Gadaffi on parade

[Moniker]

edit: bleh, fuck it. I'm done.

[xbl0x180]

I think so. My best friend is half-Japanese, and my first love was South Korean. One grandfather fought in the pacific, and the other in the Korean war. Such connections don't escape me. I've also known a woman from Vietnam, had several close friends from Palestine (one of whom is now buried there) and Jordan. Another friend born in Israel (didn't get along with the Palestinians), some classmates from Saudi Arabia, mmm... that's all that's coming to me for now.

All of which doesn't matter in the least. The tragedy of 9/11 is no less tragic in view of the Trail of Tears, Iran Contra, or the Soviet war in Afghanistan. A life is a life, and only trolls or single-minded adolescents would belittle the deaths of the 9/11 victims or the impact of those who carried out the attack.

So go ahead and proclaim it from the rooftops for all I care, brave sir. You won't end up in Gitmo, but you'll still be an asshole.

All I read here is a lot of misguided sentiment. Not once did I say the tragedy of 9/11 was trivial. However, the U.S. govt. used this incident for political strategy in order to grant more power to the govt., take away liberties from its citizens, and give away our money to their rich friends in the military and in foreign govts.

It is the willfull ignorance of the citizenry that [partially] allows for these things to happen. If you know of these world events and you know people who have been clearly affected by them, then you and I would have no other recourse than to question the current and planned actions of our own govt., including the use of bin laden a mere tool for propaganda. Honestly, you think a bin laden just popped out of the clouds as a deus ex machina? You don't think the actions the U.S. govt. has been involved in for the past century in the Middle East didn't help in creating this monster? That's the part they conveniently leave out because they figure [correctly] that people are too lazy and complacent to wonder and question these actions.

I hope another 9/11 doesn't happen, but with the way the U.S. is involved in the Middle East, I'm not too sure...

If only things went the way Libya did...

[GaijinPunch]

Americans don't ask questions. Well perhaps in private they do but in the public domain they never do.

lol wut

"What the fuck is up w/ taxation w/o representation?" seems to be one that stands out.

[Randorama]

Time to drop off a few comments here and there:

A. I wonder if Berlusconi is crying, now that he's not getting any free Lybian pussy from his friend Muhammar (no more "Dune bunga bunga!"). Well, possibly other european leaders (that includes UK) are crying too, as they lost a quirky buddy pumping oil into the continent.
B. All this ethnical sensibility PC discussion reminds me that, as the grandson of a totenkopf SS, I have several Israeli friends, and an also an Israeli ex-girlfriend. Love conquers it all, you thin-skinned ostriches!
C. UK is US's little brother. UK citizens fork money on the war on terror, so they can at least ask a picture of OBL, and some degree of transparency from their government.
D. Parading corpses of dictators in freezers is not my cup of tea. A picture would have been enough, but then it's up to the Lybians.
E. Belgium does not exist. Period. [/tinfoil]

[GaijinPunch]

and some degree of transparency from their government.

This really is a thread of all of it's own. On the one hand, you have hard core politicians, and the other end, Wikileaks. In the middle somewhere is reality. I've not given too much thought on the subject. Clearly, 100% transparency is never going to happen in our lifetime. And until then, internet geeks will gather and talk about it.

[Randorama]

Transparency:

Citizen: "I am paying taxes, what are you doing with them?"

Government: "Clubbing marginalized kids, killing darkies to steal their oil, feeding you with venom and fucking your children's future even more than we fucked your future when you were a child!"

Citizen:"Oh, finally *I know*"

Citizen walks away, thinks a bit and comes back:

Citizen: "Now that I know the truth, I demand to know: will you fuck me up even more?"

Government: "Well, didn't you vote us to do so? You got your Daifukkatsu poster"




So, exactly what transparency is going to solve, gentlemen?

[Skykid]

Transparency:
Citizen: "I am paying taxes, what are you doing with them?"
Government: "Clubbing marginalized kids, killing darkies to steal their oil, feeding you with venom and fucking your children's future even more than we fucked your future when you were a child!"
Citizen:"Oh, finally *I know*"
Citizen walks away, thinks a bit and comes back:
Citizen: "Now that I know the truth, I demand to know: will you fuck me up even more?"
Government: "Well, didn't you vote us to do so? You got your Daifukkatsu poster"
So, exactly what transparency is going to solve, gentlemen?

Ha ha, I like it.

As GP said, 100% transparency is a bit of a pie in the sky notion. I'd probably be more concerned if a government was (or appeared) 100% transparent, lest their maneuverings end up shooting them in the foot all the time.

The question in this thread isn't really asking for that anyway. Big governments got big secrets as standard. The only reason I was prompted to reopen the debate was the train of thought from Gadaffi's corpse on the evening news. It was something you could reach out and touch (not literally, eww) that signified a conquest in Libya - an achieved goal, morbid as it might be.

There are lots of similar parallels between the deaths of the the two (outlined pg.1) in everything except that ability to believe. On one hand you have the ability to see, without too much upset, disgust or vomiting, a dead man on TV; and on the other a constantly realigned sequence of events with nothing tangible offered except stories, fake photoshop images, and bravado in the spoken word.

Now there's transparency and there are brick walls. Some circumstances allow for transparency and some require it.

That's why I'm under the impression that the OBL death, especially as I was patient for more evidence to surface in the many months since (and it didn't), was nothing but a story. If it were some smaller issue that wouldn't really matter, but if you consider the possibility that this event it a lie, it potentially unravels ten (fifty!) years of supposed truths in an instant.

I know that's not what Americans want to hear and I don't blame them, but that's just how I see it.

[xbl0x180]

Transparency:
Citizen: "I am paying taxes, what are you doing with them?"
Government: "Clubbing marginalized kids, killing darkies to steal their oil, feeding you with venom and fucking your children's future even more than we fucked your future when you were a child!"
Citizen:"Oh, finally *I know*"
Citizen walks away, thinks a bit and comes back:
Citizen: "Now that I know the truth, I demand to know: will you fuck me up even more?"
Government: "Well, didn't you vote us to do so? You got your Daifukkatsu poster"
So, exactly what transparency is going to solve, gentlemen?

Ha ha, I like it.

As GP said, 100% transparency is a bit of a pie in the sky notion. I'd probably be more concerned if a government was (or appeared) 100% transparent, lest their maneuverings end up shooting them in the foot all the time.

The question in this thread isn't really asking for that anyway. Big governments got big secrets as standard. The only reason I was prompted to reopen the debate was the train of thought from Gadaffi's corpse on the evening news. It was something you could reach out and touch (not literally, eww) that signified a conquest in Libya - an achieved goal, morbid as it might be.

There are lots of similar parallels between the deaths of the the two (outlined pg.1) in everything except that ability to believe. On one hand you have the ability to see, without too much upset, disgust or vomiting, a dead man on TV; and on the other a constantly realigned sequence of events with nothing tangible offered except stories, fake photoshop images, and bravado in the spoken word.

Now there's transparency and there are brick walls. Some circumstances allow for transparency and some require it.

That's why I'm under the impression that the OBL death, especially as I was patient for more evidence to surface in the many months since (and it didn't), was nothing but a story. If it were some smaller issue that wouldn't really matter, but if you consider the possibility that this event it a lie, it potentially unravels ten (fifty!) years of supposed truths in an instant.

I know that's not what Americans want to hear and I don't blame them, but that's just how I see it.

You did notice how his name had not (and has not) been mentioned by the govt. and the media for a long time. As I said, bin laden ran his usefulness as a cause for pushing for an invasion and occupation in the Middle East, and to siphon about a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to American war merchants and other friends of congress. If bin laden died in the process, it was an unintended result of achieving the aforementioned goals.

[antron]

C. UK is US's little brother. UK citizens fork money on the war on terror, so they can at least ask a picture of OBL, and some degree of transparency from their government.

this would be an actual argument, if the UK government felt the pluses out weighed the minuses, and wanted a picture released. is that the case?

you do get "some" transparency. you get exactly what they think is best. if the masses don't like that, they can vote in a new government.

[Skykid]

You did notice how his name had not (and has not) been mentioned by the govt. and the media for a long time. As I said, bin laden ran his usefulness as a cause for pushing for an invasion and occupation in the Middle East, and to siphon about a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to American war merchants and other friends of congress. If bin laden died in the process, it was an unintended result of achieving the aforementioned goals.

Once his usefulness has been depleted the trail quickly runs cold. I gave up any hope of newly emerging evidence surrounding the incident when I realised news corp had switched the subject off and thrown away the key.

If you put it into context, it's obvious that OBL the mystic fugitive was the secondary goal rather than the primary. He was just a carrot on a very long stick that gave political and military strategies a means to an end. The thing is, when I was visiting family in the US back in 2006, the role the media played was paramount to protracted paranoia.

True story: I'm sitting in Philly with my brother watching evening TV and the local news comes on and some dude starts talking about the possibility of a terrorist bomb hidden in a local grocery store. It was just him on an dingy street corner waffling with his serious voice. No cops, no interviews, no follow-ups.

Me and the sibling were like, "What? No there's not, wtf?"

I did start to realise how commonplace the mentioning of terrorism was (100% moreso than in the UK). If you're an average Fox News viewer in the US you probably hear about possible acts of terrorism several times a week, and right on your doorstep!
Scary parallels with 1984 propaganda to keep the war with Eurasia in full swing. Amazing.

But based on dealing with that stuff for 10 years I can understand why folks wouldn't want to doubt the validity of OBL's demise at the hands of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.

[xbl0x180]

But based on dealing with that stuff for 10 years I can understand why folks wouldn't want to doubt the validity of OBL's demise at the hands of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.

Did you also catch the post-script to this story: the seal team who captured bin laden was on the helicopter that was shot down by some radical muslim. The radical muslim was then killed off by a drone bomb. Sounds like some kind of game where the next person adds to the story

Speaking of govt.-media paranoia: we also have the Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat and somehow we're supposed to accept the "fact" this is an act of war or some s*** from the govt.-media. Nevermind that it has been Russia, China, and israel who have been caught - repeatedly - spying at top levels of govt., we have to hunt down some unshaven used car salesman out in Texas!

[xbl0x180]

WATCH OUT, THERE'S A TERRORIST BEHIND YOU!!!!

[Randorama]

this would be an actual argument, if the UK government felt the pluses out weighed the minuses, and wanted a picture released. is that the case?

Little brothers always stick to what big brother says. My comment had this inside joke, which goes back to some Chomsky's comment on the matter. Also, if we think in a tax-oriented perspective, the discussion is all yours, guys: I pay taxes neither in the UK, nor in the USA.

[antron]

this would be an actual argument, if the UK government felt the pluses out weighed the minuses, and wanted a picture released. is that the case?

Little brothers always stick to what big brother says. My comment had this inside joke, which goes back to some Chomsky's comment on the matter. Also, if we think in a tax-oriented perspective, the discussion is all yours, guys: I pay taxes neither in the UK, nor in the USA.

or maybe your MPs calculate that the small chance that the pictures could help terrorist recruitment in the UK still outweighs the smaller loss of public support.

[xbl0x180]

The govt.-media can't even name an instance where releasing the photographs of a dead leader was used successfully as a recruitment tool by the enemy, not one single example. However, our military's occupations of foreign/sovereign nations have been widely used as reasons to attack the US... 9/11, for example

[antron]

Can you provide a single example of an MP loosing measurable support over this issue? The question still goes back to whether or not it makes political sense to release the pictures at all. Otherwise, why do it?

[Skykid]

Can you provide a single example of an MP loosing measurable support over this issue? The question still goes back to whether or not it makes political sense to release the pictures at all. Otherwise, why do it?

Gawd save us. Why are you pursuing this totally irrelevant question? MP's haven't lost measurable support over the issue because citizens like you take everything at face value.
Why you need someone to explain the political sense in unmasking the worlds most wanted criminal for the most heinous terrorist act of all time is beyond me - it's so obvious it doesn't need answering. If you put a sensible spin on your question, you would be asking it from totally the opposite point of view: what political sense does it make not to provide photographic/video evidence that you've finally captured your no.1 enemy.

Now, returning to an earlier train of thought, it came to me today that the Sgt Bilko cack-handed crack team I described on the first page is further accentuated by the outcome of events. Particularly: why the fuck would you kill OBL? Surely the most likely outcome, to a 99% certainty, would be that your finest men would be able to take him alive no matter what. I think there's more chance of OBL killing himself to avoid capture than there is of an itchy trigger finger shooting him in the face. It's absurd.

Did you also catch the post-script to this story: the seal team who captured bin laden was on the helicopter that was shot down by some radical muslim. The radical muslim was then killed off by a drone bomb. Sounds like some kind of game where the next person adds to the story

I didn't hear that, is that for real?

[louisg]

Did you also catch the post-script to this story: the seal team who captured bin laden was on the helicopter that was shot down by some radical muslim. The radical muslim was then killed off by a drone bomb. Sounds like some kind of game where the next person adds to the story

I didn't hear that, is that for real?

What I read was that members of that team were shot down, though the specific people responsible for the OBL raid weren't on the chopper. The claim was made that the shooter was later killed by a drone strike, but I'd love to know how they figured out who did it-- they probably just took out some random militant dude. It was pretty big news here when it happened.

[xbl0x180]

Can you provide a single example of an MP loosing measurable support over this issue? The question still goes back to whether or not it makes political sense to release the pictures at all. Otherwise, why do it?

Again, the govt.-media could not name one single instance where the release of a dead leader's photos were used as a prop tool for recruitment successfully. Hell, Salvador Allende and Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara were assassinated by U.S. forces and their mugs were used to recruit more freedom fighters in Latin America WITHOUT the benefit of seeing their bullet-riddled corpses

It makes perfect sense in the minds of those who don't take the govt.'s allegations at face value. Guess what? It woulda made perfect "political sense" (hahaha, what an oxymoron) had we had photographs of the alleged WMD before we decided to invade and occupy Iraq. Of course, the govt. figures that people in general are mentally slow and lazy or outright stupid and retarded, so nobody will be "loosing" support over anything other than red-herring issues such as which guy is sleeping with which guy, and whether they should be married, or, when in doubt, "blame the mexicans"

[Skykid]

figures that people in general are mentally slow and lazy or outright stupid and retarded, so nobody will be "loosing" support over anything other than red-herring issues such as which guy is sleeping with which guy, and whether they should be married, or, when in doubt, "blame the mexicans"

Absolute truth. Can you imagine the Libyan people trying to take back their country if they were regimented by a TV schedule. "Uprising? Yeah, yeah, sure. I gotta see what happens in this week's CSI first, and then Rhianna's doing an R&B top 10 countdown at 8... oh, and the new series of Queer Eye for the Striaght Guy is on at 9:30 so no, I can't do the uprising today."

What I read was that members of that team were shot down, though the specific people responsible for the OBL raid weren't on the chopper. The claim was made that the shooter was later killed by a drone strike, but I'd love to know how they figured out who did it-- they probably just took out some random militant dude. It was pretty big news here when it happened.

Dude, that's incredible. Do you know I don't think that news story even made it onto UK TV. I try to keep updated on the news so I can play a game of spot the spin, and I don't remember that one at all.
But fuck, that's absolutely unbelievable, how can anyone buy into it? The scriptwriter was clearly playing too much COD.

[BulletMagnet]

lol wut

"What the fuck is up w/ taxation w/o representation?" seems to be one that stands out.

True (at least in the District of Columbia), but I also remember a not-so-long time ago when the second-most powerful fellow in the country at the time scolded the country on the record for asking too many questions about what his administration was doing, because such acts gave "aid and comfort to our enemies", and way too many people swallowed it whole.

[xbl0x180]

figures that people in general are mentally slow and lazy or outright stupid and retarded, so nobody will be "loosing" support over anything other than red-herring issues such as which guy is sleeping with which guy, and whether they should be married, or, when in doubt, "blame the mexicans"

Absolute truth. Can you imagine the Libyan people trying to take back their country if they were regimented by a TV schedule. "Uprising? Yeah, yeah, sure. I gotta see what happens in this week's CSI first, and then Rhianna's doing an R&B top 10 countdown at 8... oh, and the new series of Queer Eye for the Striaght Guy is on at 9:30 so no, I can't do the uprising today."

What I read was that members of that team were shot down, though the specific people responsible for the OBL raid weren't on the chopper. The claim was made that the shooter was later killed by a drone strike, but I'd love to know how they figured out who did it-- they probably just took out some random militant dude. It was pretty big news here when it happened.

Dude, that's incredible. Do you know I don't think that news story even made it onto UK TV. I try to keep updated on the news so I can play a game of spot the spin, and I don't remember that one at all.
But fuck, that's absolutely unbelievable, how can anyone buy into it? The scriptwriter was clearly playing too much COD.

Well, it was corrected later at the bottom of page 9...

Code: Select all

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/06/seal-team-6-marines-who-killed-osama-bin-laden-died-in-helicopter-crash-ap/

Still, I rank "journalist" as a profession right below "crack whore." Every time I hear some kid saying they're going to major in that bulls***, I can't help but burst into laughter

[Skykid]

Well, I really don't know what to think about that tbh...

[antron]

Can you provide a single example of an MP loosing measurable support over this issue? The question still goes back to whether or not it makes political sense to release the pictures at all. Otherwise, why do it?

Again, the govt.-media could not name one single instance where the release of a dead leader's photos were used as a prop tool for recruitment successfully.

so with neither side having any hard evidence for what is the overall wisest thing to do, it comes down to opinion of those in power.

Imagine if a poll were taken of ordinary law enforcement personal, asking whether releasing such pictures would hurt or help their ability to control the recruitment of violent religious extremists. You would simply loose, at the bottom of government just like you did at the top.

[Skykid]

so with neither side having any hard evidence for what is the overall wisest thing to do, it comes down to opinion of those in power.

Imagine if a poll were taken of ordinary law enforcement personal, asking whether releasing such pictures would hurt or help their ability to control the recruitment of violent religious extremists. You would simply loose, at the bottom of government just like you did at the top.

I am dumbfounded by your will to defend the glaring and critical inadequacies of your government. To imagine for one instant that the non-declaration of any kind of evidence was a moral one, or done so in an attempt to stem action from existing terrorists, is ridiculous. Extremists will act of their own accord if the word of OBL's death prompts them to, they really don't need a photo just to "make sure."

Everyone else does, however.

[Randorama]

or maybe your MPs calculate that the small chance that the pictures could help terrorist recruitment in the UK still outweighs the smaller loss of public support.

Not a problem, since my MPs are neither UK nor US ones. Whether one takes things at face value or not. I did not vote Berlusconi, but he was openly friend with Gaddafi (oil and money reasons), and this fact is also adding to the storm of problems he is facing now.

There a 10% or so of his MPs who are using this friendship to destabilize him, and shake up the chain of power. The tiny argument is: "how come, we always said he was a bad guy, his people killed him. Why you were friend with him? GTFO!".

If you find this as complete non-sense, I wouldn't be surprised, but you mention the key issue. MPs decide what to say about public, international events based on the impact on support. I think that someone calculates this impact for them - I have friends doing this for a life, in party-controlled think tanks.

I agree with Skykid's outrage, although in a more emotionally neutral form, but let's face it - getting the facts straight is probably outside the goal of any politician.

[Ex-Cyber]

Extremists will act of their own accord if the word of OBL's death prompts them to, they really don't need a photo just to "make sure."

Everyone else does, however.

Except that a photo doesn't "make sure" of anything, because (choose your favorite):

- omg, photoshopped
- it's not really bin laden, but a lookalike
- the photo was taken when he was actually secretly killed in 200x and kept secret until now
- (etc.)

[Skykid]

Extremists will act of their own accord if the word of OBL's death prompts them to, they really don't need a photo just to "make sure."

Everyone else does, however.

Except that a photo doesn't "make sure" of anything, because (choose your favorite):

- omg, photoshopped
- it's not really bin laden, but a lookalike
- the photo was taken when he was actually secretly killed in 200x and kept secret until now
- (etc.)

Except no-one is fostering those apprehensions over the Gadaffi footage.

That would be the most rubbish excuse ever too. "No, we decided not to show the body cos everyone would just say it was photoshopped."

[GaijinPunch]

Except no-one is fostering those apprehensions over the Gadaffi footage.

Gaddafi was in hiding for 10 days. Bin Laden, 10 years. Gaddafi really is the just a T-shirt... his 3rd or so reprint, but still a T-shirt.

And then thread comes full circle to the best post in it. Mine: Apples & Oranges.
We can all rest well.

Lock please.

[Skykid]

Yes, Gadaffi is just the T-shirt, as I previously pointed out. Not quite sure where the argument is there.

The point of this thread is look at the difference in publicity between Gadaffi's death and OBL's. It's as plain as the nose on your face, especially considering OBL's Top Trump points for infamy and wantedness were about a billion times higher than Gdaff's.

US folks, this topic is certainly nothing personal, so please don't take it as such. I find it a little bewildering that so many good people turn a blind eye to glaring inconsistencies that should, by rights, raise any thinking mans eyebrow.

More so than any other political event that's come under scrutiny in the last eleven years - from 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction - I'm highly skeptical of OBL's supposed take down and probably always will be.

I'm sure for people affected by 9/11 in one way or another, this kind of open proof would have been gratifying.