Osama Bin Laden dead - USA has his body

[WarpSpeed]

I am so glad the little part of my world does not have all the intrigue, false flags, innuendo, etc that some people see or want to see. My immediate family keep me guessing and that is just about what I may be able to control/influence. The one thing I have learned is never to assume anything, when people are involved.

Me too, it sounds extraordinarily tiring, tedious and energy consuming, all that cynical paranoia..

[bangkokeddy]

The Illuminati and the Lizard beings.

In case of elcent reality construct the culprits are probably the evil nuclear energy lobby.

[WarpSpeed]

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

this were not just local citizens. Most of the victims were citizens from all around the globe. I don't think it was the govt but the shadow govt and the SECreTs. It's time to get a handle on that. It's not a (conspiracy) theory because it happened in real life. To many odds should be raising many eyebrows and then get to work on it. The govt was most likely kept out and it seems in the recent stunt too. A kind of false flag operation too.

Otherwise, where is the evidence?

Don't let them get away with this crime.

Unfortunately not my former Jewish, wretch of a SIL, she was late to work that day ..

[Ulysses G.]

The Illuminati and the Lizard beings.

In case of elcent reality construct the culprits are probably the evil nuclear energy lobby.

As opposed to Mossad and the CIA?

[Steely Dan]

Here's Pat, always hits those most loathsome out of the ballpark.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?ob=5#p/a/u/0/JzD-rnmeiH8

[bangkokeddy]

Here's Pat, always hits those most loathsome out of the ballpark.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?ob=5#p/a/u/0/JzD-rnmeiH8

The Pat, is he an illiterate? Why he doesn't write something but 'publishes' his spoken words on a youtube channel.

Listen to it takes to much time.

[Ulysses G.]

Here's Pat, always hits those most loathsome out of the ballpark.

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/JzD-rnmeiH8

Pat is not the "illiterate" one. He has written plenty and accomplished much.

Patrick Condell (born November 23, 1949) is a English writer, comedian, and atheist internet personality.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?ob=5#p/a/u/0/JzD-rnmeiH8

Edited May 11, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[happyrobert]

If I admit Osmam died, will you all let this thread do the same?

[ozzieovaseas]

I finally get it.

Fill me in on who dunnit.

Im suprised no-one on here has blamed Thaksin.

It could'nt be any more sillier than the theories these tin hat wearers are offering up

[lovetotravel]

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

this were not just local citizens. Most of the victims were citizens from all around the globe. I don't think it was the govt but the shadow govt and the SECreTs. It's time to get a handle on that. It's not a (conspiracy) theory because it happened in real life. To many odds should be raising many eyebrows and then get to work on it. The govt was most likely kept out and it seems in the recent stunt too. A kind of false flag operation too.

Otherwise, where is the evidence?

Don't let them get away with this crime.

I guess you also believe barcodes were really invented to control people? And the US military caused the 2004 tsunami? Yours and these are listed as the top 10 wackiest conspiracy theories....fun reading...

UG: I liked reading the one about the lizard people!

[luckizuchinni]

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

this were not just local citizens. Most of the victims were citizens from all around the globe. I don't think it was the govt but the shadow govt and the SECreTs. It's time to get a handle on that. It's not a (conspiracy) theory because it happened in real life. To many odds should be raising many eyebrows and then get to work on it. The govt was most likely kept out and it seems in the recent stunt too. A kind of false flag operation too.

Otherwise, where is the evidence?

Don't let them get away with this crime.

I guess you also believe barcodes were really invented to control people? And the US military caused the 2004 tsunami? Yours and these are listed as the top 10 wackiest conspiracy theories....fun reading...

UG: I liked reading the one about the lizard people!

I've been watching Prison Break on DVD for the last two weeks. I am up to season 4 now. All these conspiracies here in TV make The Company in the series look like rank amateurs with high morals.

But if Hollywood writes it, then it must be true, right? Lizard people, aliens, The Company--maybe they all are cooperating together.

Edited May 11, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[luckizuchinni]

The Illuminati and the Lizard beings.

In case of elcent reality construct the culprits are probably the evil nuclear energy lobby.

(No flame intended on you, bangkokeddy, but as you tend to lean away from the US official stance at times) elcent, if Bangkokeddy, who may be one of the few posters to give you credit at times, thinks your theories are looney, well, what more can I say?

(No flaming intended here. )

[koheesti]

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

this were not just local citizens. Most of the victims were citizens from all around the globe

Most? More like 1 in 7.

Apart from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 372 foreign nationals (excluding the nineteen perpetrators), representing just over 12% of the total number of deaths, also perished in the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

[koheesti]

If Bill Clinton had those type of guts bin Laden would have been killed in the 1990's and we could have avoided all this sh*t.

"The Internet makes it much more difficult than ever before to fabricate history because virtually everything is recorded and so easily discovered.

It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton's military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton's presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary."

http://www.salon.com...09/25/clinton_2

So when the Saudis (I think) offered bin Laden to Clinton it was the Republicans who kept it from happening?

It's dispusted, this link lays out the facts.

http://www.factcheck...a_chance_1.html

But at least the Clinton administration took the Al Qaeda threat very seriously (including the cruise missile attack).

Bush and Cheney just sneered, which is one reason they panicked and overreacted so egregiously.

I heard the audio. I heard Clinton say during a speech in his own words that bin Laden was offered up - yet he passed.

In Oct 2000, 2-3 weeks before the presidential election between Bush and Gore (let's not forget Nadar), the USS Cole was attacked off of Yemen by al Qaeda. YET, terrorism was never a campaign issue. The FACT is that al Qaeda, bin Laden, terrorism wasn't taken as a serious threat by the USA until we were attacked on home soil.

If you look at popular culture, one of the hit TV shows at the time was West Wing (1999-2006), which dealt with a fictional president (Martin Sheen) and all the crap that goes on around the White House. Despite the various attacks and declaration of war by bin Laden leading up to Sept 2001, terrorism never made it into the plot line of any episiodes until after 9/11. We (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc) just didn't take it seriously enough as long as the attacks happend far from our borders.

Edited May 11, 2011 by koheesti

[lovetotravel]

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

this were not just local citizens. Most of the victims were citizens from all around the globe. I don't think it was the govt but the shadow govt and the SECreTs. It's time to get a handle on that. It's not a (conspiracy) theory because it happened in real life. To many odds should be raising many eyebrows and then get to work on it. The govt was most likely kept out and it seems in the recent stunt too. A kind of false flag operation too.

Otherwise, where is the evidence?

Don't let them get away with this crime.

I guess you also believe barcodes were really invented to control people? And the US military caused the 2004 tsunami? Yours and these are listed as the top 10 wackiest conspiracy theories....fun reading...

UG: I liked reading the one about the lizard people!

I've been watching Prison Break on DVD for the last two weeks. I am up to season 4 now. All these conspiracies here in TV make The Company in the series look like rank amateurs with high morals.

But if Hollywood writes it, then it must be true, right? Lizard people, aliens, The Company--maybe they all are cooperating together.

I think that is a big problem. Seriously. They can do things in movies with special effects that are unreal. So it's understandable people don't believe all of what they see, much less hear.

Kinda like the Thaivisa April's fool joke. Wasn't it something like 1000 people called the immigration department to complain about the "new" law?

[Pakboong]

It is fairly logical to assume that countries with exceptionally large black ops budgets would be the ones most likely to engage in false flag operations.

IMHO, the USA killing 3,000 of its own ciitizens in some government conspiracy is not logical at all.

I have never stated that the US was behind 9/11.

[Ulysses G.]

So, you think that it is complete and utter nonsense?

[crusader79]

It's disputed, this link lays out the facts.

http://www.factcheck...a_chance_1.html

But at least the Clinton administration took the Al Qaeda threat very seriously (including the cruise missile attack).

Bush and Cheney just sneered, which is one reason they panicked and overreacted so egregiously.

I heard the audio. I heard Clinton say during a speech in his own words that bin Laden was offered up - yet he passed.

In Oct 2000, 2-3 weeks before the presidential election between Bush and Gore (let's not forget Nadar), the USS Cole was attacked off of Yemen by al Qaeda. YET, terrorism was never a campaign issue. The FACT is that al Qaeda, bin Laden, terrorism wasn't taken as a serious threat by the USA until we were attacked on home soil.

If you look at popular culture, one of the hit TV shows at the time was West Wing (1999-2006), which dealt with a fictional president (Martin Sheen) and all the crap that goes on around the White House. Despite the various attacks and declaration of war by bin Laden leading up to Sept 2001, terrorism never made it into the plot line of any episiodes until after 9/11. We (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc) just didn't take it seriously enough as long as the attacks happend far from our borders.

I agree with you on the FACT, the West Wing and our failure to take a domestic attack seriously enough (which Bin Laden recognized and exploited). And of course neither Clinton nor Bush knew 9-11 was on the horizon and we can't judge them as if they did.

But it's also the case that by the time it left office, after years of dealing with Al Qaeda, the Clinton administration had become increasingly concerned about the threat and tried to warn and advise the incoming one. But no administration in my lifetime came in with more arrogance than that one, despite the tiniest margin of victory. Bush then compounded the mistake by sneering away the warnings of his own intelligence agencies in the weeks before the attack. That's all in the 9-11 report (and Clarke's damaging memoir, which of course had to be quickly smeared).

I'm no fan of either man, but if I have to blame I know where I'd put the bulk of it. That the first instinct of a panicked Bush administration was to try to blame its predecessor was as dishonest as it was unsurprising.

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

[Ulysses G.]

Trying to blame 9/11 on anyone other than Bin Ladin is wrong. Hindsight and all that.

[timekeeper]

Bartender, Could I have a Bin Laden?

What's that sir ?

Two shots and a splash of water........

[bonobo]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

[crusader79]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

[bonobo]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

Maybe it is as a result of my background, but even having lost a couple of friends in the Beruit bombing, I fervently believe that once we get our nose bloodied, we can't run away. I am not writing about revenge. I am writing about the concept that the US military will turn tail if you smack it in the nose.

We can argue that we never should have been in Somalia, and I can agree with that. Heck, I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but once there, we could not just pick up and leave. I served in Iraq, and given the fact that we went in, given the huge mistakes we made in the beginning, well, I think we have done a pretty good job subsequent to that. And now is the time to really draw down there.

But once in an area, for right or wrong, we have to act. And turning tail sends the wrong message. One of the main raison d'etres for the US military is not necessarily to fight, but to offer the threat of a fight. And if no one believes the military will stick around when the going gets tough, that threat will lose credence. And if deployed, the opposition will be more likely to take action against the military.

[koheesti]

It's disputed, this link lays out the facts.

http://www.factcheck...a_chance_1.html

But at least the Clinton administration took the Al Qaeda threat very seriously (including the cruise missile attack).

Bush and Cheney just sneered, which is one reason they panicked and overreacted so egregiously.

I heard the audio. I heard Clinton say during a speech in his own words that bin Laden was offered up - yet he passed.

In Oct 2000, 2-3 weeks before the presidential election between Bush and Gore (let's not forget Nadar), the USS Cole was attacked off of Yemen by al Qaeda. YET, terrorism was never a campaign issue. The FACT is that al Qaeda, bin Laden, terrorism wasn't taken as a serious threat by the USA until we were attacked on home soil.

If you look at popular culture, one of the hit TV shows at the time was West Wing (1999-2006), which dealt with a fictional president (Martin Sheen) and all the crap that goes on around the White House. Despite the various attacks and declaration of war by bin Laden leading up to Sept 2001, terrorism never made it into the plot line of any episiodes until after 9/11. We (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc) just didn't take it seriously enough as long as the attacks happend far from our borders.

I agree with you on the FACT, the West Wing and our failure to take a domestic attack seriously enough (which Bin Laden recognized and exploited). And of course neither Clinton nor Bush knew 9-11 was on the horizon and we can't judge them as if they did.

But it's also the case that by the time it left office, after years of dealing with Al Qaeda, the Clinton administration had become increasingly concerned about the threat and tried to warn and advise the incoming one. But no administration in my lifetime came in with more arrogance than that one, despite the tiniest margin of victory. Bush then compounded the mistake by sneering away the warnings of his own intelligence agencies in the weeks before the attack. That's all in the 9-11 report (and Clarke's damaging memoir, which of course had to be quickly smeared).

I'm no fan of either man, but if I have to blame I know where I'd put the bulk of it. That the first instinct of a panicked Bush administration was to try to blame its predecessor was as dishonest as it was unsurprising.

http://texusa.com/Al_Qaeda.htm

Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

April 6, 2004

By James G. Lakely

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

http://www.boston.co...ong_before_911/

Everyone got it wrong before 9/11

By Jeff Jacoby, 4/11/2004

1. Identify the following list of topics:

"The World Bank's mission creep"

"Getting debt relief right"

"Russia's unformed foreign policy"

"Japan, the reluctant reformer"

"With a friend like Fox"

"Caspian energy at the crossroads."

No clue? Don't feel bad. You would have to be suffering from acute foreign-policy wonkishness to recognize the table of contents from the September/ October 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Like the dog that didn't bark in the famous Sherlock Holmes tale, the significance of these headlines is not in what they say but in what they don't say: The nation's leading journal of international relations was paying no attention to the threat from Islamist terror even as Islamist terrorists were planning the deadliest attack ever committed by foreign enemies on US soil.

[SteeleJoe]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

You guys are discussing something that I've talked about for decades -- and the larger discussion about the actions or failures to act of the previous administrations is also something I've been talking about for the last 10 years -- and I know a bit about the subject. At the moment I'm somewhat indisposed so I won't bore anyone with anything too lengthy (though I reserve the right to bore you later) and it will behast6y and off the cuff but I do want to respond to this:

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

-- Massive escalation wasn't necessary. The operation in which the Rangers and 1st SFOD-D operators was successful over and over again. Changes needed to be made but there's a wide range of options to choose from between what had been done previously and "massive escalation".

-- Revenge? Stupid. What does that have to do with it? The mission was a valid one 0n my opinion (and if it wasn't then that's the reason to leave, not the death of soldiers) that arguably saved many lives and potentially could have led to a better situation in Somalia than what exists now. It didn't stop being a worthy mission because soldiers died nor does it mean that if the operations continue it must be revenge.

-- Yes, Clinton did what Reagan did after the Marines were killed in Lebanon - and he should be ashamed of that. as should have Reagan. I myself was enraged at the time and have always believed that it sent the wrong message to enemies and allies. And guess what? ObL and other Islamists et al have also cited Lebanon as being evidence of the US unwillingness and/or inability to fight and withstand serious loss.

I had a couple of former subordinates from the 1st Ranger bn in Mogadishu and I corresponded with some other Rangers and operators. It is my belief that by and large the troops there felt that they should have stayed. I myself have been at the pointed end of the stick; I do NOT take lightly the danger to troops or the losses and suffering those fighters in Somalia had already sustained. But when I happen to know for a fact that when people sign up not onl;y for the military but for SpecOps, they knowingly and willingly sign up to be put in harm's way (in the Ranger Bat we were told that were "3 time Volunteers" -- Army, Jump School, Rangers -- the latter 2 matter because there's only a small material reward for the greatly increased danger and hardship that goes with them as opposed to being a conventional troop)...sorry, when you look at what had been done in Somalia and what more could have been done, the tragic loss of 18 of our finest is not enough reason to quit; quite the contrary -- we diminish the value (NOT the valor) of their sacrifice by doing so.

[SteeleJoe]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

Maybe it is as a result of my background, but even having lost a couple of friends in the Beruit bombing, I fervently believe that once we get our nose bloodied, we can't run away. I am not writing about revenge. I am writing about the concept that the US military will turn tail if you smack it in the nose.

We can argue that we never should have been in Somalia, and I can agree with that. Heck, I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but once there, we could not just pick up and leave. I served in Iraq, and given the fact that we went in, given the huge mistakes we made in the beginning, well, I think we have done a pretty good job subsequent to that. And now is the time to really draw down there.

But once in an area, for right or wrong, we have to act. And turning tail sends the wrong message. One of the main raison d'etres for the US military is not necessarily to fight, but to offer the threat of a fight. And if no one believes the military will stick around when the going gets tough, that threat will lose credence. And if deployed, the opposition will be more likely to take action against the military.

Didn't see this. Great post.

Kudos to you for it and, more importantly, your service.

[bangkokeddy]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

“Are you kidding?” said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0511/Bin-Laden-sons-wonder-why-their-father-didn-t-get-a-trial

[SteeleJoe]

Neither Saddam or Milošević fought or posed any danger to troops. Reportedly,ObL did.

He was a combatant, not a suspect in an investigation. They were soliders, not cops.

Next question...

[Steely Dan]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

“Are you kidding?” said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0511/Bin-Laden-sons-wonder-why-their-father-didn-t-get-a-trial

Considering Al-Qaeda sought to bring down western civilisation and replace it with a global caliphate I think it only fitting that Bin Laden was not given a trial, that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy. I wonder whether the legal beagle pinkos have considered whether any of Al-Qaeda's civilian victims ever received a trial of any sort, nope thought not.

[transam]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

Considering Al-Qaeda sought to bring down western civilisation and replace it with a global caliphate I think it only fitting that Bin Laden was not given a trial, that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy. I wonder whether the legal beagle pinkos have considered whether any of Al-Qaeda's civilian victims ever received a trial of any sort, nope thought not.

Those innocent farangs who had their heads removed on television might ask why they didn't get a trial too, if they could.