Osama Bin Laden is dead

[PROMETHEUS]

Although 9/11 can be considered one contemporary atrocity, Bin Laden's views make as much moral sense than US government politics, lies and actions.

Compare the aims as well. Bin Laden's objectives in the 9/11 attack are not the same as the US and its allies in the middle east. All targets in the 9/11 attacks were chosen for a maximum of civilian casualties, and to destroy symbolic locations of power of the US. Both Atta and KSM were particularly obsessed with New York City as a center of Jewish wealth and symbolic of American economic power. Had it not been done with the bodies of hundreds of passengers, the attack on the Pentagon could certainly be justified on traditional anti-imperialist grounds, but it wasn't, because for AQ, the means are the message.
All of these goals are basically rational from the point of view of a state (which should tell you more about states than America in particular but I digress...).

Not at all, don't you understand that 9/11 happened BECAUSE of American-commited atrocities in the Middle East ? The aim of Bin Laden is not to kill people, that is a means, and the end is complex, well informed and well devised. He wanted to trigger wars and conflicts that would cost America trillions of dollars, while spending minimum resources (guerilla style). He wanted to suffocate and undermine the superpower, and at the same time show the world his views and make American people realize what their government is doing. According to him and analysts, it has had incredible success. See this article which is an instance : http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/238517/
Again, I suggest you check Bin Laden's 2007 speech where he explains his views/strategy, here's a transcript, I think it's a must-read to understand the events going on before and now : http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000622.htm

Must-read from independent source, and here's an excerpt : "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic." :
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/no ... ion_to_os/
This article is the reaction to bin laden death by an American intellectual specialized in US Politics analysis.

[BulletMagnet]

The hell happened in here?

Seriously, tone it down a bit...off to the side, somehow I feel prompted to link this.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I know all this race shit is now one big thread derailment but since im partly the topic of discussion I feel compelled to say my peace.

Seriously though, people's capacity to A: not read things people write, B: Pass judgement without bothering to adopt any perspective but their own, and C: mis-construe the written word and then exacerbate the situation beyond all reason is totally bewildering.

I agree with SK here, while I hate all this PC bollocks and would love to totally dismiss it all and get straight to the meat of what im trying to say. Unfortunatly we dont live in this PC free perfect world due to the points SK mentioned. I think many ppl including myself now and again can get pissed of with PC and adopts the approach of totally disregarding PC and anyone who who has issues be damned. For anyone wanting to change other ppls viewpoint and attitude to our way of thinking this isnt the way to do it and has the oppersite effect infact.

Lets all be thankfull that we have standup comedy as its the only way in the western world that we can put thought into taboo issues without PC fucking it all up. Its a shame that comedy (stand up) isnt popular in some parts of the world like Asia and the middle east as it would do many of the ppl there some good

(edit sorry FOR the 101 spelling mistakes just call me lazy / dumb )

EDIT Thats not to say I dont appreciate BPzeBanshee or Austere telling me I should stick to my guns, I understand that its just that im usually a more diplomatic person in my approach

[Randorama]

Tacos, please.

or: can we get a split? Three pages of derail on fried air are too hard to read. I'd comment on PC-ness etc., but that's another thread.

...Can we get a 200 words-limit on posts, 1 post per person every 6 hours? (ahem!)

[GaijinPunch]

The only reason the term is perceived as offensive is because, well, they're perceived as offensive and used by offensive people. The historical reason will wash out in time and practicality will take hold once society adjusts to it.

Point plz.

I don't dictate what's acceptable and what's not. That is generally dictated by the collective, not any one individual. Just b/c I don't find the word 'fuck' offensive doesn't mean I'm going to use it around my mother, my kid (most of the time) or in a job interview. That's what I like to refer to as common sense.

If it really mattered why offensive words are offensive we could probably hire some socialist/linguist person. I would rather not bother though.

Not at all, don't you understand that 9/11 happened BECAUSE of American-commited atrocities in the Middle East ?

By this account then just about all acts of aggression are justified... Try again please.

The aim of Bin Laden is not to kill people, that is a means, and the end is complex, well informed and well devised.

His aim was for a Muslim state. Cover it in whatever coat you want, but one fundamental common ground of radical Muslims is the slaughtering of infadels, in the name a bunch of bullshit. It is intolerance redefined... even more so than any conservative version of Christianity I can think of.

Must-read from independent source, and here's an excerpt : "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic." :

Very few people would defend the Iraq invasion (I don't, and didn't from day one) but that's another story. I know why Bin Laden has justified his actions. I understand them, but don't buy them. You reap what you sow... and when you falsify religion and intertwine it w/ your world view, then you really reap what you fucking sow.

snt popular in some parts of the world like Asia and the middle east as it would do many of the ppl there some good

I can't speak for other Asian countries b/c I have no knowledge of the language, other than basics (like "both hands please" or "a little slower") but the Japanese language doesn't really allow for sarcasm (not like we know it) which is a lot of what stand-up is based on. Also, the extremely homogeneous population (ie, lack of diversity) does away w/ a lot of comedic fodder, that we have tons of in the West. I also argue (sometimes in debate) that it's not a very empathetic culture... hearing about some guys trials and tribulations, just might not be as humorous here as there.

[E. Randy Dupre]

It is intolerance redefined... even more so than any conservative version of Christianity I can think of.

If your knowledge of history only stretches back seven or eight years, sure.

[Ex-Cyber]

Cover it in whatever coat you want, but one fundamental common ground of radical Muslims is the slaughtering of infadels, in the name a bunch of bullshit. It is intolerance redefined... even more so than any conservative version of Christianity I can think of.

Look up R. J. Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation sometime.

[austere]

I don't dictate what's acceptable and what's not.

Who does? Someone has to step up and change society.

That is generally dictated by the collective, not any one individual.

Not quite, this is a fundamental presumption that is quite false! The collective will swing whatever way the current state dictates -- they themselves have no say in the matter. They act as a retardant for any change since it takes them time to adjust. Of course people like to make you think its the collective that is dictating things, under the guise of democracy, just to give some legitimacy to the power they have over you.

Just b/c I don't find the word 'fuck' offensive doesn't mean I'm going to use it around my mother, my kid (most of the time) or in a job interview. That's what I like to refer to as common sense.

Neither would I, it's what I'd call pragmatism. I dislike the word 'fuck', by the way, it's quite uncouth. But I'll use it on the internet for the purpose of emphasis. This isn't a job interview though I guess there are 'kids' around here so...

If it really mattered why offensive words are offensive we could probably hire some socialist/linguist person.

You mean sociologist of course but seriously, just think about it for a while and you can figure it out for yourself. I already gave the answer away anyway, it isn't rocket science.

It is intolerance redefined... even more so than any conservative version of Christianity I can think of.

[GaijinPunch]

Not quite, this is a fundamental presumption that is quite false! The collective will swing whatever way the current state dictates --

I guess I've been surrounded by radicals that think for themselves then.

Neither would I, it's what I'd call pragmatism. I dislike the word 'fuck', by the way, it's quite uncouth. But I'll use it on the internet for the purpose of emphasis. This isn't a job interview though I guess there are 'kids' around here so...

It was an example... Racial epitaphs are the fuck, and the wide audience of an open forum is the kid/mother/job interview. Maybe you don't give a shit. I do know one day my kid can probably come back and read this stuff if he wants.

You mean sociologist of course but seriously, just think about it for a while and you can figure it out for yourself. I already gave the answer away anyway, it isn't rocket science.

Yeah, but I generally want right answers.

It is intolerance redefined... even more so than any conservative version of Christianity I can think of.

They haven't recruited an army worth fearing, and as retarded as they are, do not target civilians (or anyone that does not follow their world view) for death, and as far as I know I've never seen any rally for a church state. (I admit, some might, but this is hardly what they're known for). Even the Branch Davidians kept to themselves. They are all bark and no bite for the most part (save a few that are good w/ a rifle and live near an abortion clinic). While they are clearly intolerant, they are not as intolerant as radical Muslims.

[austere]

Yeah, but I generally want right answers.

Then you should only listen to what I have to say on the matter, don't risk it by going to sociologist who may give you the wrong answer.

Racial epitaphs are the fuck, and the wide audience of an open forum is the kid/mother/job interview.

I don't think you'll be able to justify this analogy, LOL.

They haven't recruited an army worth fearing, and as retarded as they are, do not target civilians (or anyone that does not follow their world view) for death, and as far as I know I've never seen any rally for a church state. (I admit, some might, but this is hardly what they're known for).

Yeah, care to name which sect of Islam has then? I can name a few but let's see who you know and what you know about them. Also I guess there weren't any civilians in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Finally, just because they aren't militant yet doesn't mean they won't descend into such behaviour once the shit starts hitting the fan in the USA -- and it will, mark my word.

While they are clearly intolerant, they are not as intolerant as radical Muslims.

Yeah, I'm not buying it, they look about as retarded and dangerous as each other to me.

[Randorama]

While they are clearly intolerant, they are not as intolerant as radical Muslims.

Maybe you mean this?

"While the type of intolerance and hatred is the same (i.e. it has the same roots and same goals), it lacks the depth of reach and the quite more wide-spread support that radical islamism has in islamic communities".

I don't think that monotheist religious integralist fellows differ more than at a superficial glance; it is that, for a lot of reasons, the "Islam" brand may bark, bite and generally do more damage than the "Christian"/"Hebraic" one. The difference may be small for those that would claim that, say, US foreign politics is driven by bible-thumpers (that would require proof, though).

If you really mean the original comment, can you provide a metric to evaluate the claim? Or it is just another "Jesus was a nicer guy than Muhammad" case? (Hyperbole...)

[GaijinPunch]

Yeah, care to name which sect of Islam has then?

It should be very obvious I was talking about Bin Laden, and his crusade. (I was staying on topic).

Also I guess there weren't any civilians in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Finally, just because they aren't militant yet doesn't mean they won't descend into such behaviour once the shit starts hitting the fan in the USA -- and it will, mark my word.

Definitely not... and handful of them are dangerous, do you really hear them rallying for a church state, and the slaughter of anyone not in the their club? For the most part, the crazies in the US (and there are many) are smart enough to keep to themselves. I'll admit most of my exposure is through media, but it's generally one guy at the top that just wants to bang a lot of pussy! Nothing wrong with that, although the means of doing so is creepy, to say the least.

Yeah, I'm not buying it, they look about as retarded and dangerous as each other to me.

I don't really need you to.

Maybe you mean this?

"While the type of intolerance and hatred is the same (i.e. it has the same roots and same goals), it lacks the depth of reach and the quite more wide-spread support that radical islamism has in islamic communities".

Something like this, yes. It's one thing to dream of something... another thing to make it your meaning in life. So yes, you could say the reason I find them less dangerous is due to lack of leadership or numbers.

US foreign politics is driven by bible-thumpers (that would require proof, though).

I will give you that the US's ability to separate church and state is awful, but for all the shitty reasons we've invaded another nation (see adversty's post a bit back), it's never been based on anyone else's religious beliefs (although there may be a bonus of giving some surpressed people freedom of religious a side effect).

I'm not going to go off on how awesome the US is and how they should meddle in everyone's business or all that shit. Quite the opposite. But I'm going to bash it just like I do any other place: for the right reasons. I wasn't behind Iraq (or most invasions for that matter in the least), but let's get real. Equating a jackass going after a tyrant's oil to a millionaire who indoctrinated many and (several times) targeted civilians b/c Muhammed told him to? The Jews could all fuck off to America and the US could withdraw from Afghanistan and there would be something else.

[austere]

It should be very obvious I was talking about Bin Laden, and his crusade. (I was staying on topic).

So basically you can't name a sect, nor even his sect (Salafists) and the fact that most muslims hate them?

although there may be a bonus of giving some surpressed people freedom of religious a side effect

Yeah, like all the Iraqi christians who had to flee the country thanks to the side effects to your crusades.

For the most part, the crazies in the US (and there are many) are smart enough to keep to themselves.

Not your evangelical christian/former president though, according to Jacques Chirac: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politi ... 46203.html

Which makes your "army worth fearing" comment even more amusing. Whether he was really in control of anything (rather than his VP) is another question though.

I'll admit most of my exposure is through media, but it's generally one guy at the top that just wants to bang a lot of pussy!

Projections aside, there are "real believers". The potential for radicalism is there in every monotheistic religion out there.

Equating a jackass going after a tyrant's oil to a millionaire who indoctrinated many and (several times) targeted civilians b/c Muhammed told him to?

There's clearly no point continuing this conversation.

[GaijinPunch]

It should be very obvious I was talking about Bin Laden, and his crusade. (I was staying on topic).

So basically you can't name a sect, nor even his sect (Salafists) and the fact that most muslims hate them?

Never said they didn't. I was talking about radicals.

Yeah, like all the Iraqi christians who had to flee the country thanks to the side effects to your crusades.

I never endorsed war (specifically the Iraq war as it were) in any way shape or form.

There's clearly no point continuing this conversation

Welcome to page 3.

[Randorama]

I will give you that the US's ability to separate church and state is awful, but for all the shitty reasons we've invaded another nation, it's never been based on anyone else's religious beliefs (although there may be a bonus of giving some surpressed people freedom of religious a side effect).

US governments are not so terrible in this separation. The parties invoking Christian theocracies are incredibly vocal, but in practice one could say that Opus Dei acts as shadow government in a lot of catholic countries (say, Italy). Also, while nobody appears to give a fuck about it, Norway and Sweden should have Lutheranism as a state religion (!). If you look close, a lot of countries do not really fare that better (Sarkozy invoked the importance of God in French matters, a while ago...).

We did have Dubya to invoke bible-thumping arguments, but he had to appease the bigoted in his side, which vote in block. I doubt that such topics have ever been in the minds of the ones planning invasions, although such arguments may have been used to fire the bellies of the relevant factions. I think that the *true* reasons for wars have never involved religion, even in less suspicious cases (say, the crusades...), anyway.

[austere]

in practice one could say that Opus Dei acts as shadow government in a lot of catholic countries (say, Italy).

That is interesting, I thought they were influential mainly in Spain...

This movie was pure torture to watch and I have no doubt that it is highly exaggerated, but it does show how this organisation destroys families and ruins lives.

[GaijinPunch]

We did have Dubya to invoke bible-thumping arguments, but he had to appease the bigoted in his side, which vote in block..

I always felt his faith was for political gain. That's not for me to say really, and I try not to dog on people's faiths (except for the Japanese people that used wrap tress with white sheets to protect them from some type of unknown force -- true story). Just the feeling I got most times he spoke.

[BryanM]

I'm increasingly convinced we live in the world of 1984. Sure, there are a couple differences here and there on what's been proven feasibly practical, but it is identical in every respect that matters.

[PROMETHEUS]

I'm increasingly convinced we live in the world of 1984. Sure, there are a couple differences here and there on what's been proven feasibly practical, but it is identical in every respect that matters.

Yeah, me too. I think it's pretty obvious by now. I think George Orwell saw it back then and made this book to try and show it to people. Remember that long chapter on the economic profit of war for strong aggressive powers, somewhere in the book ?

[dcharlie]

Probably old, but hey - about as funny as well may get (?)

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011 ... illed.html

[antron]

long thread with lots of posts, off and on topic, so this may have been covered:

do any of the nefarious collusion hypothesizeers have an explanation for why 3 of OBL's wives are not denying living with him in Pakistan in 2011?

Do you not think Pakistan would love to say he was never there after all? They have had ample time to turn this to their advantage and they have said nothing. Now they are going to let the US speak to them, in Pakistan under their protection. Nothing more is coming out of this.

[Skykid]

do any of the nefarious collusion hypothesizeers have an explanation for why 3 of OBL's wives are not denying living with him in Pakistan in 2011?

Do you have any idea why the US government would release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can explain that then you'll probably be able to answer your own question.

[antron]

I see. bin Laden's wives are working for the US.

any more ideas?

[adversity1]

do any of the nefarious collusion hypothesizeers have an explanation for why 3 of OBL's wives are not denying living with him in Pakistan in 2011?

Do you have any idea why the US government would release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can explain that then you'll probably be able to answer your own question.

Hilarious comment as usual.

1. You claim that the responsibility tape is faked as if you've proven it somewhere. So far you've linked to a few wingnut webpages and not brought any of that argument into the thread (wisely!)

Why not start by commenting on Prometheus' citation of the 2007 Bin Laden message to the US? Certainly another fake that we should disregard!

2. If we can imagine that the tape was actually faked, it was originally publicized by the US government. The wives of Bin Laden are all in Pakistani government custody and their testimony is relayed through that government's military. That would mean that the Pakistani government is either putting words in these womens' mouth or they are lying on behalf of the US. A ridiculous proposition because a) if Pakistan could put words in these women's mouths, they would be saying "he never lived in Pakistan, he was in Afghanistan the whole time" and b) certainly they are hostile to the US.

This is another part where you, as our resident Middle East analyst, could do some brushing up on. Pakistan has to acknowledge that Bin Laden was on their soil because even if they won't show it to the public, the US has proof that it can show behind closed doors (photos, DNA analysis). U.S. senators are already being shown the photos. Surely it could be shown around the UN, to allies like India, Saudi Arabia etc. Also:

1. Its soldiers arrived on the scene after the raid and had access to the bodies, all of Bin Laden's personal belongings, data, writings etc.
2. ISI had access to all of the local eyewitnesses, and still does. Several wives and a daughter, none denying anything about Bin Laden's living there.
3. Pakistani public opinion, as outraged as it is against the US raid, is also outraged at the government for allowing Bin Laden to be in the country. Pakistan is at a low state of civil war between the fundamentalist gangs and the more moderate/secular state, and if the military had some role in sheltering the man certainly this produces tensions in the more liberal end of the government and society. To this end they have to protest in public that they were unaware of OBL's location, no matter what actual level of collusion existed.

--------------------

Will get back to Prometheus tomorrow, was playing Strania tonight.

[Skykid]

do any of the nefarious collusion hypothesizeers have an explanation for why 3 of OBL's wives are not denying living with him in Pakistan in 2011?

Do you have any idea why the US government would release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can explain that then you'll probably be able to answer your own question.

Hilarious comment as usual.

1. You claim that the responsibility tape is faked as if you've proven it somewhere.

Ahahaha, what?! I'm assuming that you have a set of eyes and the gift of sight. Go and watch it, it's proof in itself.

Please feel free to entertain me though, I've never encountered someone who actually attempted to explain that tape away as genuine.

our resident Middle East analyst

Um, you do know I'm not a Middle East analyst right? And believe it or not, saying the same thing 300 times over won't make it so.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

do any of the nefarious collusion hypothesizeers have an explanation for why 3 of OBL's wives are not denying living with him in Pakistan in 2011?

Do you have any idea why the US government would release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can explain that then you'll probably be able to answer your own question.

I just dont trust any government, none of them give a shit about telling the truth unless its in their own intrests to do so. In this information age where its difficult to discern what is true or false theres alot of ppl who are very confused.com. In a way due to the lack or concrete proof all we can do is go with our gut reaction and beliefs, kinda like a religion.

@SK and other fellow doubters: what would it take to convince you that all of this is genuine? For myself it would have to be dna testing of the family / building, conducted by the UN

TBH if OBL was in that complex I think he is more then likely alive somewhere with electrodes wired to his nuts and brain. It might explain how the US got the intel to attack that guy who is been called OBLs successor. (Although any electronic devices like PCs taken from the complex might be where they got the guys location from)

[Skykid]

@SK and other fellow doubters: what would it take to convince you that all of this is genuine? For myself it would have to be dna testing of the family / building, conducted by the UN

DNA testing would be a start, but as is often the case, the obfuscating of material filtered from government to media to public is commonplace, meaning what you're getting is as good as hearsay (as in "the TV said the DNA tests were conclusive, so I'll assume that's the truth as I have no other recourse by which to decide.")

The recent scenario/fiasco of OBL's Navy Seal (Steven Seagal) bullet in the head takedown is rife with potential evidence:

A body
Some footage
DNA tests
Interviews with the family
Obama standing with one foot on OBL's chest, smoking a cigar, holding a flag, waving his re-election campaign banner

Unfortunately even the most trivial and obvious of evidence has failed to transpire, hence this ridiculous debate.

Although the outraged messages coming from the Middle East (I'm not an expert, mind) should present some kind of evidence, it's taken on the assumption that those individuals weren't getting much of their information about the missing OBL from the same sources we were. If they had a direct line to the man (speed dial style) then they could corroborate his whereabouts and his mortality over the last decade.
If they knew nothing and their reactions are a knee-jerk response to a jovial west over the supposed death of their Al Qaeda figurehead (as in,"those fuckers are partying, so something must have gone down. Quick, lets shout Jihad and threaten them with headscarves") we might never know.

But in terms of potential available conclusive evidence, we've been privy to basically none of it.

[antron]

Some footage
DNA tests
Interviews with the family

don't pretend that these would convince you of anything. having some of his DNA proves nothing. video can be faked. you think the family could be in on it

that leaves the body. if someone's body is gone forever, they are dead to the world.

[Skykid]

Some footage
DNA tests
Interviews with the family

don't pretend that these would convince you of anything. having some of his DNA proves nothing. video can be faked. you think the family could be in on it

that leaves the body. if someone's body is gone forever, they are dead to the world.

Oh they could convince me, why not? Problem is your government won't ever release enough information to provide conclusive proof.
Cos they ain't got any.

Sounds like you're finally getting the gist though.

It's all just a song and dance.

[antron]

why would they bother to try to prove something to people who think Osama bin Laden's wives are in on a conspiracy to help the US loose a bunch of money in a war (because they would all need to be in on it from the very begining). anyone who believes that is living in a world constructed around their own paranoia.

can we get a head count on the people who believe bin Laden's wives are in on the scam? at this point you really don't have much of a choice if you think there is any nefarious collusion. thanks for confessing skykid.

utterdude? austere?