NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I answer, I don't even think an organisation as large and apparently well funded and organised exists. Maybe it did once, maybe it never did, I couldn't give a crap, the bullshit the American and British governments feed me doesn't affect me because I know the idea of a united world-wide terror organisation is absurd.

However, this question still begs: If Osama is caught, will it end terrorism? My answer is a massive no. Osama or Al Queda aren't the danger anymore, and probably never were, the idea is the danger. I don't doubt that there are hundreds if not thousands of tiny cells out there who have been inspired by Al Queda, and they are now the threat. What does everyone else think?

No. But if we wrapped him up in ham slices and crushed him with a boulder, it would probably give terrorists pause to think.

Not that I'm advocating such barbarity. But it would definitely make one rethink one's determination to a cause, wouldn't it?

Hmm, these responces are both too extreme, their should be a "It would damage terrorism and set them back a while but not destroy them" or a "It would pretty much destroy terrorism but wouldnt completely destroy it."

Yeah unfortunately they are. I should have thought about the choices more really...You don't have to vote anyway, you can say what you want in a reply.

In reality Osama is a very marginal figure - he's just very media-savvy.

In reality Osama is a very marginal figure - he's just very media-savvy.

Like Dubya!

Would make very little difference, Al Qaeda is not some large organisation, it is a network. It has no day to day idea what its parts are doing and those parts are almost entirely autonomous.

killing osama would do one thing.

it would show as the first mission that bush has actually completed in this war against terror.

Perhaps they should catch him and convert him to fundamentalist christianity, that might make others think twice about commiting terrorism.

terrorism itself cannot be ended, but the destruction of the organizations that support and fund those who use it can. Without a support organizatio and perceived 'legitimacy' in any quarters of the world, terrorism will become marginalized.

Terrorism didn't start with 9/11 and so it definatly won't end with the capture of Osama bin Ladin, the suggestion that it would is foolish.

Will his capture lower the threat to the U.S or the rest of the world, doultful.

As long as people value a cause over life terrorism is still going to be around.

To pretend other wise is dangerous and foolhardy.

terrorism itself cannot be ended, but the destruction of the organizations that support and fund those who use it can. Without a support organizatio and perceived 'legitimacy' in any quarters of the world, terrorism will become marginalized.
i agree with bozzy

the capture of osama wouldnt change much at this point. he has been marginalized for 3 years. thats an eternity in the terror world. but he is still an important figure for them and for us.

anyone who is from a country who lost people in the world trade center or the pentagon should want him brought to justice. i know i do. welllllll.... id REALLY like his head on a pike on the whitehouse lawn for the winter months but thats a bit much to ask for.

capturing him would do 3 things, it would bring him to justice (an important thing in any civilized country), it would make him a martyr to terrorists and muslim extremeists everywhere, and it would let the OTHER guys at the top know that we are serious about hunting THEM down.

it seems to me that, as bozzy said, we have to get at the support of terror. the guys at the top feel safe. its the poor deluded fools at the bottom who die outside a pizza place in jerusalem. the more we make those who plan, those who fund, those who hide terror PAY for it, the fewer of those comfortable guys at the top will be willing to do those things.


without money and support terror will become a useless tactic.

Would make very little difference, Al Qaeda is not some large organisation, it is a network. It has no day to day idea what its parts are doing and those parts are almost entirely autonomous.

What is your definition of an organization and a network? If there is no organization how did the terrorists of 9/11 manage to organize the training of the pilots in the USA and plan and execute a well timed strike in various parts of the east coast? How did they get their money? How were they able to maintain communications across the world and act as one unit if "It has no day to day idea what its parts are doing and those parts are almost entirely autonomous".
This argument sounds false to me. There had to be centralized planning. If that is not an "Organization" what is?

They may be a shadow of what they were but don't think for one minute they are incapable of regrouping.

And then there is the fact that giving terrorism attention gives them more power, and makes it interesting for new terrorists to act.

Terrorism is merely how people with very few resources make war on rich and powerful entities, for a huge variety of causes -- hence one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So no, capturing Osama will not "end terrorism".

It wouldn't even end Wahhabi Islamist terrorism, since all Osama is to those guys is a sympathetic bank account and a media face. "Al Qaeda" doesn't really exist. It doesn't have a membership list, you don't "join" it, there are no chains of command. The term was invented in the USA to allow a US court to try Osama in absentia for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombing in (I think) Kenya. Under US law, you can be tried in absentia if you are a member of a "criminal organisation". So the FBI invented up an illegal organisation on paper and made Osama its head. It is highly significant that Osama himself didn't start talking about "Al Qaeda" until some time after 9/11. There is no shadowy globe-spanning network, just like there were no multi-storey bunkers burrowed deep in the Tora Bora mountains (remember old Rummie and his fantastic cutaway diagrams?). It's just a bunch of disparate groups with more-or-less overlapping agendas.

Im sorry if I offend anybody but the question is in itself naive.

Terroism isnt all marshalled from some cave in the middle east with all terroists receiving orders from teh HQ. There is terroism throughout teh world all with different goals and some you would probably refer to as freedom fighters. Killing osama would merely make fools feel safer.

Fine, Anti-american terror. The people this was aimed at are the people who don't know that terrorists other than AL Queda exist. Being British I'm fully aware that terrorism is far more than Muslims firing AK's into the air (The IRA is obviously the biggest example the springs to mind)

I reckon we need to git the good ol' American thought police to stop this sinful idea.

And I personaly think the concept of "War on Terrorism" is thought up merely to keep people afraid, and the arms-manufacturors (spelling??) in business.

And I personaly think the concept of "War on Terrorism" is thought up merely to keep people afraid, and the arms-manufacturors (spelling??) in business.

Exactly. People always need an enemy. The Soviet Union was the perfect one for the latter half of the 20th century, now they've simple made another one up.

Would make very little difference, Al Qaeda is not some large organisation, it is a network. It has no day to day idea what its parts are doing and those parts are almost entirely autonomous.

In fact, no one had ever referred to it as Al Qaeda before the Dubya administration did shortly after 9/11. Not even Osama Bin Laden.

And Osama Bin Laden was an outcast before 9/11 (and incidentally, only partially funded the plan, and had no part in the actual conspiracy) - traditionally the Islamists had sought only to create Islamic states in their own countries, but this failed, so people like Osama came up with different tactics. These tactics gain a lot more attention, but don't actually achieve any more than the previous attempts at revolution.

EDIT: In terms of their actual aims, Islamists have always been unsuccessful.

Terrorism is merely how people with very few resources make war on rich and powerful entities, for a huge variety of causes -- hence one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So no, capturing Osama will not "end terrorism".

It wouldn't even end Wahhabi Islamist terrorism, since all Osama is to those guys is a sympathetic bank account and a media face. "Al Qaeda" doesn't really exist. It doesn't have a membership list, you don't "join" it, there are no chains of command. The term was invented in the USA to allow a US court to try Osama in absentia for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombing in (I think) Kenya. Under US law, you can be tried in absentia if you are a member of a "criminal organisation". So the FBI invented up an illegal organisation on paper and made Osama its head. It is highly significant that Osama himself didn't start talking about "Al Qaeda" until some time after 9/11. There is no shadowy globe-spanning network, just like there were no multi-storey bunkers burrowed deep in the Tora Bora mountains (remember old Rummie and his fantastic cutaway diagrams?). It's just a bunch of disparate groups with more-or-less overlapping agendas.

As I recall Al Qaeda was the ruling body of Afghanistan. I don't recall anyone at the time saying they were a terrorist group, simply an opressive regime. They were harboring and sympathetic to Osama. The USA demanded that they turn him over to the US for prosecution. They refused. The US in essence said if you are not with us then you are against us. The Al Qaeda were given time to change their minds. When they continued to refuse the US attacked. It was then that the US lumped them in as a terrorist supporting organization. Which is what they were. They may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but they supported terror. At that time it was all the justification that was needed.

As long as the US continoes to attack other Arab countries in order to "Nation build", and force democracy down the throat of arabs and as long as they support Israel no matter what there will be more Osama's than the US can handle.

As I recall Al Qaeda was the ruling body of Afghanistan. .


No - it was the Taliban. Before you have an opinion you should at least have SOME facts. A lack of facts obliterates any semblance of credibility to you opinion.

Without dealing with the underlying problems that cause terrorism it will never end. In some cases there may be solutions in others no. Terrorism will not end until governments really listen to the grievences of those who feel wronged. Since most politicians are more concerned about where their next bribe is coming from, or how can I accumulate more power, it may never end.
Most governments take the position that they will not listen to grievences untill the terrorism stops. The agrieved take the position of you didn't listen untill there was terrorism, if we stop you will go back to ignoring us. It's a vicious unending cycle.

As I recall Al Qaeda was the ruling body of Afghanistan. I don't recall anyone at the time saying they were a terrorist group, simply an opressive regime. They were harboring and sympathetic to Osama. The USA demanded that they turn him over to the US for prosecution. They refused. The US in essence said if you are not with us then you are against us. The Al Qaeda were given time to change their minds. When they continued to refuse the US attacked. It was then that the US lumped them in as a terrorist supporting organization. Which is what they were. They may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but they supported terror. At that time it was all the justification that was needed.

As long as the US continoes to attack other Arab countries in order to "Nation build", and force democracy down the throat of arabs and as long as they support Israel no matter what there will be more Osama's than the US can handle.

*BZZZT* Wrong! It was the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan prior to their overthrow. The administration simply said that the Taliban were linked in some way, which they were rather vague about when it came to producing evidence, to the Al-Queda group.

Osama is a face. Nothing more. Oh and a bank account too if you want to be specific. Did he really mastermind the 9/11 events? Who knows? I'm not saying he's innocent and all that but I figure the administration is painting him as the ultimate bogeyman because he's a handy well known figure. Much like the Soviet Union back in the Cold War crisis. Except that he's a lot harder to pin down than Soviet Russia then.

No - it was the Taliban. Before you have an opinion you should at least have SOME facts. A lack of facts obliterates any semblance of credibility to you opinion.
My bad.

Catching Osama won't stop terrorism, but catching the Bush administration just might...

predictable, yes, I know. What of it?

Al Qaeda was not Afghanistan's ruling body by a longshot; the Taliban was. The Taliban was a coalition of religiously hardline Pashtun tribal leaders led my some crazyass blind cleric named Mullah Omar that the media made a big deal about at first but seems to have forgotten about now. The Taliban did allow Bin Laden and his militants to hide there and run training camps without harassment by the government; other than that their involvement was nill, so far as I know. Remember though, Afghanistan wasn't the only place Al-Qaeda had training camps. There were more in Pakistan and the smaller, neighboring 'stans which couldn't be ferreted out by their central governments usually because they were too weak to do so.

wow, that was a tangent. OK, to the original question, no capturing Bin Laden will not end terrorism. His degree of central control over the organization is minimal; cells can and will exist independantly and simply reform themselves if significant leadership elements are captured. The western governments can strike blows, but a final blow in my view is unlikely. The idea of ending "terrorism" just strikes me as unrealistic anyway. Its a tactic that's been in use since the Narodniks and so long as the strong continue to dominate the weak, some elements of the weak may very well turn to it as what appears to be their only option.

In understanding radical Islamic terrorism one should keep in mind that these aren't just crazy people who hate freedom and they didn't just grow out of the ground at some point. They are a reaction to the West's percieved exploitation and domination of the Arab and Muslim states, the coups, military interventions, the propping up of illegitimate regimes. One of the reasons for the attacks that Osama sighted specifically was the prescence of US troops in the two Saudi holy cities. It's much more than just the physical prescence of soldiers, of course, its the perception they create of absolute economic and military hegemony.

Think about it, really. Does Al-Qaeda launch attacks on other "decadent" western socities which reject Islam or against our cultural institutions they vehemently disagree with? Has the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Japan, or Germany, or France ever been the target of a 9/11 like attack or a car bombing? Have they tried to blow up coed universities, or dance halls*, movie theatres? No. They've gone after structures symbolic of US military and economic power.

In short, the only thing that will stop terrorism is a radical change in American foreign policy, one we're unlikely to see so long as our current system remains the dominant one. So yeah, we're dicked. Perpetual war for perpetual peace...

*Bali excepted because that was mostly to kill Australians much more than the fact that the building itself was a discoteque

I don't know what will happen if they catch him. But one thing must be sure: If we behave like terrorists (e.g.: if we kill him), we are not better than them. Of course, it's easy for terrorists to attack democracies but if we do not stand to our democratic and liberal values, chances are good that we will become terrorist countries, too.

I am living in Germany and at the moment, we are debating about the question whether torture (or pretending to torture someone) should be allowed if there is "a great danger for many people". I think this discussion goes in the same direction. To stop terrorism, we have to support developing countries so that terrorists won't have the possibility to seduce people...

Just my 2 cents; perhaps we should make another thread about fighting terrorism in general...

*BZZZT* Wrong! It was the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan prior to their overthrow. The administration simply said that the Taliban were linked in some way, which they were rather vague about when it came to producing evidence, to the Al-Queda group.

Osama is a face. Nothing more. Oh and a bank account too if you want to be specific. Did he really mastermind the 9/11 events? Who knows? I'm not saying he's innocent and all that but I figure the administration is painting him as the ultimate bogeyman because he's a handy well known figure. Much like the Soviet Union back in the Cold War crisis. Except that he's a lot harder to pin down than Soviet Russia then.

Old age is creeping up. Plus I am multitasking today. But I think the rest of my point is valid. I don't think the goverment is targeting just him. They believe he is the brains maybe not the leader. Don't know where the term Al qaeda came from but does it matter? What's in a name? There is obviously a well organized terror organization which Osama is a major player.

Al Qaeda was not Afghanistan's ruling body by a longshot; the Taliban was. The Taliban was a coalition of religiously hardline Pashtun tribal leaders led my some crazyass blind cleric named Mullah Omar that the media made a big deal about at first but seems to have forgotten about now. The Taliban did allow Bin Laden and his militants to hide there and run training camps without harassment by the government; other than that their involvement was nill, so far as I know. Remember though, Afghanistan wasn't the only place Al-Qaeda had training camps. There were more in Pakistan and the smaller, neighboring 'stans which couldn't be ferreted out by their central governments usually because they were too weak to do so.

wow, that was a tangent. OK, to the original question, no capturing Bin Laden will not end terrorism. His degree of central control over the organization is minimal; cells can and will exist independantly and simply reform themselves if significant leadership elements are captured. The western governments can strike blows, but a final blow in my view is unlikely. The idea of ending "terrorism" just strikes me as unrealistic anyway. Its a tactic that's been in use since the Narodniks and so long as the strong continue to dominate the weak, some elements of the weak may very well turn to it as what appears to be their only option.

In understanding radical Islamic terrorism one should keep in mind that these aren't just crazy people who hate freedom and they didn't just grow out of the ground at some point. They are a reaction to the West's percieved exploitation and domination of the Arab and Muslim states, the coups, military interventions, the propping up of illegitimate regimes. One of the reasons for the attacks that Osama sighted specifically was the prescence of US troops in the two Saudi holy cities. It's much more than just the physical prescence of soldiers, of course, its the perception they create of absolute economic and military hegemony.

Think about it, really. Does Al-Qaeda launch attacks on other "decadent" western socities which reject Islam or against our cultural institutions they vehemently disagree with? Has the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Japan, or Germany, or France ever been the target of a 9/11 like attack or a car bombing? Have they tried to blow up coed universities, or dance halls*, movie theatres? No. They've gone after structures symbolic of US military and economic power.

In short, the only thing that will stop terrorism is a radical change in American foreign policy, one we're unlikely to see so long as our current system remains the dominant one. So yeah, we're dicked. Perpetual war for perpetual peace...


Well said. Bravo!

About what Unified West Africa said, especially in the last bit, there is a saying i think that fits. "Pride cometh before a fall"

The question is, did the fall occur, or was that just stubbing the toe? *shrug*

*Bali excepted because that was mostly to kill Australians much more than the fact that the building itself was a discoteque

And the Madrid train bombings?

Like Dubya!

What the hell does Dubya mean

Madrid = Pressure tactic. Spain is not a main imperialist exploiter of the middle east, it was just an attempt to create a high-casualty incident to pressure the government to withdraw. Not EVERY terrorist attack targets highly symbolic places or structures. Some are solely to cause casualties, but the point is they're not just blind acts of rage, they're made to achieve some sort of political end.