Bin Laden - Page 14

[Thao]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

I don't appreciate the insinuation that because I disagree with you so ardently I must need to do more research and learning.

Just to be clear: I don't think you need to do more research because you disagree with me, but rather because I see you making simplified generalizations about a very complex issue without much factual basis. Like saying that everyone who celebrated 9/11 was just in it for the vengeance, and supporting that by saying we didn't back down after Pearl Harbor so the terrorists must have know we wouldn't back down after 9/11. When I pointed out that we have sometimes backed down after being violently attacked, your response was simply to repeat what you believe.

Also, you didn't know about the Beirut bombing, which was a very big deal at the time, so I figured you probably have a lot of knowledge  about recent history (9/11) but maybe not so much about the long-term context.

But there's a lot I agree with you about - I don't think the US government was involved in 9/11, and I'm not terribly concerned about whether the operation to get OBL was an arrest operation or kill operation, because had he been arrested and tried I have no doubt but that he would've gotten the death penalty. I think that the SEALs safety was more important at the time than taking OBL alive.

Edited by Thao - 5/5/11 at 10:09am

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Chamomile Girl, I have taken history lessons in high school as well as civics; I'm sure I will continue these in college. I am, however, well-acquainted with history, it being one of my major interests. That I disagree with you over civics doesn't mean I don't understand civics. It means that we disagree. Again, being accused of ignorance because I disagree with you is something I don't appreciate. Even scholars of civics have debates over it; it doesn't mean one camp needs to go back to school.
 

I don't think I am well aquainted with history and I have been studying it since I started college twenty years ago.  It's a rabbit hole.

I'm not just saying you need history (and civics) lessons because I disagree with you, but because you are consistently expressing way too much faith and trust in the government (and in the system, per your thoughts on the CPS debate).  Your constantly expressed opinion is that if those in charge say something is then it is.  I find this deeply disturbing, because history is all about how governments lie and manipulate information to get the results the leaders want.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a professional historian.  You learned history in high school?  I teach history in highschool (and college).  Please believe me when I say that there is way more going on here than what is apparent on the surface.  There always is.

I also encourage you not to wait for someone with power to tell you what to think and believe.  Don't wait for some nebulous "they" to tell you if what happened violated international law...look it up yourself.  Obviously lots of folks are having problems with the illegality of the situation, blind trust and faith in Obama, or anyone else is not the counter to that.

Plus I also recommend history lessons because of your absolute belief in "terrorism" and "terrorists" which are simply the communists/boogymen of our day.  You know nothing about the motivations of terrorists because you do not know the history of the regions where they live.  Educate yourself about the history and it will blow a hole in your monolithic view of what a terrorist is. Groups like Hamas are a good start because they are officially recoginized as a terrorist organization and their motivations are pretty transparent.  Why have we labled them as terrorists but not the Israeli government?  They both kill people (civillians) on purpose.  Because one supports out interests and the other does not.  So spouting that terrorists are full of evil or whatever you said upthread (I don't have time to look right now) is ignorant.  It shows ignorance, I'm sorry that you don't appreciate the sentiment.

You get kudos for navigating this dogpile on you (being at the bottom of the dogpile myself recently in a different thread I know how that feels) with grace and patience but there is a reason that people are taking the time to disagree with you, and much of it has to do with your steadfast faith in the powers that be.

Edited by Chamomile Girl - 5/5/11 at 2:32pm

[eclipse]

Heather, I missed the last paragraph of your last post about leaving the thread. I really hope you don't do that. I know most of us still posting are disagreeing with a lot of what you have to say (though not all of it. I'm with you in not buying theories that the US government planned 9/11, and I believe OBL was involved in the planning of 9/11 - I just think it needs to be proved in a court of law before punishment is meted out, and I'm 100% anti-death penalty anyway, so. . .), but it doesn't mean that we aren't *interested* in hearing what you have to say. You've brought up a lot of interesting points for discussion.

[hakeber]

Fwiw, Moonfire, what is called conspiracy theory in the US Media is considered obvious logical conclusions in much of the rest of the world (or at least amongst the communities I have lived in over the last 10 years including several countries in South East and Western Asia, Northern Europe, and South and Central America.) 

I don't think you are stupid.  I was trying to be light hearted.  It was just a joke, honestly.  Badly timed, though, so I apologize unreservedly.

I do think a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good idea when listening to any governmental body or source of media, and that the more points of view you consider the better off you (that's the royal you, not you in particular) will be.

PS:  I did see that you said you were leaving, but as you have noticed...I am skeptic.

Edited by hakeber - 5/5/11 at 1:16pm

[moonfirefaery]

Our government is riddled with flaws, but I do have a significant amount of faith in the spirit of America and the principles upon which are government was founded. I trust Obama as a leader; I voted for him, but I don't allow him or anyone else to tell me what to believe. I know the history regarding the US and the Middle East well enough to understand how complicated terrorism is, and learning more won't make me deny terrorism; terrorism is very real, and everyone who has ever died in a cafe bombing knows it.

Thao, any generalization I've made has been followed with an acknowledgement that it is not an absolute observation by any means. I don't know everything there is to know about history, but I know enough to understand the complexities of this situation. I also acknowledge that the people who run our government have way more information than they allow me to have. I also didn't say that EVERYONE who celebrated 9/11 was acting out of vengeance. Historically speaking we don't respond to attacks by withdrawing unless we're in a situation we can't win. People who celebrated 911 were either terrorists or people who (obviously) support (as in are okay with) terrorism. Terrorists are retaliating against us for our actions in the Middle East, but that doesn't make the death of innocents any less evil. We were attacked primarily because certain people want us out of the Middle East as they feel they're better off without us there, but for al Qaeda to fight the war in the way it does, the hearts of its "soldiers" must be corrupted by fear, hatred, and vengeance. For people to cheer in the streets at the loss of innocent life, there must be fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts.  Terrorists believe they are fighting for what's right, and there's no doubt in my mind that they hate the enemy: us. Is that hatred justified? Yes, probably. Does that make terrorism any less evil? NO. I realize this leads to the logical conclusion that those of us cheering in the streets at the loss of bin Laden must have fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts... I do not deny that.

eclipse, bin Laden didn't have a gun but he was reaching for one. An AK 47 and a handgun were within arm's reach. Had they hesitated, that hesitation could have allowed him to reach that gun and take out or critically wound one of our men. They did well to neutralize the woman by shooting her merely in the leg, rather than shooting to kill. Had she been reaching for a gun, they may have done the same simply to be soft on a woman--but it is also likely she would have been incapacitated the same way. I think it's really disrespectful to those brave men to downplay the amount of danger they were in.

MusicianDad, the war in Iraq is seperate from 911, and the tapes aren't the only evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 911. As far as whether Bush was involved... I really wouldn't be surprised. But that shouldn't free bin Laden from the consequences of his role in the attack. I look forward to the day when Bush is held accountable for the corruption of his administration.

hakeber - that I don't know the answer to those questions is not proof of his innocence, only of my ignorance of the answers. I know that his testimony isn't the only evidence we have. I know that we have caught some of the hijackers and have their testimonies; I know that we have the testimonies of people who interacted with the hijackers. Not all of it was obtained through torture. We have been watching this organization for decades. I don't like Bush, and I suspect he played a role in the attack. I HAVE a healthy dose of skepticism... I'm just skeptical of different things than you seem to be. I'm not skeptical that bin Laden was involved in 911 or that he is dead; I'm not skeptical of whether the kill was lawful or of whether those SEALs were in danger. I am extremely suspicious of George Bush and his administration, however.

Chamomile Girl, I recognize that governments are capable of committing terrorists acts, too. I do know the history of the Middle East; I do know the myriad of motivations behind terrorism. Believing that it is evil doesn't make me ignorant. Terrorism is evil, whether committed by an organization or a government. I think you show your ignorance by calling terrorists boogeymen, as if they don't exist. Everyone who has ever died in a car bombing knows firsthand that terrorism is a real threat. Don't call me hon. We don't even know each other. That is so rude and infantilizing. Don't use what/who society does/does not label as terrorists as proof of my ignorance, and please especially don't call me ignorant and then follow up with hon. You don't even know me. Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know. I know that there is more going on here than what is on the surface; if you read the thread you see where I acknowledged that we created this monster. I'm not blind, and my eyes aren't closed--so stop accusing me of it. I found your whole post extremely patronizing and riddled with unfounded, rude assumptions.

We all have different experiences; we all are knowledgeable about different things; we all have different perspectives to bring to the table. I'm young and I don't know everything, but I'm not so ignorant that I deserve to be written off as uninformed. It felt very much like that was what was happening. We're all ignorant of some fact or another; it doesn't make us ignorant people. I appreciate those of you who apologized.

I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

eclipse, bin Laden didn't have a gun but he was reaching for one. An AK 47 and a handgun were within arm's reach. Had they hesitated, that hesitation could have allowed him to reach that gun and take out or critically wound one of our men. They did well to neutralize the woman by shooting her merely in the leg, rather than shooting to kill. Had she been reaching for a gun, they may have done the same simply to be soft on a woman--but it is also likely she would have been incapacitated the same way. I think it's really disrespectful to those brave men to downplay the amount of danger they were in.

I'm not downplaying the amount of danger they were in. I'm saying I don't know the amount of danger they were in. May I ask where you got the information about there being guns in arms' reach? Everything I've read was that he "made a threatening move" and that they were worried about suicide vests and booby traps. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'd just like to read what you read about it. I haven't watched the news or read any on line today, and I know the story is developing.

[moonfirefaery]

I don't know it either; only they do. But I've seen numerous sources say that he was reaching for a weapon and that weapons were within arm's reach. Even if he wasn't reaching for a weapon, our guys had no way of knowing what he was doing when he made the "threatening move." He could have been reaching for a gun, and he might have been about to pick a wedgie. We don't know, and they probably didn't either. They knew what he was capable of, though, and they knew they were in the fox hole with a man who wants to kill as many Americans as possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/

Even FOX is saying guns were within reach, and they hate Obama lol

I read an article just this morning saying he had reached for those guns, but it was on my work computer so I have absolutely no idea where it was. If I do see another article referencing him reaching for the gun I'll post it.

[eclipse]

I also think a big question, and it's one that has been up in the air and never answer to my satisfaction at least since 9/11 - how do we define terrorism? What is the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war? Are recognized countries and their armies the only people who can participate in war? Can recognized countries and their armies commit acts of terrorism? (and recognized by whom?) Is terrorism only manifested through violence? What about financial terrorism? Political terrorism? How do we view trade sanctions that, inevitably, harm innocent civilians? Is flying airplanes into buildings a "worse" (in terms of morality) war tactic than bombing cities? Does it matter if the bombs are being sent by recognized governments vs rebels vs freedom fighters vs anarchists?

[moonfirefaery]

I am going to have to think long and hard about several of those questions before answering them, but I don't think that terrorism is manifested only through violence. No, airplanes into buildings is not worse than bombs on cities, no matter who is doing it and no, it's not just governments and their armies that can be participants in war. I don't condone trade sanctions that harm innocent citizens either. When we fight wars, we should do what harms the government, not the people. often when we are opposed to a government, it's because that government oppresses their people. Why then would we punish that government by doing harm to the people they oppress? You raise valid questions, but I admit I cannot answer them all yet. I'm still deciding what I think about a lot of things that go on in the world.

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

I don't know it either; only they do. But I've seen numerous sources say that he was reaching for a weapon and that weapons were within arm's reach. Even if he wasn't reaching for a weapon, our guys had no way of knowing what he was doing when he made the "threatening move." He could have been reaching for a gun, and he might have been about to pick a wedgie. We don't know, and they probably didn't either. They knew what he was capable of, though, and they knew they were in the fox hole with a man who wants to kill as many Americans as possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/

Even FOX is saying guns were within reach, and they hate Obama lol

I read an article just this morning saying he had reached for those guns, but it was on my work computer so I have absolutely no idea where it was. If I do see another article referencing him reaching for the gun I'll post it.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Chamomile Girl, I recognize that governments are capable of committing terrorists acts, too. I do know the history of the Middle East; I do know the myriad of motivations behind terrorism. Believing that it is evil doesn't make me ignorant. Terrorism is evil, whether committed by an organization or a government. I think you show your ignorance by calling terrorists boogeymen, as if they don't exist. Everyone who has ever died in a car bombing knows firsthand that terrorism is a real threat. Don't call me hon. We don't even know each other. That is so rude and infantilizing. Don't use what/who society does/does not label as terrorists as proof of my ignorance, and please especially don't call me ignorant and then follow up with hon. You don't even know me. Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know. I know that there is more going on here than what is on the surface; if you read the thread you see where I acknowledged that we created this monster. I'm not blind, and my eyes aren't closed--so stop accusing me of it. I found your whole post extremely patronizing and riddled with unfounded, rude assumptions.

We all have different experiences; we all are knowledgeable about different things; we all have different perspectives to bring to the table. I'm young and I don't know everything, but I'm not so ignorant that I deserve to be written off as uninformed. It felt very much like that was what was happening. We're all ignorant of some fact or another; it doesn't make us ignorant people. I appreciate those of you who apologized.

I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.

You are right that I do not know what you know, but I am basing my assumptions on what you have posted in this thread.  

If you recognize that governments are capable of terrorist acts then does that also make those governments, per your defination, evil?  Is the United States evil for firebombing Tokyo and Dresden in WWII, and using Agent Orange in Vietnam?  Would the murder of a single man by a nation be considered a terrorist act?  Is using drone bomb attacks terrorism?  I guess I don't understand where the definition of terrorism begins and ends, and so I don't really know what the heck terrorism is.  But I do know that apparently Americans need something to fear in order to look the other way when the government pursues uncalled for action around the world.  I say that terrorists are the new boogymen because I grew up during the Cold War and saw all the myriad of ways that the US used the fear of communism and the craptacular domino theory to pursue nation building in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, to the extent of knocking down democratically elected governments to put American-backed thugs in power (who seemed to specialize in the genocide of their own people).  These things were done to fight the specter of communism, and it was all smoke and mirrors.  I lump our current "war" on terror into the same category, damn straight  We are using terrorism as an excuse to meddle in places we do not belong, done to secure our economic interests there.  And when people who live in these places see what is being done to their country and their future, and see how they have been (and will forever be) marginalized they become radicalized and willing to kill and die for the hope their children will have a better future.  Does this make them evil or simply hopeless?  Why is it evil to resort to violence when there is no peaceful path?

I don't think I believe in evil because it is a too convenient way to write off the motivations of people who do awful things.  If we actually try to understand these motivations (like after 9-11) we are chastised because there can be no understanding of "evil".  Bleurg.

And on a side note:

How much courage does it take for a bunch of heavily armed Navy SEALS supported by the strongest military power in the world to break international law to murder someone in cold blood so that someone never gets legal justice.  If that is courage then every bully that ever lived is rejoicing in having found a new character trait.  Because anyone that knows anything about bullying knows that it is done out of fear and not out of courage.  It would have taken much much more courage to take Bin Laden alive...even at the risk of their own lives.
 

I'll take out the hon if it is so offensive to you but in my defense I was trying to be kind not trying to be condescending.  I'm not saying you're dumb I'm saying that you don't appear to have all the facts.

edited to remove some snark.

Edited by Chamomile Girl - 5/5/11 at 2:53pm

[happysmileylady]

Quote:

How much courage does it take for a bunch of heavily armed Navy SEALS supported by the strongest military power in the world to break international law to murder someone in cold blood so that someone never gets legal justice.  If that is courage then every bully that ever lived is rejoicing in having found a new character trait.  Because anyone that knows anything about bullying knows that it is done out of fear and not out of courage.  It would have taken much much more courage to take Bin Laden alive...even at the risk of their own lives.

I have been reading and staying out because I wanted to avoid snark, but I just cannot let this slide...

Are you KIDDING me?  How much courage does it take to raid the home of someone known to surround himself with guns and many many people to shoot those guns?  A substantial number of the videos of Osama released show him surrounded by and shooting guns, teaching others how to shoot guns etc.  Assault rifles everywhere.  Beliefs about his postion as a terrorist, beliefs about what makes up a terrorist, beliefs about whether or not Osama was responsible for 9/11, ALL of those beliefs aside....I don't think it can be disputed that the man surrounded himself with firearms and people well versed in shooting them.  And that's just the guns.  There's absolutely no way to know ahead of time how many bombs and grenades and bazookas and whatever other arms there might have been in that compound.  I think it takes a TREMENOUS amound of courage to put yourself into that position.  It doesn't matter if the entire world army is behind you when you know it only takes one bullet from the person standing in front of you to end your life. 

I am just horrified that anyone would question the courage of a Navy SEAL raiding that type of location. 

If it's so easy, why don't you go join a militia to fight our big bad government and make our country exactly how you want it.  Join a militia and affect the change you want.  Find out just how much courage it takes to be a soldier.

Wow.  Just Wow.

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

hakeber - that I don't know the answer to those questions is not proof of his innocence, only of my ignorance of the answers. I know that his testimony isn't the only evidence we have. I know that we have caught some of the hijackers and have their testimonies; I know that we have the testimonies of people who interacted with the hijackers. Not all of it was obtained through torture. We have been watching this organization for decades. I don't like Bush, and I suspect he played a role in the attack. I HAVE a healthy dose of skepticism... I'm just skeptical of different things than you seem to be. I'm not skeptical that bin Laden was involved in 911 or that he is dead; I'm not skeptical of whether the kill was lawful or of whether those SEALs were in danger. I am extremely suspicious of George Bush and his administration, however.

No, it doesn't, but it does prove he has not been found beyond beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of them. He never gave testimony.  The tapes in which he supposedly confesses were tapes that showed (someone who looked like) Osama Bin Laden discussing his plot with an advisor.  Testimony of everyone else is pretty much hearsay.  The hijacker involved in 911 are all dead. The hijackers of latter attempts were not involved in 911, so their testimony is useless, especially since they would have been offered a deal to testify against Public Enemy Number One, and that in and of itself does not constitute viable evidence. That's why legally it has all been useless in building a case, and why Pakistan was unwilling to aid the US, and weren't so until war and destruction seemed imminent, and then they were all "okay, we'll help!"  But they didn't.  

The legality of it is really a matter of perception. The law says if you think you are in imminenet danger, you can kill a man if he is attacking you.  Targetted killings are allowed in situations of war.  Now we could say that we we were at war with OBL IF we believed and had a statesment from him as the head of AlQaeda directly declaring war on the US....but we don't. To the best of my knowledge an act of war cannot substitute for a verbal declaration of war. Furthermore, Pakistan was (semi) friendly territory.  For us to violate their sovereign ground to perform a targetted killing is against the humanitarian laws of the UN. However, if we felt he was about to plan and implement in the near future another attack (no evidence of that has come forward but as you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have the evidence and choose not to share it) we may have the right to defend ourselves given some loose readings of international law...Below are some links to some articles on international law and targetted killings. The SEALs were in danger...but that's sort of their job, isn't it?  They were in danger the minute they signed the registration form to be a part of our armed forces.  But the point is they were instructed to KILL, and then the secondary instruction was , unless you think he'll go peacefully.  If it was a case self defense they could have shot his leg, or used a stun gun, or disabled him as they ARE TRAINED TO DO VERY WELL.  They killed him because that is what they were told to do...the video in your link had the head of the CIA saying that point blank.  The legality of being able to both kidnap him and/or murder him is where it gets grey.

Of course the US administration and the CIA will say it's legal.  What are they gonna say "yeah, it was totally below the belt, but that's how we roll, dudes!"  They are trained to repeat like Ollie North and his "I cannot recall at this time." Clinton and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", like Bush and his WMDs...We followed the law to the letter "He did not raise his hands in surrender."

If you are Skeptical of the Bush Administration, you should consider the fact that though the face of the state has changed, not much else has.( please correct me if I am wrong)  The government is still a government of the people, by the people and for the corporations.  I have yet, despite my longing and wishful thinking, seen ANY evidence to the contrary.  Please share what you have seen that has not been broadcast in the international news.  I need to restore a little faith back to the hope I felt back before the elections.  As far as I can see it's the same adminstration with different figure heads.

I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.

But how does killing one man neutralize the threat of an organization? Because I have seen here in Colombia how that has not proven true. Tthey have killed THREE Leaders in the last ten years and things may die down for a few years whole they regroup and train, but it doesn't take long for them to start targetting civilians again, and each time they do the attacks are more devestating and more sneaky.  The hatred and moreover the sophistication and the financial backing of their forces are a teeny tiny fraction of that of Al-Qaeda., and the size of the pool from which the FARQ can recruit is also miniscule in comparison to Al-Qaeda.  What is the proof from which you are making this pudding?

Would you explaining to me what examples yo have heard of that have lead you to believe that this has or even MAY "neutralized the threat"?  I can't think of any.

---

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/institutes/ilp/targetedkilling_papers/KretzmertargetedKillings.pdf
 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/high-court-international-law-does-not-forbid-targeted-killings-1.207185 

http://www.asil.org/insigh133.cfm 

http://www.krcrtv.com/osama-bin-laden/27774925/detail.html 

[hakeber]

PS...Thanks for coming back.

[monkey's mom]

http://www.timwise.org/2011/05/killing-one-monster-unleashing-another-reflections-on-revenge-and-revelry/ 

Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry 

A snippet:

Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden’s demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved “America can do whatever we set our mind to.” If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden’s death, then this only suggests we clearly don’t want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren’t addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.

We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can’t manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can’t fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can’t reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can’t break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can’t protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.

But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child — maybe the age of one of my own — who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he’s watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.

And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?

[moonfirefaery]

Chamomile Girl, if an administration targets unarmed civilians , I think it's evil. Our government has done evil things; I would never deny that. That doesn't make our government eternally and perpetually evil, and it doesn't make AQ's actions any less evil.

hakeber - The SEALs job is not just to be in danger, but also to ensure that all of their teammates come home alive. I have faith in the current administration. We haven't neutralized al Qaeda, but it does weaken the organization. We have neutralized the threat of Osama bin Laden only. Obama is fighting back against corporations. He's not going to let them force us to buy unaffordable health insurance. He's not letting them send our jobs overseas for tax breaks; he's giving tax breaks to people who hire at home. He's seen new bank legislation pushed through that will severely limit overdraft fees. It's at the cost of free checking, but most banks are charging $10 or less which equates to perhaps $120 a year. That is worth the ability to opt-out of Reg E overdraft services. He's given women the ability to bring action against corporations that discriminated against them for years decades ago.

monkey's mom - I read today that Osama bin Laden said of his daughter, born just after 911, that she would grow up to kill Islam's enemies too. This is the same daughter that may have seen him shot. I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden's prophecy is fulfilled solely because of our actions on Sunday. Violence does beget more violence. But our SEALs should still be under no obligation to sacrifice their lives for a murderer by hesitating to take him as he reaches for a gun.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

MusicianDad, the war in Iraq is seperate from 911, and the tapes aren't the only evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 911. As far as whether Bush was involved... I really wouldn't be surprised. But that shouldn't free bin Laden from the consequences of his role in the attack. I look forward to the day when Bush is held accountable for the corruption of his administration.
 

First, I am aware the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but you know what? The connection has been made by many, many people, most of whom are the ones who come up with a lot of the rhetoric you have been spouting here.

Second, there is evidence, there isn't any proof.  Evidence and proof are two very different things. The fact that they haven't stated definitively that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 tells me that something about the confession didn't match up with the facts.

[monkey's mom]

  So sad....
 

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

monkey's mom - I read today that Osama bin Laden said of his daughter, born just after 911, that she would grow up to kill Islam's enemies too. This is the same daughter that may have seen him shot. I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden's prophecy is fulfilled solely because of our actions on Sunday.

[moonfirefaery]

Musician - I interpret the evidence as proof that he was responsible for it, but not as proof that he had no help. I form my own ideas and opinions; this isn't rhetoric that I've heard from other people that they came up with. This is simply how I word my thoughts. Please stop assuming that everything that comes out of my mouth was inserted into my brain by the government; I formulate my own thoughts, and insinuations otherwise are getting tiresome and rude. I am not making such assumptions about you or the other posters. Iraq and 9/11 are unrelated, except that Bush exploited 9/11 to help justify the Iraq War. You can't state that they are unrelated while arguing as if they are.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Musician - I interpret the evidence as proof that he was responsible for it.

How can you interpret anything as proof of anything when you don't even have access to this information you claim is 100% accurate? The people who are saying "may have been responsible for" are the ones who have actually looked at the evidence while investigating the attacks. You may have your opinions, but that doesn't trump the facts as they are found and interpreted by people who have many more years of experience than you in investigating this type of thing. I can't apologize for not taking your claims that he is definitively responsible when your opinion clashes with what is actually known.