Bin Laden dead

[flicker]

The White House didn't have to invade Egypt, Tunisia and and Libya to get their democracy cakewalk. Heck, even the Serbs did it themselves in 2000, more than 18 months after Clinton's bombs rained down on civilians.

Everyone hates the evangelists who darken their door. Ya gotta let countries work out their own shit. Of course, the White House isn't altruistic; it only invades countries for the White House's sake.

all I am speaking about is people living a life without fear, and Osama chose a path to put fear in peoples' hearts....
if you think that is justified well, all I can say is step out your door, jump on a plane to Syria, Yemen, ****stan,the flavias of rio de janeiro, the barios of Buenos Aires, the slums of any where in the USA.
FEAR -------Smell it, taste it, feel it.....

 

[Stingray34]

all I am speaking about is people living a life without fear, and Osama chose a path to put fear in peoples' hearts....
if you think that is justified well, all I can say is step out your door, jump on a plane to Syria, Yemen, ****stan,the flavias of rio de janeiro, the barios of Buenos Aires, the slums of any where in the USA.
FEAR -------Smell it, taste it, feel it.....

Flick, you're starting to turn me on...

 

[blutto]

just listen to my neighbors in fremont, brother.....
You can say Bush was wrong.....
you can say he planned it all for his oil money....
listen to the afghanis on the KQED audio blog, i have personally met a few...
Go on PBS and look at the girls and women who are not allowed to go to school...
Everyone has a right to go to school, even girls and women..
no regime has the legitimacy to disfigure a girl or woman to want education...
that friend is the agenda of the Taliban, who chose to protect Bin Laden....

...while I agree with you, you should be aware of the following...

...one of the ironies of the fight against the communist regime is that one of the things that galvanized the religious fanatics in Afghanistan was the attempt by that communist regime to modernize the country...that is, provide education for everyone and give women their rightful place at the table...the US thru their proxies fought against that modernization and when they left town after the communists were defeated the proxies were left alone to drive the country back into the hell it is today...

...ironically this same impulse drove bin Laden to hate Saddam and his Iraq...which, while admittedly, run by an absolutely evil man, was on its way to becoming modern...they had industry, they had education and women were, at least by current Arab standards, given that place at the table...the US intervention in Iraq did bin Laden's heavy lifting...it destroyed a fairly modern country and threw it back in time into a fundamentalist hell...

...in both cases US intervention played a huge role in the situation you are commenting on...so you, and I'm being real facitious here, if you were not kicking and screaming against those interventions, are as to much to blame for the misery you describe as the government which represents you, and which played a pivotal role in allowing that misery to occur...by knowing better, as we are trying to do here, we should, henceforth, never let that happen again or continue to have it happen....but to do so you have start at the root cause...prevention is the best medicine...

Cheers

blutto

 

[rhubroma]

...while I agree with you, you should be aware of the following...

...one of the ironies of the fight against the communist regime is that one of the things that galvanized the religious fanatics in Afghanistan was the attempt by that communist regime to modernize the country...that is, provide education for everyone and give women their rightful place at the table...the US thru their proxies fought against that modernization and when they left town after the communists were defeated the proxies were left alone to drive the country back into the hell it is today...

...ironically this same impulse drove bin Laden to hate Saddam and his Iraq...which, while admittedly, run by an absolutely evil man, was on its way to becoming modern...they had industry, they had education and women were, at least by current Arab standards, given that place at the table...the US intervention in Iraq did bin Laden's heavy lifting...it destroyed a fairly modern country and threw it back in time into a fundamentalist hell...

...in both cases US intervention played a huge role in the situation you are commenting on...so you, and I'm being real facitious here, if you were not kicking and screaming against those interventions, are as to much to blame for the misery you describe as the government which represents you, and which played a pivotal role in allowing that misery to occur...by knowing better, as we are trying to do here, we should, henceforth, never let that happen again or continue to have it happen....but to do so you have start at the root cause...prevention is the best medicine...

Cheers

blutto

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a criminal act.

The US providing the religious fanatics with a means to resist the Soviets was also criminal, in terms of what it meant for the future of the Afghani people, and ultimately backfired.

The underlying issues were energy supplies as usual and neither ideological position cancels the other's crimes.

Moral: imperialism, in whichever form, makes enemies of the empire. Realpoltik can never be masked as ethical simple because the "ends justify the means" as so often has been said.

Appart from this, I really don't think I understand anything anymore.

 

[VeloCity]

just listen to my neighbors in fremont, brother.....
You can say Bush was wrong.....
you can say he planned it all for his oil money....
listen to the afghanis on the KQED audio blog, i have personally met a few...
Go on PBS and look at the girls and women who are not allowed to go to school...
Everyone has a right to go to school, even girls and women..
no regime has the legitimacy to disfigure a girl or woman to want education...
that friend is the agenda of the Taliban, who chose to protect Bin Laden....

Hey remember this? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zlQH3hY9j-E/Sd4ijbIiesI/AAAAAAAABc0/fmNUL0zBCEM/s400/bush-king.jpg

I guess Saudi women and girls aren't quite as important as Saudi oil.

 

[Archibald]

Tin foil please......

"America" frequently puts its own foot in its mouth but clearly there are excellent reason to not release the photos and no really good ones

and those excellent reasons would be?
they're happy enough to tout pictures of a bed with a "bloodstained" floor and claim that this is where they shot an unarmed "criminal mastermind"...
plenty of pics of Saddam Hussein at hs execution, even video
to claim it would influence and incite more hatred against the US is ******** - you've already got that anyway by killing him in front of his family
it's not like the shot needs to show a bunch of marines standing with one foot on him like some redneck hunter and a deer...

Obama said it best: "We don't need to spike the football". 'nuff said.

sure, but I think there's plenty about who want verification
one bbc report said they used his sister's dna to confirm it was him - pardon??
no football spiking, but plenty of "dancing in the endzone" in front of the white house and the like, as though that won't upset the fundamentalists?

Because if the photo's are released then people who are still part of al-Qaeda will use them as propaganda and to influence young people into joining them and killing more innocent people. Releasing the photo could potentially cause more trouble. Killing him in the first place will probably open up a whole can of worms anyway.

Why do people want to see someone with half their head missing anyway? I sure don't.

as before, they've enough propaganda already, so I don't buy the "it will inflame the situation" bit. I think it's niaive to think that this one thing will bring in some sort of massive wave of recruits to their cause - it's already generational because the conflict has been going on so long. handed down from father to son, taught in schools, etc...

we all join the dots on the likes of LA and others, but for some reason everyone just tows the party/media line with the US government?

 

[Mambo95]

All this fuss about whether he's dead or not. If he's not dead he'll pop up soon enough. Too big an opportunity to resist. And Obama knows this.

Really, western governments don't lie. They bend the truth, spin facts, massage figures, make mistakes, omit details, cover things up and follow the reports that suit them, but they very, very rarely tell out-and-out lies.

Anyway, Ayman al-Zawahiri is the one you really want. Always was. He's the real philosophical force behind the Islamic Jihad movement (I won't call it Al Qaeda, because that doesn't exist, it barely ever did)

 

[Oldman]

All this fuss about whether he's dead or not. If he's not dead he'll pop up soon enough. Too big an opportunity to resist. And Obama knows this.

Really, western governments don't lie. They bend the truth, spin facts, massage figures, make mistakes, omit details, cover things up and follow the reports that suit them, but they very, very rarely tell out-and-out lies.

Anyway, Ayman al-Zawahiri is the one you really want. Always was. He's the real philosophical force behind the Islamic Jihad movement (I won't call it Al Qaeda, because that doesn't exist, it barely ever did)

It is really amazing how diverse the crackpots are. Very few nail it and you have although money for any of these guys is going to get harder to find. My gut says that this operation was hoping for keys to financial arrangements in their strike. If they got it, look out.

 

[redtreviso]

It is really amazing how diverse the crackpots are. Very few nail it and you have although money for any of these guys is going to get harder to find. My gut says that this operation was hoping for keys to financial arrangements in their strike. If they got it, look out.

There's going to be some people that get disappeared or baxterized soon..

 

[flicker]

Hey remember this? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zlQH3hY9j-E/Sd4ijbIiesI/AAAAAAAABc0/fmNUL0zBCEM/s400/bush-king.jpg

I guess Saudi women and girls aren't quite as important as Saudi oil.

I was talking to Qwsley Stanley RIP about politics sometime back. His last comment to me about Bush was "You voted for him mate." Well I did not, I never supported any invasion by the US. But how could I make an argument against BEAR, an elder statesman, he has done so much for so many people, etc. I was deadset against any war.But knowing Owsley to be pure carnivore how could I argue with him.He might just jump through my monitor and "Steal my Head" His new name would be flicker heart or cabeza de flicker, who knows. Do the Mullahs make the decisions for the Maleks in Saud?
Anyway, when Osamas gourd was bullet bashed like Gallegher smashes a watermellon I got a warm fuzzy feeling.
Just wanted to share.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/178305.html

Another reason for joy....

 

[JeffreyPerry]

And why not a word now from the "Ward Churchill is perfectly defendable" brigade.

Your moral compass is so messed up I am amazed you can type.

One difference you miss ( I would say conveniently but its highly unlikely your kind knows the first thing about the subject) is that the first bin laden (the one supported in Afghanistan), wasnt ordering planes into buildings, bombs in embassies, truck bombs in mosques, the mass murder of school children
He was a member of a resistance solely against SOLDIERS in a brutal war.

Bin laden later turned on many of the people he thought alongside to begin to practise a far more extreme ideology.

Ahmad Shah Massoud for example was later nominated for the nobel peace prize, though murdered by bin laden, the man he had fought side by side with. I suppose all the people that fought for afghan liberation side by side with bin laden are also responsible for the crimes he would comit later

And considering most of the people celebrating in the streets werent even born when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan I dont see how they are the same people responsible for the original problems, unless your using some sort of calvinism or something.

+1

Well said. I wasn't sure I liked you much Hitch, but I'm starting to warm up.

 

[redtreviso]

+1

Well said. I wasn't sure I liked you much Hitch, but I'm starting to warm up.

Hitch thinks he should have a show on foxnews..poodle hour

 

[hrotha]

+1

Well said. I wasn't sure I liked you much Hitch, but I'm starting to warm up.

His ideology was the same back then. Sure, he was fighting the Soviet army at the time, but what did they expect him to do once the war is over? The US showed their short-sightedness, just like every other time they applied the "enemy of my enemy" doctrine (plenty of examples in Latin America).

 

[The Hitch]

His ideology was the same back then. Sure, he was fighting the Soviet army at the time, but what did they expect him to do once the war is over? The US showed their short-sightedness, just like every other time they applied the "enemy of my enemy" doctrine (plenty of examples in Latin America).

US in latin america is a totaly different subject. A very sad story.

But sticking on this issue, I dont see how they should have expected the guys they backed in Afghanistan to turn on them.

First of all, most of the Mujahadeen didnt turn on the US.

Second of all, Bin Ladens two big problems with the US were 1 - it had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and 2 It had supported the liberation of East Timor.

The first event occured in 1991 and the second in 1997. I dont see how the US could have been expected to see in 1981 that some of the guys they were backing would turn on them.

They never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming neither, so as far as they were concerned the Muslim fundamentalists would always see them as preferable to the "atheist" soviet union on their doorstep.

 

[Spare Tyre]

US in latin america is a totaly different subject. A very sad story.

But sticking on this issue, I dont see how they should have expected the guys they backed in Afghanistan to turn on them.

First of all, most of the Mujahadeen didnt turn on the US.

Second of all, Bin Ladens two big problems with the US were 1 - it had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and 2 It had supported the liberation of East Timor.

The first event occured in 1991 and the second in 1997. I dont see how the US could have been expected to see in 1981 that some of the guys they were backing would turn on them.

They never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming neither, so as far as they were concerned the Muslim fundamentalists would always see them as preferable to the "atheist" soviet union on their doorstep.

I think US military planners should spend a wee bit more time reading history. They seem to have spectacularly mis-gauged things in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least partly because of their poor understanding of the tribal cultures which structure the societies of both countries.

They also seem to naively assume that cash can buy anyone, and that once "bought" those people will remain true to the US agenda, rather than continuing to pursue their own interests.

 

[redtreviso]

US in latin america is a totaly different subject. A very sad story.

But sticking on this issue, I dont see how they should have expected the guys they backed in Afghanistan to turn on them.

First of all, most of the Mujahadeen didnt turn on the US.

Second of all, Bin Ladens two big problems with the US were 1 - it had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and 2 It had supported the liberation of East Timor.

The first event occured in 1991 and the second in 1997. I dont see how the US could have been expected to see in 1981 that some of the guys they were backing would turn on them.

They never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming neither, so as far as they were concerned the Muslim fundamentalists would always see them as preferable to the "atheist" soviet union on their doorstep.

You sound like Ward Churchill

 

[VeloCity]

He was a member of a resistance solely against SOLDIERS in a brutal war.

Well that would be great if it were true, but it's not. The mujahideen weren't by any means a cohesive group united in fighting against a common enemy, they were a bunch of relatively independent tribal groups led by warlords who more often than not used the financial and military aid provided by other countries for intertribal warfare and to settle old scores, which included raiding the territory of their rivals and leveling towns and killing civilians. It was one of the biggest headaches for the CIA (among others) at the time, how to get tribes to stop wasting resources on internal rivalries and infighting and focus on ousting the Soviets.

And the mujahideen sure as hell weren't adverse to attacking civilian targets - they routinely targeted both military and civilian targets. They bombed the Dept of Education, shot down civilian airplanes, blew up hotels, air terminals, movie theatres, radio stations, set up car bombs, assassinated hundreds of government employees, and laid millions of land mines (which tend not to differentiate between a Russian and an Afghan kid).

 

[Oldman]

I think US military planners should spend a wee bit more time reading history. They seem to have spectacularly mis-gauged things in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least partly because of their poor understanding of the tribal cultures which structure the societies of both countries.

They also seem to naively assume that cash can buy anyone, and that once "bought" those people will remain true to the US agenda, rather than continuing to pursue their own interests.

This is definitely a historical issue. They pay Afghani "security" companies to provide intel and protection and they turn and sell the info to the Taliban. The Taliban then pays some of them to help raid the Americans. At least the debrief on an attack is more reliable since the same party controlled the game...

 

[Thomsena]

 

[redtreviso]

Bush loses his best friend

http://www.fishandcheese.com/wordpress/2011/05/06/drunken-bush-laments-loss-of-best-friend/

 

[rhubroma]

US in latin america is a totaly different subject. A very sad story.

But sticking on this issue, I dont see how they should have expected the guys they backed in Afghanistan to turn on them.

First of all, most of the Mujahadeen didnt turn on the US.

Second of all, Bin Ladens two big problems with the US were 1 - it had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and 2 It had supported the liberation of East Timor.

The first event occured in 1991 and the second in 1997. I dont see how the US could have been expected to see in 1981 that some of the guys they were backing would turn on them.

They never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming neither, so as far as they were concerned the Muslim fundamentalists would always see them as preferable to the "atheist" soviet union on their doorstep.

No, different location, but the same ideology having to do with backing anyone who could squash a communist rising and then facilitating exploitation of resources and market control.

The only real difference was that we didn't have to do this also against an expansionist Soviet army, while not having to send in US troops, but fight them in Afghanistan on a proxy basis by arming others to do the task.

While it's debatable as to whether or not the Americans should have know the risks they took in arming some Mujaheddin, the history of the nation's realpolitik, not only in its ideological war against the Soviets, but also in its selective support or vindictive punishment over issues of market control and oil supplies, means that sometime down the line some prescient minds within its political-military establishment (granting they existed) would have expected that eventually there would be some nasty clients to fight in an unconventional war.

If this was not the case, then it was like the blind leading the blind. And this usually happens when megalomania and an absence of any real ethical purpose, does not allow for predicting the future reaping of what one has sown.

PS: According to my reports the Americans very well imagined the fall of the Soviet Union and worked closely with the Vatican in helping your Poland along the path toward liberation, which was the first major crack in a crumbling facade. Its also ironic that with the fall of the Soviet Union, many were freed up to focus their attention on that other "Great Satan", as they saw it, but while the communist empire still existed were too tied up in Afghanistan to focus on other agendas.

I find it difficult to believe that no one among the US schemers understood that there existed that other agenda, especially with all the Arab discontent over America, the West and Israel and its growing religious radicalization.

 

[redtreviso]

New Rules

""Now that it's become clear that the Republicans, the fiscally conservative, strong on defense party, are neither fiscally conservative nor strong on defense, they have to tell us what it is they are actually good at.

9/11 happened on your watch. And you retaliated by invading the wrong country. And you lost a 7 year game of hide and seek with bin Laden. And you are responsible for running up most of the debt which more than anything makes us weak. You're supposed to be the party with the killer instinct, but it was a Democrat put a bomb in Gaddafi's bedroom and bullet in bin Laden's eye like Mo Green.

Raising the question, how many muslims does a black guy need to kill in one weekend before crackers climb down off his ***?

Let's look at some facts.

When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the congressional budget office calculated that by the end of the decade we would have paid off the entire debt and had a 2 trillion dollar surplus. Instead we have a 10.5 trillion dollar public debt, and the difference in those two numbers is mostly because the Republicans put tax cuts for the rich, free drugs for the elderly and two wars on the layaway plan and bailed on the check. So much for fiscal responsibility.

But hey, at least they still had the defense thing, right? The public still believed that they were tougher when it came to hunting down dark skinned foreigners with funny sounding names.

But Bush had 7 years to get Osama. He didn't. He got Wesley Snipes. Only 6 months after 9/11 Bush said he didn't spend that much time on bin Laden and was no longer concerned about him, just as he wasn't before 9/11, when he blew off that mysterious memo entitled 'bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States'. In under a year Bush went from who gives a sh*t to dead or alive back to who gives a sh*t.

Why focus on the terrorists who reduced Wall Street to rubble when you can help Wall Street reduce the entire country into rubble?

In 2008 the candidates were asked if they knew for sure that bin Laden was in ****stan would you send our guys in without permission from ****stan. McCain said 'No'. Obama said 'Yes'. McCain called him 'Naive'.

And why can't you just admit that Obama is one efficient, steely nerved multi-tasking, black, ninja, gangster President?

In one week he produced his birth certificate, comforted disaster victims, swung by Florida to say 'hey ' to Gabby Giffords, did stand up at the correspondent's dinner and then personally repelled into bin Laden's lair and threw a Chinese star through his throat without waking up any of his 13 wives. I saw that on MSNBC.

30% of this country will always vote Republican. I'm just asking why? Sure paranoia, greed and racism are fun, but it's like when you see someone driving a Mercury, you think did that person really think, 'did that person really want to drive a Mercury Mariner?' No, you assume he knows someone who sells them or a Kia dealer molested him as a child.

I know this all sounds harsh, but Republicans are supposed to be the party of harsh truth. Like, 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. And speaking of lunch, Obama just ate yours.--- Bill Maher""

 

[Rip:30]

 

[Rip:30]

 

[flicker]

The best thing afte the removal with extreme prejudice of bIn Laden safe egress of the Navy Seals and the confiscation of info and computers of terror .org was K-9 Storm and the other Navy Seal Dogs peed all over the furniture.