#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Osama Bin Laden dead!?
..
Add New Argument |
6
points
0
points
3
points
I think the death of bin laden is completely irrelevant, americans seem to think this guy master minded every islamic terrorist action for the last 10 yrs, the fact is he probably had wasnt even the master mind of 9/11, all that is certain is that he was heavily involved in creating al queda, and that he worked very closely with the cia during the russian occupation of afghanistan. Really this guy is no figure head, his death is no cause for celebration, he did what he set out to do i.e. formed al queda, Obama said justice had been done, i see no justice, i see thousands of dead on 9/11(and all the other attacks since then i.e. london train station, bali etc. etc.), i see 1 million dead in Iraq, i see tens of thosuand dead in afghanistan,i see their peoples on their kness, and i dont see anyone anywhere on trial for these crimes. No one is being held accountable, were just being fed shit and being told its chocolate, i got news for ya, its shit!!!!!! Bin laden could have easily been captured and put on trial, you know to see what this guy actually knew, but no he was killed probably for that exact reason i.e. Obama didn't want the info. this guy had getting out, i wonder why??????????????????????? You americans go ahead and have your moment, i suppose your media has been training your minds to beleive this man is the anti-christ for the last 10 yrs so his death no doubt seems like cause for celebration, il just say this, this man did all the damage he ever intended to do, and got away with it, and has been living in a pakistani mansion for the last 10 yrs with the full knowledge of the pakistani authorites, and ill bet with US knowledge as well. Think about it, do you really think this mans location was a big secret to the US, just think about for one second. I think the death of bin laden is completely irrelevant Irrelevant to what? A topic about him being dead? americans seem to think this guy master minded every islamic terrorist action for the last 10 yrs No, just Al Qaeda. the fact is he probably had wasnt even the master mind of 9/11 Based on???? A hunch of yours? and that he worked very closely with the cia during the russian occupation of afghanistan. Yes, to fight the soviets. Then when we helped them defeat the soviets and as soon as the cold war ended they turned against us. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Really this guy is no figure head Of Al Qaeda he was. his death is no cause for celebration I would beg to differ. He intentionally caused the death of thousands of civilians worldwide. If I can celebrate labor day, I can sure as hell celebrate his death. The world is a better place without him. i see thousands of dead on 9/11(and all the other attacks since then i.e. london train station, bali etc. etc.) ...and i dont see anyone anywhere on trial for these crimes. How do you convict a corpse? i see 1 million dead in Iraq, i see tens of thosuand dead in afghanistan As generally happens in war. That was the aim, to utterly destroy the al Qaeda network and their Taliban backers. Do you think these dead were civilians? Do civilians bury bombs in fucking roads? Should I weep for their deaths? 7.5 million Germans died in WWII, should I weep for their deaths as well? ,i see their peoples on their kness Oh give me a fucking break. Where were they when they flew a plane into a building killing thousands of American citizens? Where they on their knees then? How about the US embassy bombings? Or the bombing of the USS cole? Were they on their Knees then? You have the underdog syndrome to the point of lunacy. Just because one side is smaller or weaker does not given them the moral high-ground. You sympathize with murderers, who if they had the chance would kill you as well. Bin laden could have easily been captured and put on trial I'm sorry I wasn't aware you were an expert on special Ops. You don't know enough about the situation to make that kind of statement. but no he was killed probably for that exact reason i.e. Obama didn't want the info. this guy had getting out, i wonder why??????????????????????? Another of your conspiracy theories. The reality is that Osama was never prevented from getting out any information he wanted. In fact, he and his organization released many tapes and created many websites to say exactly what it is they wanted to say. So your conspiracy that he was killed to conceal some secret information, is completely ludicrous just like everything else you say. 3
points
"Irrelevant to what?" Irrelevant to anything, im taking about the fact that this is being celebrated as some kind of vicotry, this has achieved nothing, it means nothing, all that happened was a muslim man was killed, nothing more.I'm not addressing the deabte title directly, im taking about the jubilation currently going on in the us as people mistakenly think they've killed some ring leader, some orchestrator , and i have no doubt that was exactly the intention of the administration in order to secure another 4 yrs for obama (again i don't know im speculating). "No, just Al Qaeda." He financed al queda and was involved in its creation, and 9/11 thats all that is known, that was point. This guy wasn't calling the shots, giving direction to suicide bomber, he wasn't like some military leader like so many beleive. "The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend." Well i suppose once they were rid of the USSR they thoughts turned to the other imperial power severly oppressing their people don't you agree? BTW im not a supported of al queda before you throw that in my face. "Of Al Qaeda he was." My piont is the way he was depicted in the media, fair enough he may have been a figure head for the movement, but that means nothing, its irrelevant. "The world is a better place without him." I agree but that doesn't mean anything, take an example, a drone attack in pakisatan kills a few al queda militants, thats much more cause for celebration in my opinion, this mans death means nothing. "How do you convict a corpse?" I refering to Obamas declaration that justcie has been done, what justice, i dont see any justice. "Should I weep for their deaths" MY God man. Germans wanted Hitler in power, most Iraqis didnt want Saddam, secondly germany tried to take over europe, Saddam did nothing to warrant the invasion the second time round. If you thinkm that the 1 million people that died over the course of the Iraq war were Saddam's men or even people that backed him you're deluded. What about the 500,000 children who died due to US sanctions(sourced from Amnesty international), i suppose they had it coming for being born in a country where americans puppet regime went rouge, or they had it coming for being born in country with lots of oiil that imperialists like the US wanted to steal. "hould I weep for their deaths as well?" No the scenarios are incomparable and trying to so in order to rationlise the deaths of over 1 million people only shows you for what you are you biased american apologist. "here were they when they flew a plane into a building killing thousands of American citizens" The fact that you blame the helpless peoples of Iraq and afghanistan for those hanus crimes again only shows you for what you are. "here they on their knees then?" No they were being ruled by a totalatarian leader (Saddam)backed financially and miltarily by your great nation for much of his tenure. "here they on their knees then? How about the US embassy bombings? Or the bombing of the USS cole? Were they on their Knees then?" Yes those are all terrible crimes but what you can't seem to realise (probably cause you dont want to) is that when you compare the numbres of middle deaths over the last 10-20 years you begin to realise who is really suffering. "'m sorry I wasn't aware you were an expert on special Ops." The fact you think he couldn't only demonstrates how nieve you are. "nother of your conspiracy theories" You're right its complete speculationto assume anything, but if wouldnt be saying this if he was put on trial. Irrelevant to anything, im taking about the fact that this is being celebrated as some kind of vicotry, this has achieved nothing, it means nothing, all that happened was a muslim man was killed The orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks was killed, that's pretty significant. think they've killed some ring leader, some orchestrator He was. He was the leader of Al Qaeda. He financed al queda and was involved in its creation, and 9/11 thats all that is known, that was point. This guy wasn't calling the shots, giving direction to suicide bomber, he wasn't like some military leader like so many beleive What are you talking about? His followers think he is a martyr, a man of god, they follow his word like it was scripture. It was upon his direction that many attacks were carried out. He personally claimed many attacks on American citizens. Well i suppose once they were rid of the USSR they thoughts turned to the other imperial power severly oppressing their people don't you agree? How did we oppress them when we were never in their country to begin with. I agree but that doesn't mean anything, take an example, a drone attack in pakisatan kills a few al queda militants, thats much more cause for celebration in my opinion, this mans death means nothing. He orchestrated many attacks and personally financed Al Qaeda, his contribution to terrorism is greater than any other man. MY God man. Germans wanted Hitler in power, most Iraqis didnt want Saddam We aren't fighting "most Iraqis", we are fighting sectarian extremists. Huge difference. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The people that are dying in Iraq, and the people we are fighting are not just average Iraqi citizens. We are fighting sectarian extremists, those affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and other terrorist networks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ This is of course after defeating Saddam's army. secondly germany tried to take over europe, Saddam did nothing to warrant the invasion the second time round. What you mean besides ethnic cleansing and genocide? If you thinkm that the 1 million people that died over the course of the Iraq war were Saddam's men or even people that backed him you're deluded. In the initial stages of the war most of the casualties were of saddam's military forces. This is not even disputable, they had tanks and everything. Since then we have been fighting the Iraqi Insurgency composed mostly of various groups such as: -Ba'athists, the supporters of Saddam Hussein's former administration including army or intelligence officers, whose ideology is a variant of Pan-Arabism. -Shi'a militias, including the southern, Iran-linked Badr Organization, the Mahdi Army, and the central-Iraq followers of Muqtada al-Sadr -Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Salafi/Wahhabi doctrine -Iraqi nationalists, Iraqis who believe in a strong version of Iraqi self-determination. These policies may not necessarily espouse a Pan-Arab ideology, but rather advocate the country's territorial integrity including Kuwait and Khuzestan. Historical figures of this movement include the pre-Ba'athist leader of Iraq Abd al-Karim Qasim and his government. You like always don't know what you're talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ What about the 500,000 children who died due to US sanctions I don't know about that, I'll have to do some research on that. But what I can tell is that it was not a US sanction but a UN sanction, which received approval from many other nations. Also this is probably exacerbated by the unequal distribution of resources often accompanied by dictatorial regimes. Whatever the case may be the consequences of this sanction were certainly unintended. No the scenarios are incomparable and trying to so in order to rationlise the deaths of over 1 million people only shows you for what you are you biased american apologist. And you continue to conflate the death of enemy combatants with civilian casualties which are two totally different things. If you are firing at American soldiers, do not be surprised if they fire back. If you are burying bombs in roads, decapitating POWs, blowing up markets, do not be surprised if we come after you. If you are conspiring with Al Qaeda do not be surprised if we come after you. According to the IBC project, Civilian casualties are at 108,076 as of December 2, 2010 This figure is including casualties caused by the insurgents. The fact that you blame the helpless peoples of Iraq and afghanistan for those hanus crimes again only shows you for what you are. I don't blame the "helpless peoples of Iraq" I blame the sectarian extremists who are motivated by religion to kill. No they were being ruled by a totalatarian leader (Saddam)backed financially and miltarily by your great nation for much of his tenure This is untrue. Yes those are all terrible crimes but what you can't seem to realise (probably cause you dont want to) is that when you compare the numbres of middle deaths over the last 10-20 years you begin to realise who is really suffering Here you go again, conflating civilian casualties with enemy combatant casualties, until you decide to distinguish the two groups, your numbers will be meaningless as a measure of suffering. 1
point
"The orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks was killed, that's pretty significant" Look if he had been caught beofre 9/11 and it had been prevented, that would have been significant, he has done nothing since except hide in a mansion. "He was. He was the leader of Al Qaeda" Al Queda has no leader again you mistakenly refer to this entity as if it were like a normal army. "What are you talking about? His followers think he is a martyr, a man of god, they follow his word like it was scripture" I admit he has become a piece of islamic propaganda for people who are fed up US oppression and turn violent. "It was upon his direction that many attacks were carried out." Now who's speculating. "How did we oppress them when we were never in their country to begin with." I refering to the muslim population at large which has suffered tremendously in a multitude of ways due to western oppression. "He orchestrated many attacks and personally financed Al Qaeda, his contribution to terrorism is greater than any other man" Yes he financed them(initially), the rest is speculation. "We aren't fighting "most Iraqis", we are fighting sectarian extremists" If the wikileaks revelations proved anything they proved that your excusion is hurting the Iraqi people a great deal, you may say this proporion of people were Saddams men and this proportio were islamic extremists, it doesnt detract from the fact that you invaded a country you had no right invade and killed 1 million of its inhabitants, i can tell you've come up with many clever rationalisations for invading and stealing their oil and soon you'll install a puppet regime (like all the others) and claim you've brought democracy to Iraq while its people suffer in poverty and hardship and thier oil is funnedled out of the country. "What you mean besides ethnic cleansing and genocide" I seem to recall Saddam was still very much a ally to the US whenm he was commiting those atrocities, and you'd have to be an idiot to think the US didn't have full knowledge of them, but he was still your puppet leader at the time so why would care is a few hundred thousand kurds are being gased as long as hes still doing your bidding, wake up and smell the coffee!!!!!!! Im not saying your wrong about fifhting those different factions but you really are neglecting the human cost, you dont give a fuck about the 1 million dead Iraqis but ill bet you can quote every american service man whos broken a nail in the last 50 years, isnt that right. You value western blood more, why not try applying the same standard across the board, its called not being a hypocrite. "But what I can tell is that it was not a US sanction but a UN sanction, which received approval from many other nations. Also this is probably exacerbated by the unequal distribution of resources often accompanied by dictatorial regimes. Whatever the case may be the consequences of this sanction were certainly unintended." The first sentence is completely false, i think if you look into it you'll find that AMERICA pushed for the sanctions and was only backed by isreal (who else), they forced these sanction on a country that they had just completely destroyed in Gulf 1 (which by the way had one of the most modern infrostructures in the middle east prior to the war) knowing full well that it would create a humantarian disaster that would hit the vulnerable (children and old people) hardest. The second sentence is completely correct, they thought this would put pressure on Saddam but he didnt care. The third sentence is just you rationalising this to yourself again, you don't seem to realise how much of an apologist you are, you probably think your unbiased, if america lauched their nukes on Iran tommorow and compltely destoyed the country killing everyone you'd jump for joy, you my friend can rationalise anything. "And you continue to conflate the death of enemy combatants with civilian casualties which are two totally different things" I think if you check the stats you'll find about 100,000 combat related deaths, the rest, you guessed it Iraqis civilians. hey what vietnam lots of militants killed there to 3-4 million in fact, whole villages full of militants, baby militants, 70 yr old militants, yep they had it coming though, i mean trying to determine their own destiny as a nation, who they think they were. "If you are firing at American soldiers, do not be surprised if they fire back" I think you'll find that american soldiers dont get shot at when they are in american, if you invade another country though that kind of makes it an inevitability, but i suppose Saddam did have the capability to lauch a neclear weapon within 60 seconds, give it a rest man. "If you are burying bombs in roads, decapitating POWs, blowing up markets, do not be surprised if we come after you." Again you'll find no roadside bombs in your won country, isnt that supposed the place you stay in, you the place you have the right to call your own, or do you think Iraq is now your country???? "If you are conspiring with Al Qaeda do not be surprised if we come after you." I think you'll find al queda is just the devil your country invented when the USSr fell in order to justfiy their imperialism, the fact is al queda kills about 30 people every year, you kill about 30 people a day. "According to the IBC project, Civilian casualties are at 108,076 as of December 2, 2010" Ill have to check th veracity iof this figure, im getting my info. from the study performed by the John Hopkins university which found 1 million have died since the start of the war and 100,000 as a result of direct combat. "I don't blame the "helpless peoples of Iraq" I blame the sectarian extremists who are motivated by religion to kill." No my friend you blame the people of Iraq, you group them all together, BTW your country created the extremism by its actions and foreign policy, i dont expect you to see that though, and that in know way justifies the Iraq invasion. "This is untrue" "No, this is a fact, you funded him and aided him militarily more so than any other country." "Here you go again, conflating civilian casualties with enemy combatant casualties, until you decide to distinguish the two groups, your numbers will be meaningless as a measure of suffering." You just want to beleive your nation is responsibel for no civilian deaths i think you'll find if you ever looked into it that its responsible for more civilan deaths than anyone else. "I don't know about that, I'll have to do some research on that." Ya, i wonder why you never heard of that? Im not saying your wrong about fifhting those different factions but you really are neglecting the human cost, Then tell me Garry what is your solution? How do we fight these 'factions' without human cost? There is always human cost, ALWAYS! I don't like it anymore than you do, but there is nothing we can do about it, so to blame America for human cost is pointless when every war in history has had human cost. The human cost of these conflicts pales in comparison to the human cost of WWII you dont give a fuck about the 1 million dead Iraqis I do give a fuck about dead iraqi civilians. I will shed no tears for a dead jihadist, shia militiaman, or Ba'athist Saddam supporter. I think that we should take every reasonable precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and to a great extent we are doing that. However please remember that certain precautions are taken at the expense of the safety of our servicemen. In war, a split-second can make the difference between life and death. It is made even more complicated by the fact that the enemy dresses like civilians, and will often fight amongst them. So yes, civilian casualties do happen, and every single one is a tragedy. Again you'll find no roadside bombs in your won country, isnt that supposed the place you stay in You think I want to go to war!? You think I want to go to a shithole across the ocean so that I could get blown up by an I.E.D? I've been to Afghanistan once, and trust me when I say this, most people have no fucking clue how good they have it, they say they know, but they don't. However I believe that the people I'm fighting (not literally- I'm HHC) are genuinely bad people. I've also seen and heard some pretty inspiring stuff over there. Most Iraqi citizens don't like the insurgency either. No my friend you blame the people of Iraq, you group them all together, BTW your country created the extremism by its actions and foreign policy This is just one small piece of the puzzle, which alone cannot account for the occurrence of Islamic terrorism around the world. Al Qaeda is not just fighting the US but all forms of secularism across the world, they believe that no government has a right to operate independent of Islamic fundamentalism. They have conducted attacks in kenya, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Indonesia, The United States, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Tanzania, Egypt, Yemen, India, Germany, Russia. They even attack police forces. They have killed moderate Muslims, and any who speak out against them. 1
point
"Then tell me Garry what is your solution?" Well firstly you could stop buildiong military bases in Iraq, its not your coutnry so i dont see why you would need military bases there, secondly you could actually leave the country (i know i know its a crazy idea to actually leave these people determine their own futures) and stop stealing its oil. "How do we fight these 'factions' without human cost?" If these factions were fighting you on US soil i wouldn't be complaining about any human cost, you're are a foreign oppressive imperial power and you are currently occupying a foriegn country by force, dont feed me shit. YOur country doesnt care about civilians, dont make me laugh, do actually beleive that garbage, i suppose you have to have the views that you do. "when every war in history has had human cost." Please stop refering to this as a war. You are ocupying another peoples coutnry in order to use it as a strategic hub to further your imperial agenda in the region and to gain priveleged access to their most precious resource, nothing more than that is occuring there whether you want to beleive it or not. Ive got this crazy idea to stop the war listen it just might work if YOU GET THE FUCK OFF OTHER PEOPLES LAND THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "The human cost of these conflicts pales in comparison to the human cost of WWII" Please stop comparing this to WW2, it is completely different, there is no comparison, this makes you look very foolish, i know its tempting to compare this to the one war this century that you were justified in being involved in but beleive me it doesnt do you any favours bringing it up,everyone knows what WW2 was about and they also know what Iraq is about so you're not fooling anyone. The only comparison to WW2 is in comparing German hegemony then and current US hegemony, thats where the comparison ends.
"I will shed no tears for a dead jihadist" You'll shed no tears for anyone thats not american, you'll justfiy and rationalise any of your countries actions no matter how extreme they are, and no matter how many lives are lost, who are trying to fool, yourself? " I think that we should take every reasonable precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and to a great extent we are doing that. " Why dont try tleaving the place, that might reduce you civilian casualites, its worth a shot, eh!, i mean if your not fucking there how can kill anyone that is. What right do you have to be there?? You talk about the war on terror, its a fucking war of terror, and you are the terrorists. "However please remember that certain precautions are taken at the expense of the safety of our servicemen." They wouldn't be in danger if they weren't on somebody elses land. "You think I want to go to war!" I think you'll follow your corporate controlled government no matter what its imperial ambitions are.BTW the answer is yes your goervnemnt wanted to go to war in order to accquire oil. "Most Iraqi citizens don't like the insurgency either" So do you think they like you presence in their coutnry, is that what your actually trying to sell me, please man get a grip. "This is just one small piece of the puzzle" Oh i know, your countries imperial ambitions span far and wide, and if another few million human beings stand in your way, thats just collateral damage, and they'll be plenty more like you to rationalise the next atrocitiy commited by your governments foreign policy. "which alone cannot account for the occurrence of Islamic terrorism" What do you think creates extremism, ill tell you, justifiable greivances are the primary creator of extremism, greivances directed against your country, these peoples ranks aren't replenished by indoctrination alone (thats part of it), there foot soldiers are people who are justifably disillusioned with your government and its actions in their lands, many have suffered immensely and your governments actions are the primary reson.But i know you dont think theres anything wrong with your coutnries actions, i know you dont think anything they have done has fanned ther flames of hatred. "Al Qaeda is not just fighting the US but all forms of secularism across the world" Look at how many deaths al queda is responsible for in the last 20 years, then look at your goervnment, nuff said.Small terrorist groups can never compare to the state sponsored terrorism of thet US. "They have killed moderate Muslims, and any who speak out against them." This is just you using their extremism to justify your own.Yes i never said they are wholesome characters, they live llives we cannot even comprehend. Well firstly you could stop buildiong military bases in Iraq, its not your coutnry so i dont see why you would need military bases there Well probably because it would be pretty difficult to conduct a war, without military bases. If these factions were fighting you on US soil They have launched attacks on US soil, and they continue to plot more. Need I remind you? secondly you could actually leave the country You think nobody has ever thought of this? Of course we could leave, but then the country would just fall into the hands of another totalitarian regime, and everything we fought and died for would be for nothing. All died in vain. The hope is that if we defeat the radical elements without the country there will be enough stability that the moderate Iraqis can rule the country with sovereignty. I absolutely think we should leave Iraq, but we do not want to leave it in the hands of the same people who put Saddam in power. So we must be careful how and when we leave. and stop stealing its oil This is so stupid it's almost a cliche'. It's one of those things people repeat so often that they believe it without really even thinking about it. In order to steal large quantities of oil from Iraq would require a massive undertaking of operations, which would be painfully obvious to the rest of the world. It implies that we are either pumping oil out of the ground onto trucks then to ships and sending the ships to America, or that we are hijacking existing oil trucks/tankers and then sending them to America. This is absurd. There is no evidence now or ever that we are "stealing" oil from Iraq. Even if we were, we would be using almost as much oil keeping our tanks, jets, and ships fueled, than we would benefit from. So the whole notion is completely absurd. Please stop refering to this as a war n o Please stop refering to this as a war. You are ocupying another peoples coutnry in order to use it as a strategic hub to further your imperial agenda in the region and to gain priveleged access to their most precious resource Please stop, listening to this inane drivel is giving me a headache. Also, you should pepper in the word "imperial" into your arguments more, it gives them WAY more credibility. The U.S. hasn't been an Imperial power since the Spanish American war. Please stop comparing this to WW2, it is completely different, there is no comparison As soon as you stop citing the death toll as a reason we shouldn't be fighting Sectarian extremists. As long as the death toll includes Enemy Combatants, you cannot use it in that regard. The point of the comparison is to show that simply because a war (or conflict) has a death toll of such and such million does not mean the war itself is not justified. If the war helps to eliminate people with which the earth would be a better place without, then indeed it is a justified war. i know its tempting to compare this to the one war this century that you were justified in being involved in You mean besides the Gulf War, and WWI ? Or where those to further our "imperial agenda" as well? You'll shed no tears for anyone thats not american, you'll justfiy and rationalise any of your countries actions no matter how extreme they are, and no matter how many lives are lost, who are trying to fool, yourself? Go fuck yourself. I do not condone the deaths of civilians regardless of nationality, and I take this accusation very seriously. You're a drunken coward, who wouldn't sacrifice a fraction of what I have. You talk about the evils of a war you have not seen, of a culture you do not understand, in a part of the world you've never been, in response to attacks not relevant to you or your people. Your words are empty. My country was attacked, thousands of innocent civilians violently murdered. The largest terrorist attack in history, and on American soil. We will not live in fear. We will not back down to these thugs. We will not stand idly by as more are murdered. They do not wear uniforms. They do not swear allegiance to any particular nation. They are not rational. Because of their rogue nature, a nuclear attack is a serious threat and must be prevented at all costs. They wouldn't be in danger if they weren't on somebody elses land Then explain to me the 1998 US Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya? What country where we occupying at that time? Did you know 12 of the 13 Hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis? Saudi Arabia, at the time and still is today, an American ally. So please I would love to hear the explanation for that. Obviously the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with who's land we were occupying since at the time of the attacks we weren't occupying any of their land. The Embassy bombing was the spark that ignited conflict between the United States and Jihadism. In the mid 1990's The United States had good relations with Egypt, and 4 Jihadists who were plotting to bomb a tourist site in Egypt were captured abroad by the CIA and then sent to Egypt to be tried, tortured and then killed. Al Qaeda seeing this were angered at American "Intervention" so they retaliated. And the rest is history. To think that Al Qaeda ever had rational reasons for doing what they do, assumes they are rational people. They are not. 1
point
"Go fuck yourself. I do not condone the deaths of civilians regardless of nationality, I'm sorry if ive offended you but you have to realise that your comments paint a pretty clear picture, if you read down through evrything you wrtoe you will find numerous references for atrocities commited against american troops or civilians, given the relative low frequency of atrocities commited against americans this leads me to think that you use these as an excuse to justify your countries actions, i find it funny that in all your comments not once have you mentioned any other deaths, just american, and you can quote them straight off the top of your head, i wonder how many of the atrocities your country commited in vietnam you can quote off the top of head????? Have you ever read 1984? "and I take this accusation very seriously." Take it whatever way you want, whenyou write the way that you do you give the distinct impression that you value american blood above all others. I'm only basing it on what you wrtoe,i dont know you im not assuming i know you im merely telling that when you write that way thats the impression you give. "You're a drunken coward, who wouldn't sacrifice a fraction of what I have." Firstly, im not a coward(you can be sure of that my friend), nor am im a drunk (although i do enjoy my alcolohol). I wouldnt sacrifice anything for a false ideal (and thats exactly what it is im afraid), i would sacrifice everything for an ideal i beleived in, thats why i can completely understand your position, im just hear to tell you that you've gotten it wrong, and its going to take a lot of courage for you to realise that and admit it tpo yourself. "Your words are empty." Of course there empty to a person with your level of indoctrination, if you were to realise how indoctrinated you are your whole world come crashing down around you. I'm sorry if ive offended you but you have to realise that your comments paint a pretty clear picture, No, you continue to paint me the way you want, you've put words in my mouth all to prop up your inane argument to the opposite extreme. You've only read into my statements what you want to read into my statements. I have said on numerous occasions, that I do not condone the deaths of civilians, that every civilian death is a tragedy. I have stated that despite the fact that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and that we should leave Iraq, the people we are fighting are murderous radicals. If we leave abruptly it is the Iraqi people who will suffer. It is then the Iraqi moderates, the Iraqi intellectuals, and the Iraqi police who will then become the focus of their attacks. We know this, and they know this. You have no solution. Criticism without alternative is not criticism it is badgering. It is insult. And it has no place in this debate. i find it funny that in all your comments not once have you mentioned any other deaths, just american The US embassy bombing of Kenya resulted in the death of 255 Africans. The irony of this is that you haven't exactly cited the deaths of any Americans either, so I suppose that kind of makes you a hypocrite, yes? given the relative low frequency of atrocities commited against americans So it's okay for American civilians to be targeted and killed as long as it happens with 'Low Frequency'? excuse to justify your countries actions That American civilians are violently killed as justification to hunt down the people responsible? Damn right it is. Unfortunately innocent civilians have died in the process, both from American forces and from the insurgent forces, this is an unfortunate part of war. However according to this argument no war in history is justified because all result in civilian casualties. However if we left them alone to conduct more terrorist acts, they would cause even more civilian deaths. At least now our weapons are far more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage. Of course there empty to a person with your level of indoctrination, if you were to realise how indoctrinated you are your whole world come crashing down around you Thank you for that analysis Michael Bay. Of course everybody who doesn't share your worldview MUST be indoctrinated. It couldn't possibly be that someone actually disagrees with you, no, they must be indoctrinated. Such sentiments shows the quality of your debate. 1
point
"You've only read into my statements what you want to read into my statements." Any rational person would infer exactly what i did. "I have said on numerous occasions, that I do not condone the deaths of civilians," I know you dont but your perfectly willing to let them happen as long as here not america and as long as (you think!!!) youget to continue hunting whoeever it is you percieve as being your enemy. The "you think" in the above paragraph represents the fact that you have conned yourself into beleiving that your enemies are a great danger to you. Your government uses these "enemies" to convince you that intervention in foreign (resource rich) countries is necessary in order to secure your nations safety, nothing could be further from the truth. Before radical Islam it was the big RED buggey man, you used the communist threat to justify horrible things in souith and central american (hundreds of thousands killed, propping up brutal dictators, funding proxy armies). now that the USSR is no more you needed to invent a new foe, how else could you justify commiting your atrocities. "You have no solution" Yes i do leave and let teh Iraqi people determine their own destiny "So it's okay for American civilians to be targeted and killed as long as it happens with 'Low Frequency'? " Ya thats exactly what i said, thats it exactly. Those deaths are the result of your interference in other countries, leave the counties that do not belong to alone and they will stop, continue to oppress people, kill, prop up brutal dictators, and generally just continue your evil imperial agenda and they will continue, and become more frequent. I said they are low frequency as they pale in comaprison to the numbr of deaths you have caused, is this making any more sense now or are you going to continue to try to discredit me using any slimy means that you can. "That American civilians are violently killed as justification to hunt down the people responsible? Damn right it is." YOu are delulled, people like you are the reason so many Iraqis are ead, people like you are the reason 3-4 million vietnamese perished, and anoher 2-3 million cambodians and Loasian people. You need to wake up and realise violence is not a solution, it only creates more violence. "this is an unfortunate part of war." Its not a war, its anything but a war, but i can tell my time would be better spent explaining that o the cup of coffee in my hand your too nationalistic. "Thank you for that analysis Michael Bay." No problem, glad to be of service. "Of course everybody who doesn't share your worldview MUST be indoctrinated." NO just you and many americans like you.As i said were all indocrinated to some degreee yours is just particularly pronounced "Such sentiments shows the quality of your debate." Thanks your not too bad yourself. You accuse me of being 'Deluded' or 'Indoctrinated' but the truth is that I used to, like you, believe that 9/11 was the result of our bad US foreign policy (of which there is much), upon doing research this seemed to be more and more inconsistent with the facts. While certainly there is reason for those residents of the middle east to dislike the United States, these in fact are not the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. Your entire response is nothing more than emotionally loaded hyperbole. You continue to make the same accusations, using slightly different language. You haven't actually addressed anything. You assert that the United States was attacked using vague reasoning, that we "Oppressed them" without actually stating who we oppressed, how we oppressed them, or how any of it relates to 9/11 or the US embassy bombings. You assert that our support of certain dictators was the cause of 9/11 despite the fact that the one example you are able to cite, the shah of Iran, is never ever mentioned by Al Qaeda as motivation for their attacks, and the one Sudanese dictator we did oppose, actually CAUSED Al Qaeda to dislike us even more. Among one of the reasons cited by Al Qaeda as motivation for the 9/11 attacks was our support of Israel and our enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In his November 2002 "Letter to America", Bin Laden described the United States' support of Israel as a motivation: "The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily." Osama bin Laden specifically stated that the rendition of Ahmad Isma'il 'Uthman Saleh, Ahmad Ibrahim al-Sayyid al-Naggar, Shawqi Salama Mustafa Atiya and Mohamed Hassan Tita (Who were all charged with plotting to blow up Khan el-Khalili market) to Egypt as reason he conducted the bombing on the US Embassy in Nairobi Kenya. You have no evidence to support any of the reasons you cited, as motivation behind 9/11. None. The perpetrators of these attacks have already explained their reasons, so you can't possibly insist otherwise. Your argument is Done. Thanks for playing! 0
points
"Well probably because it would be pretty difficult to conduct a war, without military bases" You see a war i see anm occupation of another country, i dont think you have teh best interests of the Iraqis people at heart, therefore nothing you about helping them means anything, they deserve the right to determine their own futures without western interference. "They have launched attacks on US soil, and they continue to plot more. Need I remind you?" They are not physically on your land, you are physically on theirs, dont blame them for resisting your occupation of their country, if your countries imperial presence was removed from all these places (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. etc.) and attacks on the US continued then you'd have a piont, and then i would support you. "The hope is that if we defeat the radical elements without the country there will be enough stability that the moderate Iraqis can rule the country with sovereignty." Listen to yourself, your compltely deluded, ok lets say your right about this, lets put it to the test shall we. A rational person would look at history to see how situations such as this have been carried out before. I think Iran is a pefect example. In Iran you installed the Sha (you equivalent of a moderate leader as you say), this man was completely subservient to the US agenda in the middle east, he was a brutal dictator propped up and supported by the US. So what happened, the people were treated very badly and rose up, the moderate elements in the country were dampened down due to the oppression he inflicted on his people, this subsequently allowed the extreme elements to take power i.e. Ayatollah Khomeini. So you think history wont repeat itself in Iraq?, you think your government isnt going to install a puppet government that puts US interests before those of te Iraqis?, and do you think if this happens (which it will) that the people will not sour towards the regime thus allowing the extreme elements to win. Your argument is contradictory as the very thing you thing you say will reduce extremism will only enhance it. "This is so stupid it's almost a cliche'." Ill think you'll find its far from stupid (see below) and you can call it what you like, its the reason you invaded, that and the ability to stregthen your foothold in the region. I think you'll find theres nothing stupid about it http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080708.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/ "n o" Im sorry you incapable of facing the truth. "The U.S. hasn't been an Imperial power since the Spanish American war." I think the sheer number of US bases all over the world coupled with your unbeleivable influence tells a very different story. "As long as the death toll includes Enemy Combatants, you cannot use it in that regard" Imagine the situation was reversed and it was US citizens being killed, i wonder what your opinion would be then. "If the war helps to eliminate people with which the earth would be a better place without, then indeed it is a justified war." By that logic american as well as the islamic extremist need to be eliminated from the world, do you have any idea of the sheer scale of destruction your country has inflicted in over countries. "You mean besides the Gulf War, and WWI ? Or where those to further our "imperial agenda" as well?" WW1 was justified, i know that, i knew you pick at that one in order to discredit me, by last century i meant in the last 80yrs, mainly post WW2. Gulf 1 was not justified, you destroyed Iraq in that war, you dropped the equivalent of more than seven Hiroshimas on the country during your "good clean" war (look it up). The country went from having one of the most modern infrastructures in the middle east (look it up) to one of teh worst, and the human cost will never be known. This was your dictator turned rougue and you wanted to teach him a lesson for invading Kuwait (another place with a puppet US regime), you killed 1/4 of million people during the war and completely destroyed the country, this was in no way justified, despite what you like to think. "You're a drunken coward, who wouldn't sacrifice a fraction of what I have" What are you basing that one, im basing my accusation on how you like to quote all the US deaths that have occured even though they are completely insignificant when compared to those you have caused. "You talk about the evils of a war you have not seen, of a culture you do not understand, in a part of the world you've never been, in response to attacks not relevant to you or your people. Your words are empty." Actually ive been to Iran( they have the nicest people you will ever meet), you know nothing about me so saying my words are empty is an erroneous assumption, i can say the same about your words it doesnt make any more true. "My country was attacked, thousands of innocent civilians violently murdered" Do you think i don't regret the loss of life, the difference is i don't think it gave you the right to kill between 30 and 40 times the amount killed at ground zero (1 million Iraqis and thousand of afghanis), you obviously do. "The largest terrorist attack in history, and on American soil." What you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki (SEE BELOW), that wasnt on american soil, it was Japanese, and who were the terrorists, oh ya, YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://last-straw.net/ "We will not live in fear" Yes you will, your government uses fear as a toll to manipulate the masses and beat the drums of war anytime they want to blow the shit out of another bunch of impoversihed people. "We will not stand idly by as more are murdered" Glad to hear it, so when are you going to stop killing people, so. "They do not wear uniforms. They do not swear allegiance to any particular nation" Nationalism is a tool used to control and indoctrinate you, wake up man, im sorry you can't see this. "They are not rational" I dont think you'd be either if your family was killed and your country was destroyed by foreign power who refuses to leave. "Because of their rogue nature, a nuclear attack is a serious threat and must be prevented at all costs." yes i know thats the bullshit you going to use to justify your next pre-emptive attack, thats what your going to say when you want to blow th shit out of the next bunch of people, this is no secret, the woprld has wised up to americas agenda yet its people contiue to be fooled due to its incredibly sophisticated propaganda machine that tells them everything they want to hear. "What country where we occupying at that time" I dont know perhaps they were annoyed at all the dictators you were propping up, or ......actually this will take far too long, here watch this lecture (PLEASE): http://www.youtube.com/ "Obviously the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with who's land we were occupying since at the time of the attacks we weren't occupying any of their land." i love hos you can make it so simple, ya you just keep telling youself that if it makes you sleep beter at night. "To think that Al Qaeda ever had rational reasons for doing what they do, assumes they are rational people. They are not." Im not going to try to defned al queda, there actions are as bad as you say they are, but their formation was a response to US hegemony. Look at the whats going on now, the people of the middle east are rising up and trying to seek freedom, but are you suppoting them, no, Yemen( you refuse to speak out against the leader who you aided militarily who is now using those weapons aginst his own people), Bahrain(you refusd to speak out against the Suadis (who are your close ally even though there regime is far worse than that of Iran) regime when they used weapons supplied by yiou to repress the people of Bahrain), Tunisia ( you had to chanmge your policy towards ben ali when you knew he was done for) , and Egypt (you jumped on that badn wagin when you knew the game was up) IM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR NEXT REPLY. You see a war i see anm occupation of another country, i dont think you have teh best interests of the Iraqis people at heart Well, regardless of what you see, I'll tell you what isn't in the best interest of the Iraqis. Abruptly leaving Iraq, so that the Iraqis must deal with the insurgency and radical Islam by themselves. they deserve the right to determine their own futures without western interference. I agree. I also think Americans deserve to not have planes flown into their skyscrapers. They are not "physically" on your land, This is a BS argument and you know it. They don't have to physically be in the States to launch attacks on US soil or US citizens. They have set foot on US soil, they simply hide in plain sight. They are no different than international assassins, the only difference is instead of targeting important leaders, they target as many people as they can possibly kill. Rogue guerrillas are no morally superior to traditional armies. This argument is Bullocks! if your countries imperial presence was removed from all these places (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. etc.) and attacks on the US continued then you'd have a piont, and then i would support you. We were attacked BEFORE we occupied any country. How many times must I say this before it sinks in that your argument is factually incorrect?
Listen to yourself, your compltely deluded, ok lets say your right about this, lets put it to the test shall we. A rational person would look at history to see how situations such as this have been carried out before. I think Iran is a pefect example. In Iran you installed the Sha How many 9/11 hijackers were Iranians? I'll answer that question. ZERO. Al Qaeda doesn't dislike dictators, they dislike secular dictators. As long as the dictator is imposing sharia law, and represents fundamentalist Islam, they don't care. Despite the overthrow of democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh, being a grave mistake under the direction of Churchill and Eisenhower, it didn't affect radical Islam all that much because Mosaddegh was a secular leader, whom they didn't like anyway. So this had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's decision to attack the United States. Next argument. I think the sheer number of US bases all over the world coupled with your unbeleivable influence tells a very different story. Unfortunately, the number of military bases a nation owns has nothing to do with whether it is imperial or not. Imperial Nation = Empire An Empire is one which seeks to expand it's borders through military conquest. The last time we acquired any new land from military conquest was in our war with Spain, in which we came to own the Philippines a Spanish Colony, we no longer own the Phillipines after we granted them their Independence. WW1 was justified, i know that, i knew you pick at that one in order to discredit me, by last century i meant in the last 80yrs, mainly post WW2 ^ Moving the goal post. Gulf 1 was not justified Yes it was. Iraq had invaded Kuwait unprovoked and declared it as part of their own country. The rest of the world largely saw this as a criminal act by Iraq, and the United States along with nearly 40 other nations moved in to destroy their military to prevent them from doing this again. What you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki The interesting thing about this is that, if US foreign policy were the primary cause of Islamic Extremism, then why do we not see Japanese terrorism around the world like we do Islamic Extremism? What we did to japan was many times worse than anything we have ever done to any Islamic nation. So why are we not dealing with Japanese terrorists? The simple truth is that Islamic Extremism is not rational, their acts of violence are not proportional to any acts committed against them, and they will often be the initiators of violence and not just the retaliators. Al Qaeda targeted the united states because we captured 4 Jihadists who were planning to blow up an Egyptian market place, and we handed them over to Egyptian officials who then tried, tortured, and then executed these bombers. Osama Bin Laden said one reason why they attacked the US embassy in Kenya was because of our "interference" in Sudan. In Sudan there was a civil war which resulted in a Fundamentalist Islamic dictator Gaafar Nimeiry taking control of the country, who: "...allied himself with the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1983, he imposed Sharia, or Islamic law, throughout the country—alienating the predominantly Christian and animist south. The administrative boundaries of the south were also reformed. In violation of the Addis Ababa Agreement he dissolved the southern Sudanese government, thereby prompting a renewal of the civil war." He also executed a peaceful political dissident. I dont know Of course you don't because it doesn't coincide with reality. ......actually this will take far too long, here watch this lecture Watch this Video by Christopher Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/ Im not going to try to defned al queda, there actions are as bad as you say they are, but their formation was a response to US hegemony No it wasn't. This is demonstrably false. Al Qaeda existed before we had any real contact with them. According to Osama Bin Laden's himself. He attacked us because of our capture of 4 Jihadist Bombers and their rendition back to Egyptian and because of our Condemnation of the Islamic Dictator of Sudan after their First Sudanese civil war. This is why they attacked us in the first place. Al Qaeda for years had been responsible for many bombings, which they used to oppose secular governments within the Muslim world. Only those governments that enforced sharia law including requirements that women cover themselves, were safe from Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden was a follower of a man named Sayyid Qutb who said that The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihad." Jahiliyyah- means "ignorance of divine guidance", it is an epithet for secularism. Do some more research behind the motivations of Al Qaeda, and you will see it is much more complicated than you believe. 1
point
"I'll tell you what isn't in the best interest of the Iraqis. Abruptly leaving Iraq" I admit abruptly leaving would result in anarchy initially but i think in the long term it would be better for the Iraqi people than your continued presence there.But it would have been much better if you never went in there in the first place, the reason i want them to leave is that i know your country has no intention of leaving that place whether the Iraqi people want them to or not, and you know it to. "I agree. I also think Americans deserve to not have planes flown into their skyscrapers" Yes but you kind of give up those rights when your government props up brutal dictators all over the region, support the Isreals genocide of the palestians, its colonisation of their land, and the fact that is continually blocks a peace settlement (for over 20 years in fact, if you disagree with this type peaceful settlement to the Isreali palestian question into google and you will see how for over the last 20 years the world has voted to end the conflict on 1967 borders but your country (and Isreal) continues to deny the palestians the homeland they are legally entitled to). "This is a BS argument and you know it" No it really isn't, look into the history of US involment in the middle east and you will realease how and why these radical resistance groups were created, they were created by US imperialism and hegemony. "They don't have to physically be in the States to launch attacks on US soil or US citizens." I never said they did, i said the strength of those radical resistance groups would diminish if you stopped your imperialism, if you stopped you brutalisation of their people, if you stopped exploiting them and stealing their resources. "This argument is Bullocks!" No my friend its not and im sorry you can't see that. "We were attacked BEFORE we occupied any country. How many times must I say this before it sinks in that your argument is factually incorrect?" You dont have to invade a country to have an imperial presence there, look at the history of the middle east, you have supported some of the brutalist dictators to emerge in the region, Iran resisted and cast off there US controlled puppet and now they are labelled as part of the axis of evil, why do you think Saudi Arabia are not part of that axis of evil???? Have you ever looked into the Saudi regime, if you have then you'll know that it is far worse than Iran ever could be but hey there your allies so why would you speak out against them. Do you really mean to tell me that you think the US has no double standards because if you do than im be very surprised that a man of your intelligence has managed to dellude himself to that degree. "Al Qaeda doesn't dislike dictators, they dislike secular dictators." Al quedas ranks would be fairly thin if you weren't supplying them with a surplus of willing recruits due to your actions, can you not see that? "So this had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's decision to attack the United States." I never said that it did i cited the example to show you how US backed tyranny bred extremism, Al Quead was formed in a similar manner. "Unfortunately, the number of military bases a nation owns has nothing to do with whether it is imperial or not." Yes it really does, you dont have to directly rule a country in the modern world to have a massive impreial presence there, you have bases,and torture chambers in far reaching places on this planet, you torture people many whom have never been in involved in terrorist activity, trying to get them to sign confessions just like in soviwet russia. "An Empire is one which seeks to expand it's borders through military conquest." Yes military bases, your corporations then can exert control in those areas, this is the modern world imperialism has changed a bit. "Yes it was. Iraq had invaded Kuwait unprovoked and declared it as part of their own country. The rest of the world largely saw this as a criminal act by Iraq, and the United States along with nearly 40 other nations moved in to destroy their military to prevent them from doing this again." Making Saddam leave Kuwait was justified but what followed in Iraq was not, it wasn't the clean war it was portrayed to be. Saddam was trying to take control of a US colony (Kuwait), you made him leave you didnt have to destroy Iraq (which cause uncalculable loss of life later on) and killed 1/4 million in the war. Are you serious? Japan rebuilt after the war, they flourished economically why would they do anything, they are not being oppressed in any way. "Watch this Video by Christopher Hitchens:" Christophe Hitchen the manl who betrayed his own beleifs when he began to beleive that Islamic terrorism is the root of all evil and needs to be purged by force from the world, none of this mess will solved by force, force will only enhance it. Why dont you go read the chomsky hitchens correspondance, see who you hav e more respect for when you do. Ive wathced many Debates by Hitchens and that man has truly turned into a something corrupt, theres no ther word for it. "WW1 was justified, i know that, i knew you pick at that one in order to discredit me, by last century i meant in the last 80yrs, mainly post WW2 ^ Moving the goal post." We had this very same argument before you left CD, do you remember? If you think im moving the goal posts fair enough, im primarily concerned with post WW2 policy as thats when the US began their campaign of hegemony in the wake of the destruction opf the british and french empires "No it wasn't. This is demonstrably false. Al Qaeda existed before we had any real contact with them." Thats just not true, you formed them, created them and then they turned on you due to justifable greivances with you foreign policy in there land, any other interpretation i find to be lacking a solid base in reality. "According to Osama Bin Laden's himself. He attacked us because of our capture of 4 Jihadist Bombers and their rendition back to Egyptian and because of our Condemnation of the Islamic Dictator of Sudan after their First Sudanese civil war. This is why they attacked us in the first place." Yes but where do you think he got all his footsoldiers????????????? Most people dont get indoctrinated into a group that extreme unless they have suffered extremely, and that is the fault of the US "Do some more research behind the motivations of Al Qaeda, and you will see it is much more complicated than you believe." Look man i know how extreme Al Queda are, ive already admitted your entirely correct in saying this about them, but you need to look past and ask your self how a group like this managed to rise to prominence. The discontent for America all over the world exist for vaery valid reasons you need to start researching what those reasons are. You accuse me of being 'Deluded' or 'Indoctrinated' but the truth is that I used to, like you, believe that 9/11 was the result of our bad US foreign policy (of which there is much), upon doing research this seemed to be more and more inconsistent with the facts. While certainly there is reason for those residents of the middle east to dislike the United States, these in fact are not the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. Your entire response is nothing more than emotionally loaded hyperbole. You continue to make the same accusations, using slightly different language. You haven't actually addressed anything. You assert that the United States was attacked using vague reasoning, that we "Oppressed them" without actually stating who we oppressed, how we oppressed them, or how any of it relates to 9/11 or the US embassy bombings. You assert that our support of certain dictators was the cause of 9/11 despite the fact that the one example you are able to cite, the shah of Iran, is never ever mentioned by Al Qaeda as motivation for their attacks, and the one Sudanese dictator we did oppose, actually CAUSED Al Qaeda to dislike us even more. Among one of the reasons cited by Al Qaeda as motivation for the 9/11 attacks was our support of Israel and our enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In his November 2002 "Letter to America", Bin Laden described the United States' support of Israel as a motivation: "The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily." Osama bin Laden specifically stated that the rendition of Ahmad Isma'il 'Uthman Saleh, Ahmad Ibrahim al-Sayyid al-Naggar, Shawqi Salama Mustafa Atiya and Mohamed Hassan Tita (Who were all charged with plotting to blow up Khan el-Khalili market) to Egypt as reason he conducted the bombing on the US Embassy in Nairobi Kenya. You have no evidence to support any of the reasons you cited, as motivation behind 9/11. None. The perpetrators of these attacks have already explained their reasons, so you can't possibly insist otherwise. Your argument is Done. Thanks for playing! 1
point
"You accuse me of being 'Deluded' or 'Indoctrinated'" You are and so am i but yours is much more extreme due to your circumstances. "like you, believe that 9/11 was the result of our bad US foreign policy " Yes it was, if you never had any involment in middle eastern affairs they would have no reason to attack you. "Your entire response is nothing more than emotionally loaded hyperbole." Unfortunately for you merely stating that doesnt actually make it true. "You haven't actually addressed anything." Again, you really need to include the following three simple words when you through out that accusation, they go something like this; IN MY OPINION.... I find it funny the you accuse me of making wild accusation when you have been engaging in far worse behaviour since the start of this debate (in my opinion). "You assert that the United States was attacked using vague reasoning" I don think theres anything vague about US forign policy you just need to properly educate yourself on it. "that we "Oppressed them" without actually stating who we oppressed, how we oppressed them, or how any of it relates to 9/11 or the US embassy bombings." Britain could say exactly the same thing about their relations with the Irish, they could say why did the IRA form, why did they bomb our country every chance they got, the answer is justifiable greivances. "You assert that our support of certain dictators was the cause of 9/11 despite the fact that the one example you are able to cite, the shah of Iran, is never ever mentioned by Al Qaeda as motivation for their attacks, " I NEVER FUCKIN SAID THAT, DONT YOU DARE TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH TO SUIT YOUR CATEGORISATION OF MY ARGUMENT. I said that US backed tyranny created extremismm and then used a historical example (Iran). Go back and read what i wrote!!!!!!!!! So what exactly do think about Isreal and your countries support for it??????? "You have no evidence to support any of the reasons you cited" Again, in your opinion i have no evidence, i think ive cited ample evidence, if you want to tell my why that evidence is inadequate id be happy to debate you on it and find a whole lot more to back up my crazy belief that US hegemony and your WAR OF TERROR has created and fanned the flames of terrorism. My God what a wild assertion, who could possibly belief that. "The perpetrators of these attacks have already explained their reasons, so you can't possibly insist otherwise." I have stated more less the same reasons i.e. US backed tryanny, US hegemony and imperialism and the continued support for Isreal and their genocide of the Palestians. Also, Al queda is but one group of many who despise America for very valid reasons. "Your argument is Done" This is getting a little embarrassing; in your opinion my argument is done. "Thanks for playing!" NO problem, im sorry you find your ignorance such a comfort. Precisely why I have said you reasoning is vague. You've said that we oppressed them, but have neglected to state who is "them"? And how exactly did we oppress "them"? You don't even know. You said that our support of tyranny caused Al Qaeda to fly planes into our skyscrapers. Really? The one example you've been able to cite was completely and utterly irrelevant to the explained reasons Al Qaeda attacked the United States. So please, tell me what "tyranny" are we talking about? You just have these vague notions that you espouse, but whenever pressed on the issue you seem to falter. Give me some specific examples. The reasons Al Qaeda gave for the attacks on 9/11 were our enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, which basically was meant to protect Iraqis (particularly women) from human rights abuses in Iraq after the Gulf War. Al Qaeda believed because they were acting in accordance with their strict interpretation of the Koran, that they had a right to abuse women. Al Qaeda also said they attacked us because of Israel. While certainly there are reasons to be critical of Israel, that we recognize them as a nation is no reason to murder almost 3,000 innocent American civilians. Even when we were in Saudi Arabia Legally, they attacked us. Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia". In the December 1999 interview with Rahimullah Yusufzai, bin Laden said he felt that Americans were "too near to Mecca" and considered this a provocation to the entire Muslim world. Saudi Arabia, allowed the United States to use Saudi Arabia as a staging point in the Gulf War, because Saudi Arabia and Iraq were rival nations. Again, they thought that the physical presence of infidels (non-muslims) in Saudi Arabia, whether friendly or legally, was an affront to Islam and Mohammad's teachings. Regardless of the fact that Saudi Arabia gave us permission to be in Saudi Arabia at the time. This is why 12 of the 13 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. It had nothing to do with propping up dictators as you have foolishly asserted. 1
point
"-Hahahahaha" Glad to see your having fun "look up the definition of century before you try and change it without notifying anyone. Either way, WW2 WAS in the last 80 years, so good job there." The fact is the US was still very much an imperial power before WW2, its just they weren't the most powerful, WW2 changed that and the US began to assert their dominance in a truly digusting fashion. You go ahead and scrutinise every word i write though if it makes you feel good thinkning that you've somehow hurt my feelings. 1
point
What are you taking about i admitted i was wrong, i didnt try to deny that what i meant was not what i wrote, here will this satisfy you: When i wrote in a previous debate that americas imperialism has been developed over the last century what i actually meant was over the last 80 years, i was wrong to say last century, that was an unintentional error on my part and I WAS WRONG, i openly admit i was wrong, i am human, i come onto this debate website very drunk sometimes, sometimes i come on after a hard days work studying or doing project work at about 2:00am when my brain is has completelly shut off and i can makie mistakes as i am huiman, i sure if anyone reading this want to find more minor errors in what i have wrote they will if they search thorugh the many posts i have left on this site. Are you happy, i will admit i am wrong when i am proved wrong, your just too deluded to realise you haven't proved me wrong about Osama Bin Laden, all you have is informations from an organisation that systematically lies to suit their own agenda, i personally think thats worse than no information at all. I told you i was going to have alot more time for this site once i finished my exams and now that i have your going to find it very hard to defend your position my friend, ill look forward to debating you further. 1
point
"Well firstly you could stop buildiong military bases in Iraq" Cause that would go so well for the Iraqi people. Or perhaps your one of those dumb fucks that think the U.S. oversteps its boundries by going to other countries? "YOU GET THE FUCK OFF OTHER PEOPLES LAND THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Guess that answers my first question. Listen up asswipe, the U.S. gives more aid to other countries THEN ALL OTHER COUNTIRES ON THIS PLANET COMBINED. Just because you damn Irish can't do the same doesn't give you jsutification to ignore that fact.(it is a fact by the way.) "You'll shed no tears for anyone thats not american" Like you Irish would shed a damn tear for an American citizen. 1
point
"Or perhaps your one of those dumb fucks that think the U.S. oversteps its boundries by going to other countries?" My God man what planet are you living on, seriously, i don't even know hwo to respond to that, here goes; yes i am one of those dumbs fucks that thinks if america should stay well out of other people affairs.Americans motivations are never altruistic therefore they are harmful, thinking anything else is pure idiocy. "the U.S. gives more aid to other countries THEN ALL OTHER COUNTIRES ON THIS PLANET COMBINED" Powerful american institutions like the IMF and the world bank are reason the third world exists, im sorry your too ignorant to accept some the hard truths presented here, go look it up. Your country (and the western world)benefits by keeping the poor poor so please dont try to feed me that propaganda you been fed it doesnt taste good when you know how false it is,read Naomi Kleins the shock doctrine, it'll shock you, pun intented. "it is a fact by the way" I know its a fact, i also know that america gives by the far the largest (more than all the rest combined IN FACT) proportion of that aid to Isreal so they can continue there genocide against the palestian people by commiting human rights abuses, colonialism in building settelments (already over 500,000 settlers living illegally on palestian land) The rest goes into the hands of the puppet goervnment you support so they can keep their peoples repressed, why do you think the arabs are rebelling aginst US backed tyranny!!!! "Like you Irish would shed a damn tear for an American citizen." I would shed a tear for any human being (even you) and thats exactly the reason ive come to hold the opinions i do. BTW that these comments (and particularly that one) are not intented for you, they are responses to Bohemians comments so using them against me is kind of redundant. I like how you pretend to know the motives of every person on this earth and act like you know everything that motivates what people do. You saying you would shed tears and Bohemian saying the same thing are things you have no way of understanding if its true or not, so by common courtesy you would accept his statement at its face value, not belittle it by saying he wouldn't and they turn around and say "Hey I actually do" it doesn't make any sense and it makes you look like a fool. I would like to hear how we benefit from keeping the poor poor, I honestly think you just look up bleeding heart liberal speeches and accept everything they say as fact, you are an extremist who has a belief in ideals with no basis in fact. What does your country do for the rest of the world? Oh thats right it couldn't afford to do half of what America does because it is a pathetic little country with a few outspoken individuals such as yourself. Israel is the original democracy in the Middle East so I think by supporting them America is avoiding being hypocrites, like some people I know. You sit here and rant and rant on this site about how terrible of a country America is, well why don't you spread the word? Ask BBC or Al Jazeera for an interview, oh thats right they wouldn't accept you because you make wild accusations with no basis in fact, get it through your head, your conspiracy theories will never pan out because THEY AREN'T REAL. Start living in the real world before you debate people who actually have proof to back their arguments. 1
point
"I like how you pretend to know the motives of every person on this earth and act like you know everything that motivates what people do. You saying you would shed tears and Bohemian saying the same thing are things you have no way of understanding if its true or not, so by common courtesy you would accept his statement at its face value, not belittle it by saying he wouldn't and they turn around and say "Hey I actually do" it doesn't make any sense and it makes you look like a fool." No this paragraph makes you look like a fool cause i can barely understand what you're trying to say, ill try to respond by what i think it is you meant. Firstly i dont claim to know the motives of anyone who walks on this earth, and i have no idea what motivates what people do, but you clearly have no idea the power of fervent nationalisitc ideology, all i need to say it Nazi Germany, do i think the US is like Nazi Germany, no of course not, even my vies aren't that extreme. My piont is that someone in Bohemians position will not (or at least is very very unlikely to) question the motives of his superiors. Therefore if they decide to invade iran and kill tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of people based on false pretences (and they will be false) i think he will go along with it, in fact he nearly admitted as much to me before. "I would like to hear how we benefit from keeping the poor poor" Please read this book and you will understand, i cannot begin to describe it to you: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine there are also many others very valid sources but this is one of the best and most irrefutable. "I honestly think you just look up bleeding heart liberal speeches and accept everything they say as fact" No actually i beleive liberal and conservative to be two sides of the same coin, but as corrupt as each other. "you are an extremist who has a belief in ideals with no basis in fact" Unfortunately for you merely saying this doesn;t make it true "What does your country do for the rest of the world" Very little i never claimed they did. "Oh thats right it couldn't afford to do half of what America does because it is a pathetic little country with a few outspoken individuals such as yourself" Ya i knwo theres no way we could afford to fund the Isrealis genocide against the palestian, even if we could convince the public it was moral (which we wouldnt bb able to) we just wouldnt have the funds. "Israel is the original democracy in the Middle East so I think by supporting them America is avoiding being hypocrites" My God and you think my claims aren't based in fact, i dont even know how to respond to this, its so corrupt, i can't even begin to try to tell you how wrong it, i can't as much as i want to, its just so wrong, i mean fucking hell like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "You sit here and rant and rant on this site about how terrible of a country America i" I dont think america is a terrible country at all, in fact you have freedoms insribed in your constitution that very few other countries can compare to, the problem is you fail to uphold them almost 100% of the time. I don't hate americans please stop saying i do. "well why don't you spread the word" Im already joined to quite a few organisations actually, id love to give to an interview if i could get one. "oh thats right they wouldn't accept you because you make wild accusations with no basis in fact" I speculate like any other person on this site, most do with severly limited information, i can gaurantee you there are much worse accusation in favour of your opinoin that you would go along with without question but whatever i expected this treatment when i came here its not going to deter me, you americans are going to be allowed live in your fantasy land as long as im around. "get it through your head, your conspiracy theories will never pan out because THEY AREN'T REAL" Really oh no but i thought i was omniscient, i can't go on, im goging into the bathroom now to slit my wrists. "Start living in the real world before you debate people who actually have proof to back their arguments." What fucking proof wwould this be, huh? I have yet to see any of this proof that everyone keeps talking about, shows it to me why dont you. "Firstly i dont claim to know the motives of anyone who walks on this earth" -You continuously make claims that we keep down the poor to make money. You claim that are motives for taking down Sadaam are different than what we stated them to be, so don't try and say you don't "claim to know the motives of anyone". Americans have not killed "tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands" Iranian civilians, the number actually killed by American soldiers pales in comparison to the numbers that their own people kill. -The point that you couldn't seem to understand was that you and Bohemian both saying you weep for civilians who die are just as valid points. You can't say that Bohemian doesn't and then turn around say that you actually do, how are we supposed to know fi you actually do? You can't just take something that personal and then assume someone is lying, when it is on a site like this, you just accept it as true unless they make contradictory statements. "Ya i knwo theres no way we could afford to fund the Isrealis genocide against the palestian" -Your exaggerations are horrendous, the reason Israel is in an area where they need our funding in order to defend and hold onto their land is because of a REAL genocide. If you want to talk about genocide look at the 9/11 attacks. "My God and you think my claims aren't based in fact, i dont even know how to respond to this, its so corrupt, i can't even begin to try to tell you how wrong it, i can't as much as i want to, its just so wrong, i mean fucking hell like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -I clearly worded my statement incorrectly, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is the only outspoken democracy in the middle east and democracies like this are what America stands for. "the problem is you fail to uphold them almost 100% of the time" -How do we fail to uphold them "almost 100% of the time" they are very rarely (nowadays) if ever NOT upheld. With so much freedom to act and think as you, many people realize that a fairly easy way to become heard, or even make money/be acquitted of crimes is to claim that one of your freedoms was violated. Even if it doesn't work every time, when you get a liberal judge, you can pull stuff like that and occasionally win. (There was another of your wildly innaccurate statements/accusations) "i can gaurantee you there are much worse accusation in favour of your opinoin that you would go along with without question" -I do not come onto this site to continuously accuse other people, I do it to debate topics. You however rarely make an argument that doesn't accuse people of something. "but whatever i expected this treatment when i came here its not going to deter me" -You expected what treatment? People to call out what you say and point out that much of it is just accusations? "Really oh no but i thought i was omniscient, i can't go on, im goging into the bathroom now to slit my wrists" -So you have no response to that? Is that why you reverted to using sarcasm as some kind of insult? Its funny that you would use that word (omniscient) because you often do act as if you are... One of your favorite statistics is that of casualties in Iraq as several million, I have a source that claims differently. Even when your statistics are right, you spin them in such a way as to make it sound like it is America who is killing all of the people. In reality more muslim citizens are killed by their radical countryman who view them as expendable in attempting to kill Americans, there have been several cases where terrorists will use shields of unarmed women and children in order to get close to Americans and fight them. Any way you spin it, American aid is the reason that thousands and thousands of people are saved every year. And the American military is the reason the middle east hasn't devolved into a nuclear war, and also the reason that Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, the two greatest mass murderers of our time are dead. 1
point
"You continuously make claims that we keep down the poor to make money" Read the book the shock doctrine by Naomi Klein and i assure you that you will not disagree with this sentiment simplistic though it may be. "You claim that are motives for taking down Sadaam are different than what we stated them to be, so don't try and say you don't "claim to know the motives of anyone"" What i meant was i dont claim to know the motives of anyone single person, but power acts in certain ways so when it comes to US hegemony i do believe i have decenjt idea ya. "Americans have not killed "tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands" Iranian civilians, the number actually killed by American soldiers pales in comparison to the numbers that their own people kill." This is complete horseshit and fact that you beleive this only proves that you've bought into a great big lie. 1 million have died since the invasion, i million, you think these were all enemy combatants. What about the 500,000 children who died when the US forcibly imposed strict sanctions on Saddam after Gulf 1, watch this documentary if you dont beleive this, the info. is sourced from the red cross, there about as unbiased as it gets: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ "You can't say that Bohemian doesn't and then turn around say that you actually do, how are we supposed" Firstly i never said he feels nthing about the death sof people i claimed he values western blood above others, also i think that given he is currently working for an organisation like the US army that does much harm to so many for self interested reasons it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that he could rationalise the deaths of many more people given that he has rationalised the deaths of all that have already died (look back in posts and read this for yourself) "You can't just take something that personal and then assume someone is lying" I never said he was lying, i made no such statement. "Your exaggerations are horrendous" This is no fucking exaggeration, 500,000 Isreals settlers currently live on palestian land and that number is growing, finally Obama has recognised the need for a settlement based on 1967 broders as per international law but he will not act on it, and the Isrealis have no intention of giving back the land anyway they want more. "the reason Israel is in an area where they need our funding in order to defend and hold onto their land is because of a REAL genocide" What are you even taking about, this really only proves how misinformed you are and how you have lapped up the lies being fed to you and then asked for seconds. "If you want to talk about genocide look at the 9/11 attacks." WTF? YOu do realise that the equivalent of over 130 9/11s (1 million peopl) have occurred in Iraq since you invaded right, and even in afghanistan the numbers are in the tens of thousands ya. "-I clearly worded my statement incorrectly, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is the only outspoken democracy in the middle east and democracies like this are what America stands for." My God man are you that fucked in the head, the palestians live in horrible conditions and are trated like animals, they have had there land and their homes taken from them, what has gone on over the last few decades is really one sided when it comes to gross breaches of human rights, and is tantamount to genocide. BTW you don't need to tell me that thjis is what america stands for yopu delluded fanatic. "-How do we fail to uphold them "almost 100% of the time" they are very rarely (nowadays) if ever NOT upheld." Well killing Osama Bin LAden for one, the examples are infinite my friend just go looking for the and i assure you there will be no shortage in the supply(this is no exaggeration), heres a few to get you started, it has been proven that former soldier Bradley Manning is being tortured (in order to implicate Julian Assange) against the law because he leaked info. detaling exactly how badly the Iraqi people are suffering due to AMerican actions, the US is supposed to have a law that says after 60 days in action (LIbya) in a foreign country either it is made into a war by congress or you pull your forces out of the region, this is currently being ignored as Obama promised a few weeks ago that Libya would only be for a few days. Again the fact that you even questioned this shows only how misinformed and delluded you are. "With so much freedom to act and think as you, many people realize that a fairly easy way to become hear" Yes the internet has allowed much of deception to be removed but the US propaganda machine is the most complex and sophisticated ever to come into existence, i urge you watch Noam Chomskys "manufacturing consent". The US is very frigtened of how the internet has allowed real freedom of information and recently Hilary Clinton said that they are beginning to lose the info. war (which is code for their lies are becoming less and less effective) in order to secure a more substantial portion of the US budget for this. "Even if it doesn't work every time, when you get a liberal judge, you can pull stuff like that and occasionally win. (There was another of your wildly innaccurate statements/accusations)" Could you please elaborate on this\, i dont reemeber making any claim for or against this, what are you taking about here? "I do not come onto this site to continuously accuse other people, I do it to debate topics. You however rarely make an argument that doesn't accuse people of something" I accuse those who deserve to be accuse, dont through that in my face and think its going to makie me stop, if i kill someone and somebody accuses me i dont say, you have no right to accuse me, come fucking off it man. "-You expected what treatment? People to call out what you say and point out that much of it is just accusations? " No what i meant is i expectd many americans to be vehemently opposed to my piont of view and to attack it with much rigour, i have also been labelled anti-american which i find insulting, i have also been labelled a fanatic (again im not to fond of that), but as i said i expected this treatment, Americans need to live their lie as if they had to admit to themselves that for the past 80yrs they have been anything but a force for good in the world firstly they'd feel really really bad (at the ones with consciences and in fairness most americans have big hearts im not joking) and secondly they'd have to stop which means they'd have to force their government and the ruling elites to stop perpetuating the cycle of power hungriness, again this is all very hypthetical but you get the idea. "-So you have no response to that? Is that why you reverted to using sarcasm as some kind of insult? Its funny that you would use that word (omniscient) because you often do act as if you are..." I felt the response desvered nothing more than sarcasm to be honest, if i get a respectful response i give a respectful response. "One of your favorite statistics is that of casualties in Iraq as several million, I have a source that claims differently." I have never claimed that several million died in Iraq, please shopw me where i stated this, i stated that it was 1 million and i got those figures from probably the most comprehensive study done on the Iraq war casualities which was performed by the John Hopkins universities, i know that there are conflicting sources but i think if you investigate this one it is the best estimate currently available of the numbers that died as a result of the invasion, but you go ahead and think whatever propaganda you've been fed is correct. "Even when your statistics are right, you spin them in such a way as to make it sound like it is America who is killing all of the people" I admit i am quite biased, look, in truth i know its not always americas fault and that maybe i have been unfair in some of my descriptions but the only reasons i have been is that im compensating for a view that in my mind is badly lacking on this site. Now if you think i have gotten facts or figures wrong please show what exactly you think is wrong, dont just accuse me, i admit i speculate aliot but i pride myself on presenting what i beleive are the facts, while i can't say with 100% certainty that i have never presented something wrong on this site i can say that if i did (and i doubt i did cause im pretty careful when it comes to presenting a nfact or a figure) i didn't know it was wrong or inaccurate. "In reality more muslim citizens are killed by their radical countryman who view them as expendable in attempting to kill Americans," They wouldnt feel to need to if you didn't occupy their lands, thats a very weak argument and im sorry you can't see that. "there have been several cases where terrorists will use shields of unarmed women and children in order to get close to Americans and fight them." Id expect no less from those brutal extremists, what you think im on their side or that im trying to stand up for them? "Any way you spin it, American aid is the reason that thousands and thousands of people are saved every year." Those are proportionally insignificant relative to the deaths it causes, you really need to open your mind a little and do some research on these things you have no idea what your rerally taking about, the fact is that the people who really need that aid rarely get it, firstly Isreal gets the overwhelming majority of all of the aid given every year and they use it to enhance their military in order to kill, secondly most of that aid goes onto the hands of tyrannical dictators of oppressors e.g. before Mubarak was forced to leave he received the second largest proportion of the aid given by the US. This again is an incredibly weak argument. "And the American military is the reason the middle east hasn't devolved into a nuclear war," No no you have this a little mixed up it should read: the american military will be the reason the middle east devolves into a nuclear war, or else ISreal. There much better and now its actually true. "and also the reason that Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, the two greatest mass murderers of our time are dead." Ok firstly both of these men were prooped up and supported by America, or have you forgotten? Secondly they are no where near the greatest mass murderers, Saddam mkilled a good few ill give you that but Osama really hasnt killed all that many even if you attribute all the Al Queda related killing to him. On the other hand you have the rwandan massacre, idi amin, polpot, George W Bush, Tony Blair etc. so forth and so on -(yes thats right i do put those mass murdering tyrants in with Idi amin and polpot, they earned it) My source: http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/ This also neglects the death due to starvation, inadequate healthcare and poverty related death but if one wanted you could make a ver convincing argument that america is largely at fault for these aswell, prior to Gulf 1 Iraq was one of the modern countrie in the middle east with teh finest healthcare and education, Gulf completely destroyed it, then came the inhuman sanction that the US forcibly imposed using the sway thy have at the UN killing 500,000 children (check the red cross if you dont beleive me), then the second invasion to cripple them. Now, is it so hard to accept that these facts have been intentionally concelaed from you nand many others in order not to lose support for the war, your government learned a valuable lesson from vietnam, that they need to control the flow of information in order to limit dissent and discontent in relation to slaughtering foreign peoples, they learned it well it seems. 2
points
Look if he had been caught beofre 9/11 and it had been prevented, that would have been significant, he has done nothing since except hide in a mansion. You don't try to catch or execute a criminal before he has committed a crime, sir. Al Queda has no leader again you mistakenly refer to this entity as if it were like a normal army. Bohemian is a member of the United States Military, and has been fighting eastern insurgents in his capacity as an engineer of the same for some time. I think it prudent to defer to his opinion on the nature of his own enemies. Now who's speculating. Both Al Qaeda and Mr. Bin Laden have claimed that he was responsible for attacks on American warriors and civilians. I refering to the muslim population at large which has suffered tremendously in a multitude of ways due to western oppression. The East has been in conflict with the West for the better part of three thousand years. It is simplistic to state that the mutual hatred is a recent phenomenon, or entirely the fault of preemptive action by the West. If the wikileaks revelations proved anything they proved that your excusion is hurting the Iraqi people a great deal You are correct in stating that Coalition tactics have resulted in excessive civilian casualties and other collateral damage. i can tell you've come up with many clever rationalisations for invading and stealing their oil That's war, sir. I seem to recall Saddam was still very much a ally to the US whenm he was commiting those atrocities, and you'd have to be an idiot to think the US didn't have full knowledge of them, but he was still your puppet leader at the time so why would care is a few hundred thousand kurds are being gased as long as hes still doing your bidding, wake up and smell the coffee! Well, possibly because it is so obvious to persons such as yourself that he was a puppet leader, doing the United States' bidding. Perhaps they thought it expedient to demonstrate their enmity? you dont give a fuck about the 1 million dead Iraqis but ill bet you can quote every american service man whos broken a nail in the last 50 years, isnt that right. Very few soldiers care about deaths in a country they're at war with. I suspect if we were in a prolonged combat situation, we would understand, but armchair generals must know their limitations. The first sentence is completely false, i think if you look into it you'll find that AMERICA pushed for the sanctions It is impossible for a United Nations sanction to be passed with the support of only two nations, sir. was only backed by isreal (who else) Is the United States not allowed to have allies any more? The third sentence is just you rationalising this to yourself again, you don't seem to realise how much of an apologist you are, you probably think your unbiased, if america lauched their nukes on Iran tommorow and compltely destoyed the country killing everyone you'd jump for joy, you my friend can rationalise anything. I think you should apologise, sir. There is quite a difference between telling somebody that they're rationalising an atrocity, and calling them a genocidal maniac. I think you'll find that american soldiers dont get shot at when they are in american, if you invade another country though that kind of makes it an inevitability, but i suppose Saddam did have the capability to lauch a neclear weapon within 60 seconds, give it a rest man. Either the persons fired upon by the military are unarmed civilians, as you say, or armed hostiles, in which case it is perfectly acceptable for Bohemian's comrades to shoot them. Again you'll find no roadside bombs in your won country, isnt that supposed the place you stay in, you the place you have the right to call your own, or do you think Iraq is now your country? "I have conquered the Aedui in battle therefore it is my right to impose whatever conditions on them as I please." Julius Caesar, imperator of the Gallic legions. 1
point
"You don't try to catch or execute a criminal before he has committed a crime, sir." Bin Laden was a known terroirst long before 9/11, he was also credited with planing the previous bombing of the trade centers (carparks) which were mean to take the towers down, now my piont was if the plot was found out (as it supposedly was by teh CIA) and he (Osama) was captured and put on trial, that would have been very significant, he got away with his crime, he did alll the damage ghe evern intended on doing(i.e. developed Al Queda into the organisation it is today, and 9/11), i see no victory in shoting him in his bed (and keeping it secret) tens years after he supposedly masterminded his great crime. "Bohemian is a member of the United States Military, and has been fighting eastern insurgents in his capacity as an engineer of the same for some time. I think it prudent to defer to his opinion on the nature of his own enemies" Well, possibly because it is so obvious to persons such as yourself that he was a puppet leader, doing the United States' bidding. Perhaps they thought it expedient to demonstrate their enmity? I know exactly what he is (well i didnt know he is an engineer), i dont agree that it is prudent to rely on a heavily indoctrnated person who is unbeleivably biased in favour of his own side. "Both Al Qaeda and Mr. Bin Laden have claimed that he was responsible for attacks on American warriors and civilians." Look we have no way of knowing how many attacks Bin Laden has been able to plan since 9/11 or how much input he has to Al Queda as a whole, the available information is just far too inadequate, i was responding to his insinuation that it was upon his command that many attacks were carried out, i disagree with that, i think his postion was very limited but no hard evidence is really available to prove or disporve wither views. I still think it is extremely nieve to consider him a ring leader in recent Al Queda activity (i.e. last 10 years). "The East has been in conflict with the West for the better part of three thousand years. It is simplistic to state that the mutual hatred is a recent phenomenon, or entirely the fault of preemptive action by the West." Thats not entirely true, although i will admit you have a piont but unfortunately i dont have time for a full rebuttal. "That's war, sir." "No its not its imperialism, if Britain invaded Ireland tommorow with their superior military and starting killing all round them in order to gain privleged access to our cattle ( i know im stretching) it would not be called a war, i see no reason why this should be either." This is an incredibly weak argument, if you investigate the history of the US and their support for btrual dictators you'lll find that they never had any problem with them slaughtering their own people in massive numbers as long as they were getting what ever it is they wanted from them e.g. Henry Kissinger once famously quoted: "America has no allies, america only has interests" "Very few soldiers care about deaths in a country they're at war with" Again not war, i think once you move past that definition you may begin to see things as they actually are. "It is impossible for a United Nations sanction to be passed with the support of only two nations, sir." Please read up on this before you disagree with it, i made no sensationalistic claim here, i also never said it could pass with just two nations (but nice try), i said they put enormous pressure on the UN to enforce absolutely barbaric sanctions, here this should clear it up for you: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ "Is the United States not allowed to have allies any more?" Not when they fund them militarily with more aid than the rest of the world combined whichy they use to commit genocide against the palestian people. "I think you should apologise, sir. There is quite a difference between telling somebody that they're rationalising an atrocity, and calling them a genocidal maniac" I admit that is an extreme comment to make but rest assured i would not have made if i didn't think deep in my heart that that is exactly how it would play out, i refer you to the vietnam war (and indochinese bombing campaigns) where about 5 million people were massacred byt the US, why not asking Bohemian what he thought about that. "Either the persons fired upon by the military are unarmed civilians, as you say, or armed hostiles, in which case it is perfectly acceptable for Bohemian's comrades to shoot them." Thats not the piont, when the Black and Tans were slaughtering and raping civilians in 1919 it was perfectly reasonable for them to shoot at any IRA man who shot at them, it does not however justify their actions or their presence in the country. 3
points
This brings me back to my main piont, he was the leader of nothing, he was involved in plotting the 9/11 attacks and creating and funding Al Quead but i honestly think for the last 10 years hes just been living in a house in pakistan. His location is irrelevant. Caesar conquered Gaul from a glorified tent. You don't seem to have anything to back up your statement here, so I'll have to go with what the British and United States intelligence networks, Al Qaeda and Mr. Bin Laden said, and accept that he was their leader. I admit after seeing how mcuh pain and suffering the government of america has unleashed it does make one slightly biased against them but to suggest that i jump on the band wagon of anyanti-american drivvle i find highly insulting I can only apologise for insulting you, but, as the saying goes, the burden of proof is on you. i dont just go along with opinions that have no factual basis I'm sure you invent factual bases when none are forthcoming. jus cause i agree with them or they subscribe to my own particula way of looking at things Your own particular way of looking at things seems to be the disagreement with any official statement, coupled with insinuations of corruption and pointless pleas to some higher moral authority that doesn't actually exist. I suspect you just like to feel possessed of a greater degree of insight than others. and whats more i ahev no idea what gave you that idea. You exhibit many characteristics which betray you. Not the least of which is your insistence that American war is different from every other brand of war in its intention. I need no authority to make such an assertion If you didn't need the authority, the allies of the United States would even now be deserting them. They are not, so one presumes that they have not yet consulted with you, princeps. i need only look at the million of palestian refugees, the inhuman blockade of Gaza etc. etc. Another plea to moral authority. Investigate what you are taking about my friend if you have any empathy for your fellow man i assure you tha you will come to the say conclusion. You and I have very different sets of values. My vision for the perfect world would be shockingly different from your own. This i disagree with strongly, i am biased against american power (i.e. government, military and corporations) i am not biased against the people whi i see as being caught in trap. Your image of the world is interestingly one-sided. It is a strange thing to oppose an entire democratic government (as an institution, not a system), as it naturally consists of competing factions of varying values. A large military is a sensible thing to maintain for such a large nation, and to ignore the historical circumstances that led to its creation is an unwise omission. And malevolent corporations are a self-perpetuating symptom, not a first cause; besides which, most private enterprises are benign. The United States is simply protecting its interests, as they say. Human civilization has seen the same thing thousands of times. It may not appeal to you that nations settle their differences with violence, and it seems a simplistic path to victory to me, but their is no moral authority by which it can be categorically decried. Thats just not true, ive never criticised them for anything that did not deserve criticism. You will understand why the above statement could never, in any conceivable situation, convince even the most gullible person. If someone is spouting the same washington propaganda You have yet to actually demonstrate the implausibility of Mr. Bin Laden's leadership, by the way. Your argument thus far has been "I really, really, really believe he wasn't their leader". Are you trying to provide some sort of fucked justification for whats going on That is the material point. Wars do not need justification, and only the general public believe otherwise, which is why governments strive to invent one. One wouldn't resort to violence if they could demonstrate some moral right to ownership of something, somewhere or someone. There is a good reason they call it "the last argument of kings". or are you arguing the definition of war i can't tell (i know you do love your definitions). It was you, sir, who first contested the label of "war", not I. That was your idea of ridicule, my god man you need to work on that to say the least. Irony is not everybody's cup of tea, admittedly. That said, I haven't come close to trying to ridicule you. Now my question for you is whay do you think otherwise, do you think americas actions could nt be so self interest I have consistently argued that these conflicts are in the interest of the United States. Where did I say otherwise? I have simply demonstrated that your only argument against it is a moral one. so i refer you again to vietnam. I have my own reasons for opposing that war and I am sure they are markedly different to your own. Thats not the piont, when the Black and Tans were slaughtering and raping civilians in 1919 it was perfectly reasonable for them to shoot at any IRA man who shot at them, it does not however justify their actions or their presence in the country. Their methods were extreme and illogical, but their presence was entirely justified. Ireland was not a sovereign land and had no right to be one. It was a territory under rule of the inhabitants of Great Britain in one form or another for over eight hundred years, which is longer than most of the borders of modern Europe have stood. I remind you that England was conquered by the same people less than fifty years before Ireland was. 1
point
Your argument could be characterised in exactly the same manner you fool. You may think that because washington have said he was the puppet master that makes it so, i dont and ridicule isnt going to change that, i dont rpetend to know everything, and i admit i may be wrong but i question things (unlike you). http://www.latimes.com/ http://www.jamberita.com/ Osama Bin laden was their leader. He FOUNDED al Qaeda, planned 9/11 and was most highly regarded person in that organization, personally financed it, planned additional attacks...if that doesn't make him the leader then I don't know what would. You have no basis for which to declare him anything except the leader of al qaeda. Whether he was an operational leader or just a charismatic leader is inconsequential. Saying you really really really don't think he was the leader does not make it so. 1
point
"Osama Bin laden was their leader. He FOUNDED al Qaeda, planned 9/11 and was most highly regarded person in that organization" Not in the way that he was made out to be though, yes he was a high ranking official in Al Queda, yes he funded the organisation originally,and was involved in planning 9/11 (although to what degree has never been conclusively proven), and yes i admit he was symbolically their leader beacuse even though he probably wasn't the leader in the traditional sense he was definitely viewded as such in both the muslim world and the western world, but again that only demonstrates how effective the US propaganda machine was at painting him as the ig bad leader like Hilters association with the Nazis (a title he gladly accepted might i add) "if that doesn't make him the leader then I don't know what would." I think what your saying would have been true had you said it back in 2001 but after 9/11 i think his capacity to lead anything was severly limited, and no proff to the contrary has been released, in fact if anything the availabloe evidence supports the view that his role in AL Queda diminished after 9/11. "You have no basis for which to declare him anything except the leader of al qaeda" Thats just not true and you know it, the fact is that many people think that Bin Ladens leadership role was highly exaggerated, you just wont find that view espoused in most american or even western media. Now it has already come to light that the official version of events from washington is false so your previous assertion that US officials were not lying about how the assasination played out is false and heres the proof: http://www.guardian.co. "Whether he was an operational leader or just a charismatic leader is inconsequential." I will admit the power inherent in symbols does seem to provide a basis for disproving my original assertion that his death was irrelevant but the only reason i suggested that is because his role was not holding anything together, and i beleive that symbols can be replaced, im sure the US will have a new Bin Laden in no time. "Saying you really really really don't think he was the leader does not make it so." Saying that you really really do think he was the leader and you got the word of the US propaganda machine with systematically lies does not make it so either, in fact i find that an even weaker position cause you're clinging to word of an organisation that deals in lies and mistruths. Not in the way that he was made out to be though I don't know what you think he was "made out to be", so this is neither here nor there. the fact is that many people think that Bin Ladens leadership role was highly exaggerated Then aren't you exaggerating by saying he wasn't their leader at all? You are guilty of the same thing but in the opposite direction. and no proff to the contrary has been released I say there are space unicorns living on the moon. No contrary evidence has yet been released. argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false. I will admit the power inherent in symbols does seem to provide a basis for disproving my original assertion that his death was irrelevant but the only reason i suggested that is because his role was not holding anything together There would be nothing to hold together if he had not created the organization in the first place. 1
point
"I don't know what you think he was "made out to be", so this is neither here nor there." Well every american citizen knows what he has been made out to be as they have had to endure the incessant american propaganda that successfully made him into a modern day Hitler "Then aren't you exaggerating by saying he wasn't their leader at all? You are guilty of the same thing but in the opposite direction." Im actually going to agree with you on this, i have been exaggerating in the opposite direction and i openly admit it, but i havent been exaggerating to the extent that you want to beleive. "argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false." I know what it is but i dont agree that im saying its true based soley on the fact that no evidence to the contrary has surfaced, anybody you ask will tell you when you are one of the most wanted men in the world your capacity to run an international netwrok of terrorists is severly reduced, nonw i will admit that i am not basing it on anything more than this but i honestly think this is sufficient to at least say the man role was severly restricted relative to before the 9/11 attacks. "There would be nothing to hold together if he had not created the organization in the first place." Yes and thats why i have said that prior to 9/11 you would have been entirely correct in most of what you have asserted about his role as leader. 1
point
"His location is irrelevant" You clearly understand every little about how Al Queda operates. "Caesar conquered Gaul from a glorified tent." Really man, come on now. "You don't seem to have anything to back up your statement hereso I'll have to go with what the British and United States intelligence networks, Al Qaeda and Mr. Bin Laden said, and accept that he was their leader." Go right ahead, see how that works out for ya. Theres no way the British and american could lie to their respective populationsa, and its absoltuely ludacris to think after they had betowed the title of Hitler 2 on Bin Laden that he would like at and re-enforce it via his messages, you can't see the validity in anything that doestn agree with tyour stance can you. I admit i may off the mark (ot wouldn't be the first time, but i also no nothing is ever as it appears). "I can only apologise for insulting you, but, as the saying goes, the burden of proof is on you." TYo tell you the truth i think my label as anti-american is just a big misunderstanding, i came to this debate site looking primarily for political debate which hasnt gone down well with a variety of people who debate politics infrequently. "I'm sure you invent factual bases when none are forthcoming" Not ture, ill admit when im speculating but if i say something has a basis in reality you better beleive ive got something more than my own opinion to back it up. "Your own particular way of looking at things seems to be the disagreement with any official statement, coupled with insinuations of corruption and pointless pleas to some higher moral authority that doesn't actually exist" Yes it does it exist in each and every one of us you just dont know it. "I suspect you just like to feel possessed of a greater degree of insight than others." No idont every man is an island, i feel i have no greater insight than any one else regardless of intelligence, this may run counterintuitive to some of my comments which i admit can be rather egotistical at times (it also hard to fight that little bugger) but it is not what i beleive i can assure you. "You exhibit many characteristics which betray you" Guilty as charged im not even going to try to defend myself ion this piont. "Not the least of which is your insistence that American war is different from every other brand of war in its intention." I dont recall saying it was a war, or saying it was different in its intention to any other imperial conquest i.e. British, French etc. etc. "If you didn't need the authority, the allies of the United States would even now be deserting them. They are not, so one presumes that they have not yet consulted with you, princeps" This is largely meaningless but articulate as ever, keep up the good work. "Another plea to moral authority" Yes you're right, im sorry you are clearly lacking when it comes to those morals. "You and I have very different sets of values." Understatement "My vision for the perfect world would be shockingly different from your own" Please try to explain what it might look like. Dont have time to answer the rest, but i will im finished my exams friday, i hope to continue this then, if you're still interested. Look we have no way of knowing how many attacks Bin Laden has been able to plan since 9/11 or how much input he has to Al Queda as a whole, the available information is just far too inadequate, i was responding to his insinuation that it was upon his command that many attacks were carried out, i disagree with that, i think his postion was very limited but no hard evidence is really available to prove or disporve wither views. I still think it is extremely nieve to consider him a ring leader in recent Al Queda activity (i.e. last 10 years). The Intel we gathered from Bin laden's Compound during the raid shows us exactly how involved he was. It isn't even speculation at this point in time. 1
point
Please show this intel, i would very mush like to see it, the reason i am doubting you is that washington have been very secretive about all matters pertaining to his death, there is no transparency on this issue at all, you can rationalise by saying hes protecting whoever the hell you want or whatever fantasy you like to engage in the fact is the facts are unavailable. Ill give you a contrasting example; the palestian papers were realeased by Al Jezeera, they accused Isreal of not wanting a peace settlement despite the fact that the Fatah were willing to give up more than half the land the palestians are entitled to (which no palestian would have agreed to), but they didnt say take our word for it, the immediately posted the enitre volumeof the transcripts of the negotiations on their website so anybody who was even slightly sceptical could go online and check them for thier veracity, thats the difference. 3
points
Please show this intel, i would very mush like to see it, the reason i am doubting you is that washington have been very secretive about all matters pertaining to his death I'll get on the line to Washington right away and tell them that Gary77777 from the Republic of Ireland demands access to their top secret intelligence on Osama bin Laden. 1
point
Are you stupid???? (Rheotorical question) Now if Bohemian wants to make a grandiose claimthat effectively destroys what i have speculated about Bin Ladens activity for the last 10 years ill need to see alot more than some washington drones propaganda piece i.e. the article he used to back it up with. 1
point
Are you stupid???? (Rheotorical question) I think the misspelling of "rhetorical" is quite ironic in this case. Don't give me that "I type quickly" nonsense either, as "o" is nowhere near "t". Now if Bohemian wants to make a grandiose claimthat effectively destroys what i have speculated about Bin Ladens activity for the last 10 years ill need to see alot more than some washington drones propaganda piece I've never seen conjecture so adamantly defended before. the article he used to back it up with. That's one more article of proof than you have. 1
point
"I think the misspelling of "rhetorical" is quite ironic in this case. Don't give me that "I type quickly" nonsense either, as "o" is nowhere near "t"." I do tpye quickly but i also feel sorry for you. "I've never seen conjecture so adamantly defended before." Ive seen ignorance like yours before and it makes me question the morality of the human race when someone so intelligent can be so small minded. "That's one more article of proof than you have." You dont even understand my postion yet you feel perfectly capable of scrutinising everything i write, thats ignorant and small minded in my opinion(see below). http://rt.com/politics/press/rossijskaya-gazeta/al-qaeda-russia-bin-laden/en/ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ -I refer you to the sections entitled "a fading influence" and "no eveidence of new plots" You can be sure there are plenty more where that came from but i really dont feel i need to waste anymore of my valuable time (im doing exams at the moment). 1
point
I do tpye quickly but i also feel sorry for you. That's nice to hear. Ive seen ignorance like yours before It is not ignorant or even unreasonable of me to suspect the unfounded surmise of somebody who has a moral objection to contrary explanations. it makes me question the morality of the human race when someone so intelligent can be so small minded While I am certain that to your own prejudice everything you say is the truth, do not expect an argumentum ad hominem to sway anybody else. You dont even understand my postion yet you feel perfectly capable of scrutinising everything i write, thats ignorant and small minded in my opinion The first article propounds the questionable notion that students of a leader render him immediately redundant. It quotes one man, Dmitry Rogozin, who has no more reason to suppose that Mr. Bin Laden was merely a symbol than you do. The second article is nowhere near as absolute as the first or you. It posits a "diminished" role, not a retirement. Regardless, one of the most important and influential men in Islamic terrorism has been killed. To call that "irrelevant" is simply a spiteful way of disparaging a major victory for the people you so eminently and pathetically despise. i really dont feel i need to waste anymore of my valuable time (im doing exams at the moment Good luck. 1
point
"It is not ignorant or even unreasonable of me to suspect the unfounded surmise of somebody who has a moral objection to contrary explanations" That would be true if everything i said i was completely unfounded. "While I am certain that to your own prejudice everything you say is the truth" No, beleive me, my views (and personality) have changed so much that i don't entirely trust anything anymore. "do not expect an argumentum ad hominem to sway anybody else." I prefer to call it a shit sandwich but it wasnt meant to sway you (or anyone else) in anyway. "The first article propounds the questionable notion that students of a leader render him immediately redundant. It quotes one man, Dmitry Rogozin, who has no more reason to suppose that Mr. Bin Laden was merely a symbol than you do." And what prey tell does bohemians article contain that is so much more substantial than this?? "The second article is nowhere near as absolute as the first or you. It posits a "diminished" role, not a retirement. " Ive never posited a complete retirement either, thats why i said you dont understand my position. "Regardless, one of the most important and influential men in Islamic terrorism has been killed" I see no victory (or justice, which is hiow this whole argument statred) in the assassination of man who's original crime caused the victum (the US) to lash out at the islamic world for material gain creating millions more like him. "To call that "irrelevant" is simply a spiteful way of disparaging a major victory for the people you so eminently and pathetically despise." If you say so ive already outlined why i consider it to be so. Also, i do not despise a single american civilian, in fact quite the opposite, my aunt used to live in america (and her husband is from california), my cousins unlce (who i know well) has lived there for 10 years, to suggest that i eminently and pathetically despise them (the civilians of the country) i to be a disgusting and small minded allegation that shows how little you actually know of me, but i have come to expect this kind of dialogue from you. "Good luck." Thanks they've been going pretty well actually. 2
points
That would be true if everything i said i was completely unfounded. You have misconstrued one of your own sources, and what you say flies in the face of what the vast majority of intelligence agencies and governments say. The death of Osama Bin Laden was not irrelevant, which is why it was a mission of such high priority for the United States, regardless of motivation. No, beleive me, my views (and personality) have changed so much that i don't entirely trust anything anymore. Pro remo, via longa est. I prefer to call it a shit sandwich Comme vous souhaitez, monsieur. And what prey tell does bohemians article contain that is so much more substantial than this? If you do not esteem Bohemian's article to be sufficient evidence on which to base a claim, but acknowledge that your own does not exceed it in merit, does it not stand to reason that your position is no more tenable than his? Ive never posited a complete retirement either, thats why i said you dont understand my position. Then his death cannot be irrelevant, and counts as a victory for those who oppose his faction. I see no victory (or justice, which is hiow this whole argument statred) Justice and victory are matters of perspective. Your inability to perceive either is the product of your political and moral objection to American intervention, nothing more. Also, i do not despise a single american civilian The whole is more than the sum of its parts. a disgusting and small minded allegation Feign offence if you wish, I care not. shows how little you actually know of me I know as much as I need, and more than I wish. but i have come to expect this kind of dialogue from you If you like our dialogue, you'll love our monologue! 1
point
"The death of Osama Bin Laden was not irrelevant, which is why it was a mission of such high priority for the United States, regardless of motivation." Your right it wasn't irrelevant with regard to the political gain associated with finding him, therefore it was far from irrelevant to the american administration, or the people of american who have been taught to beleive this man was Hitler (ha). My original piont was that it is largely irrelevant to the current state of terrorism in the world, the state of middle eastern affairs, and just generally isnt a fraction as significant as the american administration have made it out to be. The fact is they have tried to play up its relevance as much as possible but the truth is, it makes very little difference to anything, despite what the american government have taught their people to beleive. "If you do not esteem Bohemian's article to be sufficient evidence on which to base a claim, but acknowledge that your own does not exceed it in merit, does it not stand to reason that your position is no more tenable than his?" I never claimed my postion was far more tenable than his, in fact i openly admitted that we are both only speculating, it is he who has been trying to convince me that his postion has evidence and alot more grounding in reality than mine for the past 4-5 posts, while i have asserted exactly what you just said in my last 4-5 posts to him, this is why i said you dont understand my position, it also why i inferred that you were being ignorant. "Then his death cannot be irrelevant, and counts as a victory for those who oppose his faction." Yes it can, i suggest you consult Robert Fisk on this, one of the worlds foremost experts on middleeastern affairs (at least in my opinion, and my others). "Justice and victory are matters of perspective" Your entirely correct that why i want others to at least aware of my perspective, if not see things from it. "Your inability to perceive either is the product of your political and moral objection to American intervention, nothing more." That just simply isnt the case although i understand perfectly why you might think that. "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." In this case it most definitely is not sir. "I know as much as I need, and more than I wish" Ya whatever man. "If you like our dialogue, you'll love our monologue!" Where do i sign up. 1
point
Your right it wasn't irrelevant with regard to the political gain associated with finding him And neither is it irrelevant for its ramifications for the enemy. As long as he lived, he was a standard around which they would gather. His portrayal as a martyr is an act of desperation. I never claimed my postion was far more tenable than his, in fact i openly admitted that we are both only speculating So, if you would indulge me, on what basis do you claim that he has been irredeemably indoctrinated, simply for refusing to take your speculation as fact? Is it not you who is guilty of being "small-minded", for only considering your surmise to be valid? Yes it can, i suggest you consult Robert Fisk on this, one of the worlds foremost experts on middleeastern affairs (at least in my opinion, and my others). I know I have The Age of the Warrior somewhere in the family library. I shall read it when I have finished Our mutual Friend. Until then, you shall have to make your own arguments. Your entirely correct that why i want others to at least aware of my perspective, if not see things from it. But your perspective is in some places entirely unfounded, and in others a highly exaggerated version of others whose opinions are similarly dubious. In this case it most definitely is not sir. By what intuitive leap do you make such a declaration? Ya whatever man. Elegantly said. 1
point
"And neither is it irrelevant for its ramifications for the enemy" I disagree, i think Al Queda is just as dangerous now that he is dead, i personally think any who beleives that this mans death will upset their operations in anyway to be quiite nieve, an group like Al Queda would never had been very successful if their sucess relied on the input of onwe man, especially since it is also nieve to think that his input over the last 10 years could have been anything except severly limited given that he was the most weanted man in the world. "As long as he lived, he was a standard around which they would gather." Are you serious? Can you not see the extreme flaw in this argument, do you really mean to tell me you are unaware of the fact that there is no lack of radical islamic leaders waiting in the wings to take his place now that he is dead. Very weak piont my friend. "His portrayal as a martyr is an act of desperation" Agreed. Also, his portrayal as an evil mastermind by the american propaganda machine was complete fallacy. "So, if you would indulge me, on what basis do you claim that he has been irredeemably indoctrinated" This is an easy one, he never (EVER EVER EVER) questions the actions of his government despite the fact that they have systematically lied to the world and their own people (with much success i might add), he spreads this misinformation never questioning whether any of it is wrong. I cannot begin to tell you about this and his motivation in doing it but i wont as i dont have the time to write anything in that detail, and i doubt you'll want to read it. "simply for refusing to take your speculation as fact" No thats got knowing to do with it, and i dont appreciate you trying to paint me that way even though it doesnt reflect badly on me so go right ahead keep showing how respectful you are. "Is it not you who is guilty of being "small-minded"" No i admitted i maybe way off the mark but i also said he maybe too as we both lack any tangible insight into the issue, but he refuses to accept this, hes right in his mind and doesn't want to admit that the answer may be somewhere in the middle as it goes washington bullshit hes been fed, you can;t disagree with big brother enigmatic man, you should know that. "for only considering your surmise to be valid?" Again you insinuate that i have been saying from the start that only my version of events is 100% valid, that is not th case at all, and thats exactly why i called you small minded cause if you had read through my correspondance with him you'd know that was my position yet your still trying to discredit me by throwing this label on me, i never said that and trying to put words in my mouth again only reflects badly on you my friend. "But your perspective is in some places entirely unfounded" I dont beleive so, please piont out how it is compleltely (i.e. 100%) unfounded in places and ill tell you why i think it isnt. "and in others a highly exaggerated version of others whose opinions are similarly dubious." This i find incredbily small minded, so i follow the opinions of those who are similarly dubious (e.g. Russias envoy to Nato, Robert Fisk) but Bohemian follows people who are in noe way dubious i.e. washington, they have never lied about anything beofre, or synthesised false evidence in order to carry out there destrcutive imperial agenda. The fact that you even suggested this shows your desparation to discredit me. "By what intuitive leap do you make such a declaration" Again, its called common sense, you should look it up sometime. "Elegantly said" Why thank you my prose has been developing niecly im glad you noticed,i find it funny that you dont understand the full significance of the response but then again i didnt expect you to, it seems to me that you belong in a much more unawakened time (e.g. Victorian England would be a nice fit), then you could wear your top hat and spit on all the peasants while you regale all the Lords and Ladies, what do ya think (i knwo i said ya instead of you), i am right on the money, i think i am. By the way your attempt at an insulting me (i.e."I know as much as I need, and more than I wish") only shows you to be as ignorant as you are, and actually for the first time (thats ive noticed anyway although im sure there are other examples) shows you to be a hypocrite given what you previously accused me of. 1
point
I disagree, i think Al Queda is just as dangerous now that he is dead, i personally think any who beleives that this mans death will upset their operations in anyway to be quiite nieve Even if your unfounded speculation is correct, we have dealt a serious blow to their morale by finding and killing their figurehead. It is a demonstration of the power of our militaries and intelligence networks. it is also nieve to think that his input over the last 10 years could have been anything except severly limited given that he was the most weanted man in the world That is fallacious thinking. The entire group is wanted by most western governments. Such a line of reasoning posits that it would be impossible for them to conduct any operation at all. Are you serious? Can you not see the extreme flaw in this argument, do you really mean to tell me you are unaware of the fact that there is no lack of radical islamic leaders A man's death is not irrelevant simply because he can be replaced, else assassination would be a futile practice. We have demonstrated the mortality of their spiritual leaders. my friend I am not your friend. Please stop addressing me as such, I find it quite patronising. Agreed. Also, his portrayal as an evil mastermind by the american propaganda machine was complete fallacy. You are in no position to make absolute claims about a man with whom you are not in the least way involved or connected. Your rejection of the United States government's position is simplistic and too passionate to be a reasonable examination. Notwithstanding, you have called it both a lie and a fallacy. It cannot be both. This is an easy one, he never (EVER EVER EVER) questions the actions of his government despite the fact that they have systematically lied to the world he has questioned their economic policies many times, actually, but you continue to fail to even recognise the irrelevance of virtually every claim you have made against that government. For one, the motivation for the Iraq war of which you are so fond of decrying has virtually no connection to the American's portrayal of Osama Bin Laden, yet you continue to assert that their vilification of the man was a means by which to pacify a public which opposed the conflict. No thats got knowing to do with it, and i dont appreciate you trying to paint me that way even though it doesnt reflect badly on me so go right ahead Your previous words are not coherent with those above. At virtually every turn, you have stated that our refusal to accept your simplistic version of events is a sign of our "small-minded[ness]", "indoctrination" or "ignorance". [Bohemian] doesn't want to admit that the answer may be somewhere in the middle Your own position, sir, is far from moderate. You have desperately few facts, your accusations have no relevance and when pressed for even the slightest mote of substance you resort to argumenta ad hominem. Meanwhile, you pretend to acknowledge the fallibility of your position yet stubbornly refuse to accept that it is anything but the whole and complete truth. you insinuate that i have been saying from the start that only my version of events is 100% valid, that is not th case at all, and thats exactly why i called you small minded You consistently make this defence, and consistently fail to act in a manner which would indicate it to be legitimate. I dont beleive so, please piont out how it is compleltely (i.e. 100%) unfounded in places and ill tell you why i think it isnt. 1 "the fact is he probably had wasnt even the master mind of 9/11". 2 "Really this guy is no figure head". 3 "Bin laden could have easily been captured and put on trial... but no he was killed probably for that exact reason i.e. Obama didn't want the info." 4 "this man... has been living in a pakistani mansion for the last 10 yrs... ill bet with US knowledge as well" Quod erat demostrandem. so i follow the opinions of those who are similarly dubious (e.g. Russias envoy to Nato, Robert Fisk Exempli Gratia? Et quod erat altera exempli? I suspect you have simply read the articles of Mr. Fisk, and believed almost everything in them as absolute fact. The fact that you even suggested this shows your desparation to discredit me. The fact that you have used this debate as a platform to discredit the United States government demonstrates your desperation to libel them. Again, its called common sense, you should look it up sometime. There is no substance to this response. I asked you for a reason, you replied equates to "because it's obvious". Why thank you my prose has been developing niecly In conjunction, no doubt with your spelling. im glad you noticed,i find it funny that you dont understand the full significance of the response Your responses exhibit such paucity of substance that one wonders whether they would be an adequate subsistence for the slightest of intellectual mice. it seems to me that you belong in a much more unawakened time (e.g. Victorian England would be a nice fit) Georgian, sir, Georgian. then you could wear your top hat They exemplify good taste. and spit on all the peasants That is a petty slight. while you regale all the Lords and Ladies [Chuckles]... hmmm, yes; such are the eh, barbarous innovations of our times. I mean, we might as well throw in our lot with the French! Oh Mr. Tonkin Galvin you are too cruel! what do ya think (i knwo i said ya instead of you), i am right on the money, i think i am. What do I think? I think you have allowed your indignation as an Irishman to influence your opinion of me more than the opinions I have expressed. I also believe that you are intimidated by my superior faculties of articulation, and, as a means of coping, masquerade your fear as contempt. I think you dislike the combination of my facility of speech with my English manner, because it conjures images of the persecution of your ancestors and that you level your contumely at me out of petty nationalism, which, it is my solemn duty to observe, is the characteristic feature of so many of your people. By the way your attempt at an insulting me The porcupine is startled: his quills stand erect. 2
points
"Even if your unfounded speculation is correct, we have dealt a serious blow to their morale by finding and killing their figurehead. It is a demonstration of the power of our militaries and intelligence networks." I dont think so, i think his death will only antagonise his followers who are many (given the last tens years destruction produced by the US in the arab world). "That is fallacious thinking" No its not. "The entire group is wanted by most western governments" yes but i think we can both agree Bin Laden was wanted a little bit more than any other group member, just a little bit. "Such a line of reasoning posits that it would be impossible for them to conduct any operation at all." No it doesnt, in fact i find that quite a pathetic attempt to discredit my argument, inferring that just cause the the supposed leader of the group and the most wanted is limited in his capacity to lead does not mean the group would be in any way hindered in conducting operations, the fact is they probably learned (or were forced to learn) to operate without his input along time ago. "A man's death is not irrelevant simply because he can be replaced" Yes it is, he was made into a Hitler by Western (maninly US ) media, so his death is celebrated as such but soon they will find a new Hitler, if they havent already, how else can they justify their illegal imperialistic actions, there must be someone who can threaten US security otherwise they'd have to admit there just being imperialists. "else assassination would be a futile practice" If you say so my friend. "We have demonstrated the mortality of their spiritual leaders." Quite stupid if i may say so.May I? "I find it quite patronising" I glad i find everything you type to incredibly patronising, probably because you think your powerful intellect provides you with insight you clearly dont have. "You are in no position to make absolute claims about a man with whom you are not in the least way involved or connected." And you (or Bohemian) do? "Your rejection of the United States government's position is simplistic and too passionate to be a reasonable examination" If you say so, i find beleiving any that comes from washington as fact is quite stupid given that time and time again they have demonstrated their capacity to blantantly lie in order to further their own self interested agenda. "Notwithstanding, you have called it both a lie and a fallacy. It cannot be both" I'm well bloody aware it cannot be both and this just proves you havent been readin my responses as if you had you'd know i think it is either/or. "he has questioned their economic policies many times" Yes and im sure he has criticised the liberals, God knows who else. YOu don't understand my position at all. "but you continue to fail to even recognise the irrelevance of virtually every claim you have made against that government" I dont think any of the claims i have made are irrelevant, and whats more you can't prove there relevance or irrelevance. "For one, the motivation for the Iraq war of which you are so fond of decrying has virtually no connection to the American's portrayal of Osama Bin Laden" I wouldnt say that the fact that washingtone falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was in collaboration with Al Queda top officials prior to the invasion (or have you forgotten those old lies) qualifies as "virtually no connection to the American's portrayal of Osama Bin Laden", in fact i think it qualifies, and whats more i do beleiv i just caught you by your ballsack my friend whether your big enough to admit it or not. "yet you continue to assert that their vilification of the man was a means by which to pacify a public which opposed the conflict" Thats because it was, my God man, you need to do some serious research on this topic, i dont even know why im entertaining you. "Your previous words are not coherent with those above" Yes they are and any impartial observer will agree. "t virtually every turn, you have stated that our refusal to accept your simplistic version of events is a sign of our "small-minded[ness]", "indoctrination" or "ignorance" Again you try to paint me with this brush, i have stated i may be wrong, i have stated you may be right, i have also stated that there is inadequate info. to prove or disprove either of us (or Bohemian), no it you who continues to tell me that i am a fool for beleiving what i do as washington has already cleared up the matter, your only demonstrating your ignorance (in my opinion). "Your own position, sir, is far from moderate" Im well aware of that. "You have desperately few facts" Oh yes i forgot about the littany of facts you have at your diposal. "facts, your accusations have no relevance and when pressed for even the slightest mote of substance you resort to argumenta ad hominem" To you that have no relelvance, and i think you'll find you have resorted to argumenta ad hominem just as much as i have. "Meanwhile, you pretend to acknowledge the fallibility of your position yet stubbornly refuse to accept that it is anything but the whole and complete truth. " No, i have accepted that my position may be incorrect but im not going to change it until evidence proving it to be incorrect comes to light, and whats more i beleive that is whjat any rational person would do. "the fact is he probably had wasnt even the master mind of 9/11" So you think he was the sole mastermind of 9/11 and you believe asserting the opposite to be completely unfounded. "Really this guy is no figure head" Ill give you this one, bad choice of words. "Bin laden could have easily been captured and put on trial... but no he was killed probably for that exact reason i.e. Obama didn't want the info" This is far from unfounded, adn you should know it, but selecting only proves you dont. America created Bin LAden and his cohorts, they had murky dealings with him aloong time before the relationship soured, i dont beleive saying that they killed him to keep those dealings from becoming known to the world (via trial) is unfounded, i admit it may be wrong but it is certainly not unfounded. "this man... has been living in a pakistani mansion for the last 10 yrs... ill bet with US knowledge as well" Ill give you this one aswell. Anymore, by my count thats two you found. "I suspect you have simply read the articles of Mr. Fisk, and believed almost everything in them as absolute fact. " Ya thats exactly what i didm thanks for letting me know, now i can finally change my opinion about this, what would i do without you. "The fact that you have used this debate as a platform to discredit the United States government demonstrates your desperation to libel them" If you say so. "There is no substance to this response" If you say so. "In conjunction, no doubt with your spelling" Agauin yes, thanks for noticing. "Your responses exhibit such paucity of substance that one wonders whether they would be an adequate subsistence for the slightest of intellectual mice" Again man seriously you need to work on your insults. "Oh Mr. Tonkin Galvin you are too cruel" I have to admit i laughed out loud at this one. "What do I think? I think you have allowed your indignation as an Irishman to influence your opinion of me more than the opinions I have expressed" I think you may be partially correct in saying this, also i did retract it in a different debate. "I also believe that you are intimidated by my superior faculties of articulation" I have to take issue with this, i learned a long time ago to value what i have, and not be intimidated or envious of anyone who is superior to me in any of the various faculties. "and, as a means of coping, masquerade your fear as contempt." Now you've really gone into a world of your own, but if thats what you'd like to beleive i wont take issue with it.I can tell you probably cling to many fantasies. "I think you dislike the combination of my facility of speech with my English manner" Already adressed this. "because it conjures images of the persecution of your ancestors and that you level your contumely at me out of petty nationalism" Again you delve into a worl of your own, to reduce my opinion you to petty nationalism shows your capacity to valid prediction about people.But again if you want to beleive this go right ahead. "which, it is my solemn duty to observe, is the characteristic feature of so many of your people" I was waiting for it, and then you deleivered, you need to learn the meaning of the word humility. "The porcupine is startled: his quills stand erect" Again man serious, i mean i get it, but come on, surely someone of your intelleect can produce something with bit more stinging. 1
point
I dont think so, i think his death will only antagonise his followers who are many They are already our enemies. They are not rational, their opposition to us is a matter of dogma. I don't believe it is possible to intensify their hatred. We must wear them down by showing that they may take no refuge under the wings of their leaders. We must hunt those leaders down one by one and kill them all, as we did with Osama Bin Laden, or, if possible trial and execute them. No it doesnt, in fact i find that quite a pathetic attempt to discredit my argument inferring that just cause the the supposed leader of the group and the most wanted is limited in his capacity to lead does not mean the group would be in any way hindered in conducting operations Your position is utterly and completely untenable. Your suggestion is that a wanted man could not lead a group of wanted men because he is wanted, when it is quite clear that, with or without him, this group of wanted men is able to operate. Exactly how do you think that managing the group would in any way jeopardise Osama Bin Laden's safety? Yes it is That assertion is demonstrably false. Imagine, for example, that your father was murdered. Your mother can remarry, but that doesn't mean that the surrogate father is as wealthy as the last, or as kind, or as intelligence et cetera. Quite stupid if i may say so. You don't know much about warfare. I glad i find everything you type to incredibly patronising You are an incredulous fellow, it seems. And you (or Bohemian) do? We accept what has been said by Western intelligence agencies and Al Qaeda themselves: that to some degree, Osama Bin Laden was involved in the leadership of the latter. I'm well bloody aware it cannot be both and this just proves you havent been readin my responses as if you had you'd know i think it is either/or. Of course, every inconsistency in your argument (and there are many) is my fault. Yes and im sure he has criticised the liberals, God knows who else. The politics of the left are only slightly less ludicrous than the politics of the right. YOu don't understand my position at all. You are whining now. Your position is a ridiculous rejection of everything the United States and British governments and intelligence agencies say, fanciful speculation on the organisation of Al Qaeda, a litany of threadbare insults and accusations, irrelevant cases of United States foreign meddling and a perverse refusal to acknowledge the fluidity of allegiance and motivation. I wouldnt say that the fact that washingtone falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was in collaboration with Al Queda top officials prior to the invasion (or have you forgotten those old lies) qualifies as "virtually no connection to the American's portrayal of Osama Bin Laden", in fact i think it qualifies, and whats more i do beleiv i just caught you by your ballsack my friend whether your big enough to admit it or not. Got you. Every chapter of Al Qaeda was not solely controlled by Osama Bin Laden and they never were. He was involved specifically with the chapter that operates out of Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Americans knew this, and did not say otherwise. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0514/ I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but that seems to be a fruitless prospect, given that you don't even know what the United States said to justify their invasion of Iraq (primarily, it was an allegation of WMD production). So you see, your inane accusations about Iraq are all quite irrelevant. 1
point
"They are already our enemies. They are not rational, their opposition to us is a matter of dogma. I don't believe it is possible to intensify their hatred. We must wear them down by showing that they may take no refuge under the wings of their leaders. We must hunt those leaders down one by one and kill them all, as we did with Osama Bin Laden, or, if possible trial and execute them." Thats it spew out your hatred. "Your position is utterly and completely untenable" If you say so. "Your suggestion is that a wanted man could not lead a group of wanted men because he is wanted" ya thst pretty much it alright, the fact is he was more wanted than any of them so yes i do think his capacity to lead was adversely affected (to say the least). "when it is quite clear that, with or without him, this group of wanted men is able to operate" Thats exactly what i said, what aer you playing at? "That assertion is demonstrably false" Im sure in your head it is. "You don't know much about warfare" Yes Sir Gneral Sir, sorry General sir im a good student i can learn General sir. "You are an incredulous fellow, it seems" I could say the same about you my friend. "We accept what has been said by Western intelligence agencies and Al Qaeda themselves" ya i know thats why i called you nieve. "Of course, every inconsistency in your argument (and there are many) is my fault." I think if you read through my posts you will see how false the above statement is. "You are whining now." No im statting that you dont understand my position based on the responses im getting from you. "Your position is a ridiculous rejection of everything the United States and British governments and intelligence agencies say" Not a complete rejection im well aware they have to base their info. on facts but i dont trust their version of events, and that fact that you do shows your incredible nievity. "fanciful speculation on the organisation of Al Qaeda" Thers nothing fanciful about it actually. " a litany of threadbare insults and accusations" Ya cause you've treated me like a young virgin altar boy, hypocrite. "Every chapter of Al Qaeda was not solely controlled by Osama Bin Laden and they never were" I never said they were i claimed that they used the conection bertween Al Queda and Bin Laden (by extension given the campaign make him into a demon) to justify the war with Iraq. "fruitless prospect, given that you don't even know what the United States said to justify their invasion of Iraq (primarily, it was an allegation of WMD production). " Do you really think i did not know that, the Americans used many lies to weasel their way into Iraq, yes WMDs were the main one, i stated this in a previous post. MY God man just admit when you've been caught out, ask yourself when was the last time you admitted you were wrong about anything, if you dont at leastc try to admit you were wrong for someone you're going to go thorugh your whole life with that incredibly big ego weighing you down, and a kind of snobish arrogance thats makes people want to punch you in the nose. "So you see, your inane accusations about Iraq are all quite irrelevant." Save it my friend you're claerly not the debator i thought you were. 1
point
"Got you" Got what, you seriously mean to tell me in your arrogant mind lets you think you actually somehow caught me out, fucking hell your ego is bigger than i thought, it wont let you lose even when you have done. "Every chapter of Al Qaeda was not solely controlled by Osama Bin Laden and they never were" And you actually think i was unaware of this? Seriously?I mean after reading thorugh my posts i thought the least you realise about me is that i have reasonble knowledge of these things, but you go ahead and even if i was unaware of this fact, i think you'll find Bohemian pionted it out to me twice separately in previous posts so you really are quite stupid my friend. "He was involved specifically with the chapter that operates out of Afghanistan/Pakistan" Yes your so knowledgeable, much more so than a apathetic commoner like me, why dont you lay some more piontless information that i already knew on me you imbecile. Go insult somebody else's intelligence your very good at it. "I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but that seems to be a fruitless prospect" Ya i know whats the piont when your incapable of admitting to any folly in your own reasoning or argument. "given that you don't even know what the United States said to justify their invasion of Iraq (primarily, it was an allegation of WMD production" My dog knows that the primary reason the US invaded Iraq was WMDs, everyone does, the fact that you could even question this only serves again to demonstrate what your gigantic ego will let you beleive, if you want conclusive proof search through my correspondance i have stated this fact multiple times to various people in previous debates, but im sure you rather keep your incredbily small mind, id say its a real comfort to you. "So you see, your inane accusations about Iraq are all quite irrelevant." Yes i see, i finally see the light, why didnt you just include QED, i mean you've compltetely sown up my argument, it holds no water now that you've had it, it cannot stand now that your scrutinising intellect, your piercing contemplation, and your assiduous reserch skills have ripped my argument into tiny little pieces that lay on the ground like pieces of a shattered boyhood dream. Heres an idea why not for your next trick you try to convince that i didn't know the world was round. 1
point
Got what, you seriously mean to tell me in your arrogant mind lets you think you actually somehow caught me out, fucking hell your ego is bigger than i thought, it wont let you lose even when you have done. As a defensive reaction, I am dispose to compare the above to the amurcous effluence exuded by skunks when agitated. Yes your so knowledgeable, much more so than a apathetic commoner like me, why dont you lay some more piontless information that i already knew on me you imbecile. Go insult somebody else's intelligence your very good at it. The curtain drops and you are exposed. There's no substance to your arguments now that your obfuscation is revealed, and you consequently resort to ad hominem attacks, as usual. My dog knows that the primary reason the US invaded Iraq was WMDs, everyone does, the fact that you could even question this only serves again to demonstrate what your gigantic ego will let you beleive, if you want conclusive proof search through my correspondance i have stated this fact multiple times to various people in previous debates, but im sure you rather keep your incredbily small mind, id say its a real comfort to you. Yet, you fail to realise the significance of this. You claim that Osama Bin Laden's role was exaggerated to pacify the population and further an "imperialistic agenda". However, Osama Bin Laden was never used as an excuse. Furthermore, you assertion that his death is a convenient means of obscuring the truth about America's funding of him during the Afghanistan war of the eighties is totally false, as that is public knowledge. Thus, you position on the Iraq war and United States foreign policy is entirely irrelevant, and the matter that comprises the rest of your argument is, as I have said, conjecture. 1
point
"I got you" Is that what you say everytime someone catches you out on something. "The curtain drops and you are exposed" Ya on you "There's no substance to your arguments now that your obfuscation is revealed" A hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha "and you consequently resort to ad hominem attacks, as usual" The mouth of hypocrisy speaks "You claim that Osama Bin Laden's role was exaggerated to pacify the population and further an "imperialistic agenda". However, Osama Bin Laden was never used as an excuse" Yes he was just not explicitly, you dont see m to understand anything about the US propaganda machine, since 9/11 Osama Bin Laden has been propped up by the US as a gigantic demon who commands the hordes of the unwashed masses of arab terrorists all willing to sacrifice their own lives just to hurt the US, this is a title he gladly accepted as it gave him and his organisation the infamy they so desparately sought. This propped up lie after lie, until they didnt even have to explain the lies anymore, the mere suggestion of Bin Laden and Al Queda inspried fear and hysteria in the US population, washington knew this and used it to there advantage when they wanted to invade Iraq but they obviously knew it would take more than some tenuous link of Al Queda with Saddam, therefore the WMD lie was invented and they gathered together whatever false eveidence they could muster, i still remember watching Colin Powell presenting the case to the UN and being utterly unconvincing(i was quite young but understood the significance). Now this link with AL Queda was a link with BIn Laden, the US alwasy have to have a bad guy who runs the show from the top down, this was Bin Laden, they never went as far as to say that Saddam and Bin Laden were meeting for coffee but they knew exactly what they were doing when they linked the two. Now you have dogged having to admit you were wrong about this in a very slimy manner, to be honest i expected a great deal more from you than to try to worm your way out of something like this, and to have to guile to try to pin it all on me and say that all my arguments are worthless as a consequence only shows you for what you are. "Furthermore, you assertion that his death is a convenient means of obscuring the truth about America's funding of him during the Afghanistan war of the eighties is totally false, as that is public knowledge" People know the CIA propped them up but they dont know hoow it was done or who suffered as a consequence, they know nothing about it, BTW i never said that this was the entire reason, i said that is most likely the reason they killed him instead of capturing him and i dont think it is such a leap in reasoning to asume that, in this case we have to be sceptical of their motives, i refuse to beleive they could not have easily caputred him if they wanted to, they were working in cooperation with the Pakistani's, id say they had alot more control over the situation that they let on, but we can't know can we, we just have to swallow what they've told us, and you seem perfectly happy to do so, i find that incredibly nieve. "Thus, you position on the Iraq war and United States foreign policy is entirely irrelevant" Yes thats it rationalise awhy all my opinoins are false, rationalise them and gather them all together in your head then the shit you spew out when you type will be even more disrespectful. You had the guile to infer i have a superiority complex, have you looked in the mirror lately you hypocrite. "rest of your argument is, as I have said, conjecture" Yes sorry your highness, i forgot about all the cold hard facts you have at your disposal, oh wait. 1
point
I recently had the pleasure of watching a series of excellent documentary films by the renowned filmaker Adam Curtis, if you have the time and the interest i strongly advise you watch them, as you may have guessed they're quite related to the debate topic we previously discussed. http://video.google.com/ http://video.google.com/ http://video.google.com/ I refer you to the sections entitled "a fading influence" and "no eveidence of new plots" The first sentence of the last paragraph reads: "Without bin Laden to serve as their shepherd, it is possible al-Qaeda will further fragment." This only seems to further support the significance of his death. 1
point
"This only seems to further support the significance of his death." I disagree, while i admit it doesn't cast as much insignificance on his death as the RT article it also says; "despite bin Laden's writings, al-Qaeda's recent actions point to the ailing 54-year-old's waning importance in the movement he bankrolled and helped to lead." which is exactly the piont i made, it says; "and the officials said they had not yet seen any indication that bin Laden had the ability to co-ordinate timing of attacks across the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia. It is also unclear from the files how much the affiliate groups relied on his guidance." ,"the 2005 suicide bombings and the trans-Atlantic liquid explosive plot to blow up several airliners in 2006 - both had trails that led back to Pakistan and al-Qaeda figures, but there was never a direct link to bin Laden himself." "British officials have said. One British official said counter-terror authorities had not been tracking bin Laden like they had other suspects deemed more directly involved in operations" and "Leah Farrell, a former senior counter-terrorism analyst with the Australian Federal Police, said that bin Laden's death was a symbolic victory for the United States and would not impact al-Qaeda's operations." Now i dont know why you felt the need to piont out lines from the article that dont directly support my perspective, oh wait i do. The fact those claims are in there only supports the fair and balanced nature of the article (yes i do consider al jazeera far more truthful source of info. than any american news outlet although i must admit they have their own agenda like any other, i suppose it just highlights how little faith i have in american news really). Now you dont seem to realsie that from the beginning ive been claiming that his death isnt that significant from various reasons that i beleive to be entirely correct, i have also admitted that the info. is too indequate to make any real definitive claims, but that hasn't stopped you, no sir, in fact if i can draw attention to the post you sent me about 2 days ago; "The Intel we gathered from Bin laden's Compound during the raid shows us exactly how involved he was. It isn't even speculation at this point in time", the fact that you veleive that demonstrates perfectly to me how indoctrinated you are, your government only has to say jumop and you say how high, did it ever occur to you that the info. you're being fed could be garbage of the highest order, i mean its not anyone else has been able to examine it, especially a third party, but you continue to send me on links from washington puppets thinking that you can win a debate that way. Now do you understand why i consider you to be indoctrinated and delluded? "despite bin Laden's writings, al-Qaeda's recent actions point to the ailing 54-year-old's waning importance in the movement he bankrolled and helped to lead." How in any way does 'waning importance' somehow denote 'no/little importance'? Do you just read into it what you want to hear? Hell, Bin Laden's second-in-command is a very divisive figure who is even unpopular amongst Al Qaeda members. If anything Osama Bin laden was a figure who united all of Al Qaeda under one banner, even your article appears to say this. Yet you ignore anything that seems to contradict your claims, even if it appears in your very own sources. This is why your opinion is utter tripe. Sensationalistic rantings fueled by boredom. 1
point
In my mind at least "waning improtance" and "no/little improtance are two very closely related terms that can at a push be used interchangeably "Do you just read into it what you want to hear?" No and niether does Robert Fisk, i think your getting confused here with yourself. "If anything Osama Bin laden was a figure who united all of Al Qaeda under one banner" If you say so. "Yet you ignore anything that seems to contradict your claims" Not at all, in fact ive opernly admitted that i may be wrong time and time again, the fact remains that you have yet do so even though your position is just as tenous as mine. "This is why your opinion is utter tripe. Sensationalistic rantings fueled by boredom" I bet you enjoy categorising anyone who doesnt share your twisted nationalistic views, am i right? 1
point
"You don't try to catch or execute a criminal before he has committed a crime, sir." Bin Laden had commited many crimes and he was a wanted member of Al Queda prior to the attacks, he is also beleived to have been behind the caraprk bombing of the trade centers in the 90s. You've misunderstood my piont, if they had found out that 9/11 was being planned and captured him before it could have been executed that would have been worth celebrating, they didnt, he got away with it, and murdering him in his bedromm (apparently) 10 years later after he wrought all the destruction is he intended on wreaking and helped deveoped Al Queda into the group it is today in my opinion is not worth celebrating, i see no victory i see something completely irrelevant being painted as a victory for political gain, and to stoke the ever increasingly intense fires of american nationalism. "Bohemian is a member of the United States Military, and has been fighting eastern insurgents in his capacity as an engineer of the same for some time. I think it prudent to defer to his opinion on the nature of his own enemies." I know exactly who he is, personallly i think it is quite foolish to trust the opinion of anyone with his level of indoctrination and obvious bias. Both Al Qaeda and Mr. Bin Laden have claimed that he was responsible for attacks on American warriors and civilians. The pion is the information availible is wholly inadequate, any assumptions must be met with scepticism, i think most likely that he was doing very little except surviving for the past 10yrs, and even if he wasn't (which is unlikely) his death changes nothing, there is no gain frmo his death, all i see is a loss. I also think he was killed intentionally as his trial would most likely expose how the CIA created him and his associates and i dont think the US wanted light shed on that for obvious reasons. "The East has been in conflict with the West for the better part of three thousand years. It is simplistic to state that the mutual hatred is a recent phenomenon, or entirely the fault of preemptive action by the West." I admit you have a piont but i dont have time for a proper rebuttal, im sorry come back in one week ill have more time, then ill debate you properly on this issue. "That's war, sir" No its not its imperialsim, its greedy self interested colonisation of resources, and the sooner you realise that the sooner you may begin to see things as they are. "Well, possibly because it is so obvious to persons such as yourself that he was a puppet leader, doing the United States' bidding. Perhaps they thought it expedient to demonstrate their enmity?" This argument is incredibly weak, look at the history of US backed dictators and you'll find that they never minded there dictators slaughtering large number of their own populations as long as they were getting what they required from them, in the word of Henry Kissinger; " America has no allies, America only has interests" Besides they never demonsrated their enmity for Sadam until he was firmly against them, and even then they left him power after Gulf 1 in order for him to hold th country together, even though that meant letting him quell (slaughter) a rebellion which was asked for by the US in order to aid in fighting. "It is impossible for a United Nations sanction to be passed with the support of only two nations, sir." I never said that and you know it, i said they psuhed for barbaric sanctions, they received very little support (except from Isreal) but they used their enormous sway to get their way. Why not try investigating this before you try to rebuke it, i gave you more credit than that. Here this the perfect place to start: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ "Is the United States not allowed to have allies any more?" Not when they give them more aid (mostly military) than all other countries in the world combined that they sunsequently use to commit genocide against the helpless palestian people with full US backing. "I think you should apologise, sir. There is quite a difference between telling somebody that they're rationalising an atrocity, and calling them a genocidal maniac" I admit its an extreme allegaion but i would not have made it if i didnt think deep in my own heart that that is exactly how it would play out. "Either the persons fired upon by the military are unarmed civilians, as you say, or armed hostiles, in which case it is perfectly acceptable for Bohemian's comrades to shoot them." Okay lets assume they are armed hostiles, ill use an anolgy to destroy this piont. Take the case of Ireland when Churchill sent in the Black and Tans in 1919, they slaughtered and raped their way around the country, they burned most of Cork city and left an traiil of destrcution in their wake (which is exactly what good old Winston wanted might i add, the savage), now they would be perfectly entitled to shot any armed IRA man (and they did whether he was amred, an IRA man or a civilian i.e. man, woman and even children), but the key question is did they have a right to be there in the first place??????????????? "I have conquered the Aedui in battle therefore it is my right to impose whatever conditions on them as I please." Julius Caesar, imperator of the Gallic legions" So you advocating a return to the savage times when might was right, is that it????? 2
points
i see no victory i see something completely irrelevant being painted as a victory for political gain, and to stoke the ever increasingly intense fires of american nationalism. The leader of the enemy has been eliminated. That can never be an irrelevant in a conflict. I know exactly who he is, personallly i think it is quite foolish to trust the opinion of anyone with his level of indoctrination and obvious bias. Sir, you have frequently revealed yourself to biased against anything American and you willingly believe anything which ascribes wrongdoing to them. You are quite simply in no position to tell Bohemian how his enemy are organised, as you've never even been in combat or in any other way involved with them. The pion is the information availible is wholly inadequate, any assumptions must be met with scepticism, i think most likely that he was doing very little except surviving for the past 10yrs And your reason for believing this would be? No its not its imperialsim The enemy have a resource which you wish to take by force? Again, that's war. I don't recall any news concerning America's new "province", or "overseas possession". its greedy self interested colonisation of resources You cannot set up a colony by seizing an existing state's infrastructure and leaving the indigenous population intact. and the sooner you realise that the sooner you may begin to see things as they are. You presume greater insight than you possess, sir. This argument is incredibly weak I was mocking you, that's why. Do you really think I believe U.S foreign policy is shaped by the opinions of conspiracy theorists and malcontent pacifists? I never said that and you know it, i said they psuhed for barbaric sanctions, they received very little support (except from Isreal) but they used their enormous sway to get their way. The situation is black or white. Either they received very little support and the sanctions were not inflicted, or they received enough support to have them implemented. Not when they give them more aid (mostly military) than all other countries in the world combined that they sunsequently use to commit genocide against the helpless palestian people with full US backing. First, you have no authority by which to make that decree. Second, there is no innocent side in war. If the United States wishes to back one, that is their business. I admit its an extreme allegaion but i would not have made it if i didnt think deep in my own heart that that is exactly how it would play out. There truly are no limits to your insufferable presumption. Take the case of Ireland when Churchill sent in the Black and Tans in 1919, they slaughtered and raped their way around the country, they burned most of Cork city and left an traiil of destrcution in their wake I am familiar with shock tactics. now they would be perfectly entitled to shot any armed IRA man (and they did whether he was amred, an IRA man or a civilian i.e. man, woman and even children), but the key question is did they have a right to be there in the first place??????????????? Ireland was a possession of the United Kingdom. The exercise of military power to secure the territory was entirely justified. The excessive violence against civilian targets was illogical, but was presumably intended to force the militants into submission. As with the execution of militants after the Easter rising, the plan proved retrograde to its intended purpose. I know of no means by which a right might be conferred upon the inhabitants of that island to level a moral obligation at Great Britain to release them, after four centuries of practical British rule, and over eight hundred years of technical rule. Almost every nation in Europe has achieved its borders today through military conquest of lesser tribes, and your case is not special in any regard. So you advocating a return to the savage times when might was right, is that it?? I am saying that emotional pleas do not change the situation as it is; that conquest grants a practical right to the conqueror " to impose whatever conditions on them as I please". Your notional argument of "rights" is delusional. There is no supreme authority which can confer any such rights to the conquered. 1
point
"The leader of the enemy has been eliminated. That can never be an irrelevant in a conflict." This brings me back to my main piont, he was the leader of nothing or least his involvment was so minimal that his death will most liekyl not disrupt Al Quedas operation a great deal, he was involved in plotting the 9/11 attacks and creating and funding Al Quead but i honestly think for the last 10 years hes just been living in a house in pakistan.I may be wrong but if you can't show why im wrong then just accept the fact that my opinion differs from your own and shut up. "And your reason for believing this would be?" Common sense "Sir, you have frequently revealed yourself to biased against anything American" I admit after seeing how mcuh pain and suffering the government of america has unleashed it does make one slightly biased against them but to suggest that i jump on the band wagon of any anti-american drivvle i find highly insulting and deeply offensive, i dont just go along with opinions that have no factual basis just because i agree with them or they subscribe to my own particular way of looking at things, and whats more i ahev no idea what gave you that idea. "First, you have no authority by which to make that decree." I need no authority to make such a decree (the very idea is rather funny i need only look at the million of palestian refugees, the inhuman blockade of Gaza etc. etc. Investigate what you are taking about my friend if you have any empathy for your fellow man i assure you tha you will come to the say conclusion. This i disagree with strongly, i am biased against american power (i.e. government, military and corporations) i am not biased against the people whi i see as being caught in trap. "you willingly believe anything which ascribes wrongdoing to them." Thats just not true, ive never criticised them for anything that did not deserve criticism. "You are quite simply in no position to tell Bohemian how his enemy are organised, as you've never even been in combat or in any other way involved with them." If someone is spouting the same washington propaganda thats fed to the american masses in order to keep them misinformed and obedient with regard to their governments illegal actions i feel it necessary to rebuke such distortions and mistruths,and i am in every position to do so. "And your reason for believing this would be?" Common sense. I admit i may be wrong but i honestly beleive it to be the most likely scenario, im not saying he would have had no contact with al queda but he could do virtually nothing except act as the symbol of their resistance campaign. "The enemy have a resource which you wish to take by force? Again, that's war. I don't recall any news concerning America's new "province", or "overseas possession"." Are you trying to provide some sort of fucked justification for whats going on or are you arguing the definition of war i can't tell (i know you do love your definitions). "You presume greater insight than you possess, sir." No i dont, im waiting to be proved wrong on any of my assertions. "I was mocking you, that's why. Do you really think I believe U.S foreign policy is shaped by the opinions of conspiracy theorists and malcontent pacifists?" That was your idea of ridicule, my god man you need to work on that to say the least. Anyway, you can call me a conspiracy theorists if you like (i dont actually mind being called a malcontent pacifist) i have facts to back up what im saying e.g. the genocide of the Kurds n Turkey was tacitly supported by the US administration at the time as the tyrannical Turkish regime was an ally and many other instances of genocide. Now my question for you is why do you think otherwise, do you think americas actions could not be so self interested that they would be capable of disregarding the lives of large numbers of people cause if so i refer you again to vietnam. "The situation is black or white. Either they received very little support and the sanctions were not inflicted, or they received enough support to have them implemented" No situation is ever black or white i pity you if you live in a world where everything must be black or white. Again, look into the issue, the US was blamed for reason i.e. they deserved to be. "Second, there is no innocent side in war. If the United States wishes to back one, that is their business." Again not really a war, more of a slow extermination, but your right there is no innocent in war, but one side can be more innocent than the other i.e. the Palestians, but i suppose you dont agree with if everything must be black or white "There truly are no limits to your insufferable presumption." You know you hide your exreme ignorance behind a mask of artculate but pretentious flourishes, i have debated Bohemian plenty, i beleive i have gained somewhat of an appreciation for his state of mind as least in regard to certain foreign policy issues (again i admit i may be way off the mark) but generally people in his postion have their minds regimented in a very specific way otherwise they would not be in that position. He has more or less stated to me before that he would be in support of a pre-emptve attack on Iranian soil so please keep your insulkts for someone they may have a minor effect on. "I am familiar with shock tactics." I was merely setting the scene in case you were unaware of the events. "Ireland was a possession of the United Kingdom. The exercise of military power to secure the territory was entirely justified. " There it is, thats exactly what i wanted to hear, and exactly what i expected to hear, you shown your true face here, i should have expected no less. "Almost every nation in Europe has achieved its borders today through military conquest of lesser tribes, and your case is not special in any regard" Ya whatever man you've already shown me exactly who you are. No wonder you jumped to the defense of Bohemian.I know what your getting at but i dont think your really looking at it from a humanist perspective, i can tell you dismiss such actions as merely being a law of nature, i don't. "I am saying that emotional pleas do not change the situation as it is; that conquest grants a practical right to the conqueror " to impose whatever conditions on them as I please". Your notional argument of "rights" is delusional. There is no supreme authority which can confer any such rights to the conquered." I agree with this entirely the problem is thats not the current line coming out of washington, they have people beleiving lies, as Noam Chomsky put; "either we hold our hands up and admit we are savages who want to invade your land take your resources or we stop, otherwise we are hypocrites" "This has achieved nothing" -The proven mastermind of many Al Qaeda terrorist attacks is dead, there is continual proof that he was the orchestrator of nearly all of the Al Qaeda actions for quite awhile now. "He financed al queda and was involved in its creation, and 9/11 thats all that is known" -That is not all that is known, there is proof that he was the ringleader, but I guess for your belief in conspiracy theories to continue you have to ignore facts and claim that Obama planned it, I don't even want him reelected, but even I don't believe wild accusations like that by basement dwelling conspiracy theorists such as yourself. "they turned to the other imperial power that was severely oppressing them" -More wild accusations with zero proof "fair enough he may have been a figure head for the movement, but that means nothing, its irrelevant" -How does that mean nothing? The figure that many of them draw inspiration from is now dead, so you are trying to say that this will not affect them? How does that even make sense. "what justice, I don't see any justice" -How is the fact that the man who orchestrated the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians being dead not justice? You think if he stood a mock of trial where the end result would have been the same that would have been justice? You are completely off base. "MY God man. Germans wanted Hitler in power, most Iraqis didnt want Saddam" -So isn't the fact that we freed the Iraqi's from a true oppressor whom they didn't want a good thing? No you find a bad way to spin it saying we had no reason to remove a MASS MURDERER from the dictatorship of a country in the most war ridden area in the entire world. Of these "millions" you claim died, which is not a confirmed number I can fin anywhere, but is one that you frequently throw around. Even if this number is true, who do you think killed more civilians? Us or Sadaam? And how many more civilians do you think would have died under his continued reign? You are delusional in believing that we had no reason to remove him and stabilize the country. "backed financially and miltarily by your great nation for much of his tenure" -We backed him financially in an attempt to stabilize the area, Iraq was in danger of becoming to weak to defend for itself and in order to prevent chaos in the area we leveled the playing field, unfortunately we underestimated Sadaam would do with this money and we fixed our problem. " that when you compare the numbres of middle deaths over the last 10-20 years you begin to realise who is really suffering" -Yes they are clearly suffering, not because of America, we don't go over there and attempt to kill as many civilians as possible like they did to us, they kill their own civilians, they don't need us for that. They fight wars and kill civilians every day. ", but if wouldnt be saying this if he was put on trial." -So you believe he would have been proven innocent? With a taped confession spread all over the world? How do you figure? I have to ask, with all your accusations and off base sarcastic comments about America, where are you from to be so proud and condescending on the greatest country in the world? I think the death of bin laden is completely irrelevant, americans seem to think this guy master minded every islamic terrorist action for the last 10 yrs Information confirming bin Laden’s active role in al Qaeda continues to emerge, painting the portrait of a “micro-manager,” as an unidentified U.S. official quoted in ProPublica, called him.“He was down in the weeds [determining] best operatives, best targets, best timing.”And U.S. intelligence analysts pouring over bin Laden’s personal diary have concluded that he was involved in “every recent major al Qaeda threat.” He also remained involved in planning future attacks and urged his followers to recruit non-Muslims and minorities - especially African Americans and Latinos - for attacks on New York City, Los Angeles, and smaller cities on significant dates such as July 4 and September 11. As the world’s foremost expert on bin Laden, Peter Bergen, summed up, “OBL was the leader of the leaderless jihad!” http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/ 1
point
"Information confirming bin Laden’s active role in al Qaeda continues to emerge, painting the portrait of a “micro-manager,” as an unidentified U.S. official quoted in ProPublica, called him.“He was down in the weeds [determining] best operatives, best targets, best timing.”And U.S. intelligence analysts pouring over bin Laden’s personal diary have concluded that he was involved in “every recent major al Qaeda threat." Even if the above is entirely factual i fail to see how it invalidates my argument, the fact is he was capable of doing very little from his home in pakistan (whether he wanted to or not) aside from maybe approving some attacks. Al Queda has no leader it feeds on the hatred of the US (and there no shortage of that given your hanus actions) and is completely self perpetuating. Next why should we beleive a word that comes from a man who is clearly speaking for washington who want the world to beelive they just killed Hitler 2 i.e. "Dr. Bruce Hoffman, Director, RAND Washington Office at Washington Foreign Press Center. This man is a mouth piece for the biggest terrorist organisation on the face of the planet (i.e. the US army and government) and i think anything he says when speaking for washington (which he clearly is) should be met with extreme sceptism, ill believe something when i see the proof, they killed him and now they want us to swalloqw their bullshit about what was really going on, i refuse to ebelive anything until the proof is in the public domain. And if you really consider yourself a rational objective person you should be thinking the same but your judgement is clouded by nationalism and indoctrination. Your argument may have some shred of validity if washington hadn't purposely kept his death shrowded in secrecy, yes thats right, and its not for any bullshit reason yoyu want to think i.e. protecting american civiilans by not antagonising the arabs by showing his death etc. etc. (you really love to rationalise for your government dont you, the problem is what you say doesnt really fit in with the reality e.g. yesterday you said to me that they didnt capture him in order to mitigate against the chance of Al Queda taking civilians, to be honest i was even surprised that you made such an idiotitc argument but i suppose it shows how delluded you really are) Heres Robert Fisk on the issue: Even if the above is entirely factual i fail to see how it invalidates my argument You fail to see how evidence that Osama Bin Laden was micro-managing Al Qaeda's efforts and even selecting potential acolytes, would invalidate your argument that Al Qaeda is leaderless? Of course you would. Otherwise you would have to admit you were wrong. Of course Al Qaeda is not as well organized as an Army, but to say they are leaderless is completely counter-factual. they killed him and now they want us to swalloqw their bullshit about what was really going on, i refuse to ebelive anything until the proof is in the public domain. Yet you have already stated that you believe that Al Qaeda is leaderless and that Osama was just "trying to survive for the last 10 years" despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for that either. Funny how that works, eh? 1
point
"You fail to see how evidence that Osama Bin Laden was micro-managing Al Qaeda's efforts and even selecting potential acolytes, would invalidate your argument that Al Qaeda is leaderless? Of course you would" Where is the proof of this, ive spent the last 1 hour online serching for it, you expect me to take the word of some washington propagandist, please dont misunderstand, if i am proved wrong with satifying evidence i will admit some of my presumptions about hoq Al Queda were wrong but i see no evidence, all isee is washington trying to sell the world a certain version of events, and that isnt going to cut it for me. "Otherwise you would have to admit you were wrong" Ill have no problem admitting i was wrong about about one of my opinions if i beleive that it is wrong in the light of the latest evidence, it wouldnt be the first time ive had to re-evaluate my position of something and ill bet it wont be the last. "Of course Al Qaeda is not as well organized as an Army" Thats an understatement, or let me rephrase thatr, it is my opinion based on what i know of Al Quedas operations that i beleive that tio be an understatement but it is open to be challenged in the light of newly available evidence. " but to say they are leaderless is completely counter-factual." I admit to be able to call something an organisation it must have people gieving directions at the top of the food chain, i just dont beleive Osama was able to do this, im not saying he was n't involved and im not saying they didnt consider him a leader i just have srtong doubts about his level of involvement, and his capacity as a leader, he was mainly a symbol they used to focus their hatred of the US, to say that his death will seriiusly disrupt any Al Queda activity i find to be stretching its significance. "Yet you have already stated that you believe that Al Qaeda is leaderless and that Osama was just " Leaderless when compared to a conventional organisation, if you killed every leader in Al Queda i dont think they would go away, the network of terrorists and cells would continue to operate because (it is my belief) most operate with very little direction from above anyway.You need stop seeing them (and the other so called terrorist organsisations not the US or Irseal could ever be called the same despite the fact that they are responsible for about 100 times more civilian casualties) as a conevntioanl army they are serverly disgruntled muslims (disgruntled for reasons that would push any man to the limits of his sanity ) that have found solace in an extreme religious ideology. "Osama was just "trying to survive for the last 10 years"" I admit thats very presumptous and may be way off the mark but i really doubt he was capable of orchestrating many of Al Queda activities, and yes i think it is more likely that he spent that last tens years huddles in his house hoping not to get caught.Again though i may be way off the mark but is trongly doubt he was pulling many strings from his position. "Funny how that works, eh?" Funny how what works??? You have your opinion i have mine, if you can show me hard evidence that is counter factual to any of the things i have asserted (and assuming that it hasnt come from a washington paid spokesman i.e. it has been corroborated by a third party i will concede immediately, i dont like being called a conspiracy theorist, i admit i engage in alot of speculation but if i am presented with the evidence i assure you i will accept it. Heres an artilce that sums up some of my sentiments on the issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ Where is the proof of this Where is your proof, of anything you have said? Your entire argument hinges on this man being a liar, and you have no evidence to the contrary, not a very solid argument if you ask me. Some evidence is certainly better than none. it is my opinion based on what i know of Al Quedas operations And what is your knowledge of Al Qaeda's operations compared to mine? You said previously that the Iraqi Insurgency wasn't composed of former Saddam supporters, yet we know for a fact that many of Saddam's military officers, and intelligence officers defected to the insurgency after his fall. So why are you so confident that you are not mistaken about this as well? I admit to be able to call something an organisation it must have people gieving directions at the top of the food chain, i just dont beleive Osama was able to do this, im not saying he was n't involved and im not saying they didnt consider him a leader i just have srtong doubts about his level of involvement Okay so if Osama bin laden was considered the leader by other members of Al Qaeda, and he was directly involved in it's activities, then on what basis would you say that he wasn't the leader of Al Qaeda? I admit thats very presumptous and may be way off the mark but i really doubt he was capable of orchestrating many of Al Queda activities, and yes i think it is more likely that he spent that last tens years huddles in his house hoping not to get caught.Again though i may be way off the mark but is trongly doubt he was pulling many strings from his position "Despite having no Internet access in his hideout, Osama bin Laden was a prolific email writer who built a painstaking system that kept him one step ahead of the U.S. government’s best eavesdroppers. His methods, described in new detail to The Associated Press by a counterterrorism official and a second person briefed on the U.S. investigation, served him well for years and frustrated Western efforts to trace him through cyberspace. The arrangement allowed bin Laden to stay in touch worldwide without leaving any digital fingerprints behind. Holed up in his walled compound in northeast Pakistan with no phone or Internet capabilities, bin Laden would type a message on his computer without an Internet connection, then save it using a thumb-sized flash drive. He then passed the flash drive to a trusted courier, who would head for a distant Internet cafe. At that location, the courier would plug the memory drive into a computer, copy bin Laden’s message into an email and send it. Reversing the process, the courier would copy any incoming email to the flash drive and return to the compound, where bin Laden would read his messages offline." Funny how what works? Funny that you reject a proposition because it lacks evidence but accept another one that has even less evidence. 1
point
"Where is your proof, of anything you have said?" I never said i had any proof (inlike you), in fact ive opernly admitted that my assertions are completely speculative, and based primarily on my own opinion. "Your entire argument hinges on this man being a liar" No it doesnt it hinges on your government being the filthy liars that they are. "and you have no evidence to the contrary," I never said i did, you're the one who claims that there is top intel backing up your version of events. "not a very solid argument if you ask me" What, and you think your's is? Give me a break. "Some evidence is certainly better than none." Agreed. "And what is your knowledge of Al Qaeda's operations compared to mine" I have no experience of Al Quedas operatons, i openly admit this, what i know of them is what i have read (political commentators articles etc.) and seen on the news, but i fail to see how that gives you the kind of insight by which you can just dismiss what it is i am saying. "You said previously that the Iraqi Insurgency wasn't composed of former Saddam supporters" No i said it wasn't primarily composed of former Saddam supporters, i never made such a ridiculous claim as your suggesting and if i have id like you to show me exactly where. "yet we know for a fact that many of Saddam's military officers, and intelligence officers defected to the insurgency after his fall. So why are you so confident that you are not mistaken about this as well?" That seems perfectly logical to me i dont ever recall disputing this. "Okay so if Osama bin laden was considered the leader by other members of Al Qaeda, and he was directly involved in it's activities, then on what basis would you say that he wasn't the leader of Al Qaeda?" I believe his capacity to lead was severely limited, i dont think Al Queda has one man that you can piont to as being the overall leader, i beleive there are multiple people pulling the strings of the "organisation" in different locations.I dont think his death will greatly upset those operations, have you been reading anything ive been writing? "Funny that you reject a proposition because it lacks evidence but accept another one that has even less evidence." I love how you filled your psot with alot of info, that in no way proves you piont conclusively and is most likely quite sepculative in its content, adn sourced from a conservative repubublican propaganda piece (so you know its true, just like FOX eh?), then you have the audacity to claim that i am rejecting a proposal that has more credible evidence in favour of it. Do you have any idea what kind of debator you really are? And you wandered why i called you delluded. Do your homework before you make anymore ridiculous sensationalistic claims, and stop being such an ignorajnt prick, im not the one telling you that you must be 100% wrong because you view doesnt fit into my ideological beleifs(i wander why that is, well your a smart guy you'll figure it out, i hope) I refer you to the following article: http://rt.com/politics/press/ 1
point
"So you openly admit that what you said is entirely based on speculative opinion with no evidence" Not direct evdence (just like you, all you have is washington conjecture which you seem to think is 100% indisputable fact) and i wish you were a big enough man to admit the same but you're clearly not.I have based my opinion on what i have observed (particularly the events over the last 10 years since the 9/11 attacks i.e. all the lies, all the death and destruction in the name of a false ideal (i.e. fighting terrorism, give me a break you are the fucking terrorists) used to inspire fear into the US population knowing full well when they think their security is threatened they'll back the most extreme actions of their government (but since the USSR is gone Al Queda and the big bad terrorists must be the threat to the US otherwise how can you justify doing what you do), and the fragments of conjecture relating to this issue coming from sources that aren't 100% biased (i.e. not american). This also happens to be the general opinion of Robert Fisk and a man of his stature (and unquestionable knowledge and insight into all affairs middles eastern) opinion should never be dismissed as mere biased speculation. "PS. Did you even read your own source? It literally supports none of what you have said." Are you going to make me do this with every source i put up cause my time is seriously limited: "Bin-Laden’s destruction is a great political achievement by US President Barack Obama, but this event will have practically no effect on Al Qaeda’s management, says Russia’s permanent envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin. " More or less exactly what i stated on my first post on this issue. "Unfortunately, in the 10 years of the search for Osama bin Laden, he and his entourage were able to socialize a new generation of young predators. Thus, in death, bin Laden will continue being the symbol of the radical extremist ideology, just as he was in life, says Rogozin." This was another one of my claims if you've been reading anything ive been writing i.e. the violence of the US has replenished the ranks of Al Queda (you can say this is stretch but in fairness with US backed violence their numbers would dwindle and you fucking know it). "At the same time, he noted that there are no guarantees that another bloodthirsty villain won’t appear tomorrow who will be promoted as the new leader of Al Qaeda and other similar organizations" My sentiments exactly, you're going to have to invent another hitler soon otherwise your population might begin to question why so much of their hard earned tax dollars are being spent on fueling a war with no purpose (at least in their eyes), we all know what the real purpose is (at least those of us who aren't indoctrinated to your extent). Now the article says almost exactly what ive been saying i.e. Bin Laden's death is largely irrelevant, to the actions of Islamic terrorism, it will not hinder them, you would have to be fool to think that his death will prevent Al Queda or any other organistion from continuing business as usual, his input ( in my opinion) was in no way holding anything together, thats a ridiculous suggestion (to me) when you consider a terrorist network like Al Queda. Now, did you read this article; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-soviet-union-baddie If you americans want to paint this as the big victory you so desparately want it to be fair enough, but please dont try to make others swallow the shit that your government feeds you everyday. The fact that you could even consider this a victory only highlights your countries problems (in my opinion).That in no way is meant to be a swipe at the american people, had i been borned there i would most likely be a fervent nationalist (even more extreme than you) as im quite passionate anyway. Not direct evdence (just like you, all you have is washington conjecture which you seem to think is 100% indisputable fact) and i wish you were a big enough man to admit the same but you're clearly not. My opinion is based on direct experience, yours is based on unfounded conjecture. There is no comparison. None at all. That you accuse counter-terrorism officials of lying now means you have two unfounded claims instead of one. 0
points
"My opinion is based on direct experience" Really i didnt know you were an Al Queda operative. "yours is based on unfounded conjecture" Im sorry you're too blind to see that yours is based on even more unreliable conjecture than mine, were on a completely equal footing here, you just seem to think that cause its comingb from washingtone its indisputable personally i think that makes it much more unreliable. "That you accuse counter-terrorism officials of lying now means you have two unfounded claims instead of one." The fact that you have the guile to say that to me shows just how indocrinated you are: http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ And the the US administration lied for reagan to preven thim being impeached in regard to the Iran Contra affair, the examples are endless, there is just no shortage of US lies, and none are unfounded, and you know it. WMDs is what comes to everyines mind but when you actually do a small amount of digging you begin to realise that washington (and all associated backers) are in the business of systematically lying and distorting the truth to suit their own imperial agenda. Now go on call me a biased conspiracy theorist if it makes you feel better. So the only way to directly experience something is by being a member of the group? He never said he was in Al Qaeda, he said he has fought them, which gives him a unique perspective on the argument, which is vastly superior to your skimming of a couple news articles and making drastic claims, that extrapolate even more than the people who wrote the articles. If anyone has real perspective on this issue its Bohemian, not you. 1
point
"So the only way to directly experience something is by being a member of the group?" No iwas just really sick of him feeding me washington propaganda and telling me its fact. "He never said he was in Al Qaeda, he said he has fought them" DUH!!!!!!!!!!! "which gives him a unique perspective on the argument, " I already admitted this in a previous post, somebody hasnt been doing their reading. "which is vastly superior to your skimming of a couple news articles and making drastic claims," Thats it ya, you've got me all figured out. "that extrapolate even more than the people who wrote the articles" Not true. "If anyone has real perspective on this issue its Bohemian, not you." Im sorry i dont like to trust the opinions of people whos minds have been corrupted. Really i didnt know you were an Al Queda operative. Apparently you only have to be in an organization to know how it operates, when the argument suits you. Last I recall, you made numerous claims of how the United States military and government operates, not only that but you know both their and Al Qaeda's motives. It's funny how you accept things that support your position at face value, yet suddenly become ultra skeptical when the facts in dispute are contrary to what you believe. Im sorry you're too blind to see that yours is based on even more unreliable conjecture than mine, were on a completely equal footing here Don't be so pretentious to think your opinion holds equal weight to mine on this topic. Every idiot who has internet access thinks he's an expert on everything. 1
point
"Apparently you only have to be in an organization to know how it operates, when the argument suits you. Last I recall, you made numerous claims of how the United States military and government operates, not only that but you know both their and Al Qaeda's motives." Ive never claimed that what im saying is 100% fact, i have to be an almighty idiot to think that the claims im making are exactly the case in reality, thats why i never made such ridiculous claims(unlike you). You think because your in the army that you know exactly whats going on, im here to tell you thats not the fucking case at all, you've continually tried to tell me that what your saying is gospel and what i think is complete horseshit, and then you've rtried to tell me that that is what im doing, i find that funny, it shows how hard you cling to your lies, and how much comfort they are to you, giving them up for you would be like an addict giving up heroin. "It's funny how you accept things that support your position at face value, yet suddenly become ultra skeptical when the facts in dispute are contrary to what you believe." Again a very pathetic attempt to discredit me, ill let the people who read these posts make up their own minds. "Don't be so pretentious to think your opinion holds equal weight to mine on this topic. Every idiot who has internet access thinks he's an expert on everything." I dont consider that pretentious at, your the fucking pretentious one here friend, and the fact that you made that audacious claim only further proves my piont, you think what you beleive is 100% indisputable fact, and that what i beleive is total and utter rubbish and you think this precisely because you are BLIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ive never claimed that what im saying is 100% fact And you don't have to, the very fact that you are arguing something implies you believe it is true. If it is more likely to be untrue than true, then it doesn't matter with what level of certainty you claim. You think because your in the army that you know exactly whats going on I think because I'm in the army, I know how the army works. And I do. I think because I've been to Afghanistan, I have a much greater understanding of the situation than you do. This is someone who reads about war telling someone who has actually been through it, what is going on. You cannot seriously be this much of an idiot. i find that funny, it shows how hard you cling to your lies, and how much comfort they are to you, giving them up for you would be like an addict giving up heroin. This is sensationalism. Any sensible person can see through it. I could just as easily accuse you of clinging to your "lies", with an equal amount of success. This is not an argument. You can accuse your opponent of "clinging to lies" until you're red in the face, but that isn't going to make your position correct. Your arguments are nothing more than a series of unsupported accusations consisting of loaded, highly connotative terms. Again a very pathetic attempt to discredit me, ill let the people who read these posts make up their own minds. Your arguments discredit themselves. You made the claim that Al Qaeda "probably wasn't even behind 9/11" without flinching, but when an intelligence director has documents linking Osama Bin laden to recent Al Qaeda activity, you suddenly need proof. Your double standard is absolutely astounding! Where was your desire for proof when you claimed that 9/11 was the result of propping up dictators in the Middle-East? You accepted that at face value, no evidence, and you couldn't tell me what dictators you were talking about. You claimed that Osama Bin laden wasn't the leader of Al Qaeda, where was your desire of proof then? You only need proof when it's something you don't believe. I dont consider that pretentious at, your the fucking pretentious one here friend, and the fact that you made that audacious claim only further proves my piont, you think what you beleive is 100% indisputable fact Really? Can you show me where I said this? 1
point
"And you don't have to, the very fact that you are arguing something implies you believe it is true. If it is more likely to be untrue than true, then it doesn't matter with what level of certainty you claim." I acccept that, my problem is that what you claim proves my piont is less certain than yours i beleive only reinforces my piont i.e. you use washington propaganda to bolster your opinion, i find that incredibly weak give that it literally has zero credibility. "I think because I'm in the army, I know how the army works. And I do" I never disputed that, i openly admit that your knowledge and experience in the US army trumps anything i say about how the US army operates "I think because I've been to Afghanistan, I have a much greater understanding of the situation than you do." You see this i have to disagree with, ive been to Iran but if you decide to debate me on Iran i will not claim that i have because ive been their any argument you use is flawed just because ive been their and have that experience. The reason i find this argument weak can be explained as follows, you probably went to Afghanistan beleiveing what you currently beleive, it is my assertion that going there with the US army would only further reinforce those beliefs as i imagine there is an us against them feeling perpetuated in the US army although i cannot prove this. If you would allow me to use vietnam as an example, a soldier goes to vietnam beleiving that they are helping to preserve democracy arounf the world and fight the red plague, he goes there, he fights and kills, and some of friends get killed, i dont think hes going to have a different opinion on why he went, it will only be reinforced, unless he took part in some of the unbeleivable massacres that went on there and maybe his compassion forced him to change his views. "This is someone who reads about war telling someone who has actually been through it," Im not taking about war, you are, i am taking about motives in warfare, if you want to talk about how war is conducted, how operation take place within countries in order to suppress the enemy then i openly admit your superiority but unfortunately for your massive ego this debate doesnt entitle you to play that card. "This is sensationalism. Any sensible person can see through it." If you say so, personally i find it pretty rational but im open to being challenged on that. "I could just as easily accuse you of clinging to your "lies", with an equal amount of success." Go ahead then i think you'll find if you do that im not as fanatial as you think. "This is not an argument. You can accuse your opponent of "clinging to lies" until you're red in the face, but that isn't going to make your position correct." You're entirely correct, i just really wanted you to hear it, if you hear it enough then maybe when you actually do it you start to realise it. "Your arguments are nothing more than a series of unsupported accusations consisting of loaded, highly connotative terms." I fail to see how reached that conclusion based on the available evidence, i mean i completely understand how you wanted to reach that conclusion i just fail to see how you did so based on fact. "Your arguments discredit themselves." Which ones, i (unlike you) have openly admitted when and when i was not speculating, in fact that piont i made about Osama being assasinated in order to keep him from revealing his dealings with the CIA may have been reading into the event a bit to much, a simplistic approach may be more close to the truth e.g. Bin Laden was assasinated soley for the political gain associated with killing the great Satan, as in Obama has really delivered on any of his yes we can bullshit but hey he got Osama man, hes our commander and chief and he got Osama. This may be closer to the reality. If you still doubt whether Osama was assasinated or not i refer you to the following debate (your name is mentioned in it so id say you want to through in your two cents): "You made the claim that Al Qaeda "probably wasn't even behind 9/11" without flinching, but when an intelligence director has documents linking Osama Bin laden to recent Al Qaeda activity, you suddenly need proof" I made no such claim you slime ball, you love taking things that people have said and saying that they said something slightly the same but more provocative and unverifiable, you have done this to me when you claimed that i had said in a previous denbate that none of Saddams former gurads and soldiers would be involved in the Iraqi Insurgency, hers is a direct quote from that post: "You said previously that the Iraqi Insurgency wasn't composed of former Saddam supporters" Please show me when and where i made such a ridiculous claim.This is a very slimy way of trying to win a debate, i cannot beleive you would stoop so slow as to try to put those words in my mouth. I know exactly what i said and it also happens to be a view endorsed by many people who are far more in the know than you or i. I said that Osama Bin Laden role in the 9/11 attacks may not have been as significant as made out to be i.e. he may not have been the mastermind, he may just have funded it. But you obviously want to try to tar me anyway you can so go ahead cause im ready for you. Now if you think that i said something different please show me. Otherwise save you slimy slippery claims that only show you to be as untrustworthy as the institution you represent i.e. the US army "Your double standard is absolutely astounding! Where was your desire for proof when you claimed that 9/11 was the result of propping up dictators in the Middle-East?" Oh dont worry i plan to create a whole debate about this topic, its going to have multiple links to articles and documentaries from some of the most respected journalists and free thinkers alive, you get another chance to challenge me on this don't worry, ill be posting up in the coming days, until then you should have fun on the debate i created above which goes along way to vindicating many of my crazy assertions. "You accepted that at face value, no evidence, and you couldn't tell me what dictators you were talking about." I was able to give you the names of many dictators if i remember correctly, its funny how what i wrote is being slowly distorted when it is filtered through you, it doesnt matter though cause its still posted up here and anyone who wants to test this claim can find the debate and they will see that i mentioned Mubarak in Egyt, Ben Ali in tunisia, Saddat (pre Mubarak), the Saudi regime before taking about the cia backed overthrow of Mosedegh which you then decided to challenge me on. You see my memory is better than you think so your slimy ball tatics are not going to work, they only show you for what you are, a biased apologost, now im going to be a hypocrite and say i am not biased but i most definitely am not the one tryong to defend inexcuseable actions. "You only need proof when it's something you don't believe." Not true, you just have this unfliching beleif that anything coming from a washington spokeman is irrefutable. "Really? Can you show me where I said this?" Well at the beginnning of this debate you posted the following argument which consisted of excerpt from a CNN artilce: Information confirming bin Laden’s active role in al Qaeda continues to emerge, painting the portrait of a “micro-manager,” as an unidentified U.S. official quoted in ProPublica, called him.“He was down in the weeds [determining] best operatives, best targets, best timing.”And U.S. intelligence analysts pouring over bin Laden’s personal diary have concluded that he was involved in “every recent major al Qaeda threat.” He also remained involved in planning future attacks and urged his followers to recruit non-Muslims and minorities - especially African Americans and Latinos - for attacks on New York City, Los Angeles, and smaller cities on significant dates such as July 4 and September 11. As the world’s foremost expert on bin Laden, Peter Bergen, summed up, “OBL was the leader of the leaderless jihad!” http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/ You posted this as if to say, i told you so, but after examining the article i can find precious little information coming from anyone aside from US intelligence service, US officials (as it says in the article) or from Bruce Hoffman himself who is basically speaking on washingtones behalf as he is a a Senior Fellow at the U.S. military academy’s combating terrorism center and also provides much input to washingtons propaganda machine. I beleive that this article is laregly based on distorted truth and may contain one or two outright lies, i cannot prove this, i openly admit that. My question is do you think this is fact, cause when you presented it to me you gave me th eimpression that you did. You see you also said the following to me(direct quote): "That you accuse counter-terrorism officials of lying now means you have two unfounded claims instead of one." This to me says that you beleive the word of the counter terrorism officials as being 100% fact, it says that trying to insinuate otherwise makes me a lunatic despite the fact that i posted examples of US officials (both military and otherwise & and the current and former presidents) lying. Here they are again just in case you didnt get them the first time: http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ And theres fucking plenty more where those came from you can be sure of it. So do you mean to tell me that in the face of the words that you wrote and the information you provided as being factual that you are now telling me that you have changed your position and dont beleive this information to be accurate, or are you just saying i am an idiot for even trying to suggest that your precious institution consists of systematic liars despite the unlimited evidence supporting it. I can find alot more just say the word, and ill get them for you. I acccept that, my problem is that what you claim proves my piont is less certain than yours i beleive only reinforces my piont So by saying that my stance is more probable than yours, this support your stance even more? I would really like to know how you work that little bit of logic out. One common characteristic of cults is that things which disprove their believes are rationalized as only re-affirming them. you use washington propaganda to bolster your opinion, i find that incredibly weak give that it literally has zero credibility. It's one thing to say their information isn't accurate, or that they are simply wrong, but to accuse them of intentionally lying is a claim unto itself which requires evidence. Evidence you do not posses. Of course the U.S. Government isn't always telling the truth, but they aren't always telling lies either. To jump to that conclusion is just as unsubstantiated and baseless. I never disputed that, i openly admit that your knowledge and experience in the US army trumps anything i say about how the US army operates So then you admit your claims about how we treat and regard casualties was complete BS? You see this i have to disagree with, ive been to Iran but if you decide to debate me on Iran i will not claim that i have because ive been their any argument you use is flawed just because ive been their and have that experience. Iran is a pretty broad topic, but if we are talking about something specific which you experienced, say for example you went to a protest in Iran and we were talking about that protest, then yes it would give you special insight into the topic. I don't pretend to know everything about Afghanistan, I only know what I experienced. The reason i find this argument weak can be explained as follows, you probably went to Afghanistan beleiveing what you currently beleive, it is my assertion that going there with the US army would only further reinforce those beliefs as i imagine there is an us against them feeling perpetuated in the US army although i cannot prove this The issue is not whether or not I dislike the opposition, if that were the case then you would have a point. The issue is how Al Qaeda is organized. When you see how they co-ordinate their attacks, both regionally and nationally, you get an understanding of how they operate. When you see what kind of attacks they conduct and when they conduct them, you get that sense of understand of how they operate. They are highly organized. It is not just some rabble group of disgruntled Arabs. This combined with personal research I have done. I have read the Koran, or at least most of it. I am more skeptical of the conflict than most soldiers, perhaps due to my educational background. I think George Bush ignored his advisers and completely mishandled the situation, he gave many Americans misleading information which has tainted our entire effort to quell radical sectarianism. There was no reason whatsoever to trump up claims of WMDs in iraq, none whatsoever. Saddam Hussein, was an immensely unpopular genocidal dictator, who continually ignored his own treaties, and committed mass murder against the Kurdish people, that alone I think was reason enough to take him out. Im not taking about war, you are, i am taking about motives in warfare Al Qaeda has already stated their motives behind the US Embassy bombings, and the 9/11 attacks. We do not need to speculate over their motives. Bin Laden was assasinated soley for the political gain associated with killing the great Satan I'm sure that was a huge part of it. Just because something was done for selfish reasons doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. People do good things for selfish reasons all the time. I made no such claim you slime ball, I'm sorry, my error, what I meant to say is that you said that "he {Bin Laden} probably had wasnt even the master mind of 9/11" And that is an exact quote. You have done this to me when you claimed that i had said in a previous denbate that none of Saddams former gurads and soldiers would be involved in the Iraqi Insurgency, hers is a direct quote from that post:"You said previously that the Iraqi Insurgency wasn't composed of former Saddam supporters" You did say this. GARY: "If you thinkm that the 1 million people that died over the course of the Iraq war were Saddam's men or even people that backed him you're deluded." I was able to give you the names of many dictators if i remember correctly, its funny how what i wrote is being slowly distorted when it is filtered through you, it doesnt matter though cause its still posted up here and anyone who wants to test this claim can find the debate and they will see that i mentioned Mubarak in Egyt, Ben Ali in tunisia, Saddat (pre Mubarak), You literally said none of these names, at least not in any debate with me. Perhaps you said it in a debate with someone else, but I had asked at least 2 or 3 times and the only dictator you could think of was the shah of Iran. Let's get down to the facts shall we? The fact of the matter is after Saddam had invaded Kuwait, Iraq's rival state Saudi Arabia, allowed American forces to use their country as a staging point in the conflict with Iraq. Osama Bin laden and his organization interpret one particular verse of the Koran as commanding the death of all infidels living in Saudi Arabia (considered a holy land). This is why 12 of the 13 hijackers were Saudis. This is why they attacked the United States, based on religious Dogma. This is why people who draw Mohammad receive death threats. It's insane radical religious dogma. Well at the beginnning of this debate you posted the following argument which consisted of excerpt from a CNN artilce: Information confirming bin Laden’s active role in al Qaeda continues to emerge, painting the portrait of a “micro-manager,” as an unidentified U.S. official quoted in ProPublica, called him.“He was down in the weeds [determining] best operatives, best targets, best timing.”And U.S. intelligence analysts pouring over bin Laden’s personal diary have concluded that he was involved in “every recent major al Qaeda threat.” He also remained involved in planning future attacks and urged his followers to recruit non-Muslims and minorities - especially African Americans and Latinos - for attacks on New York City, Los Angeles, and smaller cities on significant dates such as July 4 and September 11. As the world’s foremost expert on bin Laden, Peter Bergen, summed up, “OBL was the leader of the leaderless jihad!” Oh, of course, because when I give supporting evidence for my arguments that is the same as saying it's 100% irrefutable fact. What!? Are you really this batshit hysterical, or am I being Punk'd? This to me says that you beleive the word of the counter terrorism officials as being 100% fact This to me is another instance of you jumping to conclusions. So do you mean to tell me that in the face of the words that you wrote and the information you provided as being factual that you are now telling me that you have changed your position and dont beleive this information to be accurate False Dichotomy Are you telling me that someone must either be 100% irrefutably correct, or a pathological liar? The grey area only exists when you are the one making the claims. Of course. 1
point
"So by saying that my stance is more probable than yours, this support your stance even more? I would really like to know how you work that little bit of logic out." what im saying is that from debating you and observing how fervently you jump to the defense of US actions and official US claims i can rest assured that although my views are far from perfect i am capable of questioning their motives, you dont seem to be capable of this, in fact i have no doubt that if the stroy you were supporting changed you would change your views accrodingly and then jump to the defense of the new claims. Again this isnt meant to be argument in support if of views im merely expressing how i perceive your position. "It's one thing to say their information isn't accurate, or that they are simply wrong, but to accuse them of intentionally lying is a claim unto itself which requires evidence. Evidence you do not posses." Admittedly i have no conclusive proof but you've been trying for a long time to use that to destroy my position without realising that you have no proof either. "Of course the U.S. Government isn't always telling the truth, but they aren't always telling lies either. To jump to that conclusion is just as unsubstantiated and baseless." In stories such as this in which the US is directly involved they are always distorting the truth to suit their agenda, to what degree is a matter for speculation (which i have greatlyindulged in probably to my own detriment). "So then you admit your claims about how we treat and regard casualties was complete BS?" Again i wasnt making a claim about how the army treats, and regards casualities, i was making a statement about how the people at the very top of the food chain perceive casualities i.e. they really dont care, they only care about the backlash from public opinion if too may men are lost. "but if we are talking about something specific which you experienced, say for example you went to a protest in Iran and we were talking about that protest, then yes it would give you special insight into the topi" Yes but im not debating you on anything that you have experienced and i would be very stupid to try and do so. "I think George Bush ignored his advisers and completely mishandled the situation, he gave many Americans misleading information which has tainted our entire effort to quell radical sectarianism." You dont seem to understand that radical sectarianism is just a lie used to justify US actions, does it exist, of course, is it s real threat to the US, fuck no. But you need to beleive it is as how else tcan they garner public opinion for their impreialism, how else can they justify their actions. "Saddam Hussein, was an immensely unpopular genocidal dictator, who continually ignored his own treaties, and committed mass murder against the Kurdish people, that alone I think was reason enough to take him out." I find it odd that you think that your country can act as some moral arbiter given you history. This is a fundamental problem, you perceive the US as being some kind of world police force that intervenes in countrie in order to prevent the worst from transpiring, the truth is that you are world criminals who create and wreak havoc in other countries in order to futher your own impreilaism, and your crimes are covered up effectively from your own poopulation time and time again. It boggles my mind how you thought you had the right to invade another country and cause the deaths of over 1 million people in order to oust a dictator you had formerly supported. But that wasnt the reason, the fact is without Iraqs oil there would have been no invasion, this is common knowledge if not common sense. "Al Qaeda has already stated their motives behind the US Embassy bombings, and the 9/11 attacks. We do not need to speculate over their motives." I fond your continued depiction Al Queda to be hilarious, here watch this video, this is prior to the afghan invasion, the documentary is by the renowned film maker Adam Curtis i strongly advise you to watch the entire three part series in you own time, please watch out for the Donald Rumsfled clip on national tv describing with the aid of a hilarious sketch the Al Queda hideout. It shows just how far the american propaganda machine is willing to lie, in fact they probablky beleive their own lies. http://www.youtube.com/ "GARY: "If you thinkm that the 1 million people that died over the course of the Iraq war were Saddam's men or even people that backed him you're deluded."" Yes and what i meant by that statement is that although many iof the deaths in Iraq were people associated with Saddams former regime given the number of deaths it is clear that most of them were not. This justification just doesnt hold any water im afraid. Osama Bin laden and his organization interpret one particular verse of the Koran as commanding the death of all infidels living in Saudi Arabia (considered a holy land). This is why 12 of the 13 hijackers were Saudis. This is why they attacked the United States, based on religious Dogma. This is why people who draw Mohammad receive death threats. It's insane radical religious dogma. Im sorry i really dont mean to sound patronising but this really only indicates to me that you have been completely indoctrinated by anti-islamic propaganda, just like Hitchens. "Are you really this batshit hysterical, or am I being Punk'd?" Well you more or less stated the same thing to me by saying that because i am presenting a certain argument i must therefore beleive it to be true. "This to me is another instance of you jumping to conclusions" Although you may not take everything they say as gospel you dont seem to capable of questioning them or seeing through the obvious lies e.g. humanitarian intervention in Libya "Are you telling me that someone must either be 100% irrefutably correct, or a pathological liar? The grey area only exists when you are the one making the claims. Of course." You are totally correct in this instance i was holding you to a much higher standard than i did myself, and in the face of vbeing labelled a complete hypocrite for it i must admit that both our position contain alot of grey that i dont think either one of us has fully acknowledged. among the various inaccuracies of your statement: there is one thing above all others that I must point out. "Bin laden could have easily been captured and put on trial, you know to see what this guy actually knew, but no he was killed probably for that exact reason i.e. Obama didn't want the info." 1) it took 10 years to even capture him... and when they did find him he rushed into a room where The SEALs found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf- obviously they shot him. Additionally, much information was gathered from his house, his letters, his computer: such as his plans to destroy a train. 1
point
So you mean to tell me that theres no way they could have caputred the man, no way, i find that extremely nieve. Now you can call that opinoin a biased conspiracy if you like i really dont care, i personally think the most crack team of Us navy seals in the world could have captured him alive if they had been told to do so. "Obama didn't want the info" yes, again call it a conspiracy theory if you like, i think he was killed to prevent the origins of this man from becoming known to the world cause i dont think it would have reflected well on the US, i may be completely wrong but i guess we'll never know cause your honest truthful government killed him and kept the whole thing shrowded in secrecy. is there no way? of course there was a way. However, it involved putting the marines, and the entire mission, in great jeopardy. As mentioned before, he ran into a room with two high powered guns. He may have had a bomb vest. I would fear for the american army if they would believe the good faith of a man who used civilians as both targets and weapons... 1
point
"However, it involved putting the marines, and the entire mission, in great jeopardy." The marines yes, the mission no. The fact is if washingtone wanted him alive they would have been quite willing to put the marines in jeopardy (if they wanted him alive). I think you watch too many hollywood war movies(never leabve a man behind, risk the entire operation in roder tio save one soldiers life, reality doesnt work that way im afraid), soldiers are cannon fodder to high ranking generals (and Obama), even the elite marines. The mission would have been fine, even if the extreme (and largely hypotheticakl scenario) you descibed atually played there are two outcomes, hes apprehended alive or dead, but successful by your definition. It is not a matter of a single marine dying- which is not a matter of "cannon fodder" as you so bluntly claimed but simply the fact that people die on missions (if death was unimportant, why is it that these marines were trained for weeks on how to safely execute the mission?)- no, the proble is primarily with many marines dying. How do you suppose dead marines are able to carry out a mission? Secondly- if he did in fact have a bomb vest, many marines would die, and Osama would still be dead. There is only a small probability that Osama would peacefully allow himself to be captured, and an even smaller chance still that he would cooperate and give information. and yes, there were two definitions of success- alive or dead. However, capturing alive was riskier, and so would be less likely to result in a success. If you attempted a live capture, and failed, it is NOT a success. Two possible events does not imply equal probability. Either you die in the next five minutes or you do not. Hopefully your odds are above 50/50. Cease your ignoramus stance. You obviously do not like the Obama administration- which is another debate entirely. To claim that he does not care about the marines sent, or that he is conspiring to silence Osama, is irrational. Defamation of such ludicrous proportion is ridiculous. If you do not like his policies, discuss his policies. His birth certificate, his empathy for human life, an insane proposal that Osama was really working for the US- all of these ideas have nothing to do with politics. Apparently you are unable to criticize policy and instead focus on false pretenses. For instance: why would Obama be working secretly with Osama when Bush Senior was the president who aided the taliban effort against Russia? And Bush Junior was the president during the 9/11 attacks? and yet you claim that it was the democratic president who was working in cahoots with terrorists. Think politically. Think rationally. Apparently, simply thinking at all would be an improvement. 1
point
"(if death was unimportant" I never said it was unimportant i said if washington wanted him alive it would preserving life would hve become lee of a priority. "How do you suppose dead marines are able to carry out a mission?" I dont what made you think tey met the kind of resistance that could kill all of them, given that they are the probably among th ebest in the world at what they do. "Secondly- if he did in fact have a bomb vest, many marines would die, and Osama would still be dead" You're just nit picking as you dont want to accept the fact that maybe washington didnt want the man alive, once you realsie they didnt ,aybe then you can ask yourself why. "However, capturing alive was riskier" No this was never an option. "If you attempted a live capture, and failed, it is NOT a success" Do you really think if they failed to capture him but still killed him it would not have been painted as a success in the US? "Either you die in the next five minutes or you do not. Hopefully your odds are above 50/50" I dont mean to sound arrogant but this argument really isnt convincing of anything. "Cease your ignoramus stance." Just because you consider it to be so, doesnt make it so. "You obviously do not like the Obama administration" I have no bad feelings to Obama personally i dont like any american administration. "To claim that he does not care about the marines sent, or that he is conspiring to silence Osama, is irrational" I find the thought of a man like Obama (or others in powerful postions) caring about marines or civilians to be laughable given the actions he (and they) have endorsed, and enforced. Youn just can't see through the deception.I also dont beleive it is one bit irrational when you lok at the number of people that have been killed. "If you do not like his policies, discuss his policies" I dont know how this becamse about Obama, or any american president. "insane proposal that Osama was really working for the US-" I never made such a ridiculous claim, it is a well known fact that Bin Laden was working for CIA when they funded and propped up the Mujahadin, they created Bin Laden, it is my assertion that these dealings were murky to say the least and they didnt want them leaked so they killed him. I have already admitted that this is compltetely speculative but nobody seems to realsie that if American had dont what was right (and legal) then people like me could not make these kind of claims. "all of these ideas have nothing to do with politics" I disagree, i think it is fool hardy to think that they are not all interconnected on some level. "Apparently you are unable to criticize policy and instead focus on false pretenses" No i can criticise policy just fine but look up at the debate title and you'll get the reason for my current train of thought. "For instance: why would Obama be working secretly with Osama wh" This only proves that you have no clue of anything ive been saying. I NEVER SAID OBAMA WAS WORKING WITH BIN LADEN, MY GOD MAN. "Think politically. Think rationally. Apparently, simply thinking at all would be an improvement" Maybe you should try taking your own advice. "I dont what made you think tey met the kind of resistance that could kill all of them, given that they are the probably among th ebest in the world at what they do." Which is probably why they made the decision to kill him. Being good at what do you does not allow you to take risks, it means you make smarter decisions. it is becoming increasingly apparent that, whatever my statements, you will hold adamantly onto your beliefs. I, however, pride myself on being able to admit when my initial beliefs were false. So, if you can find evidence, as opposed to speculation, that: 1) the Obama administration does not care about soldiers 2) Osama would have been taken alive without excessive difficulty or risk 3) Bin Ladin had had information which Obama would not want to have If your evidence is sufficiently convincing, I will be happy to amend my views. 1
point
"Which is probably why they made the decision to kill him. Being good at what do you does not allow you to take risks, it means you make smarter decisions." Why are you continuing to try to defend what was done, firstly it was illegal, and complete against everything the US is supposed to stand for (or at least thats the lie they feed you anyway). NOw are you serioulsy telling me that your incapable of entertaining the thought that killing him may have been the mission. I mean these guys are good at what they do, i honestly think if capturing him was the mission thats what they would have done. "it is becoming increasingly apparent that, whatever my statements, you will hold adamantly onto your beliefs." Thats not true, you are presenting to me your beliefs, nothing more, if you can deomstrate to me why my beleifs are wrong i will alter them. Ive dedicated my life to the discovery of truth, i will not dismiss it if i see it, again this relys on me and i admit i am fallable and yes i am adamant about them but i have changed them before. "I, however, pride myself on being able to admit when my initial beliefs were false. So, if you can find evidence, as opposed to speculation, that:" Firstly, i cannot change your mind for you, but i can show you the some evidence that may make you rethink your position on certain issues. "1) the Obama administration does not care about soldiers" Ill use the vietnam war as an example as it best serves to illustrate my piont although similar arguments could be used on most of the wars the US has been involved.
For starters please watch this documentary, its about the untold story of how the GIs began to revolt in vietnam (please watch its about 50min): http://video.google.com/ This cannot be proven by stating one or two simple truths, as there are no absolute truths, in reality some within the Obama adminstration (or the army or any superiors) do care about the soldiers, in fact most of them care about them(a hell of lot more than the people whose lands there on anyway), but you're missing the piont, the fact is when it comes down to it soldiers lives are expendable, they'll feed people the same lies about how its all somehow for the greater good, please this was barely the case in WW2 which was the most moral, soldiers are there to die, thats the way they are looked at by the people at the top. This tom waits song is very poetic and it sums up my piont quite well i think, please listen: http://www.youtube.com/ You need to look at Iraq and Afghanistan and ask yourself what those men and women are really dying for, to make your position safer (lie it does the exact opposite) or to make the people in power richer (this is incredibly simplistic but is a valid generalisation, i have been criticised time and time again for being too simplistic and making generalisations but when communicating via this medium there really is no alternative). Now if your still not convinced ive got a hell of lot more arguments to go with that but i feel ive wrote enough on this one for the time being. "2) Osama would have been taken alive without excessive difficulty or risk" This is impossible to prove precisely because the US has shrowded the whole event in history (i wonder why), i mean am i the only one that is suspicious. Ill admit there may have been excessive risk and difficulty but whos to know, the US has kept tightly under wraps. It remind of the wikileaks fiasco, they said releasing the cables undermined the national security and that why they want to cature Julian Assange and are currently torturing Bradley Manning (look it up i was called a fool and a conspiracy theorist when i said this a few months back but it has since come to light as being the case), the fact is wikileaks didnt just target the US it was completely fair, it released cables about many countries but the US doesnt like it when info. the goes against their lies (i.e. the peoiple in Iraq are suffering greatly at their hands). So when i see the US covering up an incident like this am i not correct in being sceptical? "3) Bin Ladin had had information which Obama would not want to have" Again you ask me to prove something that simply is impossible to prove, do you not think if i could prove this that i wouldn't go to wikileaks or some news outlet, cause beleive me i would. What i am saying is that when i see the man being intentionally assinated i ask questions, i dont just take the US's word for it cause they have proven time and time again to be completely untrustworthy, now you can continue to beleive whatever it is you have been told personally i dont know if putting Osama on trial woul have revealed lots of embarrassing info. about US involment in stting up the Mujadin, ive already admitted this, it may have been for another reason, the piont is that there is a reason, and thinking theres not i find nieve, ,what i mean is i think it is far less likely that they unintentionally killed him, especially given the circumstancs and the aftermath. So in effect, the only evidence you have is a war led by a different administration, a poem, and a gut feeling. You said I asked for something impossible to prove. This is true. Standpoints with no evidence to support them generally are impossible to prove. I, however, have a bit more substantial grounding for my stance. First of all, the Vietnam war was not during Obama's administration- a rather large hole in your evidence that the Obama administration does not care for soldiers. However: the Vietnam war was particularly difficult war on the soldiers because veterans were very poorly received by the American public. http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/The-Vietnam-War-and-Its-Impact-American-veterans.html In the Iraq war (which was also not instigated by Obama, but he has failed to discontinue), it is a different story. Although much of the American populace is not supportive of the war, the public is generally supportive of the troops themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm which, according to Vietnam vets, makes this operation far less terrible than the extreme, unrelated Vietnam war which you ited. And soldier's lives are expendable in that they risk their life- not that they are intended to die. They are not pawns in a game: each soldier is outfitted with a $4,000 suit of body armor to protect them. http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,131806,00.html This resulted in fewer casualties which resulted in death- meaning more casualties, less dead http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf If the Obama administration viewed soldiers as expendable, they would not place body armor that keeps soldiers alive. The cost of compensation for a death is under $1,200 per month, comparable to the 70% disability rating of the soldier. http://www.veteranprograms.com/id118.html so why would a government that views its soldiers as expendable pay more if they are wounded than dead, and provide them with body armor that increases the likelihood that they are kept alive? Admittedly, the US is not the greatest with money, but I would lean towards "value of human life" over "inability to economize" 2) this was considered to be "an especially dangerous operation" by the Senior Administration Official. Considering Osama died in a firefight, this is not difficult to believe. additionally, I recently read that Osama was originally asked to surrender- but instead he fired his own weapon. Maybe I misread the quote... "Bin Laden himself fired his weapon during the fight, and that he was asked to surrender but did not." -no, pretty unequivocal. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792 3) Information was actually recovered from Osama's home. In fact, "it is the largest cache of intelligence information gotten from a senior terrorist" http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2011/05/sec-110508-voa03.htm of course, if it was all a conspiracy, then my evidence may be called into question. But I have no reason to believe it is a conspiracy, and you have no evidence to sway me. And are you talking about the Mujahidin stingers? man, that was cryptic to decode. It made it marginally more difficult to find evidence. The information is already out there. The stingers were "given out like lollipops" in a reemerging cold war. What information would you think they were hiding? 'oh, we gave them nuclear warheads for fun, just to see what they would do' http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011002-attack03.htm Are you sure that Osama did not catch Obama watching porn? That seems like it would be a bigger secret than the Reagan-era mishaps you described. (and because I like sources- http://www.osamabinladenmartyr.com/2011/ 1
point
"So in effect, the only evidence you have is a war led by a different administration, a poem, and a gut feeling" In effect no, i have the entire history of US imperialism coupled with the behaviour of the current administration i.e. on the brink of an illegal invasion into Libya under the fase pretence of humanitarianism in order to secure a stake in Libyan oil. "First of all, the Vietnam war was not during Obama's administration- a rather large hole in your evidence that the Obama administration does not care for soldiers" It was you who decided to make this specifically about the Obama administration, i claimed that no american administration really cares all the much about the troops as long as they are doing what they need them to do. "However: the Vietnam war was particularly difficult war on the soldiers because veterans were very poorly received by the American public." Please dont try to lecture me on the vietnam war, i have been to the country twice in my lifetime each time for 3 months, while there i visiitged many war sites, museums, the co chi tunnels etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., i have read two books on the subject, i have watched many documentaries about, i have read numerous articles on it, there really isnt a whole lot you can tell me that i havent already heard somewhere else, and i dont know what could make you think i was unaware that the veterans of the war were not well received whenb they came home. "In the Iraq war (which was also not instigated by Obama, but he has failed to discontinue)" Yes after promising that he would send the troops home, why do you think he has kept them over there, do you think he cares that much about the security of the Iraqis that he feels obligated to do whatever he can, or could it possibly be that his motivations are more self interested?? Come on. The troops are staying put because its profitable to have them there, and whether their security or the people of Iraqs security is at risk that really is a secondary priority to Mr. Obama. "which, according to Vietnam vets, makes this operation far less terrible than the extreme, unrelated Vietnam war which you ited." I admit this, but what you fail to realise is that they didnt care about the troops then and they dont care about them now, i dont what would make you think this had changed assuming you agree that they didnt really care about them then. "nd soldier's lives are expendable in that they risk their life- not that they are intended to die. They are not pawns in a game: each soldier is outfitted with a $4,000 suit of body armor to protect them." I know this, what you're failing to realise if they are killed its just collateral damage, these wars aren't about protecting america from anything, or protecting their security, therefore they are imperialistic, they are not justified in anyway and the fact that the heads of the american government are willing to sacrifice their troops in roder to further their own self interested agenda shows that they really dont care all that much about them. "If the Obama administration viewed soldiers as expendable, they would not place body armor that keeps soldiers alive. The cost of compensation for a death is under $1,200 per month, comparable to the 70% disability rating of the soldier." This proves nothing, i could equally say that they place body armor on them as they dont wat to pay for his death or disability "so why would a government that views its soldiers as expendable pay more if they are wounded than dead, and provide them with body armor that increases the likelihood that they are kept alive?" Look you're going way to far with this, yes they care if the soldiers die, the fact is the more soldiers that die the more unpopular the war becomes at home if discontent rises they may have to pull out, this and many other arguments can be used to explain the above but the truth is there are may in power who nprobably do care about the troops, the fact humanity is such that there is always someone with a conscience. I just dont beleive that overall the actions of the government are in th ebest interests of presevering the lives of the troops, if they were why would they have invaded Iraq. "Admittedly, the US is not the greatest with money, but I would lean towards "value of human life" over "inability to economize" I wouldnt in fact i find that nieve. "2) this was considered to be "an especially dangerous operation" by the Senior Administration Official. Considering Osama died in a firefight, this is not difficult to believe." Really? I think the latest reports have more or less proven this to be completely fase. "additionally, I recently read that Osama was originally asked to surrender- but instead he fired his own weapon. Maybe I misread the quote.." Maybe you just like beleiving washington propaganda. I dont take any of it seriously cause i know it to be a pack of lies, i read in order to scrutinise it, nothing more its factual content is always very limited.Also, i think we both know at this stage that the above is complete horseshit. "3) Information was actually recovered from Osama's home. In fact, "it is the largest cache of intelligence information gotten from a senior terrorist"" So what, what does this prove, he was a terrorist, we already knew that, i get the feeling that you really like enforcing the washington propaganda, if you're not american how did you become so captivated by their false ideal and corrupt ideology. "of course, if it was all a conspiracy, then my evidence may be called into question. But I have no reason to believe it is a conspiracy, and you have no evidence to sway me." Why are we not allowed to know the truth, do you think this is how your news shoiuld be delievered to you? Come fucking on man start asking a few questions. "And are you talking about the Mujahidin stingers? man, that was cryptic to decode. It made it marginally more difficult to find evidence. The information is already out there. The stingers were "given out like lollipops" in a reemerging cold war. What information would you think they were hiding? 'oh, we gave them nuclear warheads for fun, just to see what they would do" I dont know i still think its quite possible that they didnt want something exposed, but as i said after further reflection i no longer think its the most probable. The marines yes, the mission no. The fact is if washingtone wanted him alive they would have been quite willing to put the marines in jeopardy (if they wanted him alive). I think those seals might feel differently. We have a common saying in the army: "Better to be Judged by 12 than carried by 6" I'd be willing to bet the seals would agree. ----As an aside----- You guys are all over the place. First we are talking about the Navy (seals), then the Army, and then the Marines. You realize these are separate branches right? I think you watch too many hollywood war movies(never leabve a man behind, You have the audacity to tell someone who is in the U.S. Armed forces how the U.S. armed forces works....WOW! You are now entirely up your own ass. Congratulations! soldiers are cannon fodder to high ranking generals (and Obama), even the elite marines. Seals are not marines or ('elite' marines for that matter). One casualty can make a fire-team combat ineffective. If anybody's understanding of war comes from movies, it is yours. 1
point
"I think those seals might feel differently" I think your right, in fact if you look at the number of defections (although not documneted as such) during the vietnam war you begin to realise why the US had to devastate the place with bombs i.e. because the soldiers didnt want to die for a false ideal. Now my piont stands (and to be honest i think it is perfecetly valid), radical it may be i would be in no position to make it had the US done the right thing and put him on trial, you acted illegally. "You guys are all over the place" Really, where? I could say the same about you, in fact theres more of shortage of us than there is of you. "You realize these are separate branches right?" NO could you explain it to me again please. "You have the audacity to tell someone who is in the U.S. Armed forces how the U.S. armed forces works....WOW" No i hacve the audacity to look at the recent history of US conflicts and to see how the amred forces work, want to me to cite some examples just like i did when you claimed my accusations of US lies were unfounded, or can you bare the truth. I admit that must have hard for you to swallow. "You are now entirely up your own ass" Right back at ya buuuuudy!!!!!!!!!! "Seals are not marines or ('elite' marines for that matter" I fail to see how that does anything to defeat my piont. "If anybody's understanding of war comes from movies, it is yours" If you say so, while admit you have knowledge in this are i have not you dont have just as little idea what the true motivations of your government or high raking officials are but you will continue to swallow the party line isnt that right. 1
point
"You have the audacity to tell someone who is in the U.S. Armed forces how the U.S. armed forces works" That response wasn't addressed to you, and as far as i am aware the person to whom it was adressed isnt in the US army, besides its got very little to do with how the army works, the main piont is that washington superiors dont really care a whole load about the lives of the soldiers when a certain job needs to be done, i think personally the history of war and warfare (and not just american wars either although they are the ones i based my piont on) proves this this, how many times can you name when a job that needed to be done was called off due to the loss of life it may inflict? Your superiors only pretend to care, its all PR, they know they have to be seen to do this in the face of the public, i admit some may be genuine, so may even think they are genuine but its all part of the deception. You really should know this, this isnt a radical claim by any stretch of the imagination. 3
points
For the large part, I agree with Bohemian in most of his arguments. The fact is that Osama bin Laden was an active member of Al Qaeda at the point of his death and he was key to several terrorist plots, many of which ended in massive casualties. 9/11 would be the obvious example. This is reason enough for execution, and reason enough for celebration at justice being dealt and many more innocent lives being saved. Also, just in response to a snippet I read, Osama bin Laden could not have been tactically extracted by Seal Team Six. They were already basically invading a sovereign country without planning to take a hostile prisoner back over to the States for trial. It was an unnecessary risk of American lives. Side: Thanks Bohemian
I disagree it was unnecessary. I think you'd find the majority of military and even a number of out of shape lazy regular citizens more than willing to potentially throw their lives away if it meant putting one above the fucker's left eye. It's a good thing, and a good call. There's no real way to critizise this I think if you're taking everything into consideration. Side: Thanks Bohemian
If you're going to complain about: Your as opposed to You're, then you must really be reaching. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of thewayitis criticizing my grasp of the English language while at the same time making gross spelling and grammatical errors in the very same sentence. Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
1
point
1
point
Listen my friend i have done all the reserach that i am capable of doing i.e. watching the various news reports (from multiple sources), reading the various news articles, and online searching. I dont think there is any substantive evidence available to counter the claims ove been making, and if there is it is not in the public domain, i really getting sick of americans coming on here telling me i have no idea what im taking about yet all tehy are capable of providing to prove that piont is the same washington propaganda. Side: Thanks Bohemian
There is no substantive evidence besides the evidence already provided. There have been multiple sources provided that show how Osama was in fact the leader and mastermind behind the group known as Al Qaeda, which is in fact the exact opposite of what you were trying to say. Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
"There have been multiple sources provided that show how Osama was in fact the leader and mastermind behind the group known as Al Qaeda, which is in fact the exact opposite of what you were trying to say." I dont think Al Queda really has one leader, they operate in cells, they have superiors but i dont think they have one man controlling their actions, and if they do (i dont think they do)it wasn't Bin Laden, at least for the last 10 yrs anyway, his ole would have been very restrained. Now if there are multiple sources proving this i would really really really like to see them, you're not the first person to say this but thus far all i have gotten is the word of a washington propagandist speaking for the Obama adminstration, if you have actual evidence please let me see, take my word for it if there were real evidence available that disporved ,my claims i would not still be making them. Side: Thanks Bohemian
of course there is evidence to refute your claims. It is made even easier by the fact that your only cited sources are a war from a previous administration and a poem. If you have been watching news reports from multiple sources, reading various news articles, and conducting online searches- why haven't you found any evidence to support what you yourself claimed would be "impossible to prove". Are lying through your teeth about conducting research? Or did you not find any supporting evidence despite your research? You should be sick of people countering you. You have no evidence to support any of your claims, and no evidence to suggest that "Washington propaganda" is false. It is rather obvious what you are talking about. Historically, people have spouted conspiracy theories, claiming that the government is lying to them. USS Maine conspiracy Obama birth certificate conspiracy 9/11 conspiracy Alien conspiracy and, new to the list: Osama is not really dead Osama was working with the US the whole time Osama was executed before he could expose US behind terrorist attacks Osama is really Obama Admittedly, you do not have the same level of conviction of many of the sources I have read through. You only claim that your theory might be right, and every other theory is wrong. Which, as far as I am concerned, makes you just as irrational. I will admit that there is a chance that Washington killed Osama so he could not expose information. lets call that chance "p". the null hypothesis is, by default, p=0. You have no evidence to suggest that p>0. and for the record- eu sou Brasileiro, truĂŁo. Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
"of course there is evidence to refute your claims. It is made even easier by the fact that your only cited sources are a war from a previous administration and a poem." I didnt realise that you were actually looking for conclusive proof that Obama and memebers of the american adminsitration dont care about the proof, i mean what do you nexpect me to produce a recording in which Obama nd his administration admits there dont care about lost american lives, you specifically challenged me to produce evidence you know full well doesn t exist, i just misinterpreted what you were looking for. Now the proof is staring you in the face, you just need to recognise it, lets look at the facts, your government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers (not to mention the 1 milion Iraqis). Now this war had no moral justification (as was later proved) so in effect your government went to war and sacrificed american lives because it was in the corporate interest (who effectively control your government to do so), you have to be a fool to think that they care about american lost lives. far enough if you don't agree with that assessment but i like to see you try to disprove it. "If you have been watching news reports from multiple sources, reading various news articles, and conducting online searches- why haven't you found any evidence to support what you yourself claimed would be "impossible to prove"." This really doesnt hold any water my friend, come on, your asking for something that no researcher can prove and you know it. "Are lying through your teeth about conducting research? Or did you not find any supporting evidence despite your research?" No actually im not, i spend most of free time reading news reports, watching news stations of all kinds, watching documentaries and reading books but if you want to call me a liar to put your mind at ease go right ahead, i can see now what you real motivation was in this debate. "You should be sick of people countering you. You have no evidence to support any of your claims, and no evidence to suggest that "Washington propaganda" is false" Actually thats not true either, there are many inaccuracies and outright lies perpetuated by washington that have been proven false if you want me to list them just say the word, but im sure you could find them yourself if you really wanted, i just think you dont want to. Heres one to get you started, its current and topical as well just so you cant throw that claim in my face again. The story that washington released about the circumstancs by which Bin Laden was assassinated have effectively been proven to be lies: http://www.guardian.co. "It is rather obvious what you are talking about. Historically, people have spouted conspiracy theories, claiming that the government is lying to them." Conspiracies aren't always wrong my friend, a few weeks ago i was called a conspiracy nut cause i heard Bradley Manning was being tortured in roder to implicate Julian Assange, this has since been proven correct by his lawyers.Go check it out if you dont beleive me. No body entertained me either when i suggested that the mission to kill Osama was a planned assassination but i think you'll find that the facts that are beginning to surface that prove this correct also, it says as much in the articel above and this one is also quite informative and completely based on fact, go ahead have a read: http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/ "Admittedly, you do not have the same level of conviction of many of the sources I have read through. You only claim that your theory might be right, and every other theory is wrong." I dont claim every other theory is wrong, i never done so, in fact most of the time i have openly admitted that my theory may be incorrect, and that the official line may be right, im not that delusional but i am a sceptic, and i wouldnt be i just swallowed everything washington said without question, especially considering the circumstance and how its all een shrowded in secrecy. I admit my claim that Osama was killed to keep him from exposing shady dealings with the cia may have been a bit if a stretch, it may have just been soley for the political gain but the fact is we dont know as we have not been allowed to know. "Which, as far as I am concerned, makes you just as irrational." Well in my opinoin trusting anything that comes out of washington makes you incredibly nieve given their track record but if you want to label me as irrational feel free. "I will admit that there is a chance that Washington killed Osama so he could not expose information." Yes there is, although i have to admit it may be less likely than i originally thought, i was trying to figure out reasons for him being assassinated and that was all i could fathom but i never realised that i was reading into it far too much and making it more complex than it was, to be honest i think now it is more likely that he was assassinated solely for the political gain. "lets call that chance "p". the null hypothesis is, by default, p=0. You have no evidence to suggest that p>0." Yes i to have arrogantly used hypthesis tests to suit my argument in the past on this site, your not the only one who has covered an advanced statistics course. I disagree with that assessment though i think if an actual hypothesis test was performed on the incident (not that it would or could) the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation, which would at the very least raise the probabily of the null hypothesis above 0. Side: Thanks Bohemian
"I didnt realise that you were actually looking for conclusive proof that Obama and memebers of the american adminsitration dont care" Yes, I wanted conclusive proof. I do not care much for inconclusive conjecture. "Now the proof is staring you in the face, you just need to recognise it, lets look at the facts" actually, you stated that the evidence doesn't exist- a statement that is mutually exclusive with proof staring me in the face. "your government" I am Brazilian "government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers" I am sorry- but I think you have your American presidents mixed up. Obama is the one who killed Osama. Bush Jr. is the one who instigated the war. "your asking for something that no researcher can prove and you know it" I managed to find evidence based on economics. If you want me to give you some pointers on how to construct an argument against myself, message me and I can help you out. "if you want to call me a liar" I believe you read through articles. I was intending to emphasize the fact that you have no evidence despite your research. "im sure you could find them yourself if you really wanted" well, yes, but seeing as I am researching my arguments, not yours, it would e helpful for you to cite something "circumstancs by which Bin Laden was assassinated have effectively been proven to be lies" Are you surprised that Osama's family places more emphasis on US brutality than the US did? And that is not even my choice of words- the subtitle states 'Details emerge of what really happened when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan – according to the survivors, at least' and in that vein, there was still a firefight "Kuwaiti's brother was killed as he prepared to fire a gun" "[Osama had]an AK-47 assault rifle, most...[and] a Makarov pistol [within reach]" I will definitely admit that the US version of the story was exaggerated. However, the first person they encountered did try to shoot them-which generally makes soldiers less likely to assume the rest of the house is friendly. And Osama did have two guns within reach. So- the US definitely exaggerated the story- but to say the have proven to be lies is taking it a bit far... Also- your article from presstv is an opinion piece. That generally means it is not 'completely based on fact', and in fact is in conflict with your source from the guardian (a credible source) And I seem to recall you stating that they assassinated him because he had information that Obama did not want to leak- which I claimed ridiculous. I was the one who said they killed Osama because he was shot at (as pulled from the guardian source, conveniently left out of your presstv 'source') "Osama was killed to keep him from exposing shady dealings with the cia may have been a bit if a stretch" my point entirely. I think there was little chance of Osama being taken in alive- simply because I would not suspect him of going down peacefully (again: first person encountered open fired, Osama had two guns) "to be honest i think now it is more likely that he was assassinated solely for the political gain" and convenience. I disagree with that assessment though i think if an actual hypothesis test was performed on the incident (not that it would or could) the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation, which would at the very least raise the probabily of the null hypothesis above 0 Actually, I am yet to find any news articles discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions. a google news search: 1 result for: al-qaeda "acts of peace": an article which discussed Obama's lack of acts of peace against al qaeda. that makes 0 articles for peaceful al-qaeda interactions a google news search: About 87 results: al-qaeda "acts of violence" so, with the proportion of violent actions =87/87 the proportion of peaceful interactions =0 and n=87 since an SRS was not used, I will conduct a robust chi square goodness of fit Ho: peaceful=0 Ha: peaceful =/= 0 standard alpha level =5% A chi test is robust, so the randomization of google search engine satisfies this condition The sample size is large Unfortunately, the expected values are not all greater than 10, so my results may be questionable chi^2 value=0, significant at 5% alpha level p value=0 All you need to do is find a single peaceful interaction to prove this analysis questionable, and I suspect that you will. But you have not. So, technically, p value=0. I suppose I did that more for my own geeky fun rather than to actually prove a point. Oh-also, the null hypothesis would still be zero. You would simply reject the null hypothesis. Are you sure you took an advanced statistics class? (just kidding, you seem to have a good grasp of the subject) Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
"Yes, I wanted conclusive proof. I do not care much for inconclusive conjecture." Well the kind of proof you're looking for doesn't exist but you knew full well that it didnt when you asked me to find, i misinterpreted what you were actually looking for. I really dont need any furhter proof than the thousands of american bodies piled up from the Iraq war. I mean the war was illegal, immoral, did nothing to protect american security it was iniated in order to line the pockets of the washington elites and the american corporatocracy. "actually, you stated that the evidence doesn't exist- a statement that is mutually exclusive with proof staring me in the face." No i stated that the kind of irrefutable evidence you're looking for doesnt exist, no matter how much searching you do you wont find a recording of Obama taking about how little he cares about american service men lives because if it did exist (not that he'd be stupid enough to ever say such a thing) it would either be destoryed by a well wisher or it would be in the public domain.But you know this, and still asked me to find such evidence so you could such exactly what you are saying now because really all you care about is dismissing my pion of view, i honestly thought you were interested in it thats why i provided the sources that were not to your liking. "I am Brazilian" Sorry i just naturally assumed, most on this site are. "I am sorry- but I think you have your American presidents mixed up. Obama is the one who killed Osama. Bush Jr. is the one who instigated the war." I am sorry but where in what i wrote did i say i was refering to the current administration. Heres exactly what i wrote: "your government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers " I am terribly sorry but in my mind that cann mean any government as long as its american. Now if you want to get down to brass tax, Obama promised to leave Iraq, he has not, why do you think this is. Di you think its in order to help the Iraqis people or do you think that sustaining that war is in the corporate interest. "I managed to find evidence based on economics. If you want me to give you some pointers on how to construct an argument against myself, message me and I can help you out" Thanks for the offer but ill see how i do on my own for the time being. "I believe you read through articles. I was intending to emphasize the fact that you have no evidence despite your research." I know you think i havev no evidence but i really do beleive that to be the case, i think the Iraq is ample evidence, maybe not the Obama administration but don't worry wait another few weeks and im sure he'll have boots on the ground in Libya. Thats another war thats going to instigated under false pretences (saving the people of Bengazhi) in order to secure a chunk oif their oil reserves. "well, yes, but seeing as I am researching my arguments, not yours, it would e helpful for you to cite something" Ok fair enough:- -the following is two articles by the renowned British Journalist John Pilger on the attempts by the US to silence the truth coming from wikileaks which for the fisrt time is an organisation that tells the truth: - this is another John Pilger article about Iraq and the hypocracy associated with how america views the death and destruction the have brought to that country: http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/no-tears-no-remorse-for-the-fallen-of-iraq (i strongly adive you to check out this mans works, he is a brave journalist and one of the few left in mainstream journalism who really cares about the truth, he has made many documentaries all of them brilliant and shocking in equal proportion) - the following is a series of three documentary films by the renowned film maker Adam Curtis, please don't dismiss these as irrelevant to the topic at hand as you did with the vietnam documentary, give it a chance, you have asked for sources, i gaurantee this one will go along way to cahging your opinion. I can tell you didnt watch the previous documentary i posted despite the revelations exposed in it in relation to the vietnam war. Just so that you dont question the relevance of this is will post in the wikipedia description of the moive: The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876#docid=-5272802791005405759 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876#docid=6277881193659506084 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876#docid=-1433149975726132762 - Heres an artivle by Naomi Klein author of the Shock Doctrine ( i strongly urge you to read this book) detaling how Obamas influence on world affairs has been very far removed from what was promised during his campaign. http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/10/obamas-bad-influence -Heres an interview with Terrik Ramadan where he deals with the death of OSama Bin Laden and the lies and inaccuracies we have been fed in relation to the matter, this is an excellent interview if i may say so, and its directly related to everything we've been discussing, please watch: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/excellent-definitely-worth-listening-to/ - Heres a petition to stop the turture of former soldier Bradley Manning the man who released the US cables that showed how tryannical the US have been in Iraq and how mcuh the Iraqi people have suffered. I was called a comspiracy nut for suggesting this, then proof of it began to emerge. Pleas sign the petition, i have already, if you value freedom of the press you should do this, this man was brave enough to release cables showing just what was going on in Iraq, given that the western media complete sanatise it and completely distort the truth. Please send this on to others in roder to spread the word: http://www.avaaz.org/en/bradley_manning_2/97.php?cl_tta_sign=f5ded63538ea26fae0a0965885398f6f -Heres a credible article echoeing the my sentiments that war is only for furthering the profits of the rich, please read: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/charles-glass-must-read/ Heres NOam Chomsky on Osama Bin Ladens death: http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/2011/05/chomsky-on-bin-laden-jessica-lynch-lies_07.html Heres Noam Chomsky on US motives in Libya, and the crisis which has only just started there: http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/ Now you asked for sources and links and i have provided you with them, these links will provide you with hundreds of more when you follow them to their respective websites. Dont bother responding to any of them if you have not watched or read them, i found it highly insulting that you had the guile to lecture me on vietnam and the GIs after you clearly had not watched the documentary so please dont try to lecture me on any of these topics until you have read or watched the source and have criticisms related to it, OK!!! "Are you surprised that Osama's family places more emphasis on US brutality than the US did? And that is not even my choice of words- the subtitle states" You completely missing the piont as you just can't wait to jump to the defense of the US, they lied about what went on, are they still lying? Who knows. "and in that vein, there was still a firefight" Did you read the article, they met practically no resistance, there was almost 50 of them, he (Bin Laden) was unarmed and not fully clothed and was shot in th back of his head. "I will definitely admit that the US version of the story was exaggerated. However, the first person they encountered did try to shoot them-which generally makes soldiers less likely to assume the rest of the house is friendly." This is just you rationalising it to yourself again, the fact is its alot easier to do this than to start asking really probing question like why was i lied to, what is the actual truth in this story? No its really not watch the Terrik Ramandan interview above. "Also- your article from presstv is an opinion piece. That generally means it is not 'completely based on fact', and in fact is in conflict with your source from the guardian (a credible source)" No i really dont think it is an opinoin peice, i will admit there is reasonable amount of opinoin in ot but it is backed up with credible sources of information. Now i dont recall you saying that no article i post should have opinoin in it, every article has opinion to some extent so i find this quite a ridiculous criticism.BTW i find the press tv source to be more credible but thats me, the Guardian were caught distorting the truth of one of the wikileaks cables they were given, wikileaks is suing them for it. "And I seem to recall you stating that they assassinated him because he had information that Obama did not want to leak- which I claimed ridiculous. I was the one who said they killed Osama because he was shot at (as pulled from the guardian source, conveniently left out of your presstv 'source')" Yes thats it weave your web, i can see right thorugh your motivations my friend, oyu're competely transparent, you're not interested in the truth or really disproving me on proper grounds, you just want to discredit me on any grounds that you can as you so vehemently disagree with my position. I made that suggestion and i openly admitted in doing so that i was complete speculation, i came to think that after i realised they had assassinated him, once i had i began to think why and that was the only real tangible reason i could come up with, i have since revised this opinion as i beleive this was too complex and i was readin into it too much, the fact is it still may be correct i just dont beleive it to be the most likely of the reasons for killing him anymore. I now think it was more simplistic than that i.e. he was killed soley for the political gain associated with his death. Now is that the only thing you find wrong with the press tv source cause really thats quite weak in fairness, none of my sources are going to agree 100% with each other, the fact that you tried to use this against me only shows how desparate you are. Personally i think the press tv source is more reliable but thats just me. "my point entirely. I think there was little chance of Osama being taken in alive- simply because I would not suspect him of going down peacefully (again: first person encountered open fired, Osama had two guns)" Still trying so desparately to convince yourself of something that has already been proved false, for fucks sake man just admit it, he was assassinated, they could have easily taken him if they wanted to, THEY DIDNT WANT TO, they were told not to. "Actually, I am yet to find any news articles discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions. "a google news search: 1 result for: al-qaeda "acts of peace": an article which discussed Obama's lack of acts of peace against al qaeda. that makes 0 articles for peaceful al-qaeda interactions" This i find absolutelty hilarious, i say: "the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation" and then you tell me that equates to: "discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions." and you tell me that i must find an something showing peaceful Al Queda ineractions in order to show the analysis to be questionable. Look, one thing that isnt questionable is the cia involvment with Osama Bin Laden, now there was nothing peaceful about it, they were supplying him and the Muhjahadin with an arsenal with which to fight the Russians, these kinds oif cia activities are invariably in serious breach of international law and cause great human suffering that rarely gets reported or even heard about. Thats what i thought the reason they killed him for originally was trying to conceal these dealings, and i also think it would have to be accounted for in a hypothesis test but thats niether here nor there. Side: Thanks Bohemian
The fundamental problem with your argument is that you qualify everything with "I think". I know you think. You are clearly capable of forming an argument. However, It seems that you are drawn into the excitement of a discrepancy- a discrepancy that John Pilger (a writer known for making controversial, ant-western articles) made quite clear. However, even in non sensationalist issues there are discrepancies. The fact that Osama had a gun within reach compared to open firing is a "lie" by the technical definition in that it is not the truth, but it is not a "lie" on the order of magnitude that you are implying. "This i find absolutelty hilarious" That was the point. It was facetious. The p test is invalid anyways, because no count is allowed to be under 10- let alone zero. I thought that was clear to a person familiar with statistics. Unfortunately I have not had nor will soon have time to elaborate, as I have finals and subject SAT's to study for. Until then, feel free to send me articles if you wish, but I will not be able to reply for another week or so. Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
"The fundamental problem with your argument is that you qualify everything with "I think"." I admit i havent presented evidence for many of claims but the fact is i am surprised that some of my views have been met with such sceptism e.g. -the US and Nato invasion of Libya isnt being conducted for humanitarian purposes While i have no conclusive proof of this i am still surprised at peoples reaction to the claim as to me it seems immediately obvious that they have intervened for much more self interested reasons. -Lies pertaining to the death of Osama Bin Laden Again people have refused to even entertaint he possiblility that they are being lied to. I find everything that has been released about Bin Laden to highly suspect, it seems likely that the truth of the matter will not surface. I also find your continued belief in the official story to be extremely nieve given the circumstances i.e. "but it is not a "lie" on the order of magnitude that you are implying." I dont what you beleive but to me anything that has been released by washington is a lie, particularly on this is issue, nobody has confirmed their story, in fact it has been refuted by multiple sources, and they have had to alter and change it significantly. I was attacked repeatably on this debate by mulitiple people who all seemed so confident about how he died and that Osama was the leader of AL Queda but these claims (from washingtons propaganda machine) have since been disproved or proved to quite tenuous. I even had to debate the fact that it was a planned assassination something i thought would have been immediately obvious given the supposed circumstances of his death. To be honest i dont actually know what to beleive about this story anymore, there are far too manyu conflicting stories and the evidence for each is wholly inadequate, one thing is for certain im not going to side with the official line as history has proved that to be, more often than not, very far from the actual truth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/ http://www.thenews.com.pk/ "John Pilger (a writer known for making controversial, ant-western articles) made quite clear" John Pilger is one the most respected journalists in Britain, hes also one of the very few who isnt afraid to report the total unbiased truth, as with all those who expose western crimes (intead of sanitising them like most due) he has been branded anti-american, anti-western etc. etc. These labels haven't stuck (and its not for want of trying), from reading his articles and watching his documentaries it is clear he cares only for the welfare of alll people. "I thought that was clear to a person familiar with statistics." Look your the one who wanted to bring Hypothesis testing into this debate, if you want to test my credentials on statistics please create a debate on it and ill be happy to show you how much i know. BTW im well aware that a sample must be of a certain size in order for the reulsts to be statistically signifcant, and ive known from the beginning that a hypothesis test oin this issue is invalid, i more or less said so in a previous debate. "Unfortunately I have not had nor will soon have time to elaborate" Ya i was sitting my exams there about a week ago and i foolishly used this iste to procrastinate, although it did serve as a useful distraction i tended to waste too much time on it. Side: Thanks Bohemian
I think it means something. Osama Bin Laden was the founder of Al Qaeda and a unifying figure within the organization, this may very well cause a fracture in the organization, as no other leader has quite the same following that Bi Laden did. We very well might see a lot of in-fighting within Al Qaeda as a result. Divide and Conquer! Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
Yeah we killed a guy who did nothing wrong! -_- I don't believe Osama had anything to do with 9/11. I think he was just taking credit for it so more people would follow him. But it was really done by our own government so we would have a reason to go to war and steal oil. Side: Thanks Bohemian
Yeah we killed a guy who did nothing wrong! -_- Is this a joke? Osama Bin Laden did nothing wrong? Can you provide evidence for this? I don't believe Osama had anything to do with 9/11. I think he was just taking credit for it so more people would follow him. But it was really done by our own government so we would have a reason to go to war and steal oil. Oh boy. Another crazed cult follower. Side: Thanks Bohemian
1
point
1
point
|