Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

  1. #21
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    So stop hunting them? Let them get comfortable and regain the capabalities of carrying out another 9/11 or worse?
    Clearly you did not get the message.

  2. #22
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Man. Being the number 3 guy in AQ is probably the most dangerous job in the world.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #23
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fighting to prevent another such attack is all well and good...but I have to question if our presence in Afghanistan, nine years later, is actually doing anything to reduce the likelihood of another such attack. And even if it is, is it reducing it ENOUGH to justify the cost (in terms of lives, money, and political capital) associated with our presence there.
    Had we not gone in to Afghanistan or pulled out with out it being somewhat stabilized against an Al-Qaeda/Taliban resurgence, then Al-Qaeda would have the same save haven they did prior to 9/11 to train and plan. We haven't spent anywhere near the amount in Afghanistan economically as was caused by the attacks of 9/11. If you are looking at it in terms of lives lost, a little over 1,000 service members, nearly all of whom are aware of the risk that their job entails, and would gladly lay down their lives if need be to protect America, compared to over 3,000 civilians on 9/11.
    Last edited by Polynikes; 06-01-10 at 04:09 AM.
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

  4. #24
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Who cares? al Qaeda is like a ****ing Hydra, there is no victory against them, And that does not mean we don't keep fighting them, but all I'm sayin is, You kill their #3, and 10 #3's emerge in their place.
    Who cares? So this killing is insignificant and serves no purpose in the fight against Al-Qaeda? Following this logic, if it doesn't matter, then we should save our time, money and lives and cease hunting Al-Qaeda?

    There is no victory against them? How many successful terrorist attacks have been carried out in the U.S since 9/11? That seems like a victory to me.

    So what exactly are you saying then? Since I obviously am not getting the message.
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

  5. #25
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    Who cares? So this killing is insignificant and serves no purpose in the fight against Al-Qaeda? Following this logic, if it doesn't matter, then we should save our time, money and lives and cease hunting Al-Qaeda?

    There is no victory against them? How many successful terrorist attacks have been carried out in the U.S since 9/11? That seems like a victory to me.

    So what exactly are you saying then? Since I obviously am not getting the message.
    you're getting irate about my post, which you should actually agree with. You can kill as much Taliban and Al-Qaeda as you want, go ahead. 10 more #3's will pop up in his place.

    I don't think killing is making your country safer, because the majority of the threat is overblown. If there were 1000's of terrorists out there, they could cause havoc anywhere they wanted. I got on a greyhound bus a couple of weeks ago, my bags were not searched, my ID not checked, this was from Vancouver to Whistler straight after the Olympics, if a terrorist truly wanted to cause havoc, blowing up a bus would be the way, and since it's so easy, and it did not happen, I can only assume you are way, far, and way too scared.

  6. #26
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    you're getting irate about my post, which you should actually agree with. You can kill as much Taliban and Al-Qaeda as you want, go ahead. 10 more #3's will pop up in his place.

    I don't think killing is making your country safer, because the majority of the threat is overblown. If there were 1000's of terrorists out there, they could cause havoc anywhere they wanted. I got on a greyhound bus a couple of weeks ago, my bags were not searched, my ID not checked, this was from Vancouver to Whistler straight after the Olympics, if a terrorist truly wanted to cause havoc, blowing up a bus would be the way, and since it's so easy, and it did not happen, I can only assume you are way, far, and way too scared.
    No, I'm not irate at all. I just find your post immature and lacking knowledge of the subject at hand. A little annoyed, perhaps, irate, by no means.

    If I killed as much Taliban and Al-Qaeda as I wanted, they wouldn't exist anymore. You also have to take in to account that this war isn't be fought from strictly a military perspective. The death of a senior leader proves to be exponentially important when the ideology in which they represent is also being defeated economically and spiritually. Radical Islam will fade, even if it takes generations.

    Your knowledge of terrorism, terrorist, their operational capabilities, how they are organized and the measures being carried out by the U.S to defeat them is lacking.

    The premise of your post is that terrorism is an overblown threat because the bus you were riding on did not get blown up? Tell that to the families off the passengers aboard flights 11, 93, 77 and 175. Tell that to the families of those whose remains were never identified in the rubble of the WTC.

    In a way I hope your next post is as poorly thought out as your previous posts so I can ignore further ones and not waste my time responding to such ignorant anti-Americanism.



    BTW, you still never stated exactly the point you were trying to make, nor did you answer any of my questions.
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

  7. #27
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    Had we not gone in to Afghanistan or pulled out with out it being somewhat stabilized against an Al-Qaeda/Taliban resurgence, then Al-Qaeda would have the same save haven they did prior to 9/11 to train and plan.
    There will always be terrorist hotspots, at least for the foreseeable future. There is no way we can ever hope to fix Afghanistan; it's one of the poorest, most fragmented nations in the world, and our military presence can never change that. Besides, terrorists have plenty of room to operate whether we're in Afghanistan or not. They have Western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, and other desperately poor parts of the Muslim world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes
    We haven't spent anywhere near the amount in Afghanistan economically as was caused by the attacks of 9/11.
    Meh, it depends how you measure the economic costs, I suppose. A quick Google search yielded $270 billion as the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and $95 billion as the cost of 9/11. Your numbers may vary...but the costs aren't really comparable anyway because we don't know if our presence in Afghanistan has actually prevented any attacks. It's certainly possible that we wouldn't have had another major attack even if we had never gone into Afghanistan. It's not like 9/11s were common events BEFORE we went in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes
    If you are looking at it in terms of lives lost, a little over 1,000 service members, nearly all of whom are aware of the risk that their job entails, and would gladly lay down their lives if need be to protect America, compared to over 3,000 civilians on 9/11.
    But again, the lives lost aren't really comparable because we don't know how many (if any) lives our presence in Afghanistan actually saved from terrorist attacks.

    There's also the matter of the amount of political capital this has cost us. Our presence in Afghanistan has been an albatross around our neck that has made us less able to project our military power elsewhere in the world.

    And in terms of lives saved, this was certainly not the most efficient use of our money. Large terrorist attacks are sensational news stories, but they aren't really that commonplace. If we merely wanted to save as many lives as possible for a given dollar cost, there are other things we could spend the money on instead, like cancer research or safer cars. I realize that dollars-per-life may not be the only metric we want to use, but it's definitely something to consider when evaluating this.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-01-10 at 05:16 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #28
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There will always be terrorist hotspots, at least for the foreseeable future. There is no way we can ever hope to fix Afghanistan; it's one of the poorest, most fragmented nations in the world, and our military presence can never change that. Besides, terrorists have plenty of room to operate whether we're in Afghanistan or not. They have Western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, and other desperately poor parts of the Muslim world.
    Agreed about the hotspots, but some are much more dangerous than others. Afghanistan provided a save haven where Al-Qaeda had direct support from the host government. Most other countries do not want Al-Qaeda in their countries because their presence has proven to be de-stabilizing. We may never be able to fix Afghanistan to the point we'd like, but by providing them with the opportunity to form some resemblance of a democracy, or at the very least something better than the Taliban, we in turn deny a save haven for Al-Qaeda. Sure they will always operate in remote areas of the country, but they will not have the lines of communication, logistics and training capabilities as before.

    Meh, it depends how you measure the economic costs, I suppose. A quick Google search yielded $270 billion as the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and $95 billion as the cost of 9/11. Your numbers may vary...but the costs aren't really comparable anyway because we don't know if our presence in Afghanistan has actually prevented any attacks. It's certainly possible that we wouldn't have had another major attack even if we had never gone into Afghanistan. It's not like 9/11s were common events BEFORE we went in
    .

    Comparing the 2 in monetary terms, or most other terms for that matter is difficult. However, the bottom line still remains that Al-Qaeda was harbored by the Taliban prior to 9/11. A large amount of Al-Qaeda terrorists received training and money from Afghanistan. I don't see any alternative after 9/11 than going in to Afghanistan. Had we not done anything after 9/11 in terms of eliminating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, I would bet a large amount of money there would of been another 9/11, and most likely much worse.


    Question: looking back to 9/11, and everything playing out the same, including the current situation in Afghanistan, do you think we should of still gone in to Afghanistan? Remember, this is without changing anything, a simple yes or no, not a "Ya, but in a different manner."




    But again, the lives lost aren't really comparable because we don't know how many (if any) lives our presence in Afghanistan actually saved from terrorist attacks.

    There's also the matter of the amount of political capital this has cost us. Our presence in Afghanistan has been an albatross around our neck that has made us less able to project our military power elsewhere in the world.

    And in terms of lives saved, this was certainly not the most efficient use of our money. Large terrorist attacks are sensational news stories, but they aren't really that commonplace. If we merely wanted to save as many lives as possible for a given dollar cost, there are other things we could spend the money on instead, like cancer research or safer cars. I realize that dollars-per-life may not be the only metric we want to use, but it's definitely something to consider when evaluating this.
    I only started making these comparisons because you brought them up as a relative point in your post. Our presence in Afghanistan is the most important military mission we have right now. It is not an albatross, but a vital task. I would also argue that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq allows us to project more power, particularly on Iran. Granted these two campaigns have most likely emboldened North Korea, but that situation is so complex that us being in Afghanistan wouldn't of changed much.

    Question: Since you made the evaluation in terms of saving the maximum number of lives saved per dollar spent, then would you advocate not responding militarily after an attack like 9/11 because it is inefficient?

    You're right, cancer will kill more people this year than all the terrorist attacks in history (depending on your definition of terrorism). That being said, I'm having a hard time with this analogy. I understand you are using it strictly for dollar/lives saved analysis, but the nature of the two are so different and the very fabric of society so differently affected by them that I think it's a poor comparison.
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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