Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Ten Ways To Kill Bin Laden

  1. Jul 25, 2010 #1
    This documentary was repeated on the History Chanel last night. Most of it is available on youtube. A must see.

    We put too much trust in the Afghan's. Franks and Rumsfeld refused to commit American troops. We could have wrapped up Afghanistan at Tora Bora.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaZ82J0VX2E&feature=related
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2010 #2
    I think we're going for the "let's let him keep wondering around somewhere and hopefully die of old age soon" option.
     
  4. Jul 25, 2010 #3
    This link has all ten videos in sequence.

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0F205F00D0FB6210

    120 minutes
    History Channel US
    Director: Steve Webb
    Executive Producer: Denman Rooke



    http://www.octoberfilms.co.uk/productions.php?category=history [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. Jul 26, 2010 #4

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The premise of that comment seems to be that if Bin Laden, a few of his Lieutenants and maybe the Taliban's Mullah Omar were killed or captured at Tora Bora then Afghanistan is somehow 'wrapped up', yes?

    Currently the plan in Afghanistan something like: fight the insurgency so that the country can stabilize itself sufficiently so that the Taliban can't or won't allow AQ or AQ like jihadists to plan, recruit, and train there again. Because otherwise another twenty maniacs can plan, recruit and train to fly airplanes into buildings there with encouragement from the local government.
     
  6. Jul 26, 2010 #5
    According to the documentary we had only 100 Delta force troops at Tora Bora. We weren't fighting the Taliban we were fighting AQ. There was no significant Taliban presence.


    From my point of view, had we had sufficient forces there would have been no insurgency. The link below backs up my point. It also leads to a document written by Army historians

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  7. Jul 26, 2010 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So? What does that have to do with asserting that the US* could have "wrapped up Afghanistan at Tora Bora"

    * there were ~only US forces in country in the Tora Bora battle time frame.
     
  8. Jul 26, 2010 #7
    There were more than 100 in the country of course, but only 100 anywhere near Tora Bora.

    If we would have had sufficient forces during the Tora Bora time frame we would have still had them later to control the country.

    During and immediately after Tora Bora was the key time to take control of the country. We never did have sufficient forces in Afghanistan to control or prevent the upcoming insurgency.

    Note: This quote is from the from a document written by military historians all 422 pages of it.

    A Different Kind of War is the title of the document written by military historians.

    The Quote and the entire document is available through the NY Times link above.
     
  9. Jul 26, 2010 #8

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So you suggest the US should have gone in to Afghanistan with the current ~90,000 troops (NATO + US) back in 2001, almost immediately?
     
  10. Jul 26, 2010 #9
    Not necessarily 90,000, that is your number, but certainly more troops than were present when we really needed them. The links and quotes bear it out.
     
  11. Jul 26, 2010 #10
    I suggest that we proclaim him dead and gone.

    Let anyone prove us wrong, and then focus on those leads. :)
     
  12. Jul 26, 2010 #11
    seems unlikely to me that bin Laden is the objective. it's not as if capturing him would make any difference at this point.
     
  13. Jul 26, 2010 #12
    I still haven't seen any extremely compelling evidence that linked Bin Laden to 9/11, certainly not which warrants execution without trial.
     
  14. Jul 26, 2010 #13
    That is true. I posted the videos of the documentary at this point in time because they only now became available. After watching the video's I was a bit shocked. It was apparent that poor planning was the reason we had bungled catching bin laden and pacifying Afghanistan from the beginning.

    The most common complaint from both military and CIA operatives was that they didn't have enough man power. (post 7) The other complaint was that the Afghan fighters did not do their job. (In the video) Both are true.

    During the fighting at Tora Bora, the Afghans would go back and sleep with their wives at night. They would come back in the morning and try to regain the ground that they had lost overnight. This information came from the former CIA operative in charge at Tora Bora.

    This would all be an historical moot point except for the fact that we are still there.
     
  15. Jul 26, 2010 #14
    yeah, it all seems rather ludicrous, doesn't it? if bin Laden really was responsible for an attack on US soil (and a rather huge one, at that), doesn't it make sense that we would do everything in our power to bring him and his cronies down? so what that you're short on manpower? you can stretch resources in other areas and do what needs to be done to take down public enemy #1. sleeping with their wives at night is hilarious. it sounds like that old Looney Toons cartoon where the wolf and the sheepdog punch their timecards before going to battle each day.
     
  16. Jul 26, 2010 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The US was not short on manpower upon entering Afghanistan.
     
  17. Jul 26, 2010 #16

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wasn't there a video he released claiming it had been more successful than even he had expected? It was tantamount to a confession of responsibility.

    [edit] Sorry, you were looking for evidence that would stand up in a court; I had thought you were just looking for evidence to point the finger at him as opposed to some unrelated group.[/edit]
     
  18. Jul 27, 2010 #17
    Yeah, it could be anyone in those vids really, and the person in those vids hardly looks like him, and apparently, Bin Laden is left handed...

    Also, why would he record these things in extremely low fidelity in some random cave? The guy's a ridiculously rich oil shaikh, you think he could afford some better quality camera? But then again, it does feed the perception of these people as basically barbarians without civilization.

    "We know he's guilty, turn him over"
     
  19. Jul 28, 2010 #18
    I'd be careful here, one of the Stasi here at PF gave me an infraction for asking what the evidence was for bin Laden's guilt.

     
  20. Jul 28, 2010 #19
    Ahahaha.

    I'm not very impressed with the moderators here, they seem to mainly abuse their power to further their political position (Yeah I'm looking at you Evo and Watters, still making ad-hominems because you can't stand the heat?) Apparently this is Watters idea of 'high quality posts', such as blatant ignorance about the international law about warfare and martial law.

    The 'evidence' are a bunch of recordings which could have been anyone really, the rest is supposedly classified.
     
  21. Jul 28, 2010 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You explicitly agreed to the forum rules when you signed up. Those forum rules explicitly declare conspiracy theories about Bin Laden as off-limits.

    The moderators are doing nothing more than enforcing the rules we all follow and that you agreed to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2010
  22. Jul 28, 2010 #21
    A gentleman's courtesy of course, some'd call it 'constructive criticism'.

    You see to much what you want to see from too little info if you interpret any user not returning as that.
     
  23. Jul 28, 2010 #22

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have retracted the weaker argument and replaced it with the stronger one.
     
  24. Jul 28, 2010 #23
    No they don't, they essentially make it up as they go along. Which the rules says they can do, the rules say they can ban or lock for any reason they see fit. (Putting up such a rule indicates that they are either not interested in doing a good job and listening, or had various complaints in the past)

    However, the rules also don't state that I can't say they do a bad job.

    It doesn't say at any point in the rules that you can't ask for evidence pertaining Osama's guilt, or that you can't open topics to debate what type of men women mainly like.

    Edit: To put my case from practice: What they typically do is 'first respond to you, and then say 'Now get back on topic', any one half capable a moderator ought to know that that is not the way to get it back on topic, the best way is to not respond to the issue and just say 'Okay, let's get back on topic, if you want to continue this debate, open a new one or take it to PM!', if you respond to some of those off topic issues and then say 'let's get back on topic' or lock it, you entice a response as you leave a view points dangling that some users might like to respond to. It also gives users the idea you abuse power to get the last word. The best way is to not respond and simply say 'Okay, let's get back on topic now.'
     
  25. Jul 28, 2010 #24

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The rules are written out. You read them. They explicitly diswallow this particular conspiracy theory. Your claim that they make anything up is belied by the fact that the rules are posted.
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2269439#post2269439

    Note that the Moderators are not responsible for putting up the rules; that is a forum owner/operator decision. The Moderators are simply charged with enforcing them.


    You're licking you wounds; I get it. But it's time to man up and stop blaming others when you violate the rules.
     
  26. Jul 28, 2010 #25
    Where do they disallow 'this perticular' conspiracy theory? What is 'this conspiracy theory', where were we talkinga bout 'a conspiracy theory'?

    THe word 'usama' or 'osama' or 'bin laden' does not occur in that post, it disallows 'conspiracy theories' (vague) and '9/11 conspiracy theories', which is a completely unrelated thing. Saying that the US blew up the towers themselves or that the evidence incriminating bin laden for the act is weak are two unrelated things.

    Note that I'm not saying that Osama hasn't done it, I'm just saying that the evidence is weak, the public evidence at the least.

    Which they do badly, they make things up (as did you), I didn't break a single rule when I asked for hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11.

    Again, which rule did I violate when I made a topic about what guys women in general like?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook