Skip to comments.Was Bin Laden in Charge and Will his Death Defeat Jihad?
Posted on 05/15/2011 2:27:33 PM PDT by LSUfan
In the wake of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there is a debate as to the extent that Bin Laden was operationally in charge of Al Qaeda.
It seems apparent that Bin Laden was actively communicating with Al Qaeda elements, but it wasnt in real time. He used a system of couriers to relay messages via email and the internet, but went to great pains to securely communicate. This means no direct internet connection and no phones, cellular, satellite or landline.
This would preclude any real dialogue with operators and cells.
(Excerpt) Read more at terrortrendsbulletin.wordpress.com ...
No, and no. And it seems these nimrods are running with version 1.00, in which the compound didn’t have huge dish antennas.
Why would they stop now? They have tens of thousands of missiles to shoot at Israel and sharp knives to cut our heads off.
An embarrassingly ignorant question. Jihad has been committed for over a thousand years, and will continue to be committed until the last jihadist is terminated. Which isn't anytime soon, from the looks of it.
We don’t win wars anymore. We fight them to manageable standstills because total defeat of an enemy demeans him.
No, there are not that many Muslims in the world.
There are 2 billion muslims
Yes and no. The ideology of radical islam has been at war with us since 1785. UBL was just one of many enemies of ours who embraced this ideology. This ideology can only be defeated if all of its followers are killed, reformed, or marginalized, sorta like how we had to deal with the Nazis.
In response to the first question: Get real. In response to the second question: Grow up.
I know my opinion is a distinctly minority opinion, but OBL was a boogeyman, invented to frighten us into the arms of a Tyranny. We will probably never know where all the tentacles go on the attacks on 9/11, and OKC, but they were linked, and our govt knows this.
The worst about this is that this juvenile blog effort is by the Vice Director of the Center for Security Policy in DC. So much for Gaffney and cohorts, I suppose.
Just for you Hardraade:
And Napoleon communicated with his commanders by courier. So?
Given the U.S. advantage in sigintel, any rational opponent will be able at need to operate using Napoleonic command-and-control structures.
Actually, that is not correct, David.
Napoleon did not communicate via courier in the PLANNING phase. He was limited to communicating by courier in the OPERATIONAL phase.
Being limited to communication by courier in the planning phase inevitably results in a disjointed, cumbersome planning process in which the necessary two-way dialogue is all but impossible.
Clearly these aspects had to be delegated to others. I believe that Bin Laden never actually provided much more than overall direction. I believe the operational details were always left to KSM and his capture crippled Al Qaeda much more than Bin Laden’s death will.
“Was Bin Laden in Charge and Will his Death Defeat Jihad?”
The “Jihadi in Charge” actually died 1,400 years ago, but remains “in charge” through his unchangeable screed that is embraced by more than a billion. They are all his “soldiers”, whether they be on active duty or merely “in support” of the cause.
“Mein Kampf” essentially died with its creator.
Islam lives on — and surges — without his physical presence. But his “presence” continues as its spiritual leader through his words and exhortations.
The only way to defeat the jihadis is to destroy that which motivates them.
What motivates them?
If you know the answer, you also know what must be “destroyed”....
Allow me to educate you (and maybe that "Center", although I'm starting to think they're like inner-city-Obietown cretins)
Spot the dish. Hint: it's BIG, it's round, it's to the right :)).
the world’s largest sponsor of terror is Pakistan, not Iran. Second are the Saudis (look at how much they budget to set up madrassas around the world), Iran is third. The real threat are Sunni jihadis not so much Shia’s
“Soldiers to keep him safe from us, soldiers to keep him safe from his rivals wanting his power base” — he was protected this way, he was protected by the Pakistani military base plus the thought that the US would not step on Paki territory
And your basis is what, exactly?
the worlds largest sponsor of terror is Pakistan, not Iran. Second are the Saudis (look at how much they budget to set up madrassas around the world), Iran is third. The real threat are Sunni jihadis not so much Shias
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.