Politics Osama Bin Laden is dead

[edao]

US release footage found in Pakistan compound.

watch Osama watching TV


An old grey haired patheitc looking old man, sat in a hovel rocking back and forward watching news reports about hismelf. Is this really American's No1 enemy, the master mind behind a global terror network?

I doubt the video was taken last week, it's probably at least 2 years old. Its clear he was an old man in poor health. It's likely he died long before last weeks raid on his family home. The Americans attacked killed some of his family interrogated the suvivors to discover Osama was long dead and decided to use this information as propaganda to boost the Obama presidency and give Americans the symbolic victory they had been longing ten years for. Osama dies of kidney failure would have been a huge victory for Al-qaeda.

Now I have no idea what happened but again the video is another bit of information that doesn't really fit the story.

 

[Reinaert]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961 Farewell Speech

And Eisenhower really knew what he was talking about!

Of course, in the USA of today,
what he said will be interpreted as if Eisenhower would have been a communist.
What else!

 

[Melusine]

Reinaert and others like minded as you.

Some World War II MILITARY casualties (per Wikipedia)

BELGUIUM: 12,100

poland: 240,000

Switzerland next to 000000000000

Denmark 2,100

UK, 385,800

Canada 45,400 and the

USA 416.800

(the USA had no "personal/property stake (nor did we get any) in Europe. Yet our people died for your grandparents, parents, and you INGRATES on this forum who like to "belittle" the USA TODAY)


http://wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

MELUSINE

 

[Antigone]

Er no again, on many counts.

1. Off topic
2. You are quoting figures from the entire war, you'll need to find the figures for Europe alone and not use the Pacific casualties to boost numbers.
3. Switzerland as a neutral country is irrelevant to your argument.
4. You keep stating that Europe wouldn't be free today if not for the US, then castigate all for using that very freedom to express an opinion.

I don't agree with everything that has been expressed here either, I doubt if there is anyone who does agree with all, but no-one has resorted to bullying tactics and name calling simply because someone expressed an opinion they didn't agree with, except the US contributors to this thread. Why is that? I'd genuinely like to know.

If you don't like what you read then refute the arguments with facts, rather than resort to off topic irrelevancies and abuse.

 

[Antigone]

US release footage found in Pakistan compound..

I don't understand the reason for releasing this footage or what it is meant to prove. So OBL was keeping track of what was being reported about himself and AQ, wouldn't anyone in his position do the same?

 

[Elias2]

I take your point, it would be unfair to say all those deaths were directly caused by the American military. Would they have died if there had been no invasion, this was a war started by the Americans?

Thousands of kurds were dying under samdams regime, so yes.

In 9/11 no one really cares about steel and concrete, it wasn't the buildings being destroyed but the loss of human lives that appalled people. American joy and celebration of Osama's death is because of a loss of life they attribute to him. So really this is all about innocents being murdered?


If that was the case you'd share my point of view, but the fact is there is something else at play here, racism, tribalism, whatever you want to call it. You are happy to see Arabs murdered in their 10s of thousands either directly by the American government or indirectly by the fallout of the war they started. 3,000 odd Americans die and it's an event to be marked in human history forever, in the medias words "the day everything changed".

Watching sunni and shias kill each other because of a medival rivalry makes me think lower about the region in general. If you're asking me whether it would be better to keep sadam in power, my answer would be no. Then again, I think most of the countries in the middle east are backwards with the exception lebanon.

I'm not particularly anti-american, I just prefer to see thing for what they are. Just because the newspaper and the media are giving you information doesn't mean you need to accept it for the truth. Just because you were born in one country doesn't mean that your tribe are the best or are right all the time. I think the number of dead in Iraq should provoke a similar emotional response in people as 9/11, but is doesn't, because who cares about them right?

What kind of emotional responce do you mean? 9/11 was a message by islamo-nutbags to america. The dead in iraq was of a similar sort of sectarian inter-islamic violence. I care about people who care about freedoms and liberties. When I see, for example, crowds in pakistan cheering because a politician was killed for suggesting the blamsphemy laws be removed, or the violence against coptic christians in egypt, or the palestinian boy who went to jail for blogging about the lack of freedoms in islam, or events in turkey, it makes me wonder why people take the opinions of middle eastern leaders seriously.

Think about 3,000 versus 10s of thousands and ask yourself if you still want to run in the street or stand up at a ball game and shout "USA USA"

USA get alot of slack because it's the world superpower, and people always like to pick on the biggest guy, but ask yourself this, would you rather china be the world superpower? What would sadams responce be if he was around now and the arabs in his country were revolting? My guess would be like Syria but worse.

 

[Reinaert]

USA get alot of slack because it's the world superpower, and people always like to pick on the biggest guy, but ask yourself this, would you rather china be the world superpower?

I think any superpower is always the problem. Power corrupts, always.
Any superpower or power is to be distrusted, always.

I don't believe in USA, UK, Russia, China, or India.
Empires rise on the blood of people, and in the end they die with the blood of people.

 

[Anton Bear's den]

USA get alot of slack because it's the world superpower, and people always like to pick on the biggest guy, but ask yourself this, would you rather china be the world superpower? What would sadams responce be if he was around now and the arabs in his country were revolting? My guess would be like Syria but worse.

China as total world superpower probably will force everyone to buy their goods to ensure employment of its own population and probably will demand lower prices for resources.
About "like Syria but worse" not sure because Russia for example never had wars with China, in China 5000 years history only Mao Zedong looks agressive.

But I don't think that China will ever get such status because 5 reasons:
1) America losing its power slowly, USA still will be very powerful nearest 20 years despite of the danger to their dollar printing in perspective, debts, mortgage crisis, useless wars etc...
2) Other countries of BRICS (Brasil, Russia, India & South Africa) not destroyed by wars as Europe after WWII. Each of them has an influence.
3) Monstrous amount of population in China lead to social tensions within China. Communistic 1 party system with lack of criticism is not conducive to solving such problems.
4) China have a lot of other problems: separatism in Tibet, the undetermined status of Taiwan, separatism in north-west muslim regions.
5) China is aging rapidly, 30 years and they will meet with the shortage of workforce.

 

[Anton Bear's den]

USA 416.800

Only in one Stalingrad battle USSR lost in 2 times more people

 

[Anton Bear's den]

I think any superpower is always the problem. Power corrupts, always.
Any superpower or power is to be distrusted, always.

I don't believe in USA, UK, Russia, China, or India.
Empires rise on the blood of people, and in the end they die with the blood of people.

Agree :grin:

 

[Elias2]

I think any superpower is always the problem. Power corrupts, always.
Any superpower or power is to be distrusted, always.

I don't believe in USA, UK, Russia, China, or India.
Empires rise on the blood of people, and in the end they die with the blood of people.

While this may be true about superpowers, it is also true there at any given point in time there was a government or civilization that was "bigger" than the rest. Having one like america isn't all that bad when compaired to the rest of the options. Wishing away the idea of superpowers is more the stuff of dreams than reality. Now I don't agree with everything america does in the world nor do not have criticism of it, but when it comes to the issue of Iraq and the middle east, I generally support what its doing. Now if the EU can get its act together it could possibly be a world player again.

 

[edao]

Now if the EU can get its act together it could possibly be a world player again.

I totally agree, in Europe foreign policy across member states is all over the place. The French and British were so keen to stick their noses into Lybia, only to have tens of thousands of refuees came pouring into Italy. The Italians quite rightly asked for EU assistance only to be told it was thier problem deal with it.

In Europe I think we need to understand that there isn't really such a thing as an independant nation any more. We can't retreat into our borders and stick to our own affairs.

Last week in Scotland we had the Scottish Parliament Elections, the Scottish Nationalist made huge gains. There is now a almost definite guarantee on a referendum on independance. All the Scottish people would be doing is swaping one dominant force eg Westminster for Brussels. The idea that in a heavily globalised world that tiny Scotland is going to be fine breaking out on its own is ridiculous. RBS and HBOS were two scottish based banks which had to be bailed out; if Scotland had been independant it would be in the same position as Ireland going cap in hand to the EU and IMF.

 

[Reinaert]

Haha...
Sitting at the dock of the bay...
Watching the trawlers go by...

Your dream of Empires is over!
Learn to live with it!

Every country in Europe, including Scotland and Ireland should have their own benefit from the common market, without the negative results of an Anglo-American capitalist idiotic speculative kind of gambling market system.

Speculation with money is forbidden for Christians.
As Jesus slammed the money traders out of the Temple...

Hey? Americans.. Ever read the Bible properly?

 

[Anton Bear's den]

Now I don't agree with everything america does in the world nor do not have criticism of it, but when it comes to the issue of Iraq and the middle east, I generally support what its doing. Now if the EU can get its act together it could possibly be a world player again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

That article says that oil companies of the "winners" over Saddam Hussein got almost the whole Iraqi oil.
Ohh I forgot they are there because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction!

 

[edao]

"Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world"
source

It's no coincidence that with all the unrest (regimes killing their own people) Libya with the largest oil reserve is the only one to have had military attacks.

Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing at the end fo the day one of the reason people are saying the UK has seen 0% growth in 6 months is due to high cost of oil. Securing such an important resource for the econmic prosperity of the west is probably not a bad idea.

 

[Anton Bear's den]

Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing at the end fo the day one of the reason people are saying the UK has seen 0% growth in 6 months is due to high cost of oil. Securing such an important resource for the econmic prosperity of the west is probably not a bad idea.
from link:
Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10^9 m3) as of 2007

Now I understand why "world light of democracy" has a such burning desire to invade Lybia and in the same time very silent about non-oil deserts like Syria, Bahrain, Yemen

 

[Melusine]

I stand corrected on the amount of USA military soldiers who died in Europe WWII (revised to ONLY about 183,000)

However, why not take time to add the 116,708 American soldiers that died in EUROPE during WWI?? Perhaps a grand total of 300,000 of our grandfathers dying for Europe is not enough for some of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

 

[Aconform]

I stand corrected on the amount of USA military soldiers who died in Europe WWII (revised to ONLY about 183,000)

However, why not take time to add the 116,708 American soldiers that died in EUROPE during WWI?? Perhaps a grand total of 300,000 of our grandfathers dying for Europe is not enough for some of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Well… Americans did not want to join the WWII in Europe… only after a sinking of an American ship by the Germans did the people get motivated.

And it’s somewhat an over statement to say they died for Europe; they died for their own countries interests.

The Americans joining in on the fight in Europe did help allot. But don’t forget that America had a lot of personal interests in the war. It was also a huge boost to American economy. It’s not as simple as America is the great martyr and that we should fall to our knees in gratitude.

 

[Maciamo]

I stand corrected on the amount of USA military soldiers who died in Europe WWII (revised to ONLY about 183,000)

However, why not take time to add the 116,708 American soldiers that died in EUROPE during WWI?? Perhaps a grand total of 300,000 of our grandfathers dying for Europe is not enough for some of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Dying for Europe ? The USA joined both world wars late when it became inevitable for them because they were attacked by the Germans (in WWI) or the Japanese (in WWII). Both wars were relatively "good investments" for the USA, since they became the world's dominant military power, occupied Germany and Japan after WWII, got enormous war compensations (including a lot of unofficial Nazi and Japanese gold plundered around Europe and Asia), and impose American systems and values in Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and parts of South-East Asia. If the USA had not participated in both world wars, American political influence and economic interests around the world would be much smaller. Had the USA continued their isolationist policy, they would resemble Japan today; a strong economy with proportionally very little political influence outside its own boundaries. With the hindsights, if it had to be done all over again, the USA would have tremendous interest in fighting in both world wars, especially the second.

All this to say that Americans didn't die for Europeans, but for their own interests. The US government knew very well from the start that they had more to win than to lose. They also knew very well that joining the war as late as possible was the best way to limit casualties by letting the others fight each others first and come when both parties were worn out for a relatively quick and easy victory. Fine strategists. Fighting Japan was much harder because the Japanese didn't face substantial resistance from their enemies within Asia. Germany being stronger and more technologically advanced than Japan, it is doubtful that the US could have defeated the Germans if Hitler had left the USSR alone.

 

[Reinaert]

Well… Americans did not want to join the WWII in Europe… only after a sinking of an American ship by the Germans did the people get motivated.

And it’s somewhat an over statement to say they died for Europe; they died for their own countries interests.

The Americans joining in on the fight in Europe did help allot. But don’t forget that America had a lot of personal interests in the war. It was also a huge boost to American economy. It’s not as simple as America is the great martyr and that we should fall to our knees in gratitude.

Correction:

Well… Americans did not want to join the WWI in Europe… only after a sinking of an American ship by the Germans did the people get motivated.

The sinking of the Lusitania wasn't the reason!

The Americans were tricked into WWI by the British.

The Brits produced some telegram that the Germans would help Mexico if they invaded the USA!
Go figure that!!! :snicker::76:

Arriba Andele Andele... Get Los Angeles and San Francisco back from those Gringo's!!!!

Wooooooohaaaaaaaa!!!!!


And it's a simple fact that the invasion in French Normandy was only done in June 1944, because the Russians were advancing into the direction of Berlin.
It was the policy of the USA to let the Germans and Russians fight each other to death.

Truman said so already in the New York Post in 1930!

"If the Russians are winning, we support the Germans, if the Germans win, we support the Russians!"

A real Freemacon mentality!

Read this..

"In Gold we trust!"