Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Natalie Severn]

Why then are we just concentrating on Gadaffi?...Why did we concentrate on Iraq?...The answer is so simple: Oil.

Actually too simplistic I think.

If one reads the accounts of the Bush Whitehouse it was Runsfeld and Chaney who began to contemplate an attack on Iraq from the first moments after 9/11.

Who were they - members of the 1st Bush administration. So I think a case at least can be made for inferring that they had unfinished business from the 1st Gulf War.

Secondly, the case of Gadaffi - at least in the Uk public opinion seemed to me to be well ahead of the politicians in calling for action. Surprisingly, given the strong opposition to the war in Iraq.

So while oil may have some strategic and long-term involvement in planning, I see no immediate cause in that.

Mind you, if America can secure supplies of oil for 50 years hence, its people may well bless the administrations that did so.

Phil

Phil,you are in danger of splitting your pants on that fence!
Oil is a hugely important factor.

However if you cast your mind back to the late 1980's the USA decided to back the right wing military dictator of Pakistan ,President Zia who was all for invading Najibullah's Afghanistan which was secular,where women were educated alongside men and enjoyed wearing Western clothes and some freedom to work,go out etc .
It was at this moment in history that Osama Bin Laden appeared,as a young Saudi member of the Mujahideen determined to return Afghanistan to an 'earlier age' as far as women's rights were concerned.
Whether fully aware of what they were getting into or not, America backed these Mujahideen ,financially and politically as they just couldn't abide the fact that Afghanistan was a country that was under Soviet influence.
So in due course,the War Lords of Afghanistan,got Najibullah,castrated him ,stuffed the castrated items in his mouth tied his naked body to horses and dragged it round the courtyard of his ministerial building.Then they hung him upside down .
Sickening stuff.But was Frankenstein worth creating?

[Errata]

Why then are we just concentrating on Gadaffi?...Why did we concentrate on Iraq?...The answer is so simple: Oil.

Actually too simplistic I think.

If one reads the accounts of the Bush Whitehouse it was Runsfeld and Chaney who began to contemplate an attack on Iraq from the first moments after 9/11.

Who were they - members of the 1st Bush administration. So I think a case at least can be made for inferring that they had unfinished business from the 1st Gulf War.

Phil

Well, to be fair, we did have unfinished business in Iraq from Desert Storm. We armed the Kurds and left them to die. That's not why we went in, but if it was in the top 25 reasons to go in, I'm okay with that.

We don't get into wars to stop genocidal regimes. Or else we would have been in the Sudan, or we would have been remotely effective in Bosnia. Or American soldiers would have been told of the existence of Concentration camps before stumbling across them in the European countryside. At best it's a byproduct of honoring treaties with allies. At worst its an afterthought. As a Jew would I have preferred the world to have been publicly outraged in '38 and have been the focus of the largest rescue force in history? Sure. But the allies got there, and I'm not going to complain about it.

On a separate note I don't think there has ever been a successful kingmaking plan by foreign powers in the history of ever. It's the stuff Shakespearean tragedies are made of. I am constantly surprised we still try it on occasion.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

I find it interesting that those people who complain about how the police handle riots only do that –complain. They never seem to come up with some idea of how to do it right. Having been in situations where I have faced rioting mobs I can assure you it is one of the most frightening things in the world.

You cannot reason with a mob, you cannot control it; you cannot threaten it with force or penalties all you can do is use superior force to keep it contained.

Personally speaking I would like to get everyone who complains about Riot Control placed in the front line of the next riot, without armour, helmets, shields or any other protective clothing, and show us all exactly how you are supposed to do it.

Remember PC Blakelock who was hacked to pieces by a rioting mob.

The problem is that coverage of riots is usually heavily censored so only one side is shown. I remember during the miners’ strike a famous piece of footage that showed an officer striking a rioter with a baton. This was held up as an example of police brutality, until much, much later, after the damage had been done, the full film was released which showed the rioter viciously kicking the police officer first, the baton strike was purely defensive – but of course that was never shown.

So come on then do tell us how to control rioting mobs – I for one would love to know.

[Phil H]

Oil is a hugely important factor.

Says you - I believe it is one factor, not the only factor and not becessarily the key factor.

We don't get into wars to stop genocidal regimes. Or else we would have been in the Sudan, or we would have been remotely effective in Bosnia. Or American soldiers would have been told of the existence of Concentration camps before stumbling across them in the European countryside. At best it's a byproduct of honoring treaties with allies. At worst its an afterthought. As a Jew would I have preferred the world to have been publicly outraged in '38 and have been the focus of the largest rescue force in history? Sure. But the allies got there, and I'm not going to complain about it.

And I thought I was cynical! (Joke)

Or American soldiers would have been told of the existence of Concentration camps before stumbling across them in the European countryside.

I've never been sure how much the allies actually knew about the Final Solution and what the SS was doing until the got to the camps. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

As a Jew would I have preferred the world to have been publicly outraged in '38 and have been the focus of the largest rescue force in history?

I don't think "the world" believed Hitler was what he was until later in the war!! Herr hitler - as the BBC referred to him until 3 September 1939 was thought to be just another dictator in an age of such men. Even Jews in Germany didn't realise what he was doing to them! In 1938 the british certainly were reluctant to go to war, a year later, after Hitler reneged on Munich, the knew they had to - but for political reasons. We couldn't help even Poland at the start, let alone intervening or invading Germany.

The French had the largest army, and a land border, but lacked the moral fibre to invade at that time. Their experience in WWI had been awful.

Phil

[Errata]

Or American soldiers would have been told of the existence of Concentration camps before stumbling across them in the European countryside.

I've never been sure how much the allies actually knew about the Final Solution and what the SS was doing until the got to the camps. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Phil

Well, it's hard to say who knew what when. Certainly everyone knew after Nov. 9 1938. That was the night of a country-wide pogrom against Jews and Jewish property. Kristallnacht if you want to look it up. Now concentration camps were already in place by then, and the scores of Jews trying to flee before the Nazi advance brought tales of the camps with them. Kristallnacht was considered so barbarous that the US withdrew their ambassador, and England set up Kindertransport, recognizing a clear threat to the lives of Jewish children.

However, before Kristallnacht, the concentration camps, the ghettos, the arrests, beatings, executions were somewhat haphazard. It was immediately following that event that the Nazi's came together to form a cohesive plan for the Jews. The Final Solution. Death was always going to be the outcome, but the riots exposed a lack of a concise plan, and we know how Nazi's hate that kind of thing.

Jan Karski made detailed reports to both The British and the US in 1942. Both governments indicated that they already had that intelligence, and neither government acted as though they gave a crap, Roosevelt's contributions being incredibly stupid. However they started liberating camps in 43, and allied forces in 45 who came across camps still had no idea such things existed.

So it's a tangle.

[Red Zeppelin]

I find your attitude offensive.

I really don't care seeing as I find some of YOUR attitude offensive. Looks like we are even Stevens doesn't it?

Islamic extremists have killed more people than the EDL so it baffles me why you would single them out before Islamic extremists seeing as they are far less of a threat/danger.

I am against Islamic extremists spreading through Britain. In fact being non religious myself I'm against Islam itself spreading and growing in Britain. I see that as far more of a concern than the EDL.

I am against any form of extremism and IF Islamic extremists march in my city I WOULD oppose them but so far they have not.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place? Would have saved yourself my reply.

Islamic extremists have marchred elsewhere (you've said you have gone to London to march previously so it's clearly not a case of just stickng you YOUR city)and only the other week they were burning US flags and celebrating Osama Bin Liner in London.

I think you actually had to be present to hear the speeches made by the English Defence League to undertsand why they were so vigrously opposed when they came to our PEACEFUL city and degraded members of our community.

Well at least they aren't going around blowing them up though, or planning to hmmmmmmm?

[The Good Michael]

Zep,

I have to agree with you about Islam, but I would lump it together with all organized ( a loose term) religion. Not only do I believe in church and state being separate, but I believe all forms of worship should only be allowed in the homes and in groups of less than 10. I also believe all religions should be taught in school because through sheer inundation of such nonsense, the discerning student will have no alternative but to see them all connected and therefore bollocks. As I've said, everyone should be allowed to believe what they want to, but to openly practice religion has the exact same effect as political parties do. It polarizes whole groups of non-thinkers against each other.

Mike

[Limehouse]

I find it interesting that those people who complain about how the police handle riots only do that –complain. They never seem to come up with some idea of how to do it right. Having been in situations where I have faced rioting mobs I can assure you it is one of the most frightening things in the world.

You cannot reason with a mob, you cannot control it; you cannot threaten it with force or penalties all you can do is use superior force to keep it contained.

Personally speaking I would like to get everyone who complains about Riot Control placed in the front line of the next riot, without armour, helmets, shields or any other protective clothing, and show us all exactly how you are supposed to do it.

Remember PC Blakelock who was hacked to pieces by a rioting mob.

The problem is that coverage of riots is usually heavily censored so only one side is shown. I remember during the miners’ strike a famous piece of footage that showed an officer striking a rioter with a baton. This was held up as an example of police brutality, until much, much later, after the damage had been done, the full film was released which showed the rioter viciously kicking the police officer first, the baton strike was purely defensive – but of course that was never shown.

So come on then do tell us how to control rioting mobs – I for one would love to know.

Bob - we are not talking about rioting mobs. We are talking about protest marches.

[Phil H]

I believe all forms of worship should only be allowed in the homes and in groups of less than 10.

How tolerant - how respecting of free speech?

This type of view is exactly what I have come to define as "liberal fascism". Essentially, it says: "If you chose to adhere to something we don't like, we'll ban it, control it, minimise it, make it a laughing stock, create difficulties for it etc etc".

This is NOT about democracy, freedom of expression or anything good - it is about controlling freedom and has one and only one motive FEAR!

Groups of less than 10 would rule out for instance church weddings, funerals etc and effectively make organised religion very difficult. Apply the same logic to trades unions and socialist groups which many people are suspicious of and beluieve a malign influence on society, and would you agree?

I also believe all religions should be taught in school because through sheer inundation of such nonsense, the discerning student will have no alternative but to see them all connected and therefore bollocks.

Well maybe the experience of communism, socialim, liberalism etc should be taught in schools so that people can see they are all flawed, the misery they have inflicted on millions and how much b*****ks they represent.

As I've said, everyone should be allowed to believe what they want to...

Big of you. But you do so in such a biased, bigoted and qualified way as to make your statement worthless.

...but to openly practice religion has the exact same effect as political parties do. It polarizes whole groups of non-thinkers against each other.

So I assume logically you will restrict all political gatherings to no more than 10? This is surely what happened in Germany in 1933-45? Except that they took the step to its logical conclusion and only allowed one party, their own!

Your post diminishes everything you write in my eyes Good Michael (I had always respected you hitherto). I find it as ridiculous as you do religeon. The post was (IMHO at least) deliberately offensive, intolerant and crude.

I hope I read soon that you were writing tongue-in-cheek.

Phil

[Limehouse]

I really don't care seeing as I find some of YOUR attitude offensive. Looks like we are even Stevens doesn't it?

Islamic extremists have killed more people than the EDL so it baffles me why you would single them out before Islamic extremists seeing as they are far less of a threat/danger.

I am against Islamic extremists spreading through Britain. In fact being non religious myself I'm against Islam itself spreading and growing in Britain. I see that as far more of a concern than the EDL.



Then why didn't you say that in the first place? Would have saved yourself my reply.

Islamic extremists have marchred elsewhere (you've said you have gone to London to march previously so it's clearly not a case of just stickng you YOUR city)and only the other week they were burning US flags and celebrating Osama Bin Liner in London.



Well at least they aren't going around blowing them up though, or planning to hmmmmmmm?

I am sorry you feel the need to take an aggressive tone with me Red. I have tried to express my views politely and have tried to explain my reasons rationally.

I am actually a Londoner by birth but have lived in Peterborough for 22 years. Although not a large city - Peterborough has always had a multi-cultural population but in recent years this has grown dramatically. There has been an Asian community here for over fifty years. Most people live and work side-by-side peacefully and we enjoy the different cultural festivals that take place from time to time.

I singled out the EDL because I have had direct experience of their behaviour. They were not in our city to protest about bombings in Britain or America or anywhere else. They were there to offend the local Asian community. There is a point to be made you see. Just a week or so after 9/11 - four local Asian youths killed a young white boy walking his girlfriend home. They did so in a very brutal and horrible way and it was definitely a crime based on race. The community - including the Asian community - worked together to bring those responsible to justice. Since then - various groups - including the BNP and EDL - have tried to capitalise on this event but the community rejects all attempts to allow this event to divide us.

No person who follows Islam supports extremism or violence against other Muslims or non-Muslims. The true Muslims in my community and in many other communities work hard to reject and speak ouit against these extremists. I am against ALL forms of racism and will always speak out against it.

The EDL is not an effective voice against the spread of Islamic extremism because it seeks to divide people and point out differences instead of uniting against racism and extremism.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie and Phil

I think that you have both made really good points in your arguments and I commend the both of you.

The point I would like to pick up on is one of Left protest.

In the past couple of decade how many really major demo's in this country have been "left" based.

Lets pick a few.

The Poll Tax demo in the early 1990's was supported by many who would not actually call themselves left wing...they just thought it unfair.

The Iraqi War demo in 2003 was certainly not a leftist event but was a broad alliance of ordinary people.

The Countryside Alliance demo was most certainly not a leftist demo.

Many factions of the recent demo's against the rise in student fees were from well to do and rich families. The Floyd's Dave Gilmour's son was arrested for making a complete arse of himself. Hardly a lefty from the local estate is he?

The only consistent thing about all of these events (bar Iraq in 2003) was the police's willingness to start a fight and the media's slavish desire to slur any good intentions by only reporting the fighting.

One can not blame so-called leftist agitators for all the violence as the Countryside Alliance demo proved, when a few landed gentry types went over the top.

The police may now get their cumuppance over Ian Tomlinson's death after the G20 demo in 2009. Their use of kettling is also something that must give a lot of cause for concern when many thousands of law abiding citizens are restricted from going about their business.

What if a diabetic or disabled person were to be caught up and denied the right to treatment or fair access?

Finally that karate kid Sgt Delroy Smellie should have been kicked off the force. But even after being filmed slapping and then batoning a women he was exonerated with the IPCC saying that there was not a case to answer.

Good grief.

Derrick

Excellent post Derrick.

[Phil H]

In the past couple of decade how many really major demo's in this country have been "left" based.


I take your point, but I don't think "a broad alliance of ordinary people" necessarily means that the "cause" in which they marched cannot be categorised as of the left, or as "liberal" - these issues are not class-based.

The Countryside Alliance demo was most certainly not a leftist demo.

Point well-made. Indeed it was a notable demonstration against an ostensibly left-wing Government (new Labour).

Many factions of the recent demo's against the rise in student fees were from well to do and rich families.

Does class mean that people have to be left/right wing by definition. There have been many "aristocratic" socialists. I would argue that the "thrust" of that demo was essentially about socialist principles of self-interest. It certainly wasn't "right wing" in what it sought!!

The only consistent thing about all of these events (bar Iraq in 2003) was the police's willingness to start a fight and the media's slavish desire to slur any good intentions by only reporting the fighting.

I think this gives away your "agenda" and spoils what would have been an excellent post. As someone pointed out above the perspective from the police "ranks" (literally) is probably very different.

Some of the demonstrations have allowed themselves to be used as cover-up or even taken over by anarchistic elements who do have a specific agenda. In life, people are often defined by the company they keep!

One can not blame so-called leftist agitators for all the violence...

I can and do. One can argue that in a democracy - and the UK is very much that at all levels - demonstrations should not be required or allowed. Voters have their opportunity to express their views at frequent elections. The result represents a pretty good balance of popular feeling and local representation. It is also peaceful. The minority should accept the results of elections and strive to persuade by discussion - NOT intimidate by shows of force, or seek to overwhelm and disrupt.

It is strange how many demonstrations are now violent or turn to violence, disrupt community life, cause damage to people or property or motivate violent opposition.

The police may now get their cumuppance over Ian Tomlinson's death...

Again you give away your credentials. I do not condone violence by police officers on individuals, but I do not regard examples of it as requiring comeuppance. The tensions and pressure and sustained adrenalin rush on such occasions probably has a price. Police have in the past been killed by demonstrators (PC Blakelock sticks in the mind) so I suggest even-handed ness is required.

And why should the police have bottles, fireworks, stones and other dangerous objects thrown at them for doing their job. They are in amny cases seeking to protect the public from itself and its mob instincts. Look at how many are injured on demonstrations and consider the lessons.

Their use of kettling is also something that must give a lot of cause for concern when many thousands of law abiding citizens are restricted from going about their business.

But the demonstration itself restricts many thousands of citizens from going about their business by closing off street and the fear of violence!

Should the police not be allowed to innovate in ways that are essentially benign and aim to protect the MAJORITY OF TAXPAYERS and essential business from the frequently mindless side-effects of demonstrations.

Are you saying that demonstrators too are not innovating - using the inter-net, seeking ways to circumvent the police precautions?

What if a diabetic or disabled person were to be caught up and denied the right to treatment or fair access?

Well they should know the risks of taking part in mass demonstrations these days, and weight them up. The responsibility is theirs not the that of the police.

So, while I agree with some of your remarks I fear I must strongly disgree with the overall thrust of your post.

Phil

[caz]

In the Uk I suspect the death penalty would be brought back were it ever debated and voted upon - but liberals will never allow that to happen.

The world - or the UK I should say - has moved on a bit since the early sixties, Phil.

The reason the death penalty will never be brought back in the UK is - IMHO of course - that you'd have to get rid of trial by jury first. I doubt you'd find any group of 12 men and women here who would return a unanimous guilty verdict if the sentence could be execution.

If that makes at least one in 12 of us Brits a 'liberal' these days, what are you going to do about it? We are a democracy after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Caz

I would beg to differ with you there. I think you would get 12 out of 12 - unless convicts, in addition to getting the vote, are allowed to serve on juries. It's not a joke - I'm sure that's coming along.

Certainly you'd have got 12 out of 12 back in the days when the penalty was abolished. So much for our being a democracy.

[Phil H]

caz

My point was not whether convictions would be secured, but whether - if for instance there was a "referendum" (as people sometimes argue there should be on major issues) - there would be a majority for a return of the death penalty. This might not cover the areas the old laws did - but might apply at least in certain circumstances (killing policemen/prison warders etc); child abduction etc.

Conversations from time to time lead me to believe that such a proposal might still get a majority. But that is opinion only.

If that makes at least one in 12 of us Brits a 'liberal' these days, what are you going to do about it?

I don't have to do anything, since we are not discussing my personal views. In fact, I have seen it argued that "politicians" have been very conscious never to let this become an election issue etc because they have feared the result. 1 in 12 only just over 10% would not, of course, be a majority.

The usual view is that the "political nation" - those who stand for office, and support parties, lobby etc - are more "advanced" or enlightened in their views than much of the population, and thus "lead" rather than follow public opinion. Where issues like Europe or the death penalty are concerned every effort will be made to avoid a popular vote - as was the case with Europe for certain.

We are a democracy after all.

Which is the point - what would be the outcome be were issues such as the death penalty or Euope to be put to a popular vote? I would also point out that there is a great deal of misunderstanding among the population as a whole about the role of MPs, who seem to be perceived as "delegates". They are, in fact representatives and thus free to follow their own instincts in voting. But if pressure, or changes to the voting system (and IT could make it possible to vote quickly and cheaply on various issues) ever changed that relationship then I think we would potentially be in a very different world.

If it needs clarifying, I am NOT illiberal (I dislike the brutish BNP and have no time for the EDL etc), and I do not want to see the death penalty return (I was convinced on that 35 years or more ago).

I am, however, a student of politics and international politics and I have questions about the tendency of the UK that are general and not prejudiced to either wing. That is what I am seeking to express here.

Phil