This pretty much summarizes how I feel: http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-obama-killing-osama
I have read the conspiratorial posts, and I think that most are off their mark. What I have found most people in government will conspire to do the worst is to mask incompetence.
I think there was a raid and Bin Laden was killed. I am not sure that he was supposed to be killed. I guess the thing is when you have knockout gas, tasers, and poison darts, why did they have to kill him? I wonder if one of these alpha male types was just trigger happy. As Doug Casey says, he was a treasure trove of information.
The other thing, just like what happened with the Iranian hostage mission in 1979, the helicopters didn't work. "A senior administration official told reporters during a conference call tonight that during the raid by U.S. forces that killed Osama bin Laden "we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure." WTF is up with that? The two most important missions in U.S. history, and there is "mechanical failure". The whole helicopter failure thing strikes me as weird. Was there something on the chopper that no one was supposed to see?
I guess some legal scholars will tell you this raid was legal, but I have to wonder if this is legal, can the government make anything legal? There is a lot not to like: swooping into a foreign country, not putting someone on trial, shooting to kill in the head, people celebrating someone else's death.
So what happens next? The military industrial complex will trot out the next evil doer. We had Saddam Hussein then Qaddafi, now who? Hugo Chavez is a good candidate. Plus, we can steal Venezuela's oil as a bonus. I am so tired of the government telling us whom to hate.
From where I sit, the biggest threat to my freedom was never Bin Laden, it was government incompetence. When the government looks badly, it will trample over every civil right necessary to look better.
9-11 happened more because of horrible government incompetence than Bin Laden. No one got fired because of 9-11.
<<You seem to have gotten some idea locked into your brain that OBL was motivated by democracy or even wealth distribution>>
BS. I never said anything about OBL wanting to spread wealth or democracy.
Where you get that from?
Matter of fact, these would be political concerns and what I distinctly remember writing was that OBL never struck me as someone that coveted political power.
<<The Saudis have never committed genocide against their own people however, as is now happening in Syria, an enemy of ours.>>
You don't think the Saudi leadership is capable of similar atrocities against it's own people?
The Saudi people wouldn't dare and that should tell you something.
Think about it.
What you might see as an enemy country is only looking at the surface and is based on one event back in the 1970's.
Have you ever stopped and considered that this appearance (as an enemy)over the years is meant to be and is part of a grand scheme to deceive? It's an act!
look at the Saudi Family's treatment when they visit.
Or look at the well connected Bin Laden Family's special treatment on 9-11 when they got to leave the country when the air space was closed to all other traffic.
Do you honestly think the Saudi Royal Family could have existed all these years without our willingness to accept and support their hold on power which was all enabled by oil sales in USD's ?
(Not saying things can't change but how come no oil sales in other currencies if an enemy?)
Put yourself in an avg Saudi person's shoes and use your imagination as to how the common man might feel towards America because of this relationship over the years that did more to enrich the Royal Family than anything else.
And don't forget the kickbacks in the form of military sales to SA that benefitted those that are well connnected to the military industrial complex on this side of the pond.
Forget OBL or radical Islam ever even existed.
BTW, I don't deny radical Islam is an issue that we must be concerned about but I'm not sure about the extent of additional radicalism there might be as a result of our foreign policy WRT oil over the years but I think it'substantial.
Shariah Law and some traditional practices that appear out of the stone ages are certainly not things that we should be promoting or enabling but oddly, our energy related foreign policy appears to feed the most radical forms of Islam.
That said, I also believe radical Islam might exist even if our foreign policy weren't so screwed up (as it relates to oil)but I don't see it being as a growing problem, just isolated pockets of political opportunism.
FWIW, I still believe OBL was mainly concerned with our energy policy in that part of the world as it related to military sales and hidden support for despotic leaders rather than promoting radical islam.
And look at the source of Saudi's military hardware that is also used to keep the Saudi monarchy in power as well as a recent multi-year, multi billion dollar deal to buy more equipment from America's industrial military complex.
<< subsidizing govt spending is not the definition of a puppet regime>>
I know I'm asking a lot here but you have to use your imagination as to how despot govt's can be made beholding to another country's leadership's wishes and it all starts with not believing the official mainstream version of how things are.
So I'll stick with my definitions as they relate to my understanding as to how things have been working in that part of the world (thank-you very much) even if my definitions might not agree with yours
JMO, but YOUR definition of 'client state' or puppet regime needs a little broadening.
Installation of a puppet regime is not necessary to be a puppet regime. Payola can achieve the same thing.
Believe what you will, but when our govt gives subsidies to despot leaders, I believe it's done with strings attached so the leadership of these countries are compromised.
And the subsidies are not trivial, they are in the billions and they have been going on for years.
You'd have to be naive to not see that.
Even with Israel as a democracy, our subsidies that allows them to buy more military hardware than their economy could ever possibly afford on their own comes with strings so democracy has nothing to do with it....they could still be a puppet regime and be beholding to us.
Would you deny ANY US strings?
a new govt in Israel would risk losing support if they dramatically changed stance, no?
<<Neither Israel or Egypt sell any oil of course but presumably you meant they get money from us. >>
Egypt DOES sell some oil and they also have quite a bit of NG but that's beside the point.
And even if they didn't get subsidies from us, our foreign policy can give these oil producing countries (like Libya especially), a certain 'legitimacy' and a foreign standing to do business.
I did not mean political 'legitimacy' within their own countries as it might relate to democracy.(geeze)
No. What I meant was commercial legitimacy as an enabler to these despots that goes on for years.
Simply doing business with Gadhafi all these years and allowing him to lever power from oil sales was an enabler and we are guilty of that with a number of other countries as well.
note how we shut down all financial transactions between Libya and ourselves when we wanted to and the effect that had. Why didn't we do this years ago?
<<Qadafi was in power for 3 decades before that. The Soviets/Russians have been long time allies of his.>>
To repeat the theme: If not for financial ties that enabled oil sales and commerce with the west, Gadhafi couldn't have done much business with us or elsewhere, simple as that.
Gadhafi gained more with his informal (nod, nod, wink, wink) ties to our world (the west) than that of Russia, no?
Couldn't the world have lived without Libya's oil for a while or was this all part of the deal to maintain global supply at cheap prices for as long as possible even if it meant keeping (enabling) a despot in power?
Bin Laden also said only the restoration of Islamic law would set things right in the Muslim world, and that alternatives such as pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy must be opposed. This belief, in conjunction with violent jihad, has sometimes been called Qutbism after being promoted by Sayyid Qutb. Bin Laden believed that Afghanistan, under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban, was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.
Geez Ilap, I knew you might complain about some on that puppet list but to do it on the basis that we don't get cheap oil from them is missing the point.
I would argue that we HAVE been gettting cheap oil all these years and that those days may soon be coming to an end.
As to my 'definitions' as to what a puppet regime/client state might be, I would say that Egypt, Israel, and yes, even Libya qualify for the simple reason that we either subsidized their govt spending (with US taxpayer $$) or we at the very least, allowed, or enabled those countries' leaders to sell their oil and in effect, gave these leaders legitimacy.
The UK example of making a deal where they released the Lockerbie bomber to allegedly smooth the waters for BP 's exploration activities in Libya is just the sort and type of thing I mean.
plus there's the Fed shovelling money out the back door to non other than the Bank of Libya (as I recall)itself which was at the time a part of Gadhafi's personal portfolio.
This knda relates to some of what I referred to earlier:
Osama bin Laden is the face of terrorism to Americans,but we ignore terror's economic roots and branches at our peril. They won't wither away because of bin Laden's demise.
This is not to reduce every force of history to mere human action in the market. Bin Laden may have hoped to bankrupt the United States by causing it to overreact to the 9/11 attacks, as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has written. But he saw himself as a holy warrior, as well as a rebel against his wealthy Saudi family's business empire
His key grudge, however, leads back to economics. U.S. troops were and remain in the Middle East primarily to protect the free flow of the largest oil reserves in the world. To help ensure cheap oil, America has closely allied itself with repressive regimes, particularly in
Not sure I agree with this article's take on how OBL saw himself WRT religious ideology but that last paragraph aligns with my recent thinking on the whole issue and I tend to agree with it. FWIW
The compound was built/finished 6 years ago "for" OBL not "by" him .. He was caught some time after Tora Bora . He has been on dialisis for years . He was " house imprisoned, unarmed " for a long time now , declared his daughter . The execution gave 8% points of aproval raiting hike overnight for Obama , ...before he quickly died of natural causes . I'm happy he's gone, but right or wrong on this one , i have been happy for a long time that he was "gone".
The helicopter failure. The no questioning on nukes (because the info is on the hard drives ..), the compound , the body at sea , the pictures , the no pictures , Pakistan kwew , didn't know..,,, all b s to me.
Arwen, Bin Laden's father was so rich that he lent money to the Saudi government in the 60s when it was broke. Apparently, he was paying HUGE money to the Pakistanis to live where he was.
I think everyone should know by now the Pakistanis are not friends of the West. I can see financially why they wanted to keep Bin Laden alive and keep the war money flowing.
Remember when Bush went ahead and said we were attacked on 9-11 because they were jealous of our freedoms? Given that we have more people in jail than practically any other country, most Americans should have been rolling over laughing at that one, but most bought it. The real reasons as Doug Casey outlined were, "1) the U.S. had its troops in Muslim lands; 2) the U.S. was supporting the stooges running those countries; and 3) the U.S. was supporting Israel, which he deemed an oppressor of the Palestinians. If the U.S. desisted from those things, he was happy to leave it alone, in the belief it would necessarily self-destruct."
Those are pretty reasonable demands. As for being a killer, no one in the U.S. had a problem when Bin Laden was killing Russians. Heck, he was our ally, our friend. He kills Americans for the same reason he killed Russians, and now he goes from being a good guy to a bad one? Please.
The same was true with Saddam Hussein. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Donald_Rumsfeld_Shakes_Hands_With_Saddam_Hussein
Saddam got the green light from the U.S. to invade Iran, and he was our friend when he did so. He then asked the U.S. if it was okay to invade Kuwait. He again got the green light and invaded. The military industrial complex in the U.S. then turned on him and made him out to be a monster.
When he invaded and killed Iranians, Saddam was a good guy, our ally. When he did the same to Kuwait, he became evil. Again, please.
In 1953, the U.S. got rid of an Iranian democracy and put in a monarch, a dictator, and in 2003, we went to war in Iraq to get rid of a dictator and put in a democracy.
At some point and time, I wish most Americans realized that these people in the military-industrial complex need enemies, and they have to continue to manufacture these enemies to get their funding.
And when those people in the military-industrial complex (MIC) get it wrong like they did with Richard Jewell in the Atlanta bombing in 1996, there isn't any price to pay. The idiot in the Jewell case was FBI director Louis Freeh who demonized Richard Jewell without a shread of evidence. That case more than any other showed how the MIC can turn a hero into a villain.
I guess most Americans are in denial. They don't want to believe that the MIC can turn on them like it did Richard Jewell. We shouldn't hate just because someone in government tells us to.
Other than his observation that we should all question authority, I do not agree with anything this guy wrote.
While I am not comfortable with officially sanctioned hit-men, they are a fact of life... we just need to make sure they go after the right people.
Was Osama a legitimate target? Yes, and so are the other 100+ members of Al Qaida and related groups. Why are they legitimate targets? Not because they want us out of the Mid-east, but because their method is the mass-murder of innocents. They are warriors, not pundits nor civil-libertarians. Listen to what they say, and believe. Watch the videos of 9/11, or the aftermath of the Bali-bombing. These people are not fooling around... and neither should we.
Does it matter that we killed OBL with a bullet to the head as opposed to a bomb from the air? Not really. But there was less collateral damage this way. Should he have been taken alive? Maybe, but risking the life of even one American - even an officially-sponsored, psychopathic hit-man - was just not worth it. Could we have gotten more info from a living Osama than a dead one? Maybe, but there are 100+ storage devices to comb through for information. I am glad we do not have to pay to clothe, feed, secure and defend the guy. I do not need to see him in a cage any more than I need to see him strolling the hills of Waziristan with an Uzi in hand.
The defective helicopter is absurd, embarrassing -- as you rightly point out. What is up with that?! But destroying it on the way out was just standard operating procedure.
Finally, on the subject of regime change... I think sometimes it is justified. Certainly on humanitarian grounds it is more justifiable than the hypocrisy of a war against a mad-mans legions in which thousands of innocents are killed in collateral damage.
"but risking the life of even one American - even an officially-sponsored, psychopathic hit-man - was just not worth it."
That is utter nonsense. If anyone really believed that this guy was in charge of planning future attacks, then the last thing you allow to happen is for him get accidentally killed when he was so poorly guarded and was not even shooting back.
If there was a ten percent chance that we was planning another attack that would kill three thousand people, and if he had a 10% chance of succeeding in such an attack, then it would have been worth perhaps as many as 30 soldiers to take him alive and prevent that attack. Not because the lives of soldiers are cheap, but because they VOLUNTEER for this danger, unlike average civilians being targeted.
"Could we have gotten more info from a living Osama than a dead one? Maybe, but there are 100+ storage devices to comb through for information."
Nothing to prevent him from loading all those discs with distractions while all the real orders go out verbally with no digital record. Who knows, maybe bin Laden was able to learn from Richard Nixon's mistakes. :)
"I am glad we do not have to pay to clothe, feed, secure and defend the guy. I do not need to see him in a cage any more than I need to see him strolling the hills of Waziristan with an Uzi in hand."
Disagree. 27 year CIA veteran and analyst Ray McGovern opined that there were probably a lot of people resting more easily now that he is dead. Why? Because there are a few Americans around who not asleep, like Sibel Edmonds and those who know what she has described, who wonder how deep were the connections between bin Laden and the CIA or other western agencies or personages. If there are any such agencies or people who are comforted by his death for that reason, then to that extent I wish he had been taken alive, and offered the chance to fully confront his accusers, explain his reasons (did he really do it because he hated our freedoms? I doubt it.) and then, if found guilty by a jury, get his punishment. Even Nazi war criminals had trials. To dispense with them, and to add such contrivances as sea-burials... just adds to the appearance that there is something amiss -something that cannot bear scrutiny.
"The defective helicopter is absurd, embarrassing -- as you rightly point out. What is up with that?!"
I think it inhaled its own exhaust when it hovered at low levels above a walled courtyard. This is a common hazard to VTOL aircraft. Prototype F-35's had close-calls due to such effects without the complicating factor of the walls that were present in this instance.
"Finally, on the subject of regime change... I think sometimes it is justified. Certainly on humanitarian grounds it is more justifiable than the hypocrisy of a war against a mad-mans legions in which thousands of innocents are killed in collateral damage."
War crimes are serious and worthy of punishment in direct proportion to the number of people who are tortured, injured or killed. The number of dead at the hands of Bush and his crew are at least 100 times greater than the number attributed to bin Laden. And given what we know about the very first NSC meetings during the Bush 43 admin in Jan 2001, there is no doubt that aggression against Iraq was being planned long before the "New Pearl Harbor" event occurred.
Here are some good links on this general subject.
<<their method is the mass-murder of innocents>>
I don't agree with killing of innocents but please put the shoe on the other foot and consider how many more our side has killed of them either directly... or through our proxie puppet regimes.
Also consider some of the Chicken and egg issues as it relates to our recent history in the region (past 75-100 years)as it relates to our continued influence in terms of how it effects their destiny and how that might have created resentment.
Does more firepower justify more collateral civilian casualties?
Factor of 500:1?
how much is too much?