Quote:

---

We can moralize and celebrate as much as we want, but it doesn't change how things are. Navy Seals killed an aging man who hadn't done anything of consequence in ten years.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians have died in Afghanistan alone, not to mention the cost (over a trillion dollars for the US).

---

Quote:

---

All to crack down on an organization with a thousand or so members?

---

Quote:

---

I'll go further and ask this: who is worse - al-Qaeda or your government?

---

Quote:

---

For example, the US government arrests non-violent drug dealers, keeps prostitution illegal, forces children to go through a substandard education system, prevents employers from hiring striking workers, sends soldiers to fight in non-defensive wars, and forbids the transportation of raw milk across state lines.

---

Quote:

---

True Mvass, Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan to similar effect. He ground the superpower to a halt over a patch of rocky land and ruined their economy, spurring their collapse. The entire point of his attacks were to repeat the same tactic, and seeing the American economy coming so close to defaulting because of this waste, it looks almost like Osama is winning.

It's a terrible thing.

---

Quote:

---

Left wing Marxist spending is what has America it debt.

---

Quote:

---

And the dems continue to want more and more and more spending and fight against the Republican efforts to cut the budget.

---

Quote:

---

That is because he was hiding, making the plans, and directing his band of mass murderers. He did the planning and his freaks did the killing.

---

Quote:

---

In any war of course there will be unavoidable collateral damage.

The war against terror has kept the freaks on the run and for the most part unable to carry out more mass murders in America.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be under-numbering them.

---

Quote:

---

You get to vote on politicians and can thus change the laws if you want to be a druggie.

---

Quote:

---

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

---

Quote:

---

In the US states make most of the labor laws.

---

Quote:

---

The war on terror is a defensive war. It mass murderers attacked us first.

---

Quote:

---

Planning or no planning, he hadn't done anything of consequence in 10 years. Can you name something he did that had an effect in that time period? Killing a hundred civilians or a few soldiers does nothing as far as the big picture goes.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, that's exactly it. There's unavoidable collateral damage - so is it worth it? Is it worth it to kill 10 innocent people to kill one guilty person? The damage is greater than the benefit.

---

Quote:

---

As for keeping them on the run, do you really think it's having any effect? What we're doing there only slightly hampers their ability to attack us. The effect isn't really significant.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

   You seem to be under-numbering them.

---

Am I?

---

Quote:

---

Harper's Magazine
Left leaning monthly covering social, political, and cultural issues.

---

Quote:

---

Al-Qaeda, an international terrorist network, is considered the top terrorist threat to the United States. The group is wanted for its September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as a host of lesser attacks. To escape the post-9/11 U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's central leadership fled eastward into Pakistan, securing a safe haven in loosely governed areas there. In July 2007, U.S. intelligence agencies found that the organization was regrouping and regaining strength in these tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, though targeted killings of senior al-Qaeda leaders have since diminished the group's command and control capabilities. In February 2009, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told lawmakers that the group's core "is less capable and effective than it was a year ago." The killing of al-Qaeda's top leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces in Pakistan in May 2011 served a significant blow to the organization, but analysts say al-Qaeda remains deadly with its networks spread all over the world. Plus, a number of affiliated groups have gained prominence in recent years, complicating the task of containing the organization.

....

Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere.
Is al-Qaeda connected to other terrorist organizations?

Yes. Among them:

   Egyptian Islamic Jihad
   The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
   Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
   Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad (Iraq)
   Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
   Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
   Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Algeria) (formerly Salafist Group for Call and Combat)
   Armed Islamic Group (Algeria)
   Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
   Jemaah Islamiya (Southeast Asia)

These groups share al-Qaeda's Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts also say that al-Qaeda has stepped up its cooperation on logistics and training with Hezbollah, a radical, Iran-backed Lebanese militia drawn from the minority Shiite strain of Islam.

Some terror experts theorize that al-Qaeda, after the loss of its Afghanistan base, may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out its agenda. Former intelligence chief, J. Michael McConnell, in his February 2008 testimony to the Senate, said al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch "remains al-Qaeda's most visible and capable affiliate."A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that al-Qaeda's association with al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, helped it to "energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks." U.S. military commanders believe the Iraqi al-Qaeda variant has been weakened by a sustained campaign against them. But the group remains capable of high-profile attacks.

In addition to AQI, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which is based in Algeria, remains one of al-Qaeda's most robust affiliates. Formerly known as the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, AQIM merged with al-Qaeda in September 2006, and has broadened its target list to include U.S., UN, and Western interests. In Yemen, the resurgence of al-Qaeda operatives since 2006 is also seen as a U.S. and regional security challenge. Known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), this regional affiliate seeks to destabilize the Al Saud regime in Saudi Arabia and eradicate a Western presence in the Gulf. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian suspect behind the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing aboard a U.S. airliner, confessed to receiving weapons training from al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. The group has also claimed responsibility for the September 2008 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, which killed eighteen people.
......

Bin Laden's death will serve as a deterrent for many wannabe radicals who were inspired by his notional invincibility, argues Jon Lee Anderson of the New Yorker. "Such vertical, quasi-religious death cults always rely upon the leader, because the leader's survival is the key to perpetuating the belief that utopia is possible," he says. Lawrence Wright, an expert on al-Qaeda, says the organization will have a difficult time finding a successor.

Bin Laden's death also comes amid pro-democracy uprisings across the Arab world that some analysts say have discredited al-Qaeda's ideology. CFR's Ray Takeyh writes the Arab revolt is a denunciation of radicalism in all its hues: whether autocrats ruling in the name of modernization or Islamists pledging redemption through terror.

But some experts express caution. CFR President Richard N. Haass says, "It is a milestone, not a turning point, in what remains an ongoing struggle without a foreseeable end." Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid notes the network has decentralized over the years with its philosophy becoming "one man, one bomb" (BBC), and remains deadly.

.....

The international crackdown that followed the 9/11 attacks greatly cut into al-Qaeda's resources and many of al-Qaeda's former leaders were captured or killed, leading experts to question the relevance of al-Qaeda's central leadership. In these years, al-Qaeda transformed from what was once a hierarchical organization with a large operating budget into an ideological movement. Whereas al-Qaeda once trained its own operatives and deployed them to carry out attacks, it is just as likely to inspire individuals or small groups to carry out attacks, often with no operational support from the larger organization. Experts say al-Qaeda is able to spread its ideology effectively through the Internet and al-Sahab, its media wing (NPR). As Blair noted in his 2009 assessment, al-Qaeda and its affiliates and allies "remain dangerous and adaptive enemies," keen on attacking U.S. and European targets.

---

Quote:

---

Some of these "knock off" groups spring from pre-existing militant groups committed to some version of Islamist transformation of their society. In Algeria, for example, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is a new incarnation of another group, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which has had a long, and violent, commitment to overthrowing the Algerian government. The group's sudden commitment to 'Al Qaeda- style' global jihad should be taken with a grain of salt or, at the least, examined in light of its local history.
Among the groups presumed to be in the Al Qaeda network are:

   Al Qaeda—core organization: The original group headed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri

   Al Qaeda in Iraq: An organization founded after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, AQI has morphed several times since.

   The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Tanzim Al Jihad): Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded in the 1970s, and well known for its assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1981. It is a good example of an organization that has historically had a far greater interest in violent transformation of the Egyptian government than it has in a 'global jihad.'

   Ansar Al Islam:This Iraqi Kurdish organization was founded in 2001, and operates in the northern areas of Iraq and Iran. Its membership includes a number of members who trained or fought in Afghanistan, with bin Laden, and it is presumed to have close operational ties with Al Qaeda in the region.

   Al Jemaah Al Islamiyya: Al Jemaah Al Islamiyyah (The Islamic Group) is a southeast Asian group dedicated to bringing Islamist rule to the area. The United States suspects it of ties to Al Qaeda, but these seem tenuous on a large scale.

   Lashkar-i-Tayyiba:This Kashmir-based Sunni Pakistani group has historically directed its attacks at India. Leaders and members have demonstrated ties to some Al Qaeda members.

   Al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb: This Algerian group grew out of one dedicated to the overthrow of the Algerian government. Its name change was accompanied by a pledge to put Western targets in its sights.

   Abu Sayyaf: This Philippine group has been called an Al Qaeda affiliate, but there is little evidence of a meaningful operational tie. Indeed, the organization is more like a criminal network than one committed to an ideological goal.

---

Quote:

---

You are wrong. If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded. And if Al-Qaeda managed to get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then death to US citizens on a massive scale would occur.

---

Quote:

---

1) His forces were being forced to be on the defensive rather than being able to go pure offensive.
2) Many of his plans were thwarted because we obtained more information by capturing murderers when we went on the offensive against the murderers.
3) The murder of innocent Americans may seem insignificant to you, but it is not insignificant to most Americans.

---

Quote:

---

We can't just say, "Oh well, we might accidentally kill a civilian while fighting the terrorists so lets just let forget about it and let them murder our people."

---

Quote:

---

If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You are wrong. If our efforts only had a slight effect there would have already been multiple 9/11 type attacks that succeeded. And if Al-Qaeda managed to get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then death to US citizens on a massive scale would occur.

---

Or not. You're just guessing, playing what ifs. No way to craft arguments, friend.

---

Quote:

---

btw, you didn't answer my question about SIOP-62 - so let me ask again, any opinions on it?  

---

Quote:

---

Nah, I'm not guessing. Al-Qaeda would have loved to have carrying out other attacks on US soil. Keeping them fighting on their own soil was an important factor in keeping the US safe. And of course every Al-Qaeda leader we killed diminished the terrorist organization's capabilities.

---

Quote:

---

]Your first 2 points are little but speculation. We don't know what would have happened had we acted otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

I understand that, but 14 to 34 thousand Afghan civilians have died as a result of the war - while only approximately 3000 died on 9/11. Do you understand? 5 to 11 times more Afghan civilians have died than Americans on 9/11. Did they not have the right to not be killed?

---