Thanks for those links, Barafundle! I was able to open both of them.
Here's another article that I think is interesting:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/09-5
And here is a video of a speech given by Noam Chomsky and Malalai Joya:
The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan : Noam Chomsky & Malalai Joya | WeAreMany.org: http://bit.ly/ii0CYR
OBL should have been captured and brought to trial for war crimes in an international court somewhere in Europe, not the U.S.
I understand your sentiments, really, but when I got to that bit above, it put the wind up me! 😮 Not here in the UK for sure. And every other European nation would feel the same! It would cost millions, drag on for a decade or more, give publicity to everything he said, but inspire also a LOT of backlash for years and years as the trial went on. He'd effectively still be around and giving speaches to the world: the point was for him not to be around...
I fully realise the contentiousness of just going in there and killing him. I wouldn't want that kind of thing happening often in history. But there was so much practicality to think of, that just IMHO it was right. Now it - or at least he - is over.
The burial at sea means there's not even a - can I even bring myself to use the word? - "shrine"? Which is wise as he's truly gone. Some say that was not a Muslim way of burial, since he won't be facing Mecca; but you know, it depends on the tides actually.
V
Here's another article that I think is interesting:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/09-5And here is a video of a speech given by Noam Chomsky and Malalai Joya:
The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan : Noam Chomsky & Malalai Joya | WeAreMany.org: http://bit.ly/ii0CYR
Looks interesting. Thanks! I think there's a case for an eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan for sure; but in a wise way. IMHO there was a good case for being there. I'll be interested to see what Noam Chomsky has to say.
V
I understand your sentiments, really, but when I got to that bit above, it put the wind up me! 😮 Not here in the UK for sure. And every other European nation would feel the same! It would cost millions, drag on for a decade or more, give publicity to everything he said, but inspire also a LOT of backlash for years and years as the trial went on. He'd effectively still be around and giving speaches to the world: the point was for him not to be around...
V
This is not merely my opinion but, rather, the opinion held by many around the world.
The impact of bin Laden's death - Frost Over the World - Al Jazeera English: http://bit.ly/lgeBaf
That's always been my view, and it's why I've never seen OBL as the "mastermind." He was definitely involved, but I have never believed him to be the sole mastermind.
We must now realise that the huge subject of "conspiracy theory" re 9/11 has to be looked at afresh. (I put it in quotes as it's not a theory - there are so many facts toward conspiracy that it's the official version which is actually the theory).
The official version has so many holes in it, and attempts at cover-up. It reminds me of the death of JFK, when discenters were initially called "conspiracy theorists". But in fact the evidence that many people were involved was so overwhelming that eventually, in the late 1970s, this was forced to become the official U.S. conclusion after a third investigation. It's now official that Oswald was not a sole gunman. IMHO he probably was being used and not a gunman at all. As he said, "a patsy".
But if OBL not only lived on (did not die of kidney disease soon after 9/11), and the USA were truly seeking for him, a lot of the theories and ideas will have to be looked at afresh.
Off the top of my head I'd just comment that most ideas of conspiracy are untouched by the finding of OBL: the demolition explosives still seem to have been there in the three towers. There's an awful lot of strangeness. I can still 'buy' the idea that the planes were known about and allowed to do the terrorist mission - because the USA had already said it needed "another Pearl Harbour" to get the public on their side for Middle East invasions.
So it might just be that it "looks good" to get and kill OBL from a political standpoint, and the USA was indeed trying to find him all along.
V
In relation to Osoma bin Laden, 9/11, conspiracy theory so-called about 9/11, I just don't have time now to cite things. But in the last 9/11 thread I gave links or quotes to the initial Osoma videos and releases after 9/11.
He didn't seem to know about it, even claimed it wasn't him (see the 9/11 thread), and only later seemed to figure out that to claim 9/11 was his own plan wouldn't be a bad idea for his cause.
Of course, who knows? But it's there somewhere on the last 9/11 thread. :rolleyes:
V
But if OBL not only lived on (did not die of kidney disease soon after 9/11), and the USA were truly seeking for him, a lot of the theories and ideas will have to be looked at afresh.
The USA was never actively looking for OBL, which is another reason why so many suspected that the Bush Administration was really behind the attacks. They used the hunt for OBL in Afghanistan as a precursor to invade Iraq for oil. That's why they abandoned Afghanistan not long after and moved their focus to Iraq under the false pretense of WMD. They abandoned hunting OBL ... until Obama became president and placed hunting OBL at the top of his list of priorities, just as he had promised during his presidential campaign. And he got him! He didn't have to torture anyone to get him either. He used intelligence gathering to find him, and it worked.
Here is George Bush in his own words re his so-called hunt for OBL:
That's all interesting. Who knows but I tend to agree. Certainly the USA were actively looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. People tend not to realise how important things such as the hunt for oil reserves are. Bush was Skull & Bones and tied into that whole elite network.
And OBD had nothing to do with Iraq! He was rejected there.
The hard-hitting comedy I gave a link to, but only for people in the UK, tends to go into this.
Thanks for the link and I get the message, Bush saying "I don't really spend much time on him." He didn't care or have a will to find him, very clearly.
V
Another good article on the subject:
The Targeted Assassination of Osama bin Laden:
[DLMURL] http://www.zcommunications.org/the-targeted-assassination-of-osama-bin-laden-by-marjorie-cohn [/DLMURL]
Another good article on the subject:
The Targeted Assassination of Osama bin Laden:
[DLMURL] http://www.zcommunications.org/the-targeted-assassination-of-osama-bin-laden-by-marjorie-cohn [/DLMURL]/blockquote>I just read it. And I certainly didn't know that about Churchill.
The whole subject revolves around the need for always, in every case, acting under international law, or just now and then realising when it is impractical?
V
The whole subject revolves around the need for always, in every case, acting under international law, or just now and then realising when it is impractical?
When international law is considered 'impractical', isn't that when one becomes a terrorist?
It's become a long thread and I think we all know where we stand by now. Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do. I'm sure it's involved a lot of soul-searching. Such as Obama had to go through I'd imagine.
V