'Respect Osama or more Americans will die'

bbchris

Isn't 'respect' a strong word for him to use? Respect has to be earned! Maybe the word should be 'fear'?

MIKE BURN

I think Mr. Scheuer's point is, that Bush and his administration

continue to portray Bin Laden as a "thug" and "gangster",

while he obviously is a very serious, intelligent and organized

enemy with strong beliefs and convictions.

Military history overall the world is full of stories and warnings

about "underestimating" an enemy and possible root causes

for fighting and losing a battle or many lives because of this

lack of respect.

An example for saving lives by "respecting" an enemy is the

case of German General Paulus who was offered "to surrender

with honor", which he did after being asked twice against the

will of Hitler, while being "respected" and treated well by

officials of the Russian Army.

bbchris

OK I understand your explanation of the word respect now. THanks for explaining to me Mike!

MIKE BURN

Quote:
Washington - A former CIA analyst took off his disguise to say on Sunday that the United States must respect Osama bin Laden for the enemy he is, or many more will die.

"Until we respect him, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary," former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer told CBS's "60 Minutes" programme.

Scheuer spoke for the first time without a disguise, as the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," which a few months ago shook up Washington.

Scheuer wrote the book anonymously with permission from the Central Intelligence Agency. He quit on Friday and revealed his identity.

Bin Laden is "a great man in the sense that he's influenced the course of history," Scheuer said.

"I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice by continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster," he said, calling bin Laden a rational, formidable enemy.

Scheuer had been tracking bin Laden since the mid-1980s, and from 1996 to 1999 headed the CIA's bin Laden desk, which he said was the only such desk dedicated to a single person at the CIA.

But Scheuer was removed from the desk, he told CBS, because he became too strident in demanding that something be done about him.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, which bin Laden led, Scheuer was brought on as a special adviser to the head of the bin Laden unit.

He told the network that bin Laden is more dangerous than ever, because now he may use a nuclear weapon, if he has it, with religious authority.

"Bin Laden secured from a Saudi sheik a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," Scheuer said.

The fatwa "found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer said. - Sapa-AFP

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I think that there is a difference between respecting a person for who they are, and respecting what it is they can do. One should always have respect for guns, for example...this does not mean that we look up to them.

As far as the "thug" and "gangster" comments are concerned, I think that they refer to tactics rather than level of intelligence. Osama must be a pretty smart man...but not infallible. Osama has succeeded in polarizing the world...but in the long-run this quite likely could work against him. Instead of taking the slow road, his actions have drawn attention to Muslims by governments all over the world in a way that did not exist prior to his actions. His use of religion as an excuse to do what he is doing may also backfire against him...if the majority of Muslims seek to put an end to his actions instead of being afraid of him, for example. Smart or not, the man is certainly taking risks...and giving the US government all the reason it needs to take actions that will make things much harder for him in the future.

BTW, am I the only one who has actually entertained the idea that Osama may still be working for the CIA?

LarreeMP3 · Joined: 12 Apr 2002 Posts: 1935

The rat bastard will NEVER get any "respect" from me or anyone I know! Personally, I would like to behead the bastard live on Arab TV...and I'm a peace loving guy!

Click here to listen to three decades of original Larree music!

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
One should always have respect for guns, for example...this does not mean that we look up to them.

Moreover, a hatred for guns to the point that you want a total obliteration of them does not stand in the way for having respect for them.

Quote:
His use of religion as an excuse to do what he is doing may also backfire against him...if the majority of Muslims seek to put an end to his actions instead of being afraid of him, for example. Smart or not, the man is certainly taking risks...and giving the US government all the reason it needs to take actions that will make things much harder for him in the future.

It seems the US government has been provided an excuse to take the action we have seen thus far. Afghanistan more or less abandoned before Osama was captured in favor of the Iraqi oilfields.

Quote:
BTW, am I the only one who has actually entertained the idea that Osama may still be working for the CIA?

Of course not, I am as paranoid as you in that respect

Oh, I also think Larree need to change tactic and read the thread instead of merely reacting to the subject line.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Galmin - "It seems the US government has been provided an excuse to take the action we have seen thus far."

I disagree, Galmin. There is a difference between an "excuse" and a "reason". A reason is a necessity, while any excuse will do...one excuse is as good as the next.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
There is a difference between an "excuse" and a "reason". A reason is a necessity, while any excuse will do...one excuse is as good as the next.

Ok. The reason is Osama and the attacks he masterminded wich was carried out by his terror organization, the excuse is anything we were told why Iraq had to be invaded in a huff without UN consent.

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Quote:
I think Mr. Scheuer's point is, that Bush and his administration

continue to portray Bin Laden as a "thug" and "gangster",

while he obviously is a very serious, intelligent and organized

enemy with strong beliefs and convictions.

Mike, I don't think the point that Bin Laden is a mastermind criminal is lost on President Bush - or any other American, for that matter. But the keyword there is criminal.

I suppose you've heard of Charles Manson (and his "family")?

Charlie's actually a bright guy and a great "con artist". But he's devoted to being and doing evil.

You mentioned WWII and Hitler. Hitler was certainly no dummy, but he was every bit as (if not more) crazy and criminal as is Bin Laden. This was something that Neville Chamberlain failed to realize, but that Churchill knew quite well.

Chamberlain respected Hitler - he came back from Munich, waved a piece of paper and said it meant "peace in our time".

The civilized world should have respect for Bin Laden in the sense that we know his craftiness and the darkness of his soul.

Bin Laden is a thug, the same as Manson.

Those who fight terrorists realize that they have to get it right 100% of the time to prevent attacks. A terrorist just has to get it right only once to cause an attack.

So we don't underestimate his trickery or his criminal intelligence. But there is no respect for him and his basic nature.

My respect goes to a genius who can design great airplanes.

But I have no respect for an evil genius who orders others to fly them into buildings filled with people.

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Quote:
Iraq had to be invaded in a huff without UN consent.

LOL - "in a huff", Gal? After a dozen years of Saddam giving the world the finger and as many useless, ignored "resolutions" from the UN? Resolutions that made a long-term oil4food scam profitable to the UN "leadership" and other bought leaders who didn't want to see Saddam go?

At any rate, the removal of Saddam as US foreign policy goes back to President Clinton, much to his credit. And no nation should wait for the UN (a corrupt UN at that) to decide it's own foreign policies.

Gal, I'm thinking it's a very safe bet that you've never made a list of all the nations that have acted "without UN consent". Is that correct?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
At any rate, the removal of Saddam as US foreign policy goes back to President Clinton, much to his credit. And no nation should wait for the UN to decide it's own foreign policies.

Ho haw. Ok, so if Putin isn't happy about there being a re-election in Ukraine, it is ok for the Russians to, eh, invade the country? It is, after all, the foreign policy of russia to keep Ukraine away from Europe. Splendid. No matter what the security council say or the UN Charter, Ron here has given Putin a carte blanche.

It was the foreign policy of Iraq to invade Quwait and UN Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990 gave Iraq a dealine until January 15, 1991 to leave Kuwait or face war. UN! Amazing, huh?

Quote:
Gal, I'm thinking it's a very safe bet that you've never made a list of all the nations that have acted "without UN consent". Is that correct?

It's a more safe bet that you will type something as utterly singular as this. You want a list of the despicable bunch of countries that have invaded other countries in breach of the UN Charter? Make it yourself.

Edited by: Galmin at: 11/30/04 14:29

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I'll take that as a "no" to ron's question, Galmin...as in "no you have not".

Edited by: DreamTone7 at: 11/30/04 21:49

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

"No, we're not a tag-team, I am sorry if it looks that way" Dreamtone7

Let Ron respond in reciprocity, will you DT?

Quote:
I'll take that as a "no" to ron's question, Galmin...as in "no you have not".

What is it that Ron has not done? :lol

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

Quote:
I'll take that as a "no" to ron's question, Galmin...as in "no you have not".

Heh

Actually, I read it more like "Yes I could - but doing so would refute my own argument!"

============================

Now, Gal, setting aside the worldwide sightseeing sidetrips - in the US when a cabbie gives an out of town rider one of those we call it "The Grand Tour" - you dodged the question at hand.

Do you believe nations should hand over their foreign policy sovereignty to an obviously corrupt, bought & paid for, outside entity? Does Sweden do so? Has it disbanded all it's ministries involved in foreign affairs and fired it's diplomats to instead await Kofi's command?

It's fine and dandy with me if Sweden is comfortable letting Kofi make it's decisions, but Americans are a bit more independent minded. In this world there are the "Chamberlians" and there are the "Churchills". BTW, did you know that Winnie's father was a Brit and his mom was an American? But I digress.

Now to the matter at hand - and we are indeed focusing on a "singularity": you either can not or will not mention any nation you believe has "acted without UN consent". If you cannot think of any, that means you are not well informed. That does not bode well for your argument.

If you will not, it highlights the singular and non-altrusitic nature of your reasoning. And that doesn't bode well for your argument either: because it's intellectually dishonest to be unwilling to enumerate such actions. In logical terms, you're using a "Strawman fallacy" because it's the only one you can knock down.

But by way of a jumping off point from which you may work - can you think of any despicable countries that not only "acted without UN consent" but in fact defied it in violating UN sanctions by supplying Hussien with weaponry/weapons material?

(An extra hint on that - think of what some US folks call "The Axis Of Weasels")

And, as a bonus question: when France invaded the Ivory Coast last month and French forces gunned down unarmed anti-European demonstrators ----- was that dispicable or was France, in a "Euro-dream world" fashion, really just extending a hand of friendship to it's breakaway colony?