It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda rebuilding in Waziristan

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This is where the US has gone badly off course instead of going on the offensive and maintaining the pressure on the enemy resources were diverted to the dumb war in Iraq. Letting the enemy have a haven where he can retrain and resupply e.t.c is no way to fight a war.

Its time the coalition stopped fighting with one hand tied behind its back.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda rebuilding in Waziristan


Bin Laden again huh?
War going south,time to dig him up again.
This is laughable.Can someone/anyone prove to me that Bin Laden is still alive?
And no thnak you for anyone about to present "intelligence" data from the U.S. Im sure its as reliable as the "intelligence" about Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction.

And it must be easy to rebuild afterall.
When you keep creating your enemys by killing and bombing peoples families and homes.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Unless it can be proven other wise the only prudent course of action is to assume that Bin Laden is still alive and any plan of action should revolve this conclusion.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Unless it can be proven other wise the only prudent course of action is to assume that Bin Laden is still alive and any plan of action should revolve this conclusion.


Why does it have to be assumed he is alive at all?
There probalty more reason to believe he is dead.
He is just this administrations boogeyman.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Why does it have to be assumed he is alive at all?


Well let put it this way if convicted murder escaped from jail in a shoot out would you assume that he/she is dead and just give up the chase ?
The only reasonable thing to do is to assume that the person is alive and a danger to the public until proven other wise.



There probalty more reason to believe he is dead.


There is no solid proof either way . Bin Laden and his cronies will be doing his best feed the CIA and other Intel agency's that crumbs that throw them off the trail.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Boy.. I can't wait till Liberals are back in power...

Sure will be interesting....



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Rockpuck I have question .
What do so called Liberals have to do with the topic ?
It seems like a cheap political shot to divert attention away from the fact that the US has taken its eye off the ball in Afghanistan and is paying the price for fighting another half hearted war.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I say bomb the hell out of it.

You want to 'bomb the hell' out of a vast mountainous region?
Why, because it worked so well with Tora Bora and the rest of Afghanistan?

Yeesh man, that tactic is like hte british trying to defeat the american 'rebels' with volley fire and drill. Time to adapt no?




Many people in that region are sympathizers

And for that they should be bombed from the sky? Hell I think we should be more active in the GWOT but we shouldn't be wipping out entire states merely because they literally 'don't like us so much'.




skipppy505
Then one day Musharaff changes his mind and says - "OK boys" and we finish off this threat in one big and ugly offensive

Whats the point of that? They were all in Afghanistan YEARS ago, and we couldn't stop them there. What is the sense of allowing them to recruit, train, and carry out attacks on the west from waziristan? If we couldn't get them in Afghanistan, what will make waziristan any different? Are we going to bomb the himalayas next?




quiterenegade
Alright, they're rebuilding Al Qaeda and the U.S. knows where they are being trained. Why are we hearing this? If you know where the enemy is does it not make sense to attack and eliminate them before they can inflict any damage on you?

Indeed, we should be. But, the current adminstration isn't really all that interested in 'winning'.
I mean, they changed secretary of Defense, but only after being creamed in an election. They went for a troop surge, but only to strengthen their position in the 2008 election. They say that they want bin ladin, but the dissolved the only military unit that was specifically tasked with getting him.


We should be reading about how Al-Qaeda bases have been attacked and destroyed by NATO forces

Indeed, its just plain nuts. Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan, so we invaded. No need to question it, it was the obvious thing to do. Now he's in waziristan. Why should we care that there's a fictitious border inbetween? We didnt' care about the Afghan border when going into afghanistan, so why not just cross it again on the way out.



malagnis
The only people that would hate you for destroying the training camp are the terrorists inside i

Er, no. All of pakistan will hate us, for invading their country, bombing their citizens, and flattening their towns. Just like the iraqis hated us for invading their country.
If we do this, lets go in with our eyes wide open. There WILL be repurcussions for it.



rocpuck
'That is important to note, because American troops under no circumstances may cross into Pakistan unless specific orders are given by Pakistan.

According to pakistan, yes. Of course, Afghanistan also insisted that we not invade them.

but they have nuclear capabilities and that in the wrong hands could be very bad..

Indeed. We might even have to tell musharaf that we're going to invade, its inevitably going to cause his governments downfall, and that he can tell us where the nukes are now, so we can destroy them when we roll into waziristan, and if he does he can take all the money he wants out of the country and buy a nice big villa in california.

And don't relate that to "controlling" our own border, if we placed troops in the south to shoot any one who looks like they might think about crossing I can assure you it would be stopped, and that is exactly what they do in Afghanistan / Pakistan /quote]
And it doesn't work. It doesn't work even remotely well.

Boy.. I can't wait till Liberals are back in power...

Sure will be interesting....

You do realize that the policy of not going after bin ladin, of staying out of pakistan, and of not changing tactics in iraq to make it more successful, were all the result of rightists, not leftists, no?
I mean, what CAN the 'liberals' do that is worse? Not get invovled in the war in the first place? Even that can't be said to be worse at this point. Because before, we had hussein. Now, we have a Super Iran, with carte blanche against future invasion, and iraqi oil revenues going directly into international terrorism, with al-qaida being a major player in that too.

I mean, honestly, how much worse than the worst US foreign policy disaster in history can the 'evil liberals' get eh? Bush has failed to stop Iranian nukes, done nothing other than cave in on NK nukes, given up on hunting bin ladin, failed to win in iraq, and al lthe while chavez has been building up a socialist bloc in our own backyard. Its gotten to where we can barely even pretend to rattle our sabres when Putin, a guy who guns down reporters and uses radioactive poison to kill a spy IN LONDON, is critizising us.


And now, even with all that going on, we find out that Bin Ladin is getting even stronger in a safe-haven that it would be 'impolitic' to go into? Wasn't the whole idea of the "Bush Doctrine" that we wouldn't let exactly that situation happen?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Airpower and massive amounts of Firepower wont ever win the type of war that is being fought in Afghanistan by itself. Instead the way to go is to have special forces spear head the fight back up by conventional forces. Don't let the enemy suck you into any conventional battles.

Win the hearts and mind battle and you will win the war. Airpower and Firepower might be the best way to take an active training camp but common sense should tell people that you don't destroy an entire village to kill one man. You have to be flexible enough to adopted to the enemy's tactics and separate the local population support from the enemy. Any counter insurgency war takes time to win.

You cant argue with history the Malayan Emergency provided some very real lessons. I'm not comparing the two conflicts just pointing out the facts.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

All of pakistan will hate us, for invading their country, bombing their citizens, and flattening their towns. Just like the iraqis hated us for invading their country.


But as I said, you wouldn't have to invade the whole of Pakistan and flatten all of their towns, just the training camps. If these are in proximity to civilian areas then it should be Pakistan's responsibility to shut the camps down!




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join