how much force is too much. "to bomb or not to bomb that is the question"

[Chuckiechan]

The people in the area where OBL is hiding think he is a hero. We should try to spare them when possible, but if they are killed we'll send our regrets.

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about terrorist's rights, and the rights of those who provide safe harbor for him. If these people would turn him in and act as responsible people are expected to act, there wouldn't be a problem.

You can't just hide a criminal like OBL and not expect to get a little crap splattered on you and your family when we attack him and his officers. They should be telling the USA where he is, and telling their families to stay at least 5 miles from him!

When they finally do kill him, I hope they secretly dispose of the body and he and his name will just fade away...

[pickel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

What is too much force when taking out a terrorist when are the risks too high.

A team comes upon Osama Bin Laden in a house full or innocents does you wait for a day when his guard is down and arrest him when no one is at risk, or does your sniper risk an errant bullet hitting a kid or do you drop a 2000 lb bomb and not risk your men?

If you said it is anything more aggressive than wait for the no risk day how many innocents is too many to risk. What is an acceptable number of people to risk killing to get him?

Can you use a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb when you know he is in the city somewhere, or can you merely risk a few 10's of people?

Is there a calculation that one can use?

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected military casualties and innocent in frontal assault)

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected Police and innocent casualties in an arrest scenario)

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected military and innocent casualties in an modern air raid)


What is the calculation you use to analyze the right and wrong of action against a murdering terrorist?

Smoke em all. nobody will remember in six months. Some other dude will take over and we'll be back to square one.

[ClubMed]

You can go around using all kinds of weapons and force to kill all kinds of single 'soldiers' or funding 'communities'. But politically induced violence will never cease to exist until unjust foreign policies are avoided.

The 'source' is not a soldier, or a funder, the source is politics and foreign policy, it's more than obvious now. Al Qaida is not an organization, but an ideological response to foreign policies.

The 'war on terror', invading nations, economic measures, sanctions and shock & awe have failed.

[Theophylact]

A letter in today's Washington Post:

Quote:

Offensively Selective

Friday, January 20, 2006

Does anyone believe that the United States would order a strike on a building sheltering Ayman Zawahiri were it in New York, London or Paris ["Protests Spread Across Pakistan; Islamic Groups Condemn Fatal U.S. Missile Strike; American Senators Defend Attack," news story, Jan. 16]?

While "may have harbored" apparently is a sufficient standard to launch a strike in Pakistan, Sudan or Yemen, I doubt that it would pass muster in England, France or Germany.

OWEN CYLKE

Bethesda

[Epidemic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

A letter in today's Washington Post:

Absolutely different category. we could either use english police or ask for permission to do the raid ourselves. That is friendly territory.

It is the difference between Arresting a fellar like hitler in 1942 germany and arresting them in a police station in your home country. There is no reasonable way to arrest them in pakistan. This was a military situation which required a military response. So in short no we would not bomb him in NYC, because in nyc we could easily control the streets, not worry about enraged populace shooting us as we surround him or tipping him off when we entered the city.

It is an idiotic comparison. Night and day comparison one where there is complete control and one where there is no control of the land, authorities, or situation.

However there are examples of where we use swat teams and snipers if the suspect is armed and they are told to take em down. Bombs and indescriminent weapons are not needed

[engracio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

Absolutely different category. we could either use english police or ask for permission to do the raid ourselves. That is friendly territory.

It is the difference between Arresting a fellar like hitler in 1942 germany and arresting them in a police station in your home country. There is no reasonable way to arrest them in pakistan. This was a military situation which required a military response. So in short no we would not bomb him in NYC, because in nyc we could easily control the streets, not worry about enraged populace shooting us as we surround him or tipping him off when we entered the city.

It is an idiotic comparison. Night and day comparison one where there is complete control and one where there is no control of the land, authorities, or situation.

However there are examples of where we use swat teams and snipers if the suspect is armed and they are told to take em down. Bombs and indescriminent weapons are not needed

Epidemic,

I think in my simplistic mind, it is nothing but option envy. The USA have all of this capability to have different options in taking out targets anywhere in the world. The rest don't. To counter this capability, the world wag their trigger fingers. Bad boy you USA, bad. Now stop that or we will all scream BADDDDDDDDDDD.

The most current event showed the capability and utilized. Based on damage assessment tartgets were taking out of the scenario. Next target. War is hell somebody once said. Simplistic but what do I know?

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

But weakening saudi arabia would not appear to be in our best interests to me.

It's interesting that you categorize my call to pressure Saudi Arabia to stop funding al Qaeda and other groups that hate us as "weakening Saudi Arabia." The princes that squander Saudi Arabia's oil wealth are not Saudi Arabia. They buy-off these groups in hope that they will leave them alone and not challenge their privileged life.

As Tom Friedman said in today's column, "We are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: the U.S. Army with our tax dollars, and Islamist charities, madrasas and terrorist organizations through our oil purchases."

Radical fundamentalism exists because the poor and powerless in the Middle East see it as the only way to break the stranglehold that the dictator Princes have on the oil wealth. The fundamentalists blame countries like the U.S. - either rightly or wrongly - for their oppression because we are viewed as a force that keeps the dictators in power.

Bombing an al Qaeda #2 guy is like treating cancer with a band-aide.

[Epidemic]

So what pressure do you believe would be appropriate to expodite saudi arabias compliance with anti terror requests?

Stop buying oil from them? Lets think about that,,,, hmmmm, hmmmm, hmmmm...... got it we'll stop buying oil from them and buy it from the UAE and Kuwait, good plan so far. UAE and Kuwait can supply us the oil but now they do not have enough production for their other customers,,,, the other customers need oil so who has suddenly gotten a glut of oil to spare. Oh yea saudi arabia, they sell oil to new customer and nothing changes.

Maybe that did not work???

Well lets say we manage to reduce income to saudi's Money runs short, Does the saudi family cut their lifestyle in order to support the social programs? No I think perhaps they begin to dig in their heals and cut support for the people. anger rises among their populace and people rise up but are suppressed brutally because the saudi family does not relish the idea of being dead or out of power. Mullahs now say america is responsible because they stopped buying oil and a new generation of terrorists are born.


How do you make saudi arabia comply?

[RADAR1797]

Epidemic,

MTAtech has the magic genie lamp Warthog spoke of before. He'll simply rub it when someone of his liking is elected president. He has no serious idea on how to deal with real world problems.

A JDAM on the house will do the trick.

[MTAtech]

As always, Radar can be depended upon for a condescending insult with nothing else of value brought to the table.

His solution is equally predictable but no more enlightened than the drunk bar bully that thinks that all problems can be solved with his fists. (Hit them with a JDAM, yeah!)

Epi,
Your last post stumbled on an interesting paradox. It implies that the Saudis can dictate American policy far better than the U.S. can affect Saudi policy. If so, our anti-terrorism plans are nothing but lip-service for domestic consumption. The Saudis will continue to take our money and hand it over to groups that kill our people. One would thing that if other countries have such power over us we would be more serious about solutions. Instead we invite them for dinner at the White House and encourage policies that keep them in power.

Paramount to breaking this hold is an energy policy that reduces dependence on unreliable and finite resources - something we don't have now. Such policies (i.e. stiffer CAFE standards for vehicles, alternative energy and using technology to improve efficiency) do much to break our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Second is backing away from dictators, such as the Saudi Royals, if for no other reason to make it known that we aren't complicit with their tyrannical suppression of their people.