July 30, 2002

7:29 AM

Bin Laden alive and planning attacks...I don't think so! Bush should publicly issue a direct challenge to Bin Laden. Just go on every TV and proclaim him dead! "We killed him." Period. If Bin Laden is still alive he would have to respond or be considered a joke.
posted by emorawski (32 comments total)

Does anybody really want him to respond? Why would that be a good idea? Isn't life better when Al Qaida is not doing anything? Why would anyone want to goad terrorists into blowing something up? I don't understand.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:46 AM on July 30, 2002

If Bin Laden is still alive he would have to respond or be considered a joke.

What makes you think that? From his perspective, isn't it better strategy to lay low until just before his next strike?
posted by pmurray63 at 7:49 AM on July 30, 2002

Bush should challenge bin Laden to a match of Celebrity Boxing.
posted by tolkhan at 7:49 AM on July 30, 2002

Some think that Al-Qaeda is winning even when they do nothing. I tend to agree.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:50 AM on July 30, 2002

Bin Laden has become the Elvis of the Islamic terror set. He'll be spotted in caves, mosques and bookstores from Kalamazoo to Timbuktu for at least another 30 years. Without a corpse to show for their efforts, even if he is dead, the die hard believers will never accept it. I for one, think alive or dead he doesn't matter so much as the fact that we as a nation are doing more to piss off the rest of the world than ever before and will ultimately pay the price for that not unlike that we have already seen. Bin Laden is the symptom of the disease of American self-centeredness and rough treatment of other nations.
posted by shagoth at 7:54 AM on July 30, 2002

Maybe he's alive or maybe he isn't. But the real story behind these reports is the obvious desperation al-Qaida is experiencing right now.

"Sources close to bin Laden's supporters" are talking to anybody who will listen about how Osama is just fine and how he's planning more attacks, etc., etc. All the while, Osama remains silent.

Boasting about new attacks is far easier than carrying them out and has much the same effect: It keeps people living in fear, and it keeps your name in print.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 7:59 AM on July 30, 2002

It keeps people living in fear, and it keeps your name in print.

Damn straight. It's keeping Bush's popularity right up there.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:03 AM on July 30, 2002

Shagoth: very funny and very true. Bin Laden is probably being spotted behind the counter at 7-Eleven in a quiet corner of Islamabad right now.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 8:03 AM on July 30, 2002

It get harder to justify the "War on Terra" if Bin Laden is dead. We need bad guys to fuel the war machine.
posted by quirked at 8:08 AM on July 30, 2002

Said it before, I'll say it again. If he's alive, popping up so the clue-exhausted US can have another shot at trying to find his location serves only the US. If Binny is smart, he'd keep his head down, and do what he's gonna do well undercover. That's the Military way to handle his situation.

If you're in a foxhole, bombarded by a round or twelve of mortars, and the shmoe who's been pounding at you yelled over - "Ha! Ha! You're Dead!!" would you be stupid enough to yelp "No I'm not!!!"

Of course not.

Mark this down as wishful thinking by the US, accompanied by the hope that he's more vain than he is smart.
posted by Perigee at 8:08 AM on July 30, 2002

Damn straight. It's keeping Bush's popularity right up there.

And that goes back to the question of do we (or more specifically, does Bush) really want bin Laden dead. We may need him as much as he needs us. It's a really sick world.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 8:08 AM on July 30, 2002

is bush dead yet?
posted by quonsar at 8:24 AM on July 30, 2002

> If Bin Laden is still alive he would have to respond
> or be considered a joke.

That would require the presumption that bin Laden thinks (or thought) like some sort of common streetbrawling mook. I don't know how close Bush is that model, but I don't think you've seen any evidence of it in bin Laden.
posted by pracowity at 8:24 AM on July 30, 2002

There is no reason at all for him to show himself. Staying hidden and keep doing what he is doing has to be the best option for him.
posted by davebushe at 8:40 AM on July 30, 2002

-That would require the presumption that bin Laden thinks (or thought) like some sort of common streetbrawling mook. I don't know how close Bush is that model, but I don't think you've seen any evidence of it in bin Laden.
posted by pracowity at 8:24 AM PST on July 30 -

Gee, I guess killing 3000 innocent men, women, and children makes him a real gentleman!
posted by emorawski at 8:49 AM on July 30, 2002

Bush should publicly issue a direct challenge to Bin Laden. Just go on every TV and proclaim him dead! "We killed him." Period.

That would be complete idiocy on Dubya's part since Bogeyman Bin Laden and administration scaremongering about the terrorism "threat" are the only chance he has of maintaining his poll numbers and winning in 2004.

I still say he's a one term wonder. Like father, like son!
posted by mark13 at 8:50 AM on July 30, 2002

Like father, like son!

I tend to agree. He may even be ousted by a Clinton.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:51 AM on July 30, 2002

I agree that Bin Laden and the war on terror has been a godsend for the Bush administration's greedy hawk-mentality.

With Laden alive they have the "terror" rock to hold over America´s head (which they use to destroy civil liberties, blow up, literally and figuratively, government spending and ensure domestic popularity) with the right hand while squeezing as much money as possible out of the planet (to benifit a lucky few) with the left hand.

I mean, what the hell do you think the war on Iraq is meant to accomplish, "homeland security"? In a long list of cynical, cruel and bloody presidents, Bush Jr. is going to be remembered as one of the "very best".

Hope no Mefi's brother is going to be sent off to Iraq to DIE so that the republicans have a good election year.
posted by sic at 8:51 AM on July 30, 2002

I see the evolution of MetaFilter into LeftyFilter continues unabated...
posted by revbrian at 8:57 AM on July 30, 2002

Old Sheikh's never die, they live on through dated videotape.
posted by flatlander at 8:57 AM on July 30, 2002

Jeez. There's more venom in this thread for President Bush than Bin Laden.

I don't agree with the suggestion that Bin Laden has more to gain by remaining hidden and out of communication with the world. He was playing politics with the Arab world when he released two videotapes during the early months of the Afghanistan war. Releasing a new videotape now would be a propaganda coup for Bin Laden, because it would show that the U.S. has failed to kill or capture him. The absence of anything like that makes me think the rumors of his death in the Tora Bora raids may be true.
posted by rcade at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2002

It get harder to justify the "War on Terra" if Bin Laden is dead. We need bad guys to fuel the war machine.

I don't know, I can think of PLENTY of people who would be happy if Bin Laden was dead and the war over: Here are a few. (sept 11 image)
posted by tomplus2 at 9:13 AM on July 30, 2002

Releasing a new videotape now would be a propaganda coup for Bin Laden, because it would show that the U.S. has failed to kill or capture him.

The guy ain't runnin' for president. He doesn't need propoganda coups, he needs a functional infrastructure. He can't get new recruits now, even if he wanted them, because his old training bases have been deep-fried and every intelligence agency from the CIA to whatever the hell Belize has is probably trying to infiltrate Al Qaeda now. I wholeheartedly encourage Osama to pop his head up, but doubt he will.
posted by gsteff at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2002

The guy ain't runnin' for president. He doesn't need propoganda coups, he needs a functional nfrastructure.

It's a mistake to think the Islamist fight is strictly military. Osama Bin Laden's goals are political.
posted by rcade at 10:17 AM on July 30, 2002

I don't know, I can think of PLENTY of people who would be happy if Bin Laden was dead and the war over: Here are a few. (sept 11 image)

I don´t think anybody needs to be reminded of what Bin Laden accomplished. The question is why does a guy like Bin Laden exist in the first place? Doesn´t the fact that all US presidents probably since the Cold War create foreign policy based on DOMESTIC political needs have anything to do with this? This philosophy has alienated the US from almost the entire planet and gotten many american soldiers and untold innocents killed along the way (of whom the WTC victims are only a tiny percentage).

If some of you think that my view points are too lefty, read what Scott Ritter, Bush republican, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and twelve-year Marine Corps veteran has to say about the upcoming war on Iraq.

this isn´t about Republicans or Democrats (I assure you I am neither), this is about class. Rich folks will send poor folks off to die in defense of their money anytime, but don´t ask them to pay taxes! That´s everybody else's cross to bear. Since Reagan, any president is willing to start a war just to boost popularity points (Bush1 and Clinton also did this) without ever considering negative consequences such as the WTC attack. In the end Bin Laden is irrelevant, if he dies, another will take his place even if the replacement has to be trained and financed by the CIA.
posted by sic at 10:30 AM on July 30, 2002

The thing about OBL and AQ is that they don't actually have to do anything big ever again. Just the occasional bombing in some third-world country and the long shadow of WTC are enough of a psych-out for the time being. I think we are witnessing the decline of AQ as a viable entity, but it's not as if it's going to start acting humble in its various, um, press releases as a reflection of that. The fact is, WTC took years to plan, and wasn't as brilliant as we were lax and distracted. Something on that scale simply isn't feasible or probable in the current climate. And since terror is a head-game, it's not even necessary. Just keep the noise up, keep us scrambling.

Actually, I think those last two sentences apply to Ashcroft et al too. Heh.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:41 AM on July 30, 2002

It's a mistake to think the Islamist fight is strictly military. Osama Bin Laden's goals are political.

rcade, could you sorta clarify that a bit? I agree that Bin Laden has political goals in mind - but not personal ones, i.e., 'Osama for President' - and, I'm not sure at all that his personal mug has to be out there to accomplish the political ends he wants.
posted by Perigee at 1:14 PM on July 30, 2002

If Bush openly declared that Bin Laden was dead, and then Bin Laden presented proof that he was alive, Bush would look (more) like an idiot. I don't see it happening until the fed has proof that Bin Laden is really dead.

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the fed already has that proof, and is sitting on it so they can continue to exploit the idea that there is a particular and definable danger out there, justifying whatever Ashcroft-related changes they want to make in the way this country works domestically.
posted by bingo at 3:50 PM on July 30, 2002

Perigee, I agree his goals aren't primarily personal (although he does seem at times to be angling for the historical resonance of other Islamic military leaders). Some of this may be due to his knowledge of his own mortality (by disease or combat). His topmost near-term goal seems to be the toppling of the "infidel" Saudi regime, even though he's gotten direct and tacit support from them. He has apparently concluded this means warring against their sponsors and defenders, i.e. us. Secondary goals seem to include the humiliation, or more probably, destruction of Israel, the departure of Western infidels from all Islamic lands, and Islamic shari'a law established in the same. This last is the formal goal of what is called Islamism, but only a small part of what Ladenists seek.

Longer-term goals may include a restoration of the Caliphate which would unite all Muslims -- the Ummah -- under a single theocratic ruler; and perhaps retaking historically Muslim lands such as Andalusia -- er, Spain. Some of his followers have expressed even nuttier ideas such as dividing and reconquering India, and turning all infidels into slaves, forced to convert or submit to the sword. That many of these goals are irrational and passingly unlikely seems beside the point. They are engaging in terrorism and fourth-generation warfare, modeled practically on techniques honed by ideological revolutionaries of the 20th century, but they don't seem interested, except tactically, in making the same political connection with the populace. The psychology is a little different, and we're having trouble understanding it using the old paradigms.

rcade's point is well made, that our war is to be fought with ideas as much as -- probably even more so than -- guns and bullets. An Islamic reformation, for example. As has been remarked by, I believe, Bernard Lewis, the term for jihad in English is holy war -- but that's because in English there can be other kinds of war. In Islam, there isn't the same distinction between holy wars and other kinds, between holy law and other kinds, between holy governments and other kinds. (To be honest, we ourselves were that way once; we learned otherwise through bloody lesson after bloody lesson.) In short, a secular government is seen by confirmed Islamists as infidel and apostate; and even moderate Muslims may be uncomfortable with the idea. We can hope, with examples like Iran, that the side of tolerance and secularism is beginning to gain traction.
posted by dhartung at 5:54 PM on July 30, 2002

Well said, as usual, dhartung. The emphasis on new ideas, new ways of thinking, is key. That is how this situation will be defused and neutralized in the long term.
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:38 PM on July 30, 2002

dhartung, #654, is a great example of why the old school 'round here pines for the 'good old days.' Eloquent and on-point d; sure glad you're still with us.
posted by Perigee at 6:22 AM on July 31, 2002

revbrian - 'I see the evolution of MetaFilter into LeftyFilter continues unabated...'

since when has a dislike for suffering fools gladly been associated with any particular political party? that is, other than the monster raving loony party.

rcade -'There's more venom in this thread for President Bush than Bin Laden.'

possibly because bin laden has never claimed that he represents the american people. i would say this is a good thing, as americans have more chance of removing one from his position as a worldwide political figure than the other.
posted by asok at 9:16 AM on July 31, 2002