If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

[jah_yout]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go

people believe in conspiracy theories because they know governments lie on a regular basis...this is proven fact;
we were led into vietnam on a lie- gulf of tonkin...
also iraq-- where they laid out elaborate charts & photos which were all lies...

i still think a plane did not hit the pentagon

i still think the moon landings were faked

i still think bin laden was a useful tool for the gov't and they needed him dead not alive because of all the info he has being a former cia operative & american ally during the cold war...so essentially was a mafia hit....

i do think he is dead, but judging from the close relationship between the bush & bin laden families prior to 9/11/01, there is waaay more to the story than the general public knows...
the gov't only spins the story they think will go over best with the population...

it is good to question the gov't because they lie even in famous documents-

if you read "the declaration of independence" and "the constitution" you would never know that america enslaved a race of people- they never mentioned it once--- lies

[neutral]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WeNdY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dem still seh him not dead </div></div>
Gen.. no is is not dead

Word is, the Obama administration was watching the movie <span style="color: #000099">Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil </span> in the situation room this past Sunday


</div></div>

Looks to me like they,re watching a blue movie,.....look pon my man dere in the blue shirt on the left,...mi cyaan si wah him right hand a do,...even de puss look shocked.

[Derek]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an it would seem that the President's decision NOT to show the photo is proven to be correct...Al Queda says his death should not affect the mission and that he, Osama should NOW be thought a martyr </div></div>

Al queda's 'statement of intent came via the SITE institute.

[evanovitch]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an it would seem that the President's decision NOT to show the photo is proven to be correct...Al Queda says his death should not affect the mission and that he, Osama should NOW be thought a martyr </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Al queda's 'statement of intent came via the SITE institute.</span> </div></div>

not just Ms Katz' SITE reported it...below i post from the Telegraph wich has no view to being pro American in its reporting...

The statement on a<span style="font-weight: bold"> jihadist website </span>was the first by al-Qaida since Bin Laden's death, which it said would become &quot;a curse that hunts the Americans and their collaborators, and chases them outside and inside their country&quot;.

The <span style="font-weight: bold">11-paragraph statement, dated Tuesday</span>, confirmed that Bin Laden was dead, disappointing conspiracy theorists who refuse to believe he has been killed.

[Derek]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
The <span style="font-weight: bold">11-paragraph statement, dated Tuesday</span>, confirmed that Bin Laden was dead, disappointing conspiracy theorists who refuse to believe he has been killed. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I've never said he wasn't dead. Of course he's dead. HE DIED ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO.</span>

[Tulip]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

What exactly is the problem here Derek? Every good conspiracy theory needs at a minimum a sane-sounding reason as just cause for the cover-up.

So what exactly are you trying to say? If la di da di was killed in 2001, the US gov't covered it up to run oil in Iraq? Just be direct and spit it out. What are you saying the point of it all would have been?

OBL did actually claim responsibility for planning 9/11 afterward so what you have to say about the tapes he made through the years? [Tulip's attempted patois] if you can't stand the heat, nah go inna de kitchen. [/Tulip's attempted patois] In other words, if he didn't have anything to do with it then he should have kept his pie hole shut and not cried wolf.

Obama is not perfect as nobody is, but he is not a dumb [censored] for sure. There are too many people involved for this to be a lie that would clearly boot him out the white house..I wouldn't show [censored] because it's not going to prove anything to those who are un-convincable. There is nothing including flinging you in the ocean to look at the corpse (as if you are CSI or knew him personally enough to identify the body) that you'd accept.

So again I ask, what is it? Why not just say what you're building up a case for and save me the wait?

[Derek]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What exactly is the problem here Derek? </div></div>
None whatsoever.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every good conspiracy theory needs at a minimum a sane-sounding reason as just cause for the cover-up.</div></div>
Conspiracy or truth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what exactly are you trying to say? If la di da di was killed in 2001, the US gov't covered it up to run oil in Iraq? Just be direct and spit it out. What are you saying the point of it all would have been?</div></div>
OBL has been used as a bogeyman for a decade. His death was always going to be announced at a politically expedient time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OBL did actually claim responsibility for planning 9/11 afterward </div></div>
Where? When? Show me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so what you have to say about the tapes he made through the years? </div></div>
Faked by SITE.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you can't stand the heat, nah go inna de kitchen. [/Tulip's attempted patois] In other words, if he didn't have anything to do with it then he should have kept his pie hole shut and not cried wolf.</div></div>
His pie hole has been well and truly shut for awhile. Which heat are you referring to?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama is not perfect as nobody is, but he is not a dumb [censored] for sure. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">There are too many people involved for this to be a lie</span></span> </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">A very popular reasoning</span>. I heard that to explain the Reichstag Fire, JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Gulf of Tolken, USS Liberty, Allende/Lumumba/Arbenz/Moussadegh assassinations, Dr David Kelly, Saddam's WMD - want more? - and the official story has been shot to pieces in most of the subjects I just listed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that would clearly boot him out the white house..I wouldn't show [censored] because it's not going to prove anything to those who are un-convincable. There is nothing including flinging you in the ocean to look at the corpse (as if you are CSI or knew him personally enough to identify the body) that you'd accept.</div></div>
Why are you getting excited?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So again I ask, what is it? Why not just say what you're building up a case for and save me the wait? </div></div>
I don't know what you're trying to say.

[mountaingal]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

derek, what is expedient about bin laden's death being announced now, if he was killed in 2001?

was he alive before after 9/11 (since u say he died about 10 years ago), and who killed him and when, and why?

bin laden as a phenomenon was not only of interest to the west, but also to many people in the middle east. how were they able to believe that he was alive? who among the jihadist perpetuated the lie that he was alive (if, in fact, it was a lie), and what was the reason they did that?

[Derek]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">derek, what is expedient about bin laden's death being announced now, if he was killed in 2001?</div></div>
The present government's waning popularity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">was he alive before after 9/11 (since u say he died about 10 years ago), and who killed him and when, and why?</div></div>
Before after 911? He was alive after 911.
Who? His funeral was announced in various newspapers 'over there'. I've posted the cuttings enough times on here and can't be bothered to dig them out.
Why? same reason he was 'killed' a few days ago, I suppose.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bin laden as a phenomenon was not only of interest to the west, but also to many people in the middle east. how were they able to believe that he was alive? </div></div>
Who told you Middle Eastern people think he was still alive? CNN? Unlike you, I JUST asked various Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian and even Indians over lunch if they think OBL died years ago. ALL said yes, some shaking their head saying how Americans are kept in the dark. These are intelligent people who work in media-realted industries.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who among the jihadist perpetuated the lie that he was alive (if, in fact, it was a lie), and what was the reason they did that? </div></div>
See answer above.

[mountaingal]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

the announcement of bin laden's death would have done more for dubya than barack. yet dubya kept it quiet.

as for him being alive after 9/11 - i'm somewat confused with your timelines, as earlier in the thread you said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">I've never said he wasn't dead. Of course he's dead. HE DIED ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO.</span> </div></div>

that would mean he died in 2001, so - after September then?

it's curious that you choose to believe folks over lunch who said bin laden was already dead. if it was such a commonly known fact, why not the derision from the middle east media about barack's claim, and the refutation/proof that he died years ago? or do u think they are being nice and dont want to expose obama?

so you believe jihadists knew all these years that bin laden was dead? all those young al quaeda followers (including a number in somalia) were keeping the secret of bin laden's death years ago, even today as the hated west is taking claim for it?

[johnnycakes]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

Here's Noam Chomsky's take on Bin Laden's death.
He has some interesting thoughts including questions on Bin Laden's guilt.
The comments that follow Chomsky's remarks are also a good read.




My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
By Noam Chomsky

Source: GuernicaSaturday, May 07, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Noam Chomsky's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace


It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”


We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Comment On This ZNet Article See All Comments (4)


Re: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
By Weber, Mark at May 08, 2011 01:54 AM

As always, Chomsky's analysis does provide &quot;a good deal to think about.&quot; Although I am an atheist, I subscribe, as anyone with an aversion to hypocrisy must, to Jesus' golden rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Unfortunately, such an anti-hypocritical mindset is unnatural to those who have been subjected, as I have, to a lifetime of mainstream American media &quot;news.&quot; One can always count on Chomsky to draw the relevant analogies for those who strive for a universalist perspective.
Reply this comment


The State's Ally
By Pagany, Noel at May 07, 2011 19:18 PM


In removing bin Laden, the State has removed a key ally in its use of torture, reduction of civil liberties, postponement of lawless prisons like Gitmo, and continuation of the war on Afghanistan. What new excuses will they perpetuate to continue these policies? We need to work to stop them as bin Laden's death offers us ammunition.
Reply this comment



Re: The State's Ally
By Andrews, John at May 07, 2011 21:11 PM

Noel

Methinks the US and Europe will easily find a new monster - Ho Chi Mihn morphed into Fidel Castro who morphed into Salvadore Allende and then Daniel Ortega and then Sadaam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il and then Hugo Chavez. I suspect someone Chinese might fill the vacant picture frame.

I hope I'm wrong.

Best wishes

John Andrews
Reply this comment


Re: The State's Ally
By Jamaluddin, Samir at May 08, 2011 09:15 AM

I remember Donald Rumsfeld being asked sometime after the invasion of Afghanistan if he had any news on the whereabouts of OBL. He jokingly replied &quot;we ssek him here we seek him there&quot;. This prompted the reporter to say are we not here to find OBL, the reply was that is not the only reason we are here and it was not the priority of the US.
Reply this comment


no ifs no buts
By Karman, Leen at May 07, 2011 19:00 PM

Going straight to the point!
Thank you, Chomsky
Reply this comment


I Am
By Bluhm, Richard at May 07, 2011 13:57 PM

G.K. Chesterton's response to a query about what is wrong with the world was &quot;I am.&quot; See the film of the same title, &quot;I Am.&quot; It's well done.

Incidentally, it was 9/11 that awakened me, a former high school history teacher, to the malevolent motives of the powers that be. I recall initialing my quest for truth by doing an internet search of &quot;Noam Chomsky.&quot; Chomsky's analysis has not disappointed me since though I depart from his unwillingness to give the devil his due regarding 9/11. Sorry, it started us on this latest road to perdition and has infected the last decade with a collective insanity the scale of which has no comparison in history. The denial of physical evidence on the part of the intelligentsia whom Chomsky recently related as being overwhelmingly supportive of power is par of the course. Face it. Few aspects of 9/11 can stand the light of day most emphatically a trial of bin Laden which most probably would have brought out the myriad inconsistencies brought forth by the work of Richard Gage. See ae9/11truth.org.

Recognize that we are all swiss cheese as far as the talents that birth has given us, including the most prescient Noam Chomsky. He is only human. He has chosen to ignore or simply cannot see the most awkward implications of the crime of the century perhaps because he's aware that Big Brother is just too powerful, or perhaps it's too much of a distraction from the Constitutional crisis at hand. Realizing that the above statement elicits impatience from those who have put such thoughts behind them I'm fully aware that what is wrong with the world is &quot;I Am.&quot;
Reply this comment



Re: I Am
By McNamara, Niall at May 07, 2011 16:28 PM

Terrorism is an evil but attributing the crime to the criminal is fundemental to any legal process that claims a modicum of legal or process. Bin Laden should have been arrested as was possible and tried. then the US or better still the ICC could provide the world with the evidence of the origins of the 9/11 mass crime. It is believed that mass crimes have been committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan but Americans consider such murder as not worthy of consideration. Such inconsistancies attest to the bias of US and other western media. What NC has written is correct and the anamolous statements after the recent raid by the US administration illustrates the conflicting statements on matters since the first minute of the 9/11 attack.

Reply this comment

[Q3210]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

I couldn`t help but feel a cold ghoulish chill when America assasinated an unarmed suspect.

[johnnycakes]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

Well Q3120,

You COULD say that Bin Laden had it coming but how about the millions in the story below that have been killed and forgotten by the people paying for these killings?.


America’s Unworthy and Invisible Victims Before and Since 9/11
By Paul Street

Saturday, May 07, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Paul Street's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace


In a great propaganda victory for the culture of nationalistic imperialism, millions of Americans have been trained to think of the “Vietnam War” in terms of what the Vietnamese “did to us.” It is true that 58,000 American soldiers died (tens of thousands more were crippled and sickened and an equal number committed suicide since the “war”) in the United States’ “crucifixion of South East Asia” - Noam Chomsky’s chilling but apt description of the incredible U.S. superpower assault on the largely peasant based communities of Indochina between 1962 and 1975. But those dead and maimed Americans were victimized primarily by the war masters of Washington, not by Vietnamese who dared to defend their villages, cities, independence and nation from the government that Dr. Martin Luther King described in April 1967 as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

The Indochinese died before their time in far greater number (to say the least) than the American invaders. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations killed at least 3 million in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Much of Vietnam and its not-so sovereign neighboring territory were bombed and burned “back to the stone age” by the American “liberators.”

“War” is a curious term for such one-sided imperial slaughter, which turned Vietnam into a lethal “basket case” (the Pentagon’s own language) while many Americans enjoyed lives of historically unprecedented mass affluence in relative freedom at home.

Not long after the full and direct attack receded, the Christian U.S. president Jimmy Carter proclaimed at a news conference that we owed no debt to Vietnam because &quot;the destruction was mutual.” It was a remarkable comment, thoroughly uncontroversial in the dominant U.S. political and media culture, which renders invisible and officially unworthy the victims of American and U.S.-allied violence. The 3 million prematurely dead Indochinese met their demise on the wrong side of the imperial guns and the wrong side of the imperial cameras. They did not and do not officially exist or matter according to the Orwellian rules of the dominant national and mass media culture.

Flash forward to the aftermath of the death of the former U.S. Cold War terror tool Osama bin Laden. Over the last two days, we have been fed images of al Qaeda’s criminal act of 9/11/2001, when bin Laden’s extremist warriors killed 3000 Americans on U.S. soil. The wounds of what the evil others from the Middle East did to us have been re-opened for public viewing like no time in recent years. There’s nothing said in the dominant mass media and politics culture about the vastly larger number of Arabs and Muslim killed on their soil by the U.S. and its aliens and clients (including the CIA-backed Osama back in the 1980s) before and since 9/11.

Last night on the “Public” Broadcasting System’s News Hour, Madeline Albright applauded the death of a terrorist who had “killed not only Americans but a lot of other people.” The end of the already irrelevant criminal bin Laden should occasion no tears, of course, but a reasonably civilized culture would be more than a little skeptical about righteous expressions of concern for innocent victims from a woman who as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State said the following on national television about the killing of more than half a million Iraqi children by U.S.-led economic sanctions: “this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” The standard statistic for the number of Iraqis killed by the sanctions (1991-2003) is 1 million, considerably more than the 3000 Americans who died in September of 2001. Never mind: the Iraqis died on the wrong side of the imperial culture and are thus invisible. Along with other and related aspects of U.S. policy in the Middle East (chiefly America’s sponsorship and protection of Israeli oppression and bloody dictatorships across the region’s arc of U.S.-backed despotism), those officially unworthy casualties were part of why a major Islamo-terrorist attack on the U.S. seemed likely well before 2001. The Islamist “blowback” (a CIA term that the left author Chalmers Johnson turned into a book title and prediction in 2000) was all too predictable.

Also unsurprising was Washington’s exploitation of the predicted “blowback” as a pretext to launch an ambitious military campaign in the oil-rich Middle East and particularly in Iraq (second only to Saudi Arabia in petroleum reserves). The morning the Twin Towers fell in lower Manhattan, I sat mesmerized in front of my television, thinking that a large number of innocent people would be losing their lives in the Arab and Muslim worlds at the hands of a vengeful Empire (an empire that no longer seemed to face any relevant deterrent on the global scale) in coming months and years. I had no idea how big the body count would be. The brilliant British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk estimates “up to half a million Muslims dead in Iraq and Afghanistan” thanks to U.S. wars since 9/11. It’s a reasonable guess. Many, perhaps most of that half million have died indirectly, through health problems created by the American invasions’ terrible impact on daily life. But many –far more than the American death count of 9/11 – have been directly slaughtered by U.S. forces, both uniformed and contracted-out.

The American petro-imperial revenge machine reached its mass-murderous apex, perhaps, in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in April of 2004. That’s when the Marines responded to the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries with a quasi-genocidal assault that included the criminal bombing (including hyper-lethal cluster-bombing), mortaring, napalming, gassing, and shooting of civilians, the destruction of hospitals and clinics, and the targeting of ambulances. U.S. snipers boasted of killing anyone they could get in their sites and U.S. soldiers tossed grenades into civilian homes. The assault considerably out-did al Qaeda’s 9/11 death count. An American video game (“Fallujah – Operation al-Fajr”) was subsequently released to celebrate and profit from the Fallujah slaughter. The game’s players join U.S. Marines and Army soldiers in their attack on the Jolan district in Fallujah. Kuma Reality Games used detailed satellite imagery of Jolan in making the popular game. Publicity material for the game enticed purchasers with the opportunity to &quot;dodge sniper fire and protect civilians.”

Along the way we have seen well-documented mass torture and rape in the imperial American charnel houses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, not to mention the capture and sending of often innocent accused terrorists to torture chambers in Egypt and other U.S.-allied states.

U.S. military personnel have routinely and preposterously justified disgraceful actions in the Middle East and Southwest Asia as “revenge for 9/11” – a frequent motivational theme in the preparation of U.S. troops to kill “Hajis” during the basic training that precedes deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. American troops, officers, intelligence operatives, and pilots have been conditioned to take out their hatred for Osama bin Laden on innocent men, women, and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,Yemen, Somalia, and Ethiopia.

The indiscriminate killing of civilians in the name of 9/11 retribution has continued into the age of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, who refused to apologize for the deadly bombing of dozens of women and children in the Afghan village of Bola Boluk even as he offered a formal apology to New Yorkers for an ill-advised Air Force One flyover that reminded some city residents of 9/11.

It is well understood in elite circles that the lethal, mass-murderous (dare we say “monstrous”?) U.S response to 9/11 has increased the Islamist terror threat to Americans and others by deepening the Arab and Muslim worlds’ alienation from the U.S. and the West. The Wall Street Journal reported last Monday that Al Qaeda had 200 members on the eve of 9/11. Today the group is larger and “more far-reaching than before the U.S. sought to take it down.” Independent offshoots have emerged in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. “New terrorist leaders,” New York Times columnist Joe Nocera writes, “include Nasir al-Wahishi, who leads Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who has been involved in several terrorist plots, including the attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas Day in 2009.”

This makes perfect sense in light of U.S. Middle East policy, which continues under Obama to rest on alliance with military despotism and Israel and on the related threat and use of direct military force. The increase of the terror threat by the U.S. “war on terror” (now speaking of its greatest victory) might seem paradoxical and dysfunctional from America’s perspective but it keeps alive the threat of future Islamist attacks that can be used again to fuel and the military-media industrial complex’s seemingly insatiable thirst for the profits and diversions of endless war.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

I will say this. After watching the 60 minutes interview tonight it appears that the go get Bin Laden order was a kill order and not an apprehend or capture order. I did not know that a President could issue a kill order. I do think Bin Laden is guilty and got his due but if he was unarmed and did not engage the troops one would think the appropriate action would be to capture him, interrogate him and put him on trial. But what a circus that would be.

[RichD]

Re: If Al Queda seh him dead whe di naysayers a go seh

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But what a circus that would be. </div></div> it would have been political suicide