian courts. Under the US legal process, if he is found guilty (and that is no certainty) and sentenced to death, legal appeals could have him sitting on death row for up to 20 years. It's not hard to imagine Islamic extremists starting another terrorist campaign in an effort to free him. And that doesn't include Dipper's comments on Bin Laden's tales of CIA help back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

These new military courts are unvelievable shinboners.
Now, anyone accused of a terrorist attack (no burden of proof here) can be tried in said court. Legal representation will be provided by the govt. (whoopee) and the accused will be unable to use evidence deemed "not in the best interest of the US".

The civilian courts are no longer an option for the accused.

Kangaroo court indeed.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Just at the moment, Bin Laden is better off alive and hiding in a cave than he is dead or captured.

If he is captured and brought to trial - then we have instant publicity and instant credibility for the man - regardless of how mush of a 'kangaroo court' this military crimes tribunal is.

Just imagine the huge dirty great hoo-ha daily TV / Courtroom appearances by Bin Laden would cause ? - he would turn the proceedings into a forum for yet more rhetorical bile denouncing the 'evil infidel West'

If you think Slobodan Milosovich is grandstanding at the Hague at the moment - you ain't seen nothing yet ! Bin Laden on trial would be an absolute shambles and a circus.

And if Bin Laden is killed, well, - we have an instant martyr then don't we ? - Somebody who generations of young Arab radicals can idolise and aspire to be - for years and years to come. A dead Bin Laden would cause just as many problems as a live one does.

Now that the taliban have been routed, Bin Laden has lost patronage, he is on the run, he has lost a son and a deputy, he appears no longer in contact with his terrorist associates - in short Bin Laden has been knee capped and marginalised.

Isn't it much better for the wider War on Terrorism that we just leave Bin Laden alone to quietly and impotently rot away in an Afghani cave somewhere ?

He is actually more use to us alive and powerless and humiliated rather than dead and glorified.

cheers

 

[Dave]

Good points all BSA.

Interesting article in Tthe Age yesterday depicting a certain govt's double standards:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/11/20/FFXW4JC47UC.html

So the Taliban oppress women? They're not alone

By MAUREEN DOWD
Tuesday 20 November 2001

It is hard to fathom how a part of the world that produced Cleopatra - who perfumed the sails of her boat so men would know she was coming and who ruled with elegant authority, signing one tax decree "Make it happen" - could two millennia later produce societies where women are swaddled breeders under house arrest.

When civilisation rose in the East, it was scientific and sensual, embracing the possibilities and pleasures of life from mathematics to literature, art and fashion.

There have been many repressive regimes throughout history. But the Taliban were obsessively focused on denying gender, sexuality and the forces at the very gut of life.

When the barbarian puritans running Afghanistan began to scurry away last week, men raced to buy pin-ups of beautiful girls. And, in a moving and amazing tableau, some women unwrapped themselves, letting the sun shine on their faces as they smiled shyly and delightedly. A few dared to show a little ankle or put on high heels.

"Your head hurts and your eyes hurt from the limited vision," one young woman in Kabul told a reporter, discarding her despised burka. "It was very difficult to walk without falling over." (Most have held off burning burkas because, as one woman put it, "They say the Taliban beat first and asked questions afterward. They say the Northern Alliance asks questions first and beats afterward.")

In a real version of Margaret Atwood's creepy Handmaid's Tale, the Taliban reduced women to vessels designed to serve the needs and bolster the status of men.

"I agree that a kind of religion motivates the Taliban, but the religion in question, I'd say, is not Islam," writes history professor Robert McElvaine. It is "insecure masculinity. These men are terrified of women".

Afghan warlords have long used castration to torture foes. The hijackers were haywire about women. Some draped towels over the prints of 1920s bathing beauties in pantaloons in a Florida motel room; others indulged in lap dances, strip clubs and prostitutes, keeping busy until they got their bounty of 70 virgins. Mohamed Atta's will had loopy, misogynistic instructions: "I don't want a pregnant woman or a person who is not clean to come and say goodbye to me" and "I don't want any women to go to my grave".

Now the White House, suddenly shocked by five-year-old Taliban excesses, has began a campaign against their treatment of women. "Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's fingernails for wearing nail polish," Laura Bush said, taking over her husband's weekly radio address.

Bush aides say the campaign will try to influence the Northern Alliance to restore women's rights and press for women in the Afghan government. Of course, they also want to impress US women, who preferred Al Gore to George W. Bush.

It's a freebie, an easy way to please feminists who got mad when the Bush administration ended financing for international family planning groups that support abortion. This belated promotion of women as a moderating, modernising force in the Islamic world sounds hollow.

Bush senior went to war to liberate Kuwait, yet America has not made a fuss over the fact that Kuwaiti women still can't vote or initiate divorce proceedings. The US also turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's treating women like chattels. There are 5000 Saudi princes, but where are the princesses?

The Saudi religious police, the matawain, use sticks to make sure women hide beneath abayas, their long black cloaks. Besides having to put up with polygamy, Saudi women cannot marry outside Islam, while men can. Or divorce without cause, as men can. Women also have to use separate banks and schools and obtain written permission from a male relative before travelling alone or going to a hospital. They must sit in the back seats of the cars they are not allowed to drive.

But the Bushes love that royal family and its oil. What does it matter if Saudi women can drive, as long as American women can keep driving their four-wheel-drives?

Millions of Muslim women are still considered property. The US first lady might think about extending her campaign beyond Afghanistan.

Maureen Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist with The New York Times, where this article first appeared.

 

[BrisGirl]

As for Bin Laden, if he is found, they will kill him. No question.

As for women in general, I have never understood why women are seen to so threatening to men that they write it in their Religious beliefs. Why can't a woman be a Deacon or even a Pope?

In India, they pour petrol over their women, so the man can re-marry and collect another lot of dowry. A never ending cycle.

The Western world kept women in the kitchen right up into the 20th Century. Women were not allowed to own property and they weren't allowed to vote.

There was even a law that was in practise up until 1960, that a man couldt beat his wife up to 10pm but not after because of the noise and the fact that it would keep up the neighbours.

The western world has been enlighten a little bit, but in general we still do not earn the same wage for the same job done by a man, and that is right here and right now, in our history.

It just comes down to were you are born in the world, but we can take comfort in the fact that we won't be killed because we are women.

 

[topdon]

I ask this question:

What will the USA do when Bin Laden is gone? Declare war on the entire middle east?

 

[dogboy23]

They have hinted it could move to other countries.Remember its not over yet if they cant root him out with bombs they will have to send special forces into the mountains where casualties are guaranteed

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by topdon
I ask this question:

What will the USA do when Bin Laden is gone? Declare war on the entire middle east?

i heard that Iraq's next on their list - it seems Bush has some unfinished family business

 

[Frodo]

History says that Bin Laden will take his own life and try to become a Martyr.

I don't think he would allow himself to be captured and just like Hitler in his bunker Bin Laden would probably be in a cave well sheltered from missile attack.

The video collection will already be made though I suspect.

 

[Sherman]

In a speech to the nation on September 20, President Bush stated in clear, unambiguous language that Afghanistan was NOT the end of the road in this struggle.

No U.S. official has ever said that Afghanistan was the end of the struggle.

All top level U.S. officials have gone repeatedly on record as saying they will carry the war to whatever nation is harboring or sponsoring terrorism.

It would seem that the world is on notice and choices will have to be made.

Accordingly, no one should express surprise when it happens.

Now, before getting your dander up - consider what the world might have been like if, instead of signing the Munich Pact in 1938, someone had stood up to the naked, murderous aggression of one man.

I recognize that I stand in danger of being accused of "nationalistic fervor out of control". All I can tell you is - even though it is fast becoming a cliche - the perception of the world really did radically change for U.S. citizens on September 11. There is currently quite an appetite among the average man in the street, here, for finishing this thing up, once and for all - even if that means kissing the Saudi's off and paying 3 times as much for gasoline and heating oil. I doubt our government will be willing to go that far since the oil industry lobby will persuade them it would be economically unfeasable, but I really sense that the country is ready to go that route if the government can only muster the courage.

Now I promise to not get too pushy and will try my best to further respond in this thread only to specific questions directed at me.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

As stated by a previous poster, it would seem that Iraq is the next target. The yanks will use Iraq's refusal to allow the UN weapons inspectors in as a pretext for more bombing.

Meanwhile, those countries where terrorist networks have been proven to exist (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc) will not be bombed because of either their oil reserves or because they are now (uneasy) allies of the US.

Essentially it's all about oil.

Texas oilman George W bombing Saudi Arabia?
I'd like to see that!!

 

[Frodo]

There is littlee doubt that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism so Bush needs to finish off the job his Dad left half done. That means ousting Hussein with as little civilian casualties as possible. A CIA hit would be a possibility.

Watch out for Sudan and Libya strikes, both terrorist training countries.

Egypt, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia. Very minor areas, certainly terrorists are there but I'm not sure about training camps. Political pressure should be enough to get those countries to clean their own back yards up.

ps....There will be a real possibility of an Afghanistan/Pakistan war in years to come depending upon Afghanistans political plight. Expect India to pour money and arms into Afghanistan.

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
As stated by a previous poster, it would seem that Iraq is the next target. The yanks will use Iraq's refusal to allow the UN weapons inspectors in as a pretext for more bombing.

Meanwhile, those countries where terrorist networks have been proven to exist (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc) will not be bombed because of either their oil reserves or because they are now (uneasy) allies of the US.

Essentially it's all about oil.

That previous poster was me!!

And in regards to your comments - i agree with everything youve said.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Frodo
There is littlee doubt that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism so Bush needs to finish off the job his Dad left half done. That means ousting Hussein with as little civilian casualties as possible. A CIA hit would be a possibility.

Watch out for Sudan and Libya strikes, both terrorist training countries.

Egypt, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia. Very minor areas, certainly terrorists are there but I'm not sure about training camps. Political pressure should be enough to get those countries to clean their own back yards up.

ps....There will be a real possibility of an Afghanistan/Pakistan war in years to come depending upon Afghanistans political plight. Expect India to pour money and arms into Afghanistan.

Don't disagree with the gist of what you are saying although on a couple of points I would like to add;

1: I think there will be sustained bombing (again) of Iraq. The issue of civilian casualties hasn't been an issue when dealing with Iraq in the past (not to mention the casualties because of sanctions). Agree though that if they go in again they will have to specifically target Hussein.
2: Not sure about Sudan and Libya being on the short term hit list. Although they both have long histories of hostility to US governments, they have no connection to Bin Laden. They have a terrorist history as such, so maybe they might be a target (although so does Northern Ireland...)
3: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are major training grounds for the Taliban. Saudi Arabia has a major connection to Bin Laden. His family (most of his 24 brothers anyway) still live there. As they are now allies (and in the case of Saudi Arabia - oil rich) they are safe. This part of the whole thing I find perplexing. The US govt. seem to be saying its a war against terrorism unless you are of any use to us.

War between Pakistan/Afghanistan down the track? Not sure. My bet is the new Afghani govt. will be a coalition of moderate taliban, northen alliance etc - all basicly controlled from afar by
the US. No doubt Nato will have a role there somewhere.If thats the case then pakistan would create problems at their peril.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

1: I think there will be sustained bombing (again) of Iraq. The issue of civilian casualties hasn't been an issue when dealing with Iraq in the past (not to mention the casualties because of sanctions). Agree though that if they go in again they will have to specifically target Hussein.
3: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are major training grounds for the Taliban. Saudi Arabia has a major connection to Bin Laden. His family (most of his 24 brothers anyway) still live there. As they are now allies (and in the case of Saudi Arabia - oil rich) they are safe. This part of the whole thing I find perplexing. The US govt. seem to be saying its a war against terrorism unless you are of any use to us.

Interesting times ahead.

Some points i'd like to make:
1) Occasionally on the news you hear about how Iraq has been bombed by American planes because they violated the no-fly zone etc.... this might be occuring on a regular basis but no one hears about it cos the civilians there arent as important as the Americans
2) Saudi Arabia wont be touched as long as they keep pumping that oil. Another reason is due to it being the capital of Islam in a sense, any attack against them may be seen as an attack against muslims and the Americans wont want that (especially since theyve worked so hard to prove that this current campaign isnt against Arabs or Muslims, but against terrorists)
3) I think that the times ahead wont be interesting, they'll be damn scary cos if the US wants to take its war to other countries i dont think all the nations will jsut sit back and support them

 

[iceman]

Originally posted by Frodo
There is littlee doubt that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism so Bush needs to finish off the job his Dad left half done. That means ousting Hussein with as little civilian casualties as possible. A CIA hit would be a possibility.

I saw a documentary on the sbs regarding the gulf war a while back and they had interviews with retired members of the US air force, CIA etc

they admitted that they had been given orders to find Saddam and execute him but they failed... they could never find him!!

The only way to take him out is by a full out war

 

[Damp Squarie]

Hope they find him. If they dont; Im sure the US propaganda machine will link him to Iraq just so the foot gets in the door to sus out Hussien.
If Bin Laden is in Afganistan Id be surprised. Hes probably in the States lol

 

[McFlurry]

when that mole comes out of his cave or whatever hole he lives in, he's a dead man for sure.

 

[McFlurry]

i hope that f!cker goes to hell