No one wants to answer this question?

Question

If bush wants terrorism stopped, why did he turn his attention to Iraq instead of capturing the supposed leader of 9/11 - Osama bin Laden. I'm sure I'll get some lame-@ss name calling or response, but that shows me you have no clue, and you know I'm right.

VerdeOjos: I know they still have troops there dumb@***, but more troops should be in Afghanistan trying to find him. You're clueless, next person....

Military....: Again dumb@ss-ness rises to the top. I thought if you cut the head off of a snake, the body dies. If killing the leader of a terrorist organization is no good, then what was the reason for going in Iraq to capture Saddam - idiot. Next person....

Seeing Clearly: I do ask the same questions if Clinton was in office. I want someone in office who is for the people, not for their own pocket, for big business, and for lobbyist.

Pigpen: If you notice, I didn't call Seeing Clearly, or anyone else for that matter, names. I only called names to those who called me one. The first person was so ignorant that I chose to answer him on one of his posts. All I ask is for an intelligent response. By the way, killing the people in terrorist organizations makes them martyr's also...

Answer 1

Linus,

You'll need to go back to the events just after the Sept. 11th attacks. If my memory is correct, the President said that the USA and the world were sick of terrorists and terrorism and that it was time to take a stand and do something significant about the problem and its perpetrators (and I believe that at the time everyone - well, almost everyone - was on board).

Osama bin Laden was the definite #1 target since it was apparent he orchestrated and helped fund the operation; however, the President did NOT say that we would get him first and then move on to deal with the other terrorists around the planet. It would seem that bin Laden has proven to be more adept at eluding justice than anyone considered possible.

The President did say that the United States and our allies would fight terrorism wherever it was present. A country did not have to actively participate in terrorism to come under some form of retaliation or other action(s). If a foreign power housed, provided aid or some other protection to terrorists then it was part of the problem and would be dealt with accordingly. Saddam Hussein did have terrorist training camps within his borders and he paid restitution or bounties (or choose some similar term, if you like) to the families of terrorists who conducted suicide bombings or performed other acts of terrorism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that qualifies as offering aid to terrorists.

Saddam's problems were further amplified by his attempts to thwart UN inspectors as they periodically searched for violations of UN resolutions that sought to prevent him from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). And since many countries across the globe as well as high-ranking government officials within our own nation believed that he possessed them (and this belief held firm throughout much of the 90's from President Clinton on down - oh, John Kerry held that opinion during that time, too) he became another significant target in the "War on Terror". If you choose to say that Hussein did not have WMD's just ask the Kurds in Iraq (if memory serves, he did gas them killing thousands - and I believe that nerve or poison gas is considered a WMD).

It is my hope that we do capture Osama bin Laden at some point in the very near future, conduct a proper trial or some effective investigatory process and reveal the truth to the world. I feel we all deserve to know the truth and see JUSTICE, not VENGEANCE, done in this matter.

I hope that my answer has given you some appropriate points to consider. If you'd like you are more than welcome to contact me. I would appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas with you in this area.

Good luck and may God bless you and yours.

Answer 2

Linus, Militarywiccan has a point. Killing Osama will not end anything, it will only make it worse. The last thing we need to do is martyr the guy. He will be captured, the only question is when. It would help out a lot if Pakistan would be more aggressive on their side of the border.

I think it is great, by the way, how you stated in your question, "I'm sure I'll get some lame-@ss name calling," and then you turn around and call everyone "dumb@***." This only "shows me you have no clue, and you know (we're) right.

EDIT: I will concede the fact that killing any person affiliated with a terrorist organization only makes that person a martyr. This reason is used most effectively in recruiting young Islamists to their cause. You have to admit though, that bin Laden is not the average fanatical Muslim. He is considered to be the next best thing to a prophet. People look to him for guidance and deliverance in their lives. Putting him unceremoniously to death will ignite levels of hate that have not yet been reached. Killing Zarqawi in Iraq has only made things worse. He should have been brought to trial for crimes against humanity, and the same should be done for bin Laden.

This is one of many things I think needs to be improved upon in the war on terror. We need to set a better example for the fledgling governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. How are they supposed to react when we speak of jurisprudence is one breath, but refuse to allow trials for key figures in the war in another? Common soldiers of both sides will die, that is what happens in war, but when it comes to the people who lead the soldiers, they need to be treated differently.

I once believed that any terrorist, regardless of rank, deserve nothing more than a quick death. Zarqawi's death proved that is the wrong mentality when leaders of terrorist organizations are concerned. The common terrorist foot soldier will fight with a ferocity and reckless abandonment that they previously did not possess before their leader is killed. Zarqawi did not even come close to bin Laden's influence over Islamists. If we treat him with the same lack of foresight, this war will grow even more out of control than it already is.

Answer 3

You might ask the same question about Clinton...

Your question doesn't require name calling.... and why do you call Osama the supposed leader? He said he was the master mind of the WTC attack, why do you doubt him? Osama is a stupid man, look at what he brought to his own people with his thoughtless terrorist actions.

What is the clue we don't have.... please share.

More important than the pimples we call terrorists, is the border with Mexico. How the illegal alien issue is concluded will define the future of the USA, Iraq won't, the Mid-east won't, we can leave that area or level it if need be..... but America is where we live.... we aren't as ignorant as the Islamo-facists who bring death and destruction to their own habitat.

Answer 4

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.

Answer 5

The United States has never stopped looking for Bin Laden.

The war with Iraq was long in planning, it came about because Hussein tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated.

Answer 6

another good example of how the loudest are the stupidiest. If you know anything about terrorist you should know killing the leader is pointless. We killed the leader of terrorism in iraq and it got worse. You have the solve the real problem. The problem is liberals and democrats dont have the backbone to do it. GOP in 08.

Answer 7

Why would he want to capture a member of a family that has such strong financial ties with his family? Did you know that there are college professors who are joining the ranks of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists with some very interesting tidbits of information? It is beginning to become more mainstream and I am glad.

Answer 8

Question is are terrorist only with Bin Laden? I thought terrosism was a world wide problem.

Answer 9

You mean Saddam wasn't behind 9/11?
Oh, I feel so stupid! When did you find this out?

Was it on the news because I just kept seeing Bush relating the two...

That darn liberal media, huh?

Answer 10

I agree he shouldn't have worried about Iraq he should have gone straight for Bin-Laden.