Osama Bin Laden Gets What He Gives

Yeah, I don't really know why they opted to kill him versus taking him in to custody and interrogating him.This whole debacle of having no real proof of said assassination is creating a conspiracy theorists play ground. It's like dousing gasoline on fire. That's the other burgeoning question the US has right now. Pakistan seems to be a fairweathered ally. I think the reality is that much of Pakistan is an ally and much of it is not. I'm fairly certain Al Qaeda has people on the inside of the ISI who have tipped him off before.

---

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

House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-NY) explains why the photos should be released:

Key Republicans say don't release bin Laden photo
Graham calls Obama decision on photos 'a mistake'Going to be tough for GOP to make political hay out of this.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Obama has played it right IMHO. Announce that you are not going to release the photos as doing so would appear insensitive to some and could inflame feelings. Meanwhile, the photos leak anyway.Besides... I suspect you and many others would agree, anyone that doesn't accept the truth of his demise at this point is just deluding themselves. Every political organisation/nation on the planet that has been sought out for a quote on this has said either something along the lines of "It's a good thing he's gone" (99.99%) or "We condemn the execution of this holy warrior" - Hamas.To those who think the photos would prove something, the people who don't want to believe this still wouldn't do so with a recognisable corpse at their feet.PS I wish people would call him UBL - it's what the CIA call(ed) him before they renamed him after a native American, and it just looks better.

Easy to say this in the comfort of your home.Sorry I really don't have any sympathy for this guy. You can't blame them for taking him out especially after the adrenaline fueled fire fight with the body guards and his wife rushing at them. Even highly trained professionals like the Navy Seals are not going to put there lives on the line in hopes that Bin Laden was not armed. 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 mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States which spawned Bin Laden, whom caused 9/11. Look up "blowback" sometime.I'm no rocket scientist, but I think it would have been smart NOT to support a fanatical and violent group of people to begin with. Kinda makes "military intelligence" an oxymoron, yes?For Americans to cheer the death of someone that America enthusiastically helped to create is pretty ignorant.Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia

So because one government helped Bin laden that means all 310 million Americans are responsible for him? Forever and ever?That kind of generalized statement shows that many people overseas don't understand how the American voting system works. And probably don't care because they want to be holier than thou.Secondly, the celebrations are different than the Muslims. The Muslims are celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians because they are incapable of discerning civilians from military.More importantly, it is a celebration of life, because with his death Al Qaeda has been hurt. While it remains to be seen how bad, it does indeed mean that more innocent people will now get to live.

Well yes, all Americans are responsible for all the acts of our government, past, present and future.

---

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

Hey Tram Law, ONE government? You mean both DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN governmentS?

quote:

---

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States [Central Intelligence Agency] (CIA) during the administrations of Carter[11] and Reagan, . . .

---

Mujahideen - Wikipedia Umm, . . . I'm an american. One can be against war crimes AND be an american. Really. I am unsure if Muslims celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent american deaths is MUCH worse than americans NOT CARING about the deaths of MILLIONS of innocent Iraqis and Afghans civilians. 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 GandhiYou might want to RE-read:Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia

There is no question that the U.S. financed and armed Afghan mujahideen. I gather that there is a great deal of debate over whether the U.S. had anything at all to do with bin Laden or the other foreign fighters in Afghanistan. Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia

It is easy to be criticle of our decisions when looking through the rear view window. In the 1980's the Soviet Union was still a viable threat. That is why we covertly supported the Mujahideen's battle against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This was a very hush, hush support in which few in the government were aware of, much less the general public.And yes I know what blowback is. Again easy to say when looking back in history. Ha ha, never heard this one before. Taking cheap potshots does nothing to help your argument. You don't have a leg to stand on if you have no experience in this area. We did not create Bin Laden anymore than we created Saddam Husein (who we also supported in Iraq's war against Iran). These people are adult human beings who made decisions to turn their anger and wrath against America even before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. Our physical presence in the Middle East was minimal in the 1970s and 1980s. It wasn't until the terrorists started bringing the war onto home soil that we started hitting back.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

Not exactly.We have had a major presence in the Middle East at least since the establishment of the Persian Gulf Command (PGC) during WWII. We have also been very involved in the politics of the region since the before WWII.Granted much (including the actual purposes and tasks of the PGC) were at least tacitly covert but hardly secret. In particular the Naval presence in the Persian Gulf since 1949 was pretty obvious. Throw in a few regime changes in countries like Egypt and Iran as well as fluctuating support for nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon and I would hardly say the US presence in the Middle East was minimal in the70s and 80s.Now unreliable, capricious, inconsistent; those might apply.The problem is that so much of that history is NOT taught to the generations of Americans and so they are unaware of just how much meddling we really did in the area.

---

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

The other day I said this... ... and today I read this...Osama Bin Laden dead: Radical Muslims name burial location 'Martyr's Sea' | Daily Mail Online

quote:

---

"Radical Muslims are already calling the site of Osama bin Laden’s ocean burial the ‘Martyr’s Sea’, according to one of Britain’s leading Islamic scholars.

​

The US said the decision to drop bin Laden’s body into the North Arabian Sea was taken to avoid creating a shrine for the slain Al Qaeda chief.

​

But Abdal Hakim Murad, Muslim Chaplain at Cambridge University, claimed yesterday that the move could backfire on the Americans."

---

UGH.

Granted. I meant minimal in relation to our involvement now. Minimal was probably the wrong word to use. You are not stating the other side of the story. That we were attempting to counterbalance the soviet influence in the middle east. Our involvement in the ME has waxed and waned all the way back to WWII.As far as our Naval presence in the ME, this was to provide stability to the region after the first Gulf War and to counteract Iran's attempt to mine the Straights of Hormuz to monopolize the oil exports out of Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and other Persian Gulf states.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

You at least know about some of the history it seems, more than most Americans.And those are the reasons and justification WE used for our presence.But how does it look from the other side? How does it look to the folk living in the Middle East that are as ignorant of much of the facts, history and geopolitics as the average American?

---

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