Osama Bin Laden Gets What He Gives

Millions of Iraqis and Afghans are dead?This is all Israel's fault?

​

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

​

Yes. This is true as a matter of simple fact. It's the true cost of war, and shows exactly how disproportionate the American response was. A few thousand of our citizens were killed on 9/11, and that was a tragedy...which we compounded with two military invasions that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of civilian lives, threw two nations into chaos, and did nothing to actually stop terrorism, which still continues to occur.The sickening thing, of course, is how few Americans even care that hundreds of thousands to millions of Iraqis and Afghans were killed as a direct result of the US military operations in those countries. No, and that's not at all what dronester said. Perhaps you should read more carefully:

quote:

---

So you think that the death/destruction policy that Israel uses towards Palestine has generally led to a peaceful resolution?

​

An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind Mahatma Gandhi

---

dronester was very clearly telling you that assassinating bin Laden, and in fact the general US policy of using military force to combat terrorism (as opposed to more appropriate police, intelligence, and occasional special forces actions) is basically identical to the doctrine Isreal has been using for years to do the same, with absolutely zero success. Military response does not curtail terrorism, it encourages more.

According to the Iraqi Body Count:Iraq Body CountSo that's a far cry from the millions of civilians dead. So there's something screwy in that statement of millions. Right. So we should just let them kill us and we should just give up because we can't hope to fight them all. Brilliant.And Israel is not a terrorist state.

And it is also very easy to be critical when the decisions are incredibly dumb, immoral, and criminal. Well, that's lovely. Apparently it's ok to you that america only SUPPORT the terrorist's atrocities as long as we don't CREATE them.However, you might want to look deeper into history. The CIA assisted. The CIA funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a member. And when Hussein gassed the Kurds, after the world condemned him, the USA turned around and REWARDED the atrocity by giving him another billion dollars worth of military aid.Take a real long look at this enthusiastic, smiling photo showing two people shaking hands. It SHOULD disgust most intelligent and moral people:
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein Umm, I guess I already forgot,... when exactly did Iraqis turn their anger against the USA? Was it during the 1990s when the USA led crippling sanctions against the Iraqis that murdered half a million of their children? When Madeline Albright said it was worth killing half a million children to bring about political change? You might want to research the term "terrorists" some time and see if it applies to the US.

Right, because sanctions are done against countries for fun and profit.

I wasn't suggesting that you should, I was just answering the question asked. We just don't have the luxury of the same insight that they had as boots on the ground in the middle of a goddamn firefight. Still, I wonder why they didn't make more of an effort to take him alive. I would have thought that all this GTMO interrogations of low-level insurgents would pale in comparison to the big fish.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Hey Jar,Generally, I liked your points but the following struck me as a curious statement: First of all, the average american is pretty ignorant. Most will willfully vote AGAINST their self interests. And half of them don't even vote. Secondly, when I visited Egypt I was amazed at how knowledgeable the average Egyptian was. Even the teens and children were asking me questions regarding American politics. Pretty impressive. And it seems the average Middle Eastern is quite aware of American interference in the area and its criminal support of Israel over human rights. Generally speaking, I would say people at the wrong end of the gun are often more aware than the gun-holder regarding the true nature of things.Just my 2 cents.

They are aware of a different set of "facts", but not of all or even most of the facts.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

In the short term.. it means a good deal of propaganda.In the long term, it depends. Osama was a charismatic leader that inspired a lot of people to open up their pocketbooks to the cause. The current second in command is irritating and obnoxious. If he does succeed OBL , then it is likely huge amount of resources, and support will disappear.With OBL gone, there is the reasonable potential for the Taliban to distance themselves from al qaidia. If they do that, then for them to enter into peace talks with the government of Afghanistan is increased drastically.Al qaidia had been billing itself as the only alternative to a lot of these brutal dictatorships in the Arab world. With the uprisings, and the lack of charismatic leadership , it is very possible that they will lose the support of much of the Arab world.In the short term, it is a propaganda tool on both sides. In the long run, it all depends on who wins being the replacement for him.

So says you. I am sure in retrospect some decisions were shown to make matters worse not better however to label them all as criminal and immoral is painting with a broad brush of ignorance of why these decisions were made. Each should be analyzed for historical context of why they were made and what were the resulting consequences of these decesions. No one supported these attrocities when they occured. If we had known these very same people would turn on us we would have never supported them in the first place. Again, easy words to say in retrospect. I am not familiar with this. If you can provide evidence I will investigate further.Of course there are actions and decisions that our government later regrets having made (i.e. Bay of Pigs invasion, etc). However, again we can not predict the future (sometimes disastrous). Again we have to see what the context of these decisions and why we made them at the time. I would say though that we have for the most part as a country made good decisions over bad ones through history in our effort to promote democracy around the world.Of course mistakes (again sometimes disastrous) have been and will continue to be made. However, for the most part we are a promoter of good will around the world and I will never be ashamed to be called an American or to have served in the US military. Again you are distorting the facts. All of the figures shown above were provided solely by Saddam Hussein's government not by any outside entities.Maybe the following will help shed light on the inaccurate claims in laying the blame on America when it really was the result of the Iraqi government itself (Saddam Hussein) who was guilty of deliberately mismanaging tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian aid as shown below: She made a statement she later regretted making. I agree though it was poorly worded and sounded inhumane in context to the question. I disagree. Have we made mistakes as Americans. Of course. Do we have a policy of deliberately murdering innocent people and children. Of course not. We are not the evil people you make us out to be. You do not even acknowledge the billions of dollars in aid and military support we provide to people around the world on a daily basis (i.e. our military provided humanitarian aid to Japan and Haiti in the latest news). Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Even after a week after the raid on Bin Laden's compound we do not have the full, complete and accurate story on how the raid went down. However, as more information comes out it sounds like the Seals had to make split second decisions after a fire-fight with Bin Laden's courier and a couple of people that rushed them. An AK-47 was found within reach of Bin Laden when he was killed.Latest account of events (from Reuters): And from ABC: Again, enough resistance existed to precipitate shoot to kill actions of the Seals. Just as in police raids unless hostages were thought to be involved, raids typically will have shoot to kill orders to protect those conducting the raid from being injured and killed themselves. The Seal team went into the compound not knowing the amount of armed resistance that they would face and so anticipated (correctly) the worst. No one can fault them for this.More was gained from the material evidence in the compound than probably would be gleaned from keeping Bin Laden alive. Also, with Bin Laden alive and in US custody this could spark more violence than taking out the head of Al Queda.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

The pentagon released some videos seized from the Bin Laden raid. After watching this, and after thinking more about it, I conclude that we don't even consider the possibility that getting caught was no big deal for Bin Laden. Our multi billion dollar intelligence was being led on a wild goose chase for many years, and we are too arrogant to admit it.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

O for cryin' out loud...Since he tried so very hard not to be found, we can assume that being found was a very big deal indeed to Osama bin Laden.I grew up in a tribal world: I know exactly how they think. It's too bad he could only be killed once.That's how they think.You cannot fight fire with marshmallows.

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

thisPakistan leaks death pictures

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

As far as I’ve been led to believe she die move towards them and was shot and he resisted in the sense of moving away. He’s a known mass murderer who could have done all manner of things, I don’t see why they had to give him any benefit of the doubt.