Capturing bin Laden will not save lives, it may actually cost lives

[bluestateguy]

Let me start by saying that I certainly belive that if bin Laden is captured he should receive the death penalty, and be subjected to a brutal execution, but that is not the point here.

If he is captured, whether by US forces or the forces of another country, there would likely be some kind of significant retaliatory action by Al Qaeda in the short-term aftermath. The US also might face a ransom style attack from Al Qaeda involving hostage taking as they demand his release from US custody.

Then there's politics. If bin Laden is captured or killed George W. Bush will become significantly more difficult to defeat this fall. If he is elected in November, he will take it as a popular mandate for his foreign policy and act accodingly. Remember, this is an arrogant, frat boy president. He will then start preemptive wars, under one pretext or another, in Syria, Iran, North Korea and maybe even Cuba. The draft will be reinstated and more lives will be lost in America and in other countries.

The point here is that the capture of bin Laden, desirable as it may be, may cost more lives over the long run than it would save.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Should the brutal execution be preceded by a trial?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theorist]

3. Ashcroft has said that his political defeats were "crucifixions".

As Mel Gibson has shown, it doesn't get much more brutal than that.

[robertpaulsen]

7. At least Mel Gibson didn't smear Jesus with Crisco.

Then it definitely would've received an NC-17.

[eaprez]

4. IF

The masses of this country re-elect Bush because Bin Laden is in custody...then quite frankly, they deserve whatever the result of four more years of this administration produces. Capturing BinLaden WILL NOT be the end of al quadia, will not be the end of terrorisim, will not result in more jobs, will not result in health insurance for the uninsured, will not lift up the poor, will not help extract a living wage from those in charge of U.S. policies and WILL NOT bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[tobius]

5. are you suggesting a new campaign- "leave bin laden alone!" ? nt

[bluestateguy]

8. I said nothing of the sort

I said that the capture of bin Laden may have consequences that make America and the world, less, not more safe.

Don't twist my words into a soundbite. It's demagoguery and the kind of tactic that is more appropriate for talk radio.

[tobius]

9. capturing bin laden will make the world less not more safe,

more people will die if he is caught. would you like to see him tracked down or not?

[bluestateguy]

10. reply

I guess I would prefer to see him die of natural causes or commit suicide. That way he's gone and the Bush Administration does not get much of a political bounce to start more wars in a second term. Ideally, I would have liked to have seen him captured a long time ago, like when we almost had him 1998 or in Tora Bora in December of 2001. The other point I made, and I think most people agree with it, is that if he is eliminated, there would likely be Al Qaeda retaliation or ransom attacks. It's entirely possible that their organization could continue without him, especially if he is martyred.

[Deja Q]

6. With peak oil here'n'now, it seems those wars are inevitable...

They've already hinted at Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et all...

The irony is, when will Kuwait be targeted?