"Eight Years After 9/11: Why Osama bin Laden is a Failure"

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
By invading Iraq, the Bush Administration arguably did a far more effective job than Bin Laden had d one of weakening U.S. influence in the Muslim world and rallying its youth to resistance. Yet, even in Iraq, al-Qaeda's effort to gain control of the resistance failed because its ideology and tactics were so loathsome even to the bulk of the Sunni insurgents fighting the Americans that they eventually made common cause with the U.S. against the jihadists.
Click to expand...

...
 
OMG, i'm so sorry. I meant to put this in the OT.

Wow, I feel like an idiot. If you could move it that would be great.

:(
 
By invading Iraq, the Bush Administration arguably did a far more effective job than bin Laden had of weakening U.S. influence in the Muslim world and rallying its youth to resistance.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. We have a stronger influence in the Arab world today than we did 8 years ago, simply because our forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We are leading the global fight against both groups, and today Iraq is getting back on its feet because of the United States' intervention.

Not only that, if al-Qaeda is weaker today, it's a direct result of the U.S. military's campaign against them all over the world.
 
Shooter said:
Oh, please. We have a stronger influence in the Arab world today than we did 8 years ago, simply because our forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We are leading the global fight against both groups, and today Iraq is getting back on its feet because of the United States' intervention.

Not only that, if al-Qaeda is weaker today, it's a direct result of the U.S. military's campaign against them all over the world.
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda might be weaker, but US credibility in the Middle East is at an all time low. Ironically, Obama's infamous Cairo speech did more to bolster allies in the Middle East then anything Bush did. Even with Obama's speech the US has far, FAR less influence then it did even 10 years ago. Not that you care about reality or anything, just wrote this for other people.
 
Shooter said:
Oh, please. We have a stronger influence in the Arab world today than we did 8 years ago, simply because our forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We are leading the global fight against both groups, and today Iraq is getting back on its feet because of the United States' intervention.

Not only that, if al-Qaeda is weaker today, it's a direct result of the U.S. military's campaign against them all over the world.
Click to expand...

I think what you are saying is true, the situation has improved overall. But I think you can't deny that al queda was not in Iraq before we invaded, and violence did pick up. It got worse, and then it got better. The surge did work in the end.
 
Idog1976 said:
Al Qaeda might be weaker, but US credibility in the Middle East is at an all time low.
Click to expand...
I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.

I guess that was the "high point" of our credibility, and it all went downhill from there. Gee, how awful.
 
Shooter said:
I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.

I guess that was the "high point" of our credibility, and it all went downhill from there. Gee, how awful.
Click to expand...

After 8 years, two wars and an insane amount of spending on our part, do you think the reaction would be any different if it happened again today?

I doubt it.

That alone doesn't completely invalidate the effort, but it sure gives me pause.
 
Shooter said:
Oh, please. We have a stronger influence in the Arab world today than we did 8 years ago, simply because our forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We are leading the global fight against both groups, and today Iraq is getting back on its feet because of the United States' intervention.
Click to expand...

We have a strong influence, yes. However, you didn't mention if it is a positive or negative influence. Really, it's both. It always depends on who you talk to.

Oh, and we didn't intervene to help Iraq back up. We knocked them down in the first place.


Shooter said:
I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.
Click to expand...

So what? Do you think those videos represent the mindset of the entire Middle East?
 
Shooter said:
I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.

I guess that was the "high point" of our credibility, and it all went downhill from there. Gee, how awful.
Click to expand...
You remember what is a NOW AN ADMITTED MEDIA MISTAKE. They had footage of Palestinians celebrating but it was a different event. There were no huge demonstrations as was portrayed that day. You are wrong. A lie is put forth and then killed by truth only to be resurrected by perpetual repettition of the same lie. This has been repeatedly debunked.
 
Idog1976 said:
You remember what is a NOW AN ADMITTED MEDIA MISTAKE. They had footage of Palestinians celebrating but it was a different event. There were no huge demonstrations as was portrayed that day. You are wrong. A lie is put forth and then killed by truth only to be resurrected by perpetual repettition of the same lie. This has been repeatedly debunked.
Click to expand...

To give him credit, there were videos shot of people celebrating, albeit small crowds. And since it got on American TV, that's what people saw over and over again. Of course there were no large demonstrations, but for the amount it was overplayed, it's not surprising that people think the entire Middle East was partying that day. Although, Shooter's MO is to make wide, sweeping generalizations about an entire population based on a small and extreme sample of that population. So, it could just be him.
 
hoojacks said:
Do you think those videos represent the mindset of the entire Middle East?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. Except for a few pockets in the Middle East, such as Kuwait, most of the Middle East has hated us ever since 1948, when we helped establish the state of Israel.
 
mook said:
After 8 years, two wars and an insane amount of spending on our part, do you think the reaction would be any different if it happened again today?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but it couldn't be any worse. That's the point. And one day, when Iraq has become a full-fledged democracy and people are flocking there to find jobs, freedom, and a higher standard of living, it will be clear that we have helped the Middle East tremendously.
 
Shooter said:
Yes, I do. Except for a few pockets in the Middle East, such as Kuwait, most of the Middle East has hated us ever since 1948, when we helped establish the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back that up?
 
Idog1976 said:
Al Qaeda might be weaker, but US credibility in the Middle East is at an all time low. Ironically, Obama's infamous Cairo speech did more to bolster allies in the Middle East then anything Bush did. Even with Obama's speech the US has far, FAR less influence then it did even 10 years ago. Not that you care about reality or anything, just wrote this for other people.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that that's true. The US was sporadically, if at all, relevant in the Middle East until about 70 years ago.

And if you think we have less influence now than we did in, say, 1980 when Iran could take over our embassy without us being able to do anything about it... well, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

In fact, I would argue that we have MORE influence in the region now, perhaps more than ever, simply because we can project power so much more easily than we could previously (when we had to rely on launching attacks from Israel or carriers in the Gulf).

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
I seriously doubt that that's true. The US was sporadically, if at all, relevant in the Middle East until about 70 years ago.

And if you think we have less influence now than we did in, say, 1980 when Iran could take over our embassy without us being able to do anything about it... well, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

In fact, I would argue that we have MORE influence in the region now, perhaps more than ever, simply because we can project power so much more easily than we could previously (when we had to rely on launching attacks from Israel or carriers in the Gulf).

Ed O.
Click to expand...
You're right the US did have less influence in say 500,000 B.C. the Mastadon team of diplomats didn't get a lot of accomplished. I mean that's a really salient point about how our influence isn't lower then when we had absolutely no influence or interaction with the area. I suppose the Jefferson administration could have gotten more done if they hadn't wasted their time with the whole Lewis and Clark thing.

We also could have easily gotten involved in 1970's with millitary force, but diplomacy and covert action were the methods of choice. That was before that whole pre-emptive war thing. You know when, you like had to be attacked to attack someone back?

When I said influence I meant real influence not holding a gun to someone's head. That's not influence it's coercion.
 
Shooter said:
Don't know, but it couldn't be any worse. That's the point. And one day, when Iraq has become a full-fledged democracy and people are flocking there to find jobs, freedom, and a higher standard of living, it will be clear that we have helped the Middle East tremendously.
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;r5KeGccP9Jk]

STOMP
 
Well one of the worst things that could have happened to the Iranian protests was open backing from the US government. There are pockets of increased US influence now (Pakistan, Iraq, the area around Kabul in Afghanistan), but for the most part the Middle East is still very hostile to US (even when their interests and priorities are aligned).

The biggest thing that improved US-Islamic relations was Bush leaving office. But honestly, those relations shouldn't be that huge a focus. People make the mistake of thinking that we need to be liked for that place to improve. But it can improve on its own while still maintaining its hatred towards us (which is what has happened over the last few years).
 
Last edited:
It's hard to see how Bin Laden or 9/11 can be considered a success.

He effectively made 3000 martyrs.

He's garnered little sympathy, except where it was politically beneficial to certain parties.

He brought the wrath of the US down on two arab nations.

His buddies, the Taliban, were thrown out of government in Afghanistan.

There is now one more democratic arab nation in the region.

His terrorist training camps have all but been wiped off the map.

He probably lost 100K or more Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq alone.

He lost a lot of sympathetic supporters in Iraq when the people tired of the terrorist attacks there (and turned the war our favor).

He lives in a cave, and at any time an unmanned drone can pick him off.
 
Shooter said:
I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.
Click to expand...

They repeated the same celebration just last week when the Lockerbie Bomber was released from prison by cowardly Scotland for trade/financial considerations.

Nothing has improved, the dead are still dead, more die every day, Halliburton continues to stack our tax money in piles.
 
Idog1976 said:
You're right the US did have less influence in say 500,000 B.C. the Mastadon team of diplomats didn't get a lot of accomplished. I mean that's a really salient point about how our influence isn't lower then when we had absolutely no influence or interaction with the area. I suppose the Jefferson administration could have gotten more done if they hadn't wasted their time with the whole Lewis and Clark thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Jefferson administration was quite involved in fighting against the Barbary states, but that was a bit west of the middle east.

Your statement was some sort of broad sweeping pronouncement about our country's influence in the region, when we're just talking about a handful of decades. Not too much as a percentage of our country's existence and a drop in the ocean relative to the issues that have existed there for centuries.

When I said influence I meant real influence not holding a gun to someone's head. That's not influence it's coercion.
Click to expand...

To me you're making a distinction without a difference.

International politics has always been--and, I believe, always WILL be--about force or the implied threat of force.

Whether it's economic or military is not relevant. States act in their own interests and both the carrot and the stick are ways to influence other nations.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Actually, the Jefferson administration was quite involved in fighting against the Barbary states, but that was a bit west of the middle east.

Your statement was some sort of broad sweeping pronouncement about our country's influence in the region, when we're just talking about a handful of decades. Not too much as a percentage of our country's existence and a drop in the ocean relative to the issues that have existed there for centuries.



To me you're making a distinction without a difference.

International politics has always been--and, I believe, always WILL be--about force or the implied threat of force.

Whether it's economic or military is not relevant. States act in their own interests and both the carrot and the stick are ways to influence other nations.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

I agree with the part about force, money might work but there are always other countries that don't share our goals that can provide that.
 
Ed O said:
International politics has always been--and, I believe, always WILL be--about force or the implied threat of force.

Whether it's economic or military is not relevant. States act in their own interests and both the carrot and the stick are ways to influence other nations.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Neither way is effective long-term, and both eventually breed resentment. :tsktsk:

I have more faith than you in mankind and the astounding effect of education, and believe people will one day be striving toward the betterment of all people, not just those near and known to them. :wub:
 
I'd say Osama Bin Laden is mostly a failure. He's failed or mostly failed at all of his goals:

U.S. expultion from the Holy Land
- Fail, the U.S. still has a pressence in Saudi Arabia and has an even larger pressence in the Middle East

Trigger an Islamic Civil war and extend the Islamic fundamentalist rule throughout the Middle East
- Mostly Fail, He attracted thousands to his cause in Afganistan and Iraq but the majority of Arabs did not sypathize with his cause. The Al Qaeda, Taliban and Iraqi insurgents got their asses handed to them.

Bring down the U.S. and western society in general
-Fail, He killed a lot of people and caused economic hard ships but Western influence continues to expand and dominate global culture
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top