Osama Bin Laden is dead!!

[Fufu]

Saudi police: al-Qaida member surrenders
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia says an al-Qaida member on the kingdom's most wanted list called from abroad and turned himself in.
Interior Ministry's spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said in a statement Wednesday that Khaled Hathal Abdullah al-Atifi al-Qahtani contacted the security authorities from an undisclosed country and expressed his wish to come home.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_saudi_al_qaida

Yeah.. I wonder what country? ... USA?

 

[SchmitzIT]

Yeah.. I wonder what country? ... USA?

Tinfoil hats on!

 

[Jethro]

I honestly don't think terrorists discriminate where they stay or are. Saying they weren't in Iraq prior to being invaded is a rather naive thing to believe or think. They were in the countries surrounding Iraq and I highly doubt they said, "Hey guys, Iraq looks like a pretty chill place. Let's just ignore it and set up shop elsewhere.".

Just because you don't want to believe they weren't there before being invaded doesn't mean they weren't. They to some extent are in a good chunk of countries on Earth. Just because they aren't out blowing things up daily in those countries doesn't mean they aren't there.

They actually did find WMD in Iraq. They found many chemical weapons. Just because they didn't find nukes doesn't mean they didn't find WMD's. Between 2003 and 2006 over 500 chemical weapons had been found. Thus it was not a lie.

Do you have a source for this claim? Everything I've read analysising the illegal invasion of Iraq, which it was regardless of Western spin - there was no U.N mandate, indicates no WMDs have ever been discovered. Chemical plants are surprisingly in most Countries in the world, I used to work at one, though to my knowledge the company wasn't producing weopans of any description.

Are you indicating the U.S and it's allies - Australia is one btw - has the god given right to invade any Country, cause you know terrorist are probably hiding out there?

 

[Digital Doctor]

Say what ? Bin Laden is dead ?
Really?

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

Woohooo !

 

[Lawrence]

Do you have a source for this claim? Everything I've read analysising the illegal invasion of Iraq, which it was regardless of Western spin - there was no U.N mandate, indicates no WMDs have ever been discovered. Chemical plants are surprisingly in most Countries in the world, I used to work at one, though to my knowledge the company wasn't producing weopans of any description.

Are you indicating the U.S and it's allies - Australia is one btw - has the god given right to invade any Country, cause you know terrorist are probably hiding out there?

Iraq was invaded because they invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait asked the UN for help, it had nothing to do with terrorism. A friend of mine has the gold and silver medal awarded to him by the people of Kuwait. Saddam then ignored the resolutions (inspections of nuclear facilities) put in place to end the first war. Not once, but 13 (or was it 16?) times. That started the 2nd war, and justly so based on his history.

Any leader that uses chemical weapons on his own people is a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Jethro]

Iraq was invaded because they invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait asked the UN for help, it had nothing to do with terrorism. A friend of mine has the gold and silver medal awarded to him by the people of Kuwait. Saddam then ignored the resolutions (inspections of nuclear facilities) put in place to end the first war. Not once, but 13 (or was it 16?) times. That started the 2nd war, and justly so based on his history.

Any leader that uses chemical weapons on his own people is a weapon of mass destruction.

The first invasion of Iraq, under Bush Snr, was due to the invasion of Kuwait as you stated. However the second invasion, under Bush Jnr, had zero to do with Kuwait. Why exactly are you bringing this up? The second invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces was certainly not sanctioned by the U.N general body or security council, and thus under International treaty is an illegal invasion. The U.S and it's citizens can claim whatever they like, the fact remains pretty obvious.

If Saddam's repeated use of chemical weapons during their long term war with Iran or use of them against the Kurd separatists was an issue for the U.S, why exactly did they not take measures against Saddam's government during the first war?

Use of nuclear weapons would also indicate weapons of mass destruction, there has only been one Country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

 

[Johnny Large]

The first invasion of Iraq, under Bush Snr, was due to the invasion of Kuwait as you stated. However the second invasion, under Bush Jnr, had zero to do with Kuwait. Why exactly are you bringing this up? The second invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces was certainly not sanctioned by the U.N general body or security council, and thus under International treaty is an illegal invasion. The U.S and it's citizens can claim whatever they like, the fact remains pretty obvious.

If Saddam's repeated use of chemical weapons during their long term war with Iran or use of them against the Kurd separatists was an issue for the U.S, why exactly did they not take measures against Saddam's government during the first war?

Use of nuclear weapons would also indicate weapons of mass destruction, there has only been one Country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

Actually in the first war the US did not invade Iraq, it burst only some kilometers into Iraq to try and trap the Republican Guard on Kuwait. But Bush Senior had no desire to become mired in Iraq, and didn't want America to appear like a bully. Obviously his son proved to be such a sharp contrast.

Anyone can claim they always knew going to Iraq was a mistake. But at the time everyone wanted to see asses kicked because of 9/11.

What's done is done. But really, is the US more secure now because of the two wars? No.

If the US had no UN authority for the 2003 invasion so what? At the time the administration swore that Iraq had WMDs, and such information surely warranted immediate action. And had they found anything, it would've been the right thing to do. What is inadmissible is that the administration deliberately lied, and ignored evidence that Iraq in fact had no WMDs, and manipulated everything to arrange its war.

 

[Ray]

In certain cases, I actually could care less about what causes a person to turn into a monster. That kind of stuff might be interesting for tree-huggers who think that all men are inherently good, but as far as I personally am concerned, the important bit is that no more innocent people will die by the hands of this man.

So you go and look into why this man fellt no remorse for indiscriminantly killing thousands of people. I'll keep on wishing him and those like him the absolute worst. When you finally figure it out, feel free to shout it off the rooftops.

Oh, and nice to know that you assume that everybody who thinks OBL was a bad person based their opinion on the media, instead of on the man's actions

Oh, yes! It was wrong on my behalf to assume that people who had negative/positive views of OBL was because of the media, but in your case, you actually knew the man, personally. I lived in a farm for a very long time, where there is no tv, radio or even internet. I moved to the city in early September 2005, all the radio stations, news networks and newspapers had stories about 9/11 where they accused OBL. Everyone seemed to hate the guy, but everyone was just being the sheep they are. Whatever the media says, they'll believe.

In that remote farm, the media can't reach everyone, so probably less than 0.04% know about OBL(whatever they were told).
If you asked the rest "what do you think of OBL?" , the answer would most probably be "I'm sorry, but I don't know who or what you're talking about"

There is a great distance between the USA and the Middle East, but you are right, my countrymen traveled that distance and met OBL so they are now basing their opinions on his actions and not what the media presents them. The MEDIA did not influence their opinions AT ALL.

I am very proud of my countrymen and all the people around the world, now. Finally, somebody's dream is coming true. [judging people based upon their actions].

 

[jonsidneyb]

From my understanding in the first Gulf War the coalition agreed the action was only to get Iraq out of Kuwait. I one of the conditions at the end of the first conflict where weapons inspections with consequences if those where not allowed. Bill Clinton at one point bombed suspected sites for four days because Iraq refused to follow Security Council Resolutions and and did not allow access of certain sites to the inspectors. I think Clinton's administration thought there where WMD's. In fact when Bill was in office he said they did, so did the Vice President.

Fast forward to Bush. Again inspections where not allowed in but where eventually allowed in. It was thought they might have been moved. I do think Bush thought they where there. I remember at some point Germany said there where WMD's as well but I don't remember the details. Eventually Saddam himself claimed to have WMD's. After Saddam was captured we are told he behaved as he did to scare and bluff Iran. Again if I remember right Saddam said he didn't think George Bush had to guts to actually invade.

Found something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein-fbi-iraq-iran

In more than two dozen interviews and casual talks, the deposed Iraqi leader told FBI questioners that he refused to allowed UN inspectors to re-enter the country because he feared they would reveal to his chief adversary Iran the severely degraded state of Iraq's weapons capability.

It would seem to me that Bush did want to invade but used the fact that Iraq was violating UN resolutions as the justification and a majority in Congress agreed. It sure sounds like Saddam wanted the world to think he was violating the resolutions ending the first Gulf conflict. Just because Iraq was in violation I don't think means they have to be invaded. The way I see it (I can be wrong), Bush wanted to take Saddam out of power, Bush may have felt he was also justified, Saddam wanted others to think he was more powerful and dangerous than he was and refused UN resolutions. Bush used Saddam's own actions to sell this to Congress. I don't think Bush could have got the backing of Congress without the actions of Saddam. I think another person in Bush's shoes would have continued to use sanctions. I kind of think it took both Bush and Saddam for the second Gulf War to start.

 

[jonsidneyb]

Oh, the Gassing of the Kurd's might have made him seem to have that capability as well.

 

[Ray]

No I'm not contradicting myself, and no I do not know how the world feels and I didn't claim to. You should try reading both my post and the one I replied to. I didn't speak for the world. I stated my opinion. Mine only.

Again, that is the way I feel. My opinion. And I stand by it.

Fair enough, opinions are great.

 

[jonsidneyb]

Hmmm, just thought of a game of Poker.

Saddam was using his best poker face trying to make Iran think he has a really good hand and succeeds. Saddam thought Bush was bluffing and Bush told Saddam he wanted to see his cards; Saddam ignored him.

It might be dangerous to bluff when there is someone at the table looking for an excuse to take your head off. It can be hard to bluff Iran without at the same time convincing Bush of what what Bush already thinks is true.

Where I think we can blame Bush was he was anxious and was not able to see he was being duped. Looks like congress fell for it too.

 

[MilesDB]

Anyone can claim they always knew going to Iraq was a mistake. But at the time everyone wanted to see asses kicked because of 9/11.

What's done is done. ........
If the US had no UN authority for the 2003 invasion so what?

Sounds like a great HOW-TO-DO for China. When this giant awakens militarily and starts setting up bases overseas and invading other countries at will, what will we say?

Another consideration: If it's ok for Bush to get away with what he's done, why was it so important to bring Bin Laden to justice? A double standard?

 

[jonsidneyb]

Sounds like a great HOW-TO-DO for China. When this giant awakens militarily and starts setting up bases overseas and invading other countries at will, what will we say?

Another consideration: If it's ok for Bush to get away with what he's done, why was it so important to bring Bin Laden to justice? Sounds like a double standard.

While I think Bush was too anxious and that the invasion didn't have to happen other people have invaded with less reason. 17 UN resolutions where violated and some felt that Resolution 1441 justified action to be taken, all do not agree with this but this justification resonated with quite a few people.

Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.

Is Saddam would have responded correctly he may have been able to take every excuse Bush had for acting away. Bush might have wanted the war but Saddam made it possible by violating UN Resolutions the way I see it. I admit Bush did a large amount of arm twisting and pushing for what he wanted. I think Bush did the wrong thing by acting in Iraq but I don't think Bush comes close to what others have done.

Bill Clinton was duped as well, Bill responded by bombing. George responded by invading. Bush did admit the intelligence was wrong.

 

[SchmitzIT]

Oh, yes! It was wrong on my behalf to assume that people who had negative/positive views of OBL was because of the media, but in your case, you actually knew the man, personally.

Where did I say I knew the man? I merely stated that I do not have to be influenced by media, but am more than clever enough to do my own research and base my opinion on that. You also seem to think that all media takes the same course.

Some channels most certainly will lean towards a specific angle. Fox to the right, the great majority of the Dutch media the exact other way. If you make sure you are aware of the bias in such channels, you can ensure you educate yourself and at least are exposed to both sides of the spectrum.

There are many, many cases where the media presented one version of "the truth", and where a bit of research will show something totally different.

But have it your way. I'll even go "Baa" if it'll make you happy. But being a guy coming from a farm, I'd advise you not to see that as an encouragement in any way. Baa means no

 

[jonsidneyb]

But being a guy coming from a farm, I'd advise you not to see that as an encouragement in any way. Baa means no

 

[Sadik B]

I would have preferred staying out of this conversation, but I feel I have to specify a few things.

Quote from here

In late 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Subsequently the Security Council issued resolution 1441 authorizing new inspections in Iraq. The carefully worded UN resolution put the burden on Iraq, not UN inspectors, to prove that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. The United States claimed that Iraq's latest weapons declaration left materials and munitions unaccounted for; the Iraqis claimed that all such material had been destroyed, something which had been stated years earlier by Iraq's highest ranking defector, Hussein Kamel al-Majid. According to reports from the previous UN inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for. In fact, in 1995, Iraq told the United Nations that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles, but that all of it had been destroyed.[citation needed]
In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.

The point that Iraq did not allow UN inspectors is grossly incorrect. El Baradei who was the chief of IAEA during that time quite categorically stated that he did not believe Iraq had any WMD.

Quote from here

One of the major issues during ElBaradei’s second term as the director general of the IAEA was the agency’s inspections in Iraq. ElBaradei disputed the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the time of the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. ElBaradei told the UN Security Council in March 2003 that documents purporting to show that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger were not authentic.

The assertion that George Bush Jr did not know that Iraq did not have WMD is one which is very difficult to believe. Here was the President of the US with the best intelligence network in the world, with military bases in half of middle eastern countries with the CIA having it's agents with every legit or illegit govt in the region. To think that he was not aware is being gullible in my opinion.

The purpose of the second Iraq war was quite obvious to most of us in unrelated countries those who had access to research about the region. It was to furth US's foreign policy of securing US's oil interests everywhere in the world. The US has been doing the same in Saudi albeit in a different manner. They have an agreement with the Saudis to protect their dictator kingdom in exchange for Saudi to ensure the dominance of dollar and keeping oil prices in check. Saudi then re-invests the money earned through oil in US companies. I am not conjecturing, you only need to look at the Board of directors of some of the most powerful US corporations and you can spot some of the Saudi royal family names.

I am not for a moment saying that US looking to secure it's oil interests through a deal with the Saudis is a bad thing, but merely highlighting american foreign policy. No such deal could be reached with Sadddam. It is good riddance that the world got rid of him, but the purpose of Bush was quite clear from the onset.

But the sad outcome of it all is the gross hatred that America invokes in most middle eastern nations. Tell me how would you feel if the chinese were building military bases on US soil. The whole drama of religious terrorism is a front created to divert attention from real reasons. I am not saying that religion does not provide motivation, but it is a tool employed for motivation when the purpose already exists. The purpose exists due to occupation primarily. There are now 14 US military bases in Iraq in addition to one's in Kuwait, in Columbia, Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Border regions of Russia etc. These produce untold tensions in the minds of people of their respective nations. They see US as an enemy and the nuances are often lost in hatred.

Anyways, I am not saying I have a magic solution to the problems of the world and the middle east, but we should not assume that things are as simple as "they are evil, we are good, let's kick their asses".

 

[MilesDB]

Anyways, I am not saying I have a magic solution to the problems of the world and the middle east, but we should not assume that things are as simple as "they are evil, we are good, let's kick their asses".

You know what... I think Bush played an important role in the recent revolutionary movement in the Middle East. I believe hasn't he invaded Iraq and dethroned Saddam, the status quo in the arab countries would've stayed the same even now. Besides, there is a democracy in works in Iraq now. Shi'ites have a say in the decision-making. All in all the Middle East is moving in the right direction. Power to people!!

 

[Sadik B]

You know what... I think Bush played an important role in the recent revolutionary movement in the Middle East. I believe hasn't he invaded Iraq and dethroned Saddam, the status quo in the arab countries would've stayed the same even now. Besides, there is a democracy in works in Iraq now. Shi'ites have a say in the decision-making. All in all the Middle East is moving in the right direction. Power to people!!

I am not so sure. The movement in the arab world is a result of deprivation. The deprivation would have remained the same whether or not Bush invaded Iraq. The middle east is a conglomerate of nations stamped with dictators post world war 2. These dictators had been supported by one or another of western and european nations. These dictators provided little or no rights to the common masses who have now had enough. It was bound to come one way or another. But we will see a very chaotic decade going forward. The earlier dictator regimes and their officials will try everything within their powers to maintain status quo and their western backers would want to ensure their interests are safe guarded and will try to bring the more friendly faction to power. The people who want absolute change and are taking to the streets want to have nothing of the sort and the more radical groups who are entirely anti-west will see a lot of support.

Still, I am more hopeful in my heart than in mind. Either way it promises to be a decade of change which may alter the course of the world.

 

[jonsidneyb]

I would have preferred staying out of this conversation, but I feel I have to specify a few things.
The point that Iraq did not allow UN inspectors is grossly incorrect. El Baradei who was the chief of IAEA during that time quite categorically stated that he did not believe Iraq had any WMD.

He did allow them then would disallow then allow again. They did in fact pull out a couple of tons of uranium out of there but that does not a weapon make. It is actually hard to prove somethings do not exist.

The assertion that George Bush Jr did not know that Iraq did not have WMD is one which is very difficult to believe. Here was the President of the US with the best intelligence network in the world, with military bases in half of middle eastern countries with the CIA having it's agents with every legit or illegit govt in the region. To think that he was not aware is being gullible in my opinion.

The reasons I think George really thought they where there was for him they had to be there. His legacy is going to be they where not found. Bill also thought they where there and the merit employees of intelligence would be the same. If our
intelligence network is indeed the best the nature of intelligence itself means there will be flaws. In the past and possibly still J3's classified library system received more data from NSA alone that it cannot be digested and much of it would go obsolete before it was ever read. It was a lady from the Korea House that also let a member know there where some unfriendly people working in the same building that USA was not aware of. There is also always the risk that they are getting bad data. It is also generally accepted that the smaller the agency and the better people know each other in a group the harder it is to infiltrate. Since Saddam had a habit of using relatives to over see things related to security and executed quite a few people should create an intelligence. I think knowing what is in Iraq back then would be very difficult without actually being there.

The purpose of the second Iraq war was quite obvious to most of us in unrelated countries those who had access to research about the region. It was to furth US's foreign policy of securing US's oil interests everywhere in the world. The US has been doing the same in Saudi albeit in a different manner. They have an agreement with the Saudis to protect their dictator kingdom in exchange for Saudi to ensure the dominance of dollar and keeping oil prices in check. Saudi then re-invests the money earned through oil in US companies. I am not conjecturing, you only need to look at the Board of directors of some of the most powerful US corporations and you can spot some of the Saudi royal family names.

One problem here, the board of directors is selected by the stock holders. Having an economy based on a single commodity is going to encourage diversifying even if it is in passive equity investments. It not only does not surprise me that they are on many Boards I would be very very suspicious if they where not. If you have large equity investments it makes since to take advantage of your voting shares to protect your interests.

I am not for a moment saying that US looking to secure it's oil interests through a deal with the Saudis is a bad thing, but merely highlighting american foreign policy. No such deal could be reached with Sadddam. It is good riddance that the world got rid of him, but the purpose of Bush was quite clear from the onset.

Commodity effect. The interests are a bit of a red herring once it is understood. There is more going on than this but the commodity effect is an easy incomplete answer. If you study commodity effect it can get you to question some things related to interests.

But the sad outcome of it all is the gross hatred that America invokes in most middle eastern nations. Tell me how would you feel if the chinese were building military bases on US soil. The whole drama of religious terrorism is a front created to divert attention from real reasons. I am not saying that religion does not provide motivation, but it is a tool employed for motivation when the purpose already exists. The purpose exists due to occupation primarily. There are now 14 US military bases in Iraq in addition to one's in Kuwait, in Columbia, Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Border regions of Russia etc. These produce untold tensions in the minds of people of their respective nations. They see US as an enemy and the nuances are often lost in hatred.

Yep, America is hated but we are not alone. I think there are 27 recent conflicts, the USA is directly involved in 3 at this time. The targets of terrorism is not limited to the USA but instead reach around the world. Some in the Middle East do hate us for being there and interfering, others want us to interfere more, others are mad at us because they feel we abandoned them.

Anyways, I am not saying I have a magic solution to the problems of the world and the middle east, but we should not assume that things are as simple as "they are evil, we are good, let's kick their asses".

I don't believe in magic. I think there are a lot of gray areas. I do think both Bush and Bill thought there where WMD's there. I think Bush jumped in with both feet thinking he would be vindicated and what he wanted to find was not there.