Click bang bang, all sorted. You'd never know they'd been there.
Perhaps they should have done the same with Saddam Hussein as well rather than bother with the war in Iraq. Could have removed the bastard quickly and simply without any need for ful scale conflict
2006-10-30 10:50:55 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm sorry but I really beleive if they wanted to find him they would have done by now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I beleive there is more to this than meets the eye . . .
I also think they could have offed Saddam quickly and simply. They killed more innocents with the bombing than they would have done through shooting one of his doubles.
2006-10-30 11:03:58 · update #1
They know where he is ,but it is a political decision to let him be for the time being.
2006-10-30 10:53:37 · answer #1 · answered by Tracker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, and why don't they just push the "EASY" button, because that would make it all just so much easier!
It's good that Brits have such faith in their military, if they could only ground that belief in reality and stop blaming their shortcomings on everyone else we might have an effective coalition.
As has been said before, do you know how much land there is to search for one man? Do you know how many cars drive those roads every day? Do you know how many poeple it would take to stare through satellites evry moment waiting for someone to show their face. Their isn't enough technology or people to make such a thorough search. The only way we have found any one else is through informants and luck. Plus there is good chance we have already killed him and just don't know it. An enemy works to discredit your accomplishments and popularize his own to win the battle of wills. We got Saddam, we got his sons, we got Al Zawhari (please excuse my spelling). It would be great to get him too. He may be in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or miles away in Mexico. Who knows?
I agree with you though, that a quick kill would have stopped him, but I do not agree with your assesment that this would have ended the problem. Presently most "civilised" countries frown on assinations. Who would take over? Who would claim responsibility? Would that have not been a scandal in its own right? People should remember it's always easier to look back and say, well it should have been done this way. But would they be right?
2006-11-03 07:06:49 · answer #2 · answered by Maker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's primarily a question of military intelligence. The SAS are not general infantrymen and have three main roles: reconnaissance, sabotage and counter-insurgency. Although it is possible to use a reconnaissance unit to ascertain activity within enemy positions, you have to have a rough idea where those positions are in the first place. The mountainous areas of Afghanistan stretch into India and Pakistan too and so simply there are not enough troops to search it thoroughly. You can do it by air if you have the aircraft but then you have the problem that movement is not easy to spot when you're high above it and moving at speed.
2006-10-30 11:16:07 · answer #3 · answered by prakdrive 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok then why don't you in your infinite wisdom tell them Where he is, then they can. otherwise just look up the geographical region of the Tora Bora mountains and do what they would, search for fcuking yrs(they are around 300 miles square) and nothing but caves.
the reason they didn't assasinate Saddam is because he had at least 13 lookalikes walking around pretending to be him and could you imagine the sh1t they would get for killing an innocent.
2006-10-30 10:55:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, it would make no difference since another person would quickly take his place. Second, by killing him he would become a martyr and increase the resolve of the Muslims. I say let him be. He has to live like a scared rabbit today.
2006-10-30 11:20:54 · answer #5 · answered by blindogben 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they had him trapped at Torra Borra and sent the SAS into the tunnels. A sgt was recommeded for a VC. Anyway he escaped by a back route but the US troops were too slow to act although they had plenty of prior knowledge of the escape route. He got away to Pakistan. Maybe it was deliberate, otherwise the US troops were asleep on the job.
2006-10-30 11:00:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it's really not that simple. Frankly, how hard can it be to locate a man who has such bad kidney disease that he needs regular dialysis - he aint getting it in a cave in the middle of nowhere.
Could it be because he is a Saudi Arabian??
The governments of this country and the US would rather people stayed under the illusion that he is behind a vast army of terrorists, so that they can drop his name in when they want to fight another phoney war.
2006-10-30 10:55:53 · answer #7 · answered by Bumblebee 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Osama bin Laden he work for USA and his lovey mate BUSH
9/11 or 7/7 in UK all fake just to attack iraq or afgan.. or any rich country
chek this clip and u will understant
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
2006-11-01 03:35:35 · answer #8 · answered by Haideryan 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't it seem like if they really wanted to find the guy, they would have found him a long time ago? What you hear on the news, and the truth are often two entirely different things.
2006-10-30 10:59:22 · answer #9 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who do you think are looking for Bin Liner,,the 11th Hampstead girl guide movement?
2006-11-02 05:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, no can do - the old Landrovers are getting a bit unreliable and we are fresh out of helicopters.
2006-11-02 07:35:58 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋