It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Terror Wars are ending but did Bin Laden win?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 11:54 PM
a reply to: RationalHuman

All I can really say to this is. No. They didn't. If they did, show me

I hope I don't offend you here, but you are simply wrong. The Taliban absolutely did indicate they could hand over Bin Laden if shown proof of his guilt. Millions of us watched the reports, read the news and shook our heads together as events unfolded exactly that way.

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The Guardian reported that story on October 14th, 2001. I think that was about the time the Green Beret teams paired with CIA paramilitary were starting to link up and become effective with the ranks of the Northern Alliance forces. I think I remember Switzerland being floated by TPTB then for a 3rd nation but of course it never went anywhere.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:00 AM
Well the war on terror has not ended terrorism and the USA has added lots of security theater and removed many rights with emergency bills that pass through congress. Much money was spent in the process.

Bin Laden succeeded in changing america for the worse.

Ya, I'd say the terrorists won....

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:15 AM
The US spends more on Military than the next 25 countries spendings combined.
The Majority of those 25 are US Allies.
No my Friend , when the USSR stopped playing the "Arms Race" , the US needed a new Foe.

Enter the "terrorist" ....... Hard to kill an Enemy that doesn't really exist.
So keep spending more on Air craft Carriers, on Planes,Tanks and guided Tech.

I forget which Neo-Con said , think it was Cheney,

Vice President Dick Cheney, the voice of Bush, has said the US is considering military or other action against "40 to 50 countries" and warns that the new war may last 50 years or more.

So No.

The Terror Wars are just in their Infancy.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:44 AM
a reply to: MrCynic

Bin laden didn't win he was a CIA tool, here are the REAL winners:

Bankers: Whats better than a home loan? A WAR loan. Not to mention all foreign interests How To Invest With A Rothschild - In Iraqi Oil

Military Industrial Complex: The companies I could list here would be too long, Halliburton, Blackwater, Titan, ect...

US government: DHS, TSA, Surveillance grid

We lost to criminals and globalists, and the Iraqis lost to people to weak and dumbed down to pay attention to an out of control and tyrannical government. We lose every time we go to an airport where we watch our wives and children violated in the name of "safety". We lose every time our privacy is violated by some government goon in the name of "safety". Bin laden didn't win, but we still lost.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:54 AM
OP I am giving you a star and a flag for raising this point

I actually once authored a thread along very similar lines to this only only more focused on the economic effect of 9/11 which you may find interesting:

9/11: How Bin Laden Destroyed America and her Economy.

I personally would disagree with you that the War on Terror is coming to a close, Obama just re-branded it once saying that

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,

But really so long as he maintains his kill lists and keeps up the Bush era policy of targeted assassinations and so long as terrorists continue to threaten western interests what Bush called the "war on terror" will never be over.

I do however most definitely agree with you when you say that Bin Laden achieved his objective of hurting the American economy.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:11 AM
We won the military battles without a doubt..

We lost the war for who we are though...

In the end I think he won.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 02:56 PM
a reply to: MrCynic

Yes, thats correct

the Taliban said they would hand him over after seeing proof he was involved in it


(From the same article)

Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

They were not going to turn him over if the US proved he was guilty

edit on 6-8-2014 by RationalHuman because: No source

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:58 PM
a reply to: RationalHuman

I believe they would have turned him over if the US had exposed methods and tactics far enough to give the proof which the world would need to get to the next step.

I also think they would have made the third party nation the most obnoxious and difficult the Earth had to offer in 2001 and used the process to make Bush an even bigger fool than they were already accomplishing. Of course, they also didn't believe he would really go to total war against them, until he did. I've been amazed at how many nations have seen leaders go to their doom believing something must happen or could never happen, just to see that proven wrong.

Unfortunately, that confirmation usually comes in the final moments they have left to reflect on anything.

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 04:03 PM
a reply to: MrCynic

I think that he did indeed partially win. One of OBL's goals was to attack the Wests economic infrastructure. He did a pretty good job on that one in my opinion.

The West is spending itself to death, just like Russia and the Warsaw pact of old did.

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:02 AM
The war on terror? Even the name says it all. How can violence stamp out violence? It can't. When we think of terrorists or terrorism we think Islam, we think middle east and we think of scary bearded men plotting our end. We don't think about our own actions and the effects they have on these people. Do we stop and think about the funds and arms we have supplied to, let's face it, the enemy? Wars tend to end sooner and be easier to win if you aren't creating your own enemies. It's an enemy with strong beliefs that no bombs or bullets will change. In fact, they make the beliefs and views stronger. If a 2000lb JDAM killed my family, I'd be happy to seek revenge even if it meant dying.

It isn't just a people we are fighting. It's an idea, a notion, a set of beliefs. The only way to defeat the evil that has coiled itself around a religion is to rip it out at the roots. Years of radicalism and brain washing need to be undone and that's a near impossible task. How do you change a person's beliefs and values if they have been stamped in to them since birth? I don't know but trying to kill them isn't the long term solution. We helped to create this enemy for our own use and it's came back to bite us in the arse. If you have an entire people who share the same ideas then no amount of military might will defeat them.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in