The CIA isn't going to report that he's dead because they can't verify it. The left argued against going into Iraq because OBL wasn't in Iraq. So if OBL is dead and terrorism continued all around the world then I guess terrorism isn't an OBL issue now is it? That might explain why governments around the world stopped caring about OBL a long time ago despite their continued fight against terrorism. So when is the left going to come to terms with the fact that terrorism is a global issue that is bigger than OBL? The government has known for a very long time that OBL is just one of many money guys. The guy that really needs to die is his #2 and other leaders that are actually active in operations.
Who holds him to be this? Based on what? Qutb hated America, so he and Bin Laden are in cahoots? Yes, I have the smoking gun, video and documentary evidence, enough to end the war and have the upper levels of government tried for war crimes. I keep it between my mattresses... Bin Laden doesn't have to be a CIA mole. He could be a convenient enemy. He could be the equivalent of Hitler's "external enemy" after burning the Reichstag. Which is why we need an investigation. It's irrelevant to me at this moment what it turns up, because I refuse to be intimidated by bad audio/video of some guy who probably died 5 years ago. But c'mon. I read a report last night from yet another agency that claims that maybe 1 million Iraqis have died since we invaded. We investigate baseball players taking steroids, and we don't have time to double check ourselves on issues of life and death of this scale? Deep down, we both know something is rotten in Denmark. Don't we owe it to god/ourselves/our kids/our ancestors/our humanity/whatever to figure out what it is? I think so, and deep down I bet you (at least subconsciously) think so too. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but I don't think we're very different when it comes to our passions for truth and fairness.
Does that include just civilians or terrorists as well? That would be 55 people per day for five years. And who's killing those people? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html Iraq — Death Rate: 5.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.) Iraq — Population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.) So that's 144,648 deaths per year or 396 deaths per day. In five years that's 723,240 expected deaths. And you're claiming that 1 million additional deaths have occured as a direct result of the war? I highly doubt that.
What is the breakdown between terrorists and civilians? Are former Baath party members terrorists? Are Sunni militants terrorists? Are Shia insurgents terrorists? A yes the CIA factbook, I'm not claiming it, a number of studies by firms claim it. Professional research firms. I'll get you the names, and you can take up your difference of opinion with them. I trust third parties over the CIA though. Of course you do. You doubt Bin Laden is dead, you see boogeymen everywhere, you think all Muslims are terrorists, you think that Bush is doing a great job, the economy is fine, you think that the war in Iraq is justified, you think all kinds of things. I just happen to think you're nuts. And not because you are in the minority, but because you present facts like, "yeah, so?" "why not?" "I highly doubt that." With facts like these, who needs debate or information?
Why would the government give/allow presentation of correct figures on iraqi death tolls. Anyway the blame/pressure will fall on the government for causing such amount of casualties. So a smart government will conveniently manipulate the death tolls to make them look smaller. Now if the govt is smart or not, i don't know.
I think we need to be clear about what we are and aren't arguing. I didn't ask whether Bin Laden serves, in effect, as a kind of Marinus Ven Der Lubbe figure, with the current administration akin to the nascent Nazi regime and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda an "external enemy" fuel to the fire to serve out the administration's ends. The question has been raised that Bin-Laden is a United States government creation. It's a serious question, since it moves beyond a government merely inept in its handling of a perverse foreign policy (a kind of Wilsonian messianism, woefully flawed in its premises and execution), to an elite conspiracy engineering the deliberate mass murder of its own citizenry, as well as the willful murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis, all in the pursuit of an elite conspiracy of state-led goals. Again, as if Roosevelt hired out pilots to portray Tojo's "hotheads" at Pearl Harbor, or Lincoln faked Fort Sumter. As such is a massively serious accusation, it seems, it merits evidence. Now, to say: Is an inaccurate portrayal of my argument, because I've never made that statement. I have shown numerous times now, in this thread and others, that Sayyid Qutb's ideology and program has been picked up and incorporated, point by specific point, into Al-Qaeda's declared program. Beyond this, and beyond the declared inspiration drawn from Sayyid Qutb's written works, both Bin Laden and Zawahiri received their direct inspiration from Sayyid's brother, while a Professor; to such a point that Zawahiri apparently lauds Qutb as his inspiration in his book. It doesn't get any more prescriptive than that. The lineage is clear. So, again, I would say: which is more logical - that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was born out of the Qutbist organizational and ideological lineage, or that this is all some kind of CIA sham - that the tapes, movies, etc., are really a kind of actor under the employ of the U.S. government? I conclude the former.
It's because you write like this that I was interested in starting over. But my wrist is inflamed to hell, so the rest has to wait until tonight or tomorrow.
Are you trying to convince us that you can't tell the difference between a civilian that dies without active participation in the battle and a terrorist that is actively fighting to kill civilians and soldiers alike? Many of those deaths are people who took up arms against the US. A few may have been civilians minding their own business that were killed by the US and its allies. Many of those were civilians who were killed intentionally by terrorists. Terrorists don't see a distinction between killing a uniformed soldier and killing some guy eating breakfast in a cafe either. So don't feel bad and being confused. It happens.
OK, Guerilla - I hear you. The truth of it is that I was in the ER yesterday, I have a blown disc (that plagues the hell out of me) and I am picking my wife up from the airport in a few minutes. And the sun is shining. In other words, what the hell are either one of us doing?
Absolutely superb, I couldn't have put that any better. Sad thing is, there are many others here that think the very same as him. They know who they are.
No, that is not what I am trying to convince you of. I am asking, when you inquired about the total including only civilians or "terrorists" as well, to define terrorist and civilian. Do you consider an insurgent a terrorist? A freedom fighter a terrorist? An Iraqi who refuses to submit to American authority a terrorist? People who live in the same neighborhood, terrorists? Baath party members, terrorists? You draw very simple and ignorant lines. I haven't figured out if it is sincerely naive or dishonestly evil yet. So freedom fighters then. After all, if Iraq invaded America to rid the world of George Bush, I am quite sure many Americans would take up arms against the invaders... You've got many, many and few. Could you break these out as %s? Also, it would be helpful to have your own version of the death totals. I would argue that is untrue, although unlike you, I don't profess to speak for terrorists. Terrorism is politically motivated violence against civilians. Killing a uniformed soldier is combat, warfare, not terrorism. You can't conduct terrorism against soldiers in an army at war. In this regard, most of the US force in Iraq has never seen terrorism. Perhaps guerrilla tactics, perhaps torture, but they would have to be civilians to be terrorized. On the contrary, they are willingly there, engaging in a battle. They are for all intents and purposes, at war.
Hopped up on Advil, let's see what we can get done... Beautiful stuff. I'm not sure what Bin Laden's relationship to the CIA is. I certainly think he is no longer a threat. Whether he received orders or assistance for 9/11 from the CIA, is not something I could guess at. To be honest, I'm not even sure he is responsible for 9/11 because I no longer believe the videos. Besides the videos and other pseudo-confessions, what real proof do we have that Bin Laden was involved? So much of Bin Laden and the 9/11 story depends upon what we have been told, what has been repeated many times, much less on real, hard evidence. For instance, why were the hijackers never on the passenger manifests of the plane? Why has no one been disciplined for allowing known terrorists into the country (considering Bush received warning of a potential attack early in 2001) and why has no one been disciplined for ignoring reports of their domestic flight training? Why did Cheney block an investigation? Why has all of the forensic evidence been destroyed? I could go on and on. I don't have the answers, but there are dozens upon dozens of good questions, once we (and I do not include you or I in this "we") get past the taboo of questioning the (sic) official story. Lincoln and Roosevelt are good examples in a strange way. Are evil men responsible for every crime of which they are accused? Not to be combative, but this simply (as I am reading it, admitting ignorance to the specifics you seem to understand very well) does not pass muster. I'll buy lineage, but not that it is an absolute indicator of destiny. Alan Greenspan was an objectivist, one of Ayn Rand's entourage. Nothing in his professional career indicates much if any adherence to the objectivist philosophy. To resign Bin Laden to a doctrine because of intense exposure, means that he was either incapable of change, either decline or growth. But at the end of the discussion, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. I'm not particularly concerned with constructing motive for Bin Laden, anymore than I am concerned with what Obama heard his preacher say. Actor or not, I personally, no longer believe Bin Laden is capable of causing danger, although to some misguided souls, he might be able to inspire violence. That he is conveniently trotted out at the Petraeus hearings, on anniversaries, at all sorts of moments when it is most advantageous politically for the Bush regime, and at almost no other time, certainly raises my level of cynicism and suspicion. Several people in this thread are willing to entertain the notion that he could already be dead. Which, in my opinion, calls into doubt the authenticity of any of his recordings, given that they continue to be released. And that, is a more compelling argument than the ideological motive perspective.
Most people are not so dishonest to make that assumption. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3805030&postcount=178 There are islamic terrorists from other countries illegally occupying Iraq (though the US seems to have taken care of most of them). You were probably talking about them, correct? It appears whenever an audio or video is released, the proper response is to always question the timing. This is exemplified by the number of times you have used this excuse in the past. Apparently there is never a good time for bin laden to release an audio or video. Perhaps bin laden should coordinate with you (if he isn't already) to check your schedule of events to determine when the best time to release and audio or video would be? Would I be correct in assuming that you and guerilla (as usual) are attempting to give bin laden's credits away to others again? Say, perhaps, the USA? I see excuses and defenses on bin laden's behalf. Not surprising, I don't see any bad words. Can you explain that, AGS, or do I already know why?
Guerilla, I'll come back to it later. Regarding: I don't know how else to say it; it seems to me that you are ignoring some key elements to what I am saying. I am not indicating mere exposure (i.e., your Greenspan/Rand "exposure" tract isn't applicable - Bin Laden and Zawahiri were exposed, and enacted Qutb's platform), or, as you said earlier, I am not merely pointing up a common hatred for the U.S. I have indicated much more. Both men admitted they derived their inspiration from Sayyid Qutb, both studied from his brother, the programs of Qutb and Al-Qaeda are identical (across several categories), and Zawahiri said this about his, Zawahiri's, life mission: As I said earlier, it doesn't get any more plain spoken than that. It's a prescriptive piece of logic, at least to me. More on everything else later. Cheers.
Check this out guerilla, it is satire but more of it is true than at first seems. This dude is a legend!! Check the al-CIAda man out. Contains language not suitable for small children. LINKY
Let's say that you are 100% correct about his ideology, inspiration and motivation. There is still a piece of evidence we need to meet the burden of proof IMO. Opportunity. And that is where the potential for alliances comes into play. I'm sorry that I can't provide a plausible airtight theory, all I have is that I simply no longer believe. And I realize that places an irrational and probably impossible burden on those who do and would convince me, to provide enough qualified proof. PS, how come I never get to question you on what you believe?
OK. We have lots to talk about. And brother, you can question anything whatsoever - sincerely. I am interested in engaging in a good discussion.
One good thing with yourself and guerilla is that you are both adept at debating without going on some BS diatribe that people like GTech do. We might not agree on a lot of things but I'll give you credit where it's due. Sadly GTech people are starting to see through your BS these days, keep it up though, it gives a lot of us here in DP P&R something to laugh at.
As long as we have the idea that it is about a global game of cops and robbers, about individual leaders and their elimination, we will have perpetual war from now on, in my opinion. So long as we are seen as The Enemy by the children of the madrassas, we only breed new generations of replacements by the "martyrdom" of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any of the others.