Osama bin Laden killed! Who is he again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Previous_attempts_to_capture_or_kill_bin_Laden

2000: Foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding.

Not much of a reference (not even an actual date), but let's assume CBS isn't completely full of shit. WI they had hit the right car?
 
he's the man behind 9/11. and this theard does not belong here.
Hes asking what if Osama was killed before 9/11.

Well, obviously, the biggest effect would be no 9/11, although there may be something like it later on. This would butterfly OTL's war on terror, causing huge effects in the Middle East. Bush and his neo-conservative friends still want to invade Iraq, but they will need an excuse, as they had enough trouble with the one they had OTL. Unless terrorists strike out of Afghanistan, it is almost impossible that the Americans will attack there, meaning that the Taliban might still be in power. There may be some moderation of their brutal rule, but with the worlds attention directed elsewhere, its unlikely.

Also, what effect would this have for Muslims living in the west? There will still be the immigration concerns in Europe, but the anger might not be as strong if there is no percived war between the Muslim and western worlds.
 
Sorry guys. I thought he was really asking who OBL was.


but everyone's right. plus relations in the Middle East may be better. the Taliban may be in power. or not. who knows.
 
Bush is likely a one term president, and Barack Obama is never elected to federal office. No USA PATRIOT Act, no Department of Homeland Security, no patdowns and/or full body scans at the U.S. airports, no TSA.

The Taliban still rule in Afghanistan, but still gains a following among remote areas of Pakistan. Iran moves faster in the pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Perhaps no or different 2011 revolutions.
 
The Taliban still rule in Afghanistan, but still gains a following among remote areas of Pakistan. Iran moves faster in the pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Perhaps no or different 2011 revolutions.
Why would Iran do that? Their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction of OTL is largely due to the feeling of being surrounded by America. If there is no Iraq and Afghan wars, then they will feel less threatened, and thus, have less of a reason.
 
Why would Iran do that? Their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction of OTL is largely due to the feeling of being surrounded by America. If there is no Iraq and Afghan wars, then they will feel less threatened, and thus, have less of a reason.

No country puts together a weapons program that fast, and Iran still has an ego to drive and a "revolution" that has run out of steam. Also, whether or not Saddam Hussein has WMDs (we know the answer now, but not then) the last thing someone in Tehran wants to do is see Iraq be the dominant power in the region.
 
No country puts together a weapons program that fast, and Iran still has an ego to drive and a "revolution" that has run out of steam. Also, whether or not Saddam Hussein has WMDs (we know the answer now, but not then) the last thing someone in Tehran wants to do is see Iraq be the dominant power in the region.
Tehran is probebly smart enough to realise that Iraq won't be the dominant player unless something big changes. Saddams Iraq after the 1st Gulf war was a shambles of a state, powerful enough to suppress internal dissent, but it would crumble if there was a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. If im correct, they wern't allowed much of an airforce, and the Iranians new this.

It would be more likely for the Iranians to supply Shia rebels in the south of Iraq, but they didn't do this in the 90's or early 00's, so why would they do it ATL?
 
Tehran is probebly smart enough to realise that Iraq won't be the dominant player unless something big changes. Saddams Iraq after the 1st Gulf war was a shambles of a state, powerful enough to suppress internal dissent, but it would crumble if there was a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. If im correct, they wern't allowed much of an airforce, and the Iranians new this.

It would be more likely for the Iranians to supply Shia rebels in the south of Iraq, but they didn't do this in the 90's or early 00's, so why would they do it ATL?

If a state had to be stable or prosperous to damage another country, then there would not be American forces in Afghanistan right now, nor would the DPRK be a nuclear power. Ultimately, Iran is going to want less U.S. interference in the region, and the most effective way for them to do that under an Islamist regime is to go nuclear. We also know that the international sanctions against Iraq were falling apart, and Tehran was smart enough to know that too.
 
What if Osama was killed in 2000? I doubt it would have prevented the hijacks. The terrorists moved to the USA in 1999 to get airplane flight practice. They already had all the experience and plans for the strikes in 2000. Of course they might not have happened on the 11th of September, but I'm sure that Laden's successor would have ordered the strikes nevertheless, because they were already so close to being ready with the preparations.
 
Given the way terrorist cells work (with a high degree of independence) and the length of preparation needed for an attack, cutting off Bin Laden at 2000 would probably not be enough to stop the entire operation, as it is after the point where the "Go ahead" has been given. At this time, it is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that is the main figure in the operation.

However, him being taken out of the picture could do all sorts of things. It's claimed by US authorities that he was being strongly advised by those around him to cancel the operation - so it could be that anyone replacing him might do so. It is also possible that it might be too late to call it off, or that his replacement still promotes it in his memory. It's important to remember how much Al Qaida would want "payback" for their leaders death. And with a major operation already in the final stages of preparation...

It's also alleged that Bin Laden pushed for the operation to be done sooner, and for it to be smaller in scale than what Mohammed wanted - with the latter wanting simultaneous attacks in Asia and six hijackings in the US. So, it could be that the attempt is scheduled for later and to be bigger, increasing the probability that intel services manage to find out about it and stop it. Equally, it could be that a later, bigger attack successfully takes place.

Each possibility opens up interesting timelines. No attacks would mean nobody would bother with the world's opium backyard, and it would trot along much like any other warlord-infested state. No attacks also make it hard to get the US public to agree to any kind of campaign against Iraq that goes beyond a repeat of 1991. But the Middle East is still a tinderbox of people who hate each other and who hate the U.S. Bush would probably want to go into some military endeavor, but he would probably have to be somewhat more limited in scope, which might actually make such an operation more successful.

If the attacks still happen, whether similar or more severe, the prior death of Bin Laden might have an interesting effect, given the portrayal of it being a "revenge" attack. I'm guessing that within the U.S, politicians would not be very keen to promote that line of thought, but is is always possible that narrow self-interest leads one side trying to blame the other and frame the assassination of Bin Laden as being "responsible" for the attacks. I'd judge it unlikely, but politics is dirty enough for stranger things to have happened. Abroad however, it could have a fairly important effect in convincing more people than OTL that the west "provoked" the attacks, which would strengthen the influence of Al Qaida. At the same time however, the lack of such a powerful and charismatic figure might well decrease their influence, so it's iffy.
 
Perhaps no Iraq war. If this happens, maybe there's less ammunition for the hardliners in Iran, and less tolerance for the rollback of reforms by Ahmadinejad. Maybe this leads to a full-on revolution in 2009, and this is the trigger for the "Arab Spring", with non-arab countries included?
 
Perhaps no Iraq war. If this happens, maybe there's less ammunition for the hardliners in Iran, and less tolerance for the rollback of reforms by Ahmadinejad. Maybe this leads to a full-on revolution in 2009, and this is the trigger for the "Arab Spring", with non-arab countries included?

Except that, there'd be more ammunition because as much as they dislike a U.S. presence in the region, the like Saddam Hussein even less.
 
Top