Culture and politics forum

Well done U.S.A

  • sayadian

    Joined Travelfish
    15th January, 2008
    Posts: 1557

    Well done U.S.A on your short trip to Pakistan.

    #1 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 14:06

  • Advertisement

  • somtam2000

    admin
    Click here to learn more about somtam2000
    Joined Travelfish
    21st January, 2004
    Location Indonesia
    Posts: 7039
    Total reviews: 24
    Places visited:
    At least 113

    Ten years to catch a dude living first in a cave then in a villa in Pakistan since late last year (ThaiIndian report on that here from Oct last year). I'm certainly not missing the guy, but without wanting to sound too cynical, there's an election coming up right?

    Thought the NYT Oped nailed it - ridding the world of this particular person really doesn't address any of the larger issues that he tended to leverage off.

    #2 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 15:56

  • sayadian

    Joined Travelfish
    15th January, 2008
    Posts: 1557

    Absolutely agree Somtam, it won't change anything and will probaby make things more dangerous for awhile. Also, I was surprised that this announcement was made before the body was DNA'd. If they've got it wrong there's going to be an almighty amount of egg on some peoples' faces!
    This story has got a lot of mileage yet. Not least the question of how the guy was living in splendour next to a prestigious Pakistani Military Academy.
    Some papers are reporting that only the U.S. was involved, others saying Pakistan was informed.
    A lot to unravel.

    #3 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 17:10

  • sayadian

    Joined Travelfish
    15th January, 2008
    Posts: 1557

    BTW I would have thought that this one is a must for Madmac, where are you man?
    I can understand them using helis for exfiltration but how do you think they 'knocked on the door?'
    They must have had a team watching for awhile and I always thought the Yanks couldn't keep still ;-)

    #4 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 17:20

  • somtam2000

    admin
    Click here to learn more about somtam2000
    Joined Travelfish
    21st January, 2004
    Location Indonesia
    Posts: 7039
    Total reviews: 24
    Places visited:
    At least 113

    Just read another good analysis here

    #5 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 17:35

  • somtam2000

    admin
    Click here to learn more about somtam2000
    Joined Travelfish
    21st January, 2004
    Location Indonesia
    Posts: 7039
    Total reviews: 24
    Places visited:
    At least 113

    Think about what state Iraq and afganistan would be in today if all the money spent militarily had instead been spent on infrastructure and education. I know it's a complex problem but sometimes complex problems have surprisingly simple solutions.

    #6 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 17:40

  • Rasheeed

    Click here to learn more about Rasheeed
    Joined Travelfish
    4th November, 2010
    Location Cambodia
    Posts: 311

    U S A! U S A!

    #7 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 18:48

  • caseyprich

    Joined Travelfish
    3rd March, 2010
    Location China
    Posts: 1202
    Total reviews: 53
    Places visited:
    At least 48

    just to play devils advocate - let's imagine a world full of bunny rabbits and flowers where since roman times we never had to spend money on war and could always just care about the children

    #8 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 19:11

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Anyone got a pic? Seems the one being broadcast on Pakistani TV is a fake.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake?

    #9 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 19:32

  • somtam2000

    admin
    Click here to learn more about somtam2000
    Joined Travelfish
    21st January, 2004
    Location Indonesia
    Posts: 7039
    Total reviews: 24
    Places visited:
    At least 113

    Every day caseyprich, every day :)

    #10 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 21:11

  • Advertisement

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    A couple of sentences in the NYT today caught my attention:

    American officials said Bin Laden resisted and was shot in the head. He was later buried at sea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html?ref=todayspaper

    I haven't been able to find any mention in the media about whether DNA samples were taken prior to the disposal of the evidence.... or whether they actually have any authentic DNA samples to compare them with.

    This is probably top secret classified information which would compromise the security of the USA (not to mention Obama's chances of re-election).

    So, let us rejoice and weep with emotion that the world is finally rid of either Osama Bin Laden or some poor sod who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    To quote the Huffington Post:

    10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 deaths, and
    $1,188,263,000,000 later, we managed to kill one person.

    #11 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 21:22

  • sayadian

    Joined Travelfish
    15th January, 2008
    Posts: 1557

    '....or some poor sod who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.'

    If it isn't him we'll soon know as he'll have a new DVD out tomorrow gloating!

    #12 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 22:10

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Seems they've done the DNA testing already....me bad.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13509518

    That was quick. Normally it takes 14 days.

    #13 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 22:32

  • sayadian

    Joined Travelfish
    15th January, 2008
    Posts: 1557

    well if you've got a U.S. President breathing down your neck I suppose the process can be speeded up.

    #14 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 22:48

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    DNA match, 99.9% confidence.

    That sister who died at Massachusetts General Hospital was a half sister right?

    #15 Posted: 2/5/2011 - 23:26

  • jnelson232

    Joined Travelfish
    28th March, 2011
    Location United States
    Posts: 37

    as much as i'd like to jump in on this, this article really puts it amazingly

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/2011529443412377.html

    (The death of Osama and the return to Reality)

    I'm more curious about how this affects travel to Muslim countries. How is Osama viewed in countries like Indonesia, Brunei, or Malaysia?

    #16 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 02:19

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    Americans are rejoicing. Much out of relief from years of having him mock us. But in reality it was just a political move and nothing changes...at all. Move on...nothing to see here. Just hope that the "victims" families get just a little peace if any.

    #17 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 03:19

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    I happen to have kept some newspapers published the day after 9/11.

    On page 8 of the Guardian on September 12th 2001 there is a full page spread entitled: "Finger of suspicion pointed at Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden"

    This was prior to any investigation concerning the attacks and the Taleban and bin Laden immediately denied involvement in the attacks.

    The FBI has a list of most wanted terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. It's still online.

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

    Notice anything missing? What hard evidence is there that Osama bin Laden was actually behind the 9/11 attacks?

    #18 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 04:22

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    PS. The FBI site says this too.

    It is also important to note that these individuals will remain wanted in connection with their alleged crimes until such time as the charges are dropped or when credible physical evidence is obtained, which proves with 100% accuracy, that they are deceased.


    I notice the photo of the Osama bin Laden has "deceased" under it but he's still on the FBI wanted list.

    #19 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 04:47

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Sorry me again.

    I read this today.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

    And then I re-watched Mrs Clinton's speech on the Al Jazeera site's round up of world reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115241936984209.html


    And I'd like to ask Mrs Clinton something... well quite a few things actually.

    I notice she bundled in the Bali bombings in that speech too and forgot to mention that they were the work of a completely different Indonesian terrorist group and have nothing to do with the continued presence of US military in Afghanistan.

    Surely all this hugely expensive and protracted "war on terror" in Afghanistan wasn't started just because Bush wanted a $3 billion trans Afghanistan gas pipe line built and it had to go through Taliban held areas? (Ah I see the deal finally got signed last December...investors had been worried about security in Taliban held areas apparently)

    The official govt reason for starting military actions in Afghanistan was to catch Osama bin Laden. So far that has cost *$444 billion of US tax payer's money. The total cost of their "war on terror" so far has been *$1,283 trillion.

    Is this cost effective, and what has it achieved so far in terms of making the world a safer place?

    Will the world be a safer place now they have desecrated Osama's body by not burying him with his head facing Mecca ? Why wasn't burying the body at the place he died according to Islamic tradition an option? (Apart from the fact it would have been too easy to check whether it really was OBL they killed on May 2).

    Will the world be a safer place if US military continue to kill innocent men, women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan with their air strikes? (You forgot to mention that Hilary)

    The US actions don't seem to be designed to promote peace and rid the world of Islamic terrorism to me. On the contrary, they seem hell bent on provoking moderate Muslims all over the world and making them become extremists too, thus increasing the risk of terrorism.


    *official source of figures: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

    #20 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 19:46

  • jnelson232

    Joined Travelfish
    28th March, 2011
    Location United States
    Posts: 37

    If you want to bash America there are literally thousands of other venues to do so.

    Even more so if you want to post half-cocked conspiracy theories. So they desecrated a body that you don't think is even OBL? Your indignation over the treatment of someone who has gallons of blood on his hands of both Christians and Muslims is absurd.

    America avoided a potential rallying point of extremists by avoiding burial on land. Besides what country would willingly accept that time bomb of a corpse? You want him buried in your country SBE?

    #21 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 20:28

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    No, normally muslims are buried where they died. Did the Pakistani government ask for him not to be buried there to avoid extremists rallying there? Or was that a US suggestion?

    I'm not bashing America, I'm bashing the politicians that run it and the mainstream media that orchestrate public opinion. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a widely held belief.

    OK, perhaps you could explain why Bush refused the Taliban's offer to have Osama bin Laden delivered on a plate to the US in October 2001?

    Why wasn't Osama bin Laden removed as a terrorist threat to the world immediately? Why did Bush prefer to send in the troops to Afghanistan find him? Which option had a higher chance of successfully removing the dude quickly and effectively before he could do any more harm? Which option would have cost the US taxpayer less?

    #22 Posted: 3/5/2011 - 21:16

  • eastwest

    Joined Travelfish
    17th December, 2009
    Posts: 771

    Come on SBE. Aren't you overdoing it a bit?
    Ok, politicians are scum but not only in the USA and they have been for centuries and ever since warfare and political games were invented all over the world.
    Your ranting and questions are not going to solve a single thing.

    Bottom line is that bin Laden was a terrible man and he's now dead and most people, apart from a few extremists, are happy that he's gone.

    Will it solve anything? Probably not but neither is your questioning of wars and waste of taxpayer money. Those questions have been asked since roman times and look where it has brought us. Yeah, not one step closer to utopia.

    #23 Posted: 4/5/2011 - 11:56

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    First of all, Usama was a scumbag who's death will grieve no one except like minded scumbags.

    Secondly, there is NOT an upcoming eleciton this could influence.

    Thirdly, it's obvious that elements within Pakistani officialdom were providing him sanction - so if we want to be critical about politicians, let's start with these buckwheats, then we can move to the rest of the "leaders" of the Muslim world. They are the worst of the worst governing today. I'm not claiming Us politicians are immune from self aggrandizing or bad behavior, but leaders in the Muslim world are just losers. Why is it no one seems to ever talk about that and when they do, they only talk about it in terms of Us relationships to that? Again, fun and politically correct to bash the US, but talk smack about shitty states with horrid government systems that a tribe of lowland gorrillas would reject, and hear all about "cultural insensitivity".

    I am personally a critic of the war in Iraq. I think it was foolish. But the war in Afghanistan had to happen, and we have to keep pressing until Islamic militancy can not be harbored there. Frankly, I don't care how many people we have to kill to achieve that objective, since they started this conflict.

    #24 Posted: 4/5/2011 - 16:59

  • caseyprich

    Joined Travelfish
    3rd March, 2010
    Location China
    Posts: 1202
    Total reviews: 53
    Places visited:
    At least 48

    And I have kept my mouth shut except for a rather snide remark and just want to say - please see above.

    MADMAC - since you don't have private message on, please buy yourself a beer for me and put it on my tap for next time I pass through.

    #25 Posted: 4/5/2011 - 21:33

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Justice has been done, according to Mrs Clinton.

    According to the newspapers I have in my possession, the time line of events on 9/11 say the first plane hit at 7.58am and the first US official announcement linking the name Osama bin Laden was at 1.26pm that same day.

    Everyone remembers that day, it felt like the world was coming to an end and nobody knew what the **** was going on. Yet less than six hours later they already had the culprit's name and that name has been repeated by Government officials and the media over and over again in connection with 9/11 ever since. He's the guy who's responsible for 9/11, everyone knows that.

    Only crazy conspiracy theorist people would argue with that. You're either with us or against us said Mr Bush. In other words anybody who questions the government's version or who asks awkward questions is being unpatriotic. Nobody wants to be unpatriotic when 3,000 Americans died in front of their very eyes on TV.

    Mrs Clinton's speech was recorded live in Washington DC but towards the end (at 6.08 minutes into the speech) we see images of the attacks on the WTC, helping to link Osama bin Laden's name and those attacks in the minds of the watching public. She mentions a whole list of heinous terrorist attacks in her speech about bin Laden (including the Madrid bombings in which Al Qaeda's responsibility was ruled out).

    Yet the FBI itself did not have sufficient evidence to mention 9/11 as one of the crimes Osama bin Laden was wanted for on their website.

    The only terrorist attacks the FBI mentions by name are the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. He was suspected to be involved in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

    Justice has not been done. Justice would have been to capture Osama bin Laden alive and put him on trial for crimes he is alleged to have committed.

    The US now admits he was unarmed when they shot him through the head. They didn't try very hard to capture him alive and put him on trial.

    I kept the newspapers because it seemed a very significant moment in history but this is the first time I've looked at them since. There are pictures of the Pentagon in them too. I can't see any sign of plane wreckage anywhere. It really does look like a bomb blast.

    But we don't need to talk (or think) about 9/11 any more do we. The American public are in emotional patriotic mood. Doesn't matter whether he was responsible or not. They killed the bastard.

    Case closed.

    How important was Osama bin Laden really? Let Mr Bush explain

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

    #26 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 01:09

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    Honestly SBE, do you care that he was killed if he has a connection to other bombings? Even if not 911? You actually would want peoples taxes to pay for him to sit in a nice cozy bed every night? I understand your points I really do. But tell me this matters that much to you. I know you are not losing any sleep over who the USA killed. Every country has killed someone. I ain't exactly for it but I am sure starting a thread that could last up to 100 plus posts to get into 911 and all is not worth the argument on this site. You are respected here for your knowledge and travel info. I am partially a conspiracy theorist myself. I admit it. Thing don't add up. But I have a life. And I also know that I have a good life. I also know that I have a good life in part because of my citizenship. Not that others don't have a good life in their countries but what I am saying is that this horse has been beaten down. The whole 911 conspiracy will be added to with Bin Laden's death. I don't believe we know the whole story. But let's call it a day and get back to travel. Usama was an ass and the USA is corrupt. Some will agree some won't. And I respect your feelings. And I know this is the politics forum but we can play tit for tat with every countries government that is complicit in many things that the USA is blamed for. Yes people are cheering but there are people here crying too. Did he deserve death for the other thing he was connected to even if not 911?
    Does anyone deserve death? Different argument.

    #27 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 11:07

  • caseyprich

    Joined Travelfish
    3rd March, 2010
    Location China
    Posts: 1202
    Total reviews: 53
    Places visited:
    At least 48

    My Kenyan colleagues are pretty happy that Bin Laden got it too.

    #28 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 11:28

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "Justice has not been done. Justice would have been to capture Osama bin Laden alive and put him on trial for crimes he is alleged to have committed.

    The US now admits he was unarmed when they shot him through the head. They didn't try very hard to capture him alive and put him on trial."

    SBE, you ever conduct a raid into a militant Muslim house of people, some of whom you know are armed? You know what that adrenaline push is like? Do you know the HUGE risk you take as you walk through each door? These are extremely dangerous missions, and the soldiers who participate are humans. You don't know the circumstances of the shooting, but you can bet Usama didn't just raise his hands and say "I surrender". Soldiers clearing a house have an instant to decide to shoot or not - they're lives depend on it. You've got all the time in the world to Monday morning quarterback it.

    Secondly, I find it very interesting that the terms "justice" and "trial" are so often used interchangeably. They are not synonomis. The Nazis held plenty of trials where justice did not occur. On the other hand, lots of vigilante justice has been just that - just. That is, the outcome was just (often is not of course). This OUTCOME was just. That is, a leader of a large terror organization that was involved in the murder of thousands of people was killed. Had a predator been used, that too would have been a just outcome (but with the tragic deaths of his family which was avoided by doing a VERY DANGEROUS raid.

    Remember, soldiers are not policemen. Capturing is not a priority or a training drill for them. They are trained to fight and kill. They are not law enforcement tools. If globally law enforcement worked, then we could have just called up the Pakistani officials, said we have good information where Bin Laden is, and they would go and arrest him. But that wasn't an option. Again, if you want to blame someone because you don't like this outcome, then go ahead and blame the Pakstani leadership and the Pakistani people who created the circumstances that forced this to happen.

    On a side note, I do not think the celbratory mood is healthy in this case. While Usama's removal needed to happen, and I am glad it did happen, I do not think it's healthy to celebrate the death of anyone. But I understand it.

    The most important element of this equation to me is the sending of a message to the world of militant Islam and that message is, if you screw with the US, we are going to hurt you, and hurt you badly. So don't do that. You want to talk to us about grievances, you want to protest, you want to boycott - that's all OK. But you want to start killing our people and destroying our property, for everyone one of ours you put in the hospital, we'll put ten of yours in the morgue. I am sad to say but that's the only language that militant muslims understand.

    #29 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 11:44

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    SBE, you ever conduct a raid into a militant Muslim house of people, some of whom you know are armed? You know what that adrenaline push is like? Do you know the HUGE risk you take as you walk through each door? These are extremely dangerous missions, and the soldiers who participate are humans. You don't know the circumstances of the shooting, but you can bet Usama didn't just raise his hands and say "I surrender". Soldiers clearing a house have an instant to decide to shoot or not - they're lives depend on it. You've got all the time in the world to Monday morning quarterback it.

    I have to agree here with MAC.

    #30 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 11:50

  • jnelson232

    Joined Travelfish
    28th March, 2011
    Location United States
    Posts: 37

    Plus isn't this conspiracy part a little ridiculous ever since Obama got elected? What did Cheney and Bush sneak into his bedroom at night and whisper what really happened and then Obama wholeheartedly agreed to keep the ruse going because........?

    You would have to believe that a cabal of politicians, who all equally evil/diabolical, control the course of history and every single news event. That an ex-community planner joined the fold and faked the death of a innocent man to further carry out the myths of 9/11 started by the opposing political party. Now honestly, how retarded does that sound?

    In conclusion. Indonesia is beautiful this time of year.

    #31 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 14:01

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Obama wholeheartedly agreed to keep the ruse going because........?

    Because calling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by their real names: "Wars to control global energy resources" doesn't sound quite as good as "Wars on terror", particularly when the excuse used to start these wars were the victims of 9/11. They're in this **** too deep now to come clean.

    SBE, you ever conduct a raid into a militant Muslim house of people, some of whom you know are armed?

    Surprisingly enough, no MM. However I'd love to see the movie. Not the Hollywood version, the real one that the SEALS somehow had the time to make while they were under great threat of getting killed by armed Muslim militants. Looked really gripping judging by Hilary and Obama's reactions. How come they are grown up enough to see it and we aren't?

    #32 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 18:19

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    SBE
    You can make the arguement about resources concerning Iraq, but Afghanistan? They don't have any resources. The place is an economic hole with no value whatsoever.

    As for the movie, there were video cameras on mounted systems, but I doubt any combat cameramen were along for the ride, and certainly not moving from room to room with the SEAL Team.

    I noticed you completely avoided the practical issue of how to deal with Pakistan harboring Al Qaedas top figures from a legal standpoint.

    #33 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 18:26

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    PS. When I said that justice hadn't been served, I was thinking of justice for the people who died in the twin towers, not bin Laden. A trial would have opened a whole can of worms for the govt. Sorry if I didn't make that crystal clear.

    #34 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 18:51

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    @MM. Natural gas pipeline that has to go through Taliban held areas. I mentioned it earlier.

    #35 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 18:53

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    I noticed you completely avoided the practical issue of how to deal with Pakistan harboring Al Qaedas top figures from a legal standpoint.

    Do you mind if I do that tonight? I'm supposed to be working!

    #36 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 18:56

  • caseyprich

    Joined Travelfish
    3rd March, 2010
    Location China
    Posts: 1202
    Total reviews: 53
    Places visited:
    At least 48

    Remember that scene in Patriot Games where the special-ops took out the terrorist training camp and they watched in D.C. from an infra-red camera airplane or a satellite - that was cool.

    I like to picture Obama and Hillary watching that.

    #37 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 20:17

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "@MM. Natural gas pipeline that has to go through Taliban held areas. I mentioned it earlier."

    SBE
    It never happened. No one ever seriously considered letting a contract for it. No inveostor would ever build a pipeline through Afghanistan unless they wanted to lose their (considerable) investment. Afghanistan, no matter who intervenes, will never be stable enough for that. At least not in our lifetimes. This was an old story always brought up - why? Because the line of thought behind it is that all military interventions by the US are done in support of some big buisiness or other. If the facts are in the way of that - invent some. It was the same for Somalia.

    #38 Posted: 5/5/2011 - 21:51

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    For MM. (I know the rest of you want me to shut up!)

    US today issued this statement about the raid and confirmed OBL was unarmed though he did "resist"...they didn't explain how exactly.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-unarmed-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    This link contains pictures of the crashed helicopter and some unidentified dead people killed in the raid.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-compound

    OK I've seen 3 dead bodies killed in the raid. Not pretty but I'm pretty sure most people could have handled a picture of the dead bin Laden too, and the movie. The fake pictures weren't pretty either and the media didn't have any qualms about publishing them.

    You can make the arguement about resources concerning Iraq, but Afghanistan? They don't have any resources. The place is an economic hole with no value whatsoever.

    I profoundly disagree with that statement MM! I thought the US was supposed to be in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not much luck finding bin Laden etc but l@@k what they did find. The vast, previously unknown and undiscovered mineral wealth of the country. US troops won't be pulling out any time soon methinks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?hp

    Also the pipeline project has not been scrapped. The Presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and the Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas of India signed an Intergovernmental Agreement on the TAPI pipeline on December 11, 2010.

    As for Pakistan. Well I've read arguments on both sides and there seems to be a bit of disagreement about whether the US raid was legal or not. Nevertheless Pakistan is quite worried the US will decide to start a war on them next. Whether or not it's justified depends rather on whether the US can prove OBL got killed there. He may well be dead but location and time of death matter too. So far there's been no solid proof it was him. Story about the raid keeps changing. They haven't told us how they did the DNA tests, or where or who the matches were.(Is that a state secret?) Pity they didn't air the movie/pictures immediately too, before any editing could have taken place.

    I just read an interesting account of the raid and local reaction in Abbotabad BTW.

    http://www.emel.com/article?id=85&a_id=2375

    #39 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 07:00

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    SBE
    Sometimes you are making no sense at all. If Bin Laden was not at the site, why would we conduct the raid there? It's a high risk raid, with serious political risk as well - if we killed him elsewhere why conduct the raid there? You're not making sense. It's as if you are looking for a reason to be critical.

    "US today issued this statement about the raid and confirmed OBL was unarmed though he did "resist"...they didn't explain how exactly."

    They don't need to explain how. This wasn't a police action. Armies don't do that. Armies aren't trained to do that. Obviously the soldiers in question felt threatened, and given the nature of the individual they were seeking, that's completely understsandable. Had Bin Laden surrendered and then forced to kneel and shot in the back of the head, OK, that's a problem. As it is, there is no evidence for any such thing. He likely tried to physically assault the soldiers, they didn't know if he were armed in some way or not at the time, and they aren't taking any chances. Either his hands go high into the air, or he dies. Pretty simple.

    As for the pipeline, this discussion has been going on for 15 years. Three different times a deal has been signed, three different times the deal has been scrapped. Afghanistan remains WAY too unstable to build a pipeline through it. No pipe has been laid yet.

    There were recent mineral discoveries in Afghanistan, but let's not pretend it's the next Australia. It's not. Furthermore, again you have the problem of exploitation. You got to get the minerals out, to a port (which Afghanistan does not have) and to market. You have to safeguard the expertise brought in to exploit those minerals, because the Afghans don't have it. Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan started before these discoveries.

    I say again, the war is not about economics. It's a BS arguement.

    #40 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 11:05

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    SBE I was gonna post that same NY times article. The US always has motives....

    .........but at the same time MAC is right. The US military owes no one an explanation of how an assault went down. Period. It should be kept secret for years to come. We told the world years ago that he was wanted DEAD or alive. No one complained then. Especially if we would have killed him right after 911 when we had the worlds sympathy. But now things have changed. But to be honest with you to us the rest of the "world" (namely Europe) does nothing but ***** at US foreign policy. Except when it benefits them. I understand that we may have ulterior motives in IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN. Question us, OK. But to make a big case over Bin Laden? OK what if we did murder him in cold blood? And? If he DID cause all those other deaths you really care? I understand right and wrong and justice but what is the world gonna do? Put us on trial? Slap us on the hand? Everyone should be more mad at us than they are about the collateral damage we have caused in some places not Bin *******! If any other country killed him in cold blood,what would happen? Nothing. I think Euro governments are largely hypocrites when it comes to the USA. They change with the wind to please their constituents when it comes to the US. And take it personal. They come to the US and we are all going "cool". We go there and it's lets talk politics. Everyone knows we have the death penalty in many states. But if Bin Laden (and I say if) was guilty of even half we said he is, then as an aggressor in war he has no rights to anything. But if you come to the states (I don't know where you are from) and kill someone, you will still get a trial by jury and a lawyer even though you are a foreigner. But Bin Laden in the eyes of most of the American people and most of the world and all of the soldiers is an enemy combatant that was wanted DEAD or alive. If one of the soldiers murdered him it is up to us to prosecute. If we let him off...oh well. That is internal US business. We still have no obligation to tell ANYONE what happened in that compound. Even Pakistan. We give them 3.5 billion a year. We don't have to give em S*&t!

    #41 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 15:27

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    >>If Bin Laden was not at the site, why would we conduct the raid there?

    Obama made a pledge to kill bin Laden during his election campaign in 2008. He (apparently) has fulfilled that pledge and also now has a one name answer to any criticism from the Republicans about how tough he is. AFAIK OBL has not been seen alive in person since 2003.
    He could well have died some time ago but announcing to the world that "Osama is dead but he died before we could get to him" would be a bit less impressive and have a non necessarily positive effect on opinion polls. It would also cause less rejoicing and "closure" for 9/11.

    "The implication is clear. For most voters, Bush and (his Vice President Dick) Cheney tried for seven years. They didn't get him. Obama got him."
    It's a high risk raid, with serious political risk as well

    It's debatable how high risk the raid was. The guys who got him were highly trained and heavily armed. See any terrorist guns lying about in those photos? Nobody in Abbotobad seems to have had any clue he was there The locals all expressed amazement. The US say he's been there for 6 years yet people living 50m away never saw him or his family venture out of the compound. The Pakistan military say they were unaware of his presence right next door.

    Political risk? The political risk for Obama is that more taxpayers money will now have to be spent on a war in Pakistan, meaning less will be spent on things like health care and education in the US.

    The political risk for the rest of us is further destabilization of that part of the world, more innocent civilians getting killed by US troops and an increased risk of Islamic terrorism.
    When the Soviets invaded occupied Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter described it as the greatest threat to world peace since the second world war. Same could be said of the US led invasion there.

    #42 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 16:20

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "Obama made a pledge to kill bin Laden during his election campaign in 2008. He (apparently) has fulfilled that pledge and also now has a one name answer to any criticism from the Republicans about how tough he is. AFAIK OBL has not been seen alive in person since 2003."

    So you are saying that Bush knew he was dead, but decided to keep it sevret so Obama could then reveal he got him? WTF?

    Furthermore when did Obama make such a pledge? I don't remember it. Can you demonstrate that? Because if he did make such a pledge, it was a foolish one. That is an outcome that can't be guaranteed.


    "It's debatable how high risk the raid was. The guys who got him were highly trained and heavily armed. See any terrorist guns lying about in those photos? Nobody in Abbotobad seems to have had any clue he was there The locals all expressed amazement. The US say he's been there for 6 years yet people living 50m away never saw him or his family venture out of the compound. The Pakistan military say they were unaware of his presence right next door."

    SBE are you being deliberatyely obstuse here? The risk was high. The fact that the compound turned out to be poorly guarded was good fortune, but it could just as easily have had plenty of armed men there to protect it. Obviously Bin Laden decided that the risk of having a lot of armed guys around attracting attention was higher than the risk of having less security, but there was no way to be sure of that going in. furthermore, there was the Pakistani factor. Since they were not informed, they might very well have decided to shoot down those helicopters had they seen them. And what if Pakistani police or military showed up on the scene and a firefight ensued. This was high risk, and I think that's obvious.

    "Political risk? The political risk for Obama is that more taxpayers money will now have to be spent on a war in Pakistan, meaning less will be spent on things like health care and education in the US."

    This is the kind of tripe from people who simply find reasons to oppose all conflict in general. The war in Afghanistan has to be fought to a successful conclusion if you don't want these dickheads crawling up your ass for the next 50 years. So get used to it. It's not about money, it's not about big business, it's about defeating Islamic fundamentalism. Period.

    "The political risk for the rest of us is further destabilization of that part of the world, more innocent civilians getting killed by US troops and an increased risk of Islamic terrorism."

    Hasn't worked out that way has it? Terror attacks are WAY down. Al Qaeda is on the run. Arab populations everywhere are fighting for democractic institutions now in the "Arab Spring". Hmmmm, looks like the "this plays right into their hands" bullshit turns out to be just that, bullshit.

    "When the Soviets invaded occupied Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter described it as the greatest threat to world peace since the second world war. Same could be said of the US led invasion there."

    We aren't the Soviets, in case you missed it.

    #43 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 16:34

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    Less on health care and education in the US because of less military spending? HAHA! That is a laugh. As an American I know that won't happen as much as we want it to. Half of the country supports military spending in the US. The rest of western countries just act like they don't benefit. Just ask your governments some truths and act like we aren't the only ones getting the wool pulled over our eyes by our leaders. I don't mind people questioning the US governments motives. But stop acting like most of our allies aren't complicit because they are. Hating on us is just a way to blind fools to other stuff. The world is all in it together. Each government plays their role like good girls and boys while we do the dirty work and take all the blame. Fine. If people want to save old newspapers to have good stuff for arguments that can never be won that's fine. The US is the devil and all of that. OK. Now what? ............wait for it.........in our lifetime.........OK........nothing. China is growing more powerful, Russia is always ready to act foolish like in Georgia (and nobody bitches but us at them cuz' Europe fears them and gets oil from em), and the middle east is a time bomb. 3 big gangs. Choose your side. Because no one else outside of that 3 is running jack. So I for one will spend my free time on happier pursuits.

    My there are cute Scandinavian chicks in Phi PHi during the winter..friendly too, even to an American..........by the way how is Isaan around new years?

    #44 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 17:03

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "by the way how is Isaan around new years?"

    Cold. But not like New York city cold.

    #45 Posted: 6/5/2011 - 20:56

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Phew. Won't have any time to answer other questions on this forum by the time I reply to that lot.

    So you are saying that Bush knew he was dead, but decided to keep it sevret so Obama could then reveal he got him? WTF?


    If you scroll up you will see a video in which Bush said he didn't think OBL was important and didn't pay much attention to him.

    Furthermore when did Obama make such a pledge? I don't remember it. Can you demonstrate that? Because if he did make such a pledge, it was a foolish one. That is an outcome that can't be guaranteed.

    Yes I can demonstrate it and so could you if you bothered to look for facts before shooting your mouth off. Why is it me who has to spend time educating you. OK, just for you I have waded through the 2nd presidential debate of the election campaign. McCain vs Obama October 7th 2008 to find the quotes for you. Next time I suggest you use Google and look up answers to your questions yourself


    Obama said:

    Quote: And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden;

    And again later:

    Quote: What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html


    You can't get much clearer than that can you. It's remarkable that Obama somehow seemed to know back in 2008 that OBL would be captured in Pakistan, not Afghanistan where everyone was looking for him. Strange coincidence or what.

    The Pakistani government was not unwilling nor unable to take out Osama. Had the Americans requested them to do it they would have done so. They weren't going to mess about letting him escape while the US were watching. The only reason they were unable to do it was because the US chose not share the intelligence with them. The raid could easily have been conducted without breaking international laws regarding the sovereignty of nations. Not only that, they now have to justify why they didn't know about OBL to the Americans without being given any irrefutable proof it was him.

    Since they were not informed, they might very well have decided to shoot down those helicopters had they seen them.

    Err, quite. So why didn't the US inform them. They had CIA agents watching the building and satellites locked on the place. If he'd gone anywhere they'd have known about it.

    And what if Pakistani police or military showed up on the scene and a firefight ensued.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse MM? Why did it have to be US forces doing this? Do you think other countries aren't capable of doing armed raids? The US didn't want him alive anyway so no real skill required. Just kill him.

    The fact that the compound turned out to be poorly guarded was good fortune, but it could just as easily have had plenty of armed men there to protect it.

    Are the SEALs incapable of people alive in these conditions if the orders are to take them alive? This was a killing mission.

    Terror attacks are WAY down

    Right. I slogged through the transcript of a presidential debate in order to prove that a statement I made was accurate. I would like to see some statistics proving the above statement because I don't get that impression at all. There are bomb blasts and terror attacks every day.

    Also. The number of innocent people killed by the "good guys" in these Wars on Terror greatly exceeds the number of innocent people killed by Al Qaeda. Do you think having a missiles fired from illegal unmanned drones at your house doesn't cause terror to the occupants? How would you like it if someone did that to your house while you're having supper or watching TV.

    When I was trying to find out who the DNA matches could be from the other day I stumbled across this article, published late February 2011.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80108&page=1

    It contains the latest intelligence about where OBL is supposed to be (somewhere in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border and they think he's still alive because they haven't had any messages from him staying he's dead). Here's the last paragraph.

    Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan, denied there had been an intelligence failure when a raid by special forces on a southern Afghan village last month left 16 Afghans dead. After the attack, it was determined that the Afghans killed were not al Qaeda or Taliban, but backers of a local leader. Franks said the Afghans were killed because they had fired upon U.S.
    forces.


    These people were not Al Qaeda or Taliban but they deserved to die because they defended themselves while they were being attacked by US forces.

    Do you agree. If some foreign plane (say Soviets) started firing missiles at your house the right reaction would have been to express a bit of awe at their military might and then lie down and die quietly without defending yourself so as to not put their military personnel at risk.

    #46 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 04:02

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "If you scroll up you will see a video in which Bush said he didn't think OBL was important and didn't pay much attention to him."

    You said he was dead prior to Obama becoming president. I think we would have noticed he was dead.

    "Obama said:

    Quote: And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden;

    And again later:

    Quote: What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should."

    See I was right. There is no, I repeat no, promise here to get Bin Laden. None. Zero. Zilch. Read it again. He never made such a promise. He said if he had credible information he would act - which is what McCain also said and what we had been doing with Predator strikes the entire time.

    "Are the SEALs incapable of people alive in these conditions if the orders are to take them alive? This was a killing mission."

    Taking alive is not a priority. It is much more difficult to capture than to kill. Had he not resisted, they would have captured him. But the rules of law enforcement don't apply here.

    "Right. I slogged through the transcript of a presidential debate in order to prove that a statement I made was accurate. I would like to see some statistics proving the above statement because I don't get that impression at all. There are bomb blasts and terror attacks every day."

    Not in the US or the west for that matter. There's plenty of Muslim on Muslim violence, but frankly, that's not our problem. We don't want passenger planes flying into our buildings or bombs blowing up our embassies. If Muslims want to bomb a market in Baghdad, there are limits to what we can do to prevent that - although obviously the level of violence in Iraq is way down now as well.

    "Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan, denied there had been an intelligence failure when a raid by special forces on a southern Afghan village last month left 16 Afghans dead. After the attack, it was determined that the Afghans killed were not al Qaeda or Taliban, but backers of a local leader. Franks said the Afghans were killed because they had fired upon U.S.
    forces.


    These people were not Al Qaeda or Taliban but they deserved to die because they defended themselves while they were being attacked by US forces."

    This is why combat by non-uniformed personnel is a violation of the Law of land warfare. Invariably it is the civilian population (and equally important it's institutions) which suffer the most from this type of fighting. Insurgencies are illegal and immoral - regardless of the cause. They are devastating to local populations that support the insurgents. Do you think the US forces went to this place and said "well, let's go kill some people."?? You can bet they weren't be "attacked by US forces" but rather they saw US forces and fired on them and then all hell broke loose. Happens all the time. You weren't there, and now you want to pass judgement on these kids.

    "Do you agree. If some foreign plane (say Soviets) started firing missiles at your house the right reaction would have been to express a bit of awe at their military might and then lie down and die quietly without defending yourself so as to not put their military personnel at risk."

    Some foreign plane wouldn't do that, because I wouldn't be harboring terrorists or insurgents in my house. This issue is simple. The Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was attacking US persons and property from that sanctuary. So of course the Taliban had to go.

    Let's put this another way. If IRA members were hiding in South Boston, and the British government informed the US of these individuals and where they could be found, and the US chose to do nothing (this was an issue back in the 70s at the local level in Suth Boston) would the British be within their rights to send in a hit team and kill these guys? Absolutely.

    #47 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 10:13

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    You said he was dead prior to Obama becoming president. I think we would have noticed he was dead.

    Not if you rely on Fox News for information and never bother to check the source.

    I see you didn't bother checking the source I posted either MM. Here's the whole sentence for you.

    We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida.

    Obama definitely promised the US electorate that his administration would kill bin Laden. Which word don't you understand.


    "Do you think the US forces went to this place and said "well, let's go kill some people."??

    I think the administration has other motives for sending in the troops but that does seem to be the attitude of the army personnel on the ground.

    http://www.collateralmurder.com/


    You can bet they weren't be "attacked by US forces" but rather they saw US forces and fired on them and then all hell broke loose. Happens all the time. You weren't there, and now you want to pass judgement on these kids.""


    You weren't there either. What irrefutable evidence do you have that the US forces were fired upon first in that incident? Don't you think Gen. Tommy Franks would have mentioned it.

    #48 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 17:40

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    "Do you think the US forces went to this place and said "well, let's go kill some people."??

    I think the administration has other motives for sending in the troops but that does seem to be the attitude of the army personnel on the ground."

    You spend a lot of time on the ground with them do you? How many years did you spend working with US soldiers? I deployed with the US Army eight times. That does not seem to be their attitude and it's not their attitude.


    "You can bet they weren't be "attacked by US forces" but rather they saw US forces and fired on them and then all hell broke loose. Happens all the time. You weren't there, and now you want to pass judgement on these kids.""


    You weren't there either. What irrefutable evidence do you have that the US forces were fired upon first in that incident? Don't you think Gen. Tommy Franks would have mentioned it."

    I served with them for 27 years (minus the five I spent in the German Army). I know how they think and how they operate, because I was one of them for a very long time. You weren't, and you don't.

    #49 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 22:00

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    And the wikileaks video is not a fair assessment. You watch the video and you are mislead:

    1. That was in an insurgent controlled neighborhood. Therefore any gathering of men is going to be suspicious.
    2. There were at least three individuals armed with assault rifles in that group.
    3. The reports camera can easily appear to be a weapon.
    4. Soldiers who can not distinguish friend from foe, being attacked by opponents which are being sheltered by a civilian population, are put in an ugly situation, which people like you then like to caste judgement on. You don't highlight that insurgency is an illegal form of warfare. Nope. Instead you look to criticize how operations are being conducted.

    I experienced this same thing when I was in Somalia in 1993. The Haber Gedir were horboring SNA militants, who were firing mortars and other weapons into UN compounds daily, ambushing vehicles daily and hiding amonst civlians who were supporting them (note only the Haber Gedir, not the Abgal, Hawadle or Murosade). You put up with this long enough, and you will begin to see that enemy population group as the problem. Just as the British saw the Germans - and not just the Nazis - as the problem by 1941.

    #50 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 22:19

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    And lastly:

    "if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

    The "we will kill Bin Laden; we will crush Al- Qaeda" statement is predicated on "if we have Osama bin Laden in our sites". Obviously, if we hadn't found him, we couldn't kill him. When you remove the context and simply state "we will kill Bin Laden" then it sounds like he promised to do that. But he can't promise to do that, since we might not have found him during his administration. He's not stupid. He knows this.

    #51 Posted: 7/5/2011 - 22:30

  • neosho

    Joined Travelfish
    13th August, 2008
    Posts: 386

    OooWee guys. Chill. :) Differences of opinion. Unwinnable argument. Interesting read though.

    #52 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 08:12

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6218
    Total reviews: 10

    Neosho
    I have to say that I find the ceaseless anti-American bashing, that attacks any and all US policy and also often culture, that comes from European circles in particular, difficult to stomach. I hate generalizing because I lived in Europe for a long time, and have a lot of friends from the region, but the hautiness that sees everything European superior to everything American is just nauseating.

    #53 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 12:28

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    Super duper nauseating...

    #54 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 13:01

  • SBE

    Click here to learn more about SBE
    Joined Travelfish
    14th April, 2008
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 1931
    Total reviews: 5
    Places visited:
    At least 2

    Did you watch soldier Ethan McCord's testimony too MM. He's an American soldier and he was there. Are his opinions of how these wars are being conducted less valid than yours?

    And I can't understand why it's somehow anti-American to question the information we get fed by the media when the information they broadcast as "facts" is obviously unsubstantiated.

    Look how the bin Laden raid story has changed in the last week. Things presented as facts in the news last week are no longer facts. We almost had world war three because of WMD that didn't exist so getting the real facts is quite important.

    BTW, that video of the old man who's supposed to be bin Laden watching TV... why is he holding the remote in his right hand? If you're left handed you'd automatically use your left hand and his left hand seems to be working just fine because he scratched his beard a couple of times. Also his ears look different. Also why would anyone film someone zapping channels on TV and zoom in so that you can clearly see that the channel he's selected is Al Jazeera.

    I'm not sure what the intended message is here. Are we supposed to conclude that this is the guy they killed during the raid?

    #55 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 14:27

  • eastwest

    Joined Travelfish
    17th December, 2009
    Posts: 771

    Really, SBE shouldn't you be doing something else? Working, travelling, walking the dogs, anything...

    Leave the conspiracy theories alone for a moment, ok? Life can be enjoyed if you try. The way you behave at the moment you qualify for one of those really hardcore specialized website which are very secret with multi encrypted passwords (you never know if the government wants to interfere..).

    Please go back to the old SBE who can write great about travel in SEA

    #56 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 15:30

  • eastwest

    Joined Travelfish
    17th December, 2009
    Posts: 771

    Really, SBE shouldn't you be doing something else? Working, travelling, walking the dogs, anything...

    Leave the conspiracy theories alone for a moment, ok? Life can be enjoyed if you try. The way you behave at the moment you qualify for one of those really hardcore specialized website which are very secret with multi encrypted passwords (you never know if the government wants to interfere..).

    Please go back to the old SBE who can write great about travel in SEA

    #57 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 15:30

  • Thomas922

    Joined Travelfish
    1st July, 2007
    Location Global Village
    Posts: 346

    Actually I can feel SBE on this. The truth will come out IF there is a truth to come out. It doesn't all add up. But the way people take it as if all of Americans are in on trying to pull the wool over everyone...as if they are superior. You know England is knee deep in this too. I guarantee you that if there is a conspiracy many world leaders are in on the game, that is how it goes. It is not as if Americans want their sons in harms way. It is not as if we want to raise our boys to shoot people and be happy about it. It is not as if we as citizens don't want the same as everyone else. If there is someone being duped then Americans are the biggest victims. But it is so easy for everyone to act so smug in every other country that benefits from American influence. Who are you gonna call if it goes down in your country? Russia? China? No the USA. Maybe we are all being duped who knows. But if so it is by the same people. Not just America but the same few hundred that run everything. And we are just as much a victim of that as you seem to feel you are SBE. You might even be watching you tube vids about the Bildeberg meetings too. And if it goes that high what are you gonna do? Or me? Or MAC? Or any of us? If there is a truth to come out eventually they will slip up. But in the meantime you still gotta live life kid. Now imagine you are just breezing trough your favorite country taking pics and other westerners want to chat you up about your Prime Minister? All the freakin time? Sound like fun? No. So we all get testy. So this ain't personal on this thread. So I am getting back to my travel dreams. Bin Laden may not be real. But wounded warriors with missing limbs...that's real. We don't want that and we see it more and more so DON'T THINK we DON"T care. Turn on the news. People are raping people in certain countries as a war tactic. That is far more important than all we are arguing about. How about we put this much energy to getting our leaders to give a **** about that.

    Now, as for Isaan......I could use some of that food right about now. MAc you lucky dog...

    #58 Posted: 8/5/2011 - 16:49

Have questions? Jump to our menu of forum quicklinks

Add your reply

Your reply

Check this box if you want to be notified of replies.

Please be familiar with our user guidelines before you post. Thanks!

Businesses planning on plugging their guesthouse / hotel / karaoke bar should read our "Addition guidelines" very carefully.

You need to be logged in to answer an existing post on the Travelfish forums. Please login via the prompts just above and refresh this screen -- before writing your post -- and you'll be in business.