We've given bin Laden what he wanted...

I'm egotistic enough to believe this topic deserves a new thread,
but I have no idea how many others might agree with these thoughts.

Ted Koppel has published an editorial in the Washington Post
that is very close to what I have believed for the past few years.
The changes in lives of Americans since 9/11 have been over-the-top,
both physically (e.g., airline boarding procedures) and mentally (e.g., attitudes towards Muslims).
We stand passively in lines for body-searches and metal-detection devices at the entrances to government buildings.
We worry about someone wearing a burka or turban because it might conceal a weapon
... my own list goes on and on.

I too have responded passively.
For example, I'm retired so can afford to refuse to travel by plane
where I have to submit to procedures which I believe are unnecessary,
costly to me (time and $) and degrading to the psyche of every person.
I've also been passive about speaking out about this craziness
that has infected Americans in the last 9 years.
It's not a Democratic or Republican thing or a conservative vs liberal thing,
so much of it is a waste of the nation's time and energy and resources.

So I was pleased to hear a nationally known person speak out with similar thoughts.

Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos?

Ted Koppel: Nine years after 9/11, let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands
Sunday, September 12, 2010

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned.
This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power.
Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap.

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response.
And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another.
Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt,
and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician.
But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves.
Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams.

Koppel's editorial continues in the link above...

OTOH if we had begun increasing security measures incrementally 10 years prior to 2001 we would have gradually became accustomed to them, we may not have experienced the loss in 2001, we may not have gone to war abroad, and we'd probably be patting ourselves on the back for our proactive savvy while other countries suffered loss.

That; however, is not America. It would have been political suicide for leaders at the time to have funded the security measures we now have in place. We are a reactionary country: that's our system for prioritizing ways and means as it gives us more freedoms between incidents. After an incident occurs, we're subject to the manifestations of financial and culture shock. Still, we wouldn't have it any other way.

Ted Koppel has excellent hindsight; but, offers no new direction ... only reflection. He presents with a late-in-life attitude that I doubt is shared by parents with young children when they have to board an aircraft, are approached by anyone with concealed identity; or, when a fight is brought to the homeland and we don't take it somewhere (anywhere) else.

This is just my experience, but even as a child (1980's), when I flew I had to pass thru metal detectors and security checkpoints. The only difference I experienced post 9/11 was having to take off my shoes before I went thru and not being able to carry on any liquids (except for the bottle of water in the bag with my hamburger I bought in the terminal, but I guess that doesnt count). Oh, and not being able to check bags at the curb.
Had to go thru metal detectors and security checks to get in the courthouse before 9/11 too.

This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons;

The ultimate irony is that Hussein, to keep his neighbors in check, allowed them and the rest of the world to believe that he might have weapons of mass destruction.

I think Saddam did a little more than just "allow the rest of the world to believe that he might have weapons of mass destruction."
Either way, these two statements seem to contradict each other.

So lets say we took Ted's advice and stopped after the initial response. Then 6 months or a year or 2 years later. At this point we are all back to being fat and lazy Americans again... The unimaginable happens again. This time with or without a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon. What administration isn't going to get fried for that?
The first question everyone would have been asking is why wasn't more done to protect us. I like Ted and the piece is nicely written. He piece is devoid of political realities that administrations must deal with everyday.
And his points are being made with what are now "knowns" that were at the time HUGE unknowns. Was the action taken by Bush the correct one? The answer in hindsight is very different in hindsight.

We got a new courthouse because of Osama bin Laden. And now we have to go thru metal detectors, and such to go in there. Yep, our town of 6000 people on a busy day is concerned with terrorists.

Can I just point out a few things?

This isn't what bin Laden wanted at all!

Koppel wrote:

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response.

No it isn't.

Koppel wrote:

Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos?

Yes, he did: in pretty much everything he wrote and taped.

Koppel wrote:

In a 2004 video message, bin Laden boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction.

He failed.

Koppel-quoting-UBL wrote:

"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."

That's not all they have to do.

Koppel wrote:

It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish --

Why not ask them? Here ya go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

UBL in 2002 (abridged by UT) wrote:

(Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens, and the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

It doesn't follow Koppel's narrative whatsoever, does it?

Koppel: As for the 100,000 U.S. troops in or headed for Afghanistan, many of them will be there for years to come... Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched...

UBL(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands.

Ya follow?

From 9/12 we have watched everybody use 9/11 to promote their own agenda. That is what Koppel is doing here. Whether he knows it or not.

(rather than edit, followup post)

Actually I don't think Koppel is trying to knowingly press his agenda. I think the problem is that WE can't buy into UBL's beliefs, stated goals, and methods. They are from a culture that is hard to comprehend. It's much easier to picture what their goals would be, standing from our point of view, with our cultural understanding. When we do that we will be inevitably wrong.

This disconnect continues to drive our confusion.

What does bin Laden want? We know what *we* would want and what *we* would expect our actions and methods to result in. From our point of view, we think that annoying airline passengers would be a damn good result. From bin Laden's point of view, the invasion of two Islamic countries, removing the Islamic or pseudo-Islamic governments and demonstrating that there's nothing he can do about it is absolutely the worst possible outcome.

I mean, sorry. But it is.

jinx;682692 wrote:

This is just my experience, but even as a child (1980's), when I flew I had to pass thru metal detectors and security checkpoints. The only difference I experienced post 9/11 was having to take off my shoes before I went thru and not being able to carry on any liquids (except for the bottle of water in the bag with my hamburger I bought in the terminal, but I guess that doesnt count). Oh, and not being able to check bags at the curb.
Had to go thru metal detectors and security checks to get in the courthouse before 9/11 too.

In about 1997 my wife flew back from Japan carrying a full size Samurai sword. She sure couldn't do that now.

Undertoad;682709 wrote:

Can I just point out a few things?

This isn't what bin Laden wanted at all!

Originally Posted by Koppel
The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response.

No it isn't.

It is an intermediate goal (i.e. subordinate mission) of terrorist attacks to use the psychological impact of terror to evoke a disproportionate response that consumes more of an adversary's resources; thus, weakening its ability to impede the terrorists' ultimate goals.

Undertoad;682709 wrote:

Originally Posted by Koppel
Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos?

Yes, he did: in pretty much everything he wrote and taped.

Undertoad;682709 wrote:

Originally Posted by Koppel
In a 2004 video message, bin Laden boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction.

He failed.

He succeeded in getting us on the path. It wasn't until after we crippled ourselves that we changed paths (and administrations). Terrorists are opportunists. Terrorist leaders, like other leaders of unconventional warfare forces, know that they cannot win the war alone; however, they also know that they can be the deciding factor when conventional forces (e.g. military and political) become sufficient to prevail over an even more powerful adversary. Remember "Peace with honor."?

Undertoad;682709 wrote:

Originally Posted by Koppel-quoting-UBL
"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."

That's not all they have to do.

Of course not, they also have to establish a mosque near ground zero.

Undertoad;682709 wrote:

Originally Posted by Koppel
It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish --

Why not ask them? Here ya go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by UBL in 2002 (abridged by UT)
(Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens, and the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

It doesn't follow Koppel's narrative whatsoever, does it?[/QUOTE]

It's a nicely spun mission statement that contains premises we rejected years ago. Perhaps it's not so important that Koppel's narrative doesn't follow it as that Koppel takes journalistic license to persuade.

Molly Norris was a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly News and City Arts Magazine drawing cartoons like this;



Then the South Park creators were threatened and she responded with this;



So this asshole decides she must die.

The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - the radical who's also been cited as inspiring the Fort Hood, Tex., massacre and the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers - singled out artist Molly Norris as a "prime target," saying her "proper abode is Hellfire."

Hellfire? Why hasn't this bastard received a hellfire?

So the terrorists win, and Molly Norris is no more. Oh, she's not dead, but on the strong urging of the FBI she has moved, changed her name, and assumed a new identity. Just like the witness protection program, but with her own money. This is not right, folks, the terrorists have won.

link
link

Someone just needs to hunt that a-hole Anwar al-Awlaki down and kill him. I'm just saying...

TheMercenary;682756 wrote:

Someone just needs to hunt that a-hole Anwar al-Awlaki down and kill him. I'm just saying...

In your world where everything is only liberal vs conservative ... why did you strongly support people who all but protected bin Laden? Why did you remain so silent when they virtually protected bin Laden by doing nothing? Refused to even let the 10th Mountain Division go after him.

Then you want killed a former Imam whose beliefs are as extremist as your own? Whose threat exists only in his words; not in any action? You don't see an inconsistency or contradiction?

Before bin Laden, none of this was a major threat. Koppel has accurately defined the problem - and now how we all react with fear.

TheMercenary;682756 wrote:

Someone just needs to hunt that a-hole Anwar al-Awlaki down and kill him. I'm just saying...

That's what he said about Molly Norris

But she didn't threaten his life...

Gravdigr;683025 wrote:

But she didn't threaten his life...

And he didn't threaten merc's life

Spex, your letting your hate cloud your judgment.

tw;682797 wrote:

In your world where everything is only liberal vs conservative ... why did you strongly support people who all but protected bin Laden? Why did you remain so silent when they virtually protected bin Laden by doing nothing? Refused to even let the 10th Mountain Division go after him.

I have not heard that you tried to kill, or tried to help kill bin Laden, tw. You have no standing to talk like that.

xoxoxoBruce;683060 wrote:

Spex, your letting your hate cloud your judgment.

What hate?

Your hate for Merc, is causing you to side with Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the most dangerous terrorists.

xoxoxoBruce;683211 wrote:

Your hate for Merc, is causing you to side with Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the most dangerous terrorists.

I'm not siding with him. I'm pointing out how merc is like Anwar al-Awlaki. Get it?

That's a streeeeetch. So you feel our government should not take out al-Awlaki, a known and proven enemy terrorist, as Merc suggested?

xoxoxoBruce;683215 wrote:

That's a streeeeetch. So you feel our government should not take out al-Awlaki, a known and proven enemy terrorist, as Merc suggested?

I'm saying that in this case, merc saying that al-Awlaki should be killed for transgressions against his values (saying that the cartoonist should be killed) is no better than al-Awlaki saying that the cartoonist should be killed for transgressions against his values(the cartoonist making fun of Mohammed).

His being a "known and proven terrorist" does not enter into my point.

Do you think your values are better than his values?

For any of you that think we have not yet gone over the top on fighting terrorism...

Fox 12 Oregon
12:36pm | September 18, 2010

Full-Body Scanners Coming To PDX

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Full-body scanners are expected to arrive at Portland International Airport next year.
The machines scan below clothing for threatening or non-metallic devices, Department of Homeland Security officials said Friday.
Although the scanners have been criticized for invading privacy, the Transportation Security Administration said there's a privacy filter to blur all images and the pictures are deleted once viewed.

Coming soon to an airport near you...

Other airports getting the scanners next year include Memphis and Newark.

UBL is laughing (at us) all the way to the airport.

Spexxvet;683218 wrote:

I'm saying that in this case, merc saying that al-Awlaki should be killed for transgressions against his values (saying that the cartoonist should be killed) is no better than al-Awlaki saying that the cartoonist should be killed for transgressions against his values(the cartoonist making fun of Mohammed).

His being a "known and proven terrorist" does not enter into my point.

Do you think your values are better than his values?

It's got nothing to do with values, it's about reality... serious threats, death threats, to our country and it's citizens. In the OP, I stated we should send that clown a Hellfire.
That's why I said, your judgment is clouded because Merc said it, when he repeated the same.

xoxoxoBruce;683276 wrote:

It's got nothing to do with values, it's about reality... serious threats, death threats, to our country and it's citizens. In the OP, I stated we should send that clown a Hellfire.

And brimstone. Since its all about religion, attack with both hellfire and brimstone. Hellfire without brimstone is like Saddam without WMDs; Palin without Fox News; Urbane Guerrilla with humor; or war without first inventing an enemy. These are the new realities.

God says we must kill. I mean, kill. Kill. I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, kill, kill, kill. And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me, and said , "You're our preacher."

Or we could have ignored religious hatred completely and gone after real enemies such as bin Laden. Using real soldiers; not rhetoric.

al-Awlaki is not about religion, he's about terrorism and murder.

:corn:

xoxoxoBruce;683330 wrote:

al-Awlaki is not about religion, he's about terrorism and murder.

He's a front man. A spokesman. He simply does what Limabaugh and Beck are doing. He does what Rev Sharpton once did to become so notable. But Sharpton does not openly promote hate. Those others promote hate of Islam or hate of the preverbal 'enemies of Islam'. What is the difference between the teachings of al-Awlaki and Urbane Guerilla? They both speak hate of the other.

So which one should be hit by hellfire and which one by brimstone?

Meanwhlle, bin Laden still runs free. So many who hype hate of a Manhattan mosque or Islamofacism also refused to ask a damning question. When do we go after bin Laden? Now there is someone deserving of both hellfire AND brimstone.

If al-Awlaki deserves hellfire, then Beck and Limbaugh deserve brimstone. They all promote hate - but do not act on it.

al-Awlaki is no more a front man than bin Laden is. The Radical Islamic terrorists are not a unified monster, it's a Hydra, and al-Awlaki is one of it's heads.

xoxoxoBruce;683438 wrote:

al-Awlaki is no more a front man than bin Laden is. The Radical Islamic terrorists are not a unified monster, it's a Hydra, and al-Awlaki is one of it's heads.

How many deadly operations did al-Awlaki mastermind? None. He promotes death same as Limbaugh and Beck.

Either all or none are 'evil' for promoting same things - hate and death. Meanwhile bin Laden masterminded multiple deadly operations. And was allowed by George Jr's administration to flee free.

How many US government organizations were established only to get one man. None for al-Awlaki. Alec Station was created by Clinton in 1994 only to get bin Laden because he was that dangerous even back then - when a president was listening to field operatives and facts. So different was the threat that bin Laden should not even be discussed in a thread about al-Awlaki, Limbaugh, Beck, and other disciples of hate.

Let's not avoid the issue. Do we brimstone al-Awlaki and hellfire Limbaugh? Or other way around? I keep asking for actionable solutions. When do I get recommendations?

tw;683660 wrote:

How many deadly operations did al-Awlaki mastermind? None.

How do you know that?

tw;683660 wrote:

How many deadly operations did al-Awlaki mastermind? None.

Anwar al-Awlaki - been cited as inspiring the Fort Hood, Tex., massacre and
the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers -
singled out artist Molly Norris as a "prime target"

Maybe the answer isn't none. His wiki page tells a very different story as do the news outlets and the current administration. According to all those sources, he is an integral part of that terrorist organization.
Heck the DOJ just announced last week they may press charges against him.

tw;683660 wrote:

So different was the threat that bin Laden should not even be discussed in a thread about al-Awlaki, Limbaugh, Beck, and other disciples of hate.

Wait a minute - This thread is about bin Laden and has drifted to include one of his "generals" You want to exclude bin Laden from the discussion, but include Beck & Limbaugh? Srsly?

Let's not avoid the issue.

ok.

He doesn't want to exclude bin Laden.

tw;683660 wrote:

bin Laden should not even be discussed in a thread about al-Awlaki, Limbaugh, Beck, and other disciples of hate.

Thats how I took this statement.

xoxoxoBruce;683862 wrote:

He doesn't want to exclude bin Laden.

Wait a minute. You are associating an irrelevant character - al-Awlaki - with bin Laden. You have no reason to believe he is anything but another Limbaugh or Beck. Those are facts. Why mention his name in a thread about real American enemies? Because wacko extremists want to invent more enemies hiding under our beds?

So why no actionable recommendation? Who gets the hellfire and who gets the brimstone? Or are those attacks as mythical as Saddam's WMDs? Maybe we don't have any hellfire and brimstone? Anything so that we do not discuss America's real world enemy - bin Laden.

tw;684244 wrote:

Wait a minute. You are associating an irrelevant character - al-Awlaki - with bin Laden. You have no reason to believe he is anything but another Limbaugh or Beck. Those are facts.

Those are not facts, these are facts.

Mr. Awlaki, born in New Mexico in 1971, served as an imam in California and Virginia. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked through e-mails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009 and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. He also had ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers although the nature of association remains unclear.

In May 2010, Mr. Awlaki was mentioned by Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Mr. Shahzad said he was inspired by the violent rhetoric of Mr. Awlaki, an American official said.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad.

link

Catching bid Laden will NOT make everything all better again.

xoxoxoBruce;684280 wrote:

Catching bid Laden will NOT make everything all better again.

Letting bin Laden go free only makes everything worse. Which should have been obvious before you even posted that despicable soundbyte.

Worry more about a bogey man hiding under your bed. Or the ghost of Saddam. Or get real. Worry most about many who so hate America as to even encourage - as you just have - the freedom of bin Laden and the hatred he represents.

So why do you again not post a single actionable suggestion? Who gets hellfire? Who gets brimstone? Why do you ignore rational questions ... while also advocating bin Laden's freedom? Because you have created a new bogeyman - al-Awlaki?

al-Awlaki is a threat only when hearsay and same logic also proved a toothless Saddam so dangerous. Or did al-Awlaki steal all our hellfire and brimstone? Is that why you have no actionable recommendations?

Reality - no others - not anyone - more deserves court room justice than bin Laden. No one even comes close.

The hunt for bid Laden should certainly continue, that's not in question. But thinking he's the only danger is ludicrous. That's why al-Awlaki has been targeted by the administration. To say we shouldn't pluck the saplings as they appear, just because we haven't been able to take the tree down yet, is ridiculous.