http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13354995
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/201151143347815396.html
(Of course AJE does it better!)
The Bin Laden family is upset over the killing of Osama bin Laden, but not for the reasons you may think!
"If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law, has been sacrificed."
Damn.
As for the thing with Pakistan, I'm still not convinced that they were purposely sheltering Osama bin Laden, things just don't add up. Nobody in their right mind would shelter someone who is apart of a movement that is dangering their own home.
That's because you are making little effort to understand the political situation. The reason Al-Qaeda is a threat to Pakistan is because Pakistan is ideologically in something close to civil war. Large sections of the authorities back the other side in that conflict.
I am beginning suspect your unreasoning hatred you often display here is affecting your judgement. The links between Pakistani authorities and collaboration with extremist elements is strong. You should go research it.
Stumbled upon this video yesterday.
Originally posted by inimalist
true, I'm really surprised to see the argument though
Im really surprised that surprises you. The whole war on terror is a war of ideas which your not ever going to win by killing, bombing and assassinating people.
If 9/11 did happen by the people and group that the US alleges (without any proof) it was out of anger. Anger for US troops in the middle east. Anger for US supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinians.. Anger for the sanctions on Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of children in hospitals.. Anger at US supporting dictators in the arab world..
And you honestly think the answer to that is Invade Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocents, invade Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, assassinate any so called terrorists without any fair trials..
No your just increasing anger towards the US ten fold, and encouraging more and more people to start their own random terrorist groups.
This is a war you will never win by violence, not that the US even wants to win this war.. They want a never ending war which justifies them to carry on invading, occupying whoever they want, preferably countries with Oil, Gas, Opium, or just good strategic positioning.
And I personally think anyone whose buying this story that they've just killed Bin Laden and immediately dumped the body has to be pretty damn naive. They paraded Sadam Hussain's sons dead bodies to the world to PROVE they killed him.. They took Sadam Hussain alive, and handed him over to the Iraqi's for a fair trial. But US enemy no.1 for the last 10 years, the one whose the most controversial and surrounded by the most conspiracy theories, and you didn't want to capture him alive?? Show the world what he has to say in court, show the "evidence" against him!!
And you guys just buy this! Amazing!
Wake up people!! We're not invading people for our freedom and democracy. We're killing others because we're controlled and run by some very powerful people have have their own interests to gain from these wars.
Bin Laden's death doesn't end his fear-mongering valueGlenn Greenwald
On Friday, government officials anonymously claimed that "a rushed examination" of the "trove" of documents and computer files taken from the bin Laden home prove -- contrary to the widely held view that he "had been relegated to an inspirational figure with little role in current and future Qaeda operations" -- that in fact "the chief of Al Qaeda played a direct role for years in plotting terror attacks." Specifically, the Government possesses "a handwritten notebook from February 2010 that discusses tampering with tracks to derail a train on a bridge," and that led "Obama administration officials on Thursday to issue a warning that Al Qaeda last year had considered attacks on American railroads." That, in turn, led to headlines around the country like this one, from The Chicago Sun-Times:
The reality, as The New York Times noted deep in its article, was that "the information was both dated and vague," and the official called it merely "aspirational," acknowledging that "there was no evidence the discussion of rail attacks had moved beyond the conceptual stage" In other words, these documents contain little more than a vague expression on the part of Al Qaeda to target railroads in major American cities ("focused on striking Washington, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago," said the Sun-Times): hardly a surprise and -- despite the scary headlines -- hardly constituting any sort of substantial, tangible threat.
But no matter. Even in death, bin Laden continues to serve the valuable role of justifying always-increasing curtailments of liberty and expansions of government power. From Reuters (h/t Atrios):
[quote]Sen. Schumer proposes "no-ride list" for Amtrak trains
A senator on Sunday called for a "no-ride list" for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation's train system.
Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide.
"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public," the New York Democrat said at a news conference.
So Al Qaeda breathes the word "trains" and Schumer jumps and demands the creation of a massive, expensive and oppressive new Security State program to keep thousands and thousands of people off trains. The "no-fly" list has been nothing short of a Kafkaesque disaster: with thousands of people secretly placed on it without any explanation or real recourse, oftentimes causing them to be stranded in faraway places and unable to return home.
To replicate that for trains -- all because some documents mentioned them among thousands of other ideas Al Qaeda has undoubtedly considered over the years -- is hysteria and ludicrous over-reaction of the highest order. Trains can obviously be attacked without boarding them (indeed, these documents apparently discussed tampering with the rails, which wouldn't require boarding the trains at all). And if there's a "no-ride" list for Amtrak, why not for subways and buses, too? If Al Qaeda is found to have discussed targeting restaurants, will we have a no-eat list? If Al Qaeda is found to have discussed targeting large intersections or landmarks, will we have a no-walk list? How about a no-shop list in response to the targeting of malls?
But this, more or less, encapsulates the U.S. response to Terrorism since 9/11: the minute Al Qaeda utters a peep about anything, the political class collectively jumps to restrict our freedoms, empower the Government, and bankrupt ourselves in self-destructive pursuit of the ultimate illusion: Absolute Security. Al Qaeda has caused us to do more harm to ourselves than it could have ever dreamed of imposing on its own. And even in death, Osama bin Laden continues to serve as the pretext for all of this.[/quote]
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/09/fear/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13379298
So Navy SEALs might be endangered because of their jobs...
...is this news?
Originally posted by Robtard
Who?What?
Who pulls the strings? What would they have to gain? Military.. There'd be no business for if there were no wars.. Oil companys maybe might have an interest in the Arab world.. Construction companies.. Theres all sorts of powerful people out there who influence how things work.
One things for sure, when we go to war its because the movers and shakers in the world want us to go to war. Its never got anything to do with protecting democracy, or disposing of dictators. Heck we in the West have no problem supporting dictators when they're on our side. When they're no its time to get rid of them (for democracy of course)
Oh yeah and theres the lizard people 😉
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Who pulls the strings? What would they have to gain? Military.. There'd be no business for if there were no wars.. Oil companys maybe might have an interest in the Arab world.. Construction companies.. Theres all sorts of powerful people out there who influence how things work.One things for sure, when we go to war its because the movers and shakers in the world want us to go to war. Its never got anything to do with protecting democracy, or disposing of dictators. Heck we in the West have no problem supporting dictators when they're on our side. When they're no its time to get rid of them (for democracy of course)
Oh yeah and theres the lizard people 😉
=/=
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Im really surprised that surprises you. The whole war on terror is a war of ideas which your not ever going to win by killing, bombing and assassinating people.If 9/11 did happen by the people and group that the US alleges (without any proof) it was out of anger. Anger for US troops in the middle east. Anger for US supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinians.. Anger for the sanctions on Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of children in hospitals.. Anger at US supporting dictators in the arab world..
And you honestly think the answer to that is Invade Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocents, invade Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, assassinate any so called terrorists without any fair trials..
No your just increasing anger towards the US ten fold, and encouraging more and more people to start their own random terrorist groups.
This is a war you will never win by violence, not that the US even wants to win this war.. They want a never ending war which justifies them to carry on invading, occupying whoever they want, preferably countries with Oil, Gas, Opium, or just good strategic positioning.
And I personally think anyone whose buying this story that they've just killed Bin Laden and immediately dumped the body has to be pretty damn naive. They paraded Sadam Hussain's sons dead bodies to the world to PROVE they killed him.. They took Sadam Hussain alive, and handed him over to the Iraqi's for a fair trial. But US enemy no.1 for the last 10 years, the one whose the most controversial and surrounded by the most conspiracy theories, and you didn't want to capture him alive?? Show the world what he has to say in court, show the "evidence" against him!!
And you guys just buy this! Amazing!
Wake up people!! We're not invading people for our freedom and democracy. We're killing others because we're controlled and run by some very powerful people have have their own interests to gain from these wars.
/sigh