Osama's dead but what does that really mean?
Debate Rounds (5)
The death of Osama is not really going to really change what is happening in these terrorist movements. Osama was essentially a figure head and that the suicide bombers are not killing themselves in order to impress him. They are doing this because they truly believe that it is the right thing to do. This means that we may have just created a martyr.
This is no longer a theory as the White House had confirmed that he was unarmed when he was killed. Osama will become a martyr and a symbol because of this. He has just become more powerful in death then he could have ever possibly alive. This is due to the fact that symbols can't be killed by mere bullets or bombs or planes or tanks. It doesn't matter what you do along as one person still associates with that symbol it will live on. This leads to the questing was it better to have Osama alive then dead. Alive he was living in a house having almost nothing to do with the day to day running of the Taliban. As a symbol he becomes more than a person he becomes a sort of Icon for the Taliban much in the same way that anyone who is murdered for believing in their cause is. This come from the differentiation that the Taliban feel toward killing one's self for a cause in the act of suicide and what they consider the murder of a political leader.
This is in no way a criticism of the troops on the ground. They have the hardest jobs in the world and are trained to make calls in split seconds in the field. I am merely stating what I feel may take place as a result of this.
In the wake of his death one of two things is likely to happen either another person will just take his place as head of this organisation. There is not going to be any infighting as has been discussed because the successor to Osama has been running the show for about the last 4 years and by the successor I mean Ayman al-Zawahri. I mean was Osama really running a multi-national organisation by word of mouth alone.
Or the other and slightly more worrying thing is that these groups that are not really known for their coherence will splinter. This is due to the fact that these groups will compete and fight in order to be seen as the top group. The real problem that this will cause is the way these groups will compete. They are going to compete for media attention and the glory that they perceive that will get form killing innocent civilians and hitting "soft targets". This splintering and attacking of "soft targets" will make stopping there attacks and plans even harder.
These are just my opnions what are yours?
I totally agree with you in every aspect. Osama's dead whoop-dee-doo. There are hundreds maybe even thousands of people who would like to take the job of Osama. Lots of people dislike the United States and would take any opportunity to lead a gang similar to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. And if more terrorist leaders do come into play and start "coming to our shores" then will we keep "bringing justice" and go into war with other countries?
In some cases, the death of Bin Laden could lead to a more violent future for the United States due to the desire of revenge. The terrorist group over in the middle east could be planning to seek vengeance. Like pro stated, although the ringleader might have been assassinated, the associates related to him can be even more powerful because of his death.
We sacrificed more troops in the fight in the middle east than we did in the Korean War and WWI combined. But for what? To provoke our enemies by killing their leader? To find oil that is nearly impossible to find in all the confusion that's going on there? To take our weapons that we gave to Saddam Hussein right before we put him in a death sentence? To stop terrorism which is almost as difficult as trying to eliminate hate from this world? The war in the middle east is not worth the lives that we spent. We are there for no reason whatsoever and the situation is just like the Vietnam War, we go there to fight and realize there is nothing beneficial towards us and come back after losing military forces.
That's what I feel is happening right now...Obama really needs to bring our troops back home
On the issue of bringing the troops home I still feel that bringing them home now would be a bit premature. They are still in the process of training the local personnel. Allied to this the message if all coalition forces pulled out right after Osama was killed. It would send the message to the Taliban and originations like it that that we are willing to sacrifice many lived but military and civilian in order to kill one man. This message could lead to other groups attacking the U.S and other coalition nations in order to get the same attention that Osama got for 10 years. This would also send a demoralizing message to the people who have lost loved ones in the war as their friends and family who died essentially died to kill one man.
alec.endo forfeited this round.
my questions still stands
Well the main reason that we are in Iraq is after September 11 the U.S government really had no choice but to deploy troops. By this I mean that public out-cry over the attacks would have led to rioting and the high probability of revenge attacks by American citizens against religious groups living in the U.S.
Now when I make that point a have to add that I totally agree with the invasion for that reason and other. The other reasons are up for debate as to how real they are.
1. We went there simply to get oil.
2. We went there to restabilise the region and stop Sudam Husain's regime.
3. To stop the Taliban.
4. To save face once it came out the Taliban were trained and funded by the CIA.
More than likely it is a combination of all of them
I am sure that there are others what are your thoughts?
ilovedebate forfeited this round.
alec.endo forfeited this round.
I think IF it is true that one of the reasons that we called for war was due to the fact that there was oil, it was a very irrational and irresponsible decision. I have to call it idiotic
I agree with the next two choices however although I don't think the 2nd reason does not have anything to do with the US being in threat
I find it ironic that the US supplied Husain with weapons but later, he uses to fight back at us.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.