9 ms·

If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? Every time I go to the airport I think this. Those full body scanners? Thanks to Bin Lade

by bobsy 14y ago

If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? Every time I go to the airport I think this. Those full body scanners? Thanks to Bin Laden, now you practically get strip searched for every flight. You have to take off your shoes. You cannot take drinks on a plane. You then have everyone on edge no matter where you go. You and a friend play CounterStrike. You get on the bus and start talking about good locations to plant the bomb. You will probably be wrestled to the floor by some over-zealous commuter. It doesn't surprise me if this is true. The US attitude to privacy and civil rights have been becoming more like China's every year since 2001.

conradfr 14y ago
The U.S (or the West) did not change its politics in the Middle-East and is still not an Islamic country so I don't think Bin Laden won. Now maybe the U.S citizens lost ...
- cstavish 14y ago
  It's true that the US hasn't changed its Middle-East policies (although I'd argue that's the only way to eradicate Islamic terrorism), but it's important to note that bin Laden did not target the US due to its secularism, but for its foreign policy. He even said that if he wanted to attack a country just for being secular, he'd have attacked Sweden.
- toyg 14y ago
  I don't think Bin Laden ever wanted to "convert" his "enemies", but rather to destroy or frighten them. Considering the amount of money thrown into the Afghan pit (which still is a factor affecting the ability of Western countries to sustain periods of economic turmoil, and even to replenish their own arsenals -- see UK defence cuts) and the hysteric approach to public spaces since 2001, I'd say he's been fairly successful in his endeavours. Which is not that surprising, to be fair. After all, he was originally trained by the CIA, and was backed by Saudi money and the Pakistani military.
biomechanica 14y ago
What I think it actually means is this: It has given the United States an excuse to do that they are doing to its people. The whole system is based upon fear, which is exactly what the so called "terrorists" wanted to do. The government(s) of this world don't particularly enjoy the thought of its population having to ability to think for themselves. How can they (temporarily) suspend this? Fear.
ilaksh 14y ago
"The War on Terror" I wish that people would learn what "The War on Terror" really is. The United States IS like other countries, including China, now and in the past. In 2001 there was an event in the United States which was very similar to the 1933 Reichstag fire in Berlin. Very few people can accept that reality, so this comment will probably be buried. I don't think people even know what a State is. The harsh truth is that the State is not your friend. People are truly living in a make-believe fairy tale land.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  Alternatively, if your post does get buried, it might be because you bald-faced assert that people who don't agree with you lack learning, can't accept reality, don't know what a state is, and are living in a make-believe fairy tale land. In other words, "if you disagree, you're a big stoopid thicko". You're clearly not up for reasonable discussion, you're just soap-boxing. Well, that and whining about the possibility of being buried, as some kind of reverse-psychology downmod defence.
  - ilaksh 14y ago
    You're right, that was an insulting way to put it. Sorry if I offended people unnecessarily. I have made similar comments before, hoping for some type of discussion, and had my comment buried so that no one would even see it, which makes discussion impossible. So I was actually hoping that my comment would somehow remain visible. This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about. You just can't reason someone into having different beliefs. I think that for people to take on a radically different worldview usually requires some extraordinary circumstances, maybe some luck, and some type of emotional subconscious trigger. Anyway, if you actually want to discuss it, which likely will go in circles since these are belief systems, what do you think a state is, or what the war on terror is?
    - pyoung 14y ago
      Whoa!!! Hold on there a second: "This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about." I would hope that reason and logic take precedent over existing belief. At least among the somewhat rational subset of individuals that tend to lurk in these corners.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
> If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? Not exactly: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends_son_being_searched_by_the_tsa/c5cabqo?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends...
- fromhet 14y ago
  It was pretty quickly concluded that that guy was straight out bullshitting. The quotes are from OBL's videos that he made and leaked out to mainly Al Jazeera. They were made after all of this made happened, and OBL obviously knew to read the papers and know how to make good propaganda. Be sceptics, fokes!
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Actually those quotes reflect the same sentiments that I recall were expressed in an interview with OBL that either Time or Newsweek published prior to 9/11. I wish I could find a definite pointer to that issue, to check my recollection. As a rule, most of history's bad actors -- Hitler, Lenin, bin Laden, G. W. Bush (via PNAC), and others -- have telegraphed exactly what they intend to do, years beforehand. Is it really their fault when nobody cares?
ZoFreX 14y ago
Bin Laden's aim was to push the US into a war that would bankrupt them. I'd call that mission accomplished.
- dfischer 14y ago
  Importantly, to remove their presence out of the middle east and change their foreign policy. This is not happening though so not accomplished.
  - ryusage 14y ago
    According to the document referenced on the al-qaeda wikipedia page (which, you know, may or may not be accurate), their goals stretched all the way out to 2020. They didn't intend for the US to change its policies or willingly withdraw, they intended for it to slowly destroy its own economy to the point of collapsing entirely (like the USSR).
  - ZoFreX 14y ago
    Well, they are backing out of the middle east now that the popularity of the wars has plummeted. (Albeit withdrawing the army and leaving private contractors in place, but they are still slowly withdrawing)
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Hardly. Bin Laden's aim was to end the "corrupting influence" of the western world on the Islamic world, and to achieve that by getting the US and other western powers to withdraw from military, economic, and cultural interaction with the Islamic world. As far as what happened within the western world, whether it destroyed itself or continued on in some aspect, he didn't much care (at least in the short-term, in the long-term I'm sure he believed that the whole world would be under the power of a new Caliphate).
kamaal 14y ago
Muslim here. I never understood both sides and their actions. I mean I find both Islamic fundamentalism and American actions all round globe both equally dumb. I don't think OBL ever had it as an explicit aim to pull down US militarily or culturally transform US into a Islamic state. That is impossible, and I assume somebody like him already understood that. I guess his aim was to drag US into a war and then reduce them to a state USSR, now russia was in 1990 post Afghanistan war. Long wars benefit nobody. They are a huge drain on man power, economy and morale of a nation. Its actually surprising that US fell for it. I was expecting more of a Intelligence based response where the CIA would hunt him down and kill him, instead of wasting trillions dollars. On the other hand. Afghans seem to be very stubborn people. They don't give up easily no matter how shitty state they are in. Its just in their blood and culture to not accept foreign occupation over them. Even the British that had the entire Indian subcontinent under them couldn't conquer them. In the recent history alone, every body knows what has happened of USSR after going there. So no matter how bad the Taliban is, they still consider them as their own country men compared to Americans who actually released them from their bondage. As a moderate muslim, I feel bad every time I'm pulled up for an ideology which I have nothing to do with. I've been a subject of religious discrimination many times since 911. I've been asked to come for extra rounds for job interviews, pulled up separately and checked at building security points, had troubles to open bank accounts, asked to delay visa filing for visiting abroad etc innumerable number of times. I feel having an arabicized name a huge liability to carry, a kind of burden for which you have to pay no matter even if you have nothing to do with their ideology. On the other hand I see so much turmoil in the west, due to the war ordinary people like me having to pay for no mistake of theirs. Wars, economics crisis etc. When I look at all this, I can't help but wonder that perpetrators of these crimes actually won.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  Its actually surprising that US fell for it. Yep. Bush would have been a hero if he hadn't fallen for it. Compassionate conservatism, expressed in Medicare Part C. Tax cuts combined with modest military expansion would have held the deficit in check. But remember the pundits saying, "this one calles for boots on the ground"? Even Jon Stewart showed a clip of Bush or someone making a compassionate statement, and commented "you're killing my blood lust." And he meant it! I don't guess Clinton wouldn't have fallen for it -- he didn't during all of OBL's significant attacks in the 90's.
olavk 14y ago
Why do you think that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden was to increase surveillance in the US and to annoy travelers at airports?
- TheCondor 14y ago
  This and the other comments refer to "battles" in the war on terror, if you will. I'm not sure it's how OBL planned but it does kind of look like he might have been happy with our trajectory.
  - olavk 14y ago
    Only if you buy into "because they hate our freedom". In reality OBL couldn't care less about US domestic civil rights and liberties. He cared about US presence in the middle east and support for Israel. The "the terrorists have won"-notion is based on the viewpoint that terrorists are just evil and want "bad things" to happen to their enemies. So whatever unpleasant consequence for you means that the terrorists have won. In reality, terrorists have specific agendas and goals. None of OBL's goals have been achieved, so he didn't win. If anybody won it was the NSA, DHS etc.
    - Nelson69 14y ago
      If you believe that the US spending isn't infinite, then spending on this helps aid his cause. Eventually, the spending shuts off and the US pulls out, right? We're talking about healthcare spending vs. military spending at some point. Other than shipping lanes and some oil supplies, all other middle east presence seems optional. This NSA database has to cost a lot and a) they aren't supposed to admit it to the American people and b) they aren't supposed to even use it. Under what circumstances does it become useful?
      - olavk 14y ago
        If US pulls out of Iraq and Afganistan (not even leaving bases), then we are just back to pre-9/11 status. Only if US furthermore pulls fully out of the middle east, including cutting support to Israel, then OBL have achieved a goal. This is very unlikely to happen. Sure, NSA is expensive, but come on, it is not going to bankrupt the US to the extend they have to give up strategic influence in the middle east! Again, OBL does not care about US healthcare spending. That something is bad for ordinary americans does not mean that it further the terrorists agenda.
amalag 14y ago
Bin Laden said he wanted to bankrupt the US by drawing them into quagmires, I think he won on that front as well.
intended 14y ago
there was an interesting discussion on this on reddit - "technically Osama bin Laden himself stated that 9/11 was to wake up the american people, to commit an act so harsh towards actual Americans, that they would say "why me" and then research the situation.." Poster then links to the source quotes from Osama where he explains his motives and reasons. Interesting read, if only for the direct quotes, which are pretty essential for this discussion. Until he linked it, I never realized how strange it was that these discussions happen all the time, without many people actually being able to pull up the source material. Link to source: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends_son_being_searched_by_the_tsa/c5cabqo?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends...
golgo13 14y ago
Incorrect, you can take drinks on the plane. I call them "Freedom Cokes" and "Freedom Water." As long as you buy them on the other side of the TSA, you can take Cokes on planes. Sure, the Cokes probably came from the same truck as your local gas station, but that doesn't matter.
tripzilch 14y ago
> If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? in all fairness, it's not like the American people put up much of a fight ...

by bobsy 14y ago

conradfr 14y ago

The U.S (or the West) did not change its politics in the Middle-East and is still not an Islamic country so I don't think Bin Laden won. Now maybe the U.S citizens lost ...

cstavish 14y ago
It's true that the US hasn't changed its Middle-East policies (although I'd argue that's the only way to eradicate Islamic terrorism), but it's important to note that bin Laden did not target the US due to its secularism, but for its foreign policy. He even said that if he wanted to attack a country just for being secular, he'd have attacked Sweden.
toyg 14y ago
I don't think Bin Laden ever wanted to "convert" his "enemies", but rather to destroy or frighten them. Considering the amount of money thrown into the Afghan pit (which still is a factor affecting the ability of Western countries to sustain periods of economic turmoil, and even to replenish their own arsenals -- see UK defence cuts) and the hysteric approach to public spaces since 2001, I'd say he's been fairly successful in his endeavours. Which is not that surprising, to be fair. After all, he was originally trained by the CIA, and was backed by Saudi money and the Pakistani military.

biomechanica 14y ago

What I think it actually means is this: It has given the United States an excuse to do that they are doing to its people. The whole system is based upon fear, which is exactly what the so called "terrorists" wanted to do. The government(s) of this world don't particularly enjoy the thought of its population having to ability to think for themselves. How can they (temporarily) suspend this? Fear.

ilaksh 14y ago

"The War on Terror" I wish that people would learn what "The War on Terror" really is. The United States IS like other countries, including China, now and in the past. In 2001 there was an event in the United States which was very similar to the 1933 Reichstag fire in Berlin. Very few people can accept that reality, so this comment will probably be buried. I don't think people even know what a State is. The harsh truth is that the State is not your friend. People are truly living in a make-believe fairy tale land.

EvilTerran 14y ago
Alternatively, if your post does get buried, it might be because you bald-faced assert that people who don't agree with you lack learning, can't accept reality, don't know what a state is, and are living in a make-believe fairy tale land. In other words, "if you disagree, you're a big stoopid thicko". You're clearly not up for reasonable discussion, you're just soap-boxing. Well, that and whining about the possibility of being buried, as some kind of reverse-psychology downmod defence.
- ilaksh 14y ago
  You're right, that was an insulting way to put it. Sorry if I offended people unnecessarily. I have made similar comments before, hoping for some type of discussion, and had my comment buried so that no one would even see it, which makes discussion impossible. So I was actually hoping that my comment would somehow remain visible. This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about. You just can't reason someone into having different beliefs. I think that for people to take on a radically different worldview usually requires some extraordinary circumstances, maybe some luck, and some type of emotional subconscious trigger. Anyway, if you actually want to discuss it, which likely will go in circles since these are belief systems, what do you think a state is, or what the war on terror is?
  - pyoung 14y ago
    Whoa!!! Hold on there a second: "This is really about what people believe, which isn't something you can reason about." I would hope that reason and logic take precedent over existing belief. At least among the somewhat rational subset of individuals that tend to lurk in these corners.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

> If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? Not exactly: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends_son_being_searched_by_the_tsa/c5cabqo?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends...

fromhet 14y ago
It was pretty quickly concluded that that guy was straight out bullshitting. The quotes are from OBL's videos that he made and leaked out to mainly Al Jazeera. They were made after all of this made happened, and OBL obviously knew to read the papers and know how to make good propaganda. Be sceptics, fokes!
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Actually those quotes reflect the same sentiments that I recall were expressed in an interview with OBL that either Time or Newsweek published prior to 9/11. I wish I could find a definite pointer to that issue, to check my recollection. As a rule, most of history's bad actors -- Hitler, Lenin, bin Laden, G. W. Bush (via PNAC), and others -- have telegraphed exactly what they intend to do, years beforehand. Is it really their fault when nobody cares?

ZoFreX 14y ago

Bin Laden's aim was to push the US into a war that would bankrupt them. I'd call that mission accomplished.

dfischer 14y ago
Importantly, to remove their presence out of the middle east and change their foreign policy. This is not happening though so not accomplished.
- ryusage 14y ago
  According to the document referenced on the al-qaeda wikipedia page (which, you know, may or may not be accurate), their goals stretched all the way out to 2020. They didn't intend for the US to change its policies or willingly withdraw, they intended for it to slowly destroy its own economy to the point of collapsing entirely (like the USSR).
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  Well, they are backing out of the middle east now that the popularity of the wars has plummeted. (Albeit withdrawing the army and leaving private contractors in place, but they are still slowly withdrawing)

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Hardly. Bin Laden's aim was to end the "corrupting influence" of the western world on the Islamic world, and to achieve that by getting the US and other western powers to withdraw from military, economic, and cultural interaction with the Islamic world. As far as what happened within the western world, whether it destroyed itself or continued on in some aspect, he didn't much care (at least in the short-term, in the long-term I'm sure he believed that the whole world would be under the power of a new Caliphate).

kamaal 14y ago

Muslim here. I never understood both sides and their actions. I mean I find both Islamic fundamentalism and American actions all round globe both equally dumb. I don't think OBL ever had it as an explicit aim to pull down US militarily or culturally transform US into a Islamic state. That is impossible, and I assume somebody like him already understood that. I guess his aim was to drag US into a war and then reduce them to a state USSR, now russia was in 1990 post Afghanistan war. Long wars benefit nobody. They are a huge drain on man power, economy and morale of a nation. Its actually surprising that US fell for it. I was expecting more of a Intelligence based response where the CIA would hunt him down and kill him, instead of wasting trillions dollars. On the other hand. Afghans seem to be very stubborn people. They don't give up easily no matter how shitty state they are in. Its just in their blood and culture to not accept foreign occupation over them. Even the British that had the entire Indian subcontinent under them couldn't conquer them. In the recent history alone, every body knows what has happened of USSR after going there. So no matter how bad the Taliban is, they still consider them as their own country men compared to Americans who actually released them from their bondage. As a moderate muslim, I feel bad every time I'm pulled up for an ideology which I have nothing to do with. I've been a subject of religious discrimination many times since 911. I've been asked to come for extra rounds for job interviews, pulled up separately and checked at building security points, had troubles to open bank accounts, asked to delay visa filing for visiting abroad etc innumerable number of times. I feel having an arabicized name a huge liability to carry, a kind of burden for which you have to pay no matter even if you have nothing to do with their ideology. On the other hand I see so much turmoil in the west, due to the war ordinary people like me having to pay for no mistake of theirs. Wars, economics crisis etc. When I look at all this, I can't help but wonder that perpetrators of these crimes actually won.

euroclydon 14y ago
Its actually surprising that US fell for it. Yep. Bush would have been a hero if he hadn't fallen for it. Compassionate conservatism, expressed in Medicare Part C. Tax cuts combined with modest military expansion would have held the deficit in check. But remember the pundits saying, "this one calles for boots on the ground"? Even Jon Stewart showed a clip of Bush or someone making a compassionate statement, and commented "you're killing my blood lust." And he meant it! I don't guess Clinton wouldn't have fallen for it -- he didn't during all of OBL's significant attacks in the 90's.

olavk 14y ago

Why do you think that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden was to increase surveillance in the US and to annoy travelers at airports?

TheCondor 14y ago
This and the other comments refer to "battles" in the war on terror, if you will. I'm not sure it's how OBL planned but it does kind of look like he might have been happy with our trajectory.
- olavk 14y ago
  Only if you buy into "because they hate our freedom". In reality OBL couldn't care less about US domestic civil rights and liberties. He cared about US presence in the middle east and support for Israel. The "the terrorists have won"-notion is based on the viewpoint that terrorists are just evil and want "bad things" to happen to their enemies. So whatever unpleasant consequence for you means that the terrorists have won. In reality, terrorists have specific agendas and goals. None of OBL's goals have been achieved, so he didn't win. If anybody won it was the NSA, DHS etc.
  - Nelson69 14y ago
    If you believe that the US spending isn't infinite, then spending on this helps aid his cause. Eventually, the spending shuts off and the US pulls out, right? We're talking about healthcare spending vs. military spending at some point. Other than shipping lanes and some oil supplies, all other middle east presence seems optional. This NSA database has to cost a lot and a) they aren't supposed to admit it to the American people and b) they aren't supposed to even use it. Under what circumstances does it become useful?
    - olavk 14y ago
      If US pulls out of Iraq and Afganistan (not even leaving bases), then we are just back to pre-9/11 status. Only if US furthermore pulls fully out of the middle east, including cutting support to Israel, then OBL have achieved a goal. This is very unlikely to happen. Sure, NSA is expensive, but come on, it is not going to bankrupt the US to the extend they have to give up strategic influence in the middle east! Again, OBL does not care about US healthcare spending. That something is bad for ordinary americans does not mean that it further the terrorists agenda.

amalag 14y ago

Bin Laden said he wanted to bankrupt the US by drawing them into quagmires, I think he won on that front as well.

intended 14y ago

there was an interesting discussion on this on reddit - "technically Osama bin Laden himself stated that 9/11 was to wake up the american people, to commit an act so harsh towards actual Americans, that they would say "why me" and then research the situation.." Poster then links to the source quotes from Osama where he explains his motives and reasons. Interesting read, if only for the direct quotes, which are pretty essential for this discussion. Until he linked it, I never realized how strange it was that these discussions happen all the time, without many people actually being able to pull up the source material. Link to source: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends_son_being_searched_by_the_tsa/c5cabqo?context=2 http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends...

golgo13 14y ago

Incorrect, you can take drinks on the plane. I call them "Freedom Cokes" and "Freedom Water." As long as you buy them on the other side of the TSA, you can take Cokes on planes. Sure, the Cokes probably came from the same truck as your local gas station, but that doesn't matter.

tripzilch 14y ago

> If this is true doesn't it mean that Bin Laden won the war on terror? in all fairness, it's not like the American people put up much of a fight ...